Intensional Anaphora
Summary
This paper examines intensional anaphora, arguing that description-based presuppositions better account for pronoun licensing than existing value-based accounts, and formalizes the proposal in a new logic called Plural Intensional Presuppositional predicate calculus (PIP).
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 08/14/26, 09:26 AM
# Intensional Anaphora Source: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.12598](https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.12598) [View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.12598) > Abstract:Intensional operators are often treated as quantifiers over possible worlds, parallel to the treatment of determiners as quantifiers over individuals\. Yet individuals introduced in intensional contexts cannot serve as antecedents to later pronouns as easily as those introduced in merely quantificational contexts\. For instance, "Everyone is eating a cheeseburger" may be followed by "They are large", where "they" refers to the cheeseburgers being eaten\. However, as Stone \(1999\) points out, the similar "Andrea might be eating a cheeseburger" does not support later anaphoric references such as "It is large" or "They are large"\. Stone \(1999\), Stone and Hardt \(1999\), and Brasoveanu \(2010\) address this by requiring a pronoun's value \(its referents\) to exist in the world of evaluation, ruling out anaphora from non\-veridical intensional contexts\. We show, however, both cases where such anaphora is disallowed even when the pronoun's referents clearly exist and cases where it is allowed even though they might not exist\. We argue that intensional anaphora is best captured using a description\-based rather than value\-based account\. A pronoun presupposes that its corresponding antecedent description is instantiated in each world of the context set\. Thus, there must be a cheeseburger being eaten by Andrea in every candidate world for "It is large" to be felicitous after "Andrea might be eating a cheeseburger"\. We implement our proposal via a new logic, building on Keshet \(2018\) and Abney and Keshet \(2022\), called Plural Intensional Presuppositional predicate calculus \(PIP\)\. Each PIP formula translates directly into standard first\-order predicate calculus with set abstraction, providing a classical foundation for this work\. ## Submission history From: Ezra Keshet \[[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/b2548c9c/2608.12598)\] **\[v1\]**Wed, 12 Aug 2026 21:11:59 UTC \(72 KB\)
Similar Articles
Bridging Legal Interpretation and Formal Logic: Faithfulness, Assumption, and the Future of AI Legal Reasoning
This paper identifies a systematic gap between legal interpretation and formal logic in AI legal reasoning, proposes a neuro-symbolic approach to bridge it, and demonstrates substantial label shifts when re-annotating legal NLI data under strict formal entailment.
Relational modeling and APL
The author explores combining relational modeling with APL-style array languages using constraint logic and equational rewrite rules, discussing how properties can be defined as bidirectional deductions rather than simple assignments.
Computational models of pragmatic reasoning with flexible generation of meaning and expression alternatives
Proposes SAGE, a neuro-symbolic framework combining language models with cognitive models for pragmatic reasoning, demonstrated on three case studies including referential expression generation and implicatures.
ADAGE: A Language-Agnostic Pipeline for Analogical Reasoning Evaluation
ADAGE is a language-agnostic pipeline for constructing challenging, translation-free benchmarks for abstract analogical reasoning. It reveals a consistent cultural reasoning gap in models across Arabic, Amharic, and Japanese.
For What Reason? Interpreting Models' Encoding of Causation and Antithesis
This paper investigates how instruction-tuned Transformer models (LLaMA and Mistral) encode the discourse relations of causation and antithesis using interpretability techniques on next-token prediction.