Preprint N o . 70 Classification: TG 4.

DISCOURSE REFERENTS

- Lauri Karttunen -

INTERNATIONAL C O N F E R E N C E .

ON

COMP UTATIONAL LINGUISTICS

COLING
l b.H

R E S E A R C H GROUP FOR Q U A N T I T A T I V £ LII~'~ISTICS

I,v^,,,,,,,,v I Address: Fack Stockholm 4 0 , SWEDEN

[ '-'"°"'*'' I
 DISCOURSE REFERENTS

Lauri Karttunen
U n i v e r s i t y o f T e x a s at A u s t i n
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Oo Introduction

I, Case studies
I.I A note on specificity
1.2 Complement clauses
1.21 Modal verbs
1.22 I m p l i c ~ n t i v e s
1.23 FaGtive ~Pbs
1.24 Non-factive verbs
1.25 General I - e m a r k s
1.26 A n apparent cot~Tcerexample
1.8 Short t e r m referents
1.4 Suppositions
1.5 C o m m a n d s and Y e s - N o questions
1.6 Quantifiers

2, Specificity

3. Summary
 DISCOURSE REFERENTS ~

Lauri Karttunen
U n i v e r s i t y o f T e x a s at A u s t i n

0. Introduction.

C o n s i d e r a d e v i c e d e s i g n e d t o r e a d a t e x t in s o m e r ~ t u r a l

language~ i n t e r p r e t i t , and s t o r e the c o n t e n t in s o m e manner~ s a y ,

fop the purpose of being able to a n s w e r questions about i t . To

a c c o m p l i s h t h i s task~ t h e m a c h i n e w i l l have t o f u l f i l [ a t [ e a s t t h e

following baste requirement. It has t o be ab|e t o b u i l d a f i l e t h a t

c o n s i s t s o f r e c o r d s o f - a l l t h e i n d i v i d u a l s ~ t h a t is~ events~ objects~

e t c . ~ m e n t i o n e d in t h e text~ and~ f o r e~eh i n d i v i d u a l ~ r e c o r d w h a t e v e r

i s s a i d about i t . OF couPse~ f o p t h e t i m e b e i n g a t [east~ i t s e e m s t h a t

such a t e x t i n t e r p r e t e r i s not a p r a e t i c a [ idea~ but t h i s s h o u l d not

d i s c o u r a g e us f r o m s t u d y i n g . i n a b s t P a e t w h a t k i n d o f c a p a b i l i t i e s t h e

m a c h i n e w o u l d have t o possess~ p r o v i d e d t h a t o u r s t u d y p r o v i d e s us

w i t h s o m e i n s i g h t i n t o n a t u r a l langL~ge in g e n e r a l .

In t h i s p a p e r I i n t e n d t o d i s c u s s one p a r t i c u l a r f e a t u r e a t e x t

interpreter must have: t h a t i t m u s t be a b le t o r e c o g n i z e w h e n a n o v e l

i n d i v i d u a l i s m e n t i o n e d in the i n p u t t e x t and t o s t o r e i t a t o n g w i t h i t s

characterization fop future reference. Of course~ in s o m e P_~ses t h e

problem is trivial. S u p p o s e t h e r e a p p e a r s in s o m e s e n t e n c e a p r o p e r

n a m e t h a t has not been m e n t i o n e d p r e v i o u s l y . This means that a new

 -2-

pePson is being intPoduced in the text and appPopPiate action m u s t be

taken to PecoPd the n a m e of the pePson and w h a t is said about him.

OthePwise, the p P o p e P n a m e is used to PefeP to an individual already

m e n t i o n e d and the m a c h i n e has to locate his file in the m e m o r y with

the help of the n a m e . This p P o b l e m of identification wilt be m o p e

difficult w h e r e a definite descPiption--a definite noun phPase such as

the m a n Bill s a w 7estePda~,--is used, since thePe will, in genePal,

not be any simple look-up p r o c e d u r e fop associating the descPiption

with the Pight individual. W i t h definite noun p h r a s e s there is also the

p P o b l e m that it is not possible to tell just f r o m the n o u n phPase itself

w h e t h e P oP not it is s u p p o s e d to refer" to an individual at all. F o p

example, it is cleaP that the phPase the best student is not used

PefePentiaUy in a sentence such as Bill is the best student. -[-here ape

thus t w o p r o b l e m s with ordinary definite n o u n phrases: (i) Is it a

definite descPiption at all? and (ii) H o w to m a t c h a definite descPiption

with an individual already m e n t i o n e d in the text? T h e fiPst question is

clearly of the kind linguists can be expected to solve, but it will not be

discussed here. T h e only aspect of definite descPiptions that interests

us hepe is the fact that they c a P P y an existential presupposition: to

call s o m e t h i n g "the ... " p r e s u p p o s e s that there be s o m e such thing.

W h i l e it is in genePal a stPaight-for~vaPd matter- to decide

 -3-

w h e t h e r o r not a . p r o p e r n a m e in a t e x t i n t r o d u c e s a n e w i n d i v i d u a l ,

i n d e f i n i t e noun p h r a s e s pose a m o r e d i f f i c u l t p r o b t e m . T o put t h e

q u e s t i o n in a g e n e r a l w a y : Give n an i n d e f i n i t e noun p h r a s e , u n d e r

w h a t c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s t h e r e su p p o se d t o be an i n d i v i d u a l d e s c r i b e d

by t h i s noun p h r a s e ? T h i s need not be u n d e r s t o o d a s s o m e s o r t off

ontological question subject to philosophical speculation, in t h i s

paper" [ i n t e n d t o a p p r o a c h i t f r o m a p u r e t y l i n g u i s t i c p o i n t o f v i e w .

I t i s in j u s t t h o s e c a s e s w h e r e t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f an i n d e f i n i t e N P

implies the existence of some specific entity that our hypothetical

text interpreter shout d r e c o r d t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f a n e w i n d i v i d u a l .

W h a t [ have in m i n d can p e r h a p s be m a d e c l e a r w ~:h t h e h e t p

o f the f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e s , i t i s a w a t t - k n o w n f a c t a b o u t la n g u a g e t h a t

i n d e f i n i t e noun p h r a s e s c a n n o t be i n t e r p r e t e d as r e f e r ' r i n g t o e x p r e s -

s i o n s w h e n t h e y appear, in t h e p r e d i c a t e n o m i n a l p o s i t i o n .

(l) B i t l i s not a l i n g u i s t .

( l ) i s o b v i o u s t y a s t a t e m e n t a b o u t one i n d i v i d u a l . It is not a s t a t e m e n t

about s o m e l i n g u i s t and [ B ill. I t i s a l s o w e i r - k n o w n t h a t in g e n e r i c

s e n t e n c e s s i n g u t a r i n d e f i n i t e noun p h r a s e s p l a y a p e c u l i a r r o t e .

(2) A t i o n i s a m i g h t y hunter`.

In i t s gener'ic s e n s e , (2) i s a s t a t e m e n t a b o u t t i o n s in g e n e r a l ,

not about any t i o n in p a r t i c u l a r , , u n l e s s w e w a n t t o p o s t u l a t e a

 -4-

hypothetical entity 'the typical lion' of whom all generic statements

about lions ape predicated. It i s c l e a r t h a t i n d e f i n i t e noun p h r a s e s

h a v e a v e r y s p e c i a l Pole i n ( l ) and (2) and i t i s n o t d i f f i c u l t t o d e c i d e

that they could not introduce any new individuals into a discourse. It

i s o u t o f q u e s t i o n t h a t a t e x t in w h i c h (1) a p p e a r s w o u l d c o n t a i n a

l a t e r " r e f e r e n c e t o ' t h e l i n g u i s t w h i c h B i t t i s n o t ' o r t h a t (2), i n i t s

generic sense, would justify a later reference to 'the lion who is a

mighty hunter'.

But consider the following example. (3a) m a y be f o l l o w e d b y

a n y o f t h e s e n t e n c e s ( 3 b - d ) t h a t g i v e us m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n about a

specific cap first mentioned in (3a).

(b) I t i s b l a c k .
(3) (a) B i t t h a s a car'. (c) The car is black.
(d) B i l l ' s c a p i s b l a c k .

On t h e o t h e r h a n d , (4a) c a n n o t be f o l l o w e d b y a n y o f t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s

(4b-d).
(b) * I t i s b l a c k .
(4) (a) Bill doesn't have a car. (c) *The cap is black.
(d) * B i l l ' s c a p i s b l a c k .

The above examples show that just in case of (3a), the text

interpreter has to recognize that the appearance of the indefinite NP

a c a p i r n p t i e s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a s p e c i f i c car- t h a t c a n be t a l k e d a b o u t

again by referring t o i t w i t h a p r o n o u n or" a d e f i n i t e noun p h r a s e . But

no c a p i s i n t r o d u c e d b y ( 4 a ) . The alternative continuations (4b-d) are

inappropriate, since they presuppose the existence of something that

is not there. To show that this is a linguistic a n d n o t an o n t o l o g i c a l

 -5-

f a c t one o n l y has t o p o i n t o u t t h a t e x a m p l e s (5) and (6) behave j u s t

l i k e (3) and (4).

(5) Bill saw a unicorn. Th e u n i c o r n had a g o ld m a n e .

(6) B i l l d i d n ' t see a u n i c o r n . * T h e u n i c o r n had a g o ld m a n e .

L e t us s a y t h a t the a p p e a r a n c e o f an i n d e f i n i t e noun p h r a s e e s t a b l i s h e s

a d i s c o u r s e r e f e r e n t j u s t in ca se i t j u s t i f i e s t h e o c c u r r e n c e of: a

c o r e r e r e n t i a l p r o n o u n o r a d e f i n i t e noun p h r a s e h a t e r in t h e t e x t . In

t h i s p a p e r we w i l l t r y t o f i n d o u t u n d e r w h a t c i r c u m s t a n c e s d i s c o u r s e

referents are established. We m a i n t a i n t h a t t h e p r o b l e m o f c o r e f e r - -

ence w i t h i n a d i s c o u r s e i s a l i n g u i s t i c p r o b l e m and can be s t u d i e d

i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f any g e n e r a l t h e o r y o f e x t r a - l i n g u i s t i c reference.

The p r e s e n t s t u d y w a s i n s p i r e d by the n o t i o n o f ' r e f e r e n t i a l

i n d i c e s ' in t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar. F o l l o w i n g a suggestion by

N o a m C h o m s k y (1965), i t has g e n e r a l l y been a s s u m e d t h a t t h e b a se

component of a transformational grammar a s s o c i a t e s w i t h e a c h noun

phrase a r e f e r e n t i a l index, say, some i n t e g e r . The purpose of

C h o m s k y ' s p r o p o s a l w a s not so m u c h t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e m e a n i n g o f

s e n t e n c e s , but t o a u g m e n t t h e n o t i o n o f noun p h r a s e i d e n t i t y . It

s e e m e d t h a t the n o t i o n o f ' r e f e r e n t i a l i d e n t i t y ' w a s needed in a d d i t i o n

to the two other types of identity, 'structural i d e n t i t y ' and ' m o r p h e m i c

identity', for the structural descriptions of certain transformations.

A c c o r d i n g t o the s t a n d a r d t h e o r y , referential indices are merely

 -6-

formal indicators of c o r e f e r e n c e w i t h no f u r t h e r semantic significance.

T h e y amP n o t m e a n t t o i m p l y t h e e x i s t e n c e o f d i s c o u r s e r e f e r e n t s i n o u r

sense. T h i s n o t i o n o f c o r ~ f e m p n t i a l i t y h a s p l a y e d an i m p o r t a n t role in

recent syntactic arguments. It led t o the st udy of pronoun-ant ecedent

relations, largely ignored by traditional grammarians, which has

revealed intricate constraints that have great theoretical impor~tance.

W h a t w e a r e s t u d y i n g in t h i s p a p e r c a n be l o o k e d at a s f u r t h e r con-

straints on compFerentiality that extend beyond the sentence level,

]. Case studies

l. 1 A note on specificity

[n t h e f o l l o w i n g w e amP g o i n g t o e x a m i n e c a s e b y c a s e c e r t a i n

aspects of sentence structure that play a role in cletermining whether

an i n d e f i n i t e N P e s t a b l i s h e s a d i s c o u r s e r e f e r e n t . In t h e e x a m p l e s

t h a t a p e d i s c u s s e d ~ t h e r e i s a p o s s i b l e a m b i g u i t y t h a t h a s t o be m e n -

t i o n e d i n a d v a n c e , a l t h o u g h i t w i l l n o t be d i s c u s s e d u n t i l l a t e r . In

general, i n d e f i n i t e n o u n p h r a s e s h a v e b o t h a s p e c i f i c and n o r r - s p e c i f i c

interpretation. E x a m p l e (7) c a n be i n t e r p r e t e d to mean either (8a) or

(Bb).

(7) Bill didn't see a misprint.

(8) (a) 'There is a misprint w h i c h B i l l d i d n ' t see'

(b) ' B i l l s a w no misprints'

 -7-

[1= (7) iS U n d e r s t o o d in t h e sense of (8a), we s a y t h a t the

i n d e f i n i t e NP a m i s p r i n t is i n t e r p r e t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y . (Sb) r e p r e s e n t s

the n o n - s p e c i f i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . OF c o u r s e , not a l l i n d e f i n i t e noun

p h r a s e s a r e a m b i g u o u s in t h i s w a y . We c o u l d d i s a m b i g u a t e (7) b y

a d d i n g the w o r d c e r t a i n ( " a c e r t a i n m i s p r i n t " ) o r an a p p o s i t i v e

relative clause ("a misprint, w h i c h I had m a d e on p u r p o s e " ) . These

changes w o u l d a l l o w o n l y the s p e c i f i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n (8a). The addi-

t i o n o f the w o r d ~ ("a single misprint") would allow only the

sense (Sb). There are also cases where the verbs involved partially

d i s a m b i g u a t e the s e n t e n c e b y m a k i n g one interpretation

Far m o r e p l a u s i b l e t o t h e r e a d e r than t h e o t h e r . For example, the

N P a piano in (9a) i s n a t u r a l l y u n d e r s t o o d n o n - s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h a t i s , as

m e a n i n g ' a n y p i a n o ' , w h i t e the s a m e noun p h r a s e in (9b) s u g g e s t s the

l
interpretation 'a certain pianO'.

(9) (a) John t r i e d t o f i n d a p i a n o . (but he d i d n ' t s u c c e e d in

finding one]

(b) John t r i e d t o l i f t a piano. [ b u t he d i d n ' t s u c c e e d in

lifting it]

It i s s o m e t h i n g about the v e r b l i f t t h a t s u g g e s t s t h a t a p i a n o d e s c r i b e s

some specific object. On t h e o t h e r hand, (9a) i s e a s i l y u n d e r s t o o d t o

i n f o r m us o n l y about t h e k i n d o f o b j e c t John w a s t r y i n g t o f i n d . We note

in p a s s i n g t h a t , i f i n t e r p r e t e d in the above m a n n e r , (9b) e s t a b l i s h e s a

 -8-

discourse referent, i.e., 't h e piano Jo h n t r i e d t o l i f t ' , but (9a)

certainly does not j u s t i f y a l a t e r r e f e r e n c e t o ' t h e p ia n o John t r i e d

t o Find'. E x a m p l e (7) e s t a b l i s h e s a r e f e r e n t in i t s s p e c i f i c se n se

'the m i s p r i n t w h i c h B i t t d i d n ' t s e e ' , but f a i l s t o do so in t h e s e n s e ,

of (Sb).

I_et us f o r g e t , f o r t h e t i m e b e i n g , t h a t i n d e f i n i t e noun p h r a s e s

can a l s o be u n d e r s t o o d s p e c i f i c a l l y and c o n s i d e r f i r s t o n l y n o n - s p e c i f -

ic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s .

1.2 Complement clauses

A s p o i n t e d o u t a b o v e , an i n d e f i n i t e noun p h r a s e does g e n e r a l l y

e s t a b l i s h a d i s c o u r s e referent w h e n i t a p p e a r s in a s i m p l e a f f i r m a t i v e

sentence. But i f the sentence is negated, a n o n - s p e c i f i c NP f e l t s to

establish a referent. L e t u s, t e n t a t i v e l y , accept this finding for

s i m p l e s e n t e n c e s and t o o k a t c a s e s w h e r e an i n d e f i n i t e NP b e l o n g s t o

a complement clause. T h e r e a r e many o t h e r f a c t o r s that play a rote

here besides negation.

] . 21 Modal verbs

T h e f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e s a r e a n o m a l o u s in t h e i n t e n d e d sen&e,

a l t h o u g h t h e r e i s no n e g a t i o n i n v o l v e d .

(10) (a) Y o u m u s t w r i t e a l e t t e r t o y o u r p a r e n t s . *They are

expecting the letter.

(b) B i l l can m a k e a k i t e . * T h e k i t e has a t o n g s t r i n g .

 -9-

Tr`aditionalty~ sentences with a m o d a l auxiliary have been considered

as simple sentences. However~ it has been argued convincingly by

R o s s (1967a) and others that m o d a l s should be analyzed as m a i n ver"bs

o£ higher` sentences. Therefore~ let us a s s u m e that~ even in the above

examples~ the indefinite N P s originate in a c o m p l e m e n t clause~ just

as they do in (l l).

(l]) (a) John w a n t s t o c~toh a f i s h . * D o y o u see t h e f i s h f r o m

here?

(b) M a r y e x p e c t s t o have a b a b y. *The baby's name is

Sue.

T h e r e i s a g r e a t number` o f v e r b s t h a t behave l i k e w a n t and e_.~pect in

t h i s respect~ e . g . ~ t r y ~ ptan~ ~ hope~ e t c . What is common to

a l l o f t h e m i s t h a t the c o m p l e m e n t s e n t e n c e b y i t s e l f i s u n d e r s t o o d t o

r e p r e s e n t a yet untrue p r o p o s i t i o n at the t i m e s p e c i f i e d by the tense

and t i m e a d v e r b i a l s in t h e m a i n c l a u s e . T h e p r e s e n t pr`oblem~ i s in

fact~ a n o t h e r p o i n t in favor` o f t h e v i e w t h a t m o d a l s o r i g i n a t e in a

higher" sentence~ b e c a u s e i t e n a b l e s us t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h e s i m i l a r i t y

o f the a n o m a l y in (10) and ( ] 1 ) . T h e conct'usion i s t h a t n o n - s p e c i f i c

i n d e f i n i t e s do not e s t a b l i s h d i s c o u r s e r e f e r e n t s w h e n t h e y appear` in a

complement of a modal verb.

l. 22 Implicatives

T h e r e is a class of verbs that~ if they are not negated~ imply

the truth of the proposition represented by their" c o m p l e m e n t sentence.

Let us call t h e m implicative verbs. 2 In English~ this group includes

 -lO-

vePbs such as manage, r'emembeP, venture, see fit, etc. An indefi-

n i t e N P in t h e c o m p l e m e n t o f an i m p l i c a t i v e vePb e s t a b l i s h e s a r e f e r -

ent, as shown by the following examples.

( 1 2 ) ( a ) J o h n m a n a g e d t o f i n d an a p a r t m e n t . The apartment

has a balcony.

(b) B i l l v e n t u P e d t o a s k a q u e s t i o n . T h e lectuPer-

answePed it.

But if the implicative vePb i n t h e m a i n s e n t e n c e i s n e g a t e d , a n o n -

specific .indefinite fails to establish a PefePent.

( 1 3 ) ( a ) J o h n d i d n ' t m a n a g e t o f i n d an a p a P t m e n t . *The apar't-

rr.~nt h a s a b a l c o n y .

(b) B i l l d i d n ' t d a P e t o a s k a ,question. *The lecturer"

a n s w e Ped i t .

There ape also verbs that inhePently have a negative implication. In

English, this type includes ver'bs such as foP~t, fail, and neglect.

Consider" the following anomalous discour"ses.

(14) (a) John for-got to wr"ite atePm paper". *He cannot show

it to the teacher".

(b) J o h n f a i l e d t o f i n d an answer". * I t w a s wr"ong.

These implicative ver"bs h a v e t h e ver"y i n t e r e s t i n g pr"oper"ty t h a t , i f

i

there is double negation, the implication is positive, and an i n d e f i n i t e

N P d o e s , after" all~ e s t a b l i s h a r e f e r e n t .
 -11-

(14) ( a ) J o h n d i d n ' t f a i l t o f i n d an a n s w e r . The answer was

even right.

(b) J o h n d i d n ' t r e m e m b e r " not t o b r i n g an u m b r e l l a ,

a l t h o u g h we h a d no r o o m for" i t .

This pr`operty distinguishes clearly verbs with negative implication,

s u c h a s for`ge.___,tt, fr`orn m o d a l v e r b s d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , a l t h o u g h b o t h

t y p e s d e n y t h e tr`uth o f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e c o m p l e m e n t

sentence.

1.23 Factive verbs

T h e r e i s a g r o u p o£ v e r b s , called facttve verbs (Kiparsky 1968),

that presuppose the truth of the proposition represented by the corn-

plement. For" e x a m p l e , k n o w , realty_e, a n d r e g r e t a r e f a c t i v e . It i s

not s u r p r - i s t n g t o f i n d o u t t h a t an i n d e f i n i t e N P d o e s e s t a b l i s h a r e f e r ' e n t

in a c o m p l e m e n t o f a f a c t i v e v e r b , of course, provided that the com-

plement itself is affirmative.

(15) J o h n k n e w t h a t a a r ` y had a car', b u t he h a d never" s e e n i t .

In c o n t r " a s t t o t h e i m p l i c a t i v e ver"bs d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , n e g a t i o n i n t h e

m a i n s e n t e n c e h a s no e f f e c t at a r t .

(]6) B i t l d i d n ' t r e a l i z e t h a t he h a d a d i m e . It w a s i n h i s pocket

The truth of the embedded preposition is presupposed even if the fac-

r i v e ver"b i t s e l f i s n e g a t e d . O o n s e q u e n t l y , (16) i s q u i t e a c c e p t a b l e a s a

continuing discourse.
 -12-

l . 24 Non-factive verbs

The class of verbs commonly called non-factive (Kiparsky

] 9 6 8 ) i n c l u d e s s u c h v e r b s a s b e l i e v e , thin_~k~ say~ c l a i m ~ d o u b t . In

general ~ nothing is presupposed about the truth of the embedded prop-

osition. Notice~ however~ ~¢hatl~efollowing d i s c o u r s e w o u l d be

contradictory.

(17) I doubt that M a r y has a c a r . * B i l l has seen i t ,

On the other hand, ther~ ism~thing v~ong with the following example.

(18) B i l l dou~ts-that M a r y has a c a r . I have seen i t .

What makes these verbs d i f f i c u l t ±o handle i s that there are two p e r -

sons involved: the ~ l ~ r and the subject o f the non-factive verJo- -

these r o l e s may~ o f couPse~ c o i n c i d e . The speaker is not committed

to a n y view w h a t s o e v e r a b o u t the truth of the L~rnbedded proposition,

although he m a y imply w h a t his beliefs are as the discourse continues.

For exampie~ in (18), the speaker--unlike Bill---must hold that the

complement is true. T h e non-f-active verb is binding for the speaker

o n l y in c a s e he is t a l k i n g i n t h e f i r s t p e r s o n as in ( ] 7 ) . BUt e v e n i n

c a s e t h a t t h e s p e a k e r w i t h h o l d s j u d g m e n t o r d i s a g r e e s a l t o g e t h e r ~ an

indefinite NP in the complement of a non-factive verb that implies

positive belief does establish a referent of a peculiar sort. It c a n be

I

referred to again in a complement of a similar non-factive verb that

has the same subject.

 -18-

(19) Bill says he s a w a lion on the street. H e claims the lion

had e s c a p e d f r o m the Zoo.

W h a t this a m o u n t s to is that a text interpreting device will have to sort

out w h a t belongs to 'the world as seen by the speaker' and"'the world

as s e e n by X'. T h e s a m e referents need not exist in all of these

worlds.

A n o r ~ f a c t i v e vePb t h a t i m p l i e s p o s i t i v e b e l i e f (clairr~, t h i n k ,

b e l i e v e , s a y , e t c . ) a l l o w s an i n d e f i n i t e NP in t h e c o m p l e m e n t t o

e s t a b l i s h a r e f e r e n t as f a r as the w o r l d o f the s u b j e c t p e r s o n i s corr-

cer'ned but need not have t h e s a m e e f f e c t in t h e s p e a k e r ' s w o r l d . A

non-factive verb with negative implication (doLLb._~t)m a y still allow that

a referent is added to the speaker's world, albeit not to the w o r l d of

the subject person. T h e r e is a spirited study of 'other worlds' by

Lakof~ (1968b).

l . 25 Genera[ remar'ks

We can now g e n e P a l i z e t h e p r e v i o u s ' o b s e r v a t i o n a b o u t s i n g l e

sentences to cover also complement clauses. A non-specific in-

d e f i n i t e N P in an a f f i r m a t i v e s e n t e n c e ( s i n g l e s e n t e n c e o r a c o m p l e -

m e n t ) e s t a b l i s h e s a d i s c o u r s e r e f e r e n t j u s t in c a s e t h e p r o p o s i t i o n

r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e Sentence i s assePted~ i m p l i e d or" p r e s u p p o s e d

b y the s p e a k e r t o be t r u e . A non-specific indefinite in a negative

 -14-

sentence establishes a referent only if the proposition is implied to

be False. This latter stipulation is needed because of negative

implicatives discussed in ~ 1.22. In general, discourse referents

exist in the r e a l m 'world as seen by the speaker'. However,

the non-factive verbs discussed in § I. 24 establish referents

in other r e a l m s and are a m b i g u o u s as far as the s p e a k e r is

concerned.

In o r d e r to decide w h e t h e r or not a non-specifEc in-

definite N P is to be associated with a referent, a text interpreting

device m u s t be able to assign a truth value to the proposition

represented by the sentence in w h i c h the N P appears. It m u s t

be sensitive to the s e m a n t i c properVcies of verbs that take

sentential c o m p l e m e n t s , distin~ish b e t w e e n assertion,

implication, and presupposition, and f[nally, it m u s t distinguish

w h a t exists for the s p e a k e r f r o m w h a t exists only for s o m e b o d y

else.

l . 26 An apparent counterexample

T h e r e i s an i n t e r e s t i n g group of verbs that seem to

provide a counter'example to the general rule. Cons{der the follow-

ing discourses.

(20) (a) l need a caP_. * I t w a s a Mustang.

(b) S e y m o u r w a n t s a k n i f e . *It is sharp.

 -15-

(c) J o h n p r ' o m i s e d M a r y a b r a c e l e t . *The bracelet was

very expensive.

(d) T h e c a s t i n g dtmector- w a s r o o k i n g for- a n i n n o c e n t

btonde. *She was fr-om Bean Btossom, Indiana

P r o v i d e d t h a t t h e i n d e f i n i t e N P s ape t n t e r p p e t e d n o n - s p e c i f i c a t t y ,

art e x a m p l e s i n (20) a r e a n o m a l o u s , a l t h o u g h t h e y t o o k s u p e r -

f i c i a t t y i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e i n ( 2t ) , w h i c h b e h a v e a s e x p e c t e d .

(2l) (a) ! o w n e d a car'. It was a Must ang.

(b) S e y m o u r - i m a g i n e s a k n i f e . It i s shar-p.

(c) J o h n b o u g h t M a r - y a b r - a c e t e t . The bracelet

was very expensive.

(d) T h e c a s t i n g d i r e c t o r - w a s l o o k i n g at an

innocent blonde. She was from Bean

E3tossom, I n d i a n a .

i n (20), w h a t a p p e a r - s t o be an omdtnar-y n o n - s p e c i f i c object NP

f a i l s t o e s t a b t i s h a ~,'efer-ent, a t t h o u g h t h e ~ n t e n c e is affirmative

asser-tion. T h e r e a r e m a n y other- v e r b s i n a d d i t i o n t o t h o s e tn

(20) t h a t h a v e t h i s p e c u l i a r " c o n s e q u e n c e , for` e x a m p t e : a s k for`,

destr'e~ e x p e c t , h o p e for`, p r o p o s e , ~ q u e s t , sugge~, w a t t for`,

y e a r n for-. It s e e m s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t m o s t i f n o t a l l o f t h e s e

ver-bs, i n a d d i t i o n t o or`dinar`y n o u n p h r a s e o b j e c t s , a t s o t a k e

sententiaI complements, as the fottowing examples show.

 i6-

(22) ( a ) S e y m o u r w a n t e d t o h a v e a I m i f e .

(b) I propose that you eat a bagel.

(c) John promised to give Mary a bracelet.

(d) M a r y e x p e c t s J o h n t o b W h e r a b r a o e l e t ,

In f a c t , these are the same modal v ~ s discussed above (§1.21)

that i m p l y that the proposition represented by the complement is

not yet t r u e . We can thus account f o r tile l ~ c u l i a r i t y of (20a-d)

by assuming that, in spite o f the s i m p l i c i t y - o f the s u ~ c e

s t r u c t u r e , the o r d i n a r y noun phrase objects o f these verbs

are derived f r o m underlying r ~ ~ o n s .which contain

sentential objects. This is clearly one of those cases where

semantic problems c a n be s i m p l i f i e d by assuming a more abstract

deep structure. But it is not entirely clear what kind of embedded

s e n t e n c e s h o u l d u n d e r l y the s u r f a c e o b j e c t . T h e r e s e e m s t o be l i t t l e

evidence f o r deciding this question b e y o n d the observation that

i t cer~cainly . ~ u l d be s o m e type of existential or possessive con-

struction. T h i s is because of m a n y n o a r p a r a p h r a s e s of the

f o l l o w i n g type.

(23) (a) John wants a c a r . -- John w a r t s t o heve a c a r .

(b) I suggest an immediate halt ir~ the bombing -

I suggest that t h e r e be an i t r w r ~ d i a t e h a l t in the

bombing.
 - t7-

(c) I expect no change in the situation. - I expect

t h e r e t o be n o c h a n g e i n t h e s i t u a t i o n .

In some cases an existential paraphrase seems more natural, in

•o t h e r " c a s e s o n e p r e f e r s a possessive interpretation. Qbserve the

difference b e t w e e n ( 2 3 a ) a n d ( 2 4 a ) a n d t h e t w o k i n d s ol = p r o m i s i n g

in (24b) and (24c).

(24) (a) John wants a -revolution. - John wants there

t o be a ~ e v o t u t i o n .

(b) John promised Mary a bracelet. - John

promised Mary that there will be a m i r ' a c t e .

(c) John ]gromised Mary a miracle. - John

promised Mary that there will be a miracle.

Whatever- the correct solution is with regard to the exact nature o1=

embedded sentence, there is no ~eason to consider the exceptional

nature of verbs such as want, need, etc., as a serious c o u n t e r ~-

example to the general theory o1= d i s c o u r s e referents.

l. 3 Short term Peferents

In the preceding sections, it was tacitly assumed that

discourse referents are ~_able entities that are established once

and for all. But we have to recognize that an indefinite N P that

fails to establish a permanent referent may never{heless permit

 -18-

the appearance of coPefePential noun phrases within a limited

domain. ConsideP the following examples.

(25) (a) You must write a letter to your parents and mail

the letter right away. * T h e y a p e e x p e c t i n g th__e_e

[etter.

( b ) J o h n w a n t s t o c a t c h a f i s h a n d e a t [.t f o p s u p p e r .

*Do you see the fish over there?

(c) ] don't believe that MaPy had ~ a n d n a m e d her"

Sue. *The baby has mumps.

In (25a)~ i t s e e m s t h a t t h e i n d e f i n i t e NP a letter may serve as

antecedent fop a coPefepential definite NP the letter provided th~f

the latter is contained in a conjoined complement sentence~ but

not otherwise. O u t s i d e t h e s c o p e o f t h e m o d a l must ~ 'the letter t

ceases to exist. Similarly, i n (25b)~ t h e P e { s n o f i s h t h a t c o u l d

be t a l k e d a b o u t o u t s i d e t h e s c o p e o f w a n t . Within the paiP of con-

joined sentences in the complement it is a different matter.

In oPdeP t o t a k e c a p e o f t h e s e p h e n o m e n a ~ a t e x t i n t e r -

pPeting device apparently has to process complex sentences

i
starting from the inside. F o p e x a m p l e ~ i n c a s e o f (25c)~ i t f i P s t

h a s t o c o n s i d e r t h e parec "tvlaPy h a d ~ a n d n a m e d h e r S u e ~',

On the basis of ths first member of the conjunct~ it can s tenta-

lively, s e t up a r e f e r e n t corresponding t o t h e N P a bab~, a n d

a c c e p t her" i n t h e s e c o n d s e n t e n C ~ a s c o P e f e P e n t { a l . After
 - t 9 -

c o n s i d e r i n g t h e w h o l e s e n t e n c e b e g i n n i n g w i t h "[ d o n ' t b e l i e v e

that... " , i t t h e n m a y d e c i d e t h a t t h e r e i s no s u c h b a b y ,

after all. In s h o r t , a text interpreter must keep track of the

status of referents it has established and delete them when

necessary.
lb
u~
Notice also that the life-span of a short term referent is

not always so neatly bound as the above examples suggest.

Sequences 0f the following type are quite common.

(26) Y o u m u s t w r i t e a l e t t e r t o your" p a r e n t s . I t h a s t o be

sent by air'matt. The letter must get there by

tomorrow.

At least incase of modals (and the future will), it is possible to "

continue discussing a thing that actually does not yet exist,

provided that the discourse continues in the same mode. In t h i s

case, every successive sentence is prefixed by the same type of

modal. Even the following example is possible.

(27) Mary wants to marry a rich man. He m u s t be a

banker.

Under the non-specific interpretation o f a r i c h man~ t h e r e i s n o

specific individual yet that Mary wants to marry--and there may

: n e v e r be o n e . By continuing with another modal, however, it is

possible to elaborate on the attributes of this yet non-existing

 - 20-

individual. 3 In the following sections we will present other oases

where the tile-span of a short term referent m a y be e x t e n d e d .

I. 4 Suppositions

A n o t h e r w a y to talk about w h a t is not is to s u p p o s e that it

is. C o n s i d e r the following discourses.

(28) (a) Suppose Mary had a car. She takes me to work

in it. " I drive the car too.

(b) I f tv~ary h a s a oar~ s h e will t a k e m e t o w o r k in it.

I c a n drive the c a m too.

(c) If Mary h a d a cam~ s h e w o u l d t a k e m e t o w o r k in it.

I could drive the car too.

(d) I wish Mary had a car. She would take me to work

in it. I could drive the car too.

(e) When Mary has a car~ she can take me to work in

in it. I c a n drive the c a r too.

All of the a b o v e e x a m p l e s elaborate a hypothetical situation that

is b a s e d o n the counter1:actual o r d u b i o u s p r e m i s e that M a r y has

a car. T h e difference b e t w e e n the first a n d the s e c o n d pair is

that in (28c--d) the condition is i m p l i e d to be unrealizable o r h a r d

to realize. There a r e clearly several w a y s in w h i c h a supposition

may be introduced in a discourse. Essentially~ however~ all of the

 - Z{ -

above e x a m p l e s r e d u c e t o t h e f o r m IF S O THEN S l . $2 • • • Sn"

W h a t e v e r r e f e r e n t i s i n t r o d u c e d b y S O e x i s t s f o p t h e se q u e n ce

S[-Sn, w h i c h a p p a r e n t l y h a s no f i x e d l e n g t h , a l t h o u g h t h e r e

o b v i o u s l y ape c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s t h a t a l l s e n t e n c e s b e l o n g i n g

t o i t have t o f u l l f / l ] . T h e f o l l o w i n g d i s c o u r s e w o u l d be

anomalous.

(29) I w i s h M a r y had a c a r . *I w i l l d r i v e i t .

T h a t is~ f / c t i t i o u s i n d i v i d u a l s m a y be r e f e r r e d t o ~ n a p h o P i c a l l y

o n l y a s long a s t h e p r o p e r f i c t i t i o u s m o d e i s s u s t a i n e d , but w h e n

the i l l u s i o n is b r o k e n , t h e y cease to e x i s t .

A s t h e a b o v e e x a m p l e s show~ a t e x t i n t e r p r e t e r must also

be able t o cope w i t h s h o r t t e P r~ r e f e r e n t s t h a t o w e t h e i r e x i s t e n c e

t o s o m e c o n d i t i o n t h a t in r e a l i t y i s n o t f u l f i l l e d . It must catch

a supposition i n whcx~tever foPn3 it c o m e s and r e c o g n i z e w h e r e

t h e s u p p o s i t i o n c e a s e s t o be in f o r c e . Neither of the two tasks

i s l i k e l y t o be e a s y . F o P e x a m p l e , w h a t l o o k s l i k e o o m m a n d may~

nevertheless, b e a s u p p o s i t i o n .

(30) Lend h i m a book and h e q l n e v e r r e t u r n i t .

1.5 C o m m a n d s and Y e s - N o Q u e s t i o n s

I t i s t o be e x p e c t e d t h a t i n d e f i n i t e noun p h r a s e s i n c o m m a n d s

and Y e s - N o q u e s t i o n s f a i l t o i n t r o d u c e r e f e r e n t s . The proposition

 - 2 2 .

c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o an i n t e r r o g a t i v e o r i m p e r a t i v e s e n t e n c e o r d i n a r i l y

is not a s s u m e d t o be t r u e . T h u s t h e r e i s s o m e t h i n g m i s s i n g in

the f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e s .

(3l) (a) Does J o h n h a ve a c a r ? *It is a Mustang.

(b) Give m e a h o t d o g , p l e a s e . *It looks delicious.

B u t i t i s a g a i n p o s s i b l e t o have c o P e f e r e n c e w i t h i n t h e i m p e r a t i v e

or interrogative sequenc e i t s e l f .

(32) (a) D o e s Joh n h a ve a c a r and i s i t a M u s t a n g ?

(b) G i v e m e a hotdog~ p l e a s e , but d o n ' t put

any m u s t a r d on i t .

There are, however, ways to interpret the f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e s as

acceptable.

(33) (a) Did y o u w r i t e a l e t t e r ? L e t m e see i t .

(b) G i v e me a h o t d o g , p l e a s e . I will eat it.

F o r e x a m p l e , t h e i n t e r r o g a t i v e s e n t e n c e in (88a) need n o t be

t a k e n a s a t r u e q u e s t i o n a t a l l , b u t a s an e x p r e s s i o n ol=

s u r p r i s e p r o m p t e d by a p r e c e d i n g a s s e r t i o n . (33b) c o u l d

be u n d e r s t o o d as e l l i p t i c . What is implicit is "You will

give me a hotdog. " D i s c o u r s e s su ch a s in (33) c l e a r l y ape

not c o u n t e r e x a m p l e s , s i n c e t h e i r a c c e p t a b i l i t y i s n o t due

t o t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f an i n d e f i n i t e N P i n a c o m m a n d o r

Y e s - N o q u e s t i o n , but t o o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s .
 - 23 -

l. 6 Quantil=iers

I n d e F i n i t e noun p h r a s e s a r e g e n e r a l l y a m b i g u o u s i n

sentences that contain quantifier-like expressions. The

F o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e s can be u n d e r s t o o d at l e a s t i n t w o w a y s .

(34) ( a ) Ha h v e y c o u r t s a g i r l at e v e r y c o n v e n t i o n .

(b) M o s t b o y s i n t h i s t o w n a r e i n l o v e w i t h a

go-go dancer.

( 8 4 a ) can m e a n t h a t , at e v e r y c o n v e n t i o n , t h e r e i s s o m e

girl that Harvey courts, or that there is some girl that

Harvey courts at every convention. Let us call the above

paraphrases the non-specific and the specific interpretation

of the N P a~rl, respectively. ( S e e t h e n o t e on s p e c i f i c i t y

in 6 l . t . ) in t h e spectCtc s e n s e , H a r v e y a l w a y s c o u r t s t h e

same girl, in the non-specific s e n s e , i t m a y be a

di~erent girl each time. Similarly, a g o - g o d a n c e r i n (3413)

also has two interpretations. However, the Following discourses

l e a v e no r o o m f o r s u c h a m b i g u i t y .

(35) (a) Harvey courts agirl at e v e r y c o n v e n t i o n .

She is very pretty.

(b) M o s t b o y s i n t h i s t o w n a r e i n l o v e w i t h a g o - g o

dancer '. Mary doesn't like her at all.

 - Z 4 -

i n (35), o n l y t h e s p e c i f i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is possible. There must

be a u n i q u e g i r l a n d a u n i q u e g o - g o d a n c e r . This fact indicates

that a non-specific indefinite fails to establish a discourse referent

in case there is a quantifier'-like term in the sentence, in spite of

t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e i s an a f f i r m a t i v e assertion.

But notice that the following example is ambiguous again.

(36) H a r v e y c O u r t s a g i r l at e v e r y c o n v e n t i o n . She always

comes to the banquet with him. The girl is usually also

very pretty.

(36) admits both the specific and non-specific interpretation of a girl.

T h e r e a s o n for" t h e a n o m a l y o f t h e n o n - s p e c i f i c interpretation i n (35)

and i t s a c c e p t a b i l i t y h e r e i s a p p a r e n t l y t h a t , i n ( 36) , e v e r y s u c c e s s i v e

sentence continues to have a similar quantifier--like term: "at every

convention", "always", "usually". There is also nothing wrOng with

~he n o n - s p e c i f i c interpretation of the NP a book in (37).

(37) Every time Bill c o m e s h e r e , he p i c k s up a b o o k a n d

wants to borrow it. I never let him take the book.

We have to say that, although a non-specific indefinite that falls into

the scope of a quantifier fails to establish a permanent discourse

referent, theme m a y be a s h o r t t e r m r e f e r e n t ,within the scope of the

quantifier and its life-span m a y be e x t e n d e d b y f l a g g i n g e v e r y s u c c e s -

sive sentence with a quantifier" of the same type. 4

 - Z5 -

2. Specificity

L e t us now r e t u r n t o t h e p r o b l e m of s p e c i f i c i t y t h a t w a s F i r s t

i n t r o d u c e d in § 1.1. A s we a l r e a d y p o i n t e d out, m a n y of the e x a m p l e s

above t h a t w e r e j u d g e d a n o m a l o u s in the i n t e n d e d sense can a l s o be

given another interpretation that makes them perfectly acceptable.

0

A l t h o u g h ' n o n - s p e c i f i c ' i n d e F i n i t e s do not p e r m i t e o r e F e r e n c e i n (88),

t h e r e i s n o t h i n g w r o n g w i t h t h e s e e x a m p l e s p r o v i d e d t h a t the i n d e f i -

nite N P i s u n d e r s t o o d ' s p e c i f i c a l l y ' .

(88) (a) B i l l d i d n ' t f i n d a m i s p r i n t . Can y o u Find i t ?

(b) John w a n t s t o catch a f i s h . You can see the f i s h

from here.

How s h o u l d we r e p r e s e n t t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n ? A s the t e r m s ' s p e c i f i c ' and

'non-specific' imply, transformational grammarians have t r a d i t i o n a l l y

assumed that there is a feature [+specific], j u s t as t h e r e i s a f e a t u r e

F+deFinite], a n d t h a t i n d e f i n i t e N P s a r e t o be m a r k e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o

specificity. L e t us c a l l t h i s v i e w , t h a t goes t o g e t h e r w i t h C h o m s k y ' s

o r i g i n a l p r o p o s a l t h a t C o r e £ e r e n c e be m a r k e d w i t h i n t e g e r - - t y p e i n d i c e s ,

the c l a s s i c a l t h e o r y . T h e r e i s a l s o a n o t h e r a p p r o a c h t o these, p r o b -

l e m s s u g g e s t e d b y E m m o n B a c h (1968), J a m e s O. M c O a w l e y (1967),

G e o r g e l_ako£-£, and o t h e r s . T h e e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e ol= t h e i r p r o p o s a l s

is t h a t r e f e r e n t i a l i n d i c e s a r e v a r i a b l e s , b o u n d b y q u a n t i f i e r s t h a t a c t

l i k e q u a n t i f i e r s in s y m b o l i c l o g i c . W h a t c o r r e s p o n d s to the i n d e f i n i t e
 - Z6 -

article is, of course, something very similar to the existential

q u a n t i f i e r in p r e d i c a t e c a l c u l u s . (Bach calls it 'the some o p e r a t o r ' . )

Base structures r e s e m b l e f o r m u l a s in s y m b o l i c l o g i c . This approach

t o s y n t a x h a s n o w b e c o m e k n o w n as ' g e n e r a t i v e s e m a n t i c s ' .

It i s e a s y t o see t h a t in t h e f r a m e w o r k of generative semantics

e
t h e r e i s no j u s t i f i c a t i o n n o r need f o r a f e a t u r e su ch a s [ + s p e c i f i c ] .

T h e a m b i g u i t i e s in q u e s t i o n ape n a t u r a l l y a c c o u n t e d f o p b y t h e f a c t

that the quantifier binding variable that underlies some indefinite

noun p h r a s e m a y be p l a c e d i n d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s i n t h e b a se

structure. S p e c i f i c i t y t h u s b e c o m e s a ITiEtter o f t h e s c o p e o f

quantifie rs.

A s f a r as t h e p r o b l e m s d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s p a p e r ape r e l e v a n t

t o c h o o s i n g a t h e o P e t i c a l f r a m e w o r k ~ t h e y s e e m t o a r g u e in f a v o r o f

adopting the Bach-McOawle~ proposals, It is r a t h e r d i f f i c u l t to see,

how one c o u l d a c h i e v e an a d e q u a t e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e f a c t s in t h e

classical theory, FoP e x a m p l e ~ c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g c a s e . Both

(39a) and (39b) a r e a m b i g u o u s w i t h r e s p e c t t o s p e c i f i c i t y .

(39) (a) B i l l i n t e n d s t o v i s i t a m u s e u m .

(b) B i l l v i s i t s a m u s e u m e v e r y d a y .

In t h e t s p e c i f i c t sense~ b o t h e x a m p l e s e s t a b l i s h a d i s c o u P s e r e f e r e n t .
q
I t w o u l d m a k e p e r f e c t s e n s e t o c o n t i n u e w i t h a descP~:~tion o f l t h e

m u s e u m B i l l intends t o v i s i t t o r fthe m u s e u m B i l l v i s i t s e v e r y day'.

 - 2 7 -

In t h e ' n o n - s p e c i f i c ' s e n s e , t h e r e i s no such m u s e u m a t a l l . So far

so good, w e can s a y t h a t t h e NP a m u s e u m can be r + s p e c i f i c ] . But

w h a t about e x a m p l e (40)?

(40) B i l l i n t e n d s t o v i s i t a m u s e u m e v e r y d a y.

It i s c l e a r t h a t (40) i s a m b i g u o u s in m a n y w a y s . For example,

the q u a n t i f i e d t i m e a d v e r b e v e r y d a y co u ld be a s s i g n e d e i t h e r t o t h e

c o m p l e m e n t o r t o the m a i n c l a u s e , l e t us n o w c o n s i d e r o n l y t h e F o r -

m e r c a s e . The r e m a i n i n g a m b i g u i t i e s s h o u l d be a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e

i n d e f i n i t e N P a m u s e u m , in Fact, w e s h o u l d have a t w o - - w a y a m b i g u i t y

between the specific and nort-specific interpretation. But e x a m p l e

(40) is stilt a m b i g u o u s in m o r e than two ways. It could be inter-

preted t o mean (41a)~ (41b), o r (41c).

(41) (a) 'There is a c e r t a i n museum that B i l l intends t o

v i s i t e v e r y day. '

(b) ' B i l l intends that there be some museum that he

v i s i t s e v e r y day. '

(c) ' B i l l intends t o do a museum v i s i t e v e r y day. '

I t is easy to see why t h i s happens. What the feature F±specific]

accomplishes in case o f (39a) i s that i t c l a r i f i e s the r e l a t i o n between

the indefinite NP a museum and the verb intend in the main sentence:

Is B i l l ' s intention about some p a r t i c u l a r museum o r not? In (39b),

we employed the same device t o c h a r a c t e r i z e the r e l a t i o n between

 - Z8.

the quantified time a d v e r b ~ and t h e i n d e f i n i t e noun p h r a s e :

Is i t t h e s a m e m u s e u m e v e r y d a y o r not? T o do t h e w o r k i n (40) we

w o u l d need t w o features~ one t o c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n

intend anda museum, another for the relation between a museum

and e v e r y d a y . U n d e r t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ( 4 ] b ) , f o r e x a m p t e , _a

m u s e u m w o u l d be n o n - s p e c i f i c w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e v e r b i n t e n d but

specific with respect to the quantified time expr-ession. But to say

t h a t t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l v a r i e t i e s o f s p e c i f i c i t y i s a w a y of s a y i n g t h a t

t h e r e i s no f e a t u r e r + s p e c i f i c ] at a l t . The ctassicat theory clearly

i s not s u f f i c i e n t t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e m u l t i p l e m e a n i n g s o f (40).5

On t h e o t h e r hand, in t h e B a c h - M c O a w t e y f r a m e w o r k we a r e

a b l e t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e a m b i g u i t i e s in a s t r a i g h t - f o r ~ N a r d w a y . The

t h r e e s e n s e s o f (40) d i s c u s s e d a b o v e m i g h t be r e p r e s e n t e d r o u g h l y as

in (42). 6

(42) (a) (~ x ) r m u s e u m ( x ) , i n t e n d ( B i t t , ( e v e r y d a y ) v i s i t ( B i t t , x ) ) ]

(b) i n t e n d ( B i t t , ( ~ x ) r m u s e u m ( x ) . ( e v e r y d a y ) v t s i t ( B i l t , x ) ] )

(c) i n t e n d ( B i l l , (every dayX~x)[ museum(x), visit(Bill, x)])

A n o t h e r a d v a n t a g e of g e n e r a t i v e s e m a n t i c s i s t h a t t h e r e i s an e x p l a n a -

t i o n r e a d y f o r t h e f a c t t h a t (40) e s t a b l i s h e s a d i s c o u r s e r e f e r e n t u n d e r

o n l y one o f t h e t h r e e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s we have c o n s i d e r e d , n a r n e l y (42a).

I

T h e r u l e i s t h a t an i n d e f i n i t e N P e s t a b l i s h e s a p e r m a n e n t r e f e r e n t j u s t

in c a s e t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t o w h i c h t h e b i n d i n g q u a n t i f i e r i s a t t a c h e d i s
 - 29-

assumed ( a s s e r t e d , i m p l i e d , o r p r e s u p p o s e d ) t o be t r u e , provided

t h a t the q u a n t i f i e r i s not i t s e l f in the s c o p e o f s o m e h i g h e r q u a n t i f i e r . 7

T h e F i r s t p a r t o f the r u l e a c c o u n t s For t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n (42a)

and ( 4 2 b - c ) , the s e c o n d p a r t i s needed t o e x p l a i n w h y (39b) e s t a b -

l i s h e s a p e r m a n e n t r e f e r e n t o n l y u n d e r one o f t h e t w o p o s s i b l e i n t e r -

pretations. N o t i c e t h a t , in (42a), t h e q u a n t i f i e r u n d e r l y i n g t h e N P

a museum is attached to the main proposition. Since the m a i n

p r o p o s i t i o n i s a s s e r t e d t o be t r u e and t h e r e a r e no h i g h e r q u a n t i f i e r s

i n v o l v e d , (2~2a) e s t a b l i s h e s a r e f e r e n t c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e N P a

museum. N o w , c o n s i d e r t h e o t h e r t w o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f (40). Th e

v e r b i n t e n d is one o f t h e m o d a l v e r b s d i s c u s s e d in ( 1 . 2 1 ) . We k n o w

t h a t the c o m p l e m e n t o f a m o d a l v e r b t a k e n b y i t s e l f i s not i m p l i e d o r

p r e s u p p o s e d t o be t r u e . In (42b) and (4 2 c), t h e q u a n t i f i e r u n d e r l y i n g

the NP a m u s e u m i s a t t a c h e d t o t h e c o m p l e m e n t . T h e r e f o r e ~ the

above r u l e c o r r e c t l y p r e d i c t s t h a t no r e f e r e n t c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o am

museum is established under these two interpretations.

F r o m the p o i n t o f v i e w o f a t e x t i n t e r p r e t i n g d e v i c e , t h e c l a s s i -

cal t h e o r y has t i t t l e t o r e c o m m e n d i t s e l f . T h e p r o b l e m s s t u d i e d above

c l e a r l y a r g u e in F a v o r o f t h e B a c h - M c O a w t e y f r a m e w o r k , in p r o c e s -

sing a sentence, a text interpreter apparently h a s to associate a n

indefinite N P with a variable a n d attach the binding quantifier to s o m e

s e n t e n c e a b o v e the N P using w h a t e v e r clues there are present to

 - 30-

assign t h e s c o p e w i t h as l i t t l e a m b i g u i t y a s p o s s i b l e . Clues that

r e d u c e s c o p e a m b i g u i t y i n c l u d e t h e p r e s e n c e o f an a p p o s i t i v e r e l a t i v e

clause or of special w o r d s such as "certain"~ "single"~ and " s o m e "

in t h e noun p h r a s e i t s e l f and t h e s u r f a c e o r d e r o f q u a n t i f i e r s ~ n e g a -

t i o n , and a r t i c l e s in the r e s t o f t h e s e n t e n c e . Secondly~ t h e i n t e r -

p r e t e r has t o keep t r a c k o f t h e t r u t h v a l u e o f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n r e p r e -

s e n t e d by t h e s e n t e n c e t o w h i c h t h e q u a n t i f i e r i s a t t a c h e d . Th e

f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e d e m o n s t r a t e s s o m e o f t h e diFFiculties t h a t a r e

involved. L e t us s t a r t a d i s c o u r s e w i t h (43).

(43) Mary m a y w a n t t o mammy a S w e d e .

H i g h l y s c h e m a t i c a l t y ~ t h e u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e o f (48) i s s o m e t h i n g

like (44).

(44)

NP VP

~ I I
may
Mary want NP
I

Mary marry x

J
The quantifier that binds the variable underlying the NP a Swede

m a y b e l o n g t o any o f t h e t h r e e s e n t e n c e s , S l , S 2, and $ 3 , w h i c h

c a u s e s (43) t o be a m b i g u o u s a t l e a s t in t h e f o l l o w i n g t h r e e w a y s .

/
 - 31 -

(45) (a) ' T h e r e i s s o m e S w e d e w h o m M a r y m a y w a n t t o

marry. '

(b) ' I t m a y be t h e c a s e t h a t t h e r e i s s o m e S w e d e w h o m

Mary wants to marry, '

(c) 'It m a y be the case that M a r y w a n t s her future

husband to be a S w e d e . '

Of the three sentences involved, only S l is asserted by the s p e a k e r

t o be a t r u e p r o p o s i t i o n . The two other sentences, S 2 and S8, are

b o t h c o m m a n d e d b y a m o d a l v e r b ( m a y and w a n t ) , t h e r e f o r e , their"

truth is not implied or presupposed. The indefinite NP a Swede

establishes a discourse referent just in case its binding quantifier is

a t t a c h e d t o S 1" T h i s c a n be d e m o n s t r a t e d e a s i l y b y p o i n t i n g o u t t h a t ,

i f t h e s p e a k e r c o n t i n u e s t h e d i s c o u r s e w i t h ( 4 6 ) , the p r e c e d i n g s e n t e n c e

( 4 8 ) c a n o n l y be u n d e r s t o o d i n the s e n s e o f (4.5a).

(46) She introduced him to her mother yesterday.

H o w e v e r , t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n t i n u a t i o n , . w h e r e t h e p r o n o u n its' s t a n d s for"

$2, permits b o t h (4,5a) and ( 4 5 b ) .

(47) S u p p o s e t h a t i t i s tr`ue, t h e n s h e w i l l c e r t a i n l y introduce

him to her mother.

As a final example, a f t e r s o m e t h o u g h t i t s h o u l d be o b v i o u s t h a t a

d i s o o u r s e c o n s i s t i n g o f (48) a n d (48)~ w h e r e t h e f i r s t [t in (48) stands

for S 2 and t h e s e c o n d {.t f o p S 8 i s t h r e e w a y s a m b i g u o u s j u s t a s ( 4 8 )

 - 3 Z -

by itself. S i n c e a l l t h r e e c o m p o n e n t p r o p o s i t i o n s o f (44) a r e n o w

e i t h e r a s s e r t e d o r s u p p o s e d t o be t r u e , t h e r e i s no w a y o f r e s o l v i n g

the inherent scope ambiguity by looking at the coPefePentiality of a

S w e d e and h i m .

(48) Suppose that it is true and that she does it, then she

will certainly introduce him to her mother.

Although the argument against the traditional fea±ure [-+specific]

s h o u l d l e a v e no d o u b t a b o u t i t s u s e l e s s n e s s i n d i s c u s s i n g a n y t h i n g b u t

the simplest kind of scope ambiguity, i t d o e s not n e c e s s a r i l y mean

that the familiar terms 'specific' and ' n o n - s p e c i f i c ' s h o u l d be

rejected. T h e y h a v e p r o v e d q u i t e u s e f u l a n d no h a r m i s d o n e , p r o -

vided that they are underst ood in a relat ive sense and not as denoting

some absolute property inherent in indefinite noun phrases. For

example, consider interpretation ( 45b) o f (4.3), w h i c h a s s i g n s t h e

quantifier to S 2 • One m i g h t ,want t o s a y t h a t , w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e

verb want the indefinite NP a Swede is specific. On t h e o t h e r h a n d ,

if the quantifier i s a t t a c h e d t o $ 3 , a s i n ( 4 5 c ) , a S w e d e c o u l d be c a l l e d

non-specific with respect to want. In g e n e r a l ' , l e t us c a l l an i n d e f i n i t e

NP specific with respect to a given verb (or quantifier, or negation) if

the latter is in the scope of the quantifier associated with the NP. It

is non-specific in case the verb commands the quantifier. This kind

of definition seems consistent with the way these terms have been used
 - 33 -

in recent literature, a n d t h e r e i s no r e a s o n t o s t o p u s i n g t h e m a s

tong as the relative nature of specificity is understood.

3. Summary

It i s t i m e t o r e v i e w t h e s i t u a t i o n . We started by asking the

seemingly na|be question: " W h e n i s t h e r e s u p p o s e d t o be an i n d i v i d u a l

associated with an indefinite noun phrase?" Na|k/e a s i t m a y b e , i t

m u s t be a n s w e r e d i n c a s e t h e r e i s e v e r g o i n g t o be a d e v i c e f o r i n t e r - -

preting written texts or everyday conversation with anything approach-

ing human sophistication. There i s a l s o a n o t h e r r e a s o n t o 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

w h e t h e r t w o n o u n p h r a s e s c a n be c o r e f e r e n t i a l at all must precede the

question whether a pronoun-antecedent relation may hold between them.

Secondly, if relative clauses are derived transformationally from con-

joined sentences by 'Retativization', as many linguists believe, the

constraints discussed here are also a prerequisite For that transforma-

tion. 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.

 - 3 4 -

W e f o u n d t h a t , in s i m p l e s e n t e n c e s t h a t do not c o n t a i n c e r t a i n

quantifier-like expressions, an i n d e f i n i t e N P e s t a b l i s h e s a d i s c o u r s e

r e f e r e n t j u s t in case t h e s e n t e n c e is an a f f i r m a t i v e assertion. By

' e s t a b l i s h e s a d i s c o u r s e r e f e r e n t ' w e m e a n t t h a t t h e r e m a y be a

coreferentiat p r o n o u n o r d e f i n i t e noun p h r a s e t a t e r in t h e d i s c o u r s e ,

i n d e f i n i t e N P s in Y e s - N o q u e s t i o n s and c o m m a n d s do n o t e s t a b l i s h

refe rents.

In s t u d y i n g m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d e x a m p l e s , it was found n e c e s -

s a P ) / t o r e p l a c e C h o m s k y ' s i n t e g e r - t y p e r e f e r e n t i a l i n d i c e s by bound

variables. In t h i s f r a r n e w o r k ~ t h e t r a d i t i o n a l p r o b l e m o f s p e c i f i c i t y

i s t r e a t e d as s c o p e a m b i g u i t y . We s t u d i e d s e v e r a l t y p e s o f v e r b s

t h a t t a k e c o m p l e m e n t s and t h e i r s e m a n t i c p r o p e r t i e s . We c o n c l u d e d

that~ in g e n e r a l ~ an i n d e f i n i t e N P e s t a b l i s h e s a p e r m a n e n t d i s c o u r s e

r e f e r e n t j u s t in c a s e the q u a n t [ f i e r a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i t i s a t t a c h e d t o a

sentence that is asserted, implied~ o r p r e s u p p o s e d t o be t r u e and

t h e r e ape no h i g h e r q u a n t i f i e r s i n v o l v e d .

T h e r e ape a c o u p l e o f s p e c i a l p r o b l e m s : 'other worlds' and

short term referents. Although discourse referents ordinarily exist

f o r t h e s p e a k e r ~ t h e r e i s a c l a s s o f f w o r i d - - c r @ a t i n g t ve rb s~ su ch as

b e l i e v e r t h a t a l s o e s t a b l i s h PefePents o f a n o t h e r k i n d . These exist

f o p s o m e b o d y else~ not n e c e s s a r i l y f o r t h e s p e a k e r . ThePefoPe~ w e

need t o d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n t h e s p e a k e r t s w o r l d and o t h e r r e a l m s
 - 35-

and a l l o w f o r the p o s s i b i l i t y that they a r e not populated by the same

individuals. Secondly, there are short term referents, whose life-

span m a y be e x t e n d e d by c o n t i n u i n g t h e d i s c o u r s e in t h e p r o p e r m o d e .

W h a t t h i s p r o p e r m o d e i s depends on t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . FoP

e x a m p l e , e v e r y successive sentence m a y have to contain (i) a modal

as the m a i n v e r b , ( i i ) a q u a n t i f i e r o f a c e r t a i n t y p e , or" ( i i i ) be in t h e

counterfactual mood. T h a t i s , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o e l a b o r a t e for" a~vhite

on s i t u a t i o n s t h a t a r e k n o w n n o t t o o b t a i n o r t h a t m a y o r s h o u l d

o b t a i n and d i s c u s s w h a t s o m e t i m e s o r a l w a y s i s t h e c a s e .
 FOOTNOTES

* T h i s w o r k w a s s u p p o r t e d by the National Science Foundation

G r a n t GU-1598 t o the U n i v e r s i t y o f T e x a s at A u s t i n .

1
T h e s e e x a m p l e s a r e due t o C . L e R o y B a k e r 1966.

2
I am indebted to Robert E. Wall for suggesting the term 'implicative'
to me.

3 What r e m a i n s unexplained h e r e is the f a c t (pointed out to me by

J o h n O l n e y ) t h a t m u s t in (27) h a s t w o m e a n i n g s d e p e n d i n g on t h e
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
s e n t e n c e i s i n t e r p r e t e d in a r a t h e r w e a k s e n s e : ' I t i s l i k e l y t h a t he i s
a banker'. But tf the NP a r i c h man is n o n - s p e c i f i c , t h e second
s e n t e n c e m e a n s : ' I t i s n e c e s s a r y t h a t he be a b a n k e r ' .

4 G e o r g e L a k o f f ( f o r t h c o m i n g ) h a s s u g g e s t e d t h a t q u a n t i f i e P s and
n e g a t i o n be a n a l y z e d as v e r b s ( p r e d i c a t e s ) i n s t e a d o f g i v i n g t h e m a
special status, as is usually done in symbolic logic. It is yet unclear
to m e w h e t h e r there is a n y st,,bsta,.-tiveissue involved or w h e t h e r he
i s only p r o p o s i n g a n o t h e r n o ~ - ' _ .-,.

5 T h e r e are other good aPgurr~nics against the feature [ *_ specific] in

J a n e t Dean 1968. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e y d id n o t p e r s u a d e t h e a u t h o r
herself.

6 T h e c o m p l e m e n t of intend is w h a t W . V. O. Quine calls 'opaque

context'. ] ignore here his view that one should not be permitted to
quantify into such a context. It s e e m s to m e that the objections he
raises have to do with the double Pole n a m e s play in such contexts
a n d only call fop m o P e sophisticated linguistic analysis. Notice that
Qu~ne a p p r o v e s o f ( i ) w h i l e r e j e c t i n g ( i i ) a s m e a n i n g l e s s '(Quine 1960, •
p. 166):
(i) ( ~ x ) ( T o m b e l i e v e s x t o h a v e d e n o u n ce d C a t i l i n e )
(it) (~x) ( T o m b e l i e v e s t h a t x denounced O a t i l i n e )

F r o m a linguistic point o f view, however, there is nothing but a

superficial differenoe between (i) and ( i i ) due to 'Subject raising' that
l ~ s applied in (i) but not in ( i i ) .
7 B y ' h i g h e r " q u a n t i f i e r " I m e a n q u a n t i f t e r ' s s u c h a s al.._.t, e a c h , m a n y ,
and f e w , i n f a c t , e v e r y t h i n g e x c e p t t h e q u a n t i f i e r " a s s o c i a t e d M t h t h e
singular" some and the indefinite article. T h e r e a s o n for" m a k i n g t h i s
distinction is the fact that, if t here are two indef init e singular NPs in
t h e s a m e s e n t e n c e , b o t h e s t a b l i s h a r e f e r e n t no m a t t e r w h a t t h e i r "
order` is.
( i ) A d o g w a s k i t t e d b y a car`.

The above example, of course, justifies a later reference

b o t h t o t h e d o g a n d t h e car'.
 REFERENCES

B a c h , E m m o n (1968) " N o u n s and Noun P h r a s e s . " in Bach and H a r m s

( e d s . ) . U n i v e r s a l s in L i n g u i s t i c T h e o r y . New Y o r k : H o l t ,
R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n .

B a k e r , C. L e R o y (1966) D e f i n i t e n e s s and I n d e f i n i t e n e s s in E n g t t s h .
Unpublished Master's thesis. University of Ittinois.

C h o m s k y , N o a m (1965) A s p e c t s of the T h e o r y of S y n t a x . Cambridge,

Mass. : MIT Press.

Dean~ J a n e t (1968) " N o n s p e c i f i c Noun P h r a s e s i n E n g l i s h " in Kuno,

Susumu (ed.) Report No. NSF-20. Harvard University.

K i p a r s k y , P a u l & KiparCsky, C a r o l ( ] 9 6 8 ) " F a c t . ' ' in B i e r v v i s c h and

I

H e i d o l p h ( e d s . ) R e c e n t A d v a n c e s in L i n g u i s t i c s . T h e Hague:
M o u t o n and C o .

Lakoff~ G e o r g e (1968) " C o u n t e r p a r t s ~ o r t h e P r o b l e m of R e f e r e n c e

in T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G r a m m a r . " P a p e r p r e s e n t e d at the 1968
S u m m e r m e e t i n g o f the L S A .

(forthcoming) "Generative Semantics. "

M c C a w l e y , J a m e s D. (1967) " W h e r e Do Noun P h r a s e s C o m e F r o m ? "

U n p u b l i s h e d p a p e r , t o a p p e a r in J a c o b s and R o s e n b a u m ( e d s . )
Readings in Transformational Grammar.

Quine> W i l l a r d V a n O r m a n (1960) W o r d and O b ) e c t . Cambridge,

Mass. : MIT Press.

R o s s , J o h n R o b e r t (1967) "Auxiliaries as M a i n V e r b s . " Unpublished

paper. MIT.