Keshet & Abney (2024): Intensional Anaphora #
@cite{keshet-abney-2024} @cite{partee-1972} @cite{roberts-1987} @cite{stone-1999} @cite{brasoveanu-2010}
Formalizes the core contributions of @cite{keshet-abney-2024}'s PIP
(Plural Intensional Presuppositional predicate calculus) and connects
them to the theory-neutral anaphora data in Phenomena/Anaphora/.
Paper's Core Claim #
Pronouns carry descriptive content (formula labels), not stored entity values. A pronoun presupposes that its antecedent description has a non-empty extension in every world of the context set (paper item 9).
This single hypothesis, implemented via PIP's formula labels and felicity conditions, uniformly explains:
- Modal subordination — labels survive modals (paper §2.6.3, items 59–60)
- Bathroom sentences — labels survive negation (paper §3.4, item 92b)
- Donkey anaphora — labels survive ∀ = ¬∃¬ (paper §2.6.2, items 53–56)
- Paycheck pronouns — descriptions re-evaluated (paper §2.6.4, items 66–67)
- Intensional anaphora — might blocks, must allows (paper §3.1–3.3)
Architecture #
This study file imports:
- Theory:
Theories/Semantics/PIP/(PIP mechanism) - Data:
Phenomena/Anaphora/(theory-neutral judgments)
and proves that PIP's predictions match the empirical data via worked
finite models with decide verification.
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instDecidableEqSWorld x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instReprSWorld = { reprPrec := KeshetAbney2024.instReprSWorld.repr }
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instDecidableEqSEntity x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instReprSEntity = { reprPrec := KeshetAbney2024.instReprSEntity.repr }
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.αWolf = { idx := 0 }
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.vWolf = { idx := 0 }
Instances For
Epistemic accessibility from actual world.
Equations
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
"A wolf might come in." (paper item 59a)
might(∃^αWolf x. wolf(x) ∧ comeIn(x))
Label αWolf records the description "wolf(x) that comes in".
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
After "A wolf might come in", the label αWolf is registered.
"It would eat you first." (paper item 59b)
"It" = DEF_αWolf{x}; "would" = must with inherited accessibility.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
After the full discourse, the label is still available.
End-to-end test: Stone's discourse is consistent on a concrete model.
After "A wolf might come. It would eat you first.", the discourse state is non-empty: g_wolf (with vWolf ↦ wolf) at actual survives the pipeline.
Negative test: unbound wolf variable is rejected.
@cite{partee-1972}'s bathroom sentence world model.
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instDecidableEqBWorld x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instReprBWorld = { reprPrec := KeshetAbney2024.instReprBWorld.repr }
Equations
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instDecidableEqBEntity x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instReprBEntity = { reprPrec := KeshetAbney2024.instReprBEntity.repr }
Equations
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.αBath = { idx := 1 }
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.vBath = { idx := 1 }
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
"Either there's no bathroom, or it's upstairs." (paper item 92b)
PIP analysis: ¬∃^αBath x.bathroom(x) ∨ upstairs(DEF_αBath{x})
Label αBath is registered under negation and floated to the second disjunct.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The bathroom label survives negation — core PIP mechanism.
End-to-end: the bathroom sentence is consistent.
Negative test: bathroom at noBath world is rejected.
"John spent his paycheck. Bill saved it." (paper items 66–67)
"it" carries descriptive content "paycheck-of(x, possessor)" which is re-evaluated when the possessor variable is rebound to Bill.
Value-based: "it" → John's paycheck → wrong referent Description-based: "it" → "the paycheck of [current subject]" → Bill's paycheck
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instDecidableEqPEntity x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instReprPEntity = { reprPrec := KeshetAbney2024.instReprPEntity.repr }
Equations
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.αPaycheck = { idx := 2 }
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.vPaycheck = { idx := 2 }
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.vPossessor = { idx := 3 }
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instDecidableEqPWorld x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instReprPWorld = { reprPrec := KeshetAbney2024.instReprPWorld.repr }
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Instances For
Equations
Relational paycheck predicate: depends on both paycheck and possessor.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Re-evaluation yields Bill's paycheck when possessor = Bill.
A modal subordination datum.
- sentence1 : String
- sentence2 : String
- modal1 : String
- modal2 : String
- anaphor : String
- antecedent : String
- felicitous : Bool
- source : String
Instances For
Equations
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.felicitousModalSub = List.filter (fun (x : KeshetAbney2024.ModalSubDatum) => x.felicitous) KeshetAbney2024.modalSubData
Instances For
Modal continuation type: whether a modal inherits its accessibility relation from prior discourse context.
PIP predicts modal subordination is felicitous iff the second modal
subordinates — i.e., it inherits the accessibility relation established
by the first modal (paper §2.6.3). "Would" is analyzed as must with
the inherited R; "could" as might with the inherited R.
Modals that establish their own accessibility relation (epistemic "must", future "will", indicative mood) cannot access entities introduced under a prior modal's scope.
- subordinating : ModalContinuation
- independent : ModalContinuation
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instDecidableEqModalContinuation x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Classify an English modal by whether it subordinates.
Equations
Instances For
PIP predicts modal subordination felicity iff the second modal subordinates (inherits the accessibility relation from the first).
Equations
Instances For
External/local binding modes under modals (paper §2.1).
Label survival is the core mechanism for bathroom sentences.
Full bathroom sentence preserves labels through disj + negation.
"Andrea might be eating a cheeseburger. #It is large." (paper item 79)
The burger description is world-dependent: BURGER_w([b]) holds only at worlds where Andrea is eating a burger. At worlds where she isn't, Σb(BURGER_w(b)) = ∅, failing the existential presupposition SINGLE(ΣbE).
Felicity condition (paper item 83): ∀w(MIGHT_w(ΣwE) → SINGLE(ΣbE)) fails because some context-set worlds have no burger.
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instDecidableEqIBWorld x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instReprIBWorld = { reprPrec := KeshetAbney2024.instReprIBWorld.repr }
Equations
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instDecidableEqIBEntity x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instReprIBEntity = { reprPrec := KeshetAbney2024.instReprIBEntity.repr }
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.αBurger = { idx := 10 }
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.vBurger = { idx := 10 }
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
World-dependent predicate: burger exists only at burgerW.
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The burger description fails at actual — presupposition failure.
Equations
Might blocks anaphora NOT because of non-reflexive access, but because the
burger description is world-dependent: isBurgerAt g .actual = false
for all g (burger_desc_fails_at_actual). Even with a reflexive modal base,
the description Σb(BURGER_w([b])) is empty at .actual — no burger there.
The accessibility IS reflexive at .actual (ibAccess .actual .actual = true), confirming that the blocking mechanism is about description content, not accessibility structure.
"There must be some sort of animal in the shed. It's making quite a racket!" (paper item 88)
The animal description is world-INdependent: ANIMAL_w([x]) ∧ SINGLE(x) holds at ALL accessible worlds (realistic modal base includes actual).
Felicity condition (paper item 90): ∀w(MUST_w(ΣwX) → SINGLE(ΣxX)) succeeds because must guarantees X at every accessible world including w.
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instDecidableEqIAWorld x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instReprIAWorld = { reprPrec := KeshetAbney2024.instReprIAWorld.repr }
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instDecidableEqIAEntity x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instReprIAEntity = { reprPrec := KeshetAbney2024.instReprIAEntity.repr }
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.αAnimal = { idx := 11 }
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.vAnimal = { idx := 11 }
Instances For
Realistic epistemic: actual accessible from itself.
Equations
Instances For
World-INdependent predicate: holds at ALL worlds.
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instFintypeIAWorld = { elems := {KeshetAbney2024.IAWorld.actual, KeshetAbney2024.IAWorld.shedW}, complete := KeshetAbney2024.instFintypeIAWorld._proof_1 }
Must allows anaphora via Kratzer's realistic modal base.
The animal accessibility relation is reflexive at .actual (the evaluation world),
so must_realistic_at (derived from the T axiom) guarantees that the
description predicate holds at .actual. This is the Kripke-semantic
grounding of why must enables intensional anaphora.
The paper's deeper argument about must (items 106–107): in different accessible worlds, different animals could be in the shed. The summation across assignments gives MULTIPLE animals, not a single one.
Must still allows anaphora because:
- The accessibility relation is realistic (actual ∈ β_w*)
- The animal AT the actual world is singular (SINGLE)
The summation Σx ANIMAL_w*([x]) — evaluated at the discourse world w* — gives the singleton {cat}. The summation across ALL worlds would give {cat, dog, raccoon}, but the world variable in ΣxX is bound by the discourse-level Σw, fixing it to w*.
This enriched model shows why Stone/Brasoveanu's system incorrectly predicts plurality: it would sum across all accessible worlds, getting {cat, dog, raccoon} — failing SINGLE.
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instDecidableEqMAWorld x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instReprMAWorld = { reprPrec := KeshetAbney2024.instReprMAWorld.repr }
Equations
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instDecidableEqMAEntity x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instReprMAEntity = { reprPrec := KeshetAbney2024.instReprMAEntity.repr }
Equations
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.αMA = { idx := 12 }
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.vMA = { idx := 12 }
Instances For
Realistic epistemic: actual accessible from itself, plus two alternatives.
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.maAccess KeshetAbney2024.MAWorld.actual x✝ = true
- KeshetAbney2024.maAccess x✝¹ x✝ = false
Instances For
World-dependent predicate: different animal in each world.
Equations
Instances For
At actual, only cat satisfies the description (SINGLE).
Different entities satisfy the description at different worlds.
Cross-world summation yields PLURAL — Stone/Brasoveanu would incorrectly predict plurality here since they sum across all accessible worlds. Different animals satisfy the description at different worlds: cat at actual, dog at shedW1.
"There may already be a winner in the mayoral race. #She is a woman." (paper item 85)
This is PIP's strongest argument against Stone/Brasoveanu's "in" predicate. The candidates (alice, bob) are real people who exist in the actual world. A Stone/Brasoveanu-style presupposition requiring only that the referent "exist in the world of evaluation" would wrongly predict felicity.
PIP correctly blocks anaphora because the description WINNER_w([x]) is world-dependent: in worlds where the tabulation isn't complete, there is no winner, so Σx WINNER_w([x]) = ∅, failing SINGLE (paper item 87):
∀w(MIGHT_w(Σw WINNER_w([x])) → SINGLE(Σx WINNER_w([x])))
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instDecidableEqPCWorld x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instReprPCWorld = { reprPrec := KeshetAbney2024.instReprPCWorld.repr }
Equations
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instDecidableEqPCEntity x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instReprPCEntity = { reprPrec := KeshetAbney2024.instReprPCEntity.repr }
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.αWinner = { idx := 20 }
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.vWinner = { idx := 20 }
Instances For
Epistemic: speaker considers all outcomes possible.
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.pcAccess KeshetAbney2024.PCWorld.actual x✝ = true
- KeshetAbney2024.pcAccess x✝¹ x✝ = false
Instances For
World-dependent predicate: winner only at resolution worlds.
Equations
Instances For
"There may already be a winner."
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The winner description is empty at the actual world — no winner declared yet.
Contrast with Stone/Brasoveanu: the entities EXIST in the actual world (alice and bob are real candidates), but the description WINNER is empty there. The "in" predicate would say alice/bob exist → felicitous. PIP says the DESCRIPTION yields nothing at actual → infelicitous.
The label is registered (the mechanism works), but the description cannot be satisfied at the actual world.
The paper's core contribution (§3): might blocks anaphora, must allows it.
The mechanism is the same for both (label + retrieveDef). The difference:
- must guarantees the description holds at the evaluation world (realistic base)
- might only guarantees SOME accessible world
Since the pronoun's existential presupposition (paper item 9) requires the description to hold at the evaluation world, might fails and must succeeds.
Labels are registered in BOTH cases — the asymmetry is about world-dependence of the description, not label availability.
Static felicity operator F distinguishes might from must.
PIP provides a unified account via TWO mechanisms:
Label monotonicity: labels survive all operators → modal subordination, bathroom sentences, donkey anaphora
World-dependent descriptions + existential presupposition: pronouns presuppose their description holds at the evaluation world → might blocks anaphora, must allows it
No stipulated accommodation rules, no "in" predicate (contra @cite{stone-1999} / @cite{brasoveanu-2010}), no special accessibility conditions.
Evidence: all 5 phenomena are verified by the theorems above:
The might/must asymmetry is grounded in descriptions, not accessibility.
Both modal bases are reflexive at .actual. The difference:
- Must (animal): the description
isAnimalInShedis world-INdependent (holds at all worlds) → SINGLE succeeds at every context-set world. - Might (burger): the description
isBurgerAtis world-dependent (holds only at .burgerW) → SINGLE fails at .actual.
The T axiom is necessary but not sufficient: reflexivity guarantees the description is checked at the evaluation world, but the description itself must hold there.
PIP predicts the standard cross-sentential anaphora pattern:
- Indefinite persistence (Karttunen 1969): ∃^α introduces a label that persists through sequential conjunction → pronoun resolves via DEF_α.
- Standard negation blocks (Heim 1982): negation filters the info state, and the CONJUNCTION version ("John didn't see a bird. It was singing.") fails because sequential conjunction makes the second sentence evaluate in a context where no bird-assignments survive.
- Double negation enables (Elliott & Sudo 2025): ¬¬∃^α x.φ registers α in the body; label monotonicity through both negations preserves it.
The difference between standard negation blocking and double negation
enabling is exactly PIP's label monotonicity: labels survive negation
(labels_survive_negation), but the info state does not survive single
negation in sequential discourse.
PIP predicts that universals and negative quantifiers block cross-sentential anaphora: ∀x.φ = ¬∃x.¬φ does not introduce a labeled existential, so no DEF_α is available.
PIP vs DPL: The Architectural Difference #
DPL negation is a test: ⟦¬φ⟧(g, h) iff g = h ∧ ¬∃k. φ(g, k).
The output assignment equals the input — no bindings are exported through
negation. This is why ¬¬∃xφ ≠ ∃xφ in DPL (dpl_dne_fails_anaphora
below): double negation doesn't recover the binding.
PIP negation propagates labels from the body: (negation φ d).labels = (φ d).labels. The info state is complemented, but the label registry
survives. This is exactly what enables bathroom sentences and double-negation
anaphora.
The following theorems make this architectural difference explicit.
Substrate names: DPL relations are DRS (Assignment E) from
Theories/Semantics/Dynamic/Connectives/. The DPL operator aliases are
substrate operations: DPLRel.neg φ is test (dneg φ),
DPLRel.exists_ x φ is existsAt x φ.
DPL negation resets the output assignment — it cannot export bindings.
This is the key structural property of DPL that blocks cross-negation
anaphora: after ¬φ (test (dneg φ)), the output assignment equals the
input, so any variables bound inside φ are inaccessible.
PIP negation preserves labels — it CAN export descriptive content.
This is the fundamental advantage of PIP over DPL: even though the info state is complemented (like DPL's test), the label registry propagates outward. The pronoun resolves via DEF_α (label lookup), not via assignment binding.
The contrast: DPL negation blocks anaphora (test), PIP negation allows it (labels survive). This is the architectural reason bathroom sentences are infelicitous in DPL but felicitous in PIP.
Concretely:
dpl_dne_fails_anaphora(above): ¬¬∃x.φ ≠ ∃x.φ in DPL (double negation doesn't recover binding)bathroom_mechanism: labels survive through negation in PIP (the bathroom sentence works because αBath is registered despite negation)
Presupposition projection bridges are in PIP.Bridges:
pip_felicity_agrees_with_andFilter— F(φ ∧ ψ) ↔ andFilterpip_felicity_agrees_with_neg— F(¬φ) ↔ PrProp.negpip_felicity_agrees_with_impFilter— F(φ → ψ) ↔ impFilterpip_felicity_agrees_with_orFilter— F(φ ∨ ψ) decomposition
PIP Donkey Derivation #
"Every farmer who owns a donkey beats it." (paper items 53–56)
PIP analysis: ∀x(farmer(x) ∧ ∃^αD y(donkey(y) ∧ owns(x,y)) → beats(x, DEF_αD{y}))
The label αD for the donkey is registered inside the restrictor's existential. Because ∀ = ¬∃¬ and labels survive both negations, αD is available in the nuclear scope for DEF_αD retrieval.
Key property: formula label subordination. The label αD is subordinated to the restrictor — its descriptive content is "donkey(y) ∧ owns(x,y)". When the pronoun "it" (= DEF_αD{y}) is resolved, it finds the unique donkey owned by the farmer under discussion.
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instDecidableEqDWorld x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instReprDWorld = { reprPrec := KeshetAbney2024.instReprDWorld.repr }
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instDecidableEqDEntity x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instReprDEntity = { reprPrec := KeshetAbney2024.instReprDEntity.repr }
Equations
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.αDonkey = { idx := 30 }
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.vFarmer = { idx := 30 }
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.vDonkey = { idx := 31 }
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Ownership: farmer1 owns donkey1, farmer2 owns donkey2.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Beating: every farmer who owns a donkey beats it.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
"Every farmer who owns a donkey beats it."
PIP formula: ∀x(farmer(x) ∧ ∃^αD y(donkey(y) ∧ owns(x,y)) → beats(x, DEF_αD))
Dynamic encoding: forall_ = ¬∃¬, with labeled existential for the donkey.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instFintypeDWorld = { elems := {KeshetAbney2024.DWorld.w0}, complete := KeshetAbney2024.instFintypeDWorld._proof_1 }
The donkey label is registered through the forall (¬∃¬).
Cross-Attitude Anaphora: Hob-Nob #
"Hob thinks a witch blighted his mare. Nob wonders whether she (the same witch) killed his cow." (Geach 1967)
PIP analysis (paper items 91–93): The label αWitch is registered under Hob's belief attitude. Nob's wonder attitude retrieves the same label. Label persistence across attitude operators is the same mechanism as modal subordination.
Key property: labels are part of the discourse state, not the information state. Since attitudes (like modals) affect only the info state while preserving labels, cross-attitude anaphora works by the same mechanism as cross-modal anaphora.
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instDecidableEqHNWorld x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instReprHNWorld = { reprPrec := KeshetAbney2024.instReprHNWorld.repr }
Equations
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instDecidableEqHNEntity x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.instReprHNEntity = { reprPrec := KeshetAbney2024.instReprHNEntity.repr }
Equations
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.αWitch = { idx := 40 }
Instances For
Equations
- KeshetAbney2024.vWitch = { idx := 40 }
Instances For
Hob's doxastic accessibility: Hob believes from actual to hobBelief.
Equations
Instances For
Nob's bouletic accessibility: Nob wonders from actual to nobWonder.
Equations
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Hob's belief: "a witch blighted his mare"
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Nob's wonder: "she killed his cow" — retrieves αWitch from Hob's belief.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The full Hob-Nob discourse.
Equations
Instances For
The witch label survives from Hob's belief to Nob's wonder.
After the full discourse, αWitch is still available.
DPL vs ICDRT vs PIP: Coverage Comparison #
The three frameworks have different coverage profiles for anaphora phenomena. PIP's descriptive content mechanism handles all cases uniformly; DPL and ICDRT each miss some.
| Phenomenon | DPL | ICDRT | PIP |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-sentential | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Negation blocks | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Donkey anaphora | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Double negation | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Bathroom sentences | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Modal subordination | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Paycheck pronouns | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| Intensional anaphora | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
Coverage datum for framework comparison.
- phenomenon : String
- dpl : Bool
- icdrt : Bool
- pip : Bool
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
PIP covers all phenomena (all pip fields are true).
DPL misses 5 phenomena.
ICDRT misses 2 phenomena (paycheck + intensional).
PIP strictly extends ICDRT: everything ICDRT covers, PIP covers too.
PIP strictly extends DPL.