||Matthew Stone. Or and Anaphora. Proceedings of SALT 2, 1992, pages 367-385.
This paper argues that an analysis of pronouns as descriptions is required to account for sentences with disjunctive split antecedents. Here is one of the catchy examples: It's interesting what happens if a man calls a woman or a woman calls a man. Sure, they're nervous about making the call, and they're suprised to get it. But even today, she waits for him to ask her out. Today, I might take a more proof-theoretic view.
|Matthew Stone. The Reference Argument of Epistemic Must. Proceedings of IWCS 1, 1994, pages 181-190.
This paper argues that an utterance of must p refers to a salient, justified argument in the context which supports . It is the strength of the argument and the speaker's intention in referring to it that accounts for the strengh of must in some contexts: Now [Af] and [Af] must both be tangent points on the component in the -plane; otherwise by Lemma 1 the component would extend beyond these points. and the weakness of must in others: The handsome bird was solitary; its mate must be at home, silently guarding the nest. Today, new research on presupposition in semantics and argumentation in artificial intelligence could be used to make the case stronger and more precise.
|Matthew Stone and Daniel Hardt. Dynamic Discourse Referents for Tense and Modals. Proceedings of IWCS 2, 1997, pages 287-299.
Tense and modality are often thought to be anaphoric. In this paper, we argue that tense and modals, just like all other discourse anaphors, participate in strict-sloppy ambiguities under deletion: John would give slides if he had to give the presentation. Bill would just use the chalkboard. We apply Hardt's theory of dynamic discourse referents to give such ambiguities an account that exactly parallels Hardt's treatment of pronouns and verb phrase ellipsis.
|Matthew Stone. Reference to Possible Worlds. RuCCS Report 49, Rutgers University, April 1999. In modal subordination, a modal sentence is interpreted relative...|