<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P88-1014">
  <Title>DISCOURSE DEIXIS: REFERENCE TO DISCOURSE SEGMENTS</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="118" end_page="119" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
13 June 1986\]
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Suppose one assumes that the ability to specify something via an anaphoric pronoun is a sufficient criterion for &amp;quot;discourse entity-hood&amp;quot;. Then I would claim that whether or not a discourse segment referentm is initially created as a discourse entity, once the speaker has successfully referred to it via this/that, it must now have the status of a discourse entity since it can be referenced via the anapboric pronoun it. 11 Note that I do not mean to imply that one cannot refer deictically to the same thing more than once -one clearly can, for example</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="119" end_page="119" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
Example 16
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> They wouldn't hear to my giving up my career in New York. That was where I belonged. That was where I had to be to do my work. \[Peter Taylor, A Summons to Memphis, p.68\] Example 17 By this time of course I accepted Holly's doctrine that our old people must be not merely forgiven all their injustices and unconscious cruelties in their roles as parents but that any selfmhness on their parts had actually been required of them if they were to remain whole human beings and not become merely guardian robots of the young.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> This was something to be remembered, not forgotten. This was something to be accepted and even welcomed, not forgotten or forgiven.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> But of the (admittedly few) &amp;quot;naun-~y occurring&amp;quot; instances of this phenomenon that I have so far found, the matrix clauses are strongly parallel comments on the same thing. Moreover, except in cases such as Example 17, where the second clause intensifies the predication expressed in the first, the two clauses could have been presented in either order, which does not appear to be the case in the deixisanaphor pattern of reference.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="119" end_page="119" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
4. SUMMARY
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In this paper, I have proposed and argued for a process-based account of subsequent reference via deictic expressions. The account depends on discourse segments having their own mental reality, distinct from that of the entities described therein. As such, discourse segments play a direct role in this theory, as opposed to their indirect role in explaining, for example, how the referents of definite NPs are conswained. One consequence is it becomes as important to consider the representation of entire discourse segments and their features as it is to consider the representation of individual NPs and clauses.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="6" start_page="119" end_page="119" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> This work was partially supported by ARO grant DAA29-884-9-0027, NSF grant MCS-8219116-CER and DARPA grant NO0014-85K-O018 to the University of Pennsylvania, and an Alvey grant to the Cenlre for Speech Technology Research, University of Edinburgh. It was done while the author was on sabbatical leave at the University of Edinburgh in Fall 1987 and at Medical Computer Science, Stanford University in Spring 1988. My thanks to Jerry Hobbs, Mark Steedman, James Allen and Ethel Schuster for their helpful comments on many, many earlier versions of this paper.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>