<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C69-7001">
  <Title>DISCOURSE REFERENTS ~</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
3. Summary
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> It is time to review the situation. We started by asking the seemingly na|be question: &amp;quot;When is there supposed to be an individual associated with an indefinite noun phrase?&amp;quot; Na|k/e as it may be, it must be answered in case there is ever going to be a device for inter-preting written texts or everyday conversation with anything approaching human sophistication. There is also another reason to be interested in the subject. From a linguistic point of view, it is a problem of coreference constraints of a somewhat different kind than those studied under the label 'Pronominalization'. The present type of constraints are even more basic. It would seem that the question whether two noun phrases can be coreferential at all must precede the question whether a pronoun-antecedent relation may hold between them.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Secondly, if relative clauses are derived transformationally from conjoined sentences by 'Retativization', as many linguists believe, the constraints discussed here are also a prerequisite For that transformation. For these reasons~ the problems studied in this paper are of some theoretical interest quite independently from whether the results lead to any practical applications.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> - 34-We found that, in simple sentences that do not contain certain quantifier-like expressions, an indefinite NP establishes a discourse referent just in case the sentence is an affirmative assertion. By 'establishes a discourse referent' we meant that there may be a coreferentiat pronoun or definite noun phrase tater in the discourse, indefinite NPs in Yes-No questions and commands do not establish refe rents.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> In studying more complicated examples, it was found necessaP)/to replace Chomsky's integer-type referential indices by bound variables. In this frarnework~ the traditional problem of specificity is treated as scope ambiguity. We studied several types of verbs that take complements and their semantic properties. We concluded that~ in general~ an indefinite NP establishes a permanent discourse referent just in case the quant\[fier associated with it is attached to a sentence that is asserted, implied~ or presupposed to be true and there ape no higher quantifiers involved.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> There ape a couple of special problems: 'other worlds' and short term referents. Although discourse referents ordinarily exist for the speaker~ there is a class of fworid--cr@ating t verbs~ such as believe r that also establish PefePents of another kind. These exist fop somebody else~ not necessarily for the speaker. ThePefoPe~ we need to distinguish between the speakerts world and other realms - 35and allow for the possibility that they are not populated by the same individuals. Secondly, there are short term referents, whose life-span may be extended by continuing the discourse in the proper mode. What this proper mode is depends on the circumstances. FoP example, every successive sentence may have to contain (i) a modal as the main verb, (ii) a quantifier of a certain type, or&amp;quot; (iii) be in the counterfactual mood. That is, it is possible to elaborate for&amp;quot; a~vhite on situations that are known not to obtain or that may or should obtain and discuss what sometimes or always is the case.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
FOOTNOTES
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> specificity of the NP a rich man in the preceding sentence. If the first sentence is about a specific man, then must in the second sentence is interpreted in a rather weak sense: 'It is likely that he is a banker'. But tf the NP a rich man is non-specific, the second sentence means: 'It is necessary that he be a banker'.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="6" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
4 George Lakoff (forthcoming) has suggested that quantifiePs and
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> negation be analyzed as verbs (predicates) instead of giving them a special status, as is usually done in symbolic logic. It is yet unclear to me whether there is any st,,bsta,.-tive issue involved or whether he is only proposing another no~-'_ .-,.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> 5 There are other good aPgurr~nics against the feature \[ *_ specific\] in Janet Dean 1968. Unfortunately, they did not persuade the author herself.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="7" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
6 The complement of intend is what W. V. O. Quine calls 'opaque
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> context'. \] ignore here his view that one should not be permitted to quantify into such a context. It seems to me that the objections he raises have to do with the double Pole names play in such contexts and only call fop moPe sophisticated linguistic analysis. Notice that Qu~ne approves of (i) while rejecting (ii) as meaningless '(Quine 1960, * p. 166): (i) (~x) (Tom believes x to have denounced Catiline) (it) (~x) (Tom believes that x denounced Oatiline) From a linguistic point of view, however, there is nothing but a superficial differenoe between (i) and (ii) due to 'Subject raising' that l~s applied in (i) but not in (ii).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> 7 By 'higher&amp;quot; quantifier&amp;quot; I mean quantifter's such as al.._.t, each, many, and few, in fact, everything except the quantifier&amp;quot; associated Mth the singular&amp;quot; some and the indefinite article. The reason for&amp;quot; making this distinction is the fact that, if there are two indefinite singular NPs in the same sentence, both establish a referent no matter what their&amp;quot; order` is.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> (i) A dog was kitted by a car`.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> The above example, of course, justifies a later reference both to the dog and the car'.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>