The tree has a big branch. It is...

[HocusPocus93]

Hello everyone,
I have a question about the use of "it". In a sentence like "The tree has a big branch" followed by "it is full of leaves" what does "it" refer to?Tree or branch? I can't undertsand if "it" replaces the same subject of the previous sentence or merely the last noun mentioned.
Thanks in advance

 

[Glasguensis]

There is no rule, so this "it" is ambiguous. A careful writer will alter the sentence to remove the ambiguity:
The tree has a big branch which is full of leaves (which=branch)
The tree has a big branch, and it is full of leaves (it=tree)

 

[RM1(SS)]

There is no rule, so this "it" is ambiguous. A careful writer will alter the sentence to remove the ambiguity:
The tree has a big branch which is full of leaves (which=branch)
The tree has a big branch, and it is full of leaves (it=tree)

To me, "it" in your last sentences also refers to the branch.

"The tree, which has a big branch, is full of leaves."

 

[Wordsmyth]

For me, "The tree has a big branch, and it is full of leaves" is ambiguous. "It" could still refer to either the tree or the branch.

Compare with:
- The package is in the truck, and it will be delivered today.
- The package is in the truck, and it has broken down.

I agree with RM1's rewriting.

Ws

 

[Glasguensis]

What does the "and" link then, in your interpretation ?

 

[Parla]

I agree with RM1's rewriting.

As do I.

 

[Wordsmyth]

What does the "and" link then, in your interpretation ?

The two independent clauses.

Even if the sentence were rewritten as two separate ones, the "it" would still be just as ambiguous:
- The tree has a big branch. It is full of leaves.

Ws

 

[Forero]

The tree has a big branch (which is) full of leaves. [The branch is full of leaves.]
The tree has a big branch. It is full of leaves. [Ambiguous]
The tree has a big branch, and it is full of leaves. [Ambiguous]
The tree has a big branch and is full of leaves. [The tree is full of leaves.]

 

[Glasguensis]

Okay, to me the "and" linked two properties of the tree, but I guess I'm in a minority, and in any case I completely agree that RM1(SS)'s suggestion or Forero's are clearer (better to avoid "it" altogether).