.ll 6.5i
.po 1i
.he ,,,%
.EQ
delim $$
.EN
.ls 2
.sz +2
.ce 2
.b
Chapter 1
Introduction
.r
.sp
.sz -2
.ls 2
.sh 1 "INTRODUCTION." 1
Part of understanding third-person fictional narrative text is
determining for each sentence whether it takes some character's
psychological point of view and, if it does, identifying the
character whose point of view is taken.  This dissertation is
a computational investigation of how a reader can perform these
tasks.  In particular, it identifies regularities, found during
extensive examinations of naturally occurring texts, in ways
that texts initiate, continue, and resume a character's psychological
point of view, and shows how these regularities can be exploited
to track the psychological point of view.
Thus, it contributes to our understanding of the discourse structure
of narrative text.
The aspect of natural language understanding it addresses is unique
to narrative text and has not been studied before in computational
linguistics.
.pp
This dissertation also addresses differences in the way that specific
references (noun phrases referring to
particular individuals) are understood in third-person 
narrative from the way they are understood in 
conversation.  While specific references in conversation
are understood with respect to the speaker's and hearer's mutual
beliefs, they are not understood with respect to a producer's and 
recipient's mutual beliefs in third-person narrative text:  In narrative
sentences that objectively narrate events, specific references are
understood to reflect information that is unquestionably true; in
narrative sentences that take a character's psychological point of
view, they are understood to reflect that character's beliefs.
This difference affects the reader's acquisition of beliefs about
other agents' beliefs and also how she understands utterances
that are inconsistent with her own beliefs.
These are 
important concerns in AI, in particular to work on the role of
nested belief in language comprehension
(cf., e.g., Cohen and Perrault 1979; Allen and Perrault 1980;
Sidner and Israel 1981;
Wilks and Bien 1983; 
Rapaport and Shapiro 1984; Fawcett and Hirst 1986; 
Rapaport 1986; and Horton and Hirst 1988)
and work on user modeling (cf., e.g., Kobsa 1984, 1985;
McCoy 1985; and Kass and Finin 1987).
.pp
In conversation, an utterance is understood with respect to the
situation in which the conversation takes place (Barwise and Perry 1983).
For example, the terms
`now',
`here', `I', and, `you' derive their meanings from
the time, place, speaker, and addressee of the utterance, respectively
(Fillmore 1975, Lyons 1977).
In fictional narrative, however, utterances are understood with respect
to the current time and place in the story,
the current
focal character, and also the character whose psychological
point of view is currently taken.
The research described here
is part of a larger, interdisciplinary, cognitive-science
project investigating how the reader keeps track of where events occur,
when they occur, who the participants are, and from whose point of view
things are described (Bruder et al. 1986, Almeida 1987, Rapaport et al.
1989).
.sh 1 "SUBJECTIVE SENTENCES."
The term used in this dissertation for a sentence that takes a
character's psychological point of view is
.ul
subjective sentence
(Banfield 1982).
Subjective sentences present the consciousness of an experiencing character
within the story.
They express
characters' evaluations, emotions, judgments, uncertainties, beliefs,
and other attitudes and affects.
Some report a character's 
.ul
private state, 
which is a psychological state such
as wanting, a perceptual state such as seeing, or an experiential state
such as feeling sick.
Others present a character's thoughts or perceptions.
Consider these passages:
.(q
(1)
.br
Call rode on, though with a bad feeling in his throat.  It 
was better
that the boys go; there was not enough work for them there.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 177]
.)q
The first sentence reports Call's psychological state of having a bad
feeling in his throat.  The second presents Call's thoughts, and 
expresses his judgments that it is better that the boys go and that
there isn't enough work for them.
.(q
(2)
.br
     ``What are you doing in here?''
.ul
Suddenly she [Zoe] was furious with him [Joe].
     ``Spying, of course.''
     ``Well of all dumb things!  I thought you ran away.''  
.ul
Joe Bunch was awful.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 130]
.)q
The first italicized sentence reports Zoe's psychological state of
being furious with Joe.  The second presents Zoe's thought, and expresses
her evaluation of Joe (that he is awful).
.pp
In the previous two passages, subjective sentences that express a character's
judgments and evaluations present those characters' thoughts.
A sentence that 
.ul
reports 
a character's private state
can also 
.ul
express 
the character's emotions, evaluations, judgments, etc.
For example:
.(q
(3)
.br
He [Sandy] was now fully awake, aware that he was not in the bunk
bed at home but in this strange desert place which might be on
any planet in any solar system in any galaxy anywhere in the universe.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 31]
.)q
This sentence reports Sandy's psychological state of being aware of where
he is; but it also expresses his evaluation that the desert place is
strange, and expresses his uncertainty.
.pp
Subjective sentences that present a character's perceptions appear
in this passage:
.(q
(4)
.br
Certainly, Dennys thought, anything would be better than this
horrible-smelling place full of horrible little people.
     There was a brief whiff of fresh air.  A glimpse of a night
sky crusted with stars.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 25]
.)q
The first sentence is Dennys's represented thought and the last two
are Dennys's represented perceptions.
.pp
The term used in this dissertation for a sentence that takes an 
objective psychological point of view is
.ul
objective sentence
(Banfield 1982).  An objective sentence
narrates events independently of any character's consciousness.
.sh 1 "IMPORTANCE OF DETERMINING POINT OF VIEW."
The reader has to determine the current 
psychological point of view for a number of reasons.
First, the reader cannot simply integrate the content 
of a subjective sentence
into her
representation of the story, but has to integrate it into
her representation of a character's attitudes and affects.
An important attitude for the interpretation
of subjective sentences is belief:  A subjective sentence reflects
a character's beliefs, even if those beliefs are incorrect 
(Cohn 1978, Banfield 1982).
The following sentence, as it appears in the text from which it is
taken, is not true:
.(q
(5)
.br
This was David's boy.
[Bridgers,
.ul
All Together Now,
p. 91]
.)q
This sentence is the thought of a character named `Dwayne'; it is about
a female character whom Dwayne incorrectly believes to be a boy.
The reader has to represent this sentence with respect to her
representation of Dwayne's beliefs about the fictional world.
The information in a subjective sentence is not always false, of course.
If it is true, then what the subjective character knows is revealed.
.pp
Second, subjective sentences can contain linguistic elements
that express a character's emotion, evaluation, uncertainty, etc.
The reader has to understand that these elements express the 
.ul
character's
attitudes and affects,
rather than the author's or a narrator's.
For example:
.(q
(6)
.br
Zoe glanced up from her feet.
.ul
Standing in the changing-room door was Mr. Pear!
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 79]
.)q
The second sentence is Zoe's subjective sentence; the exclamation expresses
Zoe's emotion.
.pp
Third,
subjective sentences can reveal information about a character's
goals and plans.  Consider this passage:
.(q
(7)
.br
     He [Jeff] could see her walking the other way.
.ul
If he wanted to avoid notice, he would have to act with the same
.ul
deliberate manner as all the robots around him.
He lengthened his stride and gave chase without otherwise altering his
body language.
[Wu,
.ul
Cyborg,
p. 71]
.)q
The italicized sentence is not a
purely narrative sentence informing the reader that 
if Jeff wants
to avoid
notice, he has to change the way he is walking.
Instead, the reader has to understand that it is Jeff's thought expressing
his goal to avoid notice, and also his belief that in order to achieve it,
he has to change the way he is walking.  This is needed in order to
understand why he performs the action described in the following 
sentence\(emhe is acting to achieve his goal.
.pp
Finally, the reader must distinguish among purely narrative sentences
and subjective sentences of different characters
in order to understand the structure of the discourse.  
To understand a conversation or text, the listener or reader has
to determine how a sentence relates to what precedes it.
.ul
Discourse analysis
is the study of how sentences are related to one another;
it considers texts and conversations 
to be wholes to which individual
elements contribute, rather than to be sequences of isolated sentences.
Point of view is an aspect of discourse continuity
(Black, Turner, and Bower 1979; Nakhimovsky and Rapaport 1988):  Whether 
there is a change in point of view affects how the reader understands
the relation of a sentence to preceding ones.
The kinds of
.ul
coherence relations 
that exist among sentences taking the same
psychological point of view, such as
position and support,
do not exist among sentences taking the psychological points of view
of different characters.
In the following passage, for example, there is a change in the
psychological point of view at the paragraph break:
.(q
(8)
.br
\*[8.1\*]Lippy was dying to tell Xavier what he'd missed by going fishing,
but he knew he had better postpone the pleasure for a few years.
\*[8.2\*]One hole in the stomach was enough.
     \*[8.3\*]Lorena felt her indignation growing.  \*[8.4\*]She was 
beginning to
feel cornered, something she had not expected to feel again.  \*[8.5\*]Jake
was supposed to have ended that, and yet he hadn't.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 191]
.)q
Sentences (8.1)-(8.2) are 
Lippy's subjective sentences, and sentences (8.3)-(8.5)
are Lorena's.
Sentence (8.2) continues Lippy's train of thought:  It expresses why he
decides he should not tell Xavier what he missed.
Sentence (8.3), however, does not continue Lippy's train of thought, but
instead initiates a segment of the text taking Lorena's psychological
point of view.
Thus, the reader does not seek to determine coherence relations such as
position and support
between
the material presented
in (8.3)-(8.5)\(emLorena's 
feelings of indignation and being cornered, and her judgment that Jake
should have ended those feelings\(emand the material presented in (8.1)-(8.2).
.sh 1 "THE PROBLEM."
Texts often do not explicitly identify subjective sentences and the
characters whose consciousness they present.
For example, sentence (8.2) in the previously cited passage,
.(q
One hole in the stomach was enough,
.)q
is not explicitly identified to be Lippy's thought.
A
.ul
narrative parenthetical
identifies a sentence to be a particular character's subjective sentence.
For example:
.(q
Certainly, 
.ul
Dennys thought, 
anything would be better than this
horrible-smelling place full of horrible little people.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 25]
.sp
It was sure going to be a wasted summer, 
.ul
he thought.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 5]
.)q
However, many subjective sentences do not have narrative
parentheticals.
Thus, the problem is to identify other ways than reliance on
explicit identification to recognize subjective sentences
and to identify their subjective characters.
.sh 1 "OUTLINE."
.pp
Chapter 2 presents background material useful for understanding
the nature of subjective sentences and identifies the kinds of
subjectives with which we will be concerned.
.pp
Chapter 3 describes the approach taken toward the problem
addressed in this research and gives some observations of naturally
occurring texts that motivated the approach.  In addition,
it discusses some background work
within cognitive science that is related to this research.
.pp
Chapter 4 introduces the basic mechanisms by which the algorithm
presented in this dissertation identifies the character whose
thoughts or perceptions are conveyed by a subjective sentence.
.pp
Chapter 5 is concerned with the use of linguistic elements
to recognize subjective sentences.
.pp
Chapter 6 identifies possible interpretations of
.ul
private-state sentences,
sentences with explicit psychological and perceptual terms such
as `want' and `see', and shows the effect of different interpretations
on the psychological point of view.
.pp
Chapter 7 addresses the effect of
.ul
psychological-action 
and
.ul
perceptual-action
sentences on the psychological point of view.
These are sentences
about actions that imply psychological or perceptual states;
examples are sighing and looking.
.pp
Chapter 8 explores the way that references are understood in 
narrative.
.pp
Chapter 9 discusses some directions for future research.
.pp
Chapter 10 presents conclusions.
.pp
Appendix A gives an implementation of the algorithm presented in this
dissertation.
.pp
The algorithm has been implemented in two systems that use different
parsers.  One is used to demonstrate the algorithm in the
body of the dissertation.  The other is described and demonstrated in
Appendix B.
.pp
Appendix C illustrates the functions that define the belief representation
used in Chapter 8 and gives their basic algorithms.
.bp
.sz +2
.ce 2
.b
Chapter 2
Subjective Sentences
.r
.sp 2
.sz -2
.ls 2
.sh 1 "INTRODUCTION." 1
This chapter presents some background material that is useful
for understanding the nature of subjective sentences, and
identifies the kinds of subjective sentences considered in this
dissertation.
.sh 1 "POINT OF VIEW:  USPENSKY."
The term 
.ul
point of view
is used to mean many different things in literary studies.  
The literary theorist
Boris
Uspensky (1973) 
shows that there are many kinds of point of view
that can be taken by a narrative sentence.
In particular, he
distinguishes 
between, on the one hand,
the
.ul
spatial 
and 
.ul
temporal points of view
and, on the other,
the 
.ul
psychological point of view.
The spatial and temporal points of view are the
spatial and temporal positions with respect to which events are described.
If
a narrative sentence takes a 
.ul
character's 
psychological point of view,
the events and characters of the narrative
are portrayed
through the consciousness of one of the characters.  If it
takes an 
.ul
objective 
psychological point of view, then
facts are presented rather than impressions.
Uspensky shows that the spatial and temporal points of view, on the one
hand, and the psychological point of view, on the other, need not
coincide.  For example, a passage may take a character's
spatial and temporal points of view
but may not take the
psychological point of view of any character.
.sh 1 "THE NARRATIVE DEICTIC CENTER."
An important question in narrative comprehension is how readers
understand 
.ul
deictic 
terms and constructions,
which derive their meanings from a 
spatial and temporal situation (B$roman u dotdot$hler 1934, 
Fillmore 1975, Lyons 1977).
In conversation, deictic elements are understood with respect to
the time and place of the utterance:
.(q
The term `deixis' (which comes from a Greek word meaning ``pointing''
or ``indicating'') is now used in linguistics to refer to the function of
personal and demonstrative pronouns, of tense and of a variety of
other grammatical and lexical features which relate utterances to the
spatio-temporal co-ordinates of the act of utterance. [Lyons 1977,
p. 636; cited in Rapaport et al. 1989] 
.)q
Examples of deictic terms are `now', which refers to the time of the
utterance; `here', which refers to the place of the utterance;
and `I' and `you', which refer to the conversational
participants.
Other deictic terms are
the 
.ul
deictic motion verbs 
`come', `go', `bring', and `take',
which are understood relative
to a location.  For example, `come' indicates motion toward
a destination, and `go' indicates motion away from a source (Fillmore
1975, Bruder et al. 1986, Rapaport et al. 1989).
Tense is a grammatical category involving deixis; it is used
``to relate the time of the event referred to in a sentence
to the time of the utterance of that sentence'' (Almeida 1987, p. 3-23).
Paradigmatically, the present tense refers to an event that occurs at
the time of the utterance, the past tense refers to an event that
occurred earlier than the utterance, and the future tense refers to
an event that will occur after the utterance.  (See Reichenbach 1947 for
an important analysis of the kinds of temporal reference points with
respect to which tense is understood.)  As will be seen in Section 4.3.1,
however, narrative fiction uses the
.ul
past
tense rather than 
the present tense to refer to current events.
.pp
In narrative text,
deictic elements are not understood with respect
to the spatio-temporal co-ordinates of the author at the time of writing,
nor of the reader at the time of reading.
Instead, they are understood with respect to spatio-temporal coordinates
originating with a ``now'' and ``here'' in the story (Hamburger 1973,
Banfield 1982).
Bruder et al. (1986) and Rapaport et al. (1989)
suggest that the reader's representation of this information
can be usefully modeled by a data structure called the
.ul
narrative deitic center,
which consists of a narrative WHEN and a narrative WHERE, as well as
a narrative WHO, the character whose spatial and temporal points
of view are currently taken.
The reader's keeping track of this information is modeled 
in terms of construction and modification operations performed on
this data structure.
.pp
In conversation, 
the speaker's utterances express her emotions, evaluations, beliefs,
and other attitudes and affects, and linguistic terms expressive
of attitudes and affects are referred to the speaker for interpretation.
For example,
the exclamatory force of
.(q
How wonderful!
.)q
and the evaluation expressed by
``idiot'' in 
.(q
The idiot didn't bring the papers.
.)q
are attributed to the speaker if
these sentences are uttered in conversation.
Thus, ``I'' in conversation has the special deictic role of connecting
expressed attitudes and affects to the person who experiences them.
.pp
This dissertation addresses third-person narrative, and so it
might seem that functions of the deictic term ``I'' are
irrelevant to this research.  However, a character's
attitudes and affects can be expressed in third-person narrative, even
though that character is not referred to with ``I''.
Thus, an additional component of the narrative deictic
center is the character, if any, whose attitudes and affects are
expressed.
Since,
as discussed above, a sentence can take a character's spatial
and temporal points of view without necessarily taking her
psychological point of view, this component of the deictic
center is a distinct construct from the narrative WHO (Rapaport
et al. 1989, Galbraith forthcoming).
Rapaport et al. (1989) suggest the term 
.ul
focalizing WHO
for this construct; the term used in this dissertation is
.ul
subjective character
(cf. Section 4.10).
.sh 1 "BANFIELD'S THEORY OF SUBJECTIVITY."
This dissertation relies on a linguistically-based tradition in the study
of subjectivity in fiction, in particular the work of Ann Banfield,
a linguist and literary theorist.  Two important influences on her
theory are work by the literary theorist K$roman a dotdot$te 
Hamburger (1973) and
the linguist S. Y. Kuroda (1973, 1976), who study the implications of
the appearance of deictic words in fiction.  Recent work by Mary
Galbraith (forthcoming) extends their work to develop a theory of the
reader's involvement in fictional characters' experience.
.pp
Banfield (1982) categorizes the sentences of narration into
.ul
subjective
and
.ul
objective
sentences.
Subjective sentences present the consciousness of an experiencing
character within the story.  
The function performed by ``I'' in conversation is performed
by a third-person pronoun in subjective sentences.
Consider this passage cited by Banfield:
.(q
(10)
.br
\*[10.1\*]Was there blood on his face?  \*[10.2\*]Was hot blood 
flowing?  \*[10.3\*]Or was it
dry blood congealing down his cheek?  \*[10.4\*]It took him hours even to
ask the question:  time being no more than an agony in darkness,
without measurement.
     \*[10.5\*]A long time after he opened his eyes he realized he was
seeing something\(emsomething, something, but the effort to
recall was too great.  \*[10.6\*]No, no; no recall!
[Lawrence, ``England, My England,' p. 332; cited in Banfield 1982, p. 65]
.)q
Emotion and uncertainty
are expressed in this passage, in particular by the exclamations and questions.
The pronoun `something' in (10.5) expresses uncertainty as well, uncertainty
about what it is he realizes he is seeing.
This passage does not express the emotion and uncertainty of
``an invisible first person'' reacting to a scene he describes; instead,
emotion and uncertainty
are attributed to the person referred to by the third-person
pronouns, `he', `his', and `him'  (Banfield 1982, p. 65).
In addition, the psychological and perceptual terms, `agony', `realize',
`see', and `effort to recall', express this person's experience at
the current moment of the story (the narrative WHEN).
.pp
Banfield generalizes `I' in conversation and
third-person pronouns like those in the above passage to be references
to the ``SELF'' of the sentence.
She identifies many linguistic terms, which she calls
.ul
subjective elements,
that are attributed to a sentence's
SELF, whether the SELF is a speaker in conversation or
a character in narrative fiction.
.pp
Banfield argues that one cannot use a subjective element to express another
SELF's point of view.
One example of a subjective element is an exclamation.
Exclamations cannot be indirectly quoted.
For example,
if John were to utter:
.(q
There is blood on my face!
.)q
I cannot report his exclamation:
.(q
* John said that there is blood on his face!
.)q
Banfield
classifies exclamations as
.ul
non-embeddable
subjective elements,
meaning that they
cannot appear in the context of 
.ul
indirect speech, 
in which someone reports
what someone else said.
Other non-embeddable subjective elements are questions and sentence fragments.
Some subjective elements 
.ul
can 
appear in the context of indirect
speech; Banfield calls these
.ul
embeddable
subjective elements, for example,
epithets such as `idiot'.
Even so,
these cannot be used
to express another SELF's point of view, either.
If I say the following to you:
.(q
John said that the idiot has arrived.
.)q
the subjective element in my utterance
expresses 
.ul
my 
point of view, not John's:
the noun phrase
`the idiot' is understood to be my evaluation of the referent.
.pp
Banfield argues that the fact that
one cannot indirectly quote another's expression
is evidence that a sentence has at most one SELF.
This is significant to narrative understanding, because it
challenges many literary theorists' position that 
the
.ul
communicative paradigm
should be adopted for narrative text.
Under the communicative paradigm, a narrator addressing a reader is
posited for every narrative sentence.
According to Banfield, however,
a subjective sentence expresses the single viewpoint
of the SELF, and
.ul
not
simultaneously
a narrator's viewpoint.
Kuroda (1973) also
argues for the existence of narrative sentences that express only
the viewpoint of a character, based on a grammatical distinction in
Japanese.
(Kuroda's term for subjective sentences is
sentences in the
.ul
non-reportive
literary style, and his term for objective sentences is sentences in the
.ul
reportive
style.)
The reader is referred to Galbraith (forthcoming) for a discussion 
of challenges
to Banfield's theory, and answers to those challenges.
.pp
Subjective sentences reflect the SELF's beliefs, and so
are subject ``to judgments of truth or falsity\(emwithin the
context of the fiction, of course.'' (Banfield 1982, p. 261).
Objective sentences, on the other hand, narrate events independently
of any character's consciousness.
The reader does not question
the truth of an objective sentence.  This is because objective
narration actually creates the fictional world, to which
the reader has no other recourse but through the text itself:
.(q
A fictional narrative statement is immune to judgments of truth or
falsity; in fiction, [these judgments] are suspended.  It is inappropriate
to say that a fictional statement is false.  Rather, it creates by fiat
a fictional reality which can only be taken as fictionally true.
[Banfield 1982, p. 258]
.)q
In conversation, people talk about a reality to which they have independent
access, but, in objective narration, what is narrated is created in
the fictional world (Hamburger 1973, Kuroda 1976).
.pp
For example, consider a reader's response to the following narrative
statement, assuming that she interprets it to be objective:
.(q
(A) Shea Stadium was a large stadium in Chicago.
.)q
Even if she knows where Shea Stadium and Chicago are, she will not
question the truth of the statement, but instead will simply
update her model of the fictional world.  That is, even though
she might believe that Shea Stadium is in Flushing Meadow, from (A) she
understands that Shea Stadium is in Chicago in the fictional
world that is being created.  (Shea Stadium and Chicago may themselves turn out
to be completely different in the fictional and the real worlds.)
.pp
In addition to being unquestionably true,
objective sentences do not express evaluations, judgments, emotions,
or other attitudes and affects.
Although this kind of narrative statement
is commonly said to have ``an omniscient
narrator'',  Hamburger, Kuroda, Banfield, and Galbraith contend that
objective sentences do not have a SELF, in Banfield's terminology.
I will return to the question of the narrator below, after identifying
varieties of subjective sentences.
.sh 1 "KINDS OF SUBJECTIVE SENTENCES."
Two categorizations of subjective sentences in third-person narrative
are presented in this section, Banfield's and Dorrit Cohn's.
Cohn (1978) analyzes narrative styles used to present consciousness
in fiction, showing the effects authors can achieve with the various styles
and why one technique is more appropriate than another in a given
context.
.sh 2 "Tense in Narrative."
Before proceeding, we should
review the use of tense in
third-person
narrative text.
The tenses normally used in speech are ``shifted'' in narrative
text, as shown in the following chart:
.sp
.(b
.ul
                     Speech                Narrative Text
.sp
                     He is late.           He was late.
                     He was late.        He had been late.
                     He will be late.    He would be late.
.)b
.sp
In speech, the present tense
refers to the present.  In narrative
text, on the other hand, the simple past tense, e.g., ``He was late'',
refers to the fictional present, the narrative WHEN.
Narrative text employs the
.ul
shifted past
to refer to the past, which is formed with the 
auxiliary verb `have':  ``He had been late''.
Finally, the
.ul
shifted future,
which employs the modal `would' rather than `will' (and `should' rather
than `shall'),
is used to refer to the future:  ``He would be late''.
A related difference between speech and narrative text is that
the modal verb `can' is replaced by the modal verb `could':
.sp
.(b
.ul
                     Speech               Narrative Text
.sp
                     He can sing.        He could sing.
.)b 
.sp
Two exceptions to the use of tense in narrative described above are in
.ul
direct
(or
.ul
quoted\c
) 
.ul
speech
of characters, e.g.,
.(q
``I'll talk to Amy later,'' he said.
.)q
and in one type of subjective sentence, 
.ul
quoted monologue,
which is discussed in the next section.
Objective sentences and the other kinds of subjective sentences discussed below
use tense as described in this section.
.sh 2 "Quoted Monologue."
.ul
Quoted monologue
is Dorrit Cohn's term for direct-thought quotations.
The italicized sentences
in the following passages are examples:
.(q
(11)
.br
     He had not reckoned on having trinkets to hide.  He had only
thought of money, and so had not prepared a hiding-place.
.ul
     ``But now, now, what am I glad of?'' he thought, ``Is that
.ul
hiding things?  My reason's deserting me\(emsimply!''
[Dostoevsky,
.ul
Crime and Punishment,
p. 90; cited by Cohn 1978, p. 61]
.)q
.(q
(12)
.br
She dodged down the alleys, jumped over a cat, and arrived at the
armory so hot and out-of-breath she was afraid she might faint.
.ul
I wonder if eleven is too young to have a heart attack, she thought.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 24]
.)q
In quoted monologue,
references to the thinking character are in the first
person, and the present tense is used to refer to the present.
Quoted monologue can be enclosed in quotation marks (as in
passage (11)), but is not always (as in passage (12)).
Typically, it is accompanied by a
narrative parenthetical,
e.g., ``he thought'' and ``she thought'' in the above passages.
.pp
Quoted monologue is the more direct technique of the two techniques
for presenting a character's thoughts (the other, 
.ul
represented thought,
is discussed in the following section):
.(q
As a rule [quoted] monologues are ... as closely bound to the
norms of psychological realism as fiction dialogues:  just as dialogues
create the illusion that they render what characters ``really
say'' to each other, [quoted] monologues create the illusion that
they render what a character ``really thinks'' to himself.
[Cohn 1978, p. 76]
.)q
Cohn analyzes the use of quoted monologue in sophisticated texts, and shows
that the extent to which an author relies on quoted monologue can reveal
his theory of the nature of thought.  Heavy reliance on this technique, for
example, can imply that thinking consists mainly of verbalization.
.sh 2 "Represented Thought."
The kind of subjective sentence discussed in this section has many 
names, including
.ul
free indirect speech,
.ul
internal monologue,
the French term 
.ul
style indirect libre,
and
the German term
.ul
erlebte rede.
Cohn's term is
.ul
narrated monologue,
and
Banfield's term is
.ul
represented thought,
the term adopted in this dissertation.
Examples of represented thoughts are the italicized sentences in the following
passages:
.(q
Call rode on, though with a bad feeling in his throat.
.ul
It was better that the boys go; there was not enough work for them there.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 177]
.sp
Suddenly she [Zoe] was furious with him.
     ``Spying, of course.''
     ``Well of all dumb things!  I thought you ran away.''
.ul
Joe Bunch was awful.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 130]
.sp
Silently they sat side by side.
.ul
It was sure going to be a wasted summer, he thought.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 5]
.)q
In contrast to quoted monologue,
the simple past refers to the present (as discussed in Section 4.3.1) in
represented thought, and
the thinking character is referred to in the third-person.
.pp
Represented thought is the more widely-used technique for presenting
characters' thoughts.  It is also a less direct technique than quoted
monologue:  it does not commit the author to implying that the
words on the page are running through a character's mind.  As
Cohn describes it, the relationship between the words and the
character's consciousness is left ``latent''.  This ambiguity,
Cohn suggests, is one reason why so many writers prefer it to
quoted monologue, the more direct technique (Cohn 1978, p. 103).
.sh 2 "Represented Speech."
.ul
Represented speech
(Banfield's term)
represents
a character's consciousness of quoted speech.
The actual words of the quoted speech are transposed into the person
and tense of represented thought.  
For example, the italicized portions of the following passage are
represented speech:
.(q
(13)
.br
Passionate nature though he was Gerty could see that he had
enormous control over himself.  One moment he had been there, fascinated
by a loveliness that made him gaze, and the next moment it was the quiet
gravefaced gentleman, selfcontrol expressed in every line of his
disinguishedlooking figure.
.ul
     Cissy said to excuse her would he mind telling her what was the right time 
and Gerty could see him taking out his watch, listening
to it and looking up and clearing his throat 
.ul
and he said he was sorry his watch was stopped but he thought it 
.ul
must be after eight because the sun was set.
[Joyce,
.ul
Ulysses\c
, p. 361; cited by Banfield 1982, p. 131]
.)q
Consider part of this passage:
.(q
would he mind telling her what was the right time
.)q
Cissy does not utter those actual words:  she does not refer to her addressee
as `he', she does not refer to herself as `her', and she does not use
the past tense.  Something like the following are the actual words 
represented:
.(q
would you mind telling me what is the right time?
.)q
Banfield analyzes this passage as representing Gerty's consciousness
of the conversation, which Gerty overhears.  Represented speech is a
difficult kind of subjective sentence to analyze, and is not considered
in this dissertation.
.sh 2 "Sentences Representing Non-Reflective Consciousness." 
Banfield's main categorization of subjective sentences, following
Kuroda (1976), concerns the level of consciousness represented:
.ul
reflective consciousness
or
.ul
non-reflective consciousness.
Represented thought and represented speech are the kinds of subjective
sentences that Banfield classifies as representing reflective consciousness.
.pp
One kind of sentence representing 
.ul
non\c
-reflective consciousness is
a sentence that reports a character's
private state, using an explicit psychological, perceptual, or experiential 
term such
as `want', `hear', and `hurt'.
Cohn calls sentences in this style
.ul
psycho-narration.
Here are some examples 
(psychological and perceptual terms used to report the characters' 
private states are italicized):
.(q
Suddenly she was 
.ul
furious 
with him.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 130]
.sp
He was now fully awake, 
.ul
aware 
that he was not in the bunk bed at home
but in this strange desert place which might be on any planet in any
solar system in any galaxy anywhere in the universe.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 31]
.sp
He could 
.ul
see 
her walking the other way.
[Wu,
.ul
Cyborg\c
, p. 71]
.sp
Lorena 
.ul
felt 
her 
.ul
indignation 
growing.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 191]
.)q
.pp
Banfield calls another kind of sentence of non-reflective consciousness
.ul
represented perception
(other terms are
.ul
style indirect libre de perception 
(Lips 1926)
and
.ul
erlebte Wahrnehmung
(Fehr 1938)).
Laurel Brinton describes represented perception
as follows:
.(q
Represented perception is a literary style whereby an author, instead
of describing the external world, expresses a character's perceptions
of it, directly as they occur in the character's consciousness.  By
using this style, the author avoids indirect report of the 
perceptions 
[Brinton 1980, p. 370]
.)q
A passage containing represented perception was given above:
.(q
Certainly, Dennys thought, anything would be better than this
horrible-smelling place full of horrible little people.
.ul
     There was a brief whiff of fresh air.
.ul
A glimpse of a night sky crusted with stars.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 25]
.)q
Another is the italicized sentence in the following:
.(q
(14)
.br
It seemed that he could almost see the arms of spiral
galaxies moving in their great circular dance.
.ul
Between the radiance of the stars, the blackness of the firmament
.ul
was deeper and darker than velvet.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 85]
.)q
.pp
Brinton (1980) shows that distinguishing between sentences
representing the two levels of consciousness is not always straightforward.
Not all represented perceptions, she shows,
present passive, non-reflective perception; some can have elements
that characterize sentences representing
reflective consciousness.  Following is one of her examples:
.(q
(15)
.br
How her frock shone!  [Mansfield, ``The Garden Party'', p. 84; cited by
Brinton 1980, p. 375]
.)q
The exclamation in this sentence makes what is represented more
than passive perception because it expresses an emotional reaction to
what is perceived.  Passages like these, according to Brinton,
are ``representations of reflective consciousness,
but as they concern perceptions of the external world,'' she classifies
them as represented perception.
.pp
The other kind of subjective sentence that Banfield characterizes as
representing non-reflective consciousness has not been given its own
name.  It is a sentence describing an action that is the actor's
subjective sentence.  This kind of sentence can represent a character's
experience.  For example:
.(q
(16)
.br
Frantically he scrambled up the side, climbing, slipping on bones,
on ooze, on decaying filth, sliding back, climbing, sliding, slipping, 
scrabbling, until at last he pulled himself out and up onto his feet
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 55]
.)q
By its repetitive syntax and unusual number of verbs, this sentence
represents the character's difficult experience of getting out of
a garbage pit.
.pp
However, the reason why this kind of sentence\(ema 
sentence describing an action that is the actor's
subjective sentence\(emis subjective
is not always
that it calls attention
to the experience of the action.
Sometimes, something other than the main predication is subjectively
described.  For example:
.(q
(17)
.br
Both boys climbed to their feet and headed into the welcome shade.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 15]
.)q
The adjective `welcome' is subjective and expresses the
boys' point of view:  to
.ul
them,
the shade is welcome.
In contrast to the previously cited passage, however, the sentence does
not call attention to the boys' experience of their actions.
.pp
Banfield gives the following example:
.(q
Hilda drove in silence for some time after this piece of unheard
of insolence from that chit Connie.
[Lawrence,
.ul
Lady Chatterley's Lover\c
, p. 310; cited by Banfield 1982, p. 186]
.)q
The description at the end of this sentence expresses Hilda's point of view.
In particular, `unheard of', `insolence', and
`chit' express Hilda's negative evaluation of Connie and what she said.
.sh 2 "Categorization of Subjective Sentences Used in This Dissertation."
Two main categories of subjective sentences need to be distinguished
for the purposes of recognizing subjective sentences,
because
they involve different kinds of ambiguities:  sentences that report
a character's private state,
which Cohn calls
.ul
psycho-narration,
and all other kinds of subjective sentences.
In Cohn's definition, sentences of psycho-narration are always narrated
by a narrator.  To avoid commitment to an always-present narrator, I
do not use her term.  Instead, I call a report of a character's private state
a
.ul
private-state report.
The following sentence, for example, is a private-state report of
a character's perceptual state:
.(q
He could 
.ul
see 
her walking the other way.
[Wu,
.ul
Cyborg\c
, p. 71]
.)q
and the next sentence is a private-state report of a character's
psychological state:
.(q
Suddenly she was 
.ul
furious 
with him.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 130]
.)q
The remaining kinds of subjective sentences are represented
speech, quoted monologue,
represented thought, and the kinds of sentences Banfield
characterizes as representing non-reflective consciousness other
private-state reports.
Represented speech is beyond the scope of this dissertation, and
is not considered further.  Quoted
monologue is typically accompanied by a narrative parenthetical,
and so is trivial to recognize; it is not considered either.
.pp
The remaining kinds of subjective sentences could be grouped into
one category for the purposes of this dissertation.
Instead, two categories will be used:  represented thought and
represented perception.  Subjective sentences such as:
.(q
Frantically he scrambled up the side, climbing, slipping on bones,
on ooze, on decaying filth, sliding back, climbing, sliding, slipping, 
scrabbling, until at last he pulled himself out and up onto his feet
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 55]
.sp
Both boys climbed to their feet and headed into the welcome shade.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 15]
.sp
Hilda drove in silence for some time after this piece of unheard
of insolence from that chit Connie.
[Lawrence,
.ul
Lady Chatterley's Lover\c
, p. 310; cited by Banfield 1982, p. 186]
.)q
that is, subjective sentences about actions that are the actor's
subjective sentences,
will be included in the category ``represented perception'', although
a future investigation of how a reader represents
subjective sentences would need to distinguish these kinds of sentences from
represented perception.
.sh 2 "Narrators."
Banfield's contention that a sentence has at most one
SELF does not exclude the possibility of there being a narrator.
In fact, narrative texts can have narrators
who express emotions, evaluations, judgments, etc., and to whom expressive
subjective elements are attributed.  Cohn gives the following example:
.(q
Too late, he [Aschenbach]
thought at this moment.  Too late!  But was it too late?
This step he had failed to take, it might quite possibly have led to 
goodness, levity, gaiety, to salutary sobriety.  But the fact doubtless was,
that the aging man did not want the sobering, that the intoxication 
was too dear to him.  Who can decipher the nature and pattern of
artistic creativity?
[Mann,
.ul
Death in Venice,
pp. 493-494; cited by Cohn 1978, p. 27]
.)q
As Cohn reads this passage, the first sentence is Aschenbach's
thought, and the rest of the passage is attributed to a narrator.
That is, the SELF of the rest of the passage is a narrator.  There
are two important things to note about this passage.  First,
there are expressive subjective elements (exclamations and questions)
attributed to the narrator.  Second, this is not the type of narrator
often called ``omniscient'':  speculations are given, not absolute fact.
In addition, there are sentences 
describing Aschenbach's private states\(emhis not wanting 
the sobering and the intoxication being dear to 
him\(embut they are not
subjective sentences giving the reader access to
Aschenbach's mind; instead, they express the narrator's opinions.
The last sentence reveals the narrator's doubt:  ``Who can decipher
the nature and pattern of artistic creativity?''
Chatman (1978) calls the kind of narrator in this passage an
.ul
overt narrator,
and Cohn calls it a
.ul
vocal authorial narrator.
.pp
The passage cited above appears in a third-person novel, which means
that there is not a narrator referred to in the first person.
The first-person narrator of a first-person novel is an overt 
narrator.  The following is an example:
.(q
     I was only midway through my eleventh year when Sheriff Browner
killed himself.  Momma said the shock of it was in not knowing it was going
to happen, was in not even suspecting that it might.  But Daddy said
we should have known, we should have suspected.  Sherriff Browner had always
been different.  We would have called him peculiar except that he
was sheriff and we couldn't put our faith in a man who suffered
from peculiarities, so we said he was different and left it at that.
[Pearson,
.ul
A Short History of a Small Place\c
, p. 18]
.)q
A first-person narrator can make his presence felt to a greater
or lesser extent.  Cohn (1978) and Galbraith (forthcoming) analyze
the presentation of consciousness in first-person narratives.
This dissertation 
is concerned only with third-person narrative.
.pp
Where Banfield, Hamburger, Kuroda, and Galbraith differ from other
literary theorists is their contention that there is not a
narrator addressing the reader in either objective sentences or
subjective sentences attributed to a character.  In objective sentences,
it is often said, there is an ``omniscient'' narrator who merely
reports the story, and in subjective sentences attributed to a character,
there is a narrator who ``merges'' with the characters to
put into words what is going on in their minds.  
Chatman (1978) calls the latter kind of narrator a 
.ul
covert narrator.
It is not essential
to this dissertation to claim that omniscient and covert narrators
do not exist.  However, the properties of objective sentences and
characters' subjective sentences given as evidence against positing
omniscient and covert narrators
are important to this dissertation and
show that these narrators have no functional role in the aspects of narrative
understanding addressed.
.pp
First, the source of information in a narrative sentence is important
for understanding references and recognizing subjective sentences.
Objective
sentences are unquestionably true; even if there is an omniscient
narrator, the reader does not have to question his reliability.
Subjective sentences, on the other hand, reflect the character's
beliefs, even if her beliefs are incorrect.
If there is a covert narrator who puts into words the character's
thoughts and perceptions, he does not correct incorrect beliefs
or fill in gaps in the character's knowledge.
Thus, the reader acquires information about the story and about
a character's beliefs from the way individuals are referred to
in objective and subjective sentences, respectively.
In addition,
neither an omniscient narrator nor a covert narrator has to justify
his knowledge.
An omniscient narrator does not have to indicate how he knows the
information in an objective sentence.  Similarly, a covert
narrator does not have to indicate how he has direct knowledge
of a character's consciousness.  And, since an omniscient narrator has
absolute knowledge of the story and a
covert narrator has absolute knowledge
of a character's consciousness, there is no
need to indicate their degree of certainty in that knowledge.
Therefore, 
.ul
evidentials,
linguistic elements that express attitudes toward knowledge (about the
source of information, for example, or its reliability (Chafe 1986))
are important kinds of information for recognizing character's
subjective sentences.
.pp
Second, knowing who can be the source of evaluations, emotions, judgments,
and other attitudes and affects expressed in the narrative is important
for recognizing subjective sentences.
Expressive subjective elements such as exclamations and questions do
not appear in objective sentences, so even if there is an
omniscient narrator, he does not have to be considered when identifying
the SELF to whom an exclamation or question, for example, is attributed.
If a covert narrator narrates a character's subjective sentence,
then he merely looks into a character's mind and expresses the
character's evaluations, emotions, and judgments; he does not
interject his own.  Therefore, he, like an omniscient narrator of
an objective sentence, does not have to be considered to identify the
SELF of an exclamation or question, for example.
.pp
A point related to the above discussion is that a character's subjective 
sentence is not directed toward an addressee, with the possible exception
of the character herself (in this case, the character's subjective sentences
take on the form of ``inner debate'' (Cohn 1978)).
The pragmatic situation of a subjective sentence
might be thought of as a reader ``overhearing''
(or being ``privy to'') a character's thoughts, or the reader
``perceiving'' the fictional world through the character's
senses (or a combination of the two, as Brinton (1980) illustrates).
The character does
.ul
not
address the reader; in fact, she is not even aware of the reader's
existence.\**
.(f
\**
In an experimental novel, actually, a character might become aware of
the reader's existence, but this would be a transgression of the norms
of fictional texts.
.)f
This is also important for understanding references in narrative, because
some rules observed in communicative situations are not always adhered to
in subjective sentences.
.sh 2 "Central Characters."
It is important to note that tracking central (main, or focal) characters
is not the same thing as tracking the psychological perspective.
A character is often given special status, so that the
novel is in some sense ``his story''.  However, even if the novel is
mainly concerned with the fate of a central character (or characters), 
objective sentences and subjective sentences attributed to other 
characters can appear.  As Chatman says:
.(q
Centrality does not
.ul
necessarily 
have anything to do with a character's perception, consciousness, or
other discourse-mediating functions, although it often coincides with
those functions.  Here...the tenor of the metaphor ``focus'' is
that of the fireplace as the center of the house, not that of the lens 
through which to see the world.
[Chatman 1986, p. 193; italics in original]
.)q
Tracking the central character is an important aspect of narrative
understanding, but it is not addressed in this dissertation.
.sh 2 "Shared Point of View."
The SELF of a subjective sentence can be plural, just as the
first-person pronoun can be plural.
In this case, the sentence expresses a single point of view
held by more than one individual (Banfield 1982, p. 96).
For example:
.(q
In the intensity of the desert heat, their limbs
felt heavy and uncooperative.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 22]
.sp
Leaning out of the window side by side the two women watched the
man .... Now he threw away his cigarette.  They watched him.
.ul
What would he do next?
[Woolf,
.ul
The Years,
p. 103; cited by Banfield 1982, p. 96]
.)q
The first passage is a private-state report, and the italicized sentence
of the second passage is a represented thought.  The SELF of each of
these passages is more than one character.
.pp
A subjective sentence sometimes expresses a collective or class
consciousness
(Banfield 1982).  For example:
.(q
The colliery people felt as if this catastrophe had
happened directly to themselves, indeed they were
more shocked and frightened than if their own men had been killed.
Such a tragedy in Shortlands, the high home of the district!
[Lawrence,
.ul
Women in Love,
p. 182; cited by Banfield 1982, p. 96]
.)q
The SELF of this passage is the colliery people.
.sh 2 "Characters' Subjective Sentences."
Banfield (1982) uses the term ``subjective sentence'' to refer to 
characters' subjective sentences.
In later work, however, she extends her definition
of ``subjective sentence'' to include sentences that represent a kind of
subjectivity that is not ``organized around a subject of consciousness
or SELF'' (Banfield 1987, p. 273).
These kinds of sentences cannot contain expressive
elements that must be understood with respect to someone's consciousness
(e.g., exclamations, epithets such as `idiot', and kinship terms 
such as `Daddy'),
but they can present sense data that are not actually perceived by
anyone.
This dissertation investigates how subjective
sentences that present a 
.ul
character's 
consciousness can be recognized,
and it uses the term ``subjective sentence'' to
refer only to these kinds of sentences.  This excludes the following
related kinds of sentences (the first two have already been discussed):
.ip (i)
Sentences that merely take spatial and temporal points of view
.ip (ii)
Statements made by an overt narrator
.ip (iii)
A sentence that describes what one would
perceive and the impressions one would have if observing the scene,
but there is 
.ul
not 
a character present to whom the perceptions and impressions are
attributed.
.in 0
.pp
Although spatial and temporal points of view can be considered to
be a kind of subjectivity,
this dissertation refers to sentences that merely take
spatial and temporal points of view as ``objective''.  To underscore
the fact that this dissertation is concerned specifically with
characters' subjective sentences, the SELF of a subjective sentence
will be referred to as the
.ul
subjective character.
.bp
.sz +2
.ce 2
.b
Chapter 3
Approach and Background
.r
.sz -2
.ls 2
.sp 2
.sh 1 "INTRODUCTION." 1
This dissertation presents an algorithm for recognizing subjective sentences
and identifying their subjective characters.  
If all subjective sentences contained narrative parentheticals, then
the algorithm could simply be the rule that
if a sentence contains a 
narrative parenthetical, then it is
subjective, and the subjective character is the referent of the subject
of the parenthetical.  
For example:
.(q
     It had been easier than he expected, Peter thought.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 109]
.)q
The subject of the parenthetical is `Peter', 
so Peter is the subjective character.
Note that 
.ul
narrative
parentheticals 
should be contrasted with
.ul
discourse
parentheticals, which accompany direct speech rather than subjective
sentences.  An example is ``Marsha agreed'' in the following:
.(q
     ``All right,'' Marsha agreed.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 109]
.)q
.pp
The algorithm uses the rule that a sentence with a narrative
parenthetical is the subjective sentence of the subject
of the parenthetical,
but
many subjective sentences do not contain narrative
parentheticals.  To
recognize subjective sentences and to identify their subjective
characters in general, sentences cannot be considered in 
isolation.  In many cases,
it is only in context that a sentence is subjective or has a particular
subjective character.  For example, there is no way to determine
in isolation if the following sentence is subjective:
.(q
Gus had taken them back to town.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 181]
.)q
Consider this sentence
in the context in which it appears:
.(q
(1)
.br
     \*[1.1\*]When he [Call] got within fifteen miles of Lonesome Dove he cut
west, thinking they would be holding the herd in that 
direction.  \*[1.2\*]He
rode around the southern edge of the bad brush country and struck
the trail of the horses.  \*[1.3\*]They had been going 
back south, over their own
tracks, which was curious.  
.ul
\*[1.4\*]Gus had taken them back to town.
\*[1.5\*]Probably he had a reason, but it was not one Call 
could guess, so he
loped on home.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 181]
.)q
Sentence (1.4) is Call's subjective sentence:  From his observation 
about the trail made by the horses in (1.3), Call
concludes that Gus took the horses back to town.
.pp
There are some kinds of subjective sentences that can be recognized
to be subjective even if considered in isolation, but their
context has to be considered in order to identify their subjective characters.
Most
sentences with psychological and perceptual terms,
or 
.ul
private-state terms, 
such as `feel',
`know', `see', `think',
and `want',
are subjective regardless of the context in which they appear.
For 
example,
.(q
He [Sandy] wanted to talk to Dennys.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 91]
.)q
is a subjective sentence (I call these kinds of sentences
.ul
private-state sentences).
However, even though it can be determined
in isolation that a private-state sentence
is subjective, its
subjective character 
.ul
cannot
be reliably identified in isolation.
The reason is that private-state sentences can be interpreted to
be different kinds of subjective sentences.  It can be interpreted
to be a private-state report, 
in which case it is an actual report that the character
experiences the described private state; under this interpretation,
the subjective character is the
.ul
experiencer
of the described private state, the character who feels, knows, sees, thinks,
or wants something.
For example:
.(q
(2)
.br
\*[2.1\*]Lippy was dying to tell Xavier what he'd missed by going fishing,
\*[2.2\*]but he know he had better postpone the pleasure for a few years.
\*[2.3\*]One hole in the stomach was enough.
.ul
     \*[2.4\*]Lorena felt her indignation growing.
\*[2.5\*]She was beginning to feel
cornered, something she had not expected to feel again.  \*[2.6\*]Jake
was supposed to have ended that, \*[2.7\*]and yet he hadn't.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 191]
.)q
Sentence (2.4) is an example of a private-state sentence that is
a private-state report.  It is not a character's 
.ul
thought
that Lorena feels her indignation growing; instead, it
.ul
reports
that Lorena feels her indignation growing.
However, one character 
.ul
can
think about another character's private state, and so 
a private-state sentence can be interpreted to be a represented
thought, and the subjective character 
can be a character other than the experiencer.
Consider the following example:
.(q
(3)
.br
\*[3.1\*]Anxiously he [Jeremy] waited.  \*[3.2\*]She [Lynette] felt fragile in 
his arms as if
anything at all might break her.  \*[3.3\*]The flames sank away.
\*[3.4\*]Only the
glowing red treasure heap of embers was left and the cold mist
at his back and the sense of being in a land with no familiar
landmarks.  
.ul
\*[3.5\*]How could she not know her mother 
.ul
was dead?  \*[3.6\*]She had to know it.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 45]
.)q
Sentences (3.5) and (3.6) are Jeremy's represented thoughts that are
about Lynette's private state (i.e., what Lynette knows).
Jeremy, and not Lynette, is the subjective character of these
sentences.
.pp
Other subjective sentences that can be
recognized in isolation are those with the kinds of linguistic elements
that Banfield shows 
can only appear in subjective sentences; they 
express emotion or evaluation, for example,
and so have to be understood with respect
to someone's consciousness.
One of these is an exclamation:
.(q
(4) Standing in the changing-room door was Mr. Pear!
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 79]
.)q
But even though such a subjective sentence can be recognized
in isolation, who the subjective character is depends upon the context
in which it appears.  The subjective character of (4) cannot be identified,
for example, because (4) is presented out of context.
.pp
In summary, unless a narrative parenthetical appears, the subjective
character of a subjective sentence cannot be identified in isolation.
Further,
although some subjective sentences can be recognized in isolation,
others cannot be.
.pp
Rather than focusing on isolated sentences, it is better to ask
whether a sentence
continues
the current psychological point of view or 
initiates a segment of the text taking a different one
and, in the latter case, whether the sentence resumes
a character's psychological point of view that was interrupted by
objective sentences.
Thus, it is better to focus on discourse continuities 
and discontinuities
with respect
to the psychological point of view than to treat the psychological
point of view as an aspect merely of isolated sentences.
This is apparent from observations of naturally occurring texts,
i.e., published novels and short stories, which show that there
are certain textual situations in which the current psychological
point of view tends to persist, for example, and that there are certain
kinds of sentences that are typically used to initiate a segment of
the text taking a character's psychological point of view.
.pp
To reflect a focus on the discourse rather than on isolated sentences,
I extend subjective and
objective sentences to subjective and objective
.ul
contexts, 
which consist of one or more contiguous subjective sentences with
the same subjective character, or one or more contiguous objective
sentences, respectively.  In addition, subjective and objective
contexts are blocks
of maximum length.
For example, two contiguous subjective sentences with the same
subjective character comprise one subjective context, not three.
Using these notions, we can consider if a sentence continues a
subjective context, for example, or begins a new subjective context
or an objective context.
Or we can consider if there is a
.ul
shift
from one subjective context to another, 
in which case
there are two contiguous
subjective contexts, or a shift from a subjective to an objective
context (or from an objective to a subjective context), in which case
subjective and objective contexts are immediately adjacent
to one another.
.pp
The algorithm uses five kinds of information.  Two concern the context
in which a sentence appears, two concern the content of individual
sentences, and the other concerns what has gone before in the text
as a whole:  whether a character has been the
subjective character of any subjective sentence so far in the text
(the last will not be considered until subsequent chapters).
The algorithm is a computational definition of regularities found
in naturally occurring narratives.
Since the algorithm exploits only certain regularities, and does
not consider all kinds of potentially relevant information available
in a particular sentence or context, exceptions to its
rules can be found.  In addition, the algorithm does not check
the plausibility of the resulting interpretation; for example, it does
not check if it is plausible that
the content of a sentence it interprets
to be a character's subjective sentence is something that the
character thinks or perceives.
However, natural language understanding (NLU)
systems should exploit regularities:  It is computationally cheaper
to verify a predicted interpretation that will typically be the correct
one than to always consider all possibilities and then choose the
best one.  Further, one interpretation does not always stand out
as clearly the best one; a sentence might plausibly be more than one
character's subjective sentence, for example, and the information that
the algorithm uses is needed to choose among interpretations.
.pp
The algorithm is also useful because it 
suggests directions for future empirical investigations of narrative
comprehension.
It is hypothesized, for example, that to identify the subjective character
of a subjective sentence, the reader first considers the character
suggested by the algorithm, and considers other characters only if the
suggested interpretation is not plausible.
.pp
Identifying ways that texts typically initiate and maintain a character's
psychological point of view is useful in itself.  As Fillmore says:
.(q
I believe that many facts about the nature of basic pragmatic conditions
can be discovered by examining deviating types of discourse and
paying close attention to those of their properties that stand out.
The study of literary conventions can thus lead to a greater understanding
of the basic workings of language. [Fillmore 1974, p. V-20]
.)q
For example, the algorithm uses many kinds of linguistic elements to
recognize subjective sentences.  Some have already been noted:  subjective
elements that have to be understood with respect to someone's
consciousness, because they express emotions or evaluations (Banfield
1982), and evidentials, which express attitudes toward knowledge
(Chafe 1986).
These can appear in subjective sentences, which are not directed toward
an addressee, to express a character's point of view;
their appearance in a non-communicative setting highlights the
expressive rather than communicative aspects of their meanings
(Dolezel 1973, Kuroda 1973, Banfield 1982).
.pp
In addition, Gilles Fauconnier identified kinds of discourse
continuities that are similar to the psychological point of view
(Fauconnier 1985).  An example is a discourse segment that begins
with ``In 1969'', then continues with statements such as
``Man landed on the moon,'' ``The Mets won the World Series,'' and
``Woodstock revealed the tremendous audience that existed for
Rock and Roll.''  It is implicitly understood that each of these
events occurred in 1969, even though ``In 1969'' does not explicitly
re-appear.
The investigation of the psychological point of view presented
in this dissertation suggests directions for the study of these similar 
kinds of discourse continuities.
.sh 1 "OBSERVATIONS MOTIVATING THE ALGORITHM."
This section discusses some observed regularities in the kinds of
narrative texts considered in this dissertation, third-person narrative
texts without overt narrators (and that meet some other restrictions;
see Section 3, below).  These observations (and some others discussed
in subsequent chapters)
are the basis for the
algorithm's behavior.
.sh 2 "The Identity of the Subjective Character."
First, consider the identity of the subjective character.
If two subjective sentences are adjacent, or if the only sentences separating
them are objective, then they often have the
same subjective character.
Typically, there are only a few things that can break this pattern.
One is a narrative parenthetical:  The subjective character of a sentence
with a narrative parenthetical is the subject of the parenthetical,
regardless of what precedes the sentence.  Another is a
private-state sentence interpreted 
to be a private-state
report.  The subjective character of a private-state
report is the experiencer of the reported private
state, again, regardless of what precedes the sentence.\**
.(f
\**
Three similar kinds of sentences can begin a character's subjective
context even if the character was not the last subjective 
character:  sentences about 
.ul
seeming states,
e.g.,  ``John seemed unhappy to Mary,'' sentences about 
.ul
psychological actions,
e.g., ``Mary sighed,'' and sentences about
.ul
perceptual actions,
``Mary watched them leave.''  These are discussed in subsequent chapters.
.)f
Consider this passage again:
.(q
(2)
.br
\*[2.1\*]Lippy was dying to tell Xavier what he'd missed by going fishing, but
he knew he had better postpone the pleasure for a few years.  \*[2.2\*]One
hole in the stomach was enough.
     \*[2.3\*]Lorena felt her 
indignation growing.  \*[2.4\*]She was beginning to 
feel cornered, something she had not expected to feel again.
\*[2.5\*]Jake was supposed to have ended that, and yet he hadn't.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 191]
.)q
Sentence (2.3) is a private-state report.  The subjective character is
the experiencer (Lorena), even though the previous sentence is
another character's (Lippy's) subjective sentence. 
.pp
A third is an objective sentence about a character's action.
The actor can become the
subjective character of the next subjective sentence to appear, regardless 
of who was the
subjective character of the last subjective sentence.
For example:
.(q
(5)
.br
\*[5.1\*]Jake felt sour.  \*[5.2\*]He wished again that circumstances 
hadn't prompted
him to come back.  \*[5.3\*]He had already spent one full night on horseback,
and now the boys were expecting him to spend another, all on
account of a bunch of livestock he had no interest in in the first
place.
     \*[5.4\*]``I don't know as I'm coming,'' he said.  
\*[5.5\*]``I just got here.  \*[5.6\*]If
I'd known you boys did nothing but chase horses around all night,
I don't know that I would have come.''
     \*[5.7\*]``Why, Jake, you lazy bean,'' Augustus said, and walked off.
\*[5.8\*]Jake had a stubborn streak in him, and once it was activated even Call
could seldom do much with him.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 162]
.)q
Sentences (5.1)-(5.3) are Jake's subjective sentences.  Sentences (5.4)-(5.7)
are objective sentences.
Sentence (5.7) is an objective sentence about Augustus's actions,
speaking and walking off.  The next subjective
sentence, (5.8), is 
.ul
Augustus's 
subjective sentence, even though Jake
was the subjective character of the last subjective sentence that
appeared, (5.3).
.pp
Finally, two adjacent subjective sentences or two subjective sentences
separated only by objective sentences might not have the same subjective
character if a drastic change in the narrative deictic 
center occurs between them.
The kind that the algorithm considers is discussed in the following
chapter.
.sh 2 "Subjective Sentences."
Many subjective sentences can be recognized to be subjective
because they contain narrative parentheticals,
because they
are private-state sentences
(although Chapter 5 identifies a kind of private state sentence that
can be objective), or because they contain linguistic elements that
can evoke a thinking or perceiving SELF.  These are the main kinds
of information that the algorithm uses to decide if a sentence is
subjective.
.pp
Banfield (1982) identifies linguistic
elements that are always attributed to a SELF because they are
expressive.  However, there are other linguistic elements that can,
but do not always, suggest that a sentence is subjective.  Among
these, some suggest that a sentence is subjective more strongly than
others.
Consider subjective sentences that do not contain narrative parentheticals
and that are not private-state sentences.
Typically, if this kind of sentence immediately follows
another subjective sentence, it can be less obviously subjective,
that is, contain weaker indications of subjectivity, than
if it is separated from the last subjective sentence by a paragraph
break, by an objective sentence, or by both.  For example, a sentence
merely in the shifted past is typically subjective if it follows a
subjective sentence without a paragraph break.  An example appears
in passage (1):
.(q
(1)
.br
     \*[1.1\*]When he [Call] got within fifteen miles of Lonesome Dove he
cut west, thinking they would be holding the herd in that direction.
\*[1.2\*]He rode around the southern edge 
of the bad brush country and struck the
trail of the horses.  \*[1.3\*]They had been going back south, over their own
tracks, which was curious.
.ul
\*[1.4\*]Gus had taken them back to town.
\*[1.5\*]Probably he had a reason, but it was not one Call could guess, so he
loped on home.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 181]
.)q
Sentence (1.3) is Call's subjective sentence:  he observes which direction
the horses went, and finds it curious.
Sentence (1.4), which is in the shifted past and immediately follows a
subjective sentence,
continues Call's subjective context:  he concludes that Gus took
the horses back to town.
.pp
If there is greater textual discontinuity between a subjective sentence
and the last one, then a stronger indication of subjectivity typically
appears.  For example:
.(q
(6)
.br
\*[6.1\*]Call had known many men who died, but somehow had not expected it
of Pedro, though he himself had fired several bullets at him.
     \*[6.2\*]``I'd like to know what took him,'' Call said.
     \*[6.3\*]``He might have choked on a pepper,'' Augustus 
said.  \*[6.4\*]``Them that
can't be killed by knives or bullets usually break their necks falling
off the porch or something.  \*[6.5\*]Remember Johnny Norvel, dying of that
bee sting?  \*[6.6\*]I guess Johnny had been shot twenty times, but a dern
bee killed him.''
.ul
     \*[6.7\*]It was true.
\*[6.8\*]The man had rangered with them, and yet the
bee sting had given him a seizure of some kind, and no one could bring
him out of it.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 182]
.)q
Sentence (6.1) is Call's subjective sentence.  The next subjective sentence,
(6.7), is separated from (6.1) by paragraph breaks and by objective 
sentences.  It contains a strong indicator of subjectivity, `true',
which expresses Call's judgment about what Augustus said.
.pp
The linguistic elements that the algorithm uses to recognize subjective
sentences are not sufficient to recognize all subjective sentence.
However, when these linguistic
elements do appear in appropriate situations,
they are evidence for deciding that a sentence is subjective.
.sh 1 "KINDS OF INFORMATION USED."
As suggested by the previous section, the algorithm uses the
following kinds of information to recognize subjective sentences
and to identify their subjective characters (more precise definitions
will appear in later chapters):
.ip (i)
which character was the subjective character of the last subjective
sentence,
.ip (ii)
what has appeared since the last subjective sentence, including
paragraph breaks and objective sentences,
.ip (iii)
which of the linguistic elements discussed in Section 2.2, if any,
appear in the current sentence,
.ip (iv)
the kind of event that the current sentence is about, such as a private
state or an action, and
.ip (v)
whether a character has been the subjective character of any subjective
sentence so far in the text.
.in 0
.sp
In most cases, the algorithm interprets a sentence after the sentence
has been parsed, once it has
all of the relevant information about the sentence.
The exception is a subjective sentence with a narrative
parenthetical; the algorithm first interprets the sentence as if
the narrative parenthetical did not appear and then determines whether or
not the parenthetical confirms its interpretation.
Even for sentences without narrative parentheticals, however,
a feature early in 
the sentence might suggest one interpretation of the sentence
and a later feature might suggest a different
interpretation.  For example, 
.(q
John was angry at her, evidently.
.)q
Until she reaches the comma,
the reader might interpret this sentence to be John's
subjective sentence, reporting his private state of being angry.  
After `evidently', however, the reader might decide that the sentence
is actually another character's subjective sentence.
By processing features at the end of the sentence, the algorithm
models the final interpretation of the sentence, but not
any preliminary interpretations that are later revised.
.sh 1 "KINDS OF TEXTS CONSIDERED."
The algorithm is designed for third-person novels or short stories
without overt narrators.
It is not designed for
experimental fiction:  This dissertation is a study of narrative
convention; an author is always free to break from convention to
achieve stylistic effects, which is a main goal of experimental
fiction.  The algorithm is also designed for texts written after the middle of
the twentieth century.  Narrative convention changes with time, which
is particularly true for subjectivity.  Well into the nineteenth
century, ``while prolonged inside views were
largely restricted to first-person forms, third-person novels
dwelt on manifest behavior, with the characters' inner selves revealed 
only indirectly through spoken language and telling gesture'' 
(Cohn 1978, p. 21).
It was only later that third-person fiction began ``to focus on the
mental and emotional life of its characters'' (Cohn 1978, p. 113).
The restriction specified above\(emthat only texts written after the
middle of the twentieth century are
considered\(emis probably more restrictive than it has to be.
.pp
Some things that might result in deviation from the observered
regularities encoded in the algorithm are irony, humor, and
imagery that do
not originate with a character; 
epic style, which can use exaggerated 
language in objective sentences; and parable or folklore style, in which
clear subjective contexts of characters do not typically appear.
.pp
Many texts were examined to develop the algorithm.  However, most of
the passages cited in this dissertation are taken from specific
pages of seven novels.  After each of the algorithm's rules is
presented and illustrated in subsequent chapters,
the kinds of exceptions found in these pages are characterized
and examples are given.
.pp
The novels from which the examples were taken (and the specific pages
of each) are:
.ip (i)
.ul
Lonesome Dove,
by Larry McMurtry, pages 176-242, Chapters 16-25
.ip (ii)
.ul
Hotel,
by Aurthur Hailey, pages 77-136, ``Tuesday Section'', Chapters 2-10
.ip (iii)
.ul
Many Waters,
by Madeleine L'Engle, pages 1-226
.ip (iv)
.ul
Amy and Laura,
by Marilyn Sachs,
pages 13-188, Chapters 1-11 
.ip (v)
.ul
No One Hears But Him,
by Taylor Caldwell, pages 1-100
.ip (vi)
.ul
The Magic of the Glits,
by Carole Adler, pages 1-90
.ip (vii)
.ul
War Work,
by Zibby Oneal, pages 1-130.
.in 0
.sp
.ul
Lonesome Dove, Hotel,
and
.ul
No One Hears But Him
are adult novels; the others are children's novels.
.pp
These novels represent a range in terms of the number
of subjective characters they contain.
.ul
Lonesome Dove
and
.ul
Hotel
have many subjective characters.  The first part of 
.ul
Many Waters
has two subjective characters, and later passages contain
subjective contexts attributed to other characters as well.
.ul
Amy and Laura
contains two subjective characters,
and
.ul
No One Hears But Him
has many subjective characters, but, with a few exceptions,
each chapter has one subjective character which changes from
chapter to chapter.
.ul
The Magic of the Glits
and
.ul
War Work
each has one subjective character.
.pp
.ul
War Work
and the first part of each of 
.ul
Many Waters,
.ul
Lonesome Dove,
and 
.ul
Hotel
were considered during the development of the algorithm; the
others were not.
The pages listed above for
.ul
Lonesome Dove 
and
.ul
Hotel\c
, the novels with many subjective characters,
are passages after the ones considered during the development of the algorithm.
.sh 1 "IMPLEMENTATION."
The work presented in this dissertation has been implemented in two
systems.  These systems share the same implementation of the algorithm,
but they have different parsers.
.pp
Information that the algorithm uses about sentences
is often hard to determine due to problems,
such as syntactic and semantic ambiguities and determining the referents
of noun phrases,
that any NLU system
faces, whether or not a goal is to recognize subjective sentences.
Extending our research group's NLU system so that it can process
unlimited narrative sentences
is beyond the scope of this dissertation.
The algorithm has been implemented in a system that takes sentences
as input, but the system's parsing abilities are limited, so many
sentences as they occur naturally in a text need to be syntactically
simplified before they can be given to it as input.  In addition,
this system can determine 
information about the current sentence that the
algorithm needs to know only for straightforward cases.
This system is used to demonstrate the algorithm in the body of this
dissertation.
.pp
The algorithm has also been implemented in a system that
parses a pre-processed version of the actual sentences of the text, referred
to as the
.ul
code.
The information that is included in the code is the information about
the current sentence that the algorithm uses:  the kind of event that
the sentence is about and who its argument is (e.g., the actor of an
action or the experiencer of a private state), the kinds of
linguistic elements that appear in the sentence that can suggest that
the sentence is subjective, and some other kinds of information, such
as, in some cases, the position of linguistic elements in the sentence.
This system was developed so that 
the algorithm can be tested on
naturally occurring examples without 
having to be concerned with the problems involved
in parsing the actual sentences of the text.
Rules
for translating sentences of the text into the code and demonstrations
of this system are given in Appendix B.
An implementation of the algorithm in Lisp is given in Appendix A.
.pp
The parsers of both systems, 
particularly the sentence-level parser, include pieces
of programs written by
other members of the SNePS 
Research Group (SNeRG):  Soon Ae Chun's work on parsing
possessive noun phrases (Chun 1987);
Zuzana Dobes's facility for parsing multi-word lexemes;
Naicong Li's pronoun-resolution program (Li 1987); Sandra Peters' 
representation of natural category systems and her work on processing
references (Peters and Shapiro 1987ab; Peters, Shapiro, and Rapaport
1988);
and William J. Rapaport's work on belief reports
(Rapaport 1986; Shapiro and Rapaport
1987).
Both systems are implemented using the SNePS knowledge
representation and reasoning system
(Shapiro 1979; Shapiro and Rapaport 1987) and
an ATN parser, which have been extended by many 
past and present members of SNeRG.
.sh 2 "The Semantic Network Processing System (SNePS)."
A semantic network consists of labeled nodes, which represent
concepts, and
labeled directed arcs, which represent binary relations.
An arc labeled R going from node n to node m represents that
the concept represented by n bears the relation represented by R
to the concept represented by m (Shapiro 1979).
In SNePS, each concept represented in the network is represented by a
unique node.
Thus, SNePS satisfies the
.ul
Uniqueness Principle\c
:  there is a one-to-one correspondence between nodes and represented
concepts (Shapiro and Rapaport 1987).
Thus, arcs do not represent concepts; they
represent non-conceptual, binary, structural relations between nodes. 
.pp
In the approach to knowledge representation taken in SNePS,
nodes represent only intensions and not extensions (Maida and Shapiro
1982; Shapiro and Rapaport 1987).
That is, they represent
mental entities, and not \*(lqobjects in the world\*(rq.  Further, 
if we view SNePS as a system for modeling the mind of a cognitive agent,
then
all represented concepts are in the mind of the cognitive agent.
Thus, when the system
represents the beliefs of someone else, what is represented is 
the system's representation of the beliefs of the other person, not the other
person's actual beliefs. 
.sh 1 "BACKGROUND."
Chapter 2 presented some background material concerning the nature
of subjective sentences.  This section presents
additional background material 
that is relevant to this dissertation.
.sh 2 "Discourse Structure."
Studies of discourse structure investigate how utterances relate
to one another and how
the structure of a discourse affects comprehension of individual
utterances.  
This section describes some important results from this area.
.pp
One aspect of natural language understanding that requires 
more than understanding
utterances in isolation is reference, the use of language to
identify individuals.  Many noun-phrase references,
called
.ul
anaphoric references, 
refer to
individuals who have been previously introduced into the text or
conversation; these references do not themselves provide the reader or listener
with enough information
to identify the referent.
An anaphoric reference ``points back'' to a previously introduced
individual, called its
.ul
antecedent. 
Examples are pronouns such as `it' and 
definite references such as `the car'.
Anaphoric references do not always refer to individuals who have been 
explicitly 
mentioned, but can refer to something 
.ul
related 
to something that was explicitly mentioned.  For example, once a car
is mentioned, `the engine' can be used to refer to the engine of
that car.  Or, consider this example:
.(q
My neighbor has 
.ul
a monster Harley 1200.  
.ul
They 
are really huge but 
gas-efficient bikes. [Sidner 1983, p. 268]
.)q
Although the first italicized reference refers to a particular Harley 1200,
the second one refers to the class of Harley 1200s.  
Bonnie Webber (1983) and Candace Sidner (1983) investigate what
a text makes available for the interpretation of later anaphoric
references, which they call
.ul
discourse entities
and
.ul
discourse elements,
respectively.
.pp
Many approaches to anaphora are based on the idea that anaphoric
references refer to discourse entities that are in
.ul
focus,\**
.(f
\**
Sidner (1983) and Webber (1983) reserve the term ``refer'' for something
people do with words, rather than something words do.
Webber uses the term ``evoke'' for first references to an entity and 
``access'' for subsequent references.
Sidner uses the term ``specify'' for the relation between a noun
phrase and a discourse element.
.)f
that is, discourse entities that the current portion of the
discourse is about.
For example, Sidner (1983)
presents a
focusing algorithm that 
tracks the
single entity that an individual utterance is most centrally about,
which she calls the 
.ul
discourse focus.
Her algorithm keeps track of the discourse 
entities that have been introduced into
the discourse.  It uses heuristics based on, for example, the thematic roles
of noun phrases (e.g., agent and theme)
to predict which discourse entity will be
the discourse focus
of the next sentence.
When the next sentence is processed, the algorithm's prediction is
either confirmed or rejected; if it is rejected, then other
discourse entities who have been introduced are considered.
Sidner gives rules for using the discourse focus (and, in some
cases, other discourse entities)
to determine the referents of pronouns and other anaphoric references.
Naicong Li's (1987) program for understanding pronouns,
which is used in the parser demonstrated in this dissertation,
is based on Sidner's algorithm.\** 
.(f
\**
Other research concerned with
tracking focus locally
to understand pronouns are
Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein (1983) and
Brennan, Friedman, and Pollard (1987).
.)f
.pp
However, the structure of the discourse can affect which entities
are currently in focus.
For example,
Barbara Grosz (1981) showed that 
as a discourse progresses, people shift
their focus to new entities.  
She analyzed task-oriented dialogues and
found that a dialogue can be partitioned
into separate discourse units each of which focuses on particular
entities.  She found that the structure of a task-oriented dialogue 
tends to follow
the structure of the task that it is about, so 
this is the criterion
used in her theory to partition the discourse into units.  
She showed that if discussion returns to a part of the task after
leaving it, then an entity relevant to this part of the task can be
referred to with a pronoun, even if other objects have been mentioned
in the meantime.
.pp
The influence of discourse structure on the interpretation of
anaphoric references is one reason why much recent research in discourse
structure investigates
the segmentation of a discourse
into units
comprised of closely related utterances that are 
about the same topic.
Discourse segmentation ``divides the problem [of understanding discourse]
into two major subproblems:  What techniques are needed to analyze
the sentences within a segment and how segments can be related to
each other'' (Allen 1987, p. 399).
Two recent computational theories of discourse structure are
Reichman (1985) and Grosz and Sidner (1986).
.sh 3 "Reichman."
Reichman defines a discourse grammar comprised of
.ul
conversational moves,
communicative acts serving particular discourse roles.  Examples are
presenting a claim, supporting a claim, shifting a topic, and resuming
a preceding subject of discourse.
Many conversational moves can only be performed in concert
with others.
For example, a claim cannot be supported unless a claim is presented.
Thus, conversational moves are hierarchical relations.
.pp
Reichman defines the basic unit of discourse processing to be
an abstract construct called a
.ul
context space.
A context space includes the utterances that lie in that space,
links to other context spaces, and
an indication of 
its current relevance to the discourse, called its
.ul
status.
At any one time, only two context spaces are directly
relevant to the processing of utterances.  These are the
.ul
active
context space, the one currently being developed, and the 
.ul
controlling
context space, the previous context space with the most influence.
For example, if the active context space supports a claim,
then the controlling context space presents the claim.
Other possible statuses are 
.ul
open,
in which case the context space was interrupted before it completed its conversational
move, and
.ul
closed,
in which case its discussion is believed complete for the present time.
.pp
Conversational moves have standard preconditions and effects.
Particular conversational moves can be performed only if certain
kinds of context spaces exist with particular current statuses.
The performance of a conversational move results in the creation
and modification of appropriate context spaces.  This includes changing
the status of previous context spaces.
For example, the interruption move changes the status of the active
context space to open;
the discourse grammar now
expects that discussion will return to the open context space after
the digression is completed.  The return move occurs when there is a
context space with open status; the effects are that the active context
space is given closed status and the open context space is
given controlling status.  Now utterances are understood in light
of the interrupted context space.
.pp
Reichman's algorithm uses the structure of the discourse to process
references in the following way.
A context space also contains the discourse entities in that space,
and each discourse entity is assigned a 
.ul
focus level.
The kinds of references that may be used to refer to a discourse
entity are determined by the current status of the
context space containing it and also by the entity's focus
level.  For example, only discourse entities in high focus
in the active and controlling context spaces may be referred to
with pronouns.
.pp
An important contribution of Reichman's theory is its use of
.ul
clue words,
words that signal different kinds of conversational moves.  For example,
`so' indicates the conclusion or restatement of a point being made
and `anyway' and `in any case' indicate return to an interrupted
context space.  Grosz and Sidner (1986) and Robin Cohen (1987), who
developed an algorithm for analyzing the structure of argumentative
discourse, also incorporate clue words into their theories.
Deborah Schiffrin (1987) presents an extensive linguistic analysis
of the function of cue words (which she calls
.ul
discourse markers)
in naturally occurring conversation.
The algorithm presented in this dissertation uses some clue words to
recognize subjective sentences, because they can reflect a character's
reasoning (discussed in Chapter 5).
.sh 3 "Grosz and Sidner."
According to Grosz and Sider (1986), discourse structure consists
of three interacting constituents:  the 
.ul
linguistic structure,
the
.ul
intentional structure,
and the
.ul
attentional state.
The linguistic structure consists of 
.ul
discourse segments,
sets of utterances in the discourse that address the same topic,
and an embedding relationship that can hold between them.
.pp
Grosz and Sider define the
.ul
discourse purpose 
(\c
.ul
DP\c
)
to be the main purpose for engaging in the discourse.  Each discourse
segment has a
.ul
discourse segment purpose 
(\c
.ul
DSP\c
), which specifies how the segment contributes to the overall
discourse purpose.  Examples of the kinds of intentions that can
be DPs or DSPs are intending that some agent believe some fact or
intending that some agent believe that a fact supports another.
They contend that 
there is no finite list of DPs to choose from,
but that there is a small number of relations that can hold between
them.
They identify two structural
relations:  
.ul
dominance
and 
.ul
satisfaction-precedence.
If one DSP, DSP1, contributes to the satisfaction of another
DSP, DSP2, then DSP2
.ul
dominates
DSP1.  DSP1 
.ul
satisfaction-precedes
DSP2 if DSP1 has to be satisfied before DSP2.
The intentional structure consists of the DSPs as related by the
dominance and satisfaction-precedence relations.
.pp
According to Grosz and Sidner, the structure of the discourse
is determined by the structure of its DSPs rather than by
conversational moves or other kinds of high-level discourse
relations (see Section 5.1.3, below).
In fact, the embedding relationships
that exist among discourse segments in the linguistic structure
is a reflection of the relations among the DSPs.
.pp
The attentional state consists of the discourse entities that are
salient at each point in the discourse.  It is modeled by a set
of 
.ul
focus spaces,
and changes in the attentional state are modeled by rules for
adding and deleting spaces.  The collection of focus spaces
available at one time is called the 
.ul
focus structure,
which is a stack.  A focus space is associated with each discourse
segment and contains the discourse entities that are salient
within that segment together with the segment's DSP.
.pp
Which focus spaces are currently on the stack and in what order
are determined by the relationships among the DSPs (i.e., by the
intentional structure).
Considering only the dominance relation (and with the exception
of interruptions, different kinds of which their theory can handle),
the DSP in a focus space on the stack dominates the DSPs in the
spaces higher in the stack.  A focus space is pushed 
onto the stack when the DSP for a new segment is dominated
by a DSP in a focus space on the stack; if it is not the DSP in the
focus space on the top of the stack that dominates the DSP for the
new segment, then spaces are
popped from the stack before the new one is pushed on.
The attentional state is mainly
used to understand anaphoric references:  The search for the 
referent of an anaphoric reference begins 
in the focus space at
the top of the stack.  If the referent cannot be found, then focus spaces
lower in the stack are considered.  
.pp
In Reichman's theory, discourse segments, their discourse
entities, and whether a context space is currently in focus
(i.e., its status)
are represented in the same construct, the context space.
A discourse entity is in focus if the context space containing
it has a certain status.
In Grosz and Sidner's theory, on the other hand, discourse segments
and discourse entities are represented in different constructs, and
the focus stack in Grosz and Sidner's algorithm performs 
the role of context-space statuses in
Reichman's algorithm.
.pp
Grosz and Sidner (1986) show that 
.ul
cue phrases 
(their extended term for Reichman's clue words) might give information 
about the attentional state and might give information about the intentional
structure.  This is one reason why they maintain these as separate
constituents of discourse structure.  For example, `for example'
indicates that there is a change to some new purpose and that the
new purpose is dominated by the DSP in the focus space on the top of
the stack.  Cue phrases that indicate pops to a focus space lower
in the stack include `anyway' and `in any case' (Reichman's
algorithm uses these to recognize the return conversational
move).  Since popping the stack just changes the stack without
changing the intentional state (no new DSP is created and the
relations among DSPs remain unchanged), these cue phrases give
information about the attentional state only.
.sh 3 "Rhetorical-Relation and Coherence-Relation Theories."
Some theories of discourse processing focus mainly on
high-level discourse relations such as restatement, summary,
justification, contrast, and support.
The related units can
themselves be comprised of units related in one of these ways, and
so the resulting discourse structure is hierarchical.
Reichman's conversation moves are these kinds of relations.
Another example is 
Mann and Thompson's (1988)
Rhetorical Structure Theory,
which defines a set of
.ul
rhetorical relations
that can hold between two portions of the text.
A rhetorical relation is defined in terms of constraints on the related
units and the effect achieved with the relation.  For example,
.ul
solutionhood
holds between two units if one presents a problem and the other
presents a solution to the problem; the effect is that the
reader recognizes that a solution to a problem has been presented.
.pp
Hobbs (1979) defines a set of
.ul
coherence relations
that are defined in terms of inferential connections between
related units and which are independently
characterized in terms of the speaker's communicative goals.
.sh 3 "Discontinuities in Narrative:  Nakhimovsky."
Nakhimovsky's (Nakhimovsky and Rapaport 1988, Nakhimovsky
1988)
work is useful for our purposes because
they study the discourse structure of narrative texts in particular.
They show that 
.ul
discontinuities,
such as discontinuities of space, time, topic, and perspective,
are essential components of the structure of narrative (Webber (1987, 1988)
also investigates tense and discourse structure in narrative).
For example, a temporal discontinuity might be a shift in
temporal scale such as one from the events of the current day
to years or decades.
.pp
They suggest
that rhetorical relations between
utterances are ``macro labels that stand for
oft-repeated clusters of discontinuities'' (Nakhimovsky 1988).
For example, one kind of temporal discontinuity is a shift of the current moment
of the story to an earlier point in time.
The corresponding rhetorical relation is a flashback.
.pp
In his view, a discourse segment is a continuous stretch of
text that corresponds to a ``relatively monolithic'' representation.
That is, as long as there are no discontinuities in space, time, composition
or perspective, a DS continues.  The ``beginning of a new DS [discourse
segment] is
accompanied/signaled by a discontinuity'' of one or more of these
types (Nakhimovsky and Rapaport 1988, p. 466).
Thus, they propose 
discourse segmentation heuristics based on discontinuities.  The next
section considers discourse segment boundaries accompanied
by a change in the psychological perspective.  In addition, the view of
paragraph breaks in Nakhimovsky and Rapaport (1988) is considered 
below in Section 5.1.6.2.
.sh 3 "Subjective Contexts and Discourse Segments."
Consider passage (2):
.(q
(2)
.br
\*[2.1\*]Lippy was dying to tell Xavier what he'd missed by going fishing,
but he knew he had better postpone the pleasure for a few years.
\*[2.2\*]One hole in the stomach was enough.
     \*[2.3\*]Lorena felt her indignation growing.  \*[2.4\*]She was 
beginning to
feel cornered, something she had not expected to feel again.  \*[2.5\*]Jake
was supposed to have ended that, and yet he hadn't.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 191]
.)q
Sentences (2.1)-(2.2) comprise 
Lippy's subjective context and sentences (2.3)-(2.5)
comprise Lorena's subjective context.
Within Lippy's subjective context,
there are at least two hierarchically-related discourse
segments or context spaces.  Sentence (2.2), that one hole in the stomach
was enough, is a reason for Lippy's decision to postpone telling
Xavier what he missed (the second part of sentence (2.1)).
Similarly, there are hierarchically-related discourse segments
within Lorena's subjective context:  Sentences (2.4) and
(2.5) present reasons why Lorena feels indignant, which is reported in
(2.3).
.pp
Within a subjective context, therefore, 
utterances are interpreted
in light of previous
ones.
In Reichman's theory, for example, an active
context space and a controlling or open
context space, e.g., determine the interpretation of an utterance
appearing in the middle of a subjective context.
Grosz and Sidner's algorithm would determine the
dominance and satisfaction-precedence
relations between the DSP of a discourse segment in the
middle of a subjective context and a DSP in a focus space currently
on the stack.
Mann and Thompson's and Hobb's algorithms would determine a rhetorical
or coherence relation between an utterance in the middle of a
subjective context and preceding utterances.
.pp
Consider, however, a discourse-segment boundary at which
there is a shift in the psychological perspective from one character
to another, or, in other words, a boundary between two
subjective contexts with different subjective characters (e.g.,
the boundary between sentences (2.1)-(2.2) and (2.3)-(2.5)).
The utterances
in the second subjective context are
.ul
not 
interpreted in light of the utterances in the first.   
At this kind of boundary, therefore, the context spaces corresponding
to conversational moves in the first subjective context should
be closed, in Reichman's algorithm, and the focus spaces and their
constituent DSPs of the discourse segments in the first subjective context
should be popped from the focus stack, in Grosz and
Sidner's.
.sh 3 "Paragraph Breaks."
It is generally agreed that sentences within a paragraph are
related to each other in some way, and that they are more
closely related to each other than they are to the sentences
preceding and following the paragraph (although some have suggested
that a paragraph break can appear simply to break the text into
units that are physically easier to read (e.g., Bond and Hayes 1984; 
Longacre 1979)).
Paragraph breaks have a role in the algorithm presented in this
dissertation,
so some studies from
discourse analysis (one from each of linguistics, computational linguistics,
and psychology) are discussed here.
Before going on, note that an
.ul
orthographic
or 
.ul
typographical
paragraph break is the physical marking of a paragraph by indentation and
sometimes an extra blank line.
.sh 4 "Longacre."
As
Longacre (1979) uses the term, a ``paragraph'' is a structural rather
than an orthographic unit.  The ``paragraphs'' in a text, he says,
do not necessarily correspond to the physical
indentations (although he does imply that orthographic paragraphs usually
correspond to what he calls ``paragraphs'').
In fact, Longacre
uses the term ``paragraph'' 
in a way that is 
close to the way
computational linguists later came to use the term ``discourse segment''.
``Paragraphs'' can be embedded within one
another (note that paragraphs orthographically embedded within one another
do not occur, i.e., with a subparagraph being set off by a deeper
indentation than the parent paragraph), and
the sentences within a paragraph exhibit ``thematic unity''.  For
example, some paragraph structures he
identifies are concession, contrast, and 
illustration.  Thus, in Longacre (1979), there is the general association
of discourse segmentation and paragraph breaks.
.sh 4 "Nakhimovsky and Rapaport."
In Nakhimovsky and Rapaport (1988), ``paragraph'' is used to refer
to an orthographic paragraph.  They associate discourse segmentation
with paragraph breaks, but not by definition as Longacre (1979)
does.  They note that discourse segments are usually smaller than
paragraphs, that is, that a single paragraph can contain more than one
discourse segment.  The correspondence they claim between discourse
segmentation and paragraphs is that a paragraph break begins a new discourse
segment.  Since their concern is with orthographic paragraph breaks,
the question arises as to the role of paragraph breaks in the
reader's comprehension of the text.  
They take the extreme view that
not only does
a paragraph break signal a change in the discourse
segmentation of the text, it actually creates one.
Since their view of discourse segmentation is based on discontinuities
(see Section 5.1.4 above), their claim is that a paragraph break not
only signals a discontinuity, but actually creates one.
.sh 4 "Stark."
Longacre, and Nakhimovsky and Rapaport, represent two extreme views of
paragraphs:  Paragraphs are determined by their content (Longacre), and
paragraph breaks can actually change the content (by creating
a discontinuity).
An empirical investigation will now be discussed (Stark 1988).
.pp
Heather Stark (1988) presents psychological experiments that investigate how
.ul
informative
paragraph marks (i.e., breaks) are, and the effect of paragraph marks on
the reader's comprehension of the text (which she calls their
.ul
effectiveness\c
).
The stimulus materials are three published expository essays.
Thus, although her experiments shed some light on paragraph marks
and comprehension, they do not address the role of paragraph marks
in recognizing subjective sentences in narrative.
.pp
The first study investigates how informative paragraph marks are.  That is,
does a paragraph ``create the paragraph it marks?  Or is a paragraph an
aspect of text that exists independently from cues provided by page
layout?'' (p. 277).  Note that the first view is held by Nakhimovsky and
Rapaport and the second is held by Longacre.
In this study, subjects were asked to indicate where paragraph boundaries
should go in unparagraphed versions of the stimulus texts, and to
rate their confidence in their judgements.  
The results showed that paragraph boundaries are not entirely
specified by the content of the text:  Readers were not
perfectly accurate or in perfect agreement with one another, and
the measures of confidence in their judgments were not systematically
related to the other measures.
However, paragraph boundaries are not
entirely unpredictable:  Subjects agreed with the author and with
one another more than they would have by chance. 
.pp
Stark draws the following conclusions from the results of this study
and from analyses 
of the texts
(performed by herself and two naive subjects).  First, simple
length criteria and changes in main-clause surface subject were
not significantly associated with paragraph boundaries (either for
the subjects or for the authors of the texts). 
However, local discontinuities of certain kinds are associated with
paragraph boundaries.  
The discontinuities she considers are discontinuities
in ``local semantic connectedness''.  That is,
if there is not a relation such as contrast, coordination, or causality
between a sentence and its immediate predecessor, then there is
a discontinuity in local semantic connectedness between the sentences.
Although not all paragraph boundaries
are associated with discontinuities, and not all discontinuities signal
paragraph boundaries, there was a significant correlation between
this kind of discontinuity and paragraph boundaries. 
.pp
The second study addressed the 
.ul
effectiveness
of paragraph boundaries, that is,
whether paragraph boundaries change or facilitate comprehension.
In this study, three different paragraphings of the texts were compared:
misparagraphed text, normally paragraphed text, and unparagraphed text.
The following were used to assess the effect of the different paragraphings:
reading speed (although the time measured is the time to read an entire
essay, rather than the time to read a particular sentence);
ratings of reading ease, text coherence, and text quality;  and
judgments as to which sentences in the text are the most important.
.pp
The results showed that reading speed and ratings of ease,
coherence, and goodness were not affected by paragraphing.
However, as Stark points out, it should not be concluded from her
study that paragraph marks do not facilitate comprehension.
In the case of reading times, it might be that the reading time
for an entire essay is too ``course grained'' to pick up the effect
(p. 289).
As for ratings of ease, coherence and goodness, 
it may be that the subjects discounted paragraph marks because of their
instructions to compare different text layouts.
.pp
However, the results did show that a paragraph mark can make the first
sentence of the next paragraph seem more important than if the
mark were not there.
Different sentences were judged important in the paragraphed and unparagraphed
versions, and these changes could be systematically detected at paragraph
boundaries.  However, 
.(q
Readers are not pursuing a blind strategy of
judging paragraph-initial sentences to be important.  Rather, the effect
of a paragraph cue is an interaction between the cue and the content of
what is being cued...Plausible paragraph marking has an effect on
importance, and bad paragraphing does not.  The
author's paragraphing, however unexpected, was still
plausible, unlike the random paragraph marking in
the misparagraphed text, which was just bad.  [p. 299]
.)q
.pp
The experiments did not exhaustively investigate the role
of paragraphs in comprehension.  Stark suggests investigations
into whether paragraph marks can change the reader's perceptions of
how sentences are related to each other, and into the effects
of paragraph marks on working memory:  Perhaps readers orient their
attention away from their representation of the immediately
preceding material when they encounter a paragraph boundary.
Chapter 5 returns to this issue in regard to recognizing subjective
sentences.
.sh 2 "The Spatial and Temporal Points of View."
Most work in cognitive science
concerning point of view has addressed the spatial and temporal
points of view and the current focal character (e.g., the narrative
WHERE, the narrative WHEN, and the narrative WHO), rather than
the psychological point of view.
For example, Michael Almeida (1987) investigates the temporal
structure of narrative.  He presents knowledge representations of
events and their temporal relations based on Allen's temporal
logic (Allen 1984), Vendler's classification of verb phrases (Vendler
1957), and Reichenbach's analysis of tense and temporal reference
points (Reichenbach 1947).
In addition, he gives an algorithm for
extracting the temporal structure of a story from a type of
narrative that constitutes a base case upon which more complex
types of narrative can be defined.
Central to his algorithm is the
.ul
narrative now-point,
which represents the present moment in the story (it corresponds
to the narrative WHEN of the deictic center introduced in Chapter 2),
and a
.ul
narrative-line,
which
is ``a stretch of narrative which is `controlled' by
a single now point'' (p. 4-1).
.pp
Bruder et al. (1985), Bruder et al. (1986), Bruder (1988), and
Rapaport et al. (1989) identify linguistic devices for shifting
and maintaining the narrative WHERE and the narrative WHO.
.pp
Morrow, Greenspan, and Bower (1987) show that the location
of the
protagonist and the temporal development of his or her actions
help organize understanding because they govern the accessibility
of information from working memory.
In addition, they show that
readers use prepositions and aspect markers, which carry spatial
and temporal information, to update their model of the situation.
.sh 3 "Consistency In the Spatial Point of View:  Black, Turner, and Bower."
Black, Turner, and Bower (1979) empirically investigate whether point of
view is an aspect of discourse coherence in narrative.
Specifically, they investigate 
the situation in which the narrative
takes a character's point of view.  They found that it is easier
to comprehend a narrative if it maintains a consistent point of view and
that,
when recalling texts, readers were prone to ``fix'' inconsistencies in
point of view.
The test sentences manipulated the use of the deictic motion verbs
`come', `go', `bring', and `take', which are understood relative
to a location.  For example, `come' indicates motion toward
a destination, and `go' indicates motion away from a source.
Thus, their studies concerned the spatial point of view.
.pp
Their
experimental materials consisted of narratives of one or three
sentences in length with no paragraph breaks, so their studies concerned
the maintenance of the spatial point of view locally.
It would be useful to investigate whether it is easier to comprehend
a narrative passage without paragraph breaks if it
maintains a consistent 
.ul
psychological 
point of view as well as a consistent spatial point of view.
As will be discussed in Chapter 6, if the immediately preceding
sentence is subjective, then only if the current sentence contains
a narrative parenthetical does the algorithm presented in this
dissertation
interpret the sentence
to be the subjective sentence of a character who is not 
the subjective character of the previous sentence.
.pp
Black, Turner, and Bower
claim one result that is not consistent with the algorithm presented 
in this dissertation:  ``merely making a character the subject of the narrative
statement sufficed to establish his as the dominant point of view'' (p. 187).
However, the example they give of
the experimental materials used in this set of studies is the following:
.(q
Alan hated to lose at tennis.
Alan played a game of tennis with Liz.
After winning, she came/went up and shook his hand.
.)q
In the first sentence, Alan is not merely made the subject of the sentence;
the sentence reports Alan's private state of hating to
lose at tennis and is his subjective sentence.  In addition, since
their experimental narratives were so short, their claim is only relevant
to the beginning of a text.
.sh 2 "The Psychological Point of View."
To my knowledge, no one in cognitive science has investigated 
how texts initiate, maintain, and shift the psychological point
of view in particular.
However,
some researchers in psychology and AI have investigated representation and
processing issues involved with understanding sentences that take
a character's psychological point of view.
.pp
Reiser (1981), who works in both psychology and AI,
argues that perspective affects understanding because
it focuses processing:  Once attention is focused on a particular
character, more effort is expended to understand his or her
motivations and reactions than to understand those of other characters.
Dyer (1983) presents a computational theory of 
.ul
affective,
i.e., emotive, responses in narrative.
He shows that
affective terms, such as `happy' and  `relieved', are understood in
terms of currently active, abstract, goal situations involving
the character who experiences the emotion.  
This work suggests that the reader understands subjective sentences
with respect to the subjective character's motivations.
.pp
Stark (1987) empirically investigated how particular aspects of narrative 
discourse influence the reader's attention to characters (their
.ul
salience).
She found
that ``referring to a character directly is not
the only way of making a character more salient for a reader.
The narrator also directs attention to characters by
narrating events and descriptions that are relevant for characters.''
(Stark 1987, p. 90).
According to Stark, this result shows that what a reader does
on encountering a description is not just add an object to her
model of the story.  Instead, the perspective from which the object is described
and the relation of this perspective to
the viewpoints of the characters are organizing principles for
comprehension.
.bp
.sz +2
.ce 2
.b
Chapter 4
Identifying the Subjective Character
.r
.sz -2
.ls 2
.sp
.sh 1 "INTRODUCTION." 1
The subjective character of a subjective sentence is sometimes 
identifiable from the sentence itself.  This is the case if the
sentence has a narrative parenthetical.  It might also be the case
if the sentence denotes\** 
.(f
\**
I am not using the term
.ul
denote 
in the technical sense of Frege's
.ul
Bedeutung.
Instead, I follow many linguists, including Quirk et al. (1985), in using
it to mean the relationship between syntax and semantics.
.)f
a 
.ul
private state
(for example, ``John was unhappy''),
a
.ul
seeming state
(for example, ``John seemed unhappy to Mary''),
a 
.ul
psychological action
(for example, ``John sighed''),
or a perceptual action (for example, ``John looked at the man''),
but not necessarily.
.pp
If the subjective character is not identifiable from the sentence, then
it is often one of two previously mentioned characters:  the subjective
character of the last subjective sentence or the actor of an action
denoted
by a previous objective sentence.
The availability of these characters is conditional; obviously, for
example, the former is available only if a subjective sentence has appeared.
Finally, the subjective character may not be identifiable when the sentence
appears.
.pp
Thus, identifying the subjective character involves determining if
it can be identified from the sentence itself, and, if not, determining
if it can be identified from the previous context.  In addition, as the
text is processed, information that might be needed to identify
subjective characters of later subjective sentences must be maintained.
This chapter describes the information that the algorithm maintains in order
to identify subjective characters when they are
not identifiable from the sentence.  As we shall see in later chapters,
the algorithm also uses much of this information to perform its other task,
deciding if a sentence is subjective.
.sh 1 "EXPECTED SUBJECTIVE CHARACTERS."
A subjective character who is not identifiable from the sentence itself is
most often the subjective character of the last subjective sentence.  In
this case, the sentence continues the 
current psychological
point of view (if the previous sentence was subjective) or 
resumes a character's psychological point of view (if objective sentences
have appeared since the last subjective sentence).
.pp
Less commonly, the subjective character is the actor of an action
denoted by a previous objective sentence.  Since the actor might not be the
subjective character of the last subjective sentence, this is a way to
initiate a new psychological point of view.
.pp
In order to identify the subjective character in these situations, the
algorithm keeps track of characters who are likely to become subjective
characters, called 
.ul
expected subjective characters.
The two possibilities are the
.ul
last subjective character
and the
.ul
last active character.
.pp
Recall from Chapter 2 that the subjective character of
a subjective sentence can be more than one character, in which case
the sentence represents the characters' shared psychological
point of view (Banfield 1982).
Similarly, a single expected subjective character can be more than
one character.
If the last subjective character is Sandy and Dennys, for example,
and if the algorithm decides that the subjective character of the
current sentence is the last subjective character, then its
interpretation is that the sentence takes Sandy and Dennys's
shared psychological point of view.
.sh 2 "The Last Subjective Character."
The last subjective character is of course not expected
if only objective sentences have appeared so far.
However, even if a subjective sentence has appeared,
the last subjective character is
not usually a source for identifying the subjective character
if a subjective sentence has not appeared in the 
.ul
current scene.
.pp
A sentence is in the current scene only if there has not been
a break
from
one parallel story-line to another 
since it appeared.  I call a
break from one parallel story-line to another a
.ul
scene break.
According to Almeida (1987), parallel story-lines form separate
.ul
narrative-lines.
He defines a narrative-line as follows:
.(q
We define a
.ul
narrative-line
to be a stretch of narrative which is ``controlled'' by a single
Reference-Time.  This Reference-Time can be understood as representing
the ``present moment'' of the story and so we refer to this
Reference-Time as the 
.ul
narrative now-point.
[p. 4-1]
.)q
Almeida describes the use of parallel story-lines as follows:
.(q
The narrator describes the activities of one character (or group of
characters) for a while, then, in a later section of the text, describes
roughly simultaneous activities of another character (or group of characters).
Parallel story-lines...form separate narrative-lines.
[p. 8-5]
.)q
As Almeida observes, a chapter break or an extra blank line usually accompanies
a break from one story-line to another.  Other marks, such as a ``bullet''
(i.e., \(bu)
are sometimes used.  However, not all occurrences of chapter breaks and
extra blank lines (or other marks) accompany
breaks from one story-line to another.
The algorithm cannot detect scene breaks,
but must be informed when one occurs.
Enabling it to do so would have involved an investigation of temporal relations
in narrative that is beyond the scope of this dissertation.
.pp
Thus, the last subjective character is the subjective character of
the last subjective sentence that appeared in the text, if there
was one.  The last subjective character is an expected subjective
character only if a subjective sentence has appeared so far in the
current scene.
.sh 2 "The Last Active Character."
Consider this passage:
.(q
(1)
.br
\*[1.1\*]Jake felt sour.  \*[1.2\*]He wished again that circumstances 
hadn't prompted
him to come back.  \*[1.3\*]He had already spent one full night on horseback,
and now the boys were expecting him to spend another, all on
account of a bunch of livestock he had no interest in in the first
place.
     \*[1.4\*]``I don't know as I'm coming,'' he said.  
\*[1.5\*]``I just got here.  \*[1.6\*]If
I'd known you boys did nothing but chase horses around all night,
I don't know that I would have come.''
     \*[1.7\*]``Why, Jake, you lazy bean,'' Augustus said, and walked off.
.ul
\*[1.8\*]Jake had a stubborn streak in him, and once it was activated even Call
.ul
could seldom do much with him.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 162]
.)q
Sentence (1.8) is subjective.  The subjective character, Augustus, is not
identified in (1.8), and he is not the last subjective character; instead,
Jake 
is the last subjective character.
However, a previous sentence, (1.7), denotes
actions performed 
by Augustus\(emspeaking and walking off.
This passage illustrates the situation in which the subjective character
is the actor of an action denoted by a
previous sentence.
Typically, an actor can become the subjective character
of a later subjective sentence only if she has been the subjective
character of some previous subjective sentence, and the sentence
denoting the action is an objective sentence that appears in a
particular
text situation.
.pp
A character is the
.ul
active character
of a sentence if
.ip (i)
the sentence is an objective sentence denoting a current action,
.ip (ii)
the character is the actor, and
.ip (iii)
the actor has been the subjective character (or all of the actors have
been the subjective character, if more than one character performed the action).
.in 0
.sp
An active character can be an expected subjective character.  In
particular, at the beginning of the current sentence,
if a subjective sentence has not appeared earlier in the current
paragraph,
and an earlier sentence
in the current paragraph has
an active character, then the last active character is an expected subjective
character.
.pp
The definition of an active character requires some discussion.
First, quoted speech is considered to be a kind of action, and so
a character can be
an active character by virtue of directly speaking.
Second, a current action is one performed at the narrative WHEN, or
current moment, of the story (see Chapter 2).
To guarantee that the action is not performed earlier
or later than the narrative WHEN of the story, the
main verb phrase of the sentence denoting it has to be in
the simple past (recall the discussion of tense in narrative in Chapter 2).
Also, to denote a specific event,
the sentence cannot be
.ul
habitual.
So, the main verb phrase cannot be accompanied by an adverb such
as 
.ul
at times, never, occasionally, often, sometimes, usually, 
or 
.ul
rarely.
Habitual sentences are discussed at greater length in Chapter 5.
Finally, to denote an event that actually occurs, the main clause of the
sentence cannot contain modal auxiliary verbs such as
.ul
could, going to, had better, have to, might, must, should, 
and
.ul
would,
or modal adverbs such as
.ul
likely, maybe, perhaps, possibly, 
and
.ul
presumably,
and it cannot be negated.
If the action is quoted speech, then these restrictions apply to
the discourse parenthetical.  For example, Marsha is not the active character
of the following sentences, even if she has been the subjective character:
.(q
``John is the best,'' Marsha had said.
.sp
``John is the best,'' Marsha often said.
.sp
``John is the best,'' Marsha might have said.
.)q
.pp
Consider the last paragraph of passage (1):
.(q
(1)
.br
     \*[1.7\*]``Why, Jake, you lazy bean,'' Augustus said, and walked off.
.ul
\*[1.8\*]Jake had a stubborn streak in him, and once it was activated even Call
.ul
could seldom do much with him.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 162]
.)q
Sentence (1.7) is an objective sentence denoting Augustus's current 
action, and Augustus has been the subjective character.  So, he is the 
active character of (1.7).  He is an expected subjective character at 
the beginning of (1.8), because a subjective sentence has not appeared 
so far in the paragraph, and because he is the last active character.
.pp
The reason that an actor can be an expected subjective character only
if s/he has been the subjective character is that something ``stronger''
than performing an action is typically used to make a
character the subjective character for the first time.  However,
it may be that in one special situation, this restriction should
be relaxed:  the opening of a novel or short story, before
the first subjective sentence appears.  If there hasn't been a
subjective sentence so far in the text, then perhaps the algorithm should
allow any actor of a current action to be an expected subjective character.
This issue is left to future research.
.pp
In the case in which an action is performed by more than one character,
the restriction that all of the actors be previous subjective
characters is arbitrary.  A larger body of texts would have to be examined to
determine if this restriction is justified.
.sh 1 "IDENTIFYING THE SUBJECTIVE CHARACTER."
The algorithm identifies the subjective character of a subjective sentence
as follows.
.pp
First, if the sentence contains a narrative parenthetical, then
the algorithm chooses the subject of the parenthetical to be the
subjective character.  Second, if the sentence denotes a private state,
seeming state, perceptual action, or psychological action,
then the algorithm has to decide if the
subjective character is identifiable from the sentence.
(For example, the subjective character of a sentence denoting a private state
might be the experiencer of the private state, regardless of the previous
context.)
If it decides that the subjective character is 
.ul
not
identifiable from the sentence
or if the sentence is another kind of
sentence, then the algorithm chooses an expected subjective character,
if there is one.  However, if there isn't an expected subjective character,
then the subjective character is unidentified.  Private states and
seeming states are the topic of Chapter 6, and psychological and
perceptual actions are the topic of Chapter 7.  The following
sentence is
a subjective sentence with an unidentified
subjective character:
.(q
(2)
.br
Captain Scalawag's treasure!
[Lorimer,
.ul
The Mystery of the Missing Treasure\c
, p. 1]
.)q
This is the first sentence of the novel, and so there isn't an
expected subjective character when it is encountered.  It is
subjective because it is an exclamatory sentence, and exclamations
are always subjective.  The algorithm forms a concept of 
the subjective character
of this sentence, but doesn't yet know who it is.
.sh 1 "COMPETITION."
If the algorithm decides that the subjective character is an
expected subjective character, and both the last
subjective character and the last active character are 
expected subjective characters (and they
are not the same), then the algorithm has to 
choose one of them. 
The algorithm uses the following heuristic:
.(q
If both the last active character and the last subjective character are expected subjective characters and are not the same,
   then if the sentence is about the last active character,
           \*[1\*]then the subjective character is the last subjective character
   \*[2\*]else the subjective character is the last active character.
.)q
Thus, the last active character is the favored candidate:  Only 
if the subjective
sentence is about the last 
.ul
active 
character is the last 
.ul
subjective 
character 
chosen.  If the last active character is an expected subjective character,
then a character who has been
the subjective character is a focal character.  Subjective sentences that
appear are often that character's subjective sentences.  The algorithm's
criterion for choosing the last 
.ul
subjective 
character 
works in situations in which her
attention is directed toward the last 
.ul
active 
character, and a subjective
sentence about the last active character is the last subjective character's 
reflection about or observation of him or her.  The algorithm's rule
for resolving competition will be illustrated in Chapter
5, once more of the algorithm has been presented.
.sh 1 "TEXT SITUATIONS."
The current 
.ul
text situation
includes whether a subjective sentence has appeared in the current
scene or a sentence with an active character in the current paragraph,
as well as what has appeared since the last subjective sentence in the
current scene (if there is one).  The algorithm uses the
current text situation to decide if there are any expected subjective 
characters, and also to decide if the current sentence is subjective.  I define
the following text situations.\**
.(f
The names were suggested by Stuart C. Shapiro.
.)f
.ip (i) 
Presubjective-nonactive:  In this 
situation, a subjective sentence has not appeared so far in the
current scene, and a sentence with an active character has not appeared
so far in the current paragraph.
.ip (ii) 
Presubjective-active:  As in the 
presubjective-nonactive situation, a subjective sentence has
not appeared so far in the current scene.  However, a sentence with an
active character has appeared earlier in the current paragraph.
.ip (iii) 
Continuing-subjective:  In this situation, the previous sentence 
is subjective and a
paragraph break does not separate the previous and current sentences.
.ip (iv) 
Interrupted-subjective:  In
this situation,
an earlier sentence in the current paragraph is subjective,
but an objective sentence appears between the last 
subjective sentence and the current sentence.
.ip (v) 
Broken-subjective:  As
in the continuing-subjective situation, the previous sentence is
subjective, but a paragraph break separates the previous and current
sentences.  However, a scene break does not separate them. 
.ip (vi) 
Postsubjective-nonactive:  In this situation, a 
subjective sentence has appeared in the
current scene, and an objective sentence and a paragraph break
have appeared since the last subjective sentence.  However, a
sentence with an active character does not appear earlier in the
current paragraph.
.ip (vii) 
Postsubjective-active:  As in the postsubjective-nonactive 
situation, a subjective sentence 
appears earlier in the current scene, and an objective sentence and
a paragraph break appear since the last subjective sentence.  However,
a sentence with an active character appears earlier in the
current paragraph.
.in 0
.sp
The situations in which the last subjective character is 
expected are the continuing-subjective,
interrupted-subjective, broken-subjective, postsubjective-nonactive, and
postsubjective-active situations, that is, all situations but
presubjective-nonactive and presubjective-active.  The
situations in which an active character is an expected subjective character 
are the presubjective-active and postsubjective-active situations.
.pp
The topic of Chapter 5 is how the algorithm uses the text situation
to decide if a sentence is subjective.
The algorithm also considers the current situation to decide if
the subjective character of a private-state sentence is the
experiencer of the private state, as discussed in Chapter 6, and in
the interpretation of perceptual-action and psychological-action sentences,
as discussed in Chapter 7.
.sh 1 "INPUT UNITS."
In the above discussion, mention was made of sentences that denote
actions.  However, a single sentence can contain more than one clause,
and so can potentially denote more than one action or other kind of
event.  This section specifies the separate units of input to
the algorithm and clarifies some aspects of the definition of
an active character.
.pp  
First,
.ul
compound sentences,
sentences consisting of two or more coordinated main clauses,
are broken up into their main clauses.  Each main clause is a 
separate input unit to the algorithm.  For example, each of the following
sentences is broken up into its two coordinated main clauses:
.(q
\*[1\*]Mary went to the store and \*[2\*]John washed the dishes.
.sp
\*[1\*]John plays the guitar; \*[2\*]his sister, on the other hand,
plays the piano.
.sp
\*[1\*]John and Mary are living in 
Paris, or \*[2\*]at least they are spending the
summer there.
.sp
\*[1\*]David went to college, but \*[2\*]John enlisted in the army.
.)q
Note that a sentence is not a compound sentence simply because it contains
coordination.  It is a compound sentence only if two or more main clauses
are coordinated.  For example, the following sentences contain coordinated
units but they are not compound sentences:
.(q
John visited Mary and Sue (coordination of elements within the object)
.sp
John and Mary visited Sue (coordination of elements within the subject)
.)q
Each of these sentences is one input unit to the algorithm.
.pp
.ul
Complex sentences,
sentences consisting of only one main clause but which have one or 
more subordinated clauses, are not broken up 
into simpler input units.
The following sentences are each given as one input unit to the algorithm
(the subordinated clauses are italicized):
.(q
He knew
.ul
that Mary had been in the room.
.sp
.ul
While John went to the store, 
Mary washed the dishes.
.sp
.ul
Singing as he went,
John practically flew to the store.
.sp
.ul
As she washed the dishes,
Mary thought about John.
.sp
.ul
While making sure the wires did not touch,
the spy carefully set the timer.
.sp
.ul
Although Mary had already washed the dishes,
John washed them again.
.sp
She wasn't going to the party,
.ul
because Mary had told her it wouldn't be any fun.
.)q
.pp
A paragraph break is treated as a separate input unit.  Further, although
some texts do not mark the first paragraph of a chapter (e.g., by
indentation), a paragraph break is always given as a separate input
unit to the algorithm at the beginning of a chapter.
In addition,
a paragraph break is always given as a separate input unit to the
algorithm at the beginning of a scene break (recall that a scene break
is not always accompanied by a chapter break).
Thus, if two sentences are not in the same chapter, or if they are
not in the same scene, then they are not in the same paragraph, either. 
.pp
Quoted speech is treated differently from other kinds of sentences.
Contiguous clauses of quoted speech with the same speaker are
treated as one clause.
The rules are the following.
First, if one or more
contiguous clauses of quoted speech have the same speaker and are
in the same paragraph, and the block of quoted-speech clauses
either
begins or ends with a discourse parenthetical,
then they and the discourse parenthetical together are treated as if
they formed one clause.
The following is an example in which a discourse parenthetical prefaces
quoted speech clauses:
.(q
\*[1\*]Scanning it, he [Jakubiec] observed, ``He looks all right.  Stayed
with us six times.  Paid cash.  One small query which seems to have been
settled.''
     \*[2\*]``I know about that,'' Christine said.  \*[3\*]``It was our fault.''
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 92]
.)q
The discourse parenthetical ``he observed'' and the remainder of the
clauses in the first paragraph are together treated as the main clause of
input unit (1).  Input unit (1) also has a subordinate clause, ``Scanning it''.
The following is a passage in which a discourse parenthetical appears at the
end of quoted speech:
.(q
     \*[1\*]``A man dumb enough to bet his saddle is dumb enough to eat
gourds,'' Mr. Gus had said when he heard about that bet.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 202]
.)q
This sentence is treated as one input unit.  The quoted speech and the
discourse parenthetical, ``Mr. Gus had said'' are considered
to be the main clause, and
``when he heard about that bet'' is a subordinated clause.
.pp
Second, if there is a discourse parenthetical in the middle of a group of
quoted speech clauses with the same speaker, and all of the clauses
are in the same
paragraph, then the clauses are broken up as follows:  All
of the clauses that precede the discourse parenthetical and the
parenthetical itself are treated as if they form one clause,
and the remainder of the clauses are treated as if they form another
clause which is in a different input unit from the first one.
For example:
.(q
     \*[1\*]Christine smiled.  \*[2\*]``They're raffling off 
the hotel, Sam.  I
didn't want to tell you, but you forced it out of me.''
     \*[3\*]``If they pull my ticket,'' Jakubiec said, \*[4\*]``have 'em 
draw again.  I've troubles enough already.''
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 93]
.)q
The input units under consideration are (3) and (4).  
The first clause of the second paragraph together with the discourse
parenthetical are treated as the main clause of input unit (3).
The last two clauses in the second paragraph are together treated as the
main clause of input unit (4).
.pp
Finally, if there is no discourse parenthetical, then contiguous sentences
of quoted speech with the same speaker that are in the same paragraph
are treated as one input unit.  For example:
.(q
     \*[1\*]``He'll probably be grateful.  I'll clip a note on the letter.''
\*[2\*]Her eyes met Peter's directly.  \*[3\*]``You like all this,
don't you?  Running a hotel; the other things that go with it.''
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 121]
.)q
There are two input units in this passage that are comprised of more than
one quoted-speech sentence:  input units (1) and (3).
.pp
Previous sections described the information about the preceding
passages that the algorithm uses.  The algorithm uses the
following information about the current input unit:
.ip (i)
the type of event denoted by one of the clauses, and
.ip (ii)
which, if any, 
.ul
potential subjective elements
appear; these are discussed in Chapter 5.
.in 0
.sp
.pp
The following categorization of events is used:
.ip (1)
Action, e.g., ``Mary went to the store.''
.ip (2)
Nonprivate state, e.g., ``Mary was eight years old.''
.ip (3)
Private state of a character, e.g., ``Mary was angry.''
.ip (4)
Private state of something that is not a character, e.g., ``The trees were angry'' (in a text in which the trees are not characters).
.ip (5)
Seeming state (denoted by a seeming verb 
with a to-clause), e.g., ``Mary seemed old to John.''
.ip (6)
Psychological action, e.g., ``Mary sighed.''
.ip (7)
Perceptual action, e.g., ``Mary looked at the map.''
.ip (8)
Quoted speech, e.g., ``All right,'' Mary agreed.
.in 0
.sp
Further distinctions among event types can be made.  For example,
Almeida's (1987) system for 
representing temporal relations in narrative
categorizes actions as
.ul
activities, accomplishments,
or
.ul
achievements
following Vendler (1957).
In addition, the distinction between states and actions is not
always clear-cut (Quirk et al. 1985).
However,
the above event categories are sufficient for the purposes of this 
dissertation.
.pp
Private states of characters have a major role in the algorithm
presented in this dissertation that is not shared by
private states of things that are not characters.  In the remainder
of this dissertation, the term ``private state''
used without qualification as to whether the experiencer is
a character means ``private state of a character''.
.pp
I use the term ``argument'' to refer to the most ``agentive''
participant
of an event.  So, the argument of a private or nonprivate
state is the experiencer of the state; the argument of a seeming
state,
.ul
X seems Y to Z,
is $Z$;
the argument of an action, a psychological action, or a perceptual action
is the actor; and the argument of quoted speech is the speaker.
.pp
The algorithm chooses one event to consider out of those denoted by
clauses in the current input unit.
Which event is chosen if one of the events is a
private state, seeming state, psychological action, or perceptual action
((3)-(6) above) is discussed in Chapters 6 and 7; the complete rule
is given in Chapter 7, Section 2.
If none of the events is one of these, then the algorithm chooses the
event denoted by the main clause of the input unit as the one to consider.  
For example, out of the events denoted by clauses in the following
input unit:
.(q
While Mary washed the dishes, John went to the store.
.)q
the algorithm chooses John's action for
consideration, which is denoted by the main
clause, rather than Mary's action, which is denoted by the subordinated
clause.
.pp
Three issues concerning an active character can now be addressed.
First, the action of a character and quoted speech are distinct event
types; either can make the actor or speaker, respectively, an
active character.
Second, 
it was stated above in Section 2.2 that 
a character can be the
active character
of a 
.ul
sentence;
instead, a character can be the active character of an 
.ul
input unit.
Further, condition (i) in the definition of the active character of
an input unit, which was stated as: 
.ip (i)
the sentence is an objective sentence denoting a current action,
.in 0
.sp
can now be stated more precisely:
.ip (i)
the input unit is an objective input unit for which the event chosen to
consider is either a current action or quoted speech currently
uttered
.in 0
.pp
Third, consider the algorithm's rule, given above in Section 4, for
resolving competition between the last subjective character and the
last active character:
.(q
If both the last active character and the last subjective character are expected subjective characters and are not the same,
   then if the sentence is about the last active character,
           \*[1\*]then the subjective character is the last subjective character
   \*[2\*]else the subjective character is the last active character.
.)q
The test for branch (1) can now be clarified:  a sentence, or more
precisely, an input unit,
is considered
to be about a character
if she is
the argument of the event chosen to consider in that input unit, for
example, the actor if the chosen event is an action.
.pp
The algorithm decides that an entire input unit is
subjective or not subjective;
it never decides that
part of it is subjective and part of it is not.  Consider the following
sentence, which is one input unit:
.(q
``John sure was mad,'' Mary said, as if it actually mattered to her.
.)q
If the algorithm decides that the linguistic elements `as if' and
`actually' should be understood with respect to a character's
consciousness (see Chapter 5), then it decides that the entire
sentence is subjective, even the quoted speech.
.pp
The word ``sentence'' is used in this dissertation to
refer to the current input unit.
As discussed above, the current input
may be just part of a compound sentence, or, if the current 
input unit is quoted speech,
it may consist of more than one sentence.  It should be understood
that the word ``sentence'' is used in this special way unless otherwise
indicated.  This includes the definitions of the expected subjective
characters and the text situations given in this
chapter.  In addition, in citations of passages in subsequent chapters,
input units rather than sentences are numbered.
.pp
Terms comprised of the name of an event type followed
by ``sentence'' are often used in subsequent chapters.  Examples are
``private-state sentence'', ``nonprivate-state sentence'', and ``action
sentence''.  Something referred to as an <event-type> ``sentence''
is an input unit, and the event chosen to consider is of type
<event-type>.  Thus, a private-state sentence is an input unit
of which the event chosen to consider is a private state.
.bp
.sz +2
.ce 2
.b
Chapter 5
Potential Subjective Elements
.r
.sz -2
.ls 2
.sp
.sh 1 "INTRODUCTION." 1
The topic of this chapter is the use of
linguistic elements
to recognize subjective
sentences.
Later chapters (Chapters 6 and 7) are devoted to the treatment of
private-state sentences, seeming-state sentences, and psychological-action and
perceptual-action sentences; these kinds of sentences are not considered 
in the discussion that follows.
Sentences with narrative parentheticals are also
not considered.
A narrative parenthetical explicitly indicates that a sentence is subjective,
so the linguistic elements discussed in this chapter are not needed to
recognize subjective sentences in which narrative parentheticals
appear.
.pp
Banfield (1982) identifies a set of linguistic elements that
can appear only in subjective sentences, which she calls
.ul
subjective elements.
Examples are exclamations, which express an emotion such as surprise or
alarm, e.g.,
.(q
(1)
.br
     \*[1.1\*]Zoe glanced up from her feet.
.ul
\*[1.2\*]Standing in the changing-room door was Mr. Pear!
.br
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 79]
.)q
and questions, which express wonder, curiosity, puzzlement, etc., e.g.,
.(q
(2)
.br
\*[2.1\*]He [Sandy] wanted to talk to Dennys.
.ul
\*[2.2\*]How were they going to be able to get home from this strange desert
.ul
land into which they had been cast and which was heaven knew where in
.ul
all the countless solar systems in all the countless galaxies?
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 91]
.)q
To understand an exclamation or a question, the emotion that is expressed has
to be attributed to someone.  In conversation, the
emotion is understood to be the speaker's.
In narrative text, there are two possibilities:  the emotion can be
an overt narrator's (see Chapter 2) or it can be a character's.
Since this dissertation focuses on texts without overt narrators,
the only possibility we need to consider is that the subjective element
expresses the emotions of a character.
.pp
There are other linguistic elements that can, but need not, 
evoke a character's consciousness.
An example is the conditional, a sentence with a subordinated clause
beginning with `if' (other subordinators can be used as well; see
Section 9.3.6).
Conditionals make reference to possibilities, which can be elements
of reasoning.
In the following passage, for example, Lorena is deciding
whether she should take Gus's bet.  In the process of her decision making,
she considers the possibility that she will win the bet:
.(q
(3)
.br
     \*[3.1\*]Lorena thought she might as well.  \*[3.2\*]After all, it 
was just gambling, which was what Jake did.
.ul
\*[3.3\*]If she won it would all seem like a joke, something that Gus
.ul
had cooked up to pass the time.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 192]
.)q
In the following passage, 
a character forms an intention based on a possibility
expressed by a conditional:
.(q
(4)
.br
\*[4.1\*]Gus liked to be a rival more than anything else, Jake figured.
\*[4.2\*]And as for Lorie going through with it\(emwell, it relieved him of
a certain level of responsibility for her.
.ul
\*[4.3\*]If she was going to to keep that much independence, so would he.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 213]
.)q
Jake forms the intention, expressed in (4.3), to keep his independence
under the condition that Lorena keeps hers.
.pp
However, although no examples were found in the texts considered, 
a conditional can conceivably appear in an objective sentence.  If the
following were an objective sentence, for example,
.(q
If it had rained in April, the drought would not have occurred.
.)q
then it is simply true that rain in April would have averted the drought.
Thus, conditionals are not necessarily understood with respect to 
a character's consciousness.
In contrast, an exclamation or a question 
necessarily expresses someone's emotion.
.sh 1 "POTENTIAL SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS AND SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS."
I define a category of linguistic elements called
.ul
potential subjective elements,
which consists of Banfield's subjective elements together with
linguistic elements that can, but do not necessarily, indicate a character's
consciousness.
It is defined extensionally
in Section 9.
Note that by ``linguistic'' in ``linguistic element'' I do not
mean ``lexical''. 
Many potential subjective elements are words used in particular ways.
Others are syntactic, e.g., that the subject and verb of a sentence
are inverted.  Section 9 does not specify potential subjective elements
simply by listing words and syntactic properties.  Instead, it
specifies the particular uses of words and syntactic properties that are
potential subjective elements.
Much of the terminology in Section 9 is from
.ul
A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language
by Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik.
However, that text does not address
identifying linguistic elements that can be used
to recognize subjective sentences.
.pp
I use the term ``subjective element'' to refer to a 
potential subjective element that
.ul
is
understood with respect to a character's consciousness.
Thus, this dissertation redefines Banfield's term.
As Banfield uses the term, a subjective element is a linguistic element
that is always subjective, whenever it appears.
As the term is used here, a subjective element is 
a potential subjective
element, appearing in a particular sentence, that actually is subjective.
The difference in meaning is significant for
potential subjective elements that are not
necessarily subjective, such as conditionals.
.pp
A sentence that contains a subjective element is subjective.
To use potential subjective elements to recognize subjective sentences,
therefore, we need some way to determine when potential subjective
elements are subjective elements.  This is addressed in Section 3,
below.
.pp
Other researchers have discussed
some of the potential subjective elements in
relation to subjective sentences, as will be indicated in
relevant sections below.  However,
the identification of many of them
is a contribution of this dissertation.
Additional contributions are
showing 
the need to decide if a potential subjective element is a subjective
element and providing detailed specifications of the particular uses of
words and syntactic properties that are potential subjective elements.
.pp
The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows:  Sections 3 and
4 show how the algorithm decides if a potential subjective element
is a subjective element, Section 5 gives some reasons why potential subjective
elements can be subjective, and Sections 6-8 present additional
preliminary material.
Section 9 presents the potential
subjective elements, cites illustrative passages, and specifies how
the algorithm processes each of the cited passages.
Section 9 is over seventy pages long.  A thorough reading of this
section is not essential for understanding the remaining sections
of this chapter or later chapters.  A list of the 
potential-subjective-element categories can be found at the end of this chapter.
.pp
Section 10 discusses linguistic elements that should be considered
in future research, Section 11 illustrates competition between
the last subjective character and the last active character, Section
12 illustrates passages without observers, Section 13 shows
exceptions to the algorithm's rules, Section 14 discusses 
parsing issues, Section 15 considers situation types,
expected subjective characters, and a reader's comprehension of
the text, and the last section, Section 16, lists the potential 
subjective element categories, as mentioned above.
Demonstrations of the algorithm can be found in Section 9.2.1,
at the end of Section 9, and in Sections 11 and 12.
.sh 1 "TEXT SITUATIONS AND SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS."
Some potential subjective elements are subjective elements more often than
others are.
However, the appearance of various potential subjective elements 
in subjective sentences
is not random.  For example, if the previous sentence was subjective 
and no paragraph break separates the current and previous sentences, then 
usually any 
kind of potential subjective element in the current sentence is a subjective
element.  On the other hand, some potential subjective elements
are usually subjective elements even if a paragraph break 
and objective sentences
have appeared since the last subjective sentence, as long as the last 
subjective sentence appeared in the current scene.
Generally, most potential subjective elements are usually
subjective elements in particular text situations (see Chapter 4 for
definitions of the text situations).
Some potential subjective elements, however,
are subjective regardless of the text situation in which
they appear.  An example is the exclamation.
.pp
The algorithm decides whether a potential subjective element appearing in a 
sentence is a subjective element by considering the situation in
which the sentence appears.  Each kind of potential subjective element is
associated with certain situations.  If a sentence contains a
potential subjective element, and the sentence appears in a situation
with which the potential subjective element is associated, then
the algorithm decides that that the use of the potential subjective 
element is a subjective element.  For example,
a conditional is a subjective element in all situations but
the presubjective-nonactive situation;
the shifted past is a subjective element
only in the continuing-subjective situation (i.e., the previous
sentence was subjective and a paragraph break does not appear between
the previous and current sentences), and an exclamation is a
subjective element in any situation.
Thus, since the algorithm considers the current text situation to 
decide
if the use of a potential subjective element is a subjective element,
it operates on the following principle:  The use of a 
potential subjective element is a subjective element
if it appears in a text situation with which it is associated.
.pp
Before continuing, it should be noted that of Banfield's subjective
elements, only those with evaluative or emotive meanings are considered
by the algorithm to be necessarily subjective.
This excludes sentence fragments, of which
examples were found that are not clearly subjective.  In these instances,
sentence fragments are used for stylistic effects other than expressing
someone's consciousness.
This also excludes something Banfield calls a 
.ul
repetition
or 
.ul
hesitation, 
of which she gives the following example:
.(q
His wife still loved him, physically. 
.ul
But, but
\(em he was almost the unnecessary party in the affair.
[Lawrence, ``England, 
My England'', p. 310; cited by Banfield 1982, p. 75]
.)q
Banfield does not specify in detail what qualifies as a subjective
repetition or hesitation; this question is not addressed in this
dissertation.
.sh 1 "ASSOCIATION OF POTENTIAL SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS WITH SITUATIONS."
The potential subjective elements form groups according to the text
situations with which they are associated.
The text situations are ordered as follows:
.ip (1)
The presubjective-nonactive situation
.ip (2)
The presubjective-active, postsubjective-active, and postsubjective-nonactive
situations
.ip (3)
The broken-subjective and interrupted-subjective situations
.ip (4)
The continuing-subjective situation
.in 0
.sp
If a potential subjective element is associated
with the situation(s) in group (i) of this list, then it is also
associated with the situation(s) in groups (i+1)...(4).
A potential subjective element is associated 
.ul
at the highest level
with the situation(s) in
group (i) if it is associated with the situation(s) in groups
(i)...(4) but not with the situation(s) in groups 1...(i-1).
Note that the potential subjective elements associated with group
(1) are subjective elements in any situation; those associated
with group (2) are subjective elements if there is an
expected subjective character; those associated with group (3)
are subjective elements if there is a last subjective character, and
if either the previous sentence is subjective
or the last subjective sentence 
appeared in the current paragraph;
and those associated with group (4) are subjective elements only
if the previous sentence was subjective and no paragraph break appears
between the current and previous sentences.
.pp
With the exception of two situations discussed in the next paragraph,
the association of potential subjective elements with text
situations is conservative in order that the algorithm err
on the side of not recognizing sentences that actually are
subjective, rather than on the side of misinterpreting sentences to be
subjective that actually are not.
In particular, only Banfield's emotive and evaluative subjective elements,
which must be understood to express someone's emotions or evaluations,
are associated with the presubjective-nonactive situation.
The number of subjective sentences that appear in this situation is small,
because, by definition, only the first subjective sentence of a scene appears 
in a presubjective situation.
It may be that other potential subjective elements
should also be associated 
with this situation,
particularly those associated
with the situations in group (2).
Evidence against 
associating some of them with 
the presubjective-nonactive situation\(emtheir 
appearance in sentences that are not characters' subjective
sentences\(emwas not found;
on the other hand,
evidence 
.ul
for 
doing so\(emtheir appearance in
subjective sentences in the presubjective-nonactive situation\(emwas not found
either.
.pp
The problematic situations are the presubjective-active and 
interrupted-subjective situations, because there are few subjective sentences
that appear in these situations, and because there isn't an independent
reason for associating potential subjective elements with them, as there
is for the presubjective-nonactive situation.  
The reason that the number of subjective sentences in the presubjective-active
situation is small was given above:  only the first subjective sentence
of a scene is in a presubjective situation.
The reason that
few subjective sentences appear in the interrupted-subjective situation
(i.e., the situation in which a subjective sentence appears earlier in
the current paragraph and an objective sentence has appeared since the
last subjective sentence), is that
a subjective context tends to continue to the end of
the paragraph, or, if an objective context follows a subjective context
within a paragraph, the objective context tends to continue to the end
of the paragraph.  Thus, a larger body of texts must be examined in future
work to justify associating the same potential subjective elements
with the presubjective-active and the 
postsubjective situations, and associating the same potential subjective
elements with the interrupted-subjective and broken-subjective situations.
.sh 1 "WHY POTENTIAL SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS CAN BE SUBJECTIVE."
This section outlines some reasons why potential subjective elements 
can be subjective elements.
These reasons are not entirely distinct.
.sh 2 "Evidentiality."
Many potential subjective elements are
.ul
evidentials.
Willet (1988) and Bybee (1985), among others,
apply the term 
.ul
evidential
to ``markers that indicate
something about the
.ul
source
of the information in the proposition''
(Bybee 1985, p. 184; italics in original).
That is, ``evidentiality is the linguistic means
of indicating how the speaker obtained the information on which s/he
bases an assertion.'' (Willet 1988, p. 55).
However, Chafe (1986) uses the term in a broader sense; he does not restrict
its application to the expression of evidence for a statement.
Instead, he applies the term to the expression of 
attitudes toward knowledge in general.
Chafe's use of the term is adopted here.
.pp
As Chafe (1986) describes them,
evidentials qualify the status of the basic information conveyed in a
statement.  The qualification can concern how 
reliable the information
is.  Both uncertainty and certainty can be expressed by an evidential, for
example by the adverbials `maybe' and `surely'.
The 
.ul
mode of knowledge
is another kind of qualification.  This concerns the various ways knowledge
can be acquired from various kinds of sources.
For example, knowledge can be acquired through induction, in which case
the source is evidence.  For example, the auxiliary `must' is often
used as this kind of evidential.
I have observed a discourse relation in
third-person narrative text that holds between, on the one hand,
a represented perception or
perceptual report, and, on the other, a sentence containing this kind of
evidential.
The discourse relation is that the content of the latter was inferred
by the subjective character from the perception of the former.
An example appears in the following:
.(q
(5)
.br
\*[5.1\*]Newt took the gun and slipped it out of his holster.
\*[5.2\*]It smelled faintly
of oil\(em\*[5.3\*]the Captain must have oiled it that day.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 111-112]
.)q
Sentence (5.2) is Newt's represented perception and (5.3) contains
`must' used as an evidential expressing that knowledge was
acquired through induction.  Newt infers that the Captain oiled the
gun recently from his perception that the gun smells of oil.
The two sentences involved can be in either order:  The same relation
would hold if (5.3) were to come before (5.2):
.(q
New took the gun and slipped it out of his holster. The Captain must
have oiled it that day\(emIt smelled faintly of oil.
.)q
.pp
Deduction can also be the means of acquisition; evidentials that can mark this
situation are the adverbials `therefore' and `thus'.
.pp
An evidential can also hedge
the appropriateness of a term for expressing the information in a statement.
Examples are `sort of' and `kind of':
``A piece of knowledge may match a verbal category more or less well.
A less than perfect match is signaled by a hedge like `sort of' 
or `kind of' ''(Chafe 1986, p. 272).
The final kind of evidential
Chafe identifies are those that signal expectations of some kind against
which knowledge is matched.  These evidentials can express that
the information in a statement 
.ul
is 
in line with expectations (e.g., the adverbial `of course') or
that it is 
.ul
not
in line with expectations (e.g., the adverbial `even').
.pp
Since objective sentences create the story-world and the events that
occur, there is no reason in a truly objective sentence to indicate
certainty or uncertainty, for example, or to indicate the source of
the information.
However,
evidentials can appear in passages that are not characters'
subjective contexts, but instead present what one would perceive and
the impressions one would have if one were observing the scene
(see Section 12).
In particular, evidentials such as `as if' and `seem' 
have been found in passages of
this type.
If they appear in a character's subjective
sentence, then the subjective
character is an external observer.  But if they appear
in a sentence that is not a character's subjective sentence, then
perceptions and impressions that an observer would have if one
were present are given.
.sh 2 "Lack of Knowledge."
Some potential subjective elements indicate a lack of knowledge
about who or what something is.
Examples are `whoever' and `a kind of'.
.sh 2 "Emotion, Evaluation, and Judgment."
Two potential subjective elements that express emotion have already
been identified:  the exclamation and the question.  There are many
kinds of evaluation and judgment that can be expressed by potential
subjective elements.
Judgments can be judgments of goodness and badness, e.g.,
`good', `wonderful', `terrible', and `dreadful'; value or moral
judgments, e.g., `reprehensible' and `right'; or judgments of
obligation, e.g., `had better' and `ought to'.
Many
potential subjective elements that are evaluative also express emotion:
for example, `idiot' expresses a negative evaluation of the referent,
and it also expresses a negative emotion toward him or her (Dolezel
1973).
.sh 2 "Psychological Effect."
Some potential subjective elements indicate that something has a
psychological effect on someone.  For example, a boring object
causes boredom, and a surprising object causes surprise.
Fillmore (1974) notes that if a term such as `boring' or `surprising'
appears in a represented thought, and the experiencer is not specified
(i.e., the person who is bored or surprised), then the experiencer
is the subjective character.
.sh 2 "Intensification."
Intensifiers indicate the degree of something; they
scale upward or downward from an assumed norm (Quirk et al.,
p. 445).  Some intensifiers that are potential subjective elements are
evaluative, e.g.,
.ul
`absurdly
slow'; some express a judgment, e.g., 
`hot
.ul
enough';
some involve psychological effect, e.g.,
.ul
`surprisingly 
quiet'; and others are evidentials, e.g., hedges, such as
.ul
`sort of
peach', and elements that address expectations, such as
`It was
.ul
only
bread and water'
(something ``more than'' bread and water is expected).
.sh 2 "Relationship."
Potential subjective elements can express a relationship to something.
Some express a kinship relationship, e.g.,
.ul
Mom 
and
.ul
Aunt Margaret.
Familiarity is another kind of relationship expressed by potential
subjective elements.  For example,
a person is
a `stranger' to someone who does not know her, and
something is `familiar' to someone who is familiar with it.
.sh 2 "Reasoning."
In a subjective context, the
subjective character's reasoning or train of thought
can be reflected in the discourse
relations among the sentences.
For example, a subjective sentence might give a conclusion,
decision, or opinion, 
and other sentences in the same subjective
context might indicate something about the origin of the conclusion,
decision, or opinion:  Evidence or reasons might be given, or the
process by which it was reached might be shown.
In fact, subjective contexts are often similar to argumentative
discourse, in which positions are given and supported.  However,
the purpose of argumentative discourse is to convince someone of
one's position, but in subjective sentences, which express private thoughts,
perceptions, and other private states,
the subjective character is not trying to convince another
person of a position.  Thus,
a subjective context is not, strictly speaking, 
argumentative discourse.
One might say, as Fillmore (1974) does, that a subjective
context represents the subjective character talking to herself.  Then,
subjective contexts in which support is given for positions could
be interpreted as the subjective character trying to convince
herself of the position.  However,
although sometimes the subjective character 
.ul
is
trying to convince herself of something,
and even challenges her own conclusions or defends them to herself
(which are other features of argumentative discourse in addition to 
position and support (Schiffrin 1987)), 
subjective contexts giving support for positions can simply represent
the character coming to a conclusion, or can simply 
express a character's beliefs and the reasons why she holds them.
.pp
In whatever way subjective contexts of these types should be
characterized, it is important to note that subjective contexts with
different subjective characters comprise separate discourse segments
that are not hierarchically related.
The discourse relations within the subjective context
of a particular character originate with that character:  It is she
who believes that something provides support for something else, for example,
and it is her logic that is reflected in the relations among sentences.
If one character's subjective context immediately follows another character's
subjective context, then there
is a shift from a
discourse originating with one character to a discourse originating with 
another.
.pp
Some potential subjective elements can indicate how what is expressed
in a sentence fits into a character's reasoning or train of thought.
Examples are the adverbials `for example' and `besides'.  Note that 
evidentiality and reasoning are not completely distinct reasons why
a potential subjective element can be a subjective element.  For example,
a linguistic element
that indicates that information was induced (and so is an evidential)
simultaneously
indicates that a conclusion was reached (and so indicates reasoning).
In addition, as Schiffrin (1987)
notes, part of a position can be an indication of confidence in the
truth of the position, such as evidentials that express certainty or
uncertainty; hedges; and some intensifiers.
.sh 1 "POTENTIAL SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS IN NARRATIVE SENTENCES."
Recall from Chapter 4 that the algorithm considers
only one of the events denoted by clauses in the current sentence
(more precisely, in the current 
input unit).  If none of the clauses denotes a private state, seeming
state, perceptual action or psychological action, then the event chosen
is the one denoted by the main clause.  However, the algorithm does not
consider only
potential subjective elements that
appear in a certain clause.
If the chosen
event is not quoted speech (see Section 7), a private or seeming state
(see Chapter 6), or a perceptual or psychological action (see Chapter 7),
then the algorithm considers all potential subjective elements in the
current sentence, wherever they appear.
.sh 1 "TREATMENT OF QUOTED SPEECH."
Quoted speech can have the properties of subjective sentences discussed
in Chapter 1:  a speaker's utterance often
expresses her emotions, judgments, and
evaluations, reveals her motivations, and reflects her beliefs
(actually, her beliefs about the mutual beliefs of herself
and the hearer; see Chapter 8).  However, quoted speech differs
from subjective sentences in that speaking is a public action rather
than the expression or report of a thought, perception, or experience.  
Quoted speech
.ul
as an action
can be important for recognizing subjective sentences.
That is, quoted speech can make the speaker
an active character, and she might then become the subjective character of
a subsequent subjective sentence.
However, the fact that quoted speech expresses 
the speaker's emotions, judgments,
etc., is not important for recognizing subjective sentences,
even if the speaker's subjectivity is expressed by subjective elements.
Thus, the algorithm does not consider subjective elements that
appear in quoted speech.
.pp
On the other hand,
subjective elements that appear in discourse parentheticals
.ul
are
important, and are considered by the algorithm.  For example:
.(q
(6)
.br
     \*[6.1\*]``I'll talk to Amy,'' 
.ul
Daddy 
said, \*[6.2\*]``and make sure she
behaves herself.''
[Sachs,
.ul
Amy and Laura\c
, p. 100]
.)q
The subjective element `Daddy' (see Section 9.2.5)
in the discourse parenthetical in (6.1) is
attributed to an expected subjective character, Laura.
A subjective element that appears in a clause subordinated to
a direct speech main clause is also considered:
.(q
(7)
.br
     \*[7.1\*]``We've never shot airy other gun,'' Swift Bill said,
.ul
as if that meant they couldn't.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 177]
.)q
The subjective elements `as if' (see
Section 9.3.9) and `meant' (see Section 9.3.8) in the subordinated clause
are considered.  As this sentence appears in context, it is Call's
subjective sentence.
.sh 1 "NONPRIVATE-STATE SENTENCES."
Typically, if a nonprivate-state sentence immediately follows a
subjective sentence, it continues the subjective context.
For example:
.(q
(8)
.br
     \*[8.1\*]Lorena didn't like it that Gus acted like Jake wasn't much.
.ul
\*[8.2\*]He had a reputation for being a cool man in a fight.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 190]
.)q
Sentence (8.1) is Lorena's subjective sentence, and (8.2), 
a nonprivate-state sentence, continues her subjective context.
.pp
The algorithm, therefore, uses the following rule:
.(q
If a nonprivate-state sentence appears in the continuing-subjective situation,
   then the sentence is subjective, even if no subjective elements appear.
.)q
This rule is based only on observation of texts.
There is no more compelling reason why a nonprivate-state sentence should
continue a subjective context than that
a nonprivate state is something that can be reflected upon or
perceived.
Subjective elements are more reliable than nonprivate-state sentences,
so
if a nonprivate-state sentence appears in the continuing-subjective 
situation, the algorithm can be more certain
that the sentence is subjective if a subjective element appears than
if one does not appear.
Thus, if a nonprivate-state sentence appears in the continuing-subjective 
situation,
and the sentence contains
a subjective element, then the algorithm reports that the sentence
is subjective because it contains a subjective
element, not because the sentence is a nonprivate-state sentence.
.pp
In the following passage, there is a nonprivate-state sentence that is
.ul
not 
a subjective sentence, even though it appears in the continuing-subjective 
situation.
The algorithm incorrectly interprets this sentence to be subjective.
Since this sentence
does not contain any subjective elements, the rule just given
is responsible for the algorithm's failure:
.(q
(9)
.br
     \*[9.1\*]In his private six-room suite on the hotel's fifteenth floor,
Warren Trent stepped down from the barber's chair in which Aloysius
Royce had shaved him.  \*[9.2\*]A twinge of sciatica jabbed savagely in
his left thigh like hot lancets\(ema warning that this would
be another day during which his mercurial temper might need curbing.
.ul
\*[9.3\*]The private barber parlor was in an annex adjoining 
.ul
a capacious bathroom,
.ul
the latter complete with steam cabinet, sunken Japanese-style tub
.ul
and built-in aquarium from which tropical fish watched, broody-eyed,
.ul
through laminated glass.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 77]
.)q
Sentence (9.2) is Trent's subjective sentence, and so (9.3)
appears in the continuing-subjective situation.
Even so, sentence (9.3), a nonprivate-state sentence, is not a subjective
sentence.
It is not subjective, because it does not continue Trent's train of
thought.  Where the private barber parlor is and what can be found
in his bathroom, described in (9.3), are not related to Trent's concern,
expressed in (9.2), that he might have to curb his temper because his
sciatica is bothering him.
.pp
Additional examples of nonprivate-state sentences that appear in the
continuing-subjective situation and that do continue the subjective
context can be found in passages
cited elsewhere in this and later chapters.
.sh 1 "THE POTENTIAL SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS."
Dolezel's (1973) analyses of linguistic elements that characterize
represented thought in Czech (his term for represented thought is
.ul
represented discourse)
suggested to me some kinds of potential subjective elements to look for.
In addition to discussing person, tense, and deixis, Dolezel 
lists the following general categories of linguistic elements
that characterize represented thought:
.ip (i)
Linguistic elements with emotive functions,
such as interjections (e.g.,
`Ugh'), exclamatory sentences, and questions.
.ip (ii)
.ul
Attitudinal
terms,
which are
adjectives, adverbs and nouns with evaluative meanings.
He also includes kinship terms such as `Daddy' in this category.
.ip (iii)
Linguistic elements concerned with
.ul
modality,
which attribute to a statement ``the quality of reality, unreality,
possibility, conditionality, desirability, or necessity'' (p. 37).
.in 0
.sp
Many of the potential subjective elements listed below could be included
in one of these categories.
.pp
Before discussing the potential subjective elements themselves,
there are some things to note.  First,
how the algorithm decides if certain kinds of sentences\(emprivate-state 
sentences, seeming-state sentences, and psychological-action and
perceptual-action sentences\(emare subjective and how it identifies their
subjective characters are the topics of Chapters 6 and 7 and
have not yet been discussed.
Thus, for 
sentences of these kinds that
appear in passages cited below, I simply indicate if they are subjective
and, if so, who their subjective characters are.
.pp
Second, many of the reasons that a potential subjective element can
be a subjective element given in Section 5 involve some kind of
attitude, either toward information or individuals.  
The word ``attitude'' is used in the name of a potential subjective 
element category if the members of that category are potential subjective
elements for different reasons, all of which involve some
kind of attitude.  Note that this use of ``attitude'' does not
correspond exactly to Dolezel's use of ``attitudinal''.  For example,
an evidential such as ``possible'' would fall into Dolezel's third
category, linguistic elements concerned with modality; in this dissertation,
``possible'' is included in the potential subjective element category
``attitude adjective'', because it expresses an attitude toward knowledge.   
.pp
Third, some grammatical concepts used below need to be defined
(this information is taken from Quirk et al. 1985).
A 
.ul
complement
is a clause element in a copular relationship with another clause element.
That is,
it applies some attribute or definition to another clause element.
A complement can be an adjective phrase or a noun phrase.
A 
.ul
subject complement
relates to the subject, and the verb is copular (examples of copular verbs 
are `be', `become', and `seem').  For example:
.(q
Mary was 
.ul
afraid to go out at night.
.sp
It was 
.ul
something that she had to do.
.sp
The country became 
.ul
a separate nation.
.)q 
An
.ul
object complement 
relates to the object.  
For example:
.(q
Carol made John 
.ul
her assistant.
.)q
The copular relation between the object and complement of this
sentence is that
John became Carol's assistant.
.pp
.ul
Apposition
is a relation between noun phrases that are identical in reference.
The appositive noun phrase identifies or further specifies the
referent.  For example:
.(q
John,
.ul
her best friend,
visited her last night.
.sp
Mary,
.ul
someone John used to date,
visited last night.
.sp
Mary Smith,
.ul
a wonderful singer,
performed at the club last night.
.)q
.pp
Italics appearing in the passages cited below
are mine unless otherwise
indicated.  In addition, it should be assumed that a scene break
does not occur and that a sentence does not have an active character
unless indicated otherwise.
.sh 2 "Ordering of the Situations."
Recall that the situations are ordered as follows:
.ip (1)
The presubjective-nonactive situation
.ip (2)
The presubjective-active, postsubjective-active, and postsubjective-nonactive
situations
.ip (3)
The broken-subjective and interrupted-subjective situations
.ip (4)
The continuing-subjective situation
.in 0
.sp
and that
if a potential subjective element is associated
with the situation(s) in group (i) of this list, then it is also
associated with the situation(s) in groups (i+1)...(4).
.sh 2 "Potential Subjective Elements Associated with Group (1)."
This section presents the potential subjective elements associated
at the highest level with
the presubjective-nonactive situation, the situation in group
(1).  Thus, these potential subjective elements 
are subjective elements in any situation.
.sh 3 "Exclamations."
Exclamations are expressed not only by sentences with exclamation points,
but also by 
.ul
verbless exclamatory phrases
such as the following: 
.sp
.in +2
.ul
boy, for heaven's sake, in heaven's name, <wh-word> in the world,
.ul
<wh-word> in heaven's name,
.ul
heaven knows, small wonder, thank goodness, no wonder
.in 0
.sp
Interjections, such as
.sp
.in +2
.ul
aha, oh, ugh, wow
.in 0
.sp
can also have exclamatory force.
.pp
Recall that if a subjective sentence appears in the 
presubjective-nonactive
situation (and
it isn't a private-state sentence, seeming-state sentence, 
psychological-action or perceptual-action sentence),
then
the subjective character is unidentified.  Few examples of this situation 
were found, even in texts others than those listed in Chapter 1,
and so there were few data from which to draw conclusions
about how the subjective character is later identified.  The algorithm
identifies the subjective character to be the next character to be the
argument of the event chosen to consider in a subsequent sentence.
This rule will have to be evaluated in future research once more
examples are found.
.pp
The following passage is the beginning of a novel:
.(q
(10)
.br
\*[10.1\*]Captain Scalawag's treasure!
\*[10.2\*]It was the first thing Pete thought
of when he woke up.
[Lorimer,
.ul
The Mystery of the Missing Treasure\c
, p. 1]
.)q
Sentence (10.2) identifies the subjective character of (10.1).  The
following is a demonstration of the algorithm using the sentence-level
parser on a simplified version of this passage.  The parser assumes
that the situation is initially presubjective-nonactive unless it
is explicitly told otherwise.  In this and all subsequent demonstrations
given in this dissertation, certain information has been deleted
from the actual output of the system in order to save space.  These
are the listing of the arcs defined, the commands calling and
exiting from the ATN parser and the messages printed in response, and
messages about the source of the input stream.  The input to the
system are the sentences following colons; all other lines are
the system's output:
.(q
.nf
Script started on Tue Jul 18 14:19:22 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Tue Jul 18 14:19:28 1989
sneps

: Captain Scalawag's treasure!
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Potential subjective elements considered: 
  exclamation
  sentence_fragment
Of these, the following is a subjective element: 
  exclamation
New subj_char who is unidentified 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  exclamation
The subj_char is b9 (unidentified)
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 4.433 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Pete thought of it when he woke up.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      b9 (unidentified), the last subj_char 
The last subj_char is now identified:  Pete
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Pete
The subj_char is Pete
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 9.733 gc= 2.133) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> ^D
script done on Tue Jul 18 14:22:05 1989
.fi
.)q
The algorithm recognizes that the first sentence is subjective because
it is an exclamation.  Since there isn't an expected subjective character 
when this sentence
is encountered, its subjective character is unidentified (`b9' is the
system's arbitrary name for its representation of the
unidentified subjective character).
After processing the second sentence,
the algorithm correctly identifies the subjective character of the
first sentence to be Pete,
the experiencer of a private state denoted by the second sentence.
.pp
Here is an example of an exclamation that appears when there is an 
expected subjective character:
.(q
(11)
.br
\*[11.1\*]He [Dennys] had seen pictures of bedouin tents in his 
social studies books at school.
\*[11.2\*]These were similar, though they seemed smaller and more
closely clustered.  \*[11.3\*]It was probably from one of these tents that he
had been thrown.  \*[11.4\*]Beyond the tents were palm trees, \*[11.5\*]and he
staggered toward these.
     \*[11.6\*]He needed to shower.  
.ul
\*[11.7\*]Did he ever need to shower!
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 55]
.)q
Sentence (11.1) is Dennys's subjective sentence.  The algorithm 
recognizes that (11.2) continues his subjective context because
it contains the 
seeming verb
`seem' (see Section 9.3.8), and it recognizes that (11.3) continues
his subjective context because it contains the 
attitude adverbial
`probably' (see Section 9.3.13.4).
Sentence (11.4) is a nonprivate-state sentence,
so the algorithm recognizes that it also is Dennys's subjective sentence.
Thus, the situation just after (11.5) is
continuing-subjective.  Sentence (11.5) is objective, and there is
a paragraph break before (11.6); thus, the situation at the beginning
of (11.6) is postsubjective-nonactive.  Sentence (11.6) is
Dennys's subjective sentence, since it expresses his
judgment that he needs to shower, but the algorithm
is unable to recognize that it is (Section 10.10 discusses
`need').  According to the algorithm, therefore, the
situation at the beginning of (11.7) is postsubjective-nonactive, but in
fact, it is continuing-subjective.  The exclamation is a subjective element 
in either case, and so the algorithm recognizes that sentence (11.7)
is subjective; it correctly identifies Dennys to be the subjective character,
because he is the last subjective character.
.sh 3 "Questions."
.ul
Direct
questions rather than
.ul
indirect 
questions are potential subjective elements (Banfield 1982).
Most direct questions employ operators such as the verbs `be', 
`do', and `have',
and contain some kind of inversion in comparison with corresponding
declarative forms.  If an operator appears, then the operator and
subject are inverted.  For example:
.(q
Direct question:  Had he given the girl an apple?
.br
Declarative statement:  He had given the girl an apple.
.sp
Direct question:  Do they offer a rebate?
.br
Declarative statement:  They do offer a rebate.
.sp
Direct question:  Where is John going to school?
.br
Declarative statement:  John is going to school in Buffalo.
.)q
The only verb in a direct question might be `be'.  In this case,
the subject and `be' are usually inverted:
.(q
Direct question:  Where is John?
.br
Declarative statement:  John is at the library.
.)q
Direct questions do not always contain inversion, for example:
.(q
John is where?
.sp
They offer a rebate?
.)q
.pp
Indirect questions do not contain inversion, and contain
a verb such as `wonder' or `ask' in the main clause:
.(q
He asked if he had given the girl an apple.
.sp
He wondered if they offer a rebate.
.sp
He asked where John is going to school.
.sp
He wondered where John was.
.)q
.pp
Dolezel (1973) uses 
B$roman u dotdot$hler's
categorization of the functions of language
to analyze direct questions in subjective sentences.  According to
B$roman u dotdot$hler (1934),
there are three functions of language:
the
.ul
expressive
function, which involves the relationship of an utterance to the speaker
(or to the SELF, in Banfield's terminology);
the
.ul
allocutional function,
which involves the relationship of an utterance to the addressee;
and the
.ul
referential function,
which involves the relationship of the utterance to the topic of the utterance.
An allocutional question is a request for information and presupposes
an answer.
Rhetorical and deliberative questions, on the other hand, do not
presuppose answers; their function is expressive rather than
allocutional.  Since a subjective sentence is not directed toward
an addressee, expressive rather than allocutional questions
appear in subjective sentences (Dolezel 1973).
Objective sentences do not make any references to an addressee or
to a SELF (Banfield 1982), so neither allocutional nor expressive
questions appear in objective sentences.
.pp
In the following passage, a question appears in the postsubjective-nonactive
situation:
.(q
(12)
.br
\*[12.1\*]He [Sandy] was 
ready to ask ``What
are you?'' when he noticed a tiny bow near the pouch of arrows.
     \*[12.2\*]``No. No.''  \*[12.3\*]The young man looked at them doubtfully.
\*[12.4\*]``Only giants are as tall as you.  And the 
seraphim and nephilim.  But you have no wings.''
.ul
     \*[12.5\*]What was this about wings?
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 17]
.)q
Sentence (12.1) is Sandy's subjective sentence, so
the situation after (12.1) is continuing-subjective.
There is a paragraph break before (12.2), and (12.2) is objective (it
does not have an active character because the speaker, the young
man, has not been the subjective character),
so the situation at the beginning of (12.3) is postsubjective-nonactive.
Although (12.3) is a perceptual-action sentence, it is not subjective (the actor has not been the subjective
character; see Chapter 7).  Sentence (12.4) also is not subjective,
so the situation is still postsubjective-nonactive at the
beginning of (12.5).
The algorithm correctly recognizes that (12.5)
is subjective because it is a question, and it correctly identifies the
subjective character to be Sandy because he is the last subjective character.
.sh 3 "The Intensifiers `Enough', `So', `Such', and `Too'."
One of Banfield's subjective elements is an
.ul
intensifier.
However, she does not discuss intensifiers in detail, but
only mentions them and gives
some examples:
.(q
Satin shoes were always 
.ul
too
tight.
[Woolf, 
.ul
The Years,
p. 288]
.sp
She was 
.ul
so silent.
[Woolf,
.ul
To the Lighthouse,
p. 190]
.)q
.pp
The following are
intensifiers that can have strong evaluative meanings:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
enough, so, such, too
.in 0
.sp
These intensifiers have their strongest evaluative meanings when
.ul
not
used in certain kinds of clauses.  For `too', the kind of clause is
a comparison clause of
excess
(Quirk et al., p. 1127).  For example:
.(q
They were
.ul
too poor to own a car.
.)q
For `enough', the kind of clause is a comparison clause of
sufficiency
(Quirk et al., p. 1127), as in:
.(q
They were rich 
.ul
enough to buy a car.
.)q
For `so' and `such', the type of 
clause is a `so'...`that' or `such'... `that' correlative, where 
the clause beginning with `that' is a 
result clause 
(Quirk et al. 1985, p.
1109).  For example:
.(q
It was 
.ul
so late that the store was closed.
.sp
She was 
.ul
such a good lecturer that everyone wanted to take her class.
.)q
Note that the subordinator `that' can be omitted (the result
clause in the following sentence is italicized):
.(q
Already the debts which existed were so complicated 
.ul
it gave Newt a headache to think about them.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 202]
.)q
In the following examples, these intensifiers do not appear in the
constructions given above:
.(q
She was too easily defeated.
.sp
It was so late.
.sp
Dish was nice 
.ul
enough\c
\(emit was just that he couldn't compare with Jake Spoon.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 186]
.sp
It would
be a while before he had
.ul
such
a good shady porch to sit on, drinking the afternoon out.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 229]
.)q
When they do 
.ul
not 
appear in the constructions given
above, these intensifiers
are potential subjective elements.  They form distinct
potential subjective element categories called, respectively,
.ul
intensifier `enough', intensifier `so', intensifier `such',
and
.ul
intensifier `too'.
.pp
In this passage, intensifier `too' appears in the continuing-subjective 
situation:
.(q
(13)
.br
\*[13.1\*]She [Yalith] looked, startled, at the 
glorious creature by her, light shimmering like water from the purple wings.  
     \*[13.2\*]``I, sweet little one, I, Eblis, of the nephilim.''
     \*[13.3\*]No nephil had paid attention to her before.  \*[13.4\*]She was
.ul
too
young.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 46]
.)q
Sentence (13.1) is Yalith's subjective sentence.  It is followed by
a paragraph break and the next sentence (sentence (13.2)) is objective,
so the situation at the beginning of (13.3) is postsubjective-nonactive. 
Sentence (13.3) is Yalith's subjective
sentence:  Yalith is startled because a nephil has never
paid attention to her before.  However,
the algorithm is not able to recognize that it is because it
contains no subjective elements.
According to the algorithm, therefore,
the situation is still postsubjective-nonactive at the beginning
of (13.4); however, it is actually continuing-subjective.
In either case,
the algorithm correctly interprets (13.4) to be
Yalith's subjective sentence, because intensifier `too' appears, and
because Yalith is the last subjective character.
.pp
In the following passage, intensifier `so' appears in the
postsubjective-nonactive situation.  At the beginning of this
passage, the situation is postsubjective-nonactive, and Marsha
is the last subjective character:
.(q
(14)
.br
     \*[14.1\*]He [Peter] seemed surprised.  \*[14.2\*]``Yesterday was your 
birthday?''
     \*[14.3\*]``I was nineteen.''
     \*[14.4\*]``And you were alone?''
     \*[14.5\*]Now that she [Marsha] had revealed
.ul
so
much,
there was no point in holding back.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 107]
.)q
The algorithm recognizes that (14.1) is Marsha's subjective sentence,
because the subjective element `seem' appears (see Section 9.3.8), and because
she is the last subjective character.  The situation at the beginning
of (14.5) is postsubjective-nonactive, since objective sentences and
paragraph breaks have appeared since the last subjective sentence, (14.1).
The algorithm interprets (14.5) to be Marsha's subjective
sentence, because intensifier `so' appears, and because Marsha is the
last subjective character.  This is the correct interpretation.
.sh 3 "Evaluative Adjectives."
Some adjectives
have both
evaluative 
and
non-evaluative 
meanings (Banfield 1982).
An example is `poor'.
According to Banfield,
if such an adjective appears in a subject complement
or in an indefinite noun phrase,
it is not evaluative.
In the following sentences, for example,
`poor' means `impoverished', which is its non-evaluative meaning.  It appears
in a subject complement in the first, and in an indefinite noun
phrase in the second:
.(q
John was poor.
.sp
A poor man came through the door.
.)q
However, if this kind of adjective appears in
a definite noun phrase, then, according to Banfield, it is evaluative.
For example, `poor' appears in definite noun
phrases in the following sentences, and
means `unfortunate', which is its
evaluative meaning:
.(q
Poor John came through the door.
.sp
Augustus watched them eat the poor breakfast.
.)q
Although these syntactic rules work in many cases, they do not always.
In the following sentence, for example, `poor' has its non-evaluative
meaning even though it appears in a definite noun phrase:
.(q
The poor man is wiser than the rich man.
.)q
.pp
An adjective that has both evaluative and non-evaluative meanings is called
an
.ul
evaluative adjective
(Banfield 1982) and, when used with its evaluative meaning,
is a potential subjective element.
The following are the clearest examples given by Banfield:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
blasted, bloody, confounded, damned, dirty, divine, poor
.in 0
.sp
Other examples that she gives are:
.in +2
.ul
darn, darling, incredible, weird
.in 0
.sp
However, it is not clear to me that the adjectives in the latter group
have non-evaluative 
meanings, at least in modern usage.
Future research is required to identify the contexts in which each
evaluative adjective has its evaluative meaning.
.pp
Note that many members of the potential subjective element category
.ul
attitude adjectives
(see Section 9.3.2) are similar to the adjectives included in this category.
The evaluative adjectives have been retained as a separate
potential-subjective-element category only because they are one of
Banfield's subjective-element categories, and no evidence was
found against doing so.
.pp
The evaluative adjective `weird' appears in the following passage in the
continuing-subjective situation:
.(q
(15)
     \*[15.1\*]Dennys frowned.  \*[15.2\*]This pre-flood world was 
.ul
weird.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 96]
.)q
Sentence (15.1) is a psychological-action sentence that is
Dennys's subjective sentence.  The algorithm correctly interprets
(15.2) to be Denny's subjective sentence because it contains the
subjective element `weird'.
.pp
In this example, `weird' appears in the postsubjective-nonactive
situation:
.(q
(16)
     \*[16.1\*]Sandy's ears pricked up.  \*[16.2\*]``What do you 
mean, he was not?''
     \*[16.3\*]Grandfather Lamech said, ``He walked with El.  He was a man
of warm heart.  And El took him.''
     \*[16.4\*]It was a 
.ul
weird 
story.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 144]
.)q
Sentence (16.1) is a perceptual action sentence that is Sandy's subjective
sentence.  The situation at the beginning of (16.4) is 
postsubjective-nonactive, because paragraph breaks and objective
sentences have appeared since the last subjective sentence, (16.1).
The algorithm correctly interprets (16.4) to be Sandy's subjective
sentence, because it contains the subjective element `weird', and
because Sandy is the last subjective character.
The kinship term 
`Grandfather', which appears in (16.3), can be a
potential subjective element.
However,
Grandfather Lamech is
generally called `Grandfather Lamech', even by characters who are not
his grandchildren, so the kinship term
assumes the status of a proper name.  It
is therefore not a 
potential subjective element (see Section 9.2.5).
.sh 3 "Kinship Terms."
This section presents the final kind of potential subjective element
that is associated with the presubjective-nonactive situation.
This category is
comprised of kinship terms such as:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
Aunt Margaret, Dad, Daddy, Father, Grandfather,
.ul
Grandpa, Grandma, Grandmother, Mom, Mommy, Mother
.in 0
.sp
These are terms that one would use to directly address a family member.
Kinship terms used in possessive noun phrases are not
potential subjective elements, for example:
.(q
Her mother was in Italy.
.)q
Also, as noted in Section 9.2.4,
a kinship term can acquire the status of a proper name.
In L'Engle's
.ul
Many Waters, 
for example, there is a character who is generally referred
to as ``Grandfather Lamech'', even by characters who are not his grandchildren.
A kinship term that is used as a proper name is not a potential subjective
element.  However, this dissertation does
not offer a solution to how it is determined whether a kinship term
is used as a potential subjective element or as a proper name.
.pp
The kinship term `Mama' appears in the following passage:
.(q
(17)
.br
\*[17.1\*]There were people in the living 
room, Daddy\(emhome from work at this time?
Aunt Minnie...Amy...\*[17.2\*]and in the wheel chair in front of the drapes, 
sat...a woman.
     \*[17.3\*]``Laura!'' said the woman.  \*[17.4\*]It was
.ul
Mama.
[Sachs,
.ul
Amy and Laura\c
, p. 48]
.)q
Sentence (17.1)-(17.3) are Laura's subjective sentences.  There is
a paragraph break after (17.2), and the algorithm interprets (17.3)
to be objective;
so, the situation at the beginning of (17.4) is postsubjective-nonactive.
The algorithm recognizes that (17.4) is subjective because it contains
the subjective element `Mama', and it identifies the subjective character
to be Laura because she is the last subjective character.  Sentence
(17.3) actually is Laura's subjective sentence:  `the woman' reflects
Laura's lack of knowledge at that moment about the identity of the
referent.
.sh 2 "Potential Subjective Elements Associated with Group (2)."
This section presents the potential subjective elements that are
associated at the highest level with the situations in Group (2),
the postsubjective-nonactive, postsubjective-active,
and presubjective-active situations.  Thus, these
potential subjective elements are subjective elements if there
is an expected subjective character.
.sh 3 "Sentence Fragments."
In the following passage,
a sentence fragment appears in the postsubjective-nonactive situation:
.(q
(18)
.br
     \*[18.1\*]Dennys touched the back 
of his hand to his cheek, which
felt quite cool.  \*[18.2\*]``Sorry.  Your name is\(emwhat?''
     \*[18.3\*]``Noah.  How many times do I have to tell you?''
.ul
     \*[18.4\*]Noah.
\*[18.5\*]Noah and the flood.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 95; italics in original]
.)q
Sentence (18.1) is Dennys's subjective sentence.  The situation at
the beginning of (18.4) is postsubjective-nonactive, since paragraph
breaks and objective sentences have appeared since (18.1), the last
subjective sentence.  The algorithm recognizes that (18.4) is subjective
because it is a sentence fragment, and attributes the sentence to
Dennys because he is the last subjective character.
.sh 3 "Attitude Adjectives."
The members of this category can express an attitude of some
kind toward the object of description.  Although its name is
``attitude 
.ul
adjectives'',
some modifying expressions that are not adjectives are included as
members.
The members of this category can be subjective elements for a variety
of reasons.
.sp
Evidentiality:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
apparent, certain
(meaning
.ul
sure,
e.g., ``It was certain'',
rather than 
.ul
some,
e.g,
``Certain people attended''), 
.ul
clear
(meaning 
.ul
obvious
or 
.ul
evident,
not 
.ul
transparent\c
),
.ul
evident, indubitable, likely, obvious, plain
(meaning
.ul
evident
rather than
.ul
not fancy
or
.ul
not pretty\c
),
.ul
possible, unlikely
.sp
.in 0
Some of these can be accompanied by a to-clause:
.(q
It was apparent/clear/evident/obvious/plain to John that Mary had been there.
.)q
If accompanied by a to-clause, these adjectives are
.ul
not
potential subjective elements;
instead, the clauses in which they appear denote seeming states.  
Seeming
states are treated in the same way that private states are:  The experiencer
of a private state or seeming state can be the subjective character
of the sentence denoting that state, even if the experiencer is not
an expected subjective character (see Chapter 7).
.sp
Evaluation and Judgment:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
awful, crazy, curious, dreadful, foolish, fortunate, 
.ul
funny, good, horrible, magnificent, mere,
.ul
odd, peculiar, silly, strange, terrific, terrible, unfortunate,
.ul
unreasonable, wonderful, wondrous
.in 0
.sp
For example,
.(q
They had
been going back south, over their own tracks, which was
.ul
curious.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 181]
.)q
If `certain' or `curious' is used with an animate, 
non-propositional 
subject, then it is not a potential subjective element; instead, the
clause in which it appears
denotes a private state.
For example,
`certain' and `curious' in the following
.ul
are 
potential subjective elements:
.(q
It was certain that Mary had been there.
.sp
The fact that Mary didn't send the letter was curious.
.)q
But in the following sentences, which denote John's private states, `certain' 
and `curious' are 
.ul
not
potential subjective elements:
.(q
John was certain that Mary had been there.
.sp
John was curious about the letter.
.)q
.pp
In addition, if one of the attitude adjectives listed above modifies `mood',
then it is not a potential subjective element but instead appears
in a clause denoting a private state:
.(q
He was in a good/terrible/wonderful mood.
.)q
.sp
Value Judgment:
.in +2
.ul
correct, incorrect, false, questionable, reprehensible, right, so
(used as a complement, e.g., `It was so'),
.ul
true, unquestionable, unseemly, untrue, wrong
.in 0
.sp
For example,
.(q
She had gifts of healing.  Ham was
.ul
right
about that.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 67]
.)q
Psychological Effect:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
boring, disappointing, maddening, startling, surprising, vexing
.in 0
.sp
These adjectives can also appear with a `to-clause' identifying
who it is that is bored, disappointed, etc.  For example:
.(q
The class was boring to John.
.sp
The outcome was disappointing to John.
.)q
If used with a `to-clause', then these adjectives are not potential
subjective elements, but instead appear in clauses denoting private states.
.sp
Relationship:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
familiar, recognizable, unfamiliar, unwelcome, welcome
.in 0
.sp
Lack of Knowledge (the items listed here are not adjectives):
.in +2
.sp
.ul
a kind of, a sort of, some kind of, some sort of, some type of,
.ul
of some kind
.sp
.in 0
These are potential subjective elements when a particular individual\**
.(f
\**
By `individual', I mean a particular entity, i.e., a person, place,
thing, etc.
.)f
is being categorized.
For example, the appearance of
`a kind of' in the following generic
sentence is not
a potential subjective element:
.(q
The tiger is a kind of mammal.
.)q
In the following sentence, on the other hand,
`some kind of' 
.ul
is
a potential subjective element:
.(q
The object in her hand was some kind of weapon.
.)q
These constructions can
indicate an inability to satisfactorily
categorize an individual. 
Further discussion can be found in Chapter 8.
.pp
Another attitude adjective is
.in +2
.sp
.ul
same
.in 0
.sp
The property 
.ul
sameness
involves more than one argument that are either the same as each other
or that share some property.  The adjective `same' is a
potential subjective element only if just one of those arguments
is mentioned in the sentence.  The effect can be that someone
has the other arguments in mind.  In the following sentence,
`same' is 
.ul
not 
a potential subjective element:
.(q
John and Bill had on the same kind of coat.
.)q
But it 
.ul
is 
a potential subjective element in the following:
.(q
Zoe's heart bounced.
He had on the 
.ul
same 
wrinkled gray suit.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 79]
.)q
.pp
Other attitude adjectives are:
.in +2
.sp
<adjective>\c
.ul
-looking, 
<adjective>\c
.ul
-smelling, 
<adjective>\c
.ul
-sounding, very
.in 0
.sp
For example,
.(q
He was funny-looking.
.sp
It was the very truth she had discovered for herself.
.)q
When used as a subject complement,
the modifier
.in +2
.sp
.ul
no use 
.in 0
.sp
which is not an adjective,
is categorized as an attitude adjective.
For example,
.(q
It was no use.
.)q
.pp
Other attitude adjectives are comparative and superlative forms of
the attitude adjectives already given, e.g.,
.in +2
.sp
.ul
best, better, odder, oddest, stranger, strangest 
.in 0
.sp
However, `best' used in the phrase `best friend' is not a 
potential subjective element.
.pp
In the following passage, an attitude adjective appears in the
broken-subjective situation:
.(q
(19)
.br
\*[19.1\*]Then he [Augustus] drove off, amused that Dish Boggett looked
so out of sorts just from being in love with a woman who didn't
want him.  \*[19.2\*]It was a peril too common to take seriously.
     \*[19.3\*]A half mile from the main camp he came upon the
.ul
very
woman
who had given Dish the pain.  \*[19.4\*]She was attempting 
to cook some fryback, \*[19.5\*]and was getting no help from 
Jake Spoon, who hadn't even provided her with 
a good fire.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 227]
.)q
Sentences (19.1) and (19.2) are Augustus's subjective sentences.
Sentence (19.3) appears in the broken-subjective situation:  the
previous sentence, (19.2), is subjective, and a paragraph break separates
(19.2) and (19.3).
The algorithm correctly interprets (19.3) to be Augustus's subjective
sentence because it contains the attitude adjective `very', and because
Augustus is the last subjective character.
.pp
In the next two passages, an attitude adjective appears in the
postsubjective-nonactive situation.
.(q
(20)
.br
\*[20.1\*]Call had known many men who died, \*[20.2\*]but somehow had not 
expected it of Pedro, though he himself had fired several bullets at him.
     \*[20.3\*]``I'd like to know what took him,'' Call said.
     \*[20.4\*]``He might have choked on a pepper,'' Augustus said.
\*[20.5\*]``Them
that can't be killed by knives or bullets usually break their
necks falling off the porch or something.  Remember Johnny Norvel,
dying of that bee sting?  I guess Johnny had been shot twenty times,
but a dern bee killed him.''
     \*[20.6\*]It was
.ul
true.
\*[20.7\*]The man had rangered with them, \*[20.8\*]and yet the bee sting 
had given him
a seizure 
.ul
of some kind,
\*[20.9\*]and no one could bring him out of it.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 182]
.)q
Sentences (20.1)-(20.2) are Call's subjective sentences.  Sentences
(20.3)-(20.5) are objective.  The situation at the beginning of
(20.6) is postsubjective-nonactive, since paragraph breaks and objective
sentences have appeared since the last subjective sentence.
The algorithm is able to recognize that (20.6) is Call's subjective sentence,
because it contains the attitude adjective `true', and because Call
is the last subjective character.
Note that (20.8) contains the attitude adjective `of some
kind'; that and other subjective elements (the
shifted past and the attitude adverbial `yet') enable the algorithm to
recognize that (20.8) is Call's subjective sentence.
.pp
The situation at the beginning of this passage is postsubjective-nonactive,
and Zoe is the last subjective character:
.(q
(21)
.br
     \*[21.1\*]``Maybe Joe Bunch found some diamonds,'' Rosie said.
     \*[21.2\*]Sometimes it was
.ul
embarrassing 
to be related to Rosie. 
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 14]
.)q
Sentence (21.1) is objective, so
the situation is still postsubjective-nonactive at the beginning
of (21.2).
The algorithm recognizes that (21.2) is subjective because it contains
the attitude adjective `embarrassing', and it identifies the 
subjective character to be Zoe, because she is the last subjective character.
.(q
(22)
.br
\*[22.1\*]Around them they [Sandy and Dennys] could hear a noisy grating
of rock, and a deep, thunderous roaring below them.  \*[22.2\*]Then 
there was
silence, abrupt and complete.  \*[22.3\*]The rock steadied under them.
\*[22.4\*]The
earthquake, or whatever it was, had lasted less than 
a minute, \*[22.5\*]but
it had been of sufficient force to push up a large section of
rock, making a small cliff about six feet high.  \*[22.6\*]It was
striated and raw-looking, 
\*[22.7\*]but it provided a shadow that stretched across the sand.
     \*[22.8\*]Both boys climbed to their feet \*[22.9\*]and headed into the
.ul
welcome 
shade.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 14-15]
.)q
With the exception of (22.3), all of the sentences in the first
paragraph are Sandy's and Dennys's subjective sentences, and the
algorithm is able to recognize that they are.
The algorithm does not interpret (22.3) to be subjective,
but perhaps it is best interpreted to be subjective, as 
Sandy's and Dennys's
perception of the rock under their feet.  If so, then it is
a subjective sentence that the algorithm is unable to recognize.
In either case, the situation before (22.8) is continuing-subjective, and
Sandy and Dennys are the last subjective character.
.pp
Sentence (22.8) is objective, and the active character is Sandy and
Dennys.  The situation at the beginning of (22.9) is postsubjective-active,
because there have been a paragraph break and an objective sentence
since the last subjective sentence, and because an earlier sentence in 
the paragraph has an active character.
The algorithm recognizes that
(22.9) is Sandy's and Dennys's subjective sentence because (22.9)
contains the subjective element `welcome'.  It identifies Sandy and
Dennys to be the subjective character, since they are both the
last subjective character and the last active character.
Note that there is another
attitude adjective in this passage which the algorithm uses to
recognize a subjective sentence:  `raw-looking' in (22.6).
.(q
(23)
.br
\*[23.1\*]Zoe would have liked to punch her.  \*[23.2\*]She could not 
understand why her parents didn't know Rosie was a phony.
     \*[23.3\*]``Rosie's just saying that.  She doesn't really care,'' Zoe
said.
     \*[23.4\*]``I do too!'' cried Rosie.
     \*[23.5\*]``Phony!'' Zoe yelled.
     \*[23.6\*]``That will be enough.''  \*[23.7\*]Their father 
stood up.  \*[23.8\*]``You may
take your plate to the kitchen.''
     \*[23.9\*]``What about Rose!'' Zoe yelled.
     \*[23.10\*]``\c
.ul
I 
will worry about Rosie.''
     \*[23.11\*]There was
.ul
no use
arguing.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 40; italics in (23.10) in original]
.)q
Sentences (23.1)-(23.2) are Zoe's subjective sentences.  The situation
at the beginning of (23.11) is postsubjective-nonactive, since paragraph
breaks and objective sentences have appeared since the last
subjective sentence.
The algorithm correctly interprets (23.11) to be Zoe's subjective
sentence, since the attitude adjective `no use' appears, and since
Zoe is the last subjective character.
.sh 3 "Attitude Nouns."
The members of this category can be subjective elements for a variety of
reasons.
.sp
Evidentiality:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
impression, indication, sign
(meaning
.ul
indication,
not,
.ul
a publicly displayed board,
e.g., ``He read the sign in the window'')
.in 0
.sp
Note that if `impression' is used in the verb phrase
.ul
give the impression,
it is a potential subjective element in the category 
``seeming verb'' (see Section 9.3.8),
rather than in the category ``attitude noun''.
.sp
Judgment or Evaluation:
.r
.in +2
.sp
.ul
bastard, chit, fool, idiot, jerk, magnificence, old bag, geezer
.in 0
.sp
Banfield includes words such as `bastard' and `idiot' 
in her category ``subjective elements'',
but she specifically considers their appearance in constructions
like the following:
.(q
That idiot of a doctor.
.)q
Rather than define a separate potential-subjective-element category
for these constructions, I simply include
these kinds of nouns in the category ``attitude noun''.
.sp
References to Truth:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
fact, truth
.in 0
.sp
Relationship:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
enemy, home, reminder, stranger
.in 0
.sp
To be potential subjective elements,
`home' and `enemy' cannot be used in
a possessive noun phrase (e.g., `His home').
.pp
In the first two
passages that follow, an attitude noun appears in the broken-subjective 
situation.
Sandy is the last subjective character at the beginning of the first
passage (which was cited in Chapter 2):
.(q
(24)
.br
\*[24.1\*]Frantically he [Sandy] scrambled up the side, 
climbing, slipping on bones,
on ooze, on decaying filth, sliding back, climbing, sliding,
slipping, scrabbling, until at last he pulled himself out and 
up onto his feet \*[24.2\*]and stood there tottering, filthy and terrified.
     \*[24.3\*]There was no
.ul
sign
of Dennys.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 55]
.)q
Sentence (24.1) is Sandy's subjective sentence:  its repetitive
syntax and unusual number of verbs express his difficult experience
of getting out of a garbage pit.
However, the
algorithm is not able to recognize that it is.  
The private-state term `terrified' in (24.2) enables the algorithm
to recognize 
that (24.2)
is Sandy's subjective sentence, however.  In any event, there is
a paragraph break after (24.2), and so the situation at the
beginning of (24.3) is broken-subjective.
The algorithm correctly interprets (24.3)
to be Sandy's subjective sentence, because `sign' appears, and because
Sandy is the last subjective character.
.(q
(25)
.br
\*[25.1\*]He [Sandy] lay back \*[25.2\*]and looked at the vast 
expanse of sky, \*[25.3\*]then
quickly shut his eyes against the glare.
     \*[25.4\*]At 
.ul
home
the summer sky was blue, \*[25.5\*]and the blue was made brighter
by the white cumulus clouds.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 152]
.)q
Sentences (25.2)-(25.3) are perceptual action sentences that
are Sandy's subjective sentences.
A paragraph break appears after (25.3), so the situation at the
beginning of (25.4) is broken-subjective.  The algorithm recognizes that
(25.4) is Sandy's subjective sentence because it contains the attitude
noun `home', and because Sandy is the last subjective character.
.(q
(26)
.br
\*[26.1\*]Wondering why some nurses felt they had to sound like official
bulletins, Christine replied, ``In that case, perhaps I can
drop in.''
     \*[26.2\*]``Not for some time, I'm afraid.''  \*[26.3\*]There 
was the
.ul
impression
of a guardian hand raised firmly.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 94]
.)q
Sentence (26.1) is Christine's subjective sentence.  There is a
paragraph break after (26.1), and (26.2) is objective; thus, the
situation at the beginning of (26.3) is postsubjective-nonactive.
The algorithm correctly interprets (26.3) to
be Christine's subjective sentence, because it contains the
attitude noun `impression', and because she is the last subjective character.
.sh 3 "Percept Terms."
Among the members of this category are adjectives, verbs, and nouns.
.sp
Adjectives:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
audible, blinding, brilliant
(but not with the meaning
.ul
intelligent\c
),
.ul
glimmering, glistening, glowing
(but not if it describes a person's facial expression),
.ul
shimmering, shiny, twinkly, visible
.in 0
.sp
Verbs:
.sp
.in +2
.ul
glimmer, shimmer, shine, sparkle
.sp
Only if the subject is a source of light or light itself:
.ul
dim, brighten, flash
.in 0
.sp
Nouns:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
glow 
(but not if it refers to a person's facial expression),
.ul
odor, shine, sight, sound, smell, stench, view, whiff, whine
(but not if it refers to a person's voice)
.sp
.in 0
.pp
The first two passages given in this section
contain percept terms that appear in the broken-subjective situation.
Dennys is the
last subjective character when the first passage is encountered:
.(q
(27)
.br
\*[27.1\*]The older woman was wrinkled and discontented-looking.
     \*[27.2\*]The unicorn's light 
.ul
flashed 
against the younger woman's
green eyes, making them 
.ul
sparkle 
like emeralds.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 53]
.)q
The algorithm recognizes that (27.1) is Dennys's subjective sentence,
because it contains the attitude adjective `discontented-looking' and
because he is the last subjective character.
After the paragraph break, the situation is broken-subjective.
There are two percept terms, both verbs, in (27.2):  `flashed' and
`sparkle'.  They enable the algorithm to recognize that (27.2) is
Dennys's subjective sentence.
.(q
(28)
.br
\*[28.1\*]Certainly, Dennys thought, anything would be better than this 
horrible-smelling place full of horrible little people.
     \*[28.2\*]There was a brief
.ul
whiff
of fresh air.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 54]
.)q
Sentence (28.1) contains a narrative parenthetical indicating that
the sentence is subjective and that Dennys is the subjective character. 
The situation is broken-subjective after the paragraph
break, and the algorithm recognizes that (28.2) is Dennys's subjective
sentence, because the percept term `whiff' appears, and
because Dennys is the last subjective character.
.pp
In the following two passages, percept
terms appear in the postsubjective-nonactive situation.
At the beginning of the first passage, the situation is broken-subjective
and Dennys is the last subjective character.
.(q
(29)
.br
     \*[29.1\*]``What\(em'' he [Dennys] gasped.
     \*[29.2\*]``A seraph,'' Yalith said.
     \*[29.3\*]The 
.ul
glowing 
skin of the seraph was the color of Yalith's,
\*[29.4\*]and there were great silvery wings, \*[29.5\*]and hair the 
color of the wings.
\*[29.6\*]Was it a man?
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 100]
.)q
The situation at the beginning of (29.3) is postsubjective-nonactive, since
paragraph breaks and objective sentences appear since the last
subjective sentence.
The algorithm recognizes that (29.3) is
Dennys's subjective sentence because it contains the percept
term `glowing', an adjective, and because Dennys is the last 
subjective character.
.pp
At the beginning of the following passage, the situation is
postsubjective-nonactive, and
Sandy and Dennys are the last subjective character:
.(q
(30)
.br
     \*[30.1\*]The mammoth turned \*[30.2\*]and faced the horizon.
\*[30.3\*]A faint 
.ul
shimmering
.ul
glimmered 
on the sand in front of him.
\*[30.4\*]Slowly it took the shape of
a unicorn, transparent but recognizable.  \*[30.5\*]Beside it, another unicorn
began to shimmer.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 25]
.)q
After (30.1) and (30.2), which are not subjective, the situation is
still postsubjective-nonactive (the mammoth has not been the
subjective character, and so he is not an active character).
There are two percept terms
in (30.3), `shimmering' and `glimmered'; the former is used as
a noun and the latter is used as a verb.  The algorithm correctly
interprets (30.3) to be Sandy's and Dennys's subjective sentence
because these subjective elements appear, and because they are
the last subjective character.
.sh 3 "Assertive Indefinite Pronouns and <Wh>-`ever' Subordinators."
Two similar kinds of potential subjective elements are presented in
this section.
The first are
.ul
assertive indefinite pronouns
(Quirk et al. 1985):
.sp
.in +2
.ul
somebody, someone, something, somewhere
.in 0
.sp
The second are 
.in +2
.sp
.ul
whatever, whenever, wherever, whoever
.sp
.in 0
when used as subordinators.  For example:
.(q
The earthquake, or whatever it was, lasted only a short time.
.)q
.pp
Both of these kinds of elements are potential subjective elements only
if they are
.ul
specific references;
that is, they are potential subjective elements only if
used to refer to particular individuals.
Representing and understanding
specific as opposed to nonspecific and
generic references is a significant problem 
(cf. Woods 1975; Webber 1981, 1983; Appelt 1985; Fawcett
1986; Fawcett and Hirst 1986; Kronfeld 1986;
Peters and Shapiro 1987ab; and Peters, Shapiro, and Rapaport 
1988 for some AI research addressing
these problems),
and this dissertation does not investigate
how it can be determined if a reference is specific.
.pp
In the following,
an assertive indefinite pronoun is used specifically:
.(q
(31)
.br
\*[31.1\*]Suddenly she [Zoe] gasped. \*[31.2\*]She had touched 
.ul
somebody\c
!
[Oneal, 
.ul
War Work,
p. 129]
.)q
The pronoun `somebody' in (31.2) refers to a specific person whom Zoe
touched.
.pp
In the following passage, however, the assertive
indefinite pronoun `something' is not used specifically:
.(q
(32)
.br
\*[32.1\*]Deets watched the boy [Newt], hoping he wouldn't chop 
his foot off cutting
the wood.  \*[32.2\*]He knew how to handle an ax, \*[32.3\*]but he was 
forgetful once he got his mind on 
.ul
something.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 204]
.)q
The pronoun `something' in (32.3) does not refer to a particular thing
that Newt has on his mind.
.pp
In the following sentences, <wh>-`ever' subordinators
are 
.ul
not 
used specifically:
.(q
They gladly accepted whatever came their way.
.sp
Whoever requested a copy received one.
.sp
She could call him whenever she liked.
.sp
Wherever there's smoke, there's fire.
.)q
But in these sentences,
<wh>-`ever' subordinators are used
specifically:
.(q
The earthquake, or whatever it was, lasted only a short time.
(A particular thing lasted only a short time.)
.sp
Whenever John arrived, it was after midnight.
(A particular time, the time when John arrived, was after midnight.)
.sp
Wherever they were was very hot.
(The particular place that they are is very hot.)
.sp
Whoever it was was nearby.
(A particular person is nearby.)
.)q
.pp
If used specifically,
assertive indefinite pronouns and <wh>-`ever' subordinators
can indicate that the individual referred to is not known.
In (31.2), for example, `somebody' indicates that Zoe, the subjective
character, does not know whom she touched.  (Uspensky (1973) gives
an example of `something' referring to an object a character is unable
to identify.)
.pp
Other criteria that must be met for an assertive indefinite
pronoun to be a potential subjective element are, first, that it not
appear in an appositive noun phrase, e.g.,
.(q
John,
.ul
someone Mary used to date,
called last night,
.)q
and second, that it is not the modifying
item in a copular relationship.  So, if it is in a subject
complement, e.g.,
.(q
John was 
.ul
someone she could trust.
.)q
or in an object complement, e.g.,
.(q
His criminal record made John 
.ul
someone to be feared.
.)q
then it is not a potential subjective element.
.pp
Although it is not an assertive indefinite pronoun, the phrase
.in +2
.sp
.ul
for some reason
.in 0
.sp
is included in the potential subjective element category
``assertive indefinite pronoun'', because it also can indicate
a lack of knowledge.
.pp
In the following passage, `whatever' used specifically appears
in the continuing-subjective situation.
.(q
(33)
.br
\*[33.1\*]He [Bol] had never been sure what she 
wanted\(em\*[33.2\*]after all, their
children were beautiful\(em\*[33.3\*]but
.ul
whatever
it was, he had been unable to give it to her.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 219]
.)q
Sentence (33.1) is a private-state sentence of which Bol
is the subjective character.  The algorithm recognizes that
(33.2) is Bol's subjective sentence because the subjective element
`after all' appears (see Section 9.3.13.6).  The situation at the
beginning of (33.3) is thus continuing-subjective, and Bol
is the last subjective character.
The algorithm correctly interprets (33.3) to be Bol's
subjective sentence because it contains
`whatever' (and also because (33.3) is in the shifted past, a
subjective element when there is an active subjective character).
.pp
Consider passage (22) again.
.(q
(22)
.br
\*[22.1\*]Around them they [Sandy and Dennys] could hear a noisy grating
of rock, and a deep, thunderous roaring below them.  \*[22.2\*]Then 
there was
silence, abrupt and complete.  \*[22.3\*]The rock steadied under them.
\*[22.4\*]The
earthquake, 
.ul
or whatever it was, 
had lasted less than 
a minute, \*[22.5\*]but
it had been of sufficient force to push up a large section of
rock, making a small cliff about six feet high.  \*[22.6\*]It was
striated and raw-looking, 
\*[22.7\*]but it provided a shadow that stretched across the sand.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 14-15]
.)q
As discussed
in Section 9.3.2, the algorithm does not interpret (22.3) to be a
subjective sentence, but it should perhaps be interpreted that way.
Thus, according to the algorithm
the situation at the beginning of (22.3) is interrupted-subjective,
but perhaps it is actually
continuing-subjective.
In either case,
the algorithm correctly interprets (22.3) to be Sandy's and Dennys's subjective
sentence, because `whatever' used specifically appears, and because they
are the last subjective character.  
The subordinator `whatever' indicates that
Sandy and
Dennys are not sure if what they just experienced was an
earthquake.
.pp
In passage (34), `something' used specifically appears in the
postsubjective-nonactive situation,
and `wherever' used specifically
appears in the continuing-subjective situation:
.(q
(34)
.br
\*[34.1\*]Sandy relaxed 
into Grandfather
Lamech's kindness.
     \*[34.2\*]The mammoth started toward 
the water jar, \*[34.3\*]then dropped 
to its haunches, whimpering in terror, as
.ul
something
screeched past the tent like an out-of-control jet plane.  \*[34.4\*]But 
on this planet, 
.ul
wherever 
it was, there were no planes.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 34]
.)q
Sentence (34.1) is Sandy's subjective sentence.  After the
paragraph break and after (34.2) (which is not subjective, and of
which the mammoth is not an active character, because he has not
been the subjective character), the situation is postsubjective-nonactive.
The algorithm recognizes that (34.3) is
Sandy's subjective sentence because `something' used specifically appears, and
because he is the last subjective character.
The situation at the beginning of (34.4) is continuing-subjective, and
the algorithm recognizes that (34.4) continues Sandy's subjective
sentence
because `wherever' used specifically appears, and because Sandy
is the last subjective character.
In (34.3), it is Sandy who doesn't 
know what it is that screeches past, and in (34.4), it is Sandy who
doesn't know where the planet is.
.pp
The following passage contains a specific use of `something' that
appears
in the postsubjective-active situation:
.(q
(35)
.br
     \*[35.1\*]The seraph smiled again, not answering 
the question.  \*[35.2\*]He
touched Sandy's forehead gently, \*[35.3\*]and the touch helped him to clarify
his thoughts, which seemed to lose their focus.  \*[35.4\*]``And from where on
planet earth do you come?''
     \*[35.5\*]``From the United States.  The Northeast. New England.''
     \*[35.6\*]``How did you get here?''
     \*[35.7\*]``I'm not sure, uh, sir.''  \*[35.8\*]There was 
.ul
something
about Adnarel's presence which brought out the old-fashioned forms of
respect.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 41]
.)q
Sentence (35.3) is Sandy's subjective sentence.  At the beginning
of (35.8), the situation is postsubjective-active:  there have been
paragraph breaks and objective sentences since the last
subjective sentence, (35.3), and there is a sentence earlier in
the paragraph with an active character, (35.7).  Sandy is
both the last subjective character and the last active character.
The algorithm correctly interprets (35.8) to be
Sandy's subjective sentence because it contains `something'
used specifically.
Note that `something' in (35.8) is not used in a subject
complement, even though it follows the copula `be'.
Sentences like (35.8),
.ul
there-existential sentences,
have two subjects: `there' and what Quirk et al. (1985) call a 
.ul
notional subject.
In (35.8), ``something about Adnarel's presence'' is the notional
subject.
Thus, `something' in (35.8) does not fall under the restriction that
`something' is not a potential subjective element if used in a
complement.
.sh 3 "Conditionals." 
Conditionals concern possibilities, and can be elements of a character's
reasoning or train of thought.
.pp
Conditionals are clauses beginning with certain subordinators.
The most widely used subordinator is `if'.  Others are the following
(Quirk et al. 1985, p. 1089):
.in +2
.sp
.ul
as long as, assuming (that), given (that), in case, in the event that,
.ul
just so (that), provided (that), providing (that), supposing (that), unless
.sp
.in 0
Some conditional clauses combine condition with recurrence or
habitualness.  In fact, 
the subordinators `whenever' and 
`wherever' can begin these kinds of clauses (see Section 9.3.5), in which
case they are used non-specifically.
For example:
.(q
Whenever children are involved, divorce gets nasty.
.sp
Whenever there's smoke, there's fire.
.)q
Others are `once', `when', and `where'.  In a clause of this type,
the subordinator can be paraphrased as `in cases when' or
`in circumstances where' (Quirk et al. 1985, p. 1086).
A conditional is included in the potential subjective element category
``conditional'' if it only involves condition, 
.ul
not 
if it combines
condition with habitualness.
.pp
In the following passage, a conditional appears in the postsubjective-nonactive
situation:
.(q
(36)
.br
\*[36.1\*]Right now, when she [Zoe] wanted more 
than anything else to prove
her courage to Joe, she couldn't even talk.
     \*[36.2\*]The railroad station was just ahead at the end of the block.
\*[36.3\*]``You'll have to go in alone,'' Joe said.  \*[36.4\*]``I don't 
want Mr. Pear to see us together.''  \*[36.5\*]Zoe nodded again.
     \*[36.6\*]``O.K.,'' she croaked.
.ul
     \*[36.7\*]If it hadn't been for Rosie she would have turned around and
.ul
run home that minute.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 90]
.)q
Sentence (36.1) is Zoe's subjective sentence.
Sentence (36.7) appears in the postsubjective-nonactive situation,
since paragraph breaks and objective sentences have appeared since
the last subjective sentence.
The 
algorithm correctly interprets (36.7) to be Zoe's subjective sentence, because
it contains a conditional, and because Zoe is the last subjective character.
.sh 3 "Auxiliary Verbs."
This section presents
auxiliary verbs and phrases that are potential subjective elements.
.pp
Three potential subjective elements are:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
would, should, going to
.in 0
.sp
which are means of expressing the future (recall from Chapter 2 that,
in narrative text,
`would' replaces `will' and `should' replaces `shall' in expressing
the future).
The future tense can be a subjective element because references
to the future are often predictions, speculations, and forecasts
about what will happen.  However, an objective sentence can be
in the future tense, in which case the reader is told what is
actually going to happen.  
.pp
Another use of `would', which is also a potential subjective element,
is to express conditional meaning (see Section 9.3.6 for a discussion of
conditional clauses).
However, `would' is not a potential subjective element if used in
the phrase `would rather/sooner', which is a private-state phrase.
.pp
The auxiliary `should' is also a potential subjective element when used
with its other meaning:  to express obligation, which involves judgment.
Other auxiliaries that are
potential subjective elements for this reason are the following:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
be obliged to, be supposed to, had better, have to, must, ought to, 
.sp
.in 0
For example,
.(q
She must remember to write to Aunt Sally.
.sp
She had to get back by five o'clock.
.sp
She [Lorena] was 
beginning to 
feel cornered, something she had not expected to have to feel again.
Jake 
.ul
was supposed to 
have ended that, and yet he hadn't.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 191]
.)q
.pp
The final kind of
auxiliary that is a potential subjective element is an
.ul
epistemic modal.
These are auxiliaries that can express possibility, necessity, and
prediction:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
be bound to, 
.ul
be likely to,
.ul
could (be), could (have), have to be, might, must (be), must (have)
.in 0
.sp
The auxiliary `must' is an epistemic modal if accompanied by `be' or `have'.
It
and `have to be' are evidentials
which signal inference with a high degree of reliability
(Chafe 1986, p. 266).  An example of `must have' appears in passage (5):
.(q
(5)
.br
\*[5.1\*]Newt took the gun and slipped it out of his holster.
\*[5.2\*]It smelled faintly
of oil\(em\*[5.3\*]the Captain 
.ul
must 
have oiled it that day.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 111-112]
.)q
The following is an example of `have to be':
.(q
     There
.ul
had to be 
a tent flap.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 226]
.)q
Prediction is expressed by `be bound to', for example:
.(q
He was bound to come back one of these days.
.)q
The other epistemic modals are evidentials concerned with the reliability
of information.  Note that `could' has roughly the same meaning as
`might' if accompanied by `be' or `have'.  For example:
.(q
It might be/could be true.
.sp
It might have/could have happened that way.
.)q
However, `could' can also mean `able', in which case it is not a 
potential subjective element.  For example:
.(q
John could type thirty words a minute.
.)q
Thus,
`could' is a potential subjective element only if accompanied by
`be' or `have'; identifying other uses of `could' that are
potential subjective elements is left to future research. 
.pp
In the following passage, `would' appears in the broken-subjective
situation:
.(q
(37)
.br
     \*[37.1\*]The realization didn't disturb her [Lorena's] calm, though.  
It meant he needed her more than he would admit; \*[37.2\*]she 
recognized the need \*[37.3\*]and didn't care whether he 
admitted it or not.  \*[37.4\*]If Jake had been as firm as
he pretended to be, it would have left her with little security.
\*[37.5\*]He
.ul
could have
just walked off.
     \*[37.6\*]But he
.ul
wouldn't.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 185]
.)q
Sentences (37.1)-(37.4) are Lorena's subjective sentences.
Thus, the situation at the beginning of
(37.5) is continuing-subjective, and
the algorithm is able to recognize that it is Lorena's
subjective sentence because it contains the subjective elements
`could have' and `just', and
because she is the last subjective character.  The situation after
the paragraph break is broken-subjective.  The algorithm
recognizes that (37.6) is Lorena's subjective sentence, since
the subjective element `would' (in its negated form) appears, and
since Lorena is still the last subjective character.
.pp
In the following passage,
`would' appears in the postsubjective-active situation.
.(q
(38)
.br
\*[38.1\*]Or was it?  \*[38.2\*]``I wish I had a Bible,'' he [Dennys] said.
    \*[38.3\*]``A\(emPerhaps you need a drink of something cool?''
     \*[38.4\*]``I'm all right.  I'm sorry.''  \*[38.5\*]There 
.ul
would
not have been a Bible in Noah's time.  \*[38.6\*]Probably not even a written
language.  \*[38.7\*]Not yet.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 95]
.)q
Sentence (38.1) is Dennys's subjective sentence.  At the beginning
of (38.5), the situation is postsubjective-active:  there have been
paragraph breaks and objective sentences since the last subjective sentence,
and an earlier sentence in the paragraph, (38.4) (Dennys's quoted
speech), has an active character.
Because (38.5) contains the subjective element `would', and because
Dennys is an expected subjective character (actually, he is both
the last subjective character and the last active character), the
algorithm recognizes that (38.5) is Dennys's subjective sentence.
.pp
The obligation term `had to' appears in the postsubjective-nonactive 
situation in the following passage:
.(q
(39)
.br
     \*[39.1\*]``You mean it could be someone we know?  A neighbor
even?''  \*[39.2\*]Zoe felt excited \*[39.3\*]but she tried not 
to sound that way.
     \*[39.4\*]``I suppose it could be.''
     \*[39.5\*]Rosie's eyes 
had been getting wider.  \*[39.6\*]Suddenly she put down
her ear of corn.  \*[39.7\*]``We weren't supposed to talk about it!'' she said.
     \*[39.8\*]``I read about spies in the paper, for your information,''
said Zoe.
     \*[39.9\*]``Well, Joe Bunch said it was a secret!''
     \*[39.10\*]``Said what was, dear?'' their mother asked.
     \*[39.11\*]Zoe kicked Rosie under the table.
     \*[39.12\*]``She kicked me!'' Rosie cried.  \*[39.13\*]``She kicked 
me hard!''
     \*[39.14\*]``I did not.  I was just swinging my leg,'' Zoe said.
     \*[39.15\*]``She meant to!'' said Rosie.  \*[39.16\*]``She wanted me 
not to tell!''
     \*[39.17\*]``Not 
to tell what, for heaven's sake?'' their mother asked.
     \*[39.18\*]Zoe
.ul
had to
kick Rosie again.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 39]
.)q
Sentence (39.2) is Zoe's subjective sentence.  Sentence (39.18) appears
in the postsubjective-nonactive situation, because paragraph breaks
and objective sentences have appeared since the last subjective sentence.
The algorithm recognizes that (39.18) is
Zoe's subjective sentence because it contains the subjective
element `had to', and because Zoe is the last subjective character.
.sh 3 "Seeming Verbs."
The core
members of this category are the following copular verbs,
which Quirk et al. (1985) call 
.ul
seeming verbs:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
appear, feel, look, seem, smell, sound, taste
.in 0
.sp
Depending upon the complement, either these verbs are used to
indicate how something is perceived by the senses, or they
are evidentials indicating that the source of information is
induction and that there is some degree of doubt.  In the following
sentences, for example, the seeming verbs are perceptual:
.(q
It felt cold and slimy.
.sp
It looked beautiful.
.sp
It smelled sweet.
.sp
It sounded melodic.
.sp
It tasted salty.
.)q
But in these sentences, the seeming verbs are evidentials:
.(q
She looked happy.  (It is inferred from her facial expression, perhaps, that she is happy.)
.sp
She sounded angry. (It is inferred from the sound of her voice that she is angry.)
.)q
Note that `feel' can be a private-state term, e.g.,
.(q
She felt sick.
.sp
She felt that Mary could have waited a little longer.
.)q
It is a seeming verb (and so a potential subjective element) only if
the subject is a percept.  Also note that `seem' and `appear' do not 
have strictly perceptual meanings, and
are always evidentials indicating some degree of doubt.
.pp
The true seeming verbs are often accompanied by 
`as if' and `as though' comparison clauses (see Section 9.3.9), or by
comparative `like' (see Section 9.4.3), e.g.:
.(q
She appeared/looked/seemed as if she were happy.
.sp
It tasted like seaweed.
.)q
.pp
If used as evidentials, the verbs listed above indicate that some
inference has been made about the subject.  Other verbs are included
in the potential-subjective-element category 
``seeming verbs'' that, although not seeming verbs as Quirk et al.
use the term, are also evidentials indicating inferences about the
subject:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
indicate, make sense, mean, prove, reveal, suggest
.sp
.in 0
These are in the potential-subjective-element category ``seeming verbs''
if used with inanimate subjects.  For example:
.(q
The clue indicated/meant/proved/revealed/suggested that the butler did it.
.sp
The sudden flap of its tail 
.ul
proved
it was still alive.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 14]
.)q
.pp
Each of the true seeming verbs and the others just listed can
be accompanied by a to-clause, in which case
it is
.ul
not
a potential subjective element;
instead, the clause in which it appears denotes a seeming state.
For example, the seeming verbs in these sentences are
.ul
not
potential subjective elements; instead they are in clauses
denoting seeming states:
.(q
To John, Mary seemed happy.
.sp
The soup tasted great to John.
.sp
The letter proved to him that Mary was the culprit.
.)q
.pp
There are four other members of the potential-subjective-element category
``seeming verbs'':
.in +2
.sp
.ul
give the impression, make apparent, make clear, show
.in 0
.sp
However, `show' is a potential subjective element only if used
with an inanimate subject.
Examples of these potential subjective elements follow:
.(q
Her bed 
.ul
showed
the rumples of where her body had been, but she
wasn't in either the bed or the room now.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 41]
.sp
He 
.ul
gave the impression 
of not exactly liking anything around the Hat Creek outfit.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 57]
.sp
His tone 
.ul
made clear
that he was already tired of the subject.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 82]
.)q
If `give the impression', `make apparent', `make clear', or `show'
is used with an animate indirect object, then it is not a potential 
subjective element, but is instead a private-state term:
.(q
The rumpled bed showed 
.ul
John
that she had slept there last night.
.)q
.pp
The following passage contains a seeming verb that appears in the
interrupted-subjective situation:
.(q
(40)
     \*[40.1\*]The seraph listened gravely, nodding at what Sandy felt was
an insufficient and unclear explanation.  \*[40.2\*]``Fear not,'' Adnarel said
to Sandy.  \*[40.3\*]``Your brother will be returned.  Meanwhile, Grandfather
Lamech and Higgaion are doing the best thing for you, in keeping your
skin moistened.''
\*[40.4\*]From a pocket deep in his gown he took out what
.ul
looked 
like
a handful of herbs \*[40.5\*]and dropped them in the water jar.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 42]
.)q
Sentence (40.1) is Sandy's subjective sentence.  Sentences (40.2)-(40.3)
are not subjective, so the situation is interrupted-subjective at the
beginning of (40.4).
The algorithm recognizes
that (40.4) is Sandy's subjective sentence because the seeming verb `look'
appears, and because he is the last subjective character.
.pp
In this passage, a seeming verb appears in the broken-subjective situation:
.(q
(41)
.br
\*[41.1\*]There was a sudden flash, \*[41.2\*]and Sandy could see
the shimmering silver body of a unicorn.  \*[41.3\*]But no Dennys.
     \*[41.4\*]``Dennys!'' he cried.
     \*[41.5\*]And heard Japheth echo, ``Den!''
     \*[41.6\*]Higgaion
.ul
appeared 
to be consulting with the unicorn.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 31]
.)q
Sentence (41.2) is Sandy's subjective sentence.
The algorithm recognizes that
(41.3) continues his subjective context because it is a sentence
fragment.  A paragraph break and an objective sentence, (41.4), follow,
and so the situation at the beginning of (41.5) is postsubjective-nonactive.
The algorithm recognizes
that (41.5) is Sandy's subjective sentence because it is a sentence
fragment and Sandy is the last subjective character.  A paragraph break
appears after (41.5), so the situation at the beginning of (41.6) is
broken-subjective.
The algorithm correctly interprets
(41.6) to be Sandy's subjective sentence, since it contains `appear', and
since Sandy is the last subjective character.
.pp
The following passage contains a seeming verb that appears in the
postsubjective-nonactive situation:
.(q
(42)
.br
     \*[42.1\*]The girl smiled at Sandy, \*[42.2\*]and the warmth of her smile
enveloped him.
     \*[42.3\*]``The United States is\(emare\(ema place,'' he tried to explain.
\*[42.4\*]``You might say that my brother and I are representatives.''\(em
even if inadvertent ones.
     \*[42.5\*]``And you have a brother, who is out with a unicorn?''
     \*[42.6\*]Her question made it
.ul
sound 
as though
Dennys and the unicorn had gone off cavorting someplace together.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 38]
.)q
Sentence (42.2) is Sandy's subjective sentence.  Because sentence (42.4)
contains the subjective elements `even' (see Section 9.3.13.3)
and a conditional, and because Sandy is the last subjective character,
the algorithm
correctly interprets (42.4) to be Sandy's subjective sentence.
At the beginning of (42.6), the situation is postsubjective-nonactive, since
a paragraph break and an objective sentence have appeared since the last
subjective sentence, (42.4).
The algorithm correctly interprets
(42.6) to be Sandy's subjective sentence, because it contains the
seeming verb `sound' (and also an `as if' comparison clause), and
because Sandy is the last subjective character.
.sh 3 "`As If' and `As Though' Clauses."
The `as if' and `as though' comparison clauses are similar
to the members of two other potential subjective element categories.  
They are similar to seeming verbs in that they can be used to
indicate that the source of information is inference and also
that there is some degree of doubt.
They can also involve comparison, where the
way something is is compared to the way that it seems (Section 9.4.3
presents comparative potential subjective elements).
.pp
The next passage contains an `as if' clause that appears in
the interrupted-subjective situation:
.(q
(43)
.br
     \*[43.1\*]But when he sat down at the table and set a glass
in front of her she [Lorena] soon realized it was not her who had put the
tight look in his face.  \*[43.2\*]She saw nothing unfriendly in his eyes.
\*[43.3\*]She took a sip or two of whiskey, \*[43.4\*]and about that time Lippy
came over \*[43.5\*]and sat down at the table with them
.ul
as if 
he'd been invited.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 206]
.)q
Sentences (43.1) and (43.2) are Lorena's subjective sentences.
Sentence (43.3) is not subjective, so the situation is
interrupted-subjective at the beginning of (43.4).
The situation is still interrupted-subjective at the beginning of (43.5),
which the algorithm correctly interprets
to be Lorena's subjective sentence, because it contains an `as if' clause,
and because Lorena is the last subjective character.
.pp
The next passage contains an `as though' clause that appears in the
broken-subjective situation:
.(q
(44)
.br
\*[44.1\*]Yalith looked up \*[44.2\*]and saw a circle of strange animals.
\*[44.3\*]In the
center of the circle stood Mahlah, looking pale and frightened.
\*[44.4\*]Her dark hair covered her breasts, her body.  \*[44.5\*]Yalith 
started to cry
out, to leap up and go to her sister, \*[44.6\*]but it seemed that
a firm hand came across her mouth, held her down on the rock.
     \*[44.7\*]The cobra uncoiled, hood spreading, swaying
.ul
as though
to unheard music, \*[44.8\*]then stretched up and up into 
the loveliness of lavender wings, and amethyst eyes that 
reflected the starlight.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 124]
.)q
Sentences (44.1)-(44.2) are Yalith's subjective sentences.  The algorithm
recognizes that (44.3) continues her subjective context because
the seeming verb `look' appears, and it recognizes that (44.4) continues
her subjective context because it is a nonprivate-state
sentence.
The algorithm does not interpret
(44.5) to be subjective, so the situation is interrupted-subjective at
the beginning of (44.6).
Sentence (44.6) is
interpreted to be Yalith's subjective sentence because `seem' appears.  
A paragraph break appears before (44.7), and so (44.7) appears in the
broken-subjective situation.
The algorithm interprets (44.7) to be Yalith's
subjective sentence, because an `as though' clause appears, and
because Yalith is the last subjective character.
.pp
In the following passage, an `as if' clause appears in the
postsubjective-nonactive situation:
.(q
(45)
.br
     \*[45.1\*]She noted that he brought her a glass, which struck her as
bold, \*[45.2\*]but then Gus would do anything, as Jake was always saying.
     \*[45.3\*]``What I can't figure out is why there ain't but two
sinners in this saloon,'' Gus said. 
     \*[45.4\*]Lorena made no comment, \*[45.5\*]but Lippy piped up.
     \*[45.6\*]``I've tried to sin all my life\(emain't you gonna
count me?'' he asked.
     \*[45.7\*]``No, you got a hole in your stomach,'' Augustus said.
\*[45.8\*]``You paid for yours, but so 
far me and Lorie have got off scot-free.''
     \*[45.9\*]Gus poured a little 
whiskey in her glass, \*[45.10\*]and filled his
to just below the brim.
     \*[45.11\*]``I want a poke,'' he said, as casual
.ul
as if 
he were asking her to loan him two bits.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 188]
.)q
Sentence (45.1) is Lorena's subjective sentence.  The algorithm recognizes
that (45.2) continues her subjective context because it contains
`would', a subjective element.
The situation at the beginning of (45.11) is postsubjective-nonactive,
since an objective sentence and a paragraph break have appeared
since the last subjective sentence (which is (45.2), according to
the algorithm, but actually is (45.9), because `Gus' rather than
`Augustus' appears (see Chapter 9)).
The algorithm correctly interprets (45.11)
to be Lorena's subjective sentence, because it contains an `as if' clause,
and because Lorena is the last subjective character.
.sh 3 "Adverbials and Modifying Adverbs."
The potential subjective elements that are adverbs are not simply
lexical items, but are instead adverbs used in certain ways with certain
meanings.  This section briefly describes Quirk et al.'s (1985)
analysis of the grammatical functions of adverbs, which will be useful
for identifying the uses of adverbs that are potential subjective elements.
.pp
I will discuss
two basic syntactic functions of adverbs that Quirk et al.
identify.
First, an adverb can 
modify an adjective or another
adverb.  For example, the adverb `quite' in
.(q
They were quite happy.
.)q
modifies the adjective `happy'.  In the following sentence,
.(q
They were quite happily married.
.)q
`quite' modifies the adverb `happily'.  I call an adverb used to
modify an adverb or adjective a
.ul
modifying adverb.
.pp
Second, an adverb may function as an
.ul
adverbial.
An adverbial (A) is a clause element that is distinct from subject (S), 
verb phrase (V),
object (O), and complement (C), the other 
clause elements.  Quirk et al. subcategorize
adverbials into four classes:  adjuncts, subjuncts, disjuncts, and conjuncts.
None of the potential subjective elements are adjuncts, and so adjuncts will
not be discussed.
.pp
Subjuncts have a subordinate role in comparison to the other clause elements.  
In the following sentence, `merely' is a subjunct
that is subordinate in comparison to the verb phrase:
.(q
She merely typed him a letter.
.)q
In the following sentence, `even' is a subjunct that has a subordinate
role in comparison with the subject:
.(q
Even John was there.
.)q
.pp
Disjuncts and conjuncts have superordinate
syntactic roles in comparison with the other clause elements.
The scope of a 
.ul
disjunct 
is the sentence as a whole rather than
simply one of its constituents.  According to Quirk et al., this
is because
.(q
Semantically, disjuncts express an evaluation of what is being said
either with resect to the form of communication or to its meaning.
We identify disjuncts with the speaker's authority for, or comment on,
the accompanying clause.
[p. 440]
.)q
Of course, a disjunct expresses the speaker's evaluation only
in speech; in subjective contexts, a disjunct expresses the
subjective character's evaluation.
An example of a disjunct is `obviously' in the following sentence:
.(q
Obviously, John had been there earlier.
.)q
.pp
A 
.ul
conjunct 
is also syntactically superordinate to the other clause elements,
but for a different reason than are disjuncts.  Conjuncts connect
units of a discourse.  They differ from other items that have
discourse functions in that they not only connect units, but they
express an assessment of the relationship between them (Quirk et al. 1985,
p. 631-632).  An example of a conjunct is `after all' in the following
sentence:
.(q
After all, she was here now.
.)q
.sh 3 "Modifying Intensifier Adverbs."
A 
.ul
modifying intensifier adverb 
scales upward or
downward from an assumed norm (Quirk et al. 1985, p. 445).
There are
two potential-subjective-element categories comprised of modifying
intensifier adverbs,
.ul
modifying intensifier adverbs A 
and 
.ul
modifying intensifier adverbs B.
The reason why these are two categories rather than
one concerns the interpretation of private-state sentences
and is given in Chapter 6.
Note that if an adverb modifies another adverb, it must
be an intensifier (Quirk et al. 1985, p. 449).
.pp
Modifying intensifier adverbs A
have adjectival bases that are attitude adjectives:
.in +2
.sp 
.ul
absurdly, amazingly, awful, awfully, ideally, incredibly, maddeningly,
.ul
notably, peculiarly, perfectly, strikingly, surprisingly,
.ul
terribly, truly, unbelievably, unnaturally, unusually
.in 0
.sp
The `ly' suffix can be omitted.  In the following
sentence, for example, `peculiar' is used as an adverb:
.(q
Miss Lavatier had definitely acted peculiar when she said that.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 47]
.)q
.pp
Some modifying intensifier adverbs B express
evaluation or judgment:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
a bit, a little, barely, downright, hardly, mighty, plain, plenty, pretty, 
.ul
quite, real, really\**
.(f
\** Although Quirk et al. categorize `really' (and its less formal
version, `real') used as
a modifying adverb as an 
.ul
emphasizer 
adverb (see Section 9.3.12), 
I include it here, as an 
.ul
intensifier 
adverb.
Its clear use as an emphasizer is as an adverbial (see Section 9.3.13.2).
.)f
.in 0
.sp
Others are hedges:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
almost, kind of, more or less, sort of
.in 0
.sp
A hedge signals that there is a less than perfect match between
a piece of knowledge and a verbal category (Chafe 1986, p. 272).
Quirk et al. (1985) use the term
.ul
metalinguistic comment
for hedges.  The use of `almost' as a potential subjective element is
exemplified by the following,
.(q
He was almost fussy.
.)q 
in which `almost' means
.ul
he was what might almost be called fussy
(Quirk et al. 1985, p. 619).
This use is to be compared with the one exemplified by this sentence:
.(q
It was almost dark.
.)q
in which `almost' means
.ul
it was almost but not entirely dark
(Quirk et al. 1985, p. 619), which is not a potential subjective element.
.pp
The intensifiers `very' and `nearly' can express someone's judgment,
but can easily be used objectively.  Thus, they are not reliable
reliable indicators of subjectivity, and are not potential subjective elements.
.pp
In the following passage, `perfectly' appears in the continuing-subjective
situation:
.(q
(46)
.br
\*[46.1\*]There had been
plenty of times when he'd [Call had] wondered if he himself could match Gus,
if Gus really tried.  \*[46.2\*]It was a question that never got tested,
because Gus seldom tried.  \*[46.3\*]As a team, the two of them were 
.ul
perfectly 
balanced; \*[46.4\*]he did more than he needed to, while Gus did less.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 180]
.)q
Sentence (46.1) is Call's subjective sentence.  The algorithm 
recognizes that (46.2) continues his subjective context because the sentence
is habitual, a subjective element (see Section 9.5.1).  The algorithm recognizes
that (46.3) is Call's subjective context because `perfectly' appears.
.pp
In the following 
passage, `ideally' appears in the postsubjective-active situation:
At the beginning of this passage, the situation is postsubjective-nonactive,
and Keycase is the last subjective character:
.(q
(47)
.br
     \*[47.1\*]From the terminal building Keycase returned to the parking lot
and the five-year-old Ford sedan which he had bought in Detroit and
driven first to Kansas City, then New Orleans.  \*[47.2\*]It was
an
.ul
ideally
inconspicuous car for Keycase, a dull gray, and neither old nor
new enough to be unduly noticed or remembered.  \*[47.3\*]The only feature
which bothered him a little were the Michigan license plates\(eman
attractive green on white.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 105]
.)q
Sentence (47.1) is an objective sentence of which Keycase is
the active character, so the situation at the beginning of (47.2)
is postsubjective-active.
The algorithm
recognizes that (47.2) is Keycase's subjective sentence because
it contains `ideally', and because Keycase is an expected
subjective character (in fact, he is both the last subjective character and
the last active character).
Note that `enough' in (47.2) is not a
subjective element because it appears in a comparison clause of
sufficiency (see Section 9.2.3).
.sh 3 "Modifying Emphasizer Adverbs."
.ul
Modifying emphasizer adverbs
``add to the force'' of the adjectives
they modify.  The potential subjective elements in 
this category are:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
just
beautiful,
.ul
indeed
excellent (or excellent
.ul
indeed\c
),
.ul
all
confused.
.in 0
.sp
However,
no examples of modifying emphasizer adverbs were found in the texts
from which the examples are taken.  Nevertheless, a 
potential-subjective-element category is defined for them,
because
they are so similar
to other potential subjective elements of which examples were found.
.sh 3 "Adverbials."
Adverbials that are potential subjective elements are now presented.
With two exceptions
(``minimizer subjuncts'',
a category of
``intensifier subjuncts''
(Section 9.3.13.1), and ``modal content disjuncts'' (Section
9.3.13.4))
all of them are in the potential-subjective-element category
``attitude adverbial''.
.sh 4 "Intensifier Subjuncts."
.ul
Intensifier subjuncts, 
like modifying intensifier adverbs, scale upward
or downward from an assumed norm.
The difference between them is grammatical:  modifying intensifier adverbs
apply some scale to
adjectives and other adverbs, but intensifier subjuncts apply some
scale to another clause element.
.sp
Boosters:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
a good deal, a great deal, by far, enormously, far, much, plenty, terribly
.in 0
.sp
Boosters
indicate a high degree on the appropriate scale (Quirk et al. 1985,
p. 590).  Note
that some of these items can also be used as
.ul
quantifiers
(see Section 40).
Boosters appear in the follow sentences:
.(q
She was 
enormously/terribly
skittish about these things.
.sp
He had
.ul
plenty
to handle this summer without carting around a cast with enough
white plaster in it to cover a whole ceiling.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 3]
.)q
Boosters are
often used with
comparatives.  For example:
.(q
It was far/a good deal/much more than she could afford.
.sp
She was by far the brighter of the two.
.)q
.sp
Hedges:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
practically, as good as, all but, just about, kind of, sort of, more or less
.in 0
.sp
Hedges are evidentials indicating that there is a less
than perfect match between a piece of knowledge and a verbal category
(Chafe 1986, p. 272).
For example:
.(q
After all, the man had
.ul
more or less
held nearly a hundred-mile stretch of the border, and for nearly
thirty years.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 182]
.sp
John sort of stumbled as he walked away.
.sp
Mary as good as ruined his career.
.)q
Attitude diminishers:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
all, just, merely, only, simply
.in 0
.sp
For example:
.(q
She was only/merely/just joking.
.sp
It was only/just Bob.
.sp
He [Augustus]
.ul
just
sat and drank, perfectly friendly and in no hurry.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 191]
.)q
Attitude diminishers ``seek to imply that the
force of the item concerned is limited''
(Quirk et al. 1985, p. 598).
An attitude diminisher
addresses an expectation that the item concerned is in some
sense more than it is.  The item concerned in the first example above
is `joking'; this sentence might appear when there is the expectation
that she was more than joking, perhaps that she was insulting someone.
In the second example, the item concerned is `Bob'; this sentence might
appear when someone who is preferable to Bob for some
reason is expected.
Finally, the last sentence is a subjective sentence; the subjective
character expected that Augustus would do more than sit and drink.
.pp
Although Quirk et al. do not include `all' in their list of
attitude diminishers, I believe that it belongs in this category.
It indicates that the item concerned is less than expected.  In the
following sentence, for example,
.(q
That was 
.ul
all 
it took to get the game started.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 202]
.)q
what it takes to get the game started is less than expected.
.sp
Minimizers:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
at all, barely, hardly, scarcely
.in 0
.sp
For example:
.(q
It was curious, for Xavier had had stuff enough to survive
a hellion like Therese, but was devastated by the
departure of Lorena, who could
.ul
hardly
be expected to stay in one room over a saloon all her life.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 230]
.sp
The boys themselves\(emJimmy and Ben Rainey\(em\c
.ul
scarcely
said a word.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 177]
.sp
She had met one or two men who were proven killers, and Jake
didn't have their manner
.ul
at all.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 190]
.)q
.pp
Minimizer subjuncts
need to
be distinguished from the other potential-subjective-element adverbials 
for the purpose of interpreting private-state sentences 
(see Chapter 6).  Thus, they form a
separate potential-subjective-element category,
.ul
minimizer subjunct.
.pp
In this passage, an intensifier subjunct appears in the
continuing-subjective situation:
.(q
(48)
.br
     \*[48.1\*]Now, it seemed to him [Deets], the Captain had forgotten his
own rule.  \*[48.2\*]Jake Spoon came home one day, \*[48.3\*]and the 
next day the
Captain was ready to go, with a crew that was
.ul
just
a patched-together bunch, a lot of wild cattle, and horses most of which
were 
.ul
only
half broke.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 203]
.)q
Sentence (48.1) is Deets's subjective sentence.  Although (48.2)
is actually a subjective sentence, the algorithm is unable
to recognize it as such.  According to the algorithm, the situation at
the beginning of (48.3) is interrupted-subjective; in fact, it
is continuing-subjective.
In either case, the algorithm is able to recognize that (48.3)
is Deets's subjective sentence, because `just' and `only' used
as attitude diminishers appear, and because Deets is the last 
subjective character.
.pp
This passage contains `far' appearing in the broken-subjective situation:
.(q
(49)
.br
\*[49.1\*]He [Call] would take as good care of them as he could, 
\*[49.2\*]and yet what did that mean,
with a drive of twenty-five hundred miles to make?
     \*[49.3\*]He made the Rainey ranch by sundown, a 
.ul
far
more cheerful place than the Spettle homestead.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 177]
.)q
Sentence (49.1) is Call's subjective sentence.  Sentence (49.2)
continues his subjective context because it contains the following
subjective elements:  `yet' (see Section 9.3.13.6),
the seeming verb `mean', and the fact that (49.2) is a question.
A paragraph break follows, and so the situation at the beginning
of (49.3) is broken-subjective.
The algorithm recognizes that (49.3) is Call's 
subjective sentence because `far' used as an intensifier subjunct
appears, and because Call is the last subjective character.
.pp
In this passage, two intensifier subjuncts appear in the 
postsubjective-nonactive situation:
.(q
(50)
.br
     \*[50.1\*]She [Lorena] felt the
beginnings of indignation.  \*[50.2\*]``I guess I got the right to think, if I
want to,'' she added.
     \*[50.3\*]Gus 
.ul
just
grinned.  \*[50.4\*]``Oh, you got the right,'' he said.  \*[50.5\*]``It's
just that it's fearsome for a man to have a woman start thinking
right in front of him.  It always leads to trouble.''
     \*[50.6\*]He paused \*[50.7\*]and drank a healthy swallow of whiskey.
     \*[50.8\*]``I'm with Jake now,'' Lorena said, 
.ul
merely
stating the obvious.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 188]
.)q
Sentence (50.1) is Lorena's subjective sentence.  It is followed
by an objective sentence and a paragraph break, so (50.3)
appears in the postsubjective-nonactive situation.  The algorithm 
recognizes that (50.3) is Lorena's subjective sentence, because
`just' used
as an attitude diminisher appears, and because she is
the last subjective character.  This sentence is followed by objective
sentences and paragraph breaks, so that the situation at the beginning
of (50.8) is postsubjective-nonactive, and Lorena is the
last subjective character.  The algorithm correctly interprets
this sentence, in which `merely' used as an attitude diminisher 
appears, to be Lorena's subjective sentence.
.pp
The following passage contains an
an intensifier subjunct that
appears in the postsubjective-nonactive situation.  At the
beginning of this passage,
the situation is postsubjective-nonactive, and Zoe is the
last subjective character:
.(q
(51)
.br
     \*[51.1\*]``Wow\(emeight whole summers!'' said Zoe.  \*[51.2\*]``I've 
gone for ten.  Anyway, we can't this year.''
     \*[51.3\*]``Because of the War,'' said Rosie.
     \*[51.4\*]``Do tell,'' said Zoe.
     \*[51.5\*]The War was
.ul
all
anyone talked about.  Zoe was sick of it.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 10]
.)q
The situation at the beginning of (51.5) is postsubjective-nonactive, since
objective sentences and paragraph breaks have appeared since the
last subjective sentence.
The algorithm is able to recognize that (51.5)
is Zoe's subjective sentence because `all' used as an intensifier
subjunct appears, and because Zoe is the last subjective character.
.sh 4 "Emphasizer Subjuncts."
As Quirk et al. use the term, an
.ul
emphasizer
emphasizes the ``truth of communication'' (p. 583) or ``adds to the force''
of the item to which it is related (p. 447).
An emphasizer is an evidential concerned with the reliability
of information.  The 
.ul
emphasizer subjuncts
that are potential subjective elements are the following:
.sp
.in +2
.ul
actually, all right, certainly, clearly, definitely, indeed, 
.ul
in fact, obviously, of course, okay,
.ul
plainly, really,
.ul
surely, for certain, for sure, of course
.in 0
.sp
Many of these items can also be used as content 
disjuncts (Section 9.3.13.4), and `of course' can 
also be used as a conjunct (Section 9.3.13.6).
As subjuncts, they do not have scope over the sentence
as a whole (as do disjuncts and conjuncts),
but instead are related to just part of the sentence.
For example:
.(q
He was 
.ul
definitely 
in a hurry.
.sp
She 
.ul
indeed 
sat next to him.
.sp
She was there 
.ul
okay/all right.
.)q
While all of the emphasizer subjuncts that are potential subjective elements
express certainty, some of them involve other
kinds of evidentiality as well.
.pp
The subjuncts `clearly', `obviously', and `plainly' indicate that 
information was inferred with a high
degree of reliability.
In this sentence, for example,
.(q
John was plainly/clearly/obviously in a hurry.
.)q
they indicate that
there is something about John, perhaps the way he acts, from
which it is inferred with certainty that he is in a hurry.
.pp
As Chafe (1986) observes,
others are evidentials involving expectations.  The subjunct
`of course' indicates that the item concerned is in line with
expectations:
.(q
John 
.ul
of course 
sat next to her.
.)q
On the other hand, `actually' expresses surprise in light of
expectations:
.(q
John 
.ul
actually
sat next to her.
.)q
.pp
The adverb `really' can be used as a 
modifying intensifier adverb (Section 9.3.11, above).  For example, in
.(q
She was really beautiful.
.)q 
`really' modifies the adjective `beautiful'.  Since `beautiful'
is a gradable adjective (i.e., one can be more or less beautiful),
in this sentence `really' can indicate a ``high 
degree'' of beauty, instead of emphasizing truth.
Used as an emphasizer subjunct (and also as a content disjunct; see
Section 9.3.13.4), `really' does express emphasis.
For example, in:
.(q
John really did sit next to her.
.)q
the emphasizer subjunct `really' 
expresses that in reality John
sat next to her, not that he sat next to her to a high degree
(Quirk et al. 1985, p. 578).
.pp
In the following passages, emphasizer subjuncts appear in the
continuing-subjective situation:
.(q
(52)
.br
\*[52.2\*]He [Jake] felt she was reading 
his mind\(em\*[52.2\*]somehow most women could
read his mind.  \*[52.3\*]He had only 
.ul
really
out-maneuvered one, a little redheaded whore in
Cheyenne who was all heart and no brain.  \*[52.4\*]Lorena wasn't going to be
fooled.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 210]
.)q
Sentence (52.2) is Jake's subjective sentence, and the subjective
element `somehow' in (52.2) continues his subjective context.  The
algorithm recognizes that (52.3) is Jake's subjective sentence
because it contains `really'.
.(q
(53)
.br
\*[53.1\*]Still, she [Zoe] was pleased with the conversation.  \*[53.2\*]She 
hadn't found
out much about Miss Lavatier's boyfriend, \*[53.3\*]but she had mentioned the
War and the spy ring.  \*[53.4\*]Miss Lavatier had
.ul
definitely 
acted peculiar when she said that.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 47]
.)q
Sentence (53.1) is Zoe's subjective sentence.  Sentence (53.2) is
in the shifted past and contains the quantifier `much' (see Section 9.4.5),
both subjective elements, and so it continues the subjective context.
Sentence (53.3) does as well, because it is in the shifted past.
The algorithm recognizes that (53.4) is Zoe's subjective sentence
because it contains the subjunct `definitely' (and also because it
is in the shifted past, and contains `peculiar' used as a modifying
intensifier adverb).
.pp
In this passage, `indeed' appears in the postsubjective-nonactive 
situation:
.(q
(54)
.br
     \*[54.1\*]Sandy squinted \*[54.2\*]and could just make out a range of
mountains against the sky, with one peak higher than the
others, along way off, much farther off than the palm trees which had
led them to Japheth and Higgaion and the oasis.  \*[54.3\*]``A volcano?'' he
asked.
     \*[54.4\*]Lamech nodded.
     \*[54.5\*]``Does it erupt often?''
     \*[54.6\*]Lamech shrugged.  \*[54.7\*]``Perhaps once in every man's lifetime.
It is far away.  When it goes off, we do not get the fire,
but we get a rain of black dust that kills our crops.''
     \*[54.8\*]The light tingeing the horizon was
.ul
indeed
so far away that it did not even dim the magnificence of the stars.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 85]
.)q
Sentences (54.1) and (54.2) are Sandy's subjective sentences.  Sentences
(54.3)-(54.7) are objective, and there are paragraph breaks
between (54.2) and (54.8); thus, the situation at the beginning
of (54.8) is postsubjective-nonactive.
The algorithm recognizes (54.8) to be Sandy's
subjective sentence because the subjunct `indeed' appears (as
well as the subjective elements `even' used as a focusing
subjunct
(Section 9.3.13.3) and
`magnificence', an attitude noun), 
and because he is the last subjective character.
.sh 4 "Focusing Subjuncts."
Focusing subjuncts ``draw attention to a part of the sentence
as wide as the predication or as narrow as a single constituent of an
element'' (Quirk et al 1985, p. 604).  Some adverbs used as focusing
subjuncts can also be used as attitude diminishers (a subcategory
of intensifier subjuncts; see Section 9.3.13.1, above),
in particular 
.ul
just, merely, only, 
and
.ul
simply.
Recall that as attitude diminishers, these address an expectation that the
item concerned is in some sense more than it is.  It seems that these
can be used as focusing subjuncts with the same effect, and,
in these cases, the grammatical distinction is not clear to me.
However, `just' and `only', in
particular, can be used as focusing subjuncts without this
effect, and in such a way that
they are not potential subjective elements.  For example:
.(q
She had just typed a letter to a friend.
.)q
In this sentence, `just' is a focusing subjunct (the item focused
is 
.ul
typed a letter to a friend\c
)
but `just' is used temporally, meaning 
.ul
very recently.
This temporal meaning cannot arise when `just' is used as an attitude 
diminisher.
And, in the following sentence, 
.(q
There were only five thousand people in the sparsely populated town.
.)q
`only' is a focusing subjunct (the item focused is
.ul
five thousand people\c
),
but it does not have the strong subjective force that it has when used
as an attitude diminisher.
Thus, 
.ul
just, only, simply,
and 
.ul
merely,
when used as subjuncts,
are potential subjective elements
only if used as attitude diminishers, not as
focusing subjuncts.
.pp
The following focusing subjuncts
.ul
are
potential subjective elements:
.in +2
.ul
at least, even 
.in 0
.sp
Estimation is involved with the focusing subjunct `at least':
.(q
There were at least fifty people in the room.
.)q
The subjunct `even' addresses expectations:  The focused item is surprising
in light of expectations (Jackendoff 1972, Chafe 1986).  For example,
the following sentence might appear when it
is not expected that Bob would be there:
.(q
Even Bob was there.
.)q
.pp
In these passages, the focusing subjunct `even' appears in the
continuing-subjective situation:
.(q
(55)
.br
     \*[55.1\*]Call was impatient to get off, \*[55.2\*]but Gus's remark stopped
him.  \*[55.3\*]Gus was never one to do the usual, \*[55.4\*]but this 
was stretching things, 
.ul
even 
for him.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 199]
.)q
Sentences (55.1) and (55.2) are Call's subjective sentence.  
The algorithm is able to recognize that (55.3) is
Call's subjective sentence, because it is habitual (see Section 9.5.1), and
because he is the last subjective character.
The algorithm is able to recognize that (55.4) is Call's subjective sentence,
because `even' used as a focusing subjunct appears, and because
Call is still the last subjective character.
.(q
(56)
.br
\*[56.1\*]Newt was embarrassed\(em\*[56.2\*]at the moment 
he had made his slip, his
mind had drifted to Lorena.  \*[56.3\*]He was wondering what spending a day
with her would actually be like.  \*[56.4\*]Would they just sit
in the saloon playing cards, or what?  \*[56.5\*]Since he had not spoken to her,
it was hard for him to know what the two of them could
do for a whole day, \*[56.6\*]but he liked to think about it.
     \*[56.7\*]Deets didn't say a word \*[56.8\*]or 
.ul
even 
look at Newt accusingly, \*[56.9\*]but Newt
was sill mortified. 
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 205]
.)q
Sentences (56.1)-(56.6) are Newt's subjective sentences, and after
the paragraph break, the situation is broken-subjective.
The algorithm doesn't interpret (56.7) to
be Newt's subjective sentence, even though it may be best interpreted
in that way.  According to the algorithm, therefore, the situation 
at the beginning of (56.8) is postsubjective-nonactive, but
it may actually be continuing-subjective.
In either case,
the algorithm is able to recognize that (56.8) is Newt's subjective
sentence because `even' used as a focusing subjunct appears, and
because Newt is the last subjective character.
.sh 4 "Content Disjuncts."
.ul
Content disjuncts
comment on the information in a statement (Quirk et al. 1985).
Disjuncts have scope that extends over the
sentence as a whole.
.pp
Content disjuncts can be subjective elements for a variety of reasons.
Some are evidentials expressing certainty:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
actually, certainly, definitely, indeed, in fact, in truth,
.ul
really, surely, unquestionably
.sp
.in 0
Some are evidentials indicating that the information in a statement
was inferred and that there is a high degree of reliability:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
clearly, obviously, plainly
.in 0
.sp
Some are evidentials expressing some degree of doubt:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
likely, maybe, perhaps, possibly, presumably
.in 0
.sp
The disjuncts listed just above form a separate 
potential-subjective-element category,
.ul
modal content disjuncts.
One reason that these need to be distinguished from other attitude
adverbials is that if one appears in a sentence, the sentence
cannot have an active character (see Chapter 4).
.pp
Some content disjuncts are evidentials indicating that the 
information in a statement
was inferred and there is some degree of doubt:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
apparently, evidently, seemingly
.in 0
.sp
Many have adjectival bases that are attitude adjectives, which
can themselves be subjective elements for a variety of
reasons (see Section 9.3.2, above):
.in +2
.sp
.ul
amazingly, amusingly, annoyingly, astonishingly,
.ul
correctly, curiously, delightfully, disappointingly, disturbingly, foolishly,
.ul
fortunately, ideally, incorrectly, incredibly,
.ul
justly, oddly, pleasingly, regrettably, remarkably, rightly, strangely,
.ul
stupidly, unexpectedly unfortunately, unjustly, wrongly
.in 0
.sp
Finally, the following are also content disjunct
potential subjective elements:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
conveniently, hopefully, mercifully, preferably, thankfully
.in 0
.sp
Although it is not an adverb, I also include the phrase
.in +2
.sp
.ul
judging by
.in 0
.sp
in this potential-subjective-element category because it
is an evidential that explicitly indicates the source of the
information in a statement.  The following is a subjective sentence
in the context in which it appears:
.(q
He was in a tent, a sizable tent made of goatskins,
.ul
judging by the smell.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 30]
.)q
The disjunct `judging by the smell' indicates that the subjective
character
concludes from the way the tent smells that it is made of
goatskins.
.pp
This passage contains a content disjunct appearing in the 
continuing-subjective situation:
.(q
(57)
.br
     \*[57.1\*]Lorena knew that was true, as far as it went.  \*[57.2\*]Jake 
was not
hard to take care of, \*[57.3\*]and 
.ul
probably 
not hard to fool.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 189]
.)q
Sentence (57.1) is Lorena's subjective sentence, as is (57.2), a 
nonprivate-state sentence.  The algorithm recognizes that (57.3) continues
her subjective context because `probably' appears, and because she
is the last subjective character.
.pp
In the following passage, a content disjunct appears in the
broken-subjective situation:
.(q
(58)
.br
     \*[58.1\*]``Bol ain't said that 
he's going,'' Call said.  \*[58.2.\*]It was a mild
anxiety.  \*[58.3\*]If Bol quit and they had to depend on Gus to do the cooking,
the whole trip would be in jeopardy.  \*[58.4\*]Apart from 
biscuits, his cooking was of the sort that caused tempers to flare.
.ul
     \*[58.5\*]In fact, 
Bolivar was standing by the cook fire, staring into
it with an expression of deep gloom.  \*[58.6\*]If he heard the remark he gave
no sign.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 225]
.)q
Sentence (58.2) is Call's subjective sentence.  
The algorithm recognizes that
sentences (58.3)-(58.4)
continue his subjective context, (58.3) because it contains subjective
elements (the conditional, `would', and `had to'), and (58.4) because it
is a nonprivate-state sentence.  After the paragraph break, at the
beginning of (58.5), the
situation is broken-subjective.
The algorithm correctly interprets (58.5)
to be Call's subjective sentence, since `in fact' appears, and
since Call is the last subjective character.
.pp
In the next two passages, content disjuncts appear in the
postsubjective-nonactive situation:
.(q
(59)
.br
\*[59.1\*]She [Christine] decided first to complete the matter which had taken
her downstairs.  \*[59.2\*]Lifting the telephone, she asked for room 1410.
     \*[59.3\*]A woman's voice answered\(em\c
.ul
presumably
the private duty nurse.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 94]
.)q
Sentence (59.1) is Christine's subjective sentence.  Sentence (59.2)
is objective and there is a paragraph break after (59.2), so the
situation at the beginning of (59.3) is postsubjective-nonactive.
The algorithm recognizes
that (59.3) is Christine's subjective sentence due to the appearance of
`presumably', and because she is the last subjective character.
.(q
(60)
.br
\*[60.1\*]As reality returned, the moment 
passed.  \*[60.2\*]Her [The Duchess's] eyes opened.
     \*[60.3\*]``It was a hotel 
detective.  He insists on coming here in an hour.''
     \*[60.4\*]``Then he knows!  My God\(emhe knows!''
     \*[60.5\*]``Obviously he's aware of something.  He didn't say what.''
.ul
     \*[60.6\*]Unexpectedly 
the Duke of Croydon straightened, his head moving upright 
and shoulders squaring.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 117]
.)q
Sentence (60.1) is the Duchess's subjective sentence (reality returns to 
.ul
her\c
).  The situation at the beginning of (60.6) is postsubjective-nonactive,
since objective sentences and paragraph breaks have appeared since the
last subjective sentence.
The algorithm correctly interprets (60.6) to be the Duchess's subjective
sentence, because it contains the content disjunct `unexpectedly', and
because she is the last subjective character.
.sh 4 "Disjuncts of Metalinguistic Comment."
We have seen that 
some modifying intensifier adverbs (Section 9.3.11) and some intensifier
subjuncts (Section 9.3.13.1) are hedges.  Other hedges are 
what Quirk et al. call 
.ul
disjuncts of metalinguistic comment.
The following is a potential subjective element:
.sp
.in +2
.ul
exactly
.sp
.in 0
Note that this use of `exactly' appears rarely in the texts considered.
It is included in the potential-subjective-element category ``attitude
adverbial'' because is it quite similar to other attitude adverbials.
.pp
In this passage, it appears in the continuing-subjective situation:
.(q
(61)
.br
\*[61.1\*]Jake had more than once considered Denver, regretted more than once 
that he hadn't stopped there instead of going to Fort Smith.  \*[61.2\*]Going
along with a drive would be a good enough way to get back to Denver.
\*[61.3\*]Of course, that didn't settle the question of Lorie,
.ul
exactly.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 198]
.)q
Sentence (61.1) is Jake's subjective sentence.  The algorithm
recognizes that (61.2) continues his subjective context because it
contains the subjective elements `would', `good', and `enough'.
It recognizes that (61.3) is Jake's subjective sentence because it
contains `exactly' used as a disjunct of metalinguistic comment,
and also `of course' used as a conjunct (Section 9.3.13.6).
.sh 4 "Conjuncts."
.ul
Conjuncts
connect units of a discourse.  Additionally, they express an assessment
of the connection between them (Quirk et al. 1985).
Conjuncts have a superordinate role in comparison with the 
other clause elements. 
.pp
As discussed in Section 5.7, subjective contexts can be
discourses that take the form of argumentative discourse, in which
support is given for positions.
Conjuncts
can indicate how that which is expressed in a sentence fits into
a character's reasoning or train of thought.  Schiffrin (1987) notes that
arguments are not comprised only of
ideas; empirical evidence, personal experience, analogy, etc., can
also be part of an argument.  Similarly, a character's train of
thought or reasoning is not always a self-contained progression of
ideas, but can be
related to something perceived, or to what someone
says, for example.
.pp
The conjuncts that
are potential subjective elements are listed below;
all of them but four, `at least', `either', `one thing', `another thing',
are given in (Quirk et al. 1985, pp. 631-647).
Note that
some conjuncts are phrases rather than simple adverbs.
.sp
Enumerative:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
first (second, etc.), firstly (secondly, etc.), in the first place
.ul
(in the second place, etc.), first of all (second of all),
.ul
for one thing, for another thing, for a start,
.ul
next, number one (number two, etc.), last, lastly
.sp
.in 0
The following subjective context contains enumerative conjuncts:
.(q
.br
His mother said
all children were trouble.  Probably that was how Dave felt, too.
But
.ul
number one,
David didn't have a wife now, and
.ul
number two,
Dave loved a hot breakfast, and
.ul
number three,
he hated cooking his own.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 29]
.)q
Additive:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
above all, in addition, further, furthermore, likewise, moreover, 
.ul
in particular, similarly 
.in 0
.sp
Inferential, Resultative, Summative:
.sp
.in +2
.ul
altogether, as a result,
.ul
consequently, else, otherwise, overall, so, then, therefore, thus
.sp
.in 0
Appositive:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
for example, for instance, that is
.in 0
.sp
Antithetic:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
instead, on the contrary, in contrast, on the one hand, on the other hand,
.ul
rather
.sp
.in 0
The adverb `rather' is my addition to Quirk et al.'s list of conjuncts.
For example:
.(q
Rather, she would give the book to John.
.)q
Concessive:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
admittedly, after all, all the same, 
.ul
although, anyhow, anyway, anyways, besides, else, however, 
.ul
in any case, in any event, at any rate, in spite of that, in spite of it all, 
.ul
nevertheless, only, still, though, yet
.sp
.in 0
Concession is a relationship between two units under which the
situation in one unit is contrary to expectation in light of
the situation in the other unit (Quirk et al. 1985, p. 1098).
It can involve the claim that an apparent contradiction is
only apparent (Mann and Thompson 1988).
Concession can also be involved in the consideration of 
potential negative support
for a position.
For example:
.(q
(62)
.br
\*[62.1\*]It was better that the boys go; \*[62.2\*]there was not enough work
for them there.  \*[62.3\*]And
.ul
yet
they were the pride of the family.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 177]
.)q
Call, the subjective character, believes that it is better that
the boys go.  Support for this position is given in (62.2):  There
isn't enough work for them where they are.  Sentence (62.3) has
a concessive relation to (62.1), marked by the conjunct `yet':
The fact that it is better that the boys go is contrary to
expectation in light of the fact that they are the pride of the family.
However, Call considers that their being the
pride of the family is negative support for his position that
it is better that the boys go.
.pp
The following passage illustrates the use of `only' as a concessive conjunct;
it appears in Newt's subjective sentence, (62.2): 
.(q
(63)
.br
\*[63.1\*]Already the debts which existed were so complicated it gave Newt
a headache to think about them.  \*[63.2\*]Jasper Fant had lost his
saddle to Dish Boggett,
.ul
only
Dish was letting him keep it and use it.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 202]
.)q
Finally, the next passage illustrates the use of `although' as a conjunct;
it appears in Sandy's subjective sentence, (63.4).
.(q
(64)
.br
\*[64.1\*]Perhaps the fierceness of the sun burned away things that would cause
disease.
\*[64.2\*]He'd [Sandy'd] have to ask Dennys.
\*[64.3\*]Dennys knew more about sanitation and viruses and germs than Sandy
did.  
.ul
\*[64.4\*]Although,
if he went into environmental law when he grew up, he'd have to
learn about such things.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 158]
.)q
.pp
In addition to their concessive function,
Reichman (1985) shows that `anyway', `anyhow', and `in any case'
indicate a return to a previous part of the discourse.
.pp
Six other conjuncts, four of which are my additions to Quirk et al.'s
list of conjuncts\(em`another thing', `at least',
`either', `one thing'\(emdo not 
fit neatly into any of the above categories:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
another thing, at least, either, of course, one thing, well
.in 0
.sp
When used as a conjunct, `either' appears at the end of the sentence, as
in (65.3) of the following passage (which is Jeremy's subjective sentence):
.(q
(65)
.br
\*[65.1\*]It didn't look to Jeremy as 
if she'd grown at all since he last saw her
snugged in beside her brown and gentle, seal-smooth mother.
\*[65.2\*]She and her mother had both been listeners.  \*[65.3\*]That 
hadn't changed
.ul
either.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 2]
.)q
Here is an example of `one thing' appearing in a subjective
sentence, (66.3):
.(q
(66)
.br
     \*[66.1\*]When he [Call] approached the town he saw the horses,
grazing upriver a little ways, with Deets and Newt and the Irishmen holding
them.  \*[66.2\*]They looked to be all there, so evidently nothing had happened.
.ul
     \*[66.3\*]One thing 
about Gus McCrae,
he was easily found.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 181]
.)q
.pp
Some comments about `well' are in order.
In conversation, according to
Schiffrin (1987), `well' is a 
.ul
response marker
used when what is about to be said is not ``fully consonant with
prior coherence options'' (p. 103).  Thus, it is surprising that
it can be found in subjective sentences.  Perhaps it is used
when the subjective character ``thinks in response'' to another person.
In the following passage, the conjunct `well' appears in 
Jeremy's subjective sentence:
.(q
(67)
.br
\*[67.1\*]Jeremy glared at his father.  \*[67.2\*]All his father considered an
accomplishment was some kind of scholastic success.
.ul
\*[67.3\*]Well,
stone skipping was important too, in its way.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 85]
.)q
.pp
It was mentioned above that subjective contexts can take the form
of argumentative discourse.
Cohen (1987) shows that conjuncts such as enumerative
`first', inferential `as a result', summative `in sum', and contrastive
`on the other hand' carry information about the structure of argumentative
discourse.
.pp
I now illustrate
the algorithm's use of conjuncts to recognize subjective sentences.
In the following passage, a conjunct appears in the 
postsubjective-active situation:
.(q
(68)
.br
\*[68.1\*]``All that was a 
long time ago.''  \*[68.2\*]He [Sandy] was
surprised at how cross his voice sounded.  \*[68.3\*]``We've both been well
for months now.''
     \*[68.4\*]``For what?''
     \*[68.5\*]``Oh.  Many moons.''
.ul
\*[68.6\*]Moon 
and 
.ul
month
did come from the same root,
.ul
after all,
\*[68.7\*]but the people of the oasis thought of time in 
moons and crops and the movement of the stars.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 185-186, `Moon' and `month' italicized in original]
.)q
Sentence (68.2) is Sandy's subjective sentence.  Sentences (68.3)-(68.5)
are objective sentences, paragraph breaks appear between (68.2) and
(68.6), and sentence (68.5) has an active character (Sandy).  Thus,
the situation at the beginning of (68.6) is postsubjective-active.
The algorithm recognizes that (68.6) is subjective because
it contains the conjunct `after all'.  The algorithm attributes (68.6) to
Sandy, who is both the last subjective character and the last active character.
.pp
In the following two passages, a conjunct appears in the
postsubjective-nonactive situation.
At the beginning of the first passage, the situation is 
postsubjective-nonactive, and Lorena is the last subjective character:
.(q
(69)
.br
     \*[69.1\*]``Why should I?'', Lorena said.  \*[69.2\*]``You didn't 
earn it and you
didn't stop it.''  
.ul
     \*[69.3\*]Besides,
he had money from his own card playing.  \*[69.4\*]If she knew anything, it was
not to give a man money.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 209]
.)q
Sentences (69.1) and (69.2) are objective, and so the
situation is still postsubjective-nonactive at the beginning of
(69.3).
The algorithm correctly interprets (69.3) to be Lorena's
subjective sentence, because the conjunct `besides' appears, and
because she is the last subjective character.
.pp
At the beginning of the next passage, the situation is
continuing-subjective, and Sandy is the last subjective character:
.(q
(70)
.br
\*[70.1\*]The eyes were an
incredibly
bright blue, like the sea with sunlight touching the waves.
     \*[70.2\*]Lamech greeted him respectfully.  \*[70.3\*]``Adnarel, we 
thank you.''
\*[70.4\*]Then he said to Sandy, ``The seraph well 
be able to help you.  Seraphim 
know much about healing.''
.ul
     \*[70.5\*]So 
this was a seraph.  \*[70.6\*]Tall, even taller than the twins.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 39]
.)q
Sentence (70.1) continues Sandy's subjective context because it
contains the subjective elements `incredibly' and comparative
`like' (Section 9.4.3).
Sentences (70.2)-(70.4) are objective and paragraph breaks appear
between (70.1) and (70.5), so the situation at the beginning of
(70.5) is postsubjective-nonactive.
The algorithm correctly interprets (70.5) to be
Sandy's subjective sentence, because it contains inferential `so',
and because Sandy is the last subjective character.
.sh 2 "Potential Subjective Elements Associated with Group (3)."
I now present the potential subjective elements associated at the highest
level
with the situations in Group (3), broken-subjective and interrupted-subjective.
Recall that in the broken-subjective situation, the previous sentence
is subjective and a paragraph break separates the current and previous
sentences; in the interrupted-subjective situation, a subjective sentence 
appears earlier in the current paragraph, but an objective sentence
appears between the last subjective sentence and the current sentence.
In both of these situations, the last subjective character is an
expected subjective character.
.sh 3 "Reaction Signals."
.ul
Reaction signals 
(Quirk et al. 1985)
are interjections used to react to someone's utterances.
They appear in sentence-initial position and are following
by a comma.  They include 
.in +2
.sp
.ul
no, yes, yeah, yep, m, mm, hm, hmm
.in 0
.sp 
It would seem that a signal such as `yes' or `no'
would be restricted to dialogue, and could not appear in
subjective sentences, because subjective sentences
are private thoughts, perceptions, and experiences,
and are not utterances directed toward another person.
However, as mentioned in Section 5.7, a subjective context can take
the form of a conversation in which the subjective character is
talking to herself (Fillmore (1974)).  For example, the subjective character
might try to convince 
.ul
herself
of something.
In this case, linguistic elements that typify conversation, including
reaction signals,
can appear in subjective sentences.
.pp
In the texts considered, examples of these were found only in
sentences appearing in the broken-subjective and continuing-subjective
situations; all of those sentences are subjective.
Although it is most likely the case that reaction signals are 
subjective even in the presubjective-nonactive situation,
for lack of evidence they are associated
with the situations in Group (3).
.pp
In this passage, `Yes' appears in the broken-subjective situation:
.(q
(71)
.br
     \*[71.1\*]The sadness washed over him [Sandy] again.  \*[71.2\*]Violence was
no longer an option.  \*[71.3\*]The splitting of 
the atom had put an end to that,
though the world was slow to realize it.
.ul
     \*[71.4\*]Yes,
he could overcome Tiglah with ease.  \*[71.\*]She was inviting 
him.  \*[71.5\*]But even
if there was no trick in it, he would not do it.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 232-233]
.)q
Sentences (71.1)-(71.3) are Sandy's subjective sentences, and after the
paragraph break the situation is broken-subjective.
The algorithm correctly interprets (71.4) to be Sandy's subjective sentence
because `yes' in initial position appears, and because he is the
last subjective character.
.sh 3 "Subject-Verb Inversion."
Subject-verb inversion in a declarative sentence is a potential 
subjective element, with
the exception of an 
adverbial (A), verb phrase (V), subject (S) sentence 
with a
copular verb.
Subject-verb inversion places the sentential
focus on the subject to a very high degree.  Unusual sentential
focus can create the effect that a character is perceiving or
aware of the focussed item (Banfield 1982; Mary Galbraith, personal
communication).
.pp
The reason that AVS sentences with copular verbs are not
included in this potential subjective element category is that they
do not place focus on the subject
to as high a degree as other kinds of sentences with
subject-verb inversion.  For example,
.(q
On one leg was a steel brace.
.)q
The adverbial of this sentence is `On one leg'; the verb is `was'; and
the subject is `a steel brace'.  Thus, it is an AVS sentence.
.pp
Subject-verb inversion in a discourse parenthetical is not a
potential subjective element:
.(q
``I am here,'' said she.
.)q
.pp
Although examples were found of inverted sentences that appear in the
postsubjective-nonactive situation and that 
.ul
are 
the
last subjective character's subjective sentences,
in all of these
examples other subjective elements appear as well.  For example:
.(q
(72)
.br
\*[72.1\*]He [Sandy] did not know what it was like to go to sleep without
Dennys.
     \*[72.2\*]Higgaion came in \*[72.3\*]and went to Grandfather Lamech, plucking
something from his ear with his trunk and holding it out to the
old man.  \*[72.4\*]Grandfather Lamech took it on his palm, a scarab beetle,
glinting bronze in the lamplight.  \*[72.5\*]The old man stroked it gently with
a trembling forefinger, \*[72.6\*]and closed his palm.
.ul
     \*[72.7\*]Then came a vivid flash of light,
similar to that of the unicorn's horn, \*[72.8\*]and a tall presence stood
in the tent, smiling at the old man, then looking quietly at Sandy.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 39]
.)q
The situation at the beginning of (72.7) is postsubjective-nonactive
(there is a paragraph break and other sentences, (72.5)-(72.6), since the
last subjective sentence, (72.4), appeared), and
Sandy is the last subjective character.  Sentence (72.7) is
Sandy's subjective sentence, but it contains not only subject-verb
inversion, but also the subjective elements `vivid' and `flash'.
.pp
Thus, subject-verb inversion is not associated with the situations
in Group (2), for lack of evidence.
.pp
The following passage contains an inverted sentence in the
continuing-subjective situation:
.(q
(73)
.br
\*[73.1\*]Again he [Sandy] looked around.  \*[73.2\*]The stars were so 
clear that he seemed to 
hear a chiming of crystal.  
.ul
\*[73.3\*]From the mountain came a wisp of smoke, a small tongue of fire.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 57]
.)q
Sentences (73.1)-(73.2) are Sandy's subjective sentences.  The
algorithm correctly interprets (73.3) to be Sandy's subjective sentence
because its subject and verb are inverted.
.pp
There is an inverted sentence in the following passage that appears
in the broken-subjective situation:
.(q
(74)
.br
\*[74.1\*]Some entryways were curtained with strands of bright beads, 
which tinkled in the evening breeze.
.ul
     \*[74.2\*]Out of one of these came a nephil, 
his arm around a 
young woman who was gazing up at him adoringly,
.br
leaning against
him so that her rosy breasts touched his pale flesh.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 50]
.)q
Sentence (74.1) is Yalith's subjective sentence, and, because
a paragraph break follows, the situation is broken-subjective at
the beginning of (74.2).  The algorithm recognizes that (74.2)
is Yalith's subjective sentence, because its subject and verb
are inverted.
.sh 3 "Comparisons."
One interesting area of future research will be
the role of metaphor and simile in recognizing subjective
sentences (Sandra Peters and Carol Seigel, personal communication).
Comparative `like' and
comparison clauses of the form `as' <modifier>, which are used in
similes, are
potential subjective elements (Brinton (1980) points out that
similes can be a marker of represented perception).
The reason why these are not associated with the situations in
Group (2) is that examples were found in sentences appearing
in the
postsubjective-nonactive situation that are not clearly subjective.
Thus, there is evidence against associating them with this
situation.
.pp
The restriction that `as' is followed by a modifier, e.g.,
.(q
It was 
.ul
as large 
as the other one they had seen,
.)q
excludes manner
adverbials such as the following:
.(q
She cooked dinner each evening
.ul
as her mother did before her.
.)q
.pp
The following passages contain comparative potential subjective elements 
that appear in the broken-subjective situation:
.(q
(75)
.br
\*[75.1\*]Call was not as fond of Maude, Joe's fat red-faced wife,
as Augustus was, \*[75.2\*]but then he had to admit he was not as fond of
any woman as Augustus was.
     \*[75.3\*]Maude Rainey was built like a barrel, with a bosom 
.ul
as big as 
buckets 
and a voice that some claimed would make hair fall out.  \*[75.4\*]It
was the general consensus around Lonesome Dove that if
she and Augustus had married their combined voices would have
deafened whatever children they might have produced.  \*[75.5\*]She talked
at the table like some men talked when they were driving mules.
     \*[75.6\*]Still, 
she and Joe had managed to produce an even dozen children
so far, eight of them boys and all of them strapping.  \*[75.7\*]Among them
the Raineys
probably ate as much food in one meal as the Spettles consumed in a week. 
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 178]
.)q
Sentences (75.1)-(75.2) are Call's subjective sentences.  A paragraph
break follows, and so the situation at the beginning of (75.3) is
broken-subjective.
The algorithm recognizes that (75.3) is Call's subjective
sentence because it contains the subjective element `as big as', and
because Call is the last subjective character.
.(q
(76)
.br
\*[76.1\*]He [O'Keefe] noticed a convention was assembling.  \*[76.2\*]A banner
suspended from the vaulted lobby roof proclaimed:
.sp
.ce 2
WELCOME DELEGATES
CONGRESS OF AMERICAN DENTISTRY
.sp
     \*[76.3\*]Dodo joined him, two laden bellboys following
.ul
like
acolytes behind a goddess.  \*[76.4\*]Under the big floppy picture hat, which
failed to conceal the flowing ash-blond hair, her baby blue eyes
were wide as ever in the flawless childlike face.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 100]
.)q
Sentence (76.1) is O'Keefe's subjective sentence.  Although `proclaimed'
can appear in a clause denoting an action, it is used in (76.2)
to denote a state; that is, the sentence describes what appears on the
sign.  Thus, (76.2) is a nonprivate-state sentence that continues O'Keefe's 
subjective context.  After the paragraph break, the situation is
broken-subjective.
The algorithm is able to recognize that (76.3) is
O'Keefe's subjective sentence, because comparative `like' appears,
and because he is the last subjective character.
.sh 3 "General Statements."
There are three kinds of sentences in this category.  The first
is a 
.ul
generic sentence,
a sentence
about generic concepts rather than particular individuals.
For example:
.(q
Dogs bark. 
.)q
The second is what I call a
.ul
habitual sentence.
Strictly speaking, habitual sentences are about
recurrent events, e.g.,
.(q
John goes to church on Sundays.
.)q 
However, the term is used here more generally for sentences
concerned with the frequency of events, that is, for sentences about
events that always, usually, often, sometimes, seldom, or never occur.
Adverbs such as the following often
appear in what I call ``habitual sentences'', although an adverb is
not required:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
always, commonly, constantly, customarily, daily (weekly, etc.), frequently,
.ul
generally, habitually, never, normally,
.ul
occasionally, often, ordinarily, rarely,
.ul
regularly, seldom, sometimes, usually
.sp
.in 0
Adverbials such as the following, which are not realized by adverbs,
can also appear:
.in +2
.ul
from time to time, every Sunday, whenever it gets dirty
.in 0
.sp
Note that ``whenever it gets dirty'' is a conditional clause that
combines condition with recurrence (see Section 9.3.6).
The fact that a sentence is habitual is a potential subjective element 
only if it is the main clause of the sentence that is habitual.
.pp
The third kind of general statement is one that employs the impersonal
pronoun `one' or the pronoun `you' without a referent.  For example:
.(q
(77)
.br
     \*[77.1\*]There was something different about her, Jake 
had to admit.  \*[77.2\*]She
had a beautiful face, a beautiful body, but also a distance in her
such as he had never met in a woman.  \*[77.3\*]Certain mountains were that way,
like the Bighorns.
.ul
\*[77.4\*]The air around them was so clear you could ride toward them for days
.ul
without seeming to get any closer.  \*[77.5\*]And yet, if 
.ul
you kept riding
.ul
you would get to the mountains.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 211]
.)q
.pp
Of the three kinds of general statements,
there was only evidence against associating
habitual sentences with the postsubjective-nonactive situation (a
situation in Group (2)):  Examples
were found that are not clearly subjective and that appear in this
situation.
There was little
evidence for associating the other two kinds of general statements
with the situations in Group (2), which is why
they are not associated with these situations either.
.pp
In this passage, a generic sentence appears when in the
continuing-subjective situation:
.(q
(78)
.br
\*[78.1\*]What does the FBI want with a stalk?  Zoe thought crossly.
.ul
\*[78.2\*]Grownups talked in code.
\*[78.3\*]She wondered whether it was something you caught on to as you
grew older.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 37]
.)q
The first sentence is Zoe's subjective sentence, as indicated
by the narrative parenthetical.  The algorithm is able to recognize 
that (78.2) is subjective because it is a generic sentence, that is,
it is a sentence about grownups in general.
.pp
This passage contains a habitual sentence appearing in the
broken-subjective situation:
.(q
(79)
     \*[79.1\*]He [Call] worried about that possibility most of the way
home.  \*[79.2\*]Not that Gus wasn't competent\(em\*[79.3\*]so far 
as sheer ability went,
Gus was 
as competent as 
any man he'd ever known.  \*[79.4\*]There had been
plenty of times when he'd wondered if he himself could match Gus,
if Gus really tried.  \*[79.5\*]It was a question that never got tested,
because Gus seldom tried.  \*[79.6\*]As a team, the two of them were 
perfectly 
balanced; \*[79.7\*]he did more than he needed to, while Gus did less.
.ul
     \*[79.8\*]Gus himself often joked about it.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 180]
.)q
All of the sentences of the first paragraph are Call's subjective sentences
(note that (79.5) is habitual).  Thus, the situation at
the beginning of (79.8), the first sentence of the next paragraph, is
broken-subjective.
The algorithm is able to recognize that (79.8) is Call's subjective
sentence because it is a habitual sentence, and because Call is the
last subjective character.
.sh 3 "Quantifiers."
Quantifiers that involve intensification
can be subjective elements.
The following are potential subjective elements:  
.in +2
.sp
.ul
a good deal of, a good number of, a great deal of, lots of, much, plenty of
.in 0
.sp
Few examples of these quantifiers were found in the texts considered,
all appearing in the broken-subjective or continuing-subjective
situation.
Thus, they are not associated with the situations in Group (2)
due to lack of evidence.
.pp
Note that the quantifier `much' is often used in sentences with negation, e.g.,
.(q
There wasn't much time.
.)q
Also, the quantified item may not be specified, in which case
the quantifier
appears alone in a noun phrase.  In this case, `of' in the 
quantifiers ending with `of' is omitted:
.(q
A good deal never did.
.)q
.pp
A quantifier appears in the continuing-subjective situation in
the following
passage:
.(q
(80)
.br
\*[80.1\*]He [Call] had heard it said that Ned had 
never got over the war, which might
have explained it.
.ul
\*[80.2\*]Plenty
hadn't.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 176]
.)q
Sentence (80.1) is Call's subjective sentence, and the algorithm
recognizes that (80.2) continues his subjective context because it
contains the quantifier `plenty' (and also because it is in the
shifted past (Section 9.5.2)).
.pp
In the next passage, `much' appears in the broken-subjective situation:
.(q
(81)
.br
\*[81.1\*]She [Lorena] waited for him to leave and go buy the horses, running
over in her mind the few things she could take with her.
     \*[81.2\*]There was not 
.ul
much.
\*[81.3\*]Her favorite thing was a mother-of-pearl
comb Tinkersley had bought her when they first got to San Antonio.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 213]
.)q
Sentence (81.1) is Lorena's subjective sentence.   A paragraph break
follows, and so the situation at the beginning of (81.2) is
broken-subjective.
The algorithm recognizes that (81.2) is Lorena's subjective sentence,
because it contains the quantifier `much', and because she is
the last subjective character.
.sh 2 "Potential Subjective Elements Associated with Group (4)."
The only situation in Group (4) is continuing-subjective.  Potential
subjective elements associated at the
highest level with Group (4), therefore, are
subjective elements only if the previous sentence is subjective,
and no paragraph separates the current and previous sentences.
.sh 3 "Progressive Aspect."
The progressive aspect, marked by `be' and `-ing' in English, expresses
simultaneity.  The progressive aspect can indicate that a sentence
is subjective (Fehr 1938, Brinton 1980, Banfield 1982, and Ehrlich 1987).
As Ehrlich says,
.(q
In certain discourse contexts, the past progressive is interpreted
as describing events from a character's point of view, an interpretation
which is not as readily available with the simple past in the same
context.
[p. 366]
.)q
The progressive is an imperfective aspect.  As such, ``it explicitly
refers to the internal temporal structure of a situation'' (Ehrlich 1987,
p. 369).  In narrative, an event denoted by a clause in the progressive
overlaps with previous events of the narrative.  If the 
immediately-preceding 
utterances describe events of thinking, Ehrlich argues, then
``the events in the progressive aspect are interpreted as overlapping
with'' (p. 369) a character's thoughts; thus, 
the events denoted by the clause in the progressive are observations or
perceptions of the thinking character.  According to Ehrlich, therefore,
the progressive aspect is interpreted as describing
events from a character's point of view if the immediately preceding
discourse is represented thought.  Interestingly, Ehrlich shows
that a paragraph break alters the interpretation of the progressive:  as
she describes it,
a paragraph break ``means that previous events of the narrative
are no longer salient or in focus'' (p. 371).  Thus, even if
the previous sentence was a character's thought, the progressive
does not indicate that the sentence is an observation or perception.
.pp
Ehrlich's analysis of the progressive is consistent with what was
found in the texts from which the examples given in this dissertation
are taken.  Thus, the progressive is associated with the
continuing-subjective situation.
However, it is a potential subjective element
only if it is the verb phrase of the main clause that is in
the progressive.
.pp
The stipulation that the progressive is subjective in the
continuing-subjective situation
actually encompasses more situations
than those considered by Ehrlich.  First, the situation is 
continuing-subjective if the previous sentence is any kind
of subjective sentence, not just if it is a represented thought (and
if no paragraph break appears).
She does cite a passage in which a
progressive sentence immediately follows a subjective sentence that
is not a represented thought, but she does not discuss whether
the sentence in the progressive is a perception (she gives the example
for a different purpose):
.(q
(82)
.br
\*[82.1\*]He [John Williams] sat up in bed \*[82.2\*]and listened.
.ul
\*[82.3\*]The wind was howling around the old house; \*[82.4\*]the shutters were
.ul
creaking.
[Aristar and Dry 1982, p. 2]
.)q
Clause (82.2) is John Williams's private-state report,
not his represented thought.
The immediately
following sentence is in the progressive.
In this example and in the other such examples found in the texts
considered, the sentence in the progressive is clearly subjective.
.pp
Second, Ehrlich and Banfield specify that a subjective sentence
in the progressive is an observation or a perception.  However,
a subjective sentence in the progressive can also be a represented
thought, or, by temporally placing
the subjective character within the current situation, it can
describe the subjective character's experience.
.pp
One final point about the relevance of Ehrlich's work to the 
algorithm can be made.
Ehrlich argues that simple-past sentences that denote
actions 
do not generally describe events from
a character's point of view
(she doesn't explicitly say that she is talking about
sentences that denote actions, but it is clear from her
discussion that she is).
This supports one aspect of the
algorithm's behavior:  A sentence denoting an action that does not contain
a subjective element and that appears in the continuing-subjective 
situation 
is not interpreted to be subjective.  It is after such a sentence
that the situation is interrupted-subjective.
And, since the progressive, the shifted past, and the future tense are
all subjective elements in the continuing-subjective situation,
the beginning of a segment of text in the interrupted-subjective 
situation is always a sentence
in the simple past.
.pp
The following are passages in which sentences in the progressive
appear in the continuing-subjective situation.  The first
is passage (19):
.(q
(19)
.br
\*[19.1\*]Then he [Augustus] drove off, amused that Dish Boggett looked
so out of sorts just from being in love with a woman who didn't
want him.  \*[19.2\*]It was a peril too common to take seriously.
     \*[19.3\*]A half mile from the main camp he came upon the
very woman
who had given Dish the pain.  \*[19.4\*]She was attempting 
to cook some fryback, \*[19.5\*]and was getting no help from 
Jake Spoon, who hadn't even provided her with 
a good fire.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 227]
.)q
As discussed in Section 9.3.2, Sentences (19.1)-(19.3) are Augustus's
subjective sentences ((19.3) is subjective because the
attitude adjective `very' appears).  The situation at the
beginning of (19.4) is thus continuing-subjective.
The
algorithm recognizes that (19.4) is Augustus's subjective
sentence, because the verb phrase of its main clause is in the 
progressive, and because he is the last subjective character.
.(q
(83)
.br
\*[83.1\*]Call had heard from someone that she had been raised 
rich, in the East,
with servants to comb her hair and help her into her shoes when she got
up.  \*[83.2\*]It might just have been a story\(em\*[83.3\*]it was hard 
for him to imagine
a grownup who would need to be helped into their own shoes\(em\*[83.4\*]but
if even part of it was true she had come a long way down.  \*[83.5\*]Ned
Spettle had never got around to putting a floor in the shack
of a house he built.  
.ul
\*[83.6\*]His wife was rearing eight children on the bare dirt.
\*[83.7\*]He had heard it said that Ned had never got over the war, which might
have explained it.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 176]
.)q
Sentences (83.1)-(83.5) are Call's subjective sentences, and the algorithm
recognizes that (83.6) continues Call's subjective context because its
main verb phrase is in the progressive.  Note that (83.6) is not
a perception or observation, but instead continues Call's train of
thought:  It is another reason for Call's belief that she ``had come
a long way down.''
.sh 3 "Shifted Past."
As discussed in Chapter 2, the shifted past, which uses the
auxiliary `have', is how the past is expressed in narrative.
The shifted past is only a potential subjective element if it is
the main verb phrase of the sentence that is in the shifted past.
An event denoted by a sentence in the
shifted past does not occur in the scene, but occurred at some earlier
time.  The shifted past can be a subjective element because
a character can reflect on what occurred (or might have occurred) in the past.
.pp
For example:
.(q
(84)
.br
     \*[84.1\*]When he [Call] got within fifteen miles of Lonesome Dove he cut
west, thinking they would be holding the herd in that 
direction.  \*[84.2\*]He
rode around the southern edge of the bad brush country \*[84.3\*]and struck
the trail of the horses.  \*[84.4\*]They had been going 
back south, over their own
tracks, which was curious.  
.ul
\*[84.5\*]Gus had taken them back to town.
\*[84.6\*]Probably he had a reason, \*[84.7\*]but it was not one Call 
could guess, so he
loped on home.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 181]
.)q
Sentence (84.1) is Call's subjective sentence, and an objective
sentence, (84.2), follows.  Thus, the situation at the beginning
of (84.3) is interrupted-subjective.
Sentence (84.4) is
subjective because it contains the subjective element `curious', and
so the situation at the beginning of (84.5) is continuing-subjective.
The algorithm recognizes that (84.5) is Call's subjective sentence
because it is in the shifted past.
>From his observation 
about the trail made by the horses in (84.4), Call
concludes that Gus took the horses back to town.
.pp
There are sentences that describe events occurring before the
now in the story that are not in the shifted past.  These occur
in the midst of passages presenting a character's memories (i.e.,
flashbacks).  The first sentence (or the first few
sentences) of this kind of passage is in the shifted past,
but then subsequent sentences might be in the simple past (Cohn 1978,
Almeida 1987).  
The return from the flashback
to the present moment in these kinds of passages is not signaled
by any formal linguistic device (Almeida 1987).  
In other passages presenting flashbacks, however, all of the
sentences describing past events are in the shifted past, and
a sentence in the simple past signals a return to the present moment
in the story (Almeida 1987).
The question of how it is determined whether a simple past
sentence continues a flashback or signals the end of a flashback
is beyond the scope of this dissertation.  
.sh 2 "Demonstrations."
The following demonstrate the algorithm's treatment of potential
subjective elements.
.pp
A potential subjective element that is not a subjective element
appears in the following passage:
.(q
     \*[1\*]``Thank you,'' Sandy said.
     \*[2\*]``We'd like to come with you,'' Dennys added.
     \*[3\*]``At this point, we don't have much choice,'' Sandy murmured.
     \*[4\*]Dennys nudged him, \*[5\*]then took 
his turtleneck from the bundle of
clothes \*[6\*]and pulled it back on, his head emerging from the rolled
cotton neck, which had mussed up his light brown hair so that a tuft
stuck out 
.ul
like 
a parakeet's.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 21]
.)q
The situation at the beginning of this passage is postsubjective-nonactive,
and Sandy and Dennys are the last subjective character.  Since sentences
(4)-(5) denote current actions performed by Dennys, he is the active
character of these sentences.  Thus, the situation at the beginning
of (6) is postsubjective-active.  However, the potential subjective
element comparative `like', which appears in (6), is associated at
the highest level with the situations in Group (3), the broken-subjective
and interrupted-subjective situations.  Since comparative like is
not associated with the postsubjective-active situation, the
algorithm does not interpret it to be a subjective element, as
shown by the following demonstration.
The first line of the demonstration informs the
system that the situation at the beginning of the passage is
postsubjective-nonactive, and the second line informs the
system that the last subjective character is Sandy and Dennys.
Note that after the system is informed that a character
(or characters) is the last subjective character, it also
believes that the character (or characters) has been the subjective
character of some previous sentence.
In the third line of input, `Quoted_speech' is a ``stub'' for what
is between the quotes in the text.
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 03:02:11 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 03:02:25 1989
sneps

: Initialize situation to postsubj-nonactive.
The situation is now postsubj-nonactive

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.266 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char to Sandy and Dennys.
Dennys and Sandy is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 2.083 gc= 2.266) <=) 

: Quoted_speech Sandy murmured.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Dennys and Sandy, the last subj_char 
Sandy is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
Sentence with an active_char in postsubj-nonactive situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 4.566 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Dennys and Sandy, the last subj_char 
      Sandy, the last active_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive 
  The last active_char is no longer an expected subjective character 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.450 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Dennys nudged him.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Dennys and Sandy, the last subj_char 
Dennys is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
Sentence with an active_char in postsubj-nonactive situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 7.766 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Then he took his turtleneck from the pile.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Dennys and Sandy, the last subj_char 
      Dennys, the last active_char 
Dennys is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 10.083 gc= 2.266) <=) 

: He put it on, his head emerging from the cotton neck, which made his brown hair stick up like a parakeet's tuft.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Dennys and Sandy, the last subj_char 
      Dennys, the last active_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  comparative_like
It is not a subjective element 
Dennys is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 28.800 gc= 2.366) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> ^D
script done on Mon Jul 24 03:12:29 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
In passage (68), a potential subjective element appears in a
situation that is at the highest level with which it is associated.
In particular, the conjunct `after all' appears in the postsubj-nonactive
situation.  Here is a demonstration of the algorithm on simplified
versions of (68.2)-(68.6):
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 04:11:22 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 04:11:27 1989
sneps

: Initialize situation to interrupted-subj.
The situation is now interrupted-subj

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.266 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char to Sandy.
Sandy is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.883 gc= 2.166) <=) 

: Sandy was surprised at his voice.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is interrupted-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Sandy, the last subj_char 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Sandy
The subj_char is Sandy
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 6.733 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Quoted_speech Sandy said.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Sandy, the last subj_char 
The sentence is not subjective 
Objective sentence in continuing-subj situation: 
  situation is now interrupted-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 3.766 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is interrupted-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Sandy, the last subj_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is now postsubj-nonactive 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.300 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Quoted_speech Japheth said.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Sandy, the last subj_char 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still postsubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 3.783 gc= 2.200) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Sandy, the last subj_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is still postsubj-nonactive 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.283 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Quoted_speech Sandy said.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Sandy, the last subj_char 
Sandy is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
Sentence with an active_char in postsubj-nonactive situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 3.883 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Moon and month did come from the same root, after all.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Sandy, the last subj_char 
      Sandy, the last active_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  attitude_adverbial
It is a subjective element 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  attitude_adverbial
The subj_char is Sandy
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 8.366 gc= 0.00) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> ^D
script done on Mon Jul 24 04:22:50 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
Finally, passage (57) contains a potential subjective element
that appears in a situation that is not in the highest group with
which it is associated but instead is in a lower one.  In particular,
the modal content disjunct (a subcategory of attitude adverbials)
`probably' appears in the continuing-subjective
situation.  The following is a demonstration.  The first line of
the demonstration informs the system that Jake was the subjective
character of some previous sentence.  A similar initialization sentence
is not required for Lorena, because the system is informed in the
third line that
she is the last subjective character.  After this initialization sentence,
the system believes that she has been the subjective character of some
previous sentence.
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 06:11:12 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 06:11:17 1989
sneps

: Previous_subj_char Jake.
Jake has been the subj_char 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.933 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize situation to postsubj-nonactive.
The situation is now postsubj-nonactive

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.216 gc= 2.300) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char to Lorena.
Lorena is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 1.016 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Lorena knew that it was true.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Lorena, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element not considered: 
  attitude_adjective
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Lorena
The subj_char is Lorena
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 8.550 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Jake was probably not hard to fool.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Lorena, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  modal_content_disjunct
It is a subjective element 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  modal_content_disjunct
The subj_char is Lorena
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 7.816 gc= 2.283) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Mon Jul 24 06:17:06 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
Section 11 demonstrates competition between the
last active character and the
last subjective character.  Section 12 illustrates the situation in
which there are no expected subjective characters, so even potential subjective
elements associated with Group (2) are not subjective elements.
.sh 1 "OTHER ELEMENTS THAT MAY BE POTENTIAL SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS." 
This section suggests some other linguistic elements that should perhaps
be treated as potential subjective elements.  Future work is needed
to determine if and under what uses they are subjective elements.
.sh 2 "Deictic Terms."
As discussed in Chapter 2, a sentence that is not understood with
respect to a character's consciousness
can take that character's
spatial and
temporal points of view (Uspensky 1973).
It does appear, however,
that if there is an expected subjective character,
deictic terms that must be understood with respect to the
narrative WHERE or the narrative WHEN can be subjective elements.
The following are 
examples of such deictic terms: 
.ul
ago 
(Fillmore 1974),
.ul
already, here, just 
(used with its temporal meaning),
.ul
last night (evening, week, year),
.ul
now, so far, there, this morning (afternoon, etc.), yet 
(used with its temporal meaning).
.sh 2 "Initial Coordinators."
Sometimes a
sentence-initial coordinator is clearly a subjective element
(Banfield 1982), but other times it is not.
In the following passage, for example, the first
occurrence of initial `And' does not seem to be subjective, but
the second appearance is clearly subjective:
.(q
     ``We're coming,'' Oholibamah said.
.ul
And
they hurried toward the central section of the oasis, where
Noah's vineyards were, and his grazing grounds, and his tents.
.ul
And
where Dennys was waiting for them.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 118]
.)q
Further research is required to determine when initial conjunctions
are subjective elements.
.sh 2 "Logical Clauses."
Logical clauses and constructions other
than conditional clauses can indicate a character's
reasoning.  One in particular is similar to a conditional clause
in that it makes reference to possibilities:  an
.ul
`either'...`or' correlative,
which is comprised of a clause beginning with `either' followed by
a clause beginning with `or'.
Other logical clauses 
are
.ul
reason clauses,
for example,
.(q
She took the money,
.ul
because she was planning to leave him.
.)q
.ul
result clauses,
for example, 
.(q
John canceled classes,
.ul
so the students went out to dinner.
.)q
and
.ul
concession clauses,
for example,
.(q
.ul
Although the work was done, 
there was much more to do.
.)q
Correlatives are not treated as potential subjective elements because
they are not well represented in the texts from which the examples
in this dissertation are taken.  The others\(emreason, result, and
concession clauses\(emcan easily appear in sentences that are not
subjective, and so future work is needed to determine if they can be useful
for recognizing subjective sentences.
.sh 2 "Idiomatic Phrases."
Some idiomatic phrases are clearly subjective, for example:
.ul
a far cry,
.ul
once and for all, 
.ul
that was
.ul
a good one,
.ul
who should <verb phrase> but,
.ul
too bad.
The types of idiomatic phrases that are subjective requires
further investigation.
.sh 2 "Sentential Focus."
Recall that subject-verb inversion is a potential subjective element because
it places unusually high focus on the subject.  Other syntactic
structures that place unusually high focus on an element, such as
there-existential and cleft sentences, might be potential subjective elements 
as well.
.sh 2 "Expressive Uses of Auxiliaries."
There are expressive uses of the auxiliaries `have' and `do' (Fillmore
1974).  For example:
.(q
She never had enjoyed listening to her husband lecture, and this time
was no exception.
[Fillmore 1974, p. V-6]
.sp
She really did want to see him.
.)q
In these examples, the auxiliaries express the subjective character's
emotions, so are subjective.
.sh 2 "Expressive Uses of Coordination."
There are also expressive uses of coordination (Quirk et al. 1985, pp. 
980-982).
For example, the iterative use of coordination ``conveys the idea of a 
repeated or continuing process'' (Quirk et al. 1985, p. 980).  This
might be used in narrative to indicate that an event seems
interminable to a character, for example:
.(q
She talked and talked and talked.
.)q
.sh 2 "Expressive Uses of Demonstrative Pronouns."
Robin Lakoff (1974) calls certain uses of
`this', `that', `these', and `those' 
.ul
emotional deixis.
In
conversation, they are ``generally linked to the speaker's
emotional involvement in the subject-matter of his utterance'' 
(Lakoff 1974, p. 347).
In third-person
narrative, they might be linked to a character's emotional involvement
in the subject matter of his thoughts or perceptions.  For example:
.(q
As she watched, a wave of jealousy spread through her.
.ul
That
insufferable
stranger who had passed them on the road was receiving the welcome that
she had been dreaming of all the way from Connecticut.  [Franchere,
.ul
Hannah Herself,
p. 15]
.)q
.sh 2 "Punctual Adverbials."
Ehrlich (1987) mentions that what she calls
.ul
punctual adverbials,
e.g., 
.ul
just then, suddenly, all of a sudden,
can be attributed ``to a character's perceptions'' (p. 374).
Thus, these are additional elements that might be useful for
recognizing subjective sentences.
.sh 2 "`Need'."
The verb `need' can express judgment.  
It is not included as a potential
subjective element because it seems that it might behave either as a potential
subjective element or as a private-state term.
Examples were not found that suggested one or the other treatment, 
and so `need' is
not treated as either a potential subjective element or as a
private-state term.
.sh 1 "THE LAST ACTIVE CHARACTER."
This section illustrates situations in which the last active character
becomes the subjective character.  Recall that if both the
last active character and the last subjective character are
expected subjective characters when
a subjective sentence is encountered, and they are not the same,
then one must be chosen to be the
subjective character.  The algorithm uses the rule that if the sentence
is about the last active character, then the subjective character is the
last subjective character; otherwise the subjective character is
the last active character.  A sentence is about a character if she
is the argument of the event chosen for consideration in that sentence,
e.g., the actor of an action or the experiencer of a state.
Recall also that
a character is the
active character
of a sentence if
.ip (i)
the sentence is an objective sentence denoting a current action,
and 
.ip (ii)
the character is the actor of the action, and
.ip (ii)
the actor has been the subjective character (or all of the actors have
been the subjective character, if more than one character performed the action).
.in 0
.sp
If a subjective sentence has not appeared earlier in the current paragraph,
and an earlier sentence in the current paragraph has
an active character, then the last active character is an expected subjective
character.
To denote a current action, a sentence has to be in the simple past,
cannot be
habitual,
cannot contain
modal auxiliary verbs or modal content disjuncts,
and cannot be negated.
.pp
A sentence with an active character
makes that character a focal character.
The algorithm's criterion for choosing the last subjective 
character to be the subjective character works in the situation in which
the last subjective character's attention is directed toward
the last active character, and a subjective sentence about the last active 
character is the last subjective character's reflection about or
observation of him or her.  Based on the texts from which the examples
of this dissertation are taken, this situation is the one that most
often occurs.  Only one passage was found for which this
rule does not work.
However, it is likely that if a wider range of texts were
examined, more examples would be found for which the rule does not work.
.pp
First, consider the situation in which the last active character is the
only expected subjective character.  Recall that this occurs only
in the presubjective-active situation.
.(q
(85)
.br
     \*[85.1\*]Noah's tears fell like rain.
     \*[85.2\*]``Our dear twins\(em''
     \*[85.3\*]``What, Father?''
     \*[85.4\*]The old man gasped, \*[85.5\*]and then smiled a 
surprised smile of joy, so
radiant that it seemed to light the darkened tent.  \*[85.6\*]Had 
lightning flashed
to make the smile visible?
     \*[85.7\*]``Father!'' Noah cried.  \*[85.8\*]And 
then, ``Father!''  \*[85.9\*]And then his sobs
broke like waves across the dry sands of the desert.
     
     \*[85.10\*]The stars did not sing.  \*[85.11\*]The sky was 
silent.  \*[85.12\*]Higgaion sat up,
ears alert.  \*[85.13\*]Dennys raised his head,
.ul
\*[85.14\*]and it seemed that the stars were holding their light.
\*[85.15\*]And suddenly the bright presence 
of a seraphim stood before him, \*[85.16\*]and the
starlight again fell onto his upturned face.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 217-218]
.)q
Only Noah and his father are in the scene of (85.1)-(85.9).  The extra
blank line before (85.10)
does accompany a scene break:  The narrative shifts from
a scene with Noah and his father to one with Dennys and Higgaion.
Thus, the situation is presubjective-nonactive at the beginning
of (85.10), and
even though Noah is the last subjective character, he is
.ul
not 
an expected subjective character.
Higgaion
has not been the subjective character, so he is not
the active character of (85.12), even though (85.12) denotes
his current action.
However, 
.ul
Dennys 
has been the subjective character, and so he is the active
character of (85.13), which denotes his current action of
raising his head.  After (85.13), therefore, the situation is
presubjective-active.
The seeming verb `seem' in (85.14) is a subjective element in this
situation, and so the sentence is subjective.  The subjective
character is Dennys, the last active character.
.(q
(86)
.br
     \*[86.1\*]Ugiel bent over Mahlah \*[86.2\*]and with one long 
finger touched the baby
on its eyelids, its nose.  \*[86.3\*]``I am pleased,'' Ugiel said again.

     \*[86.4\*]Oholibamah sat in the big tent, letting Elisheba feed them
lentil soup.  
     \*[86.5\*]Oholibamah said, ``He didn't care whether she lived or not,
as long as she had the baby.''
     \*[86.6\*]Yalith paused in the 
act of raising her bowl to her lips.  \*[86.7\*]``Do you really think that?''
     \*[86.8\*]``You heard him, didn't you?  `Why 
doesn't she get on with it?' he said.
`Why is it taking so long?'  And then he would go away and not come back for
hours and hours.''
     \*[86.9\*]``Mother said she didn't want 
him around\(em''\*[86.10\*]Then Yalith stopped.
\*[86.11\*]Matred had been with her older daughters when they 
gave birth, shooing their 
husbands away but giving a running account of the delivery.  \*[86.12\*]Nor 
had the husbands gone far away.  
.ul
\*[86.13\*]They had, in fact, been maddeningly underfoot.
\*[86.14\*]They had not simply vanished, like Ugiel, leaving everything
to the women.  \*[86.15\*]She finished her soup in silence.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, pp. 208-209]
.)q
There is a scene break at the extra blank line before (86.4),
so the situation at the beginning of (86.4) is presubjective-nonactive.
Since no subjective sentences appear in this passage
before the last paragraph, let us
consider the last
paragraph.  Yalith has been the subjective character, so
she is the active character of (86.9), which denotes her quoted
speech.  She is also the active character of (86.10), which denotes
her current action.
Sentences (86.11) and (86.12) are actually Yalith's subjective
sentences, 
but the algorithm is unable to recognize them, because
they contain no potential subjective elements that
the algorithm considers to be subjective elements.
(Sentence (86.10) may actually be a psychological action; if so, and
if the algorithm were able to recognize it as such, then the algorithm
would consider the shifted
past of (86.11) to be a subjective element; then, it would be able to recognize
that (86.11) is subjective.)
According to the algorithm, therefore,
the situation at the beginning of (86.13) is still presubjective-active, and
Yalith is still the last active character.
Even though Matred has
been the subjective character by this
point in the novel, and sentence (86.11) denotes her
action, she is not the active character of (86.11) because the
sentence is in the shifted past.
The first subjective sentence in the passage
that
the algorithm is able to recognize is (86.13):  It contains the
subjective elements `in fact' and `maddeningly'.  Since Yalith is
the last active character, the algorithm attributes this sentence
to her, which is the correct interpretation.
.pp
Now consider the postsubjective-active situation, in which both the
last subjective character and the last active character are
expected subjective characters.
First, two passages are presented in which competition
is resolved in favor of the last subjective character:
.(q
(87)
.br
     \*[87.1\*]Newt had always missed 
having a father, \*[87.2\*]but the fact that Sean
spoke so coldly of his put the matter in a different light.  \*[87.3\*]Perhaps
he was not so unlucky, after all.
     \*[87.4\*]He was riding around the herd when 
Jake Spoon trotted past on his way to Lonesome Dove.
     \*[87.5\*]``Going to town, Jake?'' Newt asked.
     \*[87.6\*]``Yes, I think I will,'' Jake said.  
\*[87.7\*]He didn't stop to pass
the time; \*[87.8\*]in a second he was
out of 
.ul
sight
in the shadows.  \*[87.9\*]It made Newt's spirits fall a little, for Jake had
seldom said two words to him since he came back.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 200]
.)q
Sentences (87.1)-(87.3) are Newt's subjective sentences.  A paragraph
break follows, and so the situation at the beginning of (87.4) is
broken-subjective.  Sentence (87.4) is not subjective and a paragraph
break follows it, so at the beginning of (87.5), the situation is
postsubjective-nonactive.  Newt has been the subjective character, so
he is the active character of (87.5) (which denotes his quoted
speech).  After the paragraph break before (87.6), however, the
situation is once again postsubjective-nonactive.
Jake has been the subjective character, so he is the active
character of (87.6).  The situation at the beginning of (87.8) is
postsubjective-active, Newt is the last subjective character, and
Jake is the last active character.
The algorithm
recognizes that (87.8) is subjective because it contains the subjective element 
`sight'.  It chooses Newt, the last subjective character, to be
the subjective character, because the sentence is about Jake (the sentence
is a nonprivate-state sentence and Jake is the experiencer).  This is
the correct interpretation.  Following is a demonstration of the
algorithm on simplified versions of (87.4)-(87.8):
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 12:20:10 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 12:20:19 1989
sneps

: Previous_subj_char Jake.
Jake has been the subj_char 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.883 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize situation to broken-subj.
The situation is now broken-subj

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.200 gc= 2.200) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char Newt.
Newt is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.850 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Newt was riding around the herd when Jake went by on his way to Lonesome Dove.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is broken-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Newt, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  progressive
It is not a subjective element 
Newt is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
Sentence with an active_char in broken-subj situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 14.166 gc= 2.333) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Newt, the last subj_char 
      Newt, the last active_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive 
  The last active_char is no longer an expected subjective character 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.383 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Quoted_speech Newt asked.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Newt, the last subj_char 
Newt is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
Sentence with an active_char in postsubj-nonactive situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 4.050 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Newt, the last subj_char 
      Newt, the last active_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive 
  The last active_char is no longer an expected subjective character 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.400 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Quoted_speech Jake said.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Newt, the last subj_char 
Jake is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
Sentence with an active_char in postsubj-nonactive situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 3.933 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: He did not stop to pass the time.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Newt, the last subj_char 
      Jake, the last active_char 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 9.183 gc= 2.316) <=) 

: In a second he was out of sight in the shadows.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Newt, the last subj_char 
      Jake, the last active_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  percept_term
It is a subjective element 
Competition between the last subj_char and the last active_char 
  Choosing the last subj_char because the sentence is about the last active_char 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  percept_term
The subj_char is Newt
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 12.516 gc= 0.00) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Mon Jul 24 12:24:47 1989
.)q
.fi
.(q
(88)
.br
     \*[88.1\*]Still, it had felt good to ride out 
of Lonesome Dove.  \*[88.2\*]She [Lorena]
had not seen Xavier again.  \*[88.3\*]The Dry Bean had been empty as they made
their preparations.  \*[88.4\*]The pants had been Jake's idea.  \*[88.5\*]He 
had known a woman
mule skinner in Montana who had worn pants.
     \*[88.6\*]While Jake had been fixing the 
pack horse Lippy had come out on the
steps of the saloon \*[88.7\*]and waved his lip at her one more time.
     \*[88.8\*]``I never tolt on you, Lorie,'' he said.  
.ul
\*[88.9\*]He looked like he might cry too.
\*[88.10\*]You'll just have to cry, she thought.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 218]
.)q
Sentences (88.1)-(88.5) are Lorena's subjective sentences.
A paragraph break follows, and then objective sentences 
appear (sentences (88.6)-(88.7)),
so the situation at the beginning of (88.8) is postsubjective-nonactive.
Lippy has been the subjective character, so he is the active character
of (88.8); the situation is now postsubjective-active, the last 
active character is Lippy, and the last subjective character is Lorena.
Sentence (88.9) is subjective
because it contains the subjective elements `look' and `might'.
Since it is about Lippy, the algorithm interprets the sentence to
be Lorena's, the last subjective character's, subjective sentence.
This is the correct interpretation.
.pp
In the following two passages, competition between the 
last subjective character and the last active character is resolved
in favor of the last active character.
When the first passage is encountered, the situation is 
postsubjective-nonactive, and Jake is the last subjective character:
.(q
(89)
.br
     \*[89.1\*]``I ain't near as old as you,'' Jake reminded 
him.  \*[89.2\*]``Why 
don't you marry her?''  \*[89.3\*]It was talk he didn't care to hear.  
     \*[89.4\*]Swift Bill Spettle had let a horse kick him that morning
\*[89.5\*]and had a knot on his forehead as big as a goose egg.
     \*[89.6\*]``You best let Bol rub 
some ointment on that bump,'' Call suggested.
.ul
\*[89.7\*]The Spettle boys were mighty green,
\*[89.8\*]but they were not afraid to work.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 197-198]
.)q
Sentence (89.3) is Jake's subjective sentence.  A paragraph break
and an objective sentence follow, and so the situation at the
beginning of (89.5) is postsubjective-nonactive.
The algorithm does not interpret (89.5) to be subjective, because
the potential subjective element `as big' is not a subjective element 
in the postsubjective-active situation.  Call is the active
character of (89.6), since he has been the subjective character.
At the beginning of (89.7), therefore, the situation is
postsubjective-active, the last subjective character is Jake, and
the last active character is Call.
Sentence (89.7) is subjective
because it contains the modifying intensifier adverb 
`mighty', a
subjective element in this situation.  Since (89.7)
is not about Call,
the algorithm interprets it to be Call's subjective
sentence, which is the correct interpretation.
A demonstration of the algorithm on simplified versions of
(89.2)-(89.7) follows.
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 13:17:04 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 13:17:10 1989
sneps

: Previous_subj_char Call.
Call has been the subj_char 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 1.316 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize situation to postsubj-nonactive.
The situation is now postsubj-nonactive

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.200 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char to Jake.
Jake is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 1.00 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Quoted_speech Jake said.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
Jake is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
Sentence with an active_char in postsubj-nonactive situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 4.816 gc= 2.350) <=) 

: He did not want to hear this.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
      Jake, the last active_char 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Jake
The subj_char is Jake
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 12.383 gc= 2.450) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is broken-subj 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.350 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Swift Bill Spettle had let a horse kick him.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is broken-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  shifted_past
It is not a subjective element 
The sentence is not subjective 
Objective sentence without an active_char in broken-subj situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 13.266 gc= 2.450) <=) 

: He had a knot on his forehead as big as a goose egg.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  as_modifier
It is not a subjective element 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still postsubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 17.066 gc= 2.516) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is still postsubj-nonactive 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.350 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Quoted_speech Call said.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
Call is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
Sentence with an active_char in postsubj-nonactive situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 4.633 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: The boys were mighty green.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
      Call, the last active_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  modifying_intensifier_adverb_B
It is a subjective element 
Competition between the last subj_char and the last active_char 
 Choosing the last active_char 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  modifying_intensifier_adverb_B
The subj_char is Call
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 6.400 gc= 2.550) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:4> 
script done on Mon Jul 24 13:27:22 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
The following passage is interesting because two characters are
the last active character:
.(q
(90)
.br
\*[90.1\*]Newt had not expected the jump \*[90.2\*]and lost 
both stirrups, \*[90.3\*]but
fortunately diverted the heifers so that they turned
back into the main herd.  \*[90.4\*]He found his heart was
beating fast, partly because he had almost been thrown and partly because
he had nearly left thirty cattle behind.  \*[90.5\*]With such a start, it
seemed to him he would be lucky to get to Montana without disgracing himself.
     \*[90.6\*]Call and Augustus rode 
along together, some distance from the herd.
\*[90.7\*]They were moving through 
fairly open country, flats of chaparral with only
here and there a strand of mesquite.  
.ul
\*[90.8\*]That would soon change:
the first challenge would be the
brush country, an almost impenetrable band of thick mesquite between them
and San Antonio.  \*[90.9\*]Only a few of the hands were experienced in the
brush, \*[90.10\*]and a bad run of some kind might cost them hundreds of cattle.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 241]
.)q
Sentences (90.1)-(90.5) are Newt's subjective sentences.  The situation
after the paragraph break is broken-subjective.  Call and Augustus
have both been the subjective character, so they are the
active character of both (90.6) and (90.7), which denote their current actions
(the progressive in (90.7) is not a subjective element, because the
progressive is a subjective element only in the continuing-subjective 
situation).
The situation at the beginning of (90.8), therefore, is
postsubjective-active, the last subjective character is Newt, and
the last active character is Call and Augustus.
Sentence (90.8) is subjective because `would' appears; the algorithm
chooses Call and Augustus to be the subjective character because
they are the last active character and the sentence is not about them.
This is the correct interpretation.
.pp
There are, however, some
passages that pose problems for the algorithm's treatment of
the last active character.
The first relates to the
example just given:  the actor is more than one character,
but in contrast to the example just given, not all of them
have been the subjective character.  According to the algorithm,
a group
of characters cannot be the active character unless each of them
has been the subjective character.
As mentioned in Chapter 4, Section 2.2, this rule is arbitrary; a larger
body of texts need to be examined to determine if it is justified.
In the following passage,
this rule seems to result in the less preferable interpretation:
.(q
(91)
.br
     \*[91.1\*]``You cannot have them both, you know,'' Ugiel said.
     \*[91.2\*]Then he was gone.

     \*[91.3\*]Yalith and Oholibamah spread skins over some low scrub palms.
.ul
\*[91.4\*]Some skins they would discard, if they were too soiled.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 191]
.)q
The extra blank line does accompany a scene break, and
so the situation at the beginning of (91.3) is presubjective-nonactive.
Yalith, but not
Oholibamah, has been the subjective character.  If they were the active
character of (91.3), then the situation at the beginning of
(91.4) would be presubjective-active.  The algorithm would
interpret (91.4) to be subjective, because `would' and
conditionals are subjective elements
in the presubjective-active situation; it would attribute the
sentence to Yalith and Oholibamah, the last active character.
Under this reading,
the conditional expresses their intention.
On the other
hand, since the algorithm does not allow a set or group of characters
to become the active character unless all of them have been the
subjective character,
Yalith and Oholibamah do not become the active character of (91.3).
The situation at the beginning of (91.4) is presubjective-\c
.ul
nonactive,
and, since `would' and conditionals are
.ul
not
subjective elements in this situation, the algorithm does not
interpret (91.4) to be subjective.
Under this reading,
the reader is simply being told what will happen in the future.
However, interpreting (91.4) to be subjective seems to be the
preferable interpretation.
.pp
The way that sentences are broken up into input units is responsible
for the algorithm's misinterpretation of the following passage:
.(q
(92)
.br
     \*[92.1\*]``Well, he is,'' Call said, not anxious to have to explain
the situation.
     \*[92.2\*]``Jake won't camp with us old cobs,'' Augustus 
said.  \*[92.3\*]``He's
traveling with a valet, if you know what that is.''
     \*[92.4\*]``No, but if it's traveling with Jake I bet it wears skirts,''
Soupy said\(em\c
.ul
a remark which for some reason seemed to catch everybody wrong.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 225]
.)q
Sentence (92.1) is Call's subjective sentence.  Paragraph breaks
and objective sentences follow, and the situation at the beginning
of (92.4) is postsubjective-nonactive.
The italicized part of (92.4) should be attributed to 
.ul
Soupy:
.ul
He 
doesn't know why his remark has the effect that it does.  However,
since the italicized part of (92.4) is subordinated, and not
coordinated to the other parts, it does not form a separate input
unit.  Thus, the algorithm misinterprets (92.4) to be the subjective
sentence of 
the last subjective character,
Call.
Soupy has been the subjective character, so
if the italicized portion of (92.4) 
were 
a separate input unit,
Soupy would be the active character of the input unit denoting his
quoted speech.
Then the algorithm 
.ul
would 
be able to recognize that the italicized
portion of (92.4) is Soupy's subjective clause, since it
is not about Soupy.
.pp
Finally, consider the restriction that a sentence has to be
in the simple past for it to make a character the topic character.
This typically works, but not always.
The situation is postsubjective-nonactive at the beginning of the 
following passage, 
and the last subjective character is
Augustus, not Jake.
.(q
(93)
.br
     \*[93.1\*]He [Jake] had got the thorn in his thumb hobbling the
horses the night before, and had been unable to get it out in the
dark.  \*[93.2\*]Now his thumb was swollen to twice its size,
for a green mesquite thorn was only slightly less poisonous than a
rattlesnake.
.ul
\*[93.3\*]Besides,
he had slept badly on the stony ground, \*[93.4\*]and Lorie had 
refused him again, when
all he wanted was a little pleasure to take his mind off his
throbbing thumb.
.)q
Because (93.1) is in the shifted past, Jake is not the active
character of this sentence.
However, (93.3) is clearly his, and not Augustus's,
subjective sentence.  In addition, even if he were the active
character of (93.1) (so the situation would be postsubjective-active
at the beginning of (93.3), and he would be the last active character),
the algorithm would still misinterpret (93.3)
to be Augustus's subjective sentence, since the sentence is about Jake.
This is the example found for which the rule for resolving 
competition between the last subjective character and 
the last subjective character fails.
.sh 1 "IMPRESSIONS AND PERCEPTIONS WITHOUT AN OBSERVER."
Recall from Chapter 2 that some passages describe what one
would see and the impressions one would have if observing the
scene, but there isn't a character present who experiences the
perceptions and impressions.
The passage below is an example.
It appears just after a scene break, and so there isn't an
expected subjective character.
It does not contain potential subjective elements associated with
the presubjective-nonactive situation,
but it does contain others,
even some that are
associated with the postsubjective-nonactive, postsubjective-active, and
presubjective-active situations.
But, since there isn't an expected subjective character to whom the
potential subjective elements can be attributed, the algorithm does
not interpret any sentences to be subjective.
This interpretation is right,
given that the algorithm's goal is to recognize 
.ul
characters'
subjective sentences.
.pp
The potential subjective elements that would be subjective elements if
there were an expected subjective character are italicized.
Note that the sentences following `\(em' are a kind of unuttered
quoted speech.  Although it is long, the entire passage is
cited to show that no observer is present to whom the potential 
subjective elements are attributed.
.(q
     ``We're coming,'' Oholibamah said.  And they hurried
toward the central section of the oasis, where Noah's vineyards were,
and his grazing grounds, and his tents.  And where Dennys was waiting
for them.

     The moon set, its path whiter than the desert sands dwindling
into shadow.  The stars moved in their joyous dance across the
sky.  The horizon was dark with that deep darkness which comes
just before the dawn.
     A vulture flew down,
.ul
seemingly
out of nowhere, stretching its naked neck, settling its dark feathers.
     \(emVultures are underestimated.  Without us, disease would wipe out
all life.  We clean up garbage, feces, dead bodies of man and beast.  We
are not appreciated.
     No
.ul
sound
was heard and
.ul
yet
the words
.ul
seemed
scratched upon the air.
     A scarab beetle burrowed up out of the sand and blinked
at the vulture.  \(emIt is true. You help keep the world clean.
I appreciate you.
     And it disappeared beneath the sand.
     A crocodile crawled across the desert, lumbering along
clumsily, far from its native waters.  It was followed by the
dragon/lizard, who stretched his leather wings, showing
off.  A dark, hooded snake slithered past them both.
     A small, brown, armored creature, not 
.ul
much 
bigger than
the scarab beetle, skittered along beside the snake.  \(emWe
are invulnerable.  We have survived the fire of the volcanoes, 
the earthquakes that pushed the continents apart
and raised the mountain ranges.  We are immortal. We
cover the planet.
     A bat, brighter than gold, swooped low over the cock
roach.  \(emYou are proud, and you can survive fire and ice,
but I could eat you if I had to.  I hope I never have to.
    And the golden bat soared high, a 
.ul
bright flash 
against
the dark.
     A tiny mimicry of a crocodile, with a blunt nose, a skunk
scrabbled along beside the crocodile and the dragon/lizard.
\(emI am small, and swift, and my flesh is not edible and
causes damage to the brain.  I am the way that I am.  That
is how I am made.
     On the skunk's back, a flea tried to dig through the
armored flesh.  \(emI, too, am the way that I am.
     A 
.ul
shrill whine 
cut across the clear air.  A mosquito
droned.  \(emI, too. I, too. I will feast on your blood.
     A small, slimy worm wriggled across the sand, leaving
a thin trail.  A slug's viscous path followed.  \(emI am not like
the snail, needing a house.  I am sufficient unto myself.
     A red ant crawled along the dragon/lizard's wing, and
held tight as it tried to shake the biting insect off.  A rat,
sleek and well filled, wriggled its nose and whiskers and
looked at the vulture's naked neck.  \(emI, too, eat the filth
off the streets.  I eat flesh.  I prefer living flesh, but I will
take what I can get.  I, too, help keep the world clean.
     No 
.ul
sound 
was heard. Like negative light, the words
cracked the desert night.
    The twelve 
.ul
oddly 
assorted creatures began to position
themselves into a circle.
.ul
    The nephilim.

     Oholibamah lay in Japheth's arms on a large, flat stone a short
walk into the desert.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 118-119]
.)q
For example, the algorithm does not interpret the following sentence to
be subjective even though it contains an attitude_adverbial, since
it appears in the presubjective-nonactive situation:
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 13:56:02 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 13:56:10 1989
sneps

: A vulture flew down, seemingly out of nowhere.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  attitude_adverbial
It is not a subjective element 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still presubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 7.450 gc= 0.00) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Mon Jul 24 14:00:46 1989
.)q
.fi
.sh 1 "EXCEPTIONS."
This section discusses sentences that the algorithm misinterprets
in one of two ways:  either it interprets a sentence to be
subjective that is actually not subjective, or it attributes
a subjective sentence to the wrong character.  Failure
due to the rule that a nonprivate-state sentence is subjective in
the continuing-subjective situation
was illustrated in Section
8, and failure due to the algorithm's treatment of the last active
character
was illustrated in Section 11.  Further, subjective sentences that the algorithm
is unable to recognize appear in some passages cited in previous sections;
these sentences were pointed out in the discussion of those passages.
.sh 2 "Discontinuities."
An area for future research are other kinds of narrative discontinuities
(Bruder et al. 1986; Nakhimovsky and Rapaport 1987)
than scene breaks that an expected subjective character does not survive.
In
this passage, for example, there is a shift in the narrative WHERE.
O'Keefe is the last subjective character when it is 
encountered:
.(q
(94)
.br
     \*[94.1\*]The second call, which followed immediately, was from
a pay telephone in the 
hotel lobby.  \*[94.2\*]``Hullo, Ogden,'' Curtis 
O'Keefe said when the caller identified himself, \*[94.3\*]``I'm reading your
report now.''
     \*[94.4\*]In the lobby, eleven floors below, a balding sallow man who
.ul
looked
like an accountant which\(emamong other things\(emhe was,
nodded confirmation to a younger male companion waiting outside
the glass-paneled phone booth.  \*[94.5\*]The caller, whose name was Ogden
Bailey and his home Long Island, had been registered in the
hotel for the past two weeks as Richard Fountain of Miami.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 129]
.)q
The narrative WHERE
shifts from O'Keefe's location to a location eleven
stories below.  It seems that O'Keefe does not survive as an
expected subjective character 
over this shift in place, and that although (94.4) contains 
the seeming verb `looked', it does not seem to be a character's
subjective sentence.
.sh 2 "Non-Specific Narrative-WHEN."
Passages that do not have a specific 
narrative WHEN, 
but instead describe how
things are in general during a certain time period,
can also pose
problems for the algorithm.  Although these passages can begin
with a particular character's subjective sentences, they can
``drift away'' from that character and take a group or class
psychological point of view.  For interested readers,
examples of passages like these are 
.ul
Lonesome Dove,
the last paragraph of page 193 through the fourth paragraph of
page 195, and
.ul
Many Waters,
paragraph nine of page 180 through paragraph two of page 181,
which are too long to cite here.
The 
.ul
Many Waters 
passage
appears just after a scene break, and it begins with ``Every day''.
One problem that the algorithm encounters in this passage is
that `would' is not used subjectively, but instead refers to
the general time of the passage.  For example:
.(q
Japheth, like his wife and Yalith, would stay to eat, to talk.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 180]
.)q
In the context in which it appears, this sentence is not a prediction
about the future.  It is interpreted as if it began with ``Every day''.
.sh 2 "The Expected Subjective Character Needs to be Refreshed."
Even if 
.ip (i)
there is a specific narrative WHEN, and
.ip (ii) 
there are no discontinuities in a passage, so that the
story remains at the same narrative WHERE and narrative WHEN, and 
.ip (iii)
the last subjective sentence appeared in the current scene, and
the last subjective character remains in the scene
.in 0
.sp
if a passage continues for too long without a subjective sentence,
the last subjective character can cease to be an expected subjective character. 
Then,
potential subjective elements that are associated
with the postsubjective-nonactive situation (but not with the
.ul
pre\c
subjective-nonactive situation)
can appear without strongly subjective meanings.
This is the situation when the following sentence is encountered:
.(q
Elisheba, Shem's wife, stocky and
.ul
sensible-looking,
with thickly curling black hair and dark, placid eyes, snorted.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 73-74]
.)q
As it appears in context,
this sentence seems simply to describe Elisheba for the benefit of the
reader, and not describe Elisheba from the perspective of the
last subjective character,
since the last subjective sentence appeared over two pages ago.
.sh 2 "`When'-Clauses." 
Thompson (1987) shows that although `when'-clauses are subordinated
clauses, they can advance the narrative line.  It seems that some
sentences with `when'-clauses that denote actions, and of which the
verb phrase of the main clause is in the progressive, should be
the actors' subjective sentences.
For example:
.(q
(95)
.br
     \*[95.1\*]``I want you to be the scout,'' the Captain 
said.  \*[95.2\*]``We got
plenty of men to keep the stock moving.  I want you to find
us water and a good bed ground every night.''
     \*[95.3\*]Deets nodded modestly, but 
inside he felt proud.  \*[95.4\*]Being made
scout was more of an honor than having your name on a sign.
\*[95.5\*]It was proof that the Captain thought highly of his abilities.
     \*[95.6\*]When they got back to the wagon Augustus was oiling his
guns.  \*[95.7\*]Lippy fanned himself with his bowler, \*[95.8\*]and most of the
other hands were just sitting around wishing it was cooler.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 235]
.)q
Sentence (95.6) is the
kind of sentence mentioned above:  there is a `when'-clause, and the
verb phrase of the main clause, 
.ul
Augustus was oiling his guns,
is in the progressive.
As I read it, Augustus oiling his guns is
what The Captain and Deets
perceive when they get back to the wagon.  
However, the
algorithm misinterprets
this passage.  It does not interpret (95.6)-(95.7) to be subjective,
and it interprets (95.8), which contains `just' used as a subjective
element, to be 
Lippy's 
subjective sentence:  He has been the subjective character and so
he is the active character of (95.7);
since the sentence isn't
about him, competition is resolved in his favor.
However, sentence (95.7) is not Lippy's subjective sentence.
.sh 2 "Sentences that Are Not Clearly Subjective or Objective."
Consider this passage:
.(q
(96)
.br
     \*[96.1\*]But the St. Gregory isn't my hotel, Curtis O'Keefe reminded
himself.  \*[96.2\*]Not yet.
     \*[96.3\*]He headed for Reception, a slender, dapper six-foot figure
in precisely pressed charcoal gray, moving with dance-like,
.ul
almost 
mincing steps.  The last was an O'Keefe characteristic whether on
a handball court, as he often was, a ballroom floor or on the
rolling deck of his ocean-going cruiser 
.ul
Innkeeper IV.
His lithe athlete's body had been his pride through most of his
fifty-six years in which he had manipulated himself upward from
a lower-middle-class nonentity to become one of the nation's 
richest\(emand most restless\(emmen.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 99]
.)q
O'Keefe is the suspended subjective character when `almost' used
as a hedge is encountered in (96.3).  Sentence (96.3) seems subjective,
but it is very hard to read as O'Keefe's subjective sentence.  The
reason why I entertain the
possibility that (96.3) is in some way O'Keefe's subjective
sentence is the appearance of the
following strange passage, which appears just two
paragraphs before (96):
.(q
(97)
.br
     \*[97.1\*]Curtis O'Keefe marched into the busy, cavernous lobby
swiftly, like an arrow piercing an apple's core.  
.ul
\*[97.2\*]And a slightly decayed apple, he thought critically.
.)q
This appears just after a scene break, so it appears in the
presubjective-nonactive situation.
Since comparative `like' is
not a subjective element in this situation,
the algorithm
does not interpret (97.1) to be subjective.  And, up to this point, the passage
does seem to simply be objective description.  I found O'Keefe's
thought about this description in (97.2) to be very strange.
Passages such as these, which include description that is not clearly
just subjective or just objective,
can pose problems for the algorithm.
.sh 2 "Over-Recognition of Subjective Sentences."
Even if the kinds of complications discussed so far in this
section do not arise, a potential subjective element might not
be subjective even if it appears in a situation with which it
is associated.
These occur in the
considered texts infrequently, however.
.sh 3 "`As If' Clauses."
A few sentences that are not clearly a character's subjective sentence
were found that contain `as if' clauses, even though there is an
expected subjective character
when the sentence is encountered.  This potential subjective element requires
further investigation.
First, it 
can be used when someone is pretending to do something he is not:
.(q
For Keycase, the rest was routine.  Strolling past the trash can, he
tossed in his own folded newspaper, then,
.ul
as if abruptly changing his mind,
turned back and recovered it.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 104]
.)q
Keycase is the last subjective character
at the beginning of this passage.  The `as if'
clause describes his behavior; he is only pretending that he abruptly
changed his mind.  It is not an evidential indicating that someone
inferred from his behavior that he abruptly changed his mind.
.pp
But, consider this passage:
.(q
(98)
.br
     \*[98.1\*]Then he [Newt] immediately felt silly for 
asking it.  \*[98.2\*]``I
guess it's a mighty far piece, up north,'' he said,
.ul
as if to relieve the Captain of the need to answer.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 223]
.)q
Newt is the last subjective character at the beginning of (98.2), and
the algorithm interprets (98.2) to be his subjective sentence because
`as if' appears.
However, it is difficult to understand
this sentence as his subjective sentence.  Note that this use
of `as if' is not like the one in the previous passage, where
it is used to describe dissembling behavior.
.sh 3 "Other Potential Subjective Elements."
Some examples were found of potential subjective elements
other than `as if' clauses appearing
in sentences that are not clearly characters' subjective
sentences, even though they appear in situations with which they
are associated.
An example is the following:
.(q
(99)
.br
     \*[99.1\*]Then the thought of how empty the saloon would soon be
filled him [Xavier] with gloom, \*[99.2\*]and he stood by 
the door most of the night,
his washrag dripping down his leg.
     \*[99.3\*]Lippy was kept
.ul
plenty
busy, for the cowboys were always requesting songs.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 186]
.)q
Although the situation at the beginning of (99.3) is broken-subjective,
and `plenty' is associated with this situation,
(99.3) is not Xavier's (the last subjective character's) subjective sentence.
.sh 2 "The Wrong Subjective Character."
One situation in which the algorithm can attribute a subjective sentence
to the wrong character is if the actual subjective character is
a participant in a conversation, particularly
a telephone conversation.  In most cases, however, the subjective
character is an expected subjective character, even if a 
conversation is taking place.
.pp
Further, if the content of a subjective sentence is not related at all
to what
the expected subjective character 
has been thinking about, then it is not the expected subjective character's
subjective sentence.
Consider this passage:
.(q
     He [Jake] felt distinctly irritated with Call\(emthe man never
seemed to need any of the things other humans needed, like
sleep or women.  Life for Call was work, and he seemed to think
everyone else ought to see it the same way.
     ``Why, Jake, you look plumb grumpy,'' Augustus said,
when Jake sat down and began to eat.   ``Honest work don't agree with
you, I guess.''
     ``No, I'm about as cooked as this beef,'' Jake said.
     Newt and the two Irishmen were holding the herd.  The Irishmen
were
.ul
particularly
good night herders because they could sing; their melodies seemed to
soothe the cattle.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 196]
.)q
Although Jake is the last subjective character when `particularly'
is encountered, the sentence in which it appears is not related to
Jake's current concerns.
By the end of the last paragraph, it becomes clear that the
text has shifted to Call's subjective context.
.pp
Another issue is discussed in Chapter 5:  There can be
broadening of the psychological point of view.
.sh 2 "No Scene Break." 
Suppose that there has been a subjective sentence in the current
scene,
so that the last subjective character is an expected subjective character.
There is nothing that prevents an author from beginning
an objective context, and including in it some potential subjective 
elements that are associated with situations in which the
last subjective character is an expected subjective character.
It is just that this typically is not done;
instead, a scene break (or another kind of discontinuity, see 
Section 13.1, above)
usually appears that makes the last subjective character
no longer an expected subjective character.
The following passage is not typical.
.(q
\*[100.1\*]On this latest trip he [Cy Lewin] noticed that the jerkiness
had stopped.  \*[100.2\*]Well, whatever
.ul
that 
trouble was, he guessed it had fixed itself.
.ul
     \*[100.3\*]He could not have been more wrong.
     \*[100.4\*]High above Cy Lewin, perched like an eyrie on the hotel
roof, was the elevator control room.  \*[100.5\*]There, in the mechanical
heart of number four elevator, a small electrical relay
had reached the limit of its useful life.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 390; italics in (100.2) in original]
.)q
Sentences (100.1)-(100.2) are clearly Lewin's subjective sentences.  Then,
with only a paragraph break (and without any spatial or temporal
discontinuities), the passage shifts to an objective context that
contains potential subjective elements that the algorithm interprets
to be subjective elements, in particular `wrong' and `could' (which is
accompanied by `have') in (100.3).
If (100.3)
were Lewin's subjective sentence, the situation at the beginning
of (100.4) would be broken-subjective,
so the comparative use of `like' in
(100.4) would be a subjective element, and would continue his subjective
context.  Instead, (100.3)-(100.5) are not Lewin's subjective sentences;
information that Lewin
.ul
does not
have is suddenly presented.
.sh 1 "DETERMINING IF AN ELEMENT IS A POTENTIAL SUBJECTIVE ELEMENT."
As is evident from Section 9, determining if a
linguistic element is used as a potential subjective element is
often not straightforward.  Since many potential subjective elements 
are defined in terms of their grammatical functions and their meanings,
the ability to determine in general if a linguistic element is
used as a potential subjective element requires that both syntactic
and semantic ambiguities be resolved.  In addition, for some
potential subjective elements, whether or not a sentence is
about a specific individual or event must be determined (e.g.,
assertive indefinite pronouns).
Solving these problems is beyond the scope of 
this dissertation.  Note that any NLU
system, whether or not one of its goals is to recognize subjective sentences,
is faced with these problems.  For example, determining whether `then'
indicates something
about the structure of an argument (an inferential conjunct), refers
to a time (a deictic term), or advances a narrative line (e.g. ``Then
she left'')
is essential
to understanding both the sentence itself and the discourse in which it
appears.
My contribution is to show how a linguistic element that is
used in a certain way
grammatically and semantically can be used to recognized subjective
sentences.
.pp
The sentence-level parser is able to determine if certain linguistic
elements, for which it is straightforward
to do so, are used as potential subjective elements.
These are exclamations that end with exclamation points,
questions, kinship terms (although it cannot determine if a
kinship term has assumed the status of a proper name, such
as `Grandfather Lamech' in 
.ul
Many Waters; 
see Section 9.2.5), 
noun-phrase and verb-phrase sentence fragments,
the shifted past, the progressive, conditionals beginning with `if'
(`if' unambiguously begins a conditional clause), reaction signals,
comparative `like', comparison clauses of the form `as' <modifier>,
and adverbs,
adjectives, nouns, auxiliary verbs,
and verbs that are always potential
subjective elements, such as `surprisingly', `strange',
`fool', `must', and `glimmered'.  It can determine that a sentence is
habitual if an adverb such as `occasionally' appears.
In addition, it uses Banfield's syntactic rules for deciding if
an evaluative adjective is used with its evaluative meaning,
but as discussed in Section 9.2.4, these rules are not sufficient in general.
The parser treats all occurrences of `seem' and `appear' as seeming
verbs, and never as seeming-state sentences.  In addition, `look'
is always treated as a psychological-action term, never as a seeming verb.
The verb `feel' is so ambiguous that it cannot be given to the parser
as input.
.sh 1 "ROLE IN COMPREHENSION."
It is possible that text situations and expected subjective characters
are useful for recognizing subjective
sentences only because texts happen to be written the way that they are,
and that this information has no role in a reader's comprehension
of narrative text.  However, the following ways in which this information might
affect a reader's comprehension
are useful areas for future empirical investigation.
.pp
First, consider the use of the text situation to decide if a potential
subjective element is a subjective element.
There is discourse continuity among the sentences of a subjective context
in the sense that the sentences are all understood with respect to the
same psychological point of view.
The algorithm's use of the text situation to decide if a potential subjective 
element is a subjective element assumes that textual continuity
is related to discourse continuity:  Potential subjective elements that
are interpreted to be subjective elements 
only if the immediately preceding
sentence is subjective can be weaker than those that are
interpreted to be subjective elements in other situations as well.
Textual continuity might similarly influence a reader's interpretation of
potential subjective elements.
Suppose that the current sentence is an action sentence in the shifted
past, and that it immediately follows a subjective sentence.
It may be that because the sentence immediately follows a subjective
sentence, the reader directs her efforts toward determining why
the action is relevant to the expected subjective character's concerns 
as expressed in the
previous subjective sentence(s).  This might be so even though sentences
in the shifted past can easily be understood to be objective narrative
statements.
Consider passage (84):
.(q
(84)
.br
     \*[84.1\*]When he [Call] got within fifteen miles of Lonesome Dove he cut
west, thinking they would be holding the herd in that 
direction.  \*[84.2\*]He
rode around the southern edge of the bad brush country \*[84.3\*]and struck
the trail of the horses.  \*[84.4\*]They had been going 
back south, over their own
tracks, which was curious.  
.ul
\*[84.5\*]Gus had taken them back to town.
\*[84.6\*]Probably he had a reason, \*[84.7\*]but it was not one Call 
could guess, so he
loped on home.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 181]
.)q
Sentence (84.5) is an action sentence in the shifted past.  It is not
an objective statement narrating that Gus took the horses back
to town.  Instead, it is Call's conclusion, based on his observations
about the trail made by the horses.  It is hypothesized that
because (84.5)
immediately follows Call's subjective sentence, the reader asks herself 
why the action is relevant to what Call is concerned with, rather than
simply understanding the sentence to be an objective sentence.
.pp
The difference between the continuing-subjective and 
broken-subjective situations
is whether
a paragraph break separates the current and previous sentences.
Stark (1988) 
showed empirically that a paragraph break can influence
the reader's comprehension of the text,
although readers do not
pursue a blind strategy whereby paragraph breaks alone are 
considered:  ``The effect of a paragraph cue is an interaction between
the cue and the content of what is being cued'' (p. 299).
Her stimulus materials were expository rather than narrative texts, and so she
did not specifically investigate how paragraph breaks might influence
a reader's recognition of subjective sentences.
.pp
Paragraph breaks often accompany discontinuities.  Stark's results
showed a significant correlation between discontinuities in
local semantic connectedness and paragraph breaks.  That is,
if a sentence is not related to its predecessor through
a relation such as contrast or coordination, then a paragraph break
often appears.  In addition, as Nakhimovsky and Rapaport (1988) suggest,
changes in the psychological point of
view are often accompanied by paragraph breaks.  Stark suggests
for future investigation that perhaps readers orient their attention
away from their representation of the immediately preceding material
when they encounter a paragraph break.  In narrative, if a paragraph
break is encountered just after a subjective sentence, the reader
may orient her attention away from the subjective character's
consciousness, and be less disposed to interpreting the sentence 
to be subjective than if the paragraph break did not appear.
.pp
In the postsubjective-nonactive, postsubjective-active, and
presubjective-active situations, there is not
a local context directing the reader to understand
a sentence with respect to a character's consciousness.
Thus, if a sentence appears in one of these situations,
and it only contains a potential subjective element that
can easily be understood to be objective (such as the shifted past),
then the reader may be inclined to simply understand the sentence to be 
objective.
The potential subjective elements that are associated
with these situations can be
subjective elements for strong reasons.  Perhaps whenever one of them
appears, the reader tries 
to identify whose evaluation, emotion, lack of
knowledge, etc., is being expressed, even if the previous sentence
was not subjective.
.pp
Now consider the algorithm's use of expected subjective characters
to identify subjective characters.
The following discussion concerns sentences that are not
private-state sentences, seeming-state sentences, psychological-action
and perceptual-action sentences, or sentences with narrative
parentheticals.  In addition, it concerns situations in which
there is only one expected subjective character (a more complicated
version of the same discussion could address the complexity of
two expected subjective characters).
.pp
It may merely be coincidence that
the subjective character of a subjective sentence is typically the
expected subjective character; the reader 
might not consider who the expected subjective character is
when identifying the subjective character, but only consider
the content of the sentence.  In some cases, however, it is equally
plausible that more than one character is the subjective character, and
the expected subjective character
must be considered to identify the subjective character.
In other cases, there is only one character who is plausibly
the subjective character, so the reader could arrive at the proper
interpretation by considering all possibilities and then selecting
the most plausible one.  Sidner's work on pronoun resolution
(Sidner 1983) suggests a hypothesis for how the reader might
use the expected subjective character to 
identify the subjective character, even in cases where
only one character is plausibly the subjective character.
.pp
Sidner shows that the syntactic roles of individuals (e.g., the subject)
suggest a referent for a pronoun in the current sentence.\**
.(f
\**
Grosz and Sidner (1986) show in addition 
that the discourse segment in which the sentence appears and the
corresponding focus space also influences who the referent is (see also
Reichman 1985 and Fox 1987).
.)f
Her algorithm considers the suggested referent first; if the resulting
interpretation is plausible, then the suggested referent is chosen
to be the referent of the pronoun.  Only if the resulting interpretation
is 
.ul
not 
plausible do other possibilities need to be considered.  Thus, since
the rules used to determine the suggested referent are often
reliable, the algorithm avoids unnecessary computation.
.pp
Similarly,
the reader might first consider if it is plausible that the
expected subjective character
is the subjective character, and only consider other
possibilities if it isn't plausible.  Since the expected subjective 
character typically 
.ul
is
the subjective character, this would avoid unnecessary computation.
A future empirical investigation could involve two studies.  
The first could investigate whether the 
expected subjective character is chosen to be
the subjective character if there are more than one character that
could plausibly be the subjective character.  The second could investigate
whether the expected subjective character is 
the first character considered, and so if the
expected subjective character is the most plausible choice, 
other possibilities are
not considered.  Reading times could be compared in two 
situations:  the situation in which the most plausible choice is the
expected subjective character, and the situation in 
which the most plausible choice is
.ul
not
the expected subjective character.
If readers do consider the expected subjective character 
first, then reading
times in the first situation will be lower than in the second situation.
.sh 1 "SUMMARY OF ASSOCIATIONS."
This section summarizes the association of potential subjective elements
with text situations.
.sp
Potential subjective elements associated at the highest level with the
presubjective-nonactive situation:
.in +2
.sp
exclamations, questions, the intensifiers
`enough', `so', `such', and `too',
evaluative adjectives and kinship terms.
.in 0
.sp
Potential subjective elements associated at the highest level with the
presubjective-active, postsubjective-nonactive, and postsubjective-active
situations:
.in +2
.sp
sentence fragments, attitude adjectives, attitude nouns, percept terms,
assertive indefinite pronouns, <wh>-`ever' subordinators, conditionals,
auxiliary verbs and operators, seeming verbs, `as if' clauses,
`as though' clauses, modifying intensifier adverbs A,
modifying intensifier adverbs B,
modifying emphasizer adverbs, attitude adverbials, and attitude diminishers
(a distinguished subcategory of attitude adverbials). 
.in 0
.sp
Potential subjective elements associated at the highest level with the
interrupted-subjective and broken-subjective situations:
.in +2
.sp
reaction signals, subject-verb inversion, comparative `like', `as' <modifier>
clauses, generic sentences, habitual sentences, impersonal sentences, and
quantifiers.
.in 0
.sp
Potential subjective elements associated at the highest level with the
continuing-subjective situation:
.in +2
.sp
the progressive aspect and shifted past tense.
.bp
.sz +2
.ce 2
.b
Chapter 6
Private-State Sentences
.sp
.sz -2
.ls 2
.sp 2
.sh 1 "INTRODUCTION." 1
The subjective character of a private-state sentence 
might be identifiable from the sentence itself; in particular,
it might be the experiencer of the private state, even if she is not an
expected subjective character.
Thus, a private-state sentence is a way to initiate a new
psychological point of view.
For example:
.(q
(1)
.br
  \*[1.1\*]``Drown me?'' Augustus said. \*[1.2\*]``Why if anybody had tried it,
those girls would have clawed them to shreds.''  \*[1.3\*]He knew
Call was mad, \*[1.4\*]but wasn't much inclined to humor him.  \*[1.5\*]It
was his dinner table as much as Call's, \*[1.6\*]and if Call didn't like
the conversation he could go to bed.
  \*[1.7\*]Call knew there was no point in arguing.
\*[1.8\*]That was what Augustus
wanted:  argument.
\*[1.9\*]He didn't really care what the question
was, \*[1.10\*]and it made no great difference to him which side he was on.
\*[1.11\*]He just plain loved to argue. [McMurtry, 
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 16]
.)q
Sentences (1.3)-(1.6) are Augustus's subjective sentences and (1.7)-(1.11)
are Call's.  So, (1.7) initiates a new psychological point of view.
It is a private-state sentence (it contains the private-state term `know')
and its subjective character is the experiencer of the private state.
.pp
Passage (1) shows, however, that the subjective character of private-state
sentence
is not always the experiencer.  In (1.6),
``Call didn't like the conversation'' contains the private-state term `like',
but the subjective character is Augustus, not Call.  Similarly, in 
(1.8)-(1.11), ``that was what Augustus wanted: argument'',
``[Augustus] didn't really care what the question was'', and 
``[Augustus] just plain
loved to argue'' contain private-state terms,
but the subjective character of these sentences 
is Call, not Augustus.
Thus, the subjective character of a private-state sentence may or may not be
identifiable from the sentence itself.
This chapter is about making this decision.
We shall see that how the sentence is interpreted is an important factor;
much of this chapter is concerned with interpretations of private-state
sentences.
.pp
The chapter is organized as follows.
Section 2 shows kinds of private states and the sorts of terms that are used
to denote them.
Section 3 identifies two subjective
interpretations of a private-state sentence,
as a
.ul
private-state
report
and as a 
.ul
represented thought.
Section 4 addresses representing these two interpretations,
and Section 5 defends categorizing
private-state reports as subjective sentences.
Section 6 is concerned with parsing issues and
Section 7 specifies when a private state is chosen as the event to
consider.  Sections 8-10 are the sections that show
how the algorithm identifies the
subjective character of a private-state sentence.
Section 11 addresses the problem that arises when a private-state sentence
does not explicitly mention the experiencer.
Section 12
discusses a ``mixed'' interpretation of private-state sentences and
Section 13 characterizes an aspect of the algorithm's behavior.
Section 14 shows that there can be a
.ul
narrowing
or
.ul
broadening
of the psychological point of view upon a private-state sentence,
and extends a rule, given earlier in Section 10, accordingly.
Section 15 identifies a kind of private-state
sentence that can be objective or subjective, and shows that if 
it is subjective,
it cannot be the experiencer's subjective sentence.
Section 16 shows some uses
of private-state terms that the algorithm does not
consider, and Section 17 gives a list of private-state
terms.
Demonstrations of the algorithm can be found in Sections 6, 9, 10, 11,
14, and 15.
.sh 1 "PRIVATE STATES."
``Private state'' is a semantic category (Quirk et al. 1985).
Terms used to denote private states include:\**
.(f
\**
The same experience of anger, for example, might be expressed in English using
a noun, e.g., ``His anger overwhelmed him'', an adjective, e.g.,
``He was angry'', or a verb, e.g., ``It angered him''.  Although there
are interesting ontological differences among anger, being angry,
and being angered, these are not of concern in this dissertation.
.)f
.ip (i)
psychological verbs (e.g., `realized', `wanted'),
.ip (ii)
stative perceptual verbs (e.g., `saw', `heard'),
.ip (iii)
psychological adjectives (e.g., `happy' in `He was happy.'),
.ip (iv)
experiential verbs (e.g., `hurt' in `His head hurt.'),
.ip (v)
experiential adjectives (e.g., `cold' in `He was cold.  He shivered.')
.ip (vi)
psychological nouns (e.g., `her memory'), and
.ip (vii)
perceptual nouns (e.g., `his vision').
.in 0
.sp
Metaphor can also be used for private states;
for example, 
.(q
(2)
.br
\*[2.1\*]As she watched, a wave of jealousy shot through her.
[Franchere,
.ul
Hannah Herself,
p. 15]
.)q
The clause ``a wave of jealousy shot through her''
means roughly the same as ``She was jealous'', where `jealous' is
a psychological adjective.  Section 17 gives a more complete
list of
terms used to denote private states, and Section 16
discusses other uses of private-state terms that do
not have a role in the algorithm's recognition of subjective sentences.
With the exception of some types of sentences that will be
discussed in Section 15,
it makes no difference to the algorithm whether or not the private-state
term is negated.
.sh 1 "INTERPRETATIONS OF PRIVATE-STATE SENTENCES."
There are two subjective interpretations of private-state sentences:
a represented thought and a private-state report.
Interpreted to be a represented thought, a private-state sentence is
someone's thought
.ul
about
a character's private state.
For example, (1.6) is Augustus's represented thought about
Call's private state (Call's not liking something).
A private-state sentence that is interpreted to be a 
private-state report, on the other hand, is a report
.ul
of
a character's private state; it is not someone's thought about it.
Examples are (1.3) and (1.7).
.pp
The subjective character of a private-state 
.ul
report
is always the
.ul
experiencer
of the reported private state, i.e., the character who is in that
state, who likes something, sees something, feels cold, is happy, etc.
For example,
Call is the subjective character of (1.7).
Thus, the subjective character of a private-state report is identifiable
from the sentence itself.  On the other hand, the subjective character
of a represented thought cannot be identified from the sentence itself,
but depends on the context (unless, of course, a narrative parenthetical
appears).  This is so regardless of whether the subjective character is
referred to in the sentence.  For example, the subjective character
of the following represented thought (as it appears in the text) is the
referent of `she':
.(q
Why couldn't she? [Mansfield, ``The Garden Party'', p. 11]
.)q
but the subjective character of the next represented thought is
not referred to in the sentence:
.(q
What nice eyes he had, small, but such a dark blue! [Mansfield, ``The Garden
Party'', p. 2]
.)q
Thus, if something indicates that a private-state sentence is not
a private-state report, then the subjective character should be
identified from the previous context (that it, it should be
identified to be an expected subjective character, if there is one).
We shall see in Section 9 that a subjective element can do this. 
.pp
Banfield gives an example of the ambiguity of private-state
sentences discussed above:
.(q
She [Constance] felt the man 
standing, watching them go with dislike.
.ul
He disliked women and despised them.
[Lawrence,
.ul
The First Lady Chatterley\c
, p. 26; cited in Banfield 1982, p. 263]
.)q
Banfield notes that in the context of the first sentence, the second
sentence represents Constance's opinion.  However, she does not
address this issue further.
.pp
Cohn (1978), however, does not acknowledge this ambiguity.  She says
that ``the absence of mental verbs separates''
represented thought from private-state reports (p. 104;
her term for private-state reports is ``psycho-narration'').
However, represented thought about other character's private states are
common.
.sh 1 "REPRESENTATION."
A consideration of how represented thoughts (and perceptions) and
private-state reports might be represented 
will help show the difference between these interpretations.
The first sentence of the following passage is a private-state report:
.(q
(3)
.br
\*[3.1\*]He [Sandy] wanted to talk to Dennys.  \*[3.2\*]How were they
going to be able to
get home from this strange desert land into which they
had been cast and which was heaven knew where in all the countless
solar systems in all the countless galaxies?
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters,
p. 91]
.)q
A private-state report explicitly identifies the reported private state.
Thus, sentence (3.1) 
might be represented in SNePS
as in Figure 1.
Node m2 represents the proposition that the individual
represented by node b1 has the proper name `Sandy', node m6 represents
the proposition that the individual represented by node b2 has the proper
name `Dennys',
and node m8 represents
the proposition that Sandy wants to talk to Dennys (temporal information
has not been included; see Almeida (1987)).
Figure 1 uses the general AGENT-ACT-OBJECT case frame
presented in Shapiro and Rapaport (1987).
A better representation might
be the one in Figure 1a, in which the state of wanting
to talk to Dennys is represented as a property predicated
of Sandy (Almeida 1987), or one that
uses a distinguished EXPERIENCER relation.
The AGENT-ACT-OBJECT case frame will suffice for the current discussion.
.pp
The main point of this section is that the reader 
does not have to infer the private state reported by
a private-state report, because it is explicitly specified.
A secondary point concerns node m3 in Figure 1.
In SNePS, there is a one-to-one
correspondence between nodes and represented concepts (see Chapter
1).
The LEX arcs in Figure 1 point to
.ul
sensory
nodes, ``which represent interfaces to the external world'' (Shapiro and
Rapaport 1987, p. 275).  If a LEX arc points from node 
.ul
i
to node
.ul
j,
then 
.ul
j 
is a word that expresses the concept represented by 
.ul
i.
In Figure 1, because node m3 appears in the representation, the reader has
a concept of Sandy's private state, and she has the means to express
it in English.
If the reader were asked a question concerning proposition
m8, she would not have to do any further processing to be able
to express Sandy's private state, but could use the information
already present in m3 (which originally came from the sentence itself).
.bp
.pp
Consider, on the other hand, sentence (3.2):
.(q
\*[3.2\*]How were they
going to be able to
get home from this strange desert land into which they
had been cast and which was heaven knew where in all the countless
solar systems in all the countless galaxies?
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters,
p. 91]
.)q
It is Sandy's represented
thought, but the information that it is is 
.ul
not 
available in the sentence itself.
The reader has to supply an extra level of representation 
to capture the fact that the sentence is Sandy's subjective sentence.
.pp
What should this extra level of representation be?  
It is often difficult to paraphrase represented thought and perception.
One reason this is so is that represented thought and perception
can contain expressive subjective elements such as questions (as
in (3.2)), exclamations,
and evaluative adjectives (e.g., `poor').  These do not have
propositional meanings, and so cannot be directly paraphrased (Banfield
1982, Galbraith forthcoming).
But another difficulty in paraphrasing represented thought in particular
is that a private-state term that expresses the relationship between 
the subjective character and the content of the sentence often does 
not come readily to mind.
Consider this passage:
.(q
(4)
.br
\*[4.1\*]Call rode on, though with a bad feeling in his 
throat.  \*[4.2\*]It 
was better
that the boys go; \*[4.3\*]there was not enough work for them there.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 177]
.)q
Sentences (4.2)-(4.3) are Call's represented thoughts. 
If asked about sentence (4.2), for example, the reader might
express it as ``Call decided that it was better that the boys go'';
but the word `decided' does not seem to be precisely right, and there is
no obvious private-state term that is.  Thus, it is not
reasonable to suppose that the reader forms a representation of (4.2) like
Figure 1 that includes a concept of the precise relationship between
Call and what is presented by the represented thought.  For example, 
if (4.2) were represented as in Figure 2,
then the reader would have formed a concept 
of a specific private state, node m3, which she could directly
express as `decide'.
.pp
A neutral representation might include the concept of the 
word `think':  The relationship between the subjective character
and the content of a represented thought is that the subjective
character thinks it.  However,
represented thought does not commit
the author to implying that a thought consciously runs through a
character's mind.  As Cohn (1978) describes it, the 
relationship between the words used in a
represented thought and the character's consciousness is left ``latent'', and
she suggests that this ambiguity is one reason why so many writers use
represented thought rather than quoted monologue, the more direct
technique for presenting thoughts (e.g., `` `I have to finish this by dinner,'
Zoe thought.'').  Thus, Figure 3 is not a good 
representation either, since
it commits the reader to the specific concept represented by node
m3, which is expressed as `think'.
.bp
.pp
A better representation is presented in Figure 4.
Node m8
represents the proposition that what is represented by
node m7
is Call's thought or perception.
Node m8
represents the fact that there is
.ul
some  
relationship between Call and his thought, but does not contain a
concept for that relation.  Only 
.ul
nodes 
in SNePS represent
concepts; arcs represent 
.ul
non-conceptual 
relations
between nodes.
The words that are arc labels are arbitrary; 
the ``meaning'' of an arc is provided only by the way it is used
in procedures that operate on the network, not by the word that is
its label.
Meaningful arc labels are used only to make it easier to work with
SNePS (and to communicate about it to others); 
it would make no difference to the system if a naming-scheme
such as X1, X2, X3,... were used instead.
Thus, in Figure 4, the reader has a concept, node m8, that node b1 (the 
representation of Call) and node m7 (the representation of the represented
thought) are related, but does 
.ul
not
have a concept of the relation itself.
If asked about m8, the reader would have to do some work to decide how
to express the relation.
.pp
The representation used in Figure 4 is not
sufficient to represent represented thought and perception.
First, what is inferred from the sentence
about the character's
consciousness, e.g., emotions, judgements, evaluations, etc.,
is not specified.
Second, a represented thought often has to
be understood with respect to a discourse originating
with 
the subjective
character, where the relations among discourse units reflect the
character's reasoning or train of thought (see Chapter 5, Section 9.3.13.6). 
In this case,
the information
at the end of the THOUGHT-OR-PERCEPTION arc would be integrated into
the representation of this discourse.
Third, the triangle used in Figure 4 brackets out the question of
how expressive subjective elements, such questions, can be represented.
.pp
Figure 4, contrasted with Figure 1, illustrates
the main point of this section.  The information
represented by node m8 in Figure 1 is explicitly provided by the
sentence; the reader is told that Sandy
.ul
wants
to talk to Dennys.
However, the information represented by node m8 in Figure 4 is 
not contained in the sentence itself; information in the sentence
together with
expectations 
raised by the previous discourse allow the reader
to recognize that the sentence is subjective.  Because of this,
the reader 
.ul
adds 
the information represented by node m8 to the
information explicitly contained in the sentence.\**
.(f
\**
That is not to suggest that there are not other kinds of information
outside of the sentence that are used to understand it.
.)f
.bp
Figure 4
.bp
.pp
Consider again the two interpretations of private-state sentences discussed in 
Section 3.  In the case of a private-state sentence interpreted to be
a private-state report, the information represented by node m8 in 
Figure 1 is
explicitly provided by the sentence.  But in the case of a private-state 
sentence
interpreted to be a represented thought, the information represented
by node m8 in Figure 4 is not explicitly provided by the sentence.
For example, consider passage (1):
.(q
(1)
.br
  \*[1.1\*]``Drown me?'' Augustus said. \*[1.2\*]``Why if anybody had tried it,
those girls would have clawed them to shreds.''  \*[1.3\*]He knew
Call was mad, \*[1.4\*]but wasn't much inclined to humor him.  \*[1.5\*]It
was his dinner table as much as Call's, \*[1.6\*]and if Call didn't like
the conversation he could go to bed.
  \*[1.7\*]Call knew there was no point in arguing.
\*[1.8\*]That was what Augustus
wanted:  argument.
[McMurtry, 
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
,p. 16]
.)q
Using the representations
in Figures 1 and 4, respectively, sentence (1.7), a private-state 
report, is represented as in Figure 5; and (1.8), a represented thought about
another character's private state,
is represented as in Figure 6.
The information represented by
node m8 in Figure 5 comes from the sentence itself; but the information
represented by node m8 in Figure 6 is supplied by the reader in virtue
of the fact that she recognizes that (1.5) is Call's represented
thought.
.pp
The knowledge representation that was used in much previous AI work
on narrative understanding is Conceptual Dependency (CD) (Schank and
Rieger 1974; Schank and Abelson 1977).  Conceptual Dependency is
comprised of a closed set of primitive concepts, and 
.ul
wanting, 
e.g.,
is not one of them.  So, a CD representation of (3.2), for example,
would not include node m3 in Figure 1.  Thus, it might
seem that the point made above about the absence or presence of node m3
would be irrelevant if CD were the
knowledge representation used.
However, it is not irrelevant.
.pp
Although the final CD representation of a sentence is
comprised only of conceptual primitives, the actual words in the
sentence are used in the construction of the representation (various
mechanisms have been used; see, for example, Schank and Ableson 1977, 
Lehnert
1981,
Dyer 1983, Wilensky 1983).  So, 
even if the private state of
a private-state report does not appear in the system's final
representation, it 
.ul
is
information explicitly present in the sentence that would be used to 
construct the representation.  In Dyer's theory of affects, for
example, `want' in (3.2) would be used by the system to access
information stored in the lexicon needed to construct the final
representation (Dyer 1983).  And the fact
remains that
the information that a represented thought is the
subjective character's subjective sentence is
.ul
not
explicitly present in the sentence, and has to be supplied by the reader;
although
.ul
this
may not appear in the final representation, either, it would be used
in some way to construct it.
.bp
.sh 1 "PRIVATE-STATE REPORTS AS SUBJECTIVE SENTENCES."
So far, two interpretations of a private-state sentence have
been identified:  The first is a represented thought or perception,
and the second
is a private-state report.
If a private-state sentence is interpreted in either of these ways,
then I categorize it as a subjective sentence.
However,
since a private-state report is an actual report
of a character's private state, the question might arise as to why
I consider them to be
subjective rather than objective sentences.
.pp
The main predication of a private-state report is not unquestionably
true if it is a
.ul
factive verb,
such as `know (that)' and `realize (that)'.
When used in conversation,
the sentence
.(q
John knows that the butler is the murderer.
.)q
asserts two propositions:  that John knows that the butler is the
murderer, and that the butler is the murderer.
If this sentence is true, then both propositions are true.
In a private-state report, however, a factive verb does not have
its factive meaning (Banfield 1982).  Consider this passage:
.(q
All about them were twisted trees, the night, the fire.  He [Chei]
knew that he had come to Hell, and that this qhalur woman [Morgaine]
from beyond the gate had laid claim to what the qual-lord this side
of the gate had flung away.
[Cherryh,
.ul
Exile's Gate\c
, p. 26] 
.)q
Morgaine and a companion have just rescued Chei from some wolves.
Even though the factive verb `know' is used in Chei's private-state
report,
Chei is wrong that he is in Hell and that Morgaine has the intention to
claim him.
If `know' were understood to have its factive meaning, then
when it becomes clear that Chei is incorrect (I realized he was incorrect
when I first read the sentence),
the story would be perceived to be inconsistent.
Instead, `know' is understood to mean `believes with certainty':  The reader 
understands that Chei believes with certainty that
he is in Hell and that Morgaine has the intention to claim him, not
that it is unquestionably true that these are the case.
.pp
However, if the private-state term in a private-state 
report is not a factive verb, then the main predication, that
a character sees or wants something, for example, is
unquestionably true.
In contrast, anything in
a represented thought or perception is subject to question because 
an entire sentence of represented thought or perception reflects the
subjective character's beliefs (Banfield 1982).
This difference might lead one to categorize
private-state reports as objective sentences.
.pp
I include
private-state reports
in the category ``subjective sentences'' for three
reasons.
First,
although the main predication is unquestionably true (with the
exception of factives), the part of the
sentence in the scope of the main predication reflects the experiencer's
beliefs, and so is 
.ul
not 
unquestionably true.
In contrast, all of the information in an objective sentence
is unquestionably true.
Second, subjective elements that 
are understood with respect to the experiencer's
consciousness can appear in the scope of the main predication; 
these subjective elements cannot appear at all in objective sentences.
Finally,
private-state reports reveal a character's
judgments, emotions, evaluations, and other 
attitudes and affects; they do so by reporting them.
.pp
I make fewer distinctions among interpretations of private-state
sentences than Banfield (1982) and Galbraith (forthcoming) do.  
Banfield and Galbraith
do not consider all private-state sentences interpreted to
be private-state reports (in my terminology) to be
subjective sentences.  In their view, a sentence is subjective only if
it presents something experienced at a specific narrative WHEN.
There is a kind of private-state report that, according to
Galbraith, ``reports experience without drawing attention to
the experiencing of a SELF in a NOW'' (p. 60).  It has ``objective
force but subjective content'' (p. 60).
Since these sentences have ``subjective content'', they are considered
in this dissertation to be subjective.
One type is a sentence with a perceptual verb such as `see' that
reports a character's perception, but does not
draw attention to the experience of perception.
Another is one that does not have a specific narrative WHEN.
As discussed in 
Chapter 5, passages that do not have a specific
NOW can pose problems for the algorithm, and this is an area that should
be investigated in future research. 
.pp
Cohn's (1978) term for 
sentences that use psychological and perceptual terms
to present a character's consciousness is ``psycho-narration''.
She does not appear to restrict the term to sentences having
a specific narrative WHEN, 
since she says that psycho-narration has almost
unlimited temporal flexibility.  The reason that I do not
use Cohn's term is to avoid commitment to an ever-present
narrator,
which is part of her definition of the term
``psycho-narration'' (see Chapter 2).
.pp
The algorithm does not interpret 
.ul
all 
private-state sentences to be subjective.
Section 15, below, identifies a kind of private-state sentence that can be
interpreted to be
objective:  sentences with negated perceptual 
and negated factive terms that meet certain criteria.
.sh 1 "DETERMINING IF A CLAUSE DENOTES A PRIVATE STATE."
The sentence-level parser can determine that a clause denotes 
a private state in straightforward cases.  One kind of clause 
for which it is straightforward to determine that it denotes
a private state is
is a subject,
verb, complement (SVC) clause in which the head of the complement
is a psychological adjective.  For example:
.(q
John was surprised by the letter.
.)q
A related kind of private state clause is one in which `mood'
appears in the complement, e.g.,
.(q
She was in the mood to celebrate.
.sp
She was in a great mood.
.)q
In these kinds of clauses, the experiencer is the subject.  In the following
demonstrations, the system recognizes that sentences are
subjective because they contain clauses denoting private states (why
the algorithm does not consider some potential subjective elements
will be discussed in Section 9).
The psychological adjectives appearing in these sentences are
`mad', `concerned', and `anxious'.
.(q
.nf
Script started on Sun Jul 23 11:12:48 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Sun Jul 23 11:12:53 1989
sneps

: Laura was mad at Amy.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Laura
The subj_char is Laura
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 5.600 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: She was concerned that Amy would want to keep the album for a week.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Laura, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element not considered: 
  would
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Laura
The subj_char is Laura
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 13.533 gc= 2.250) <=) 

: She was anxious to show the album to her mother.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Laura, the last subj_char 
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Laura
The subj_char is Laura
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 11.416 gc= 2.233) <=) 

: She was in the mood to argue with Amy.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Laura, the last subj_char 
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Laura
The subj_char is Laura
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 9.766 gc= 2.233) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> ^D
script done on Sun Jul 23 11:27:35 1989
.)q
.fi
Another is a subject, verb, object, complement (SVOC) clauses
in which the head of the object complement is a psychological adjective.
In these kinds of clauses, the experiencer of the private state is the
.ul
object:
.(q
.nf
Script started on Sun Jul 23 12:31:23 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Sun Jul 23 12:31:30 1989
sneps

: It made Laura anxious that Amy had not returned.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Laura
The subj_char is Laura
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 9.116 gc= 2.133) <=) 

: The letter made Laura afraid.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Laura, the last subj_char
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Laura
The subj_char is Laura
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 5.950 gc= 0.00) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Sun Jul 23 12:37:23 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
The experiencer of a subject, verb, object (SVO) clause with
a psychological verb can either be the subject or the object, depending
on the verb.  The sentence-level parser can determine that the
experiencer is the object if the verb is one that can be a psychological
adjective in its past-participle form.
Examples are `concern', `delight',
`exasperate', `remind', `scare', and `surprise'.  In the next sentence
demonstrated above, `concern' is used as a psychological adjective
in an SVC clause (and so the experiencer is the subject): 
.(q
.nf
: She was concerned that Amy would want to keep the album for a week.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Laura, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element not considered: 
  would
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Laura
The subj_char is Laura
The situation is still continuing-subj 
.)q
.fi
Here are other examples with `delighted', `surprised', and `reminded' used
as psychological adjectives in SVC clauses:
.(q
.nf
Script started on Sun Jul 23 13:19:49 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Sun Jul 23 13:19:55 1989
sneps

: Laura was delighted that Amy finally returned the album.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Laura
The subj_char is Laura
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 8.850 gc= 2.183) <=) 

: She was surprised that Amy had responded quickly.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Laura, the last subj_char 
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Laura
The subj_char is Laura
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 8.600 gc= 2.200) <=) 

: She was reminded of Amy's good qualities.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Laura, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element not considered: 
  attitude_adjective
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Laura
The subj_char is Laura
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 7.716 gc= 2.283) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> ^D
script done on Sun Jul 23 13:26:34 1989
.)q
.fi
In the next three sentences, however, `delighted' and `surprised' are
the verbs of SVO clauses.  Thus, the experiencer of the private state
is the
.ul
object:
.(q
.nf
Script started on Sun Jul 23 13:39:43 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Sun Jul 23 13:39:49 1989
sneps

: Amy's letter delighted Laura.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Laura
The subj_char is Laura
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 5.466 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Amy delighted Laura.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Laura, the last subj_char 
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Laura
The subj_char is Laura
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 5.650 gc= 2.183) <=) 

: But the stationery surprised Laura.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Laura, the last subj_char 
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Laura
The subj_char is Laura
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 5.583 gc= 0.00) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Sun Jul 23 13:45:26 1989
.)q
.fi
Verbs that can also be psychological adjectives can also
appear in SVOO clauses.  In these kinds of clauses, the experiencer
is the indirect object:
.(q
.nf
Script started on Sun Jul 23 16:08:17 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Sun Jul 23 16:08:22 1989
sneps

: It surprised Laura that Amy had responded quickly.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Laura
The subj_char is Laura
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 10.366 gc= 2.200) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Sun Jul 23 16:12:46 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
In the following sentences,
SVO clauses contain psychological and perceptual verbs
that cannot be used as psychological adjectives.  In particular, the
verbs are `realize', `want', `wish', `see', and `hope'.
The experiencer of these
sentences is the
.ul
subject:
.(q
.nf
Script started on Sun Jul 23 17:23:20 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Sun Jul 23 17:23:28 1989
sneps

: Laura, realizing that David was not behind her, stopped to wait for him.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Laura
The subj_char is Laura
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 15.533 gc= 2.233) <=) 

: She wanted to talk to Amy.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Laura, the last subj_char 
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Laura
The subj_char is Laura
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 8.500 gc= 2.216) <=) 

: She wished that she did not have to wear braces.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Laura, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element not considered: 
  have_to
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Laura
The subj_char is Laura
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 11.716 gc= 2.233) <=) 

: She could see David behind her.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Laura, the last subj_char 
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Laura
The subj_char is Laura
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 11.750 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: She stopped, hoping that he would finally catch up with her.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Laura, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element not considered: 
  would
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Laura
The subj_char is Laura
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 17.116 gc= 2.283) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Sun Jul 23 17:36:52 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
Finally, an SVOC clause can have a psychological verb such as the
ones appearing in the previous demonstration in the complement.
In this case, the experiencer is the object:
.(q
.nf
Script started on Sun Jul 23 17:48:59 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Sun Jul 23 17:49:06 1989
sneps

: The song made Amy want to cry.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Amy
The subj_char is Amy
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 8.516 gc= 2.166) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Sun Jul 23 17:57:55 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
Determining that a clause denotes a private state is not
always as straightforward as it is for the above examples.  As
mentioned above, metaphor can be used for private states, and
how people understand metaphor is a major problem in itself.
Also, all of the private-state terms
in the above examples are unambiguously used to denote private states, at
least in the grammatical roles they fill above.
However, other words
can be used in one sentence as a private-state term and in another as
some other kind of term, even if used as the same part of speech in
both sentences.  This can be true even for identical sentences.  For
example, the second sentence of 
.(q
John looked around for a blanket.  He was cold.
.)q
is a private-state sentence:  John experiences a bodily sensation of being
cold.  But the second sentence of
.(q
Mary touched John.  He was cold.
.)q
is not a private-state sentence:  John does not experience a 
bodily sensation; instead,
he is cold to the touch (Quirk at al. 1985).
.pp
The problems involved in determining if a sentence is a private-state
sentence in general are beyond the scope of this dissertation.
Note that
these problems 
are faced by any NLU system, whether or not a goal is to
recognize subjective sentences.  For example, aside from the fact
that the second sentence of 
.(q
John looked around for a blanket.  He was cold.
.)q
is a subjective sentence, an NLU system has to realize that John
experiences a bodily sensation and is not being perceived by someone
else to be cold to the touch.
.pp
A private-state sentence can be the experiencer's subjective sentence
only if the experiencer is a character.
All people are characters, but in fantasy and science fiction novels,
animals and other kinds of
entities can be characters and subjective sentences can be attributed
to them.  In a realistic novel such as 
.ul
Lonesome Dove,
however,
the reader does not expect subjective contexts to be attributed to
a pig or to a tree, for example.
How it can be determined which 
entities in a novel are characters has been left to future research.
.sh 1 "CHOOSING THE EVENT TO CONSIDER."
Private states are the most important kind of event for recognizing
subjective sentences.  For that reason, even a private state denoted
by a clause other than the main clause is the event that the algorithm
considers to interpret the sentence.  For example, although the
private state in this example
from above is denoted by
a subordinated clause, 
``realizing that David was not behind her'',
the algorithm considers it and not the action
denoted by the main clause in its interpretation:
.(q
.nf
: Laura, realizing that David was not behind her, stopped to wait for him.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Laura
The subj_char is Laura
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 15.533 gc= 2.233) <=) 
.)q
.fi
Similarly, in this example from above:
.(q
.nf
: She stopped, hoping that he would finally catch up with her.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Laura, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element not considered: 
  would
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Laura
The subj_char is Laura
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 17.116 gc= 2.283) <=) 
.)q
.fi
the algorithm considers the private state denoted by 
the subordinated clause ``hoping that he would finally catch up with her''
rather than the action denoted by the main clause.
If there is
a private state denoted by the main clause, then the algorithm chooses it
as the event to consider.  But if there isn't, and there is a
private state denoted by another clause, then the 
algorithm still chooses the
private state as the event to consider (unless the main clause denotes
a psychological or perceptual action; see Chapter 7).
.pp
For sentences in which the main clause does not denote
a private state, but more than one subordinated clause does,
the algorithm has no provision for choosing among the 
private states
denoted by the subordinated clauses for its consideration other
than random selection.  This
did not prove to be a problem in practice.
.pp
Recall that a ``private-state sentence'' is an input unit of which the
event chosen to consider is a private state.
.sh 1 "SUBORDINATED PRIVATE STATES."
A clause that denotes a private state can appear within the scope
of another clause that denotes a private state.
For
example, the object of an SVO sentence with a private-state verb
can itself be a clause that denotes a private state.  Clause (1.3) is an
example:
.(q
\*[1.3\*]He [Augustus] knew Call was mad
.)q
The clause ``Call was mad'' denotes a private state, and is the object
of ``He knew''.  I call a private state denoted 
by a clause that is within the scope of another clause that denotes
a private state a
.ul
subordinated private state.
A clause denoting a
subordinated private state is not a subjective sentence in its own
right, since a subordinated private state is merely part of another
private state.
In
Michael Almeida's scheme for representing event types (Almeida 1987),
Augustus's private state in (1.3) is 
.ul
know Call be mad\c
, not
simply 
.ul
know.
So, the algorithm does not have to identify the
subjective character of a clause
denoting a subordinated private state.  Instead, it has
to identify the subjective character of a sentence 
denoting a non-subordinated
private state.  Of course, if the private state to which a subordinated
private state 
is
subordinated is denoted by the main clause, then the fact that the
subordinated private state is not considered in the
algorithm's interpretation is a special case of the rule given at the
end of the last section.  That rule is that if there is a private state denoted
by the main clause, then it is chosen for consideration, even if 
private states are denoted by other clauses.  Thus, 
the non-subordinated private state denoted
by the main clause would be chosen, and the
subordinated private
state would not be considered, since it
is denoted by a subordinated clause.
Subordinated private states deserve special mention because they
can be subordinated to private states that are 
.ul
not
denoted by the main clause.  If the algorithm
chooses a private state that is not denoted by the main clause, a private state
that is subordinated to
.ul
it
does not have to be considered.
.sh 1 "SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS."
We now turn to how the algorithm identifies the subjective character of
a private-state sentence.  Recall from Section 3 that the 
subjective character of a 
private-state 
.ul
report 
is identifiable from the sentence itself (i.e.,
it is always the experiencer), while the subjective character of
a represented thought is not 
(unless a narrative parenthetical appears).  Instead, the subjective
character of a represented thought should be identified
to be an expected subjective character.
Thus, if something indicates that a private-state sentence is
a represented thought rather than a private-state report, the
subjective character should be identified to be an expected subjective
character, rather than the experiencer.
One thing that can do this is a subjective element.
We will start with the following rule, which will be revised in
Sections 9.3 and 9.4, below:
.(q
If the current sentence is a private-state sentence and it contains a subjective element,
   then if there is an expected subjective character,
             then the subjective character is an expected subjective character 
             else the subjective character is unidentified.
.)q
If both the last subjective character and the last active character are
expected subjective characters, then one is chosen using the rule
given in Chapter 4.
.pp
Consider this passage:
.(q
(5)
.br
   \*[5.1\*]Japheth, evidently realizing that they were no longer
behind him, turned around \*[5.2\*]and jogged back toward them,
seemingly cool and unwinded. [L'Engle, 
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 24]
.)q
At the beginning of this passage,
the situation is postsubjective-nonactive, and the last subjective
character is
Sandy and Dennys.
The event chosen to consider for
(5.1) is a
private state with Japheth as the experiencer.
The evidential `evidently' is a subjective element in the
postsubjective-nonactive situation,
so the subjective character of (5.1) is
Sandy and Dennys, the last subjective character.
Thus, (5.1) is not a report that
Japheth realizes that they are no longer behind him.
Instead, Sandy and Dennys are ascribing this private state
to him.
And (5.1) does not begin Japheth's subjective context:  The
expectation for the next sentence is that if it contains a
subjective element, then the subjective character
will be Sandy and Dennys, not Japheth.
Evidentials express various attitudes toward knowledge.  For example,
they can express uncertainty, or that the source of knowledge
for a statement is inference (Chafe 1986).
Since people do not have direct knowledge of one another's
private states, an evidential often appears in a represented thought or
perception about another character's private state.
.pp
Examples are now given for which the
algorithm uses subjective elements to recognize that a private 
state sentence is an expected subjective character's subjective sentence.  
.sh 2 "Continuing-Subjective Situation."
In these examples,
a private-state sentence containing a subjective element appears
in the continuing-subjective situation.
In this and subsequent sections,
the italics in the cited passages are mine unless otherwise indicated,
and it should be assumed that a scene break does not appear and that
a sentence does not have an active character unless explicitly
indicated.
.sh 3 "The Last Subjective Character Is Not The Experiencer."
The experiencer of a private state in these passages is a character other
than the last subjective character.
.pp
At the beginning of the following passage, the situation is
continuing-subjective and Johnnie is the last subjective character:
.(q
(6)
.br
\*[6.1\*]Well, he'd listen!  \*[6.2\*]And then freedom, like a kid again.
     \*[6.3\*]Dimly he [Johnnie] heard the bell
chime.  \*[6.4\*]But he was sunken in 
his anticipations.  \*[6.5\*]Then the girl said to him across the room, in her
sweet well-bred voice, ``You are next.''  \*[6.6\*]He started \*[6.7\*]and 
looked up.
\*[6.8\*]They were alone.  \*[6.9\*]He winked at her impudently, showing 
his dimples.
\*[6.10\*]She went back to her reading.
\*[6.11\*]He yawned, \*[6.12\*]stood up, \*[6.13\*]pulled down his 
jacket, \*[6.14\*]and sauntered to the door.
\*[6.15\*]He had an easy, boyish lope which he knew was very appealing 
to women.
.ul
\*[6.16\*]The girl was evidently not impressed for she did not look up.
[Caldwell,
.ul
No One Hears But Him\c
, p. 100]
.)q
Without considering how the algorithm processes the entire passage, 
the situation in the second paragraph
alternates between the continuing-subjective and
interrupted-subjective situations, and the subjective character of
all of the subjective sentences is Johnnie.  The situation at the
beginning of (6.16) is continuing-subjective, and Johnnie is the
last subjective character.  Because (6.16) contains the subjective element
`evidently', and because Johnnie is the last subjective character,
the algorithm correctly interprets (6.16) to be Johnnie's
subjective sentence rather than the girl's.
.pp
At the beginning of the next passage, the situation is continuing-subjective
and Jeremy is the last subjective character:
.(q
(7)
.br
\*[7.1\*]In a panic, he [Jeremy] shook her.  \*[7.2\*]``Lynette, it's 
me, Jeremy.
Wake up now!''
     \*[7.3\*]At first she was rigid.  \*[7.4\*]Then she turned 
around \*[7.5\*]and dug her
sharp-boned little face into his shoulder.  \*[7.6\*]She shook with
sobs.  \*[7.7\*]Jeremy didn't know how to stop them or even if he should
try to.  \*[7.8\*]He just sat getting wet from her hot tears.
\*[7.9\*]Anxiously
he waited.  \*[7.10\*]She felt fragile in his arms as if anything at all might
break her.  \*[7.11\*]The flames sank away.  \*[7.12\*]Only the glowing red 
treasure
heap of embers was left and the cold mist at 
his back and the
sense of being in a land with no familiar landmarks in the dark.
.ul
\*[7.13\*]How could she not know her mother was dead?  
.ul
\*[7.14\*]She had to know it.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 45]
.)q
The situation at the beginning of (7.13) is also continuing-subjective,
and Jeremy is the last subjective character.
The reason that the algorithm interprets (7.12) to be Jeremy's 
subjective sentence will be discussed in Section 11:  It denotes a
private state with an
.ul
unspecified experiencer,
and the algorithm
attributes it to the expected subjective character, Jeremy.
Sentences (7.13) and (7.14) are Lynette's private-state sentences,
but the algorithm correctly interprets them to be Jeremy's subjective
sentences:  Each has a subjective element ((7.13) is a question and
(7.14) contains `had to'), and Jeremy is the last subjective character
at the beginning of each of them.
.(q
(8)
.br
\*[8.1\*]The question was, what?  \*[8.2\*]He kicked at a refinished oak rocker,
setting it into nervous motion just as his mother walked through
the living room with a pile of linens in her arms.
     \*[8.3\*]``At it again!''
     \*[8.4\*]Jeremy grunted.  \*[8.5\*]It made him feel better to kick things.
.ul
\*[8.6\*]She ought to understand that without needing it explained to her.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 66]
.)q
Sentence (8.1) is Jeremy's subjective sentence.  Sentence (8.5) is
also Jeremy's subjective sentence, so the situation at the
beginning of (8.6) is continuing-subjective, and the last
subjective character is Jeremy.
Sentence (8.6) contains the subjective element `ought to', so
the algorithm correctly interprets it to be Jeremy's subjective
sentence.
Following is a demonstration of the algorithm on modified versions of
(8.2)-(8.6):
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 15:57:02 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 15:57:12 1989
sneps

: Initialize situation to continuing-subj.
The situation is now continuing-subj

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.266 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char to Jeremy.
Jeremy is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.966 gc= 2.283) <=) 

: Jeremy kicked a rocker, as his mother walked through the living room.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jeremy, the last subj_char 
The sentence is not subjective 
Objective sentence in continuing-subj situation: 
  situation is now interrupted-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 12.416 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is interrupted-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jeremy, the last subj_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is now postsubj-nonactive 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.300 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Quoted_speech she said.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jeremy, the last subj_char 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still postsubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 6.116 gc= 2.383) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jeremy, the last subj_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is still postsubj-nonactive 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.266 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Jeremy grunted.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jeremy, the last subj_char 
Psych_action of Jeremy treated as a private_state:  Actor has been the subj_char 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  psych_action of Jeremy
The subj_char is Jeremy
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 4.766 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: It relieved him to kick things.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jeremy, the last subj_char 
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Jeremy
The subj_char is Jeremy
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 12.400 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: She ought to understand that it did.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jeremy, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  ought_to
It is a subjective element 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  ought_to
The subj_char is Jeremy
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 13.116 gc= 2.483) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> ^D
script done on Mon Jul 24 16:13:27 1989
.)q
.fi
.(q
(9)
.br
     \*[9.1\*]The realization didn't disturb her [Lorena's] calm, though.
\*[9.2\*]It meant he
needed her more than he would admit; \*[9.3\*]she recognized the 
need \*[9.4\*]and didn't care
whether he admitted it or not.  \*[9.5\*]If Jake had been as firm
as he pretended to be, it would have left her with little
security.  \*[9.6\*]He could have just walked off.
     \*[9.7\*]But he wouldn't.  \*[9.8\*]He liked talk, woman's talk, and the 
comforts of the bed.
.ul
\*[9.9\*]He even liked it that she lived above the saloon, since 
.ul
it meant a game was handy if he felt like playing.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 185]
.)q
The situation at the beginning of (9.9) is continuing-subjective, and
Lorena is the last subjective character.
Why the algorithm interprets the other private-state sentences in this
passage, (9.1), (9.3), (9.4) and (9.8), to be Lorena's
subjective sentences will be discussed in subsequent sections of this
chapter.  The other sentences before (9.9) all contain subjective 
elements:  the seeming verb `meant' in (9.2); the 
conditional in (9.5); `could have' and
the attitude diminisher `just' in
(9.6); and `wouldn't' in (9.7).  Because (9.9) contains `even' and `meant'
used as subjective elements and a conditional,
the algorithm recognizes
that (9.9) is Lorena's rather than Jake's subjective sentence.
.sh 3 "The Last Subjective Character Is The Experiencer."
In this section, private-state sentences with subjective elements appear
in the continuing-subjective situation, and the
experiencer is also the last subjective character.  The
passages chosen for this section are self-reflective;  the private-state 
sentences are part of the character's train of thought.  It is not
always the case that private state sentences like these are
represented thoughts.  Section 12, below, discusses subjective sentences
that cannot easily be classified as either private-state reports or
represented thoughts, but seem to be a mixture of the two.
.(q
(10)
.br
     \*[10.1\*]He [Jeremy] remembered how she dared to run into the
ocean after him and how he was determined to save
her no matter what.  \*[10.2\*]He'd never
cared as much about another person.  \*[10.3\*]Selfish, just as his mother 
had said.
\*[10.4\*]But she did not call him selfish any more.  
.ul
\*[10.5\*]No, he most probably would never forget Lynette.
.ul
\*[10.6\*]Most probably he could not forget her even if he tried.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 90]
.)q
The situation at the beginning of (10.5) is continuing-subjective, and
Jeremy is the last subjective character.
The algorithm interprets (10.5) and (10.6) to be Jeremy's subjective sentences
because they contain subjective elements:  Sentence (10.5) is habitual and
contains `No', `probably', and `would', and sentence (10.6) 
contains `probably', `even', and the conditional at the end of the sentence.
Sentences (10.5) and (10.6) are Jeremy's
represented thoughts about his own private states.
.(q
(11)
.br
     \*[11.1\*]It was too nice outside to think of visiting 
any points of interest,
so he [Fred] strolled casually along, carrying his coat on his arm and
thinking how enjoyable life would be in this city.
.ul
\*[11.2\*]The vague depression he was beginning to feel was, of course, only loneliness and a desire to get back home to his family.  
\*[11.3\*]Besides, he had never been away from home before with 
an idea of leaving it permanently.
[Caldwell,
.ul
No One Hears But Him\c
, p. 7]
.)q
At the beginning of (11.2), the situation is continuing-subjective and
Fred is the last subjective character.
The algorithm interprets (11.2) to be Fred's subjective sentence because it
contains the subjective element `of course'.  Sentence (11.2) is
Fred's represented thought about his feelings.  The next
sentence, (11.3), continues
his train of thought.
.(q
(12)
.br
\*[12.1\*]It was a 
warning, he [Trent] supposed, which he should heed more often.
\*[12.2\*]Yet nowadays, it seemed, so 
many things frustrated him, making emotions 
hard to control and to remain silent, harder still.
\*[12.3\*]Perhaps such outbursts were mere testiness\(ema side effect of age.
\*[12.4\*]But more likely it was because he sensed so much was slipping 
away, disappearing forever beyond his control.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 88]
.)q
Sentence (12.1) is Trent's subjective sentence, so the situation
is continuing-subjective and the last subjective character is Trent
at the beginning of (12.2).
The algorithm
interprets the remaining sentences of the passage to be Trent's 
subjective sentences because they contain subjective elements:  
the conjunct
`Yet',
and the seeming verb `seemed' in (12.2),
`Perhaps' and the attitude adjective `mere' in
(12.3), and `likely' in (12.4).
Sentences (12.2) and (12.4) also contain intensifier `so' and
(12.4) contains the quantifier `much'; however,
they are
.ul
subordinated
in these sentences, and are not considered by the algorithm
(see Section 9.4).
Sentences (12.2)-(12.4) are Trent's represented thoughts about his emotions.
.sh 2 "Other Situations."
This section illustrates private-state sentences with subjective elements
that appear in situations other than continuing-subjective;
also, the experiencer of the private state is not an expected 
subjective character.
.(q
(13)
.br
\*[13.1\*]He [Jeremy] had a plan in mind.
     \*[13.2\*]They [Jeremy and Lynette]
started off six feet apart, \*[13.3\*]moved back 
a few more feet as the
Frisbee went back and forth between them, \*[13.4\*]and stopped 
when they began
to miss the catch.
.ul
\*[13.5\*]If she suspected what he was up to, it wouldn't work.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 52]
.)q
Sentence (13.1) is Jeremy's subjective sentence.  The situation 
is broken-subjective at the beginning of (13.2).  Sentences
(13.2)-(13.4) are objective sentences denoting actions performed
by Jeremy and Lynette, but Jeremy and Lynette are not the
active characters of these sentences because Lynette has not
been the subjective character.  Thus, the situation is postsubjective-nonactive
at the beginning of (13.5).
Because
(13.5) is a conditional, and because Jeremy is the last subjective character,
the algorithm interprets it to be Jeremy's
subjective sentence, even though the sentence is Lynette's private-state
sentence.
.(q
(14)
.br
     \*[14.1\*]Lorena was so taken aback that she didn't know what to say.
\*[14.2\*]She looked
at Lippy, who was just sitting there listening, as if it were his right.
.ul
     \*[14.3\*]Gus, of course, was not the slightest bit embarrassed by what he was suggesting.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 188]
.)q
Sentences (14.1) and (14.2) are Lorena's subjective sentences.
The situation at the beginning of (14.3) is broken-subjective.
Because (14.3) contains the subjective element `of course', and because
Lorena is the last subjective character,
the algorithm correctly
interprets it to be Lorena's, rather than Gus's, subjective sentence,
and Lorena's subjective context continues over the paragraph break.
.(q
(15)
.br
     \*[15.1\*]The Duke shook his head doubtfully, though not dismissing the
idea out of hand.  \*[15.2\*]In the past he had seen plenty of evidence of the
remarkable influence exerted by his wife's family.  \*[15.3\*]All the same
he warned, ``We could be spiking our guns, old girl.''
     \*[15.4\*]``Not necessarily.  Geoffrey's good at pressure when he wants to
be.  Besides, if we sit here and wait it may be 
worse still.''  \*[15.5\*]Matching
actions to her words, the Duchess picked up the telephone beside the bed
\*[15.6\*]and 
instructed the operator,  ``I wish to call London and speak to Lord
Selwyn.''  \*[15.7\*]She gave a Mayfair number.
     \*[15.8\*]The call came through in twenty minutes.  
.ul
\*[15.9\*]When the Duchess of Croydon had explained its purpose, her brother, Lord Selwyn, was notably unenthusiastic.
\*[15.10\*]From across the 
bedroom the Duke could hear his brother-in-law's deep 
protesting voice as it rattled the telephone diaphragm.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 115]
.)q
Sentences (15.1) and (15.2) are the Duke's subjective sentences, and
sentences (15.3)-(15.8) are objective.  At the beginning of (15.9),
therefore, the situation is postsubjective-nonactive and the Duke
is the last subjective character.  The algorithm interprets
(15.9) to be the Duke's subjective sentence because the subjective element
`notably' appears.
Sentence (15.9) is an assessment of Lord Selwyn's reaction,
based, presumably, on the way that he sounds.
Usually, people cannot overhear
telephone conversations, and so it does not seem likely that (15.9) is
the Duke's subjective sentence.
In this passage, however, sentence (15.10) 
does continue the Duke's subjective context
(it is a private-state report).  It also explains how it is plausible
that (15.9) is his subjective sentence; he can hear the conversation. 
.(q
(16)
.br
     \*[16.1\*]Japheth looked at them anxiously.  \*[16.2\*]``Sun-sickness can
be dangerous.''  \*[16.3\*]He reached up and touched Dennys's cheek.
\*[16.4\*]Shook his head.  \*[16.5\*]``You're cold and clammy.  
Bad sign.''  \*[16.6\*]He
put his hand against his forehead.
.ul
\*[16.7\*]Appeared to be thinking deeply.
\*[16.8\*]Then:  ``What about a unicorn?''
     \*[16.9\*]``What about it?''  Sandy asked.  \*[16.10\*]He felt tired 
and irritable.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 24]
.)q
At the beginning of this passage, the situation is postsubjective-nonactive and
the last subjective character is Sandy and Dennys.  Japheth has not been
the subjective character at this point in the novel, so
sentences (16.1)-(16.3) do not have an active character.  Thus, the situation
is still postsubjective-nonactive at the beginning of (16.4). 
The algorithm interprets (16.4) to be Sandy's and Dennys's subjective sentence,
because it is a sentence fragment, a subjective element.  The next two
sentences are objective, and so the situation at the beginning of (16.7)
is interrupted-subjective.  Sentence (16.7) is a sentence fragment and
contains the subjective element `appeared', so the algorithm interprets
(16.7) to be Sandy's and Dennys's subjective sentence.
Here is a demonstration of of the algorithm on (16.1)-(16.7):
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 17:19:56 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 17:20:02 1989
sneps

: Initialize situation to postsubj-nonactive.
The situation is now postsubj-nonactive

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.300 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char to Sandy and Dennys.
Dennys and Sandy is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 1.966 gc= 2.283) <=) 

: Japheth looked at Sandy and Dennys anxiously.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Dennys and Sandy, the last subj_char 
Perc_action of Japheth treated as an action:  Actor has not been the subj_char 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still postsubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 7.750 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Quoted_speech Japheth said.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Dennys and Sandy, the last subj_char 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still postsubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 3.816 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: He reached up to touch Dennys's cheek.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Dennys and Sandy, the last subj_char 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still postsubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 8.650 gc= 2.300) <=) 

: Shook his head.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Dennys and Sandy, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  sentence_fragment
It is a subjective element 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  sentence_fragment
The subj_char is Dennys and Sandy
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 7.983 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Quoted_speech he said.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Dennys and Sandy, the last subj_char 
The sentence is not subjective 
Objective sentence in continuing-subj situation: 
  situation is now interrupted-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 5.966 gc= 2.316) <=) 

: He put his hand against his forehead.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is interrupted-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Dennys and Sandy, the last subj_char 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still interrupted-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 12.316 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Appeared to be thinking deeply.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is interrupted-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Dennys and Sandy, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective elements considered: 
  sentence_fragment
  progressive
  seeming_verb
Of these, the following are subjective elements: 
  sentence_fragment
  seeming_verb
Subjective context established by these features: 
  sentence_fragment
  seeming_verb
The subj_char is Dennys and Sandy
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 6.950 gc= 2.400) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> ^D
script done on Mon Jul 24 17:33:01 1989
.)q
.fi
In (16.7),
Sandy and Dennys infer from observation that
Japheth is thinking deeply.
There are many similar subjective sentences attributed to Sandy,
Dennys, or both in 
.ul
Many Waters;
that is, private-state sentences of other characters that
contain evidentials and that appear when Sandy, Dennys or both are
the candidate (Passage (5), above, is another).
.pp
However, the algorithm misinterprets the following passage, which also
appears in
.ul
Many Waters:
.(q
(17)
.br
     \*[17.1\*]``It was an earthquake?'' Sandy asked.
     \*[17.2\*]Japheth 
nodded.  \*[17.3\*]``They come quite often.  The seraphim tell us that 
things aren't settled yet.''
     \*[17.4\*]``So maybe this is a young planet.''  \*[17.5\*]\c
.ul
Dennys sounded hopeful.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 20]
.)q
At the beginning of this passage, the situation is postsubjective-nonactive and
Dennys is the last subjective character.  Sentence (17.1)-(17.4) are
objective, Sandy is the active character of (17.1) and Dennys is the
active character of (17.4).  The situation at the beginning of (17.5) is
therefore postsubjective-active:  Objective sentences and paragraph breaks
have appeared since the last subjective sentence and an earlier sentence
in the paragraph (sentence (17.4))
has an active character.  Dennys is both
the last subjective character and the last active character.
Because the subjective element `sounded' appears in (17.5),
the algorithm interprets it to be Denny's subjective sentence.
However, (17.5) is not Dennys's subjective sentence, and there is
nothing in text that motivates interpreting it as any other character's
subjective sentence either.
.sh 2 "Subjective Elements That Are Not Considered."
This section discusses some subjective elements that often appear
in private-state reports, even when there is an
expected subjective character
who is not the experiencer (recall that if a private-state sentence is 
interpreted to be a private-state report, then the
subjective character is the experiencer).
Thus, the algorithm
does not consider these subjective elements when it decides who the
subjective character of a private-state sentence is.
This section requires that two of the algorithm's
rules be presented before they are discussed at length in Section 10.
The first is:
.(q
If a private-state sentence appears in the continuing-subjective situation,
     then the subjective character is the last subjective character.
.)q
That is, if a private-state sentence appears in the continuing-subjective 
situation,
the algorithm interprets it to be a
continuation of the already-established subjective context rather than
the beginning of a new one (this rule is revised in Section 14, however).
The second is:
.(q
If a private-state sentence does not appear in the continuing-subjective situation and does not
      contain a subjective element that can be considered,
   then the subjective character is the experiencer.
.)q
There are two criteria that determine whether a subjective
element can be considered:  the first is that it isn't one of the
subjective elements discussed in this section, and
the second is that it is
.ul
non-subordinated,
the subject of Section 9.4.
There is a problem posed by the combination of the second rule just presented
and the fact that the algorithm does not consider the subjective elements
discussed in this section:  In some cases it cannot be determined
which aspect of the algorithm's behavior is responsible for its
success or failure.
If a private-state sentence appears in a situation other than the
continuing-subjective situation
and it contains one of the subjective elements discussed in this section, then
the algorithm would decide that the experiencer is the subjective
character.
It does this for two reasons:  one is the second rule presented above,
and the other is the fact that the subjective element is not considered.
If the algorithm fails, it cannot be determined which is at fault.
An example of this type that the algorithm misinterprets is passage
(32) cited in Section 10.2.1.
.sh 3 "Habitual and Comparative Potential Subjective Elements."
Dorrit Cohn (1978) shows that a private-state report (which
she calls ``psycho-narration''; see Chapter 2 and Section 17.1)
does not always report
a private state experienced specifically at the current moment in the
story.  Instead:
.(q
But psycho-narration has almost unlimited temporal flexibility.
It can as readily summarize an inner development over a long
period of time as it can render the flow of successive thoughts
and feelings, or expand and elaborate a mental instance.
[p. 34]
.)q
One consequence of the temporal flexibility of 
private-state reports is that they can be habitual.  Since this is so,
the fact that a private-state sentence is habitual is not considered by
the algorithm when it decides who the subjective character of a
private-state sentence is.
.pp
It was mentioned in Section 2 that metaphor can be used in private
state sentences.  Cohn (1978) shows that simile can appear in
private sentences as well; she calls sentences of this type
``psycho-analogies''.  The following private state sentence employs
both metaphor and simile:
.(q
His [Sandy's] head began to swell, to be filled with hot air like
a balloon, so that he was afraid he was going to float off into the
sky.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 27]
.)q
Sandy's head swelling is a metaphor, and ``to be filled with hot
air like a balloon'' is a simile which employs comparative `like'.
The comparative potential subjective elements\(emcomparative `like' and
`as' <modifier> clauses\(em are not considered by the algorithm
to decide who the subjective character of a private-state sentence is.
.sh 3 "Modifying Intensifier Adverb B's and Attitude Diminishers."
Modifying intensifier adverb B's and
attitude diminishers (a subcategory of the intensifier subjunct)
concern degree.  They are the following (see Chapter 5, Sections 9.3.11 
and 9.3.13.1):
.sp
Modifying Intensifier Adverb B's:
.ul
a bit, a little, almost, barely, downright, hardly, kind of, mighty, 
.ul
more or less, plain, plenty,
.ul
pretty, quite, real, really, sort of.
.sp
Attitude Diminishers:
.ul
all, just, merely, only, simply.
.sp
An attitude diminisher can be the adverbial (A) in an SAVO
private state sentence.  For example:
.(q
Lorena 
.ul
hardly 
knew what to think.
.)q
A modifying intensifier adverb B can appear in an SVC or SVOC
private state sentence.  For example:
.(q
He was 
.ul
really 
angry.
.sp
The letter made him 
.ul
really 
angry.
.)q
When a modifying intensifier adverb B or an attitude diminisher 
appears with a
private-state term,
it indicates the degree to which the private state is experienced.
These often appear in private-state
reports.
Thus, the algorithm does not consider these potential subjective elements 
to identify the subjective character of a private-state sentence.
.pp
Following is an example of
a private-state sentence with an attitude diminisher:
.(q
(18)
.br
\*[18.1\*]His [Dennys's] head hurt.
     \*[18.2\*]Japheth and the mammoth were running beside them, amazingly
swift for such small creatures.  \*[18.3\*]``Hurry,'' Japheth urged the
unicorns.  ``Hurry.''
.ul
     \*[18.4\*]Sandy, his flannel shift still draped over his head, was
.ul
hardly aware that he was supporting his brother.  
\*[18.5\*]His arms felt as fluid as water. 
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 27]
.)q
Sentence (18.1) is Dennys's subjective sentence.  The algorithm
interprets (18.2) to be Dennys's subjective sentence because it contains
the subjective elements `amazingly' and intensifier `such'.
Because (18.3) is not subjective, and because a
paragraph break appears before (18.4), the situation at the beginning
of (18.4) is postsubjective-nonactive.
If
the algorithm were to consider `hardly' to identify 
the subjective character,
it would incorrectly
interpret (18.4) to be Dennys's rather than Sandy's subjective
sentence, because Dennys is the last subjective character.
But since it doesn't consider `hardly', it correctly interprets 
(18.4) to be Sandy's subjective sentence.
Here is a demonstration:
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 17:43:31 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 17:43:36 1989
sneps

: Previous_subj_char Sandy.
Sandy has been the subj_char 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.883 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize situation to postsubj-nonactive.
The situation is now postsubj-nonactive

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.183 gc= 2.283) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char to Dennys.
Dennys is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.916 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Sandy was hardly aware that he was supporting his brother.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Dennys, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element not considered: 
  modifying_intensifier_adverb_B
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Sandy
The subj_char is Sandy
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 13.283 gc= 0.00) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> ^D
script done on Mon Jul 24 17:55:42 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
It may be
that a reader would interpret (18.2) to be both Sandy's and Dennys's subjective
sentence.  When there are two cooperating characters who have
both been the subjective character (as is the case in parts of
.ul
Many Waters\c
), and just one of them is an expected subjective character, a
subjective sentence that is not a private-state sentence
sometimes appears that is best interpreted to be
the subjective sentence of both of them.  This issue is discussed in
Section 14.
But even if this is the case, `hardly' should not be considered:  The
last subjective character
when (18.4) is encountered would be Sandy and Dennys, and
(18.4) is not 
.ul
both 
Sandy's and Denny's subjective sentence, but only Sandy's.
.pp
Compare the occurrence of `hardly' in the previous example
with its occurrence in the following:
.(q
(19)
.br
     \*[19.1\*]Jake felt himself getting more and more peevish.
\*[19.2\*]Lorena should
have known better than to play cards with Gus or even to talk to
him, 
.ul
though she could hardly be blamed for listening.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 198]
.)q
In (19.2), `hardly' modifies ``be blamed for listening'', which does
not denote a private state, and expresses Jake's judgment.
.pp
The following is an example of a private state sentence with a
modifying intensifier adverb B.
.(q
(20)
.br
     \*[20.1\*]Except I'd have to see you, she [Lorena] thought.
     \*[20.2\*]``Let me come in,'' he said.  \*[20.3\*]``I will give 
you anything...more than Gus.''
     \*[20.4\*]She shook her head.  \*[20.5\*]``Jake would kill 
you,'' she said.  \*[20.6\*]``You go on now.''
     \*[20.7\*]I can't,'' he said, still crying.  \*[20.8\*]``I am 
dying for you.  If he kills me I would be better.  I will give you anything.''
     \*[20.9\*]Again she shook her head, 
.ul
not quite sure what to think.
\*[20.10\*]She
had seen Xavier have fits before, but usually fits of anger.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 215]
.)q
Sentence (20.1) is Lorena's subjective sentence and sentences 
(20.2)-(20.8) are objective.  The situation at the beginning of
(20.9) is therefore postsubjective-nonactive, since objective sentences
and paragraph breaks have appeared since the last subjective sentence.
The private state 
in (20.9) is chosen as the event to consider, because the event denoted by the
main clause is not a private state.
The modifying intensifier adverb B `quite' appears 
in (20.9), but the algorithm's
reason for deciding that the sentence is Lorena's subjective sentence
is that it is a private-state sentence, not because it contains
`quite'.  This is correct.
.pp
Compare the previous 
example with the following, in which a modifying intensifier adverb B
appears, but not with a private-state term:
.(q
(21)
.br
     \*[21.1\*]She laughed.  \*[21.2\*]``Yes, my darling, but I've no 
doubt you'll conquer them heroically.''
.ul
     \*[21.3\*]Sometimes his mother talked really weird.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 70]
.)q
At the beginning of this passage, the situation is postsubjective-nonactive and
Jeremy is the last subjective character.
The situation is still postsubjective-nonactive and Jeremy is
still the last subjective character at the beginning of (21.2)
(the algorithm does not interpret (21.1) to be a subjective sentence
despite the
.ul
psychological action
``she laughed'', since the actor has not 
been a subjective character; see Chapter 7).
In (21.2),
the degree adverb `really'
does have its subjective force,
and the algorithm uses it (and also `weird')
to recognize that the sentence is Jeremy's
subjective sentence.
.sh 2 "Subordinated Subjective Elements."
Consider this passage:
.(q
(22)
.br
\*[22.1\*]She [the girl] wondered, pityingly, about 
his wife.  \*[22.2\*]Whatever ``Sally'' was
she was getting a good deal if she could get rid of him.  \*[22.3\*]She hoped
that the man who listened in there would tell this idiot to run,
not walk, to the nearest divorce court, for ``Sally's'' sake.
\*[22.4\*]Ugh! she thought.  \*[22.5\*]How could the poor 
thing have married him in the first place?
.ul
     \*[22.6\*]Johnnie Martin could not believe that he was seeing that old
.ul
bag's black eyes sparkling with disgust and unsheathed contempt at him.
\*[22.7\*]Her red lips had parted and he saw how small and white her teeth were.
\*[22.8\*]He detested little teeth;
\*[22.9\*]he liked huge flaring teeth in a woman, wet and
shining.
[Caldwell,
.ul
No One Hears But Him\c
, p. 98-99]
.)q
Sentence (22.6) is Johnnie's subjective sentence, even though it contains
the subjective element `old bag', and even though there is an
expected subjective character when it is encountered
(the girl)
who is not the experiencer.
In fact, (22.6) is a private-state report:  It is not a character's
thought 
.ul
about 
Johnnie's private state; instead, it is a report
.ul
of
his private state.  This example illustrates an important feature
of private-state reports:  Within the scope of the
perceptual or psychological term, subjective elements
.ul
can 
appear that are attributed to the 
.ul
experiencer, 
rather than to
an expected subjective character (this was noted in Section 3).
Thus, they cannot be used to distinguish private-state reports
from represented thoughts (so cannot be used to identify the subjective
character).
.pp
Thus, the location of a subjective element in a private-state sentence can
affect the identification of the subjective character.
Two kinds of subjective elements appearing in private-state 
sentences need to be
distinguished:  those that appear within the scope of
the private-state term, which I call
.ul
subordinated subjective elements,
and those that do not, which I call
.ul
non-subordinated subjective elements.
It is the absence or presence of
.ul
non-subordinated 
subjective elements that is important in
deciding whether the subjective character of a private-state sentence
is the experiencer or an expected subjective character.
Since non-subordinated subjective elements
do not appear within the scope of the perceptual or
psychological term, they cannot be attributed to the subjective character
by virtue of that term.  In the passages cited in Sections 9.1-9.3,
all subjective elements used to identify
the subjective character of a private-state sentence are
non-subordinated subjective elements.  In passage (5), for example,
.(q
(5)
.br
   \*[5.1\*]Japheth, evidently realizing that they were no longer
behind him, turned around \*[5.2\*]and jogged back toward them,
seemingly cool and unwinded. [L'Engle, 
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 24]
.)q
`evidently' does not appear within the scope of `realize'; it
indicates that (5.1) is the expected subjective character's 
subjective sentence rather
than the experiencer's.
In (22.6), however, `that old bag', which 
.ul
is 
a subordinated subjective
element (it appears in the scope of `believe')
does 
.ul
not
indicate that the sentence is the expected subjective character's 
subjective sentence.
Instead, the subjective character is the 
.ul
experiencer.
.pp
Before proceeding, we need to address a potential confusion with two of
Banfield's terms, and identify the parts of a private-state sentence
that are within the scope of the private-state term.
.pp
The terms ``non-subordinated'' and ``subordinated'' subjective elements should
be contrasted with Banfield's ``non-embeddable'' and ``embeddable'' subjective
elements (see
Chapter 2).
.ul
Non-embeddable 
subjective elements are those that cannot appear
within the context of indirect speech.  Examples are exclamations and
questions.
.ul
Embeddable 
subjective elements are elements that 
.ul
can 
appear
within the context of indirect speech.  An example is an evaluative
adjective such as `poor'.  Being embeddable or not is a general
property of a linguistic element.  On the other
hand, whether a subjective element is
subordinated or not is a property of how the linguistic element is used
in a particular sentence.  An embeddable subjective element can appear
in a private-state sentence in which it is 
non-subordinated, and it can also appear
in a private-state sentence in which it 
is subordinated.  For example, `poor' is
subordinated in this private-state sentence (it appears within 
the scope of `know'):
.(q
He knew that the poor girl was here.
.)q
and it is non-subordinated in the following one (it is
.ul
not
within the scope of `know'):
.(q
The poor girl knew that he was here.
.)q
A non-embeddable subjective
element, however, cannot be a subordinated subjective element.
.pp
If a private-state sentence is an SVO (or SVOO) sentence and the subject is
the experiencer,
then any 
subjective elements appearing in the object (or objects) are subordinated
subjective elements.
This includes any subjective elements that are in clauses that
are themselves part of the object (or objects).  In 
addition, clauses that modify
the object (or any part of it) and noun phrases in apposition with
the object (or any part of it),
even if they are not part of
the object itself, are considered to be within the scope of the
private-state term.  The italicized parts of the following sentences,
for example, are considered to be within the scope of the perceptual
or psychological term:
.(q
He saw 
.ul
his father's parishioners, simple men and women, singing heartily
.ul
and fervently, the men in their Sunday suits, the women in cheap
.ul
cotton dresses and hatted and gloved.
[Caldwell,
.ul
No One Hears But Him\c
, p. 30]
.sp
They loved 
.ul
the foolish and passionate old hymns which appealed to the
.ul
emotions and not to the mind.
[Caldwell,
.ul
No One Hears But Him\c
, p. 30]
.sp
She breathed in
.ul
the strange odor of his wings, smelling of stone, of the cold, dark
.ul
winds which came during the few brief weeks of winter.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 47]
.)q
.pp
The experiencer of an SVO private-state sentence can also be the 
.ul
object
of the sentence.  In this case, the 
.ul
subject 
of the sentence (and any
clauses modifying it and noun phrases in apposition with it, or any part of it)
is within the scope of the perceptual or 
psychological term.  In this sentence, for example:
.(q
The fool surprised John.
.)q
the experiencer of the private state is John (\c
.ul
John 
is surprised) and
`the fool' (the subject of the sentence)
is a subordinated subjective element.  In the following sentence:
.(q
.ul
A silly old hymn
came to him [Dr. Pfeiffer] from his childhood...
[Caldwell,
.ul
No One Hears But Him\c
, p. 30]
.)q
the experiencer of the private state is Dr. Pfeiffer and `silly' is
a subordinated subjective element, because it is part of the subject.
.pp
In an SC private state sentence, the private-state term is 
often an adjective.  The adjective can itself be complemented
by a clause, and any subjective elements in that clause are subordinated
subjective elements.
In this sentence, for example,
.(q
He was surprisingly sure that the old bag was rich.
.)q
the clause ``that the old bag was rich'' complements the psychological
adjective `sure'.  Thus, ``the old bag'' is a subordinated subjective
element.
The potential subjective element `surprisingly', however, is 
non-subordinated.
.pp
In any subjective sentence, all subjective elements are attributed
to the subjective character (Banfield 1982).  In passage (22),
Johnnie is referred to as `this idiot' in the girl's subjective
context, and the girl is referred to as `that old bag' in Johnnie's
subjective context.  If (22.6) were instead,
.(q
The idiot could not believe that he was seeing the old bag's eyes
sparkling with disgust.
.)q
it could 
.ul
not 
be interpreted in such a way that `the idiot' is
.ul
the girl's 
subjective reference to 
.ul
Johnnie,
and `the old bag' is
.ul
Johnnie's
subjective reference to
.ul
the girl.
So, whoever is the subjective character of a private-state sentence,
any subordinated subjective elements are attributed to that character.
For example:
.(q
(23)
.br
\*[23.1\*]A silly old hymn came to him [Dr. Pfeiffer] from his childhood,
in his minister-father's church:  ``The Old Time Religion!''  \*[23.2\*]He
saw his father's parishioners, simple men and women, singing heartily
and fervently, the men in their Sunday suits, the women in cheap
cotton dresses and hatted and gloved.
.ul
\*[23.3\*]They loved the foolish and passionate old hymns which appealed to
.ul
the emotions and not to the mind, 
\*[23.4\*]but after all, they were
emotional people who believed simply and accepted things simply, and
had a\(emwholesome?\(emfear of the Devil and all his works.
[Caldwell,
.ul
No One Hears But Him\c
, p. 30]
.)q
Since sentence (23.3) is Dr. Pfeiffer's subjective sentence,
the subjective
element `foolish', which is subordinated, expresses
.ul
his
evaluation of the hymns, not the singers'.
.pp
The following are examples of private-state sentences
that are reports.  They contain
subordinated subjective elements only, and they appear
when there is an expected subjective character
who is not the experiencer.
.(q
(24)
.br
     \*[24.1\*]``Captain,'' he asked, \*[24.2\*]``how far is it, up north?''
\*[24.3\*]It was
something he couldn't stop wondering about, \*[24.4\*]and since the Captain
hadn't walked away, the question just popped out.
     \*[24.5\*]Then he immediately felt silly for asking it.  \*[24.6\*]``I guess
it's a mighty far piece, up north,'' he said, as if to relieve the Captain
of the need to answer.
.ul
     \*[24.7\*]It struck Call that they should have educated the boy a little better.
\*[24.8\*]He seemed to think north was a place, not just a direction.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 223]
.)q
At the beginning of (24.7), the situation is broken-subjective and Newt
is the last subjective character
(the strange use of `as if' in (24.6) was discussed in
Chapter 5).  Sentence (24.7) is Call's subjective sentence, not Newt's;
it contains subjective elements, `should'
`better', and `a little', but they are subordinated.
.(q
(25)
.br
.ul
     \*[25.1\*]At this point, Laura and Amy both wondered if perhaps Aunt Minnie
.ul
wasn't just fabricating the whole story for Mama's benefit, and that later,
.ul
the real, dark truth would unfold on the stoop.
\*[25.2\*]But no, Aunt Minnie
kept bubbling along, \*[25.3\*]and all the pieces began slowly fitting together.
[Sachs,
.ul
Amy and Laura\c
, p. 178]
.)q
At the beginning of this passage, the situation is
postsubjective-nonactive and Laura is the last subjective character.
Sentence (25.1) is both Laura's and Amy's subjective sentence, rather
than the last subjective character's, Laura's, subjective sentence;
it contains the subjective elements `perhaps',
`Aunt Minnie' and `just' (``the real, dark secret'' is subjective,
but does not fall into any of the potential subjective element categories),
but they are subordinated.
.pp
A demonstration on modified versions of (22.5)-(22.6) follows:
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 19:50:26 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 19:50:32 1989
sneps

: Previous_subj_char Johnnie Martin.
|Johnnie Martin| has been the subj_char 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 1.150 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize situation to continuing-subj.
The situation is now continuing-subj

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.150 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char to the girl.
the girl is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 1.050 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: How could the poor thing have married him?
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      the girl, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective elements considered: 
  question
  shifted_past
  eval_adjective
All of these are subjective elements 
Subjective context continued by these features: 
  question
  eval_adjective
  shifted_past
The subj_char is the girl
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 8.666 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      the girl, the last subj_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is broken-subj 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.333 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Johnnie Martin could not believe that he was seeing the old bag's black eyes sparkling with disgust.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is broken-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      the girl, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective elements not considered: 
  percept_term
  attitude_noun
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of |Johnnie Martin|
The subj_char is |Johnnie Martin|
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 17.233 gc= 2.316) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Mon Jul 24 19:54:56 1989
.)q
.fi
Attitude nouns such as `old bag' and percept terms such as `sparkling' 
are subjective elements in the broken-subjective situation.
However,
the algorithm does not consider `old bag' and `sparkling' to interpret
the last sentence, because these subjective elements are subordinated.
As a result, it correctly interprets the sentence to be
Johnnie's rather than the girl's subjective sentence.
.sh 2 "Discussion."
To summarize, the algorithm considers non-subordinated subjective
elements to identify the subjective character of a private-state sentence,
with the exception of the subjective elements discussed in
Section 9.2.  It does
not consider subordinated subjective elements.  The algorithm's goals
are to recognize subjective sentences and their subjective characters,
and not to categorize a subjective sentence as a represented thought,
represented perception, or private-state report.
However, some observations can be made.
.pp
A private-state sentence for which the subjective character is 
.ul
not
the experiencer is a represented thought or perception.
So, if there is an expected subjective character
who is not the experiencer, and the algorithm
uses a subjective element to identify the subjective character
(and if the algorithm's interpretation is correct),
then the sentence is a represented thought or perception.
All of the examples given in Section 9.1 are of this type.
Here is one of the examples from that section:
.(q
(13)
.br
\*[13.1\*]He [Jeremy] had a plan in mind.
     \*[13.2\*]They started off six feet apart, \*[13.3\*]moved back 
a few more feet as the
Frisbee went back and forth between them, \*[13.4\*]and stopped 
when they began
to miss the catch.  
.ul
\*[13.5\*]If she suspected what he was up to, it wouldn't work.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 52]
.)q
Jeremy is the last subjective character 
at the beginning of (13.5) but he is not
the experiencer of the private state.  Sentence (13.5) is Jeremy's
represented thought.
.pp
If the experiencer
.ul
is
the same as the subjective character, then a private-state sentence can be
a private-state report.  However, it can also
be a represented thought or perception, in which case the
subjective character is reflecting about his own private state; 
examples were given in section 9.1.2.
The following is one of those examples:
.(q
(12)
.br
\*[12.1\*]It was a warning, he [Trent] supposed, which he should 
heed more often.
\*[12.2\*]Yet nowadays, it seemed, so 
many things frustrated him, making emotions 
hard to control and to remain silent, harder still.
\*[12.3\*]Perhaps such outbursts were mere testiness\(ema side effect of age.
\*[12.4\*]But more likely it was because he sensed so much was slipping 
away, disappearing forever beyond his control.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 88]
.)q
Sentences (12.2)-(12.4) are Trent's represented thoughts about his own
private states.
.pp
However, a private-state sentence with a non-subordinated subjective element 
and of which the subjective character 
.ul
is 
the experiencer
can also be a type of subjective sentence that seems to
be a mixture between a represented thought and a private-state report;
this interpretation is discussed in section 12.
It is not the case, however, that a non-subordinated
subjective element is required
for a private-state sentence to be a represented thought or perception.
There is one context in which the algorithm decides that a private-state
sentence is not the experiencer's subjective sentence
(and so the sentence is a represented thought or perception),
even if it does not
contain any non-subordinated subjective elements:  if the
private-state sentence appears in the continuing-subjective situation
and the last subjective character is not the experiencer.
This is the topic of Section 10.1.
However, even if a private-state sentence without
non-subordinated subjective elements appears in a situation
.ul
other than
the continuing-subjective situation, it can still be a represented
thought of a character other than the experiencer.
The algorithm, however, misinterprets these sentences.  An exception
given in Section 10.2.1 (passage (32)) is a sentence of this type.
The algorithm uses only limited kinds of information; it is
hypothesized that these have a role in the reader's comprehension of the
text, but it is not claimed that readers consider only this information
to recognize subjective sentences and identify subjective characters.
.sh 1 "PARAGRAPH BREAKS."
.sh 2 "Continuing a Subjective Context"
We have seen that whether a paragraph break has appeared since the
last subjective sentence partly determines the
current text situation,
which in turn can influence whether or not the
current sentence is subjective.  This section describes another role
of paragraph breaks in the algorithm.
.pp
Nakhimovsky (Nakhimovsky and Rapaport 1988; 
Nakhimovsky 1988; see Chapter 3)
associates discourse segmentation with
discontinuities of various kinds, including discontinuities of space,
time, composition, and, of importance here, perspective.
He stresses that these are discontinuities in the reader's representation of the
text, even if they are reflected in the surface structure of the text.
And, he suggests that paragraph breaks accompany discontinuities.
.pp
The kind of discontinuity of concern here is a change in the psychological
point of view.  There are three possibilities:
.ip (i)
a shift from an objective context to a subjective
context, 
.ip (ii)
a shift from a subjective context to an objective context, and
.ip (iii)
a shift from the subjective context of one character to the
subjective context of another.  
.in 0
.sp
Shifts of type (iii) are the strongest kind.  The 
psychological point of view greatly affects the reader's representation
of the text, and upon a shift from one subjective context to another,
the reader must stop processing the text from the first 
subjective character's psychological point of view and then 
immediately start processing the
text from the second's.
To do this, processing shifts from understanding (and representing) the
text with respect to one character's
beliefs, evaluations, emotions, motivations, etc., to understanding it
with respect to another's.
.pp
Typically, a shift from one subjective context to another
requires a paragraph break.  Of course, a paragraph break is
not absolutely necessary.
In fact, a sentence boundary is not even necessary (Banfield, personal
communication).
Consider this example from
a stream-of-consciousness novel:
.(q
(26)
.br
\*[26.1\*]`I met Clarissa in the Park this morning,' said Hugh Whitbread,
diving into the casserole, anxious to pay himself this little
tribute, for he had only to come to London and he met everybody at once;
\*[26.2\*]but greedy, one of the greediest men she had ever known, 
Milly Brush thought.
[Virginia Woolf, 
.ul
Mrs Dalloway\c
]
.)q
Not only is the shift from Hugh Whitbread's subjective context to Milly
Brush's not accompanied by a paragraph break, but it occurs within
a single sentence (using ``sentence'' in the normal way rather than
as synonymous with ``input unit'').
However, a shift like this is not expected, and
this passage seems to require some
reinterpretation:  somewhere within (26.2), the reader starts to have
trouble reading it as a continuation of Hugh Whitbread's subjective
context.  Note that there 
.ul
is 
a narrative parenthetical indicating that somewhere within the sentence
there is a shift to
Milly Brush's subjective context.  Actually, (26.2) is comprised of
two input units and the second contains a narrative parenthetical;
thus, the algorithm can handle this passage.  As it is implemented,
the algorithm first interprets a sentence without considering
the narrative parenthetical, and then determines if the narrative
parenthetical confirms or rejects this interpretation.\**
.(f
\**
The parser treats all clauses of the form `,' <noun phrase> `thought'
as narrative parentheticals.  However, these kinds of clauses are
not always narrative parentheticals.  For example, the first sentence
of ``Earlier, John thought.  Later, he acted.'' can be an
adverbial modifying a main clause, rather than a represented thought
accompanied by a narrative parenthetical.
.)f
Thus, the
algorithm's processing of this sentence involves revision.
Here is a demonstration of the algorithm using the sentence-level
parser on a modified version of (26):
.(q
.nf
Script started on Thu Jul 20 05:47:25 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Thu Jul 20 05:47:31 1989
sneps

: Quoted_speech Hugh Whitbread said, anxious to pay himself this little tribute.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of |Hugh Whitbread|
The subj_char is |Hugh Whitbread|
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 9.566 gc= 2.033) <=) 

: But a greedy man, Milly Brush thought.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      |Hugh Whitbread|, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective elements considered: 
  sentence_fragment
  attitude_adjective
Both of these are subjective elements 
Subjective context continued by these features: 
  sentence_fragment
  attitude_adjective
The subj_char is |Hugh Whitbread|
The situation is still continuing-subj 
Revision:  the narr_par indicates that |Hugh Whitbread| is not the subj_char 
Instead, the sentence is |Milly Brush|'s subjective sentence 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 6.883 gc= 2.116) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Thu Jul 20 05:51:03 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
A more typical example is the following:
.(q
(27)
.br
     \*[27.1\*]Gus handed over the money \*[27.2\*]and Lippy pocketed it, 
knowing he had
struck a bargain he had better keep, at least until Gus died.  \*[27.3\*]Gus
was no one to fool with.  \*[27.4\*]He had seen several men try, usually over
card games, \*[27.5\*]and most all of them had got whacked over the head with
Gus's big gun.  \*[27.6\*]Gus didn't shoot unless he had to, \*[27.7\*]but he
was not loath to whack a man.  \*[27.8\*]Lippy was dying to tell
Xavier what he's missed by going fishing, \*[27.9\*]but he knew he had
better postpone the pleasure for a few years.  \*[27.10\*]One hole in the
stomach was enough.
     \*[27.11\*]Lorena felt her indignation 
growing.  \*[27.12\*]She was beginning to
feel cornered, something she had not expected to feel again.  \*[27.13\*]Jake
was supposed to have ended that, \*[27.14\*]and yet he hadn't.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 191]
.)q
Sentences (27.1)-(27.10) comprise Lippy's subjective context,
and (27.11)-(27.14) 
comprise Lorena's.  There is a shift from Lippy's subjective context to
Lorena's subjective context (between sentences (27.10) and (27.11)), and the
shift 
.ul
is 
accompanied by a paragraph break.
.pp
The observation that a shift from one subjective context to another generally
requires a paragraph break is relevant if the current situation is
continuing-subjective, the current sentence is a private-state sentence,
and the experiencer is not the same as the last subjective character.
If the private-state sentence
is interpreted to be a
private-state report, then the subjective character is the experiencer;
and since the situation is continuing-subjective,
the private-state sentence
would begin a new subjective context without a paragraph break.  Thus,
this would be a shift from one subjective context to another without
a paragraph break separating them.  On the other hand, if the 
private-state sentence
is interpreted to be a represented thought of the last subjective
character, or if the experiencer is the same as the last subjective
character, then the sentence just continues the subjective context of
the last subjective character.
.pp
Nakhimovsky (Nakhimovsky and Rapaport 1988; Nakhimovsky 1988) 
takes the position that a paragraph
break not only signals a discontinuity, but actually creates one by
its very presence.  Heather Stark (1988) performed
an empirical investigation of the role of paragraph breaks in 
comprehension.  Her stimulus materials were expository rather
than narrative texts, so she did not specifically investigate whether
paragraph breaks signal discontinuities in narrative.
For that which she did investigate (see Chapter
3), her results showed that readers
do use paragraph breaks as signals.
However, they do not pursue a blind strategy in which paragraph breaks
alone are considered.  Instead, they consider the paragraph break together
with the plausibility of the resulting interpretation:  ``The effect of
a paragraph cue [break] is an interaction between the cue and
the content of what is being cued'' (p. 299).
.pp
The expectation that a paragraph break accompanies the shift from
one subjective context to another is encoded in the algorithm.
This reflects what authors tend to do.  In light of Stark's findings,
however, a future version of the algorithm should consider plausibility
along with paragraph breaks to interpret each particular example.
.pp
This section is addressing private-state sentences that appear
in the continuing-subjective situation.
In the continuing-subjective situation,
the previous sentence was subjective and a paragraph break does
.ul
not
separate the previous and current sentences.  Since the algorithm
expects a paragraph break to separate two subjective contexts,
the 
.ul
lack
of a paragraph break is taken as a signal that the current sentence
does not begin a new subjective context, but instead continues the
one already established.
Thus, the algorithm uses the following rule (this rule will
be revised slightly in Section 14):
.(q
(PSC)
.br
A private-state sentence in the continuing-subjective situation 
continues the last subjective character's subjective context.
.)q
When a subjective context continues to the end of a paragraph, as
often happens, each successive sentence is closely related in content and
by surface cues to the previous sentences.  These, and not just the
absence of a paragraph break, contribute toward a reader's recognition
that the subjective context continues.  
The algorithm can use the absence of a paragraph break only because the
shift from one subjective context to another is such a strong
discontinuity that a paragraph break typically appears.
.pp
Note that if the private-state sentence contains a non-subordinated
subjective element (other than those discussed in Section 9.3), it is
the subjective element that is responsible for the algorithm's decision
that the sentence continues the subjective context, not rule (PSC).
.sh 3 "Continuing-Subjective Situation, The Last Subjective Character Is Not The Experiencer."
In the following passages,
private-state sentences appear in the continuing-subjective situation
and the last subjective character is not the experiencer.  In addition,
these private-state sentences do not have any non-subordinated
subjective elements.
.pp
Consider passage (9) again:
.(q
(9)
.br
     \*[9.1\*]The realization didn't disturb her [Lorena's] calm, though.
\*[9.2\*]It meant he
needed her more than he would admit; \*[9.3\*]she recognized the 
need \*[9.4\*]and didn't care
whether he admitted it or not.  \*[9.5\*]If Jake had been as firm
as he pretended to be, it would have left her with little
security.  \*[9.6\*]He could have just walked off.
     \*[9.7\*]But he wouldn't.
.ul
\*[9.8\*]He liked talk, woman's talk, and the comforts of the bed.
\*[9.9\*]He even liked it that she lived above the saloon, since it meant a game was handy if he felt like playing.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 185]
.)q
At the beginning of this passage, the situation is broken-subjective and
Lorena is the last subjective character.
The algorithm interprets sentences (9.1)-(9.7) to be Lorena's subjective
sentences:
(9.1) because it contains the non-subordinated subjective 
element `though' used as a conjunct
(sentence (9.1) is an example of a private-state sentence that seems
to be a mixture of a represented thought and a private-state report,
see Section 12 below), (9.2) because it contains the subjective 
element `meant' used as a seeming verb, (9.3) and (9.4) 
because they are private-state sentences without non-subordinated
subjective elements that appear in the continuing-subjective situation,
(9.5) because it contains a conditional
and the comparison `as firm',
(9.6) because it contains `could have' and
`just' used as an attitude diminisher, and (9.7) because it contains `would'.
Thus, the situation at the beginning of (9.8) is continuing-subjective.
The algorithm correctly interprets (9.8) to be Lorena's, rather than Jake's,
subjective sentence, because it appears in the continuing-subjective 
situation and Lorena is the last subjective character.
Here is a demonstration of the algorithm on modified versions of
(9.7)-(9.8):
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 20:36:32 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 20:36:37 1989
sneps

: Previous_subj_char Jake.
Jake has been the subj_char 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.883 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize situation to broken-subj.
The situation is now broken-subj

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.200 gc= 2.233) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char to Lorena.
Lorena is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.883 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: But Jake would not walk off.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is broken-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Lorena, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  would
It is a subjective element 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  would
The subj_char is Lorena
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 5.716 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: He liked to talk to women.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Lorena, the last subj_char 
private_state of a character who isn't the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Jake
The subj_char is Lorena
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 7.450 gc= 0.00) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Mon Jul 24 20:40:47 1989
.)q
.fi
.(q
(28)
.br
\*[28.1\*]She [Susan]
wrung her hands together; \*[28.2\*]she was still tearless.
\*[28.3\*]``Please go.''
     \*[28.4\*]Now he [Dr. Pfeiffer] felt a stir of anger.
\*[28.5\*]What did she
.ul
want?
\*[28.6\*]Everything he had said to her over this hour had been met
with hostility and despairing derision\(emmost unreasonable.  \*[28.7\*]She
was like those simple women in his father's parish\(emcongregation.
.ul
\*[28.8\*]She wanted maudlin answers to things for which there were no answers.
\*[28.9\*]Didn't she?  \*[28.10\*]He stood up stiffly.
[Caldwell,
.ul
No One Hears But Him\c
, p. 36; italics in (x.5) in original]
.)q
Sentence (28.4) is Dr. Pfeiffer's private-state report.  Sentence (28.5)
is a question, and (28.6) is in the shifted past
and contains the attitude 
adjective `unreasonable'; the algorithm thus interprets them
to be Dr. Pfeiffer's subjective sentences.  Sentence (28.7) 
is a nonprivate-state sentence, and so it too 
continues the subjective context.  Thus, the situation is continuing-subjective 
at the beginning of (28.8).
The algorithm interprets (28.8) to be Dr. Pfeiffer's 
subjective sentence rather than Susan's, because it appears in the
continuing-subjective situation and Dr. Pfeiffer is the last 
subjective character.
.sh 2 "Beginning a New Subjective Context."
Typically, a private-state sentence that begins a paragraph (and has
no subjective elements) is the 
.ul
experiencer's
subjective sentence,
even if the previous sentence was another character's subjective sentence.
Consider passage (27):
.(q
(27)
.br
     \*[27.1\*]Gus handed over the money \*[27.2\*]and Lippy pocketed it, 
knowing he had
struck a bargain he had better keep, at least until Gus died.  \*[27.3\*]Gus
was no one to fool with.  \*[27.4\*]He had seen several men try, usually over
card games, \*[27.5\*]and most all of them had got whacked over the head with
Gus's big gun.  \*[27.6\*]Gus didn't shoot unless he had to, \*[27.7\*]but he
was not loath to whack a man.  \*[27.8\*]Lippy was dying to tell
Xavier what he's missed by going fishing, \*[27.9\*]but he knew he had
better postpone the pleasure for a few years.  \*[27.10\*]One hole in the
stomach was enough.
     \*[27.11\*]Lorena felt her indignation 
growing.  \*[27.12\*]She was beginning to
feel cornered, something she had not expected to feel again.  \*[27.13\*]Jake
was supposed to have ended that, \*[27.14\*]and yet he hadn't.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 191]
.)q
The paragraph break between (27.10) and (27.11)
separates Lippy's and Lorena's
subjective contexts.
.pp
However, a rule is not required for this specific
case.  Typically, a private-state sentence without subjective elements
(that can be considered) is the experiencer's subjective sentence, merely
if the sentence is in a situation other than continuing-subjective.
Taking this into account (but not yet an issue that is addressed in
Section 14), the algorithm's treatment of private-state sentences can be
described by the following rule:
.bp
.(q
If the sentence appears in the continuing-subjective situation,
       then the subjective character is the last subjective character
else if the sentence contains a subjective element that can be considered
        then if there is an expected subjective character,
                then the subjective character is an expected subjective character
             else the subjective character is unidentified
     else the subjective character is the experiencer.
.)q
For private-state sentences in situations other than continuing-subjective,
this rule involves the expectation that if no subjective elements appear
(that can be considered), the subjective character is an expected one.
A similar expectation was the topic of Chapter 5.
However, Chapter 5
discussed the absence and presence of subjective elements not in
private-state sentences,\**
.(f
\**
Or in
seeming state sentences, psychological action sentences, and
perceptual action sentences.
.)f
but in sentences denoting other kinds of
events.  If a subjective element is not present in those 
kinds of sentences, then the algorithm does not, in most cases, 
interpret the sentence to be
subjective.  But a private-state sentence that
is not an expected subjective character's 
subjective sentence is still subjective.
This is the difference between the situation discussed in Chapter
5 and the one considered here:  The
algorithm is not choosing, based on the absence and presence
of subjective elements, whether the sentence
is not subjective or is an
expected subjective character's 
subjective sentence,
but instead
whether the sentence is the subjective sentence of the experiencer or of
an
expected subjective character.
.sh 3 "An Expected Subjective Character Who Is Not The Experiencer."
This section gives examples of private-state sentences interpreted
to be the experiencer's subjective sentences
because they don't appear in the continuing-subjective situation and because
they do not contain subjective elements that can be considered.
Note that examples of this type
have already been given:
the examples in Section 9.4.  The examples in Section 9.4 contain
subordinated subjective elements only,
they appear in situations other than the continuing-subjective situation,
and the experiencer is not an expected subjective character.
Since subordinated subjective elements
cannot be considered, the algorithm interprets those sentences to be
the experiencers' subjective sentences.
.(q
(29)
.br
\*[29.1\*]The sight of Gus with his plate full put Jake in a low temper, since
he himself had handled branding irons all day while Gus
had amused himself in town and stayed fresh.  \*[29.2\*]They had branded over
four hundred cattle since sunup, enough to make Jake wish he had
never brought up the notion of taking cattle to Montana.
     \*[29.3\*]``Hello, girls,'' Augustus 
said.  \*[29.4\*]``You look like you've done a heavy
laundry.  Wait till I finish my beef and I'll help you off your horses.''
     \*[29.5\*]``I don't want off mine,'' Jake said.  \*[29.6\*]``Hand me a 
plate and I'll eat on
the way to town.''
.ul
     \*[29.7\*]Call felt irritated.
\*[29.8\*]It was the first 
full day Jake had put
in since the work started, \*[29.9\*]and mostly he had lazed through it.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 195-196]
.)q
Sentences (29.1) and (29.2) are Jake's subjective sentences, and, because
other sentences and and a paragraph break appear between (29.2) and
(29.7), the situation at the beginning of (29.7) is 
postsubjective-nonactive.
The algorithm thus interprets (29.7) to be Call's
private-state report.  It then interprets (29.8) and (29.9) to
be continuations of the subjective context, (29.8) because it is a
nonprivate-state sentence and (29.9) because it is in the shifted past.
Here is a demonstration of (29.7) (but without the verb `feel'):
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 21:03:14 1989
sneps
gort:1:1> Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 21:03:18 1989
sneps

: Previous_subj_char Augustus.
Augustus has been the subj_char 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.833 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize situation to postsubj-nonactive.
The situation is now postsubj-nonactive

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.166 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char to Jake.
Jake is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.916 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Call was irritated.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Call
The subj_char is Call
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 4.550 gc= 0.00) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:10> ^D
script done on Mon Jul 24 21:10:00 1989
.)q
.fi
.(q
(30)
.br
\*[30.1\*]It was also prudent.  \*[30.2\*]The motel would serve as a cache for
whatever he might acquire and, if disaster struck, could
be abandoned entirely.  \*[30.3\*]He had been careful to leave
nothing there which was personally identifiable.  \*[30.4\*]The motel
key was painstakingly hidden in the carburator air filter of the
Ford.
     \*[30.5\*]He entered the St. Gregory with a confident air, surrendering
his bags to a doorman, \*[30.6\*]and registered as B. W. Meader of
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
\*[30.7\*]The room clerk, 
.ul
conscious of well-cut clothes and firm chiseled features which 
.ul
bespoke authority,
treated the newcomer with 
respect \*[30.8\*]and allocated room 830.
\*[30.9\*]Now, Keycase
thought agreeably, there would be three St. Gregory keys
in his possession\(emone the hotel knew about and two it didn't.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 105-106]
.)q
The situation is continuing-subjective at the beginning of this
passage, and Keycase is the last subjective character.
Sentences (30.1)-(30.4) are Keycase's subjective sentences.  A
paragraph break follows and sentences
(30.5) and (30.6) are objective sentences of which Keycase is the
active character; thus, the situation at the beginning of (30.7) is
postsubjective-active. 
Since (30.7) does not appear in the continuing-subjective situation,
the algorithm correctly interprets
(30.7) to be
the room clerk's private-state report.  His subjective context does
not continue, and the text returns to Keycase's psychological point of view
in (30.9) (as indicated by the narrative parenthetical).
However, the reference `newcomer' in (30.7) is the room clerk's reference
to Keycase:  it is to the 
.ul
room clerk 
that Keycase is a newcomer.
.pp
The algorithm misinterprets a private-state sentence in the following passage:
.(q
(31)
.br
\*[31.1\*]He [Jeremy] admired the care for detail but did not say anything.
     \*[31.2\*]``You could at least tell me.  Whatever it is, I'm sorry.''
     \*[31.3\*]``No, you're not.''
     \*[31.4\*]``Well, I don't want you mad at me.''
     \*[31.5\*]``You don't care.''
     \*[31.6\*]``Yes, I do.''
     \*[31.7\*]``No, you don't.''
     \*[31.8\*]``Yes, I do.''
     \*[31.9\*]``You're silly.''  
.ul
\*[31.10\*]She was really angry.
\*[31.11\*]She looked all
drawn down and dark in the face.
[Adler,
.ul
Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 71]
.)q
Sentence (31.1) is Jeremy's subjective sentence.  But because (31.10) contains
no subjective elements that can be considered and does not appear in
the continuing-subjective situation,
the algorithm
incorrectly interprets (31.10) to be Lynette's subjective sentence.
Note that it cannot be determined whether it is the fact that the algorithm
doesn't consider `really', a modifying intensifier adverb B,
or if it is the rule being illustrated in this
section, that is responsible for the algorithm's failure.
.pp
The following passage contains a sentence that poses a problem for rule (PSC).
.(q
(32)
.br
     \*[32.1\*]It was his turn to be surprised.  \*[32.2\*]He looked down 
into the bowl
that was all that remained of the inner courtyard, \*[32.3\*]and there was
a four-inch-long silver fish.  \*[32.4\*]The sudden flap of its tail
proved it was still alive.
     \*[32.5\*]``Isn't it pretty, Jeremy?  Can I keep it?  Do you think
it would be happy in a bowl?''
     \*[32.6\*]``No.''  \*[32.7\*]He shook his head.  \*[32.8\*]``It's got to 
have a salt-water
aquarium with constantly circulating water.  It wouldn't live,
Lynette.''
     \*[32.9\*]``Oh.''  
.ul
\*[32.10\*]They stood still for a minute, Lynette regretting her
.ul
fish and Jeremy wondering at the coincidence of its being there.
     \*[32.11\*]``Pick it up by the tail and send it back where it belongs,''
Jeremy said.  \*[32.12\*]``Toss it out as far as you can.''
[Adler,
.ul
Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 14]
.)q
Sentence (32.1)-(32.4) are Jeremy's subjective sentences, and, because other
sentences and a paragraph break appear between (32.4) and (32.10), the
situation at the beginning of (32.10) is postsubjective-nonactive.
Two subordinated clauses of (32.10) denote
private states, one Lynette's and one
Jeremy's.
Few sentences like this were found,
so there was not enough data to determine how a sentence like this should
be treated.
It should not be interpreted in such a way that the first
private state establishes Lynette's subjective context, and then the
second one continues it.
Perhaps 
Lynette and Jeremy are competing expected subjective characters 
after (32.10), or perhaps
Lynette and Jeremy are together a single expected subjective character 
after (32.10).
Examples in which subjective sentences follow a sentence such as (32.10)
would show if either of these is the case.
The algorithm's treatment of this sentence is not
correct:  It randomly chooses one of the private states, since there
is not a private state in the main clause and there is more than
one private state in other clauses.
.sh 3 "The Experiencer Is An Expected Subjective Character."
In the following passage, a private-state sentence appears in the
continuing-subjective situation and does not have any subjective elements, 
and the experiencer is an expected subjective character:
.(q
(33)
.br
     \*[33.1\*]Jeremy shrugged.  ``I don't know.  You shouldn't of said you'd
take care of her.''
     \*[33.2\*]``How can you be so self-centered?  Don't you care about anybody 
but yourself?''
.ul
     \*[33.3\*]He didn't care.  
\*[33.4\*]It was like his mother to take on responsibilities
and then slough them off on somebody else.
[Adler,
.ul
Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 3]
.)q
At the beginning of this passage, the situation is 
postsubjective-nonactive and Jeremy is the last subjective character.
Sentence (33.1) is a psychological-action sentence that is Jeremy's
subjective sentence (see Chapter 7).
Since objective sentences and paragraph breaks separate (33.1) and (33.3),
the situation at the beginning of (33.3) is postsubjective-nonactive.
The algorithm interprets (33.3) to be Jeremy's private-state report,
because the situation is not continuing-subjective, and because
Jeremy is the last subjective character.
.sh 1 "UNSPECIFIED EXPERIENCER."
It is often straightforward to determine who the experiencer is if
an adjective or verb is used to denote a private state.
For example,
if a verb is used to denote a private state, then the experiencer is
either the subject or an object of the sentence,
depending on the verb (see
Section 6).  The experiencer is the subject of 
.(q
.ul
Sandy 
wanted to talk to Dennys.
.)q
the direct object of
.(q
She amazed 
.ul
him.
.)q
and the indirect object of
.(q
It bothered 
.ul
him 
that Mary was gone.
.)q
Also, 
if an adjective is used to denote a private state, then the experiencer
is the subject, as in
.(q
.ul
She 
was angry.
.)q
or the object, as in this SVOC sentence:
.(q
The encounter made 
.ul
her 
angry.
.)q
However, it is not as straightforward
to determine who the experiencer is if a noun
is used to denote a private state.
It is most straightforward if the private-state noun is used in a
possessive noun phrase; the possessor is the experiencer:
.(q
(34)
.br
\*[34.1\*]``Gimme the ten,'' Lippy said, 
.ul
his 
astonishment
growing.
.)q
The sentence-level parser determines that a psychological or
perceptual noun used in a possessive noun phrase denotes the
possessor's private state:
.(q
.nf
Script started on Sun Jul 23 21:08:59 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Sun Jul 23 21:09:04 1989
sneps

: Quoted_speech Lippy said, his astonishment growing.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Lippy
The subj_char is Lippy
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 9.666 gc= 2.283) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Sun Jul 23 21:15:32 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
Another kind of private-state sentence with a private-state noun
is one in which
the private-state noun is predicated to have some inner effect 
on a character; that character is the experiencer:
.(q
(35)
.br
\*[35.1\*]Then the thought of how empty the saloon would be soon filled
.ul
him 
with gloom.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 186]
.)q
However, since the private-state noun in this sentence, `thought', 
is accompanied by another private state of the character,
``filled him with gloom'', the private-state noun
is not significant to the algorithm's interpretation.
.pp
There are private-state sentences for which it cannot be determined
in isolation who the experiencer is.  In this case, I say that 
the private state has an
unspecified experiencer.
If the sentence contains subjective elements that the algorithm can 
use, then the algorithm does not have to determine the experiencer
of the private state; it decides that the subjective character is an
.ul
expected subjective character
(or unidentified if there isn't an expected subjective character),
regardless of who the experiencer is. 
The algorithm has to determine the experiencer only if the sentence does not
have subjective elements it can consider.
It was found that if there are no usable subjective elements in
the sentence, then
the experiencer of a private state with an
unspecified experiencer is an expected subjective character, if there
is one.  A type of exception that
can appear, however, is illustrated at the end of this section.
.pp
Consider these examples:
.(q
(36)
.br
     \*[36.1\*]In the silence, a swift soft movement and a rustle of silk
seemed to come from the doorway behind him.  \*[36.2\*]He [Trent]
turned his head,
.ul
\*[36.3\*]but it was a quirk of memory.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 88]
.)q
The experiencer of the private state in (36.3) is not even mentioned.
Sentence (36.1) is Trent's subjective sentence.  After (36.2) (an
objective sentence) the situation is interrupted-subjective.
The algorithm takes Trent to be the experiencer of the private state in
(36.3) because he is the last subjective character,
and interprets the sentence to be Trent's subjective sentence.
.(q
(37)
.br
\*[37.1\*]For the first time in his life, Sandy had a flash of gratitude
that Dennys was not with him.
.ul
     \*[37.2\*]Then anxiety surfaced.
``Dennys\(em''
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 9]
.)q
Sentence (37.2) does not mention the experiencer.  As in the above
example, the algorithm takes the experiencer to be the last 
subjective character, Sandy,
and interprets (37.2) to be Sandy's subjective sentence.
.(q
(38)
.br
So far as Call was concerned, the death of Kicking Wolf
meant the end of the Comanches, and thus the end of
their real job.  There were other chiefs, true, and the
final fights were yet to be fought, but he had never had the vengeful
nature of some Rangers and had no interest in spending a decade
mopping up renegades and stragglers.
     Pedro Flores was a far cry from being the fighter Kicking Wolf
had been.  Pedro seldom rode without twenty or thirty 
.ul
vaqueros
to back him up, whereas Kicking Wolf, a small man no bigger
than the boy, would raid San Antonio with five or
six braves and manage to carry off three women and scare all
the whites out of seven or eight countries just by traveling through them.
But Pedro was of the same time, and had occupied them just as long.  
     ``I didn't know you liked that old bandit so much,''
Augustus said.
     ``I didn't like him,'' Call said.  ``I just didn't
expect him to die.''
     \*[38.1\*]``He probably never expected 
it neither,'' Augustus said.  \*[38.2\*]``He
was a rough old cob.''
.ul
     \*[38.3\*]After a few minutes the empty feeling passed,
\*[38.4\*]but Call didn't
get to his feet.  \*[38.5\*]The sense that he needed to hurry, which
had been with him most of his life, had disappeared for a space.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 183]
.)q
The first two paragraphs of this passage are Call's subjective
context.
The experiencer of ``the empty feeling'' in (38.3) is not mentioned;
the algorithm takes it to be the last subjective character, Call, 
and interprets the sentence to be his subjective sentence.
Here is a demonstration of the algorithm on (38.1)-(38.3):
.(q
.nf
Script started on Sun Jul 23 22:58:31 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Sun Jul 23 22:58:37 1989
sneps

: Previous_subj_char Call.

Call has been the subj_char 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.850 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Previous_subj_char Augustus.

Augustus has been the subj_char 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.800 gc= 2.183) <=) 

: Initialize situation to postsubj-nonactive.
The situation is now postsubj-nonactive

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.183 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char to Call.
Call is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.816 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Call, the last subj_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is still postsubj-nonactive 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.233 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Quoted_speech Augustus said.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Call, the last subj_char 
Augustus is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
Sentence with an active_char in postsubj-nonactive situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 3.733 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Quoted_speech.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Call, the last subj_char 
      Augustus, the last active_char 
Augustus is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 1.866 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Call, the last subj_char 
      Augustus, the last active_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive 
  The last active_char is no longer an expected subjective character 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.350 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: After a few minutes the empty feeling passed.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Call, the last subj_char 
The experiencer of the private_state denoted by `feeling' is unspecified 
The unspecified experiencer is Call
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Call
The subj_char is Call
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 7.050 gc= 2.216) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> ^D
script done on Sun Jul 23 23:15:04 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
Since the last subjective character and the last active character
can both be expected subjective characters (and can be the same),
the question arises as to which of them
should be taken to be the experiencer of a private state with an unspecified
experiencer.  The only example found in the texts considered is the following:
.(q
(39)
.br
     \*[39.1\*]``No, but if it's traveling with Jake I bet it wears skirts,''
Soupy said\(ema remark which for some reason seemed to catch
everybody wrong.  \*[39.2\*]Or everybody but Gus, who laughed long and hard.
\*[39.3\*]Feeling a little confused, but happy to have been hired, Soupy went
off with Pea Eye to get breakfast.
     \*[39.4\*]``I'm going in and pry up that sign I wrote so 
we can take it with us,''
Augustus said.  \*[39.5\*]``I may pry up one of my Dutch ovens 
and bring it too.''
     \*[39.6\*]``Bol ain't said that he's going,'' Call said.  
.ul
\*[39.7\*]It was a mild anxiety.
\*[39.8\*]If Bol quit and they had to depend on Gus to do the cooking,
the whole trip would be in jeopardy.  \*[39.9\*]Apart from biscuits, 
his cooking 
was of the sort that caused tempers to flare.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 225]
.)q
Sentence (39.3) is Soupy's subjective sentence, and (39.6) is an
objective sentence with Call as the active character.
Thus, the situation at the beginning of (39.7) is postsubjective-active;
Soupy is the last subjective character and Call is the last active character.
Sentence (39.7) is a private state sentence with an unspecified experiencer,
and the subjective character is Call, the last active character.
This example suggests that
the last active character should be chosen over the last
subjective character
to be the experiencer of a private state with an unspecified
experiencer.  However, Soupy leaves the scene in (39.3);
this passage is an example
for which the algorithm incorrectly retains a character as an
expected subjective character
even though he has left the scene.
Thus, although
according to the algorithm both the last subjective character
and the last active character are expected subjective characters at the 
beginning of (39.7), in fact only the last active character is.
The algorithm does choose the last active character 
over the last subjective
character to be the experiencer of a private state with an unspecified
experiencer, but more examples will have to be found before this rule
can be verified.
.pp
Here is demonstration of the algorithm on a simplified
version of (39.4)-(39.7):
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 01:13:00 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 01:13:05 1989
sneps

: Previous_subj_char Call.
Call has been the subj_char 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.866 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Previous_subj_char Augustus.
Augustus has been the subj_char 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.783 gc= 2.183) <=) 

: Initialize situation continuing-subj.
The situation is now continuing-subj

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.166 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char Soupy.
Soupy is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.900 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Soupy went off with Pea Eye to get some breakfast, happy to have a job.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Soupy, the last subj_char 
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Soupy
The subj_char is Soupy
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 14.650 gc= 2.350) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Soupy, the last subj_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is broken-subj 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.300 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Quoted_speech Augustus said.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is broken-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Soupy, the last subj_char 
Augustus is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
Sentence with an active_char in broken-subj situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 4.383 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Soupy, the last subj_char 
      Augustus, the last active_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive 
  The last active_char is no longer an expected subjective character 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.433 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Quoted_speech Call said.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Soupy, the last subj_char 
Call is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
Sentence with an active_char in postsubj-nonactive situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 4.100 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: It was a mild anxiety.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Soupy, the last subj_char 
      Call, the last active_char 
The experiencer of the private_state denoted by `anxiety' is unspecified 
The unspecified experiencer is Call
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Call
The subj_char is Call
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 6.750 gc= 2.300) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Mon Jul 24 01:19:04 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
There is one other case:  a private-state sentence with an unspecified
experiencer that appears
in the presubjective-nonactive situation and that does not have
any subjective elements that can be considered.
The algorithm interprets such a sentence to be the subjective
sentence of an unidentified subjective character.
The reason is that if an
experiencer were specified, the algorithm would interpret the
sentence to be the experiencer's subjective sentence.  No examples were
found.  Here is a demonstration of (38.3) appearing in the
presubjective-nonactive situation:
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 01:31:12 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 01:31:17 1989
sneps

: After a few minutes the empty feeling passed.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
The experiencer of the private_state denoted by `feeling' is unspecified 
The unspecified experiencer is b8 (unidentified)
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of b8 (unidentified)
The subj_char is b8 (unidentified)
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 7.016 gc= 2.200) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Mon Jul 24 01:40:59 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
Passages (36)-(39) contain clear examples of private states
with unspecified experiencers.  They are clear examples because the
experiencer is not even mentioned.  Passages (34)-(35) contain private
states denoted by nouns for which the experiencer can be determined
because either
the private-state noun is used in a possessive noun phrase or because it
is predicated to have some inner
effect on a character.  However, there are other cases (this passage
is part of
passage (38)):
.(q
(38)
.br
     \*[38.1\*]After a few minutes the empty feeling passed,
\*[38.2\*]but Call didn't
get to his feet.
.ul
\*[38.3\*]The sense that he needed to hurry, which had been with him most 
.ul
of his life, had disappeared for a space.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 183]
.)q
The experiencer of the private state denoted by ``The sense that he
needed to hurry'' is mentioned in the sentence (that is, he is referred
to be `he').
However,
the relationship between the private state and the experiencer
in this sentence is not as
apparent as the one between those in (34)-(35).
This dissertation does not solve the problem of how it is determined
in general
whether the experiencer of a private state denoted by a noun is
specified in the sentence.
If a private-state noun appears in a possessive noun phrase, then
the sentence-level parser treats it as denoting the private state of
the possessor.  An example is the first demonstration given in this
section.
Otherwise, it treats a private-state noun as
denoting a private state with an unspecified experiencer.
The last three demonstrations are examples.
.pp
It should be noted that the experiencer 
.ul
is 
specified in sentences
like the following:
.(q
The room clerk, 
.ul
conscious of well-cut clothes and firm chiseled features which 
.ul
bespoke authority, 
treated the newcomer with respect and allocated
room 830.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 106]
.)q
.(q
.ul
Thinking about it, 
he might ask himself some questions.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 175]
.)q
.(q
He nodded,
.ul
pretty sure he knew what her problem was.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 51]
.)q
In all of these, the experiencer can be determined from the syntax
of the sentence:  it is the subject of the main clause.
.pp
I end this discussion with an exception to the rule that an unspecified
experiencer is the candidate:
.(q
     ``Hang on, then.''  After a burst of static, Eddington heard,
``Eh, this is Ketchum.  Radioman Giant Jim.''
     ``Go ahead, England,'' said the Boise operator.
     ``Hello!  Allen Chandliss, please.''
     ``Who?'' The voice sounded very far away.
     ``Allen Chandliss.  He should be waiting there for my call.''
     ``Ah\(emyou're the England-man,'' Radioman said suddenly, his
voice turning cold.  ``Whitecoats!  Tinkerers and conjurers!  Men of
wonder with feet of clay.  I wish you were here\(emwe could burn you
beside him.''
     ``What are you talking about?''
     ``We were better off with devils that declared themselves.
A hundred square feet of solar cells up in the hills, and for nothing
but his toddlely little gimgaws!  When people here were crying for
power.  How could you people do this to us?''
     ``Do what?  Calm down and talk sense, man.  He's an
astronomer\(emstudying the sky.''
     ``Was!  Was! Now he goes to trial in Pocatello\(emunless something
happens.'' Radioman laughed, a wicked snicker.  ``Damn you all!
Killers\(emyou killed us all.  I wish Tom would let us have him\(emI
wisht you was here.  God, I hate you.  You're not even human\(emcouldn't
be.  You didn't love the rest of us enough\(em''
     Eddington hung up, shaking.
.ul
The anger, the hurt, the contempt\c
\(emEddington had known it existed, understood that it was
now part of the fabric just as Protestants grew up hating Catholics
and Arabs grew up hating Jews, but he had managed to avoid having it
directed his way.
[Kube-McDowell,
.ul
Emprise\c
, p. 26]
.)q
Although Eddington is the expected subjective character 
at the beginning of the italicized
sentence, he is
.ul
not
the experiencer of these private states.  Instead, he is upset
by the anger, hurt, and contempt of
.ul
Radioman.
.sh 1 "MIXED INTERPRETATIONS."
Although the goals of the algorithm are to recognize
subjective sentences and identify their subjective characters,
and not in addition to identify a subjective sentence as, for example,
a represented thought or a private-state report, this section
discusses a type of subjective sentence that does not fit neatly
into any of the categories of subjective sentences discussed so far.
This will be important to future work investigating 
how a reader understands
subjective sentences within her larger comprehension of the text.
.pp
It seems reasonable that if there is a non-subordinated subjective element
in a private-state sentence (other than the subjective elements 
discussed in
Section 9.3), then the sentence is represented thought or perception.
However, if the subjective character is the experiencer,
then the sentence
might seem to be a mixture of a represented thought and a private-state
report.  These examples arise mainly when the non-subordinated
subjective element has some kind of discourse function.
.pp
To clarify what is at issue, the kinds of subjective sentences we have
seen in this chapter are reviewed.
First, the examples in Sections 9.1.1 and 9.2 are private-state sentences
with non-subordinated subjective elements, and the subjective character
of the sentence is 
.ul
not
the experiencer.  These sentences are represented thoughts.  Here is
an example from Section 9.1.1.  The experiencer of (8.6) is Jeremy's
mother but the sentence is Jeremy's represented thought:
.(q
(8)
.br
\*[8.1\*]The question was, what?  \*[8.2\*]He kicked at a refinished oak rocker,
setting it into nervous motion just as his mother walked through
the living room with a pile of linens in her arms.
     \*[8.3\*]``At it again!''
     \*[8.4\*]Jeremy grunted.  \*[8.5\*]It made him feel better to kick things.
.ul
\*[8.6\*]She ought to understand that without needing it explained to her.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 66]
.)q
Second, the examples in Section 9.1.2 are private-state sentences that
contain
non-subordinated subjective elements and that are self-reflective;
the subjective character of the sentence
.ul
is
the experiencer, and the sentence is the character's represented thought
about his own private state.  The following is an example from
that section.  Jeremy is both the experiencer and the subjective
character of (10.5) and (10.6), and (10.5) and (10.6) are his represented thoughts:
.(q
(10)
.br
     \*[10.1\*]He [Jeremy] remembered how she dared to run into the
ocean after him and how he was determined to save
her no matter what.  \*[10.2\*]He'd never
cared as much about another person.  \*[10.3\*]Selfish, just as his mother 
had said.
\*[10.4\*]But she did not call him selfish any more.  
.ul
\*[10.5\*]No, he most probably would never forget Lynette.
.ul
\*[10.6\*]Most probably he could not forget her even if he tried.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 90]
.)q
Third, the examples given in Sections 9.4 and 10 are private-state sentences
without non-subordinated subjective elements.  These sections showed that
a private-state sentence
without non-subordinated subjective elements can be either, on the
one hand, a represented
thought or perception, or, on the other hand, a 
private-state report.
Here is an example from Section 10.1.1 of a private-state sentence
without non-subordinated subjective elements that is a represented
thought.
The subjective character of (28.8) is Dr. Pfeiffer, the candidate,
rather then Susan, the
experiencer.
.(q
(28)
.br
\*[28.1\*]She [Susan]
wrung her hands together; \*[28.2\*]she was still tearless.
\*[28.3\*]``Please go.''
     \*[28.4\*]Now he [Dr. Pfeiffer] felt a stir of anger.
\*[28.5\*]What did she
.ul
want?
\*[28.6\*]Everything he had said to her over this hour had been met
with hostility and despairing derision\(emmost unreasonable.  \*[28.7\*]She
was like those simple women in his father's parish\(emcongregation.
.ul
\*[28.8\*]She wanted maudlin answers to things for which there were no answers.
\*[28.9\*]Didn't she?  \*[28.10\*]He stood up stiffly.
[Caldwell,
.ul
No One Hears But Him\c
, p. 36; italics in (28.5) in original]
.)q
Further, sentence (29.7) in passage (29), cited
in Section 10.2.1, is a private-state sentence
without non-subordinated subjective elements that is a private-state
report:
.(q
(29)
.br
\*[29.1\*]The sight of Gus with his plate full put Jake in a low temper, since
he himself had handled branding irons all day while Gus
had amused himself in town and stayed fresh.  \*[29.2\*]They had branded over
four hundred cattle since sunup, enough to make Jake wish he had
never brought up the notion of taking cattle to Montana.
     \*[29.3\*]``Hello, girls,'' Augustus 
said.  \*[29.4\*]``You look like you've done a heavy
laundry.  Wait till I finish my beef and I'll help you off your horses.''
     \*[29.5\*]``I don't want off mine,'' Jake said.  \*[29.6\*]``Hand me a 
plate and I'll eat on
the way to town.''
.ul
     \*[29.7\*]Call felt irritated.
\*[29.8\*]It was the first 
full day Jake had put
in since the work started, \*[29.9\*]and mostly he had lazed through it.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 195-196]
.)q
.pp
The kind of private-state sentence of concern in this section is one
that contains a non-subordinated subjective element and of which the
subjective character is the experiencer, but which does not seem to
be just a represented thought or a private-state report.
Typically,
these sentences appear in the middle of a
subjective context and the subjective element has some kind of
discourse function.
.pp
Consider this passage, in which a 
private-state sentence contains a concessive conjunct:
.(q
(40)
.br
     \*[40.1\*]``Yes.  By the way, I have a class for beginners
Saturday morning.  You might mention it to your mother.''
     \*[40.2\*]``O.K., I will, Miss Lavatier,'' Zoe said.  \*[40.3\*]She had no
intention of doing it.  \*[40.4\*]The worst thing she could think of was tap
dancing all Saturday morning.
.ul
\*[40.5\*]Still, she was pleased with the conversation.
\*[40.6\*]She hadn't found out much about Miss Lavatier's
boyfriend, \*[40.7\*]but she had mentioned the War and 
the spy ring.  \*[40.8\*]Miss
Lavatier had definitely acted peculiar when she did that.
.)q
Sentences (40.3)-(40.8) are Zoe's subjective sentences.  Consider how
these sentences are related to one another.  The first sentence, (40.3),
reports that Zoe has no intention of mentioning the class to her
mother.  Sentence (40.4) is a reason for the fact that she does not
have this intention.  Sentence (40.5) is the one we are concerned with.
The subjective element `Still' in (40.5) is concessive.  
A concessive relationship exists between two discourse units if one unit is
contrary to expectation in the light of the other (Quirk et al. 1985).
In this passage, one unit concerns Zoe's rejection of Miss Lavatier's
suggestion that Zoe take tap dancing lessons.
Another unit is that Zoe
is pleased with the conversation.
The conjunct `Still' in (40.5) expresses a concessive relation between the
two units:  The second unit is surprising in light of expectations
raised by the first.
The conjunct
`still' is part of a discourse that originates with Zoe:  It is from
Zoe's perspective that
the suggestion
that she take tap dancing lessons isn't good, but that the conversation
is useful.  In this sense, the sentence is like represented thought.
Note that the subsequent sentences, which
.ul
are
represented thoughts, continue the discourse.  Eventually, (40.8)
provides the reason that the conversation was useful:  The reader knows
that Zoe initiated the conversation to obtain evidence that
Miss Lavatier is a spy, and Zoe takes to be evidence the fact that Miss
Lavatier acted peculiar when Zoe mentioned the spy ring.
(I found (40.8) to be funny, since Miss Lavatier probably
looked peculiar because Zoe's question was so strange.)
However, Zoe does not 
.ul
reflect 
that she is pleased with the 
conversation; instead, (40.5) reports that she is.
Thus, (40.5) does not fit neatly into either of the categories
``represented thought'' and ``private-state report''.
.pp
Passage (40)
illustrates that a subjective context can be comprised
of both represented thought (and perception) and
private-state reports, where
all of them are rhetorically related
to one another to form a discourse originating with the subjective
character.  Linguistic elements that express these rhetorical
relations can appear in the private-state reports as
well as in the represented thoughts and perceptions in the passage.
.pp
The following is another example:
.(q
(41)
.br
\*[41.1\*]It troubled him [Peter] that someone as young as Marsha Preyscott, and
presumably born with a gold-plated list of advantages,
should be so apparently neglected.  
.ul
\*[41.2\*]Even with her father out of
.ul
the country and her mother decamped\(emhe had heard of the former
.ul
Mrs. Preyscott's multiple marriages\(emhe found it incredible that
.ul
safeguards for a young girl's welfare would not be set up.
\*[41.3\*]If I were
her father, he thought .... or brother ...
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
]
.)q
In this example, `even' is used with a concessive
meaning:  Peter feels that although the facts that her father is 
out of town and her
mother is no longer there might explain a measure of neglect, they
do not justify the fact that safeguards for Marsha's welfare have not
been set up.  
So, `even' in (41.2) expresses a rhetorical relation 
between units
of a discourse originating with the subjective character.  In that
sentence, (41.2) is like represented thought.
However,
Peter does not 
.ul
reflect 
that he finds it incredible that safeguards have
not been set up; instead, it is 
.ul
reported 
that he finds it incredible.
.sh 1 "SHIFTING TO A NEW SUBJECTIVE CONTEXT."
The algorithm's behavior can be characterized by the following rule:
.(q
To shift to the subjective context of a character who is not an
expected subjective character, 
and to be able to identify the subjective character from the
first sentence of the new subjective context, a private-state sentence or
a narrative parenthetical is required.\**
.(f
Or, a sentence denoting a perceptual or psychological action that is
treated as a private state; see Chapter 7.
.)f
.)q
First consider the case in which there isn't an expected subjective character.
If the sentence contains a subjective element that can
be considered (but doesn't contain a narrative parenthetical), 
then the algorithm
can recognize that the sentence is subjective, whether or not it is
a private-state sentence.
However,
the subjective character is unidentified.  Note that the subjective
element must be a potential subjective element that is subjective
even in the presubjective-nonactive situation.
An example is an exclamation
(this example was given in Chapter 5):
.(q 
Captain Scalawag's treasure!  It was the first thing 
Pete thought of when he woke up.
[Lorimer,
.ul
The Mystery of the Missing Treasure,
p. 1]
.)q
This is the beginning of the novel, and so the situation is
presubjective-nonactive.
The algorithm recognizes that the first 
sentence
is a subjective sentence, but the
subjective character is not identified until the second sentence.
.pp
Suppose that a sentence is not a private-state sentence and does not
contain a narrative parenthetical, and suppose also that there
is an expected subjective character when the sentence is encountered.  
The algorithm will
only decide that the sentence is subjective if the sentence
contains a subjective element 
or if the
sentence is a nonprivate-state appearing in the
continuing-subjective situation.
In either case, the algorithm identifies the
subjective character to be an expected subjective character.
.pp
Thus, the
algorithm decides that there is
a shift to a subjective context of a character who is not
an expected subjective character, and is
able to identify the subjective character from the first
sentence of the new subjective 
context, only if the current sentence contains a narrative
parenthetical or is a private-state sentence. 
If there 
is 
a narrative parenthetical in the sentence, then the subjective
character is the subject of the parenthetical,
whoever is an
expected subjective character.  And, if the sentence is
a private-state sentence, the algorithm might (but does not
always) decide that the subjective character is the
experiencer, even if she isn't an expected subjective character.
.sh 1 "NARROWING AND BROADENING OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW."
There is a
.ul
narrowing
of the psychological point of view if there is an expected
subjective character that is
more than one character, and a subjective sentence appears whose subjective
character is
a subset of those characters.  There
is a 
.ul
broadening 
of the psychological point of view if there is an 
expected subjective character,
and
a subjective sentence appears whose
subjective character is a superset of an expected
subjective character.
.pp
Recall
from Section 10.1 that the algorithm interprets a private-state sentence 
appearing in the continuing-subjective situation 
to be the subjective sentence of the
last subjective character.
In fact, however, the algorithm allows for narrowing and broadening of
the psychological point of view upon a private-state sentence,
even if it appears in the continuing-subjective
situation.  The algorithm actually uses the following rule
to identify the subjective character of a private-state sentence
appearing in the continuing-subjective situation (this is a revision of
the rule presented in Section 10.1):
.(q
If a private-state sentence appears in the continuing-subjective situation,
   then if there is a subjective element that can be considered,
           then the subjective character is the last subjective character
           else if the experiencer is equal to, a subset of, or a superset of the last subjective character,
                   then the subjective character is the experiencer
                   else the subjective character is the last subjective character.
.)q
.pp
The following passage illustrates a narrowing of the psychological 
point of view that occurs when the situation is continuing-subjective:
.(q
(42)
.br
     \*[42.1\*]In the clear late afternoon light they [Call and Augustus]
could see all the way back to Lonesome Dove and the river and
Mexico.
.ul
\*[42.2\*]Augustus regretted not tying a jug to his saddle\(em\c
\*[42.3\*]he would have liked
to sit on the little hill and drink for an hour.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 241]
.)q
Sentence (42.1) is Call's and Augustus's subjective sentence, and
so they are the last subjective character at the beginning of
(42.2).
Sentence (42.2) is a private-state sentence, and the experiencer, Augustus,
is a subset of the last subjective character, Call and Augustus.  The
algorithm correctly interprets (42.2) to be Augustus's, rather than 
Augustus's 
.ul
and 
Call's, subjective sentence.  Here is a demonstration
of the algorithm using the sentence-level parser on a simplified
version of this passage:
.(q
.nf
Script started on Thu Jul 20 16:30:06 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Thu Jul 20 16:30:12 1989
sneps

: In the clear light, Call and Augustus could see Lonesome Dove.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Augustus and Call
The subj_char is Augustus and Call
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 9.416 gc= 2.216) <=) 

: Augustus regretted that he did not tie a jug to his saddle.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Augustus and Call, the last subj_char 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Augustus
The subj_char is Augustus
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 14.083 gc= 2.133) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Thu Jul 20 16:34:33 1989
.fi
.)q
The algorithm interprets the second sentence to be Augustus's, rather
than Augustus's and Call's, subjective sentence.
.pp
If two characters are companions, then broadening of the psychological
perspective sometimes occurs that the algorithm is unable to
recognize.  In 
.ul
Many Waters,
for example, Dennys and Sandy are twins.  When they are in the scene
together, sentences like (18.6) in the following passage sometimes
appear (passage (18) is part of this passage): 
.(q
(18)
.br
     \*[18.1\*]Then he [Dennys] felt 
something solid, Sandy on his unicorn pressing
against him.  \*[18.2\*]Sandy's strong arms shoving him back onto the
unicorn, the virtual particle suddenly real, not just something
in the lab.
\*[18.3\*]His [Dennys's] head hurt.
     \*[18.4\*]Japheth and the mammoth were running beside them, amazingly
swift for such small creatures.  \*[18.5\*]``Hurry,'' Japheth urged the
unicorns.  ``Hurry.''
.ul
     \*[18.6\*]Sandy, his flannel shift still draped over his head, was
.ul
hardly aware that he was supporting his brother.  
\*[18.7\*]His arms felt as fluid as water. 
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 27]
.)q
The first paragraph of this passage, (18.1)-(18.3),
is Dennys's subjective context,
and the last paragraph, (18.6)-(18.7), is Sandy's subjective context.
It seems that (18.4) might be 
.ul
both 
Sandy's and Dennys's subjective sentence.  However, the algorithm interprets
(19.4) to be only Dennys's subjective sentence, because he is the
last subjective character when it is encountered, and 
(19.4) contains the subjective elements 
`amazingly' and intensifier `such'.
The algorithm is not able to recognize a broadening of the psychological
perspective unless the sentence is a private-state sentence (or
a psychological or perceptual action sentence) or contains a narrative
parenthetical; sentence (19.4) is neither of these kinds of sentences.  
.sh 1 "OBJECTIVE PRIVATE-STATE SENTENCES."
This section identifies a type of private-state sentence
that can be objective, and a specific subtype of it that the
algorithm is able to recognize.
.pp
The type
of sentence discussed in this section
.ul
can
be objective, but is not necessarily objective.  Any kind of sentence
can be subjective, if it contains suitable potential subjective
elements, for example.  What can be said is that there is a certain
kind of private-state sentence that is not
the 
.ul
experiencer's 
subjective sentence.  But if there
is an expected subjective character 
who is not the
experiencer, for example,
and the sentence contains a subjective element, then
a sentence of this type can be
.ul
another 
character's subjective sentence.
.pp
Since the experiencer is not the subjective character, there are
three ways in which the algorithm processes these kinds of private-state 
sentences differently from the way it processes others.
.ip (i)
If the experiencer is an expected subjective character just after the 
previous sentence
was processed, she is not an expected subjective character for the
purposes of interpreting the sentence.
.ip (ii)
If the sentence appears in a context in which another kind
of private-state sentence would be interpreted to be a
private-state report, then it is interpreted to be
objective.
.ip (iii)
Any subordinated subjective elements 
.ul
are
used to interpret
the sentence.
.in 0
.sp
Demonstrations and further discussion of the algorithm's behavior
appear below, after the kind of private-state sentence that is
the focus of this section is identified.
.pp
First, the private-state term is negated.
But not any kind of private-state term will
do.  For example, ``She did not want him to visit her'' and 
``She wanted him to visit her'' are the 
same for the purpose of recognizing subjective 
sentences:  both are subjective.  Two kinds of private-state terms
that, when negated, can appear in objective sentences are 
perceptual private-state terms and factive private-state terms.
Sentences with
negated perceptual private-state terms are the focus of this
section.  Sentences with negated factive terms are discussed briefly
in Section 15.1.
.pp
Here are two examples of objective sentences with negated perceptual
private-state terms:
.(q
(43)
.br
.ul
 \*[43.1\*]In their celebratory mood, no one noticed the young man rise from the
.ul
table beside them and leave the pub. [Kube-McDowell,
.ul
Emprise\c
, p. 58]
.)q
.(q
(44)
.br
\*[44.1\*]She [Yalith] was not sure why she was hesitant.
\*[44.2\*]She breathed in the strange odor of his wings, smelling of stone,
of the cold, dark winds which came during the few brief weeks of
winter.
.ul
  \*[44.3\*]Enveloped in Eblis's wings, she did not hear the rhythmic thud as a
.ul
great lion galloped toward them across the desert, roaring as it neared them.
\*[44.4\*]Then both Yalith and Eblis turned \*[44.5\*]and saw 
the lion rising to its hind legs ...
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters,
p. 47]
.)q
Sentences (43.1) and (44.3) are objective sentences:  (43.1) explicitly
says that the characters don't notice the man rise and leave, and
(44.3) explicitly says that Yalith doesn't hear the sound of the
lion who is galloping toward her.
The main verb phrase in each of these sentences
contains a negated perceptual private-state term.
.pp
Recall that we are not trying to identify a type of sentence that is
always objective, but a type of sentence that is not the
experiencer's subjective sentence.  Private-state sentences that cannot be
the experiencer's subjective sentence can be objective sentences.  To see
why this is so, consider how the algorithm processes the kinds of
private-states considered in the previous sections of this chapter
(i.e., those that are always subjective).  If there is some reason
to interpret the sentence as another character's subjective sentence (e.g.,
it appears in the continuing-subjective situation and the 
experiencer is not the last subjective character,
or there is an appropriate subjective element in the sentence), then
the algorithm does so.  Otherwise,
the algorithm interprets it to be the
.ul
experiencer's 
subjective sentence.
But if the sentence cannot be the experiencer's subjective sentence, then
the algorithm's choices are as follows:  interpret the
sentence as another character's subjective sentence if there
is reason to do so (as above), or
interpret the sentence to be 
.ul
objective.
Thus, if (43.1) were instead:
.(q
In their celebratory mood, the fools did not notice the 
young man rise from the
table beside them and leave the pub.
.)q
it 
.ul
would 
be a subjective sentence, but not the experiencer's.  As it naturally
appears (without the subjective element), (43.1) is objective.
.pp
However, that the perceptual term is negated is not sufficient to
ensure that the sentence is not the experiencer's subjective sentence.
Sentence (45.6) in the following passage contains a negated perceptual
private-state term, but it 
.ul
is
the experiencer's subjective sentence:
.(q
(45)
.br
     She [Meg] felt her father grab her by the wrist, there
was a terrible jerk that seemed to break every bone in her body,
then the dark nothing of tessering.
     If tessering with Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who, and Mrs. Which had
been a strange and fearful experience, it was nothing like
tessering with her father.  After all, Mrs. Which was experienced at it,
and Mr. Murry\(emhow did he know anything about it at all?  Meg
felt that she was being torn apart by a whirlwind.  She was lost
in an agony of pain that finally dissolved into the darkness of
complete unconsciousness. 
.sp
.ce
[Chapter Break]
.sp
     \*[45.1\*]The first sign of returning consciousness was cold.
\*[45.2\*]Then sound.  \*[45.3\*]She was aware of voices that seemed to be
traveling through her across an arctic waste.  \*[45.4\*]Slowly
the icy sounds cleared \*[45.5\*]and she realized that the voices belonged 
to her father and Calvin.  
.ul
\*[45.6\*]She did not hear Charles Wallace.
[L'Engle,
.ul
A Wrinkle in Time\c
, pp. 148-149]
.)q
The reader already knows that tessering is a form of time and space
travel, and that one loses consciousness when one tessers.  In sentences
(45.1)-(45.5), Meg is slowly regaining consciousness, and is just becoming
aware of her surroundings (which have changed because she tessered).
.pp
Before the Tesser, Meg was with Calvin, her father, and Charles Wallace.
In (45.2)-(45.6), she hasn't yet opened her eyes, but she can hear
some voices.  She recognizes her father's and Calvin's voices in (45.5).
Sentence (45.6), ``She did not hear Charles Wallace'', completes
her mental checklist of which of her expected companions made it through
the tesser with her.  Since (45.1) - (45.6) are her subjective sentences,
the reader doesn't know if Charles Wallace is
there or not;  the reader only knows what Meg is able to determine
from sound.  Perhaps Charles Wallace is there, but just hasn't said
anything within the range of her hearing.
.pp
In contrast, the man who rises from the table in (43.1) and the lion
galloping toward Yalith in (44.3) 
.ul
are 
definitely in the scene.
This is the criterion for the kind of 
potentially-objective private-state sentence with
a negated perceptual term identified in this section:  What
the experiencer does not perceive
is definitely in the scene.
Determining in general whether something is or is not in the scene requires
extensive knowledge that the algorithm does not possess.
But there are sentences with negated perceptual private-state terms
that have certain grammatical properties
for which it is certain that the object is in the scene.
This is the kind of potentially-objective private-state sentence
that the algorithm can recognize.
.pp
First, to be guaranteed that the sentence can be objective, the
main verb phrase has to be in the simple past.  That is, the experiencer
must not be perceiving 
something currently, now, in the story.
If the sentence
were in the shifted past, for example, the sentence could be the
experiencer's reflection that she did not perceive something at a
previous time.  Also, to denote a specific event of not perceiving,
the sentence cannot be habitual.  Finally, to denote an event
that actually occurs, there cannot be any modal auxiliary verbs or
modal adverbs (in particular, modal content disjuncts; see
Chapter 5, Section 9.3.13.4); this
excludes, for example,
.(q
She 
.ul
might
not see the man rise from the table.
.sp
.ul
Maybe 
she did not see the man rise from the table.
.)q
Note that these restrictions also partly determine whether a sentence
has an active character.
Of course, since (43.1),
(44.3) and (45.6) are all in the simple past, are not habitual
and have no modal auxiliaries or modal adverbs, these criteria 
are not sufficient.
.pp
One more criterion together with the ones already given
are sufficient:  if the grammatical object of 
the sentence
is clausal.  This does not include objects that are noun phrases within
which there is a clause, such as a relative clause, but only objects
that are themselves clauses.
Clauses that can appear in this linguistic context
are nonfinite; in particular, they are either
bare infinitive, -ing participle, or -ed participle clauses with
subjects (this terminology is from
Quirk et al. 1985):
.in +2
.sp
Bare Infinitive:  Meg did not hear 
.ul
Charles Wallace come up beside her.
.sp
-ing Participle:  Meg did not hear 
.ul
the lion galloping toward her.
.sp
-ed Participle:  Meg did not see 
.ul
Charles Wallace pushed over the edge.
.in 0
.sp
Non-finite clauses lack tense markers and modals (Quirk et al. 1985).
Thus, they cannot denote an event, for example, that might happen, 
that usually happens,
that already did happened,
or that will happen in the future (recall that `would' is used for
the future in narrative; see Chapter 1):
.(q
* Meg did not hear 
.ul
Charles Wallace might come up beside her.
.sp
* Meg did not hear 
.ul
Charles Wallace usually come up beside her.
.sp
* Meg did not hear 
.ul
Charles Wallace had come up beside her.
.sp
* Meg did not hear 
.ul
Charles Wallace would come up beside her.
.)q
When comprehending nonfinite clauses,
``We
recover meanings associated with tense, aspect, and mood from
the sentential context.'' (Quirk et al. 1985, p. 995).
If the main verb phrase is in the simple past, is not habitual, and no
modals appear,
then the nonfinite
clause denotes a specific event at the narrative WHERE and the narrative WHEN
that the experiencer does not 
perceive.  Note that a relative clause has no such restrictions:  
.(q
Slowly the icy sounds cleared and
she realized that the voices belonged to her father and Calvin.
She did not hear 
the man 
.ul
who had given her the key.
.)q
.in 0
.sp
The relative clause, ``who had given her the key'', denotes a past event.
.pp
To summarize, a sentence that has a negated perceptual private-state
verb, and an object that denotes something that is definitely 
in the scene, can be objective.  By using grammatical information, the
algorithm is able to recognize one specific kind of these:  the
verb phrase is in the simple past and is unmodalized; the
sentence is not habitual; and the object of the sentence
is clausal.  Note that (43.1) is such a sentence, but (44.3) is not:  although 
the lion is in the scene, the object of the sentence is ``the
rhythmic thud'' (which isn't
clausal).  Thus, the algorithm can recognize that (43.1) but not
that (44.3) is potentially objective.
.pp
How the algorithm processes potentially-objective private-state sentences
will now be
demonstrated.  Very few examples were found, so they
do not seem to be very common.  Perhaps they are more common in genres
that were not 
well represented in the texts considered
for this work (detective fiction, for example).
Passages (43) and (45) will be manipulated to show
various possibilities.
The passages have been simplified so that the sentence-level parser
can process them.  (Note that the parser requires that curly
braces mark the boundaries of noun phrases that contain relative clauses.)
.pp
When the algorithm encounters a private-state sentence that it knows is
potentially objective,
it has to decide if the sentence 
.ul
is 
objective
or if it is the subjective sentence of a character other than the
experiencer.
Here is a demonstration of the algorithm on a simplified version of (43).
Since there is no reason to interpret the sentence
as the subjective sentence of another
character, the algorithm interprets it to be objective.
.(q
.nf
Script started on Thu Jul 20 17:12:41 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Thu Jul 20 17:12:48 1989
sneps

: In her celebratory mood Anofi did not notice the young man rise from the table.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Potentially-objective private-state sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still presubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 12.366 gc= 2.083) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> ^D
script done on Thu Jul 20 17:17:47 1989
.)q
.fi
But suppose that the sentence contains a potential subjective element
that is always subjective, such as a question.  Then, even if Anofi
is a candidate after the previous sentence is processed, the algorithm does
not attribute the sentence to her, but to an unidentified subjective
character:
.(q
.nf
Script started on Thu Jul 20 18:11:45 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Thu Jul 20 18:11:53 1989
sneps

: Anofi was in the mood to celebrate.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Anofi
The subj_char is Anofi
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 6.150 gc= 2.183) <=) 

: Why did she not see the young man rise from the table?
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Anofi, the last subj_char 
Potentially-objective private-state sentence 
Anofi is the experiencer, and so isn't an expected subj_char after all 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  question
It is a subjective element 
New subj_char who is unidentified 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  question
The subj_char is b15 (unidentified)
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 11.800 gc= 0.00) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> ^D
script done on Thu Jul 20 18:17:22 1989
.)q
.fi
The sudden shift from one subjective context to another
that appears in this constructed passage is unexpected.  A
reader might consider other interpretations, for example that
`she' in the second sentence does not refer to Anofi.
.pp
Now consider passage (45), beginning with sentence (45.3).
It has been simplified as follows:
.(q
Meg was aware of some voices that seemed to be traveling across an
arctic waste.  Then she could hear.  She realized that the voices
belonged to her father and Calvin.  She did not hear Charles Wallace.
.)q
The last sentence does not have a clausal object, and so the algorithm
treats it as a normal private-state sentence, and interprets it to be
Meg's subjective sentence (which is the correct interpretation):
.(q
.nf
Script started on Thu Jul 20 18:45:09 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Thu Jul 20 18:45:15 1989
sneps

: Meg was aware of { some voices that seemed to be traveling across an arctic waste }.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Potential subjective element not considered: 
  seeming_verb
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Meg
The subj_char is Meg
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 10.283 gc= 2.116) <=) 

: Then she could hear.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Meg, the last subj_char 
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Meg
The subj_char is Meg
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 5.833 gc= 2.166) <=) 

: She realized that the voices belonged to her father and Calvin.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Meg, the last subj_char 
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Meg
The subj_char is Meg
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 15.316 gc= 2.233) <=) 

: She did not hear Charles Wallace.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Meg, the last subj_char 
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Meg
The subj_char is Meg
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 9.183 gc= 0.00) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Thu Jul 20 18:48:38 1989
.)q
.fi
Now suppose that the last sentence were ``She did not hear Charles Wallace
come up beside her'', which does have a clausal object.  The
algorithm has to choose whether the sentence is
objective or 
.ul
another
character's subjective sentence; since Meg is the only expected
subjective character
and there are no
subjective elements in the sentence, it is interpreted
to be objective.
.(q
.nf
Script started on Thu Jul 20 19:05:37 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Thu Jul 20 19:05:44 1989
sneps

: Meg was aware of { some voices that seemed to be traveling across an arctic waste }.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Potential subjective element not considered: 
  seeming_verb
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Meg
The subj_char is Meg
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 10.683 gc= 2.083) <=) 

: She realized that the voices belonged to her father and Calvin.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Meg, the last subj_char 
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Meg
The subj_char is Meg
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 15.216 gc= 2.183) <=) 

: She did not hear Charles Wallace come up beside her.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Meg, the last subj_char 
Potentially-objective private-state sentence 
Meg is the experiencer, so isn't an expected subj_char after all 
The sentence is not subjective 
Objective sentence in continuing-subj situation: 
  situation is now interrupted-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 14.750 gc= 2.283) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> ^D
script done on Thu Jul 20 19:10:22 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
The following demonstrations show that the algorithm does
not consider a private-state sentence to be potentially-objective
if it is in the shifted past, is habitual, or has
a modal auxiliary or adverb in the main clause.
The following sentences will be processed as one passage:
.(q
.sp
Meg realized that the voices belonged to her father and Calvin.
.sp
She did not hear Charles Wallace come up beside her
(potentially-objective, included for the sake of comparison).
.sp
She had not heard Charles Wallace come up beside her
(shifted past).
.sp
She often did not hear Charles Wallace come up beside her
(habitual).
.sp
She might not hear Charles Wallace come up beside her
(modal auxiliary).
.sp
Perhaps she did not hear Charles Wallace come up beside her
(modal adverb).
.)q
All but the second sentence (which is potentially objective) are
interpreted to be Meg's subjective sentences:
.(q
.nf
Script started on Thu Jul 20 19:36:08 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Thu Jul 20 19:36:15 1989
sneps

: Meg realized that the voices belonged to her father and Calvin.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Meg
The subj_char is Meg
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 10.400 gc= 2.183) <=) 

: She did not hear Charles Wallace come up beside her.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Meg, the last subj_char 
Potentially-objective private-state sentence 
Meg is the experiencer, so isn't an expected subj_char after all 
The sentence is not subjective 
Objective sentence in continuing-subj situation: 
  situation is now interrupted-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 12.983 gc= 2.116) <=) 

: She had not heard Charles Wallace come up beside her.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is interrupted-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Meg, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  shifted_past
It is not a subjective element 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Meg
The subj_char is Meg
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 14.266 gc= 2.283) <=) 

: She often did not hear Charles Wallace come up beside her.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Meg, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element not considered: 
  habitual
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Meg
The subj_char is Meg
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 14.600 gc= 2.233) <=) 

: She might not hear Charles Wallace come up beside her.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Meg, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  might
It is a subjective element 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  might
The subj_char is Meg
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 14.100 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Perhaps she did not hear Charles Wallace come up beside her.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Meg, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  modal_content_disjunct
It is a subjective element 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  modal_content_disjunct
The subj_char is Meg
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 13.966 gc= 2.250) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Thu Jul 20 19:40:45 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
In the following version of (45), 
there is an expected subjective character
other than the experiencer
when the last sentence is encountered, and, since there is a subjective
element in the sentence, it is interpreted to be the expected
subjective character's
subjective sentence.  Note that the subjective element, `poor',
is subordinated.  Since the experiencer can't be the subjective
character, the algorithm can consider subordinated subjective elements.
.(q
.nf
Script started on Thu Jul 20 20:06:11 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Thu Jul 20 20:06:17 1989
sneps

: Calvin realized that Meg could not hear him.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Calvin
The subj_char is Calvin
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 8.666 gc= 2.050) <=) 

: She did not hear poor Charles Wallace come up beside her.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Calvin, the last subj_char 
Potentially-objective private-state sentence 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  eval_adjective
It is a subjective element 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  eval_adjective
The subj_char is Calvin
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 12.333 gc= 2.133) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Thu Jul 20 20:09:20 1989
.)q
.fi
The final demonstration shows that if a potentially-objective
private-state sentence appears in the continuing-subjective
situation, does not have any subjective elements,
and the last subjective character is not the
experiencer, then the algorithm treats the sentence as it
does other kinds of private-state sentences:  It interprets
it to be the experiencer's subjective sentence.
The only difference between this and the previous versions is the
absence and presence of `poor', respectively.  The algorithm
reaches the same conclusion, but does so for different reasons.
.(q
.nf
Script started on Thu Jul 20 20:11:29 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Thu Jul 20 20:11:35 1989
sneps

: Calvin realized that Meg could not hear him.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Calvin
The subj_char is Calvin
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 8.883 gc= 2.116) <=) 

: She did not hear Charles Wallace come up beside her.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Calvin, the last subj_char 
Potentially-objective private-state sentence 
private_state of a character who isn't the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Meg
The subj_char is Calvin
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 12.216 gc= 2.150) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> ^D
script done on Thu Jul 20 20:14:28 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
There probably
can be instances of the kinds of potentially-objective private-state
sentences that the algorithm can recognize that
.ul
are
the experiencer's subjective sentence.  If the context strongly
suggests that such a sentence
.ul
is
the experiencer's subjective sentence, then the
simple past might be read as if it were the shifted past,
referring to a time
before the narrative WHEN, for example.
.pp
No examples were found of objective private-state sentences with unspecified
experiencers.  Who the experiencer of the private state denoted by
such a sentence might be has been left to future research.  The algorithm
simply assumes that these kinds of sentences never appear.
.sh 2 "Negated Factive Verbs"
It seems that a sentence with a simple-past negated factive verb and
a propositional object can be objective as well, but no
examples were found in the data.  Perhaps they might be found
in detective fiction.  Examples of factives are `know' and `realize'.
With a propositional object, the sentence explicitly says that the
experiencer doesn't know that something is the case.  The algorithm
treats these types of sentences exactly as it does the type discussed
above.  For example:
.(q
.nf
Script started on Thu Jul 20 20:16:45 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Thu Jul 20 20:16:51 1989
sneps

: Anofi wanted to talk to John.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Anofi
The subj_char is Anofi
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 6.416 gc= 2.050) <=) 

: She did not know that he was in the next room.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Anofi, the last subj_char 
Potentially-objective private-state sentence 
Anofi is the experiencer, so isn't an expected subj_char after all 
The sentence is not subjective 
Objective sentence in continuing-subj situation: 
  situation is now interrupted-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 10.416 gc= 2.250) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Thu Jul 20 20:19:40 1989
.)q
.fi
These types of sentences are to be contrasted with those in which
the object is a noun phrase.  
For example, ``She did not know
Mike's telephone number'' can easily be the experiencer's subjective
sentence
(Maida and Shapiro (1982) suggest that
`know' has two word
senses:  `know' in ``She did not know that John was in the next room''
is a different sense of the word than is `know' in ``But she
didn't know his telephone number''):
.(q
.nf
Script started on Thu Jul 20 20:27:40 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Thu Jul 20 20:27:47 1989
sneps

: Anofi wanted to talk to John.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Anofi
The subj_char is Anofi
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 6.483 gc= 2.066) <=) 

: But she did not know his telephone number.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Anofi, the last subj_char 
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Anofi
The subj_char is Anofi
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 9.750 gc= 2.233) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> ^D
script done on Thu Jul 20 20:30:47 1989
.)q
.fi
After reading the second sentence of this passage, the reader
might expect Anofi to try to find out what John's phone number
is.  However, after reading the second sentence of the previous
passage, which is objective, the reader does
.ul
not
expect Anofi to go into the next room to find John.
.sh 1 "OTHER USES OF PRIVATE-STATE TERMS."
There are some uses of private-state terms that do not have a role
in the algorithm's recognition of subjective sentences.  It was
found that they do not create expectations for later subjective sentences
as other uses do (see Section 17). 
These uses are in sentences that describe
behaviors.  The prototypical example is a manner adverbial,
e.g., 
.(q
Japheth looked at him 
.ul
in a puzzled manner 
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters,
p. 21]
.)q
The psychological term `puzzled'
does not establish expectations for later subjective sentences, because it
is not used in a private-state report, but in a description of a behavior.
In the
example, Japheth looks in such a way that an observer can infer that
he is puzzled.  Manner adverbials, even those with psychological terms,
are not considered by the algorithm.
Thus, this sentence is simply considered to be a perceptual
action, and is treated in the same way that the sentence
``Japheth looked at him'' is.
.pp
Here are
other examples of psychological terms that modify actions in some way and that
are not used by the algorithm to recognize the subjective sentence:
.(q
Japheth looked toward the barely visible creature, smiling in
recognition. [L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 22]
.sp
He smiled ruefully.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 22]
.)q
Both of the clauses with `smile' are treated just the same way
``He smiled'' is treated.  Similarly, the following sentence is treated
in the same way that the sentence ``Japheth looked at them'' is
treated:
.(q
Japheth looked at them anxiously. 
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 24]
.)q
.pp
Another use of private-state terms that is not considered by the
algorithm is in
the description of a facial expression.
For example:
.(q
Japheth nodded.  ``Grandfather Lamech's tent is closest.  My wife and
I''\(emhe flushed with pleasure as he said
.ul
my wife\c
\(em
``live halfway across the oasis, by my father's tent.''
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters,
p. 20; italics in original]
.)q
This sentence is treated in the same way as 
.(q
He flushed as he said
.ul
my wife
.)q
is treated.
.pp
Private-state terms in purpose clauses are also not 
considered by the algorithm.  For example:
.(q
He went to the store 
.ul
to see Mary.
.)q
is simply treated as an action.
.pp
Finally,
private-state terms used as the predicate of a discourse parenthetical
also do not give the algorithm expectations for later subjective sentences:
.(q
     If Joe was to get kilt I might court her again,'' Augustus
speculated.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 181]
.)q
Contrast the previous sentence with:
.(q
  ``If Joe was to get kilt I might court her again,'' Augustus said,
speculating that Call wouldn't get angry.
.)q
in which
`speculating' is not the predicate of the
discourse parenthetical, and so 
.ul
is 
used as a private-state term.
.sh 1 "LIST OF PRIVATE STATE TERMS."
This list is not intended to be exhaustive (and couldn't be). 
.sh 2 "Psychological Terms."
.sh 3 "Psychological Adjectives."
.ul
afraid, alert, angry, ashamed, aware, certain, conscious, curious, dying 
(e.g., ``He was dying to tell Lippy about it''),
.ul
eager, embarrassed, delighted, exasperated, frightened, frustrated, glad, 
.ul
happy, hurt, indifferent, indignant, impatient, loath to, miserable, proud, 
.ul
outraged, relieved, reminded, sad, satisfied, scared, shattered, sorry, 
.ul
sure, surprised, taken aback, tired, undecided, unhappy, used to
(e.g., ``He was used to the noise''),
.ul
wary, worried.
.pp
Two kinds of private-state sentences with psychological adjectives are
SC sentences:
.(q
John became angry.
.sp
John was unhappy.
.)q
and SVOC sentences:
.(q
He made John angry.
.)q
In the latter kind, the experiencer is the object of the sentence.
.pp
Subject or object complements with ``mood'' also denote private states:
.(q
He was in a bad mood.
.sp
It put him in the mood to celebrate.
.)q
.pp
Two of these adjectives, `certain' and `curious'
are potential subjective
elements rather than private-state terms if the thing modified is
inanimate or propositional.
In the following two sentences, they are
private-state terms:
.(q
The sound made John curious.
.sp
Mary was certain that John had been there.
.)q
But in the next two sentences,
they are potential subjective elements:
.(q
It was certain that it was about to rain.
.sp
The fact that she didn't send the letter was curious.
.)q
.sh 3 "Verbs."
.sp
(A) The experiencer is subject in an SVO sentence (e.g., ``John decided
to leave''), or the object in an
SVOC sentence if the psychological verb appears in the complement (e.g.,
``The letter made him decide to leave'').
.sp
.ul
believe, care
(e.g., ``He cared about Mary''),
.ul
check oneself
(e.g., ``He was about to inform her but he checked himself''),
.ul
consider, decide, despise, dwell
(e.g., ``He had begun to dwell on the incident''),
.ul
expect, figure 
(e.g., ``He figured that she wanted to go''), 
.ul
forget,
.ul
feel 
(e.g., ``He felt sad'' or ``He felt that John was asking too much'',
not used as a perceptual verb),
.ul
find 
(find oneself, e.g., ``He found himself in a large room'';
the special use of ``to find'' in, e.g., ``He awoke to find Mary gone'' but
not in ``He went to the library to find Mary'', where ``to
find'' is a purpose clause; ``find out''; or, e.g., ``He found it 
incredible''; but not, e.g., ``He found a sock''),
.ul
hate, hope, imagine
(e.g., ``He imagined himself sitting in a Porsche'' or ``He imagined
that she would be there''),
.ul
know, like, love, mean
(i.e., intend, e.g., ``He meant to find out''),
.ul
notice, realize, regret, remember, say to oneself, see
(e.g., ``He saw that she was unhappy''), 
.ul
sigh to oneself, suppose, tell that
(e.g. ``She could tell that he was angry''),
.ul
think
(``think that'', ``think of'', ``think about'', and just ``think'',
without an object),
.ul
tire, understand, want, wish, wonder, would rather, would sooner, yearn.
.sp
(B) The experiencer is the object in an SVO sentence (e.g., ``It surprised
him''), or the indirect object in an SVOO sentence (e.g., ``It surprised
him that Mary was here''; `him' is the indirect object and ``that Mary
was here'' is the direct object).
Note that
the 
past 
participle forms of most of these verbs correspond to 
psychological adjectives listed above, e.g., ``He was surprised'' (a
special case is `shamed' versus `ashamed').
Also, the 
.ul
present 
participle forms of some of these verbs correspond
to attitude adjectives, e.g., ``It was surprising'' (see Chapter 5).
Others correspond to attitude
adjectives with other forms, e.g., ``bothersome'' and ``scary''.
.sp
.ul
bother, cheer, come
(as in, e.g., ``A silly old hymn came to him''),
.ul
exasperate, frighten, frustrate, get to
(as in, e.g., ``The noise got to John'')
.ul
remind, satisfy, scare, shame, stop 
(when the subject is not something that physically stops object,
e.g., ``Gus's remark stopped him'', but not ``The barrier stopped
him from entering the room''),
.ul
strike
(e.g., ``It struck him that she was in love with him''),
.ul
surprise, worry.
.sh 3 "Psychological Nouns."
.ul
astonishment, composure, delight,
.ul
feeling 
(e.g., ``The feeling stayed with him all evening'',
``He had a bad feeling'', ``He rode with a good feeling in his heart''),
.ul
happiness, hatred, hope, misery, realization,
sense, spirits 
(e.g., ``His spirits fell when he read the letter''),
.ul
thought, urge, yearning.
.sh 2 "Perceptual Terms."
.sh 3 "Perceptual Verbs."
.ul
hear, see
(Note a special use of ``to see'' to denote a private state:  ``He
awoke to see nothing familiar''; but not, e.g., ``He went to the store
to see a movie'', where `see' is in a purpose clause),
.ul
smell 
(e.g., ``He smelled the coffee brewing'').
.sh 3 "Perceptual Nouns."
.ul
glimpse, vision
.sh 2 "Seeming State Sentences."
Recall from Chapter 5 that seeming verbs are potential
subjective elements.  Examples are `seem', `appear', and the perceptual
verbs `look', `feel', `smell',
`sound', and `taste' when the way
that something being perceived looks, feels or sounds is described.
Others are `mean', `prove' and `show' when used with inanimate
subjects.
For example:
.(q
He sounded/looked/seemed happy.
.sp
It looked/felt/appeared as if it was going to rain.
.sp
She appeared/seemed to be happy.
.sp
She looked pretty.
.sp
She touched him.  He felt cold.  
.sp
The telltale sign meant/proved that John had been there.
.)q
However, if there is a to-clause, as in the following:
.(q
It looked to Call as if it was over.
.sp
It felt to Newt like velvet.
.sp
He sounded/seemed/looked/appeared happy to Mary.
.sp
It proved/meant to him that she did not love him any more.
.)q
or, for ``show'', if the indirect object is animate, e.g.,
.(q
The rumpled bed showed him that Mary had been there.
.)q
then the event denoted by the sentence is a
.ul
seeming state.
Seeming-state sentences are treated exactly as private-state sentences are.
.sh 2 "Other."
Here are some private-state sentences that do not fit into
the above categories:
.(q
She shivered in spite of herself
.sp
He had a plan in mind
.sp
She was dizzy with fatigue
.sp
She smiled/sighed to herself
.)q
Of course, since metaphor can be used for private states, there is
a wide variability in private-state sentences.
Most, if not all, private-state sentences that employ
metaphor contain some psychological or perceptual term.  Here are two
examples:
.(q
The girl was clutching her composure to her heart.
[Caldwell,
.ul
No One Hears But Him\c
, p. 98]
.sp
Zoe's heart bounced.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 79]
.)q
.bp
.ls 1
.sz +2
.ce 10
b.
Chapter 7
.sp
Perceptual-Action and Psychological-Action
Sentences
.r
.sz -2
.ce 0
.ls 2
.sp 2
.sh 1 "INTRODUCTION." 1
Another kind of sentence that has a role in recognizing subjective
sentences is one that denotes a
.ul
psychological 
or 
.ul
perceptual action\c
, the topic of this chapter.
A psychological or perceptual action is an action associated with a private
state, but it is not a private state itself.  Because it is associated with
a private state, 
a sentence denoting it
can have the same role as a private-state
report; and because it is an action, it can have the same role as other
kinds of actions.
.pp
A 
.ul
psychological action
is an action performed because one experiences an emotion or other
kind of psychological private state.  Examples are sighing, frowning,
smiling, wincing, and grimacing.  Although the definition
of another type of action,
.ul
experiential action,
might be warranted in future research, experiential actions such as
shivering (with cold) are currently included in this category as well.
A psychological action reveals a psychological private state of the actor.
An observer who witnesses a psychological action can infer that there is
a private state expressed by that action.  For example, an observer who
witnesses a frown can infer that the actor is unhappy or
displeased with something.
In narrative, the psychological report ``She was happy''
is a direct report of the character's private state.  In contrast,
``She frowned'' narrates a psychological action from which unhappiness
or displeasure can be inferred, but it does not directly report the
character's private state.
.pp
A 
.ul
perceptual action
is an action performed in order to perceive something.
Examples are looking, glancing, scanning, and peering.  
The difference between a perceptual action
and its associated perceptual private state is not as obvious
as the difference between a psychological action and its associated
psychological private state.
Nevertheless, a perceptual report such as ``She saw
the man'' is a direct report of the character's perceptual state,
but a sentence such as ``She looked at the man'' narrates an action
from which perception can be inferred, but does not directly report the
perception.
Brinton (1980) notes this difference between perceptual-action terms and
private-state terms:  ``an author may report the perception from
an outer perspective with verbs such as
.ul
look, gaze, watch, 
and 
.ul
listen
or from an inner perspective with
.ul
see, smell, hear, perceive, 
and
.ul
become aware of'' 
(p. 370-371).
However, she does not investigate how perceptual-action and psychological-action
sentences are interpreted.
.pp
In a private-state report, a private state provides direct access to a 
character's
consciousness; as we have seen, the author is then free to continue
the subjective context without having to explicitly mark each sentence
as subjective, knowing that a competent reader will recognize the
continuation (if the text is plausible).
Consequently, the reader expects that the subjective context might
continue, and processes the text accordingly.
When a private state of one character appears in a
represented thought or perception of another character,
there is a
presumption on the part of the subjective character that she has 
knowledge of the experiencer's inner state, unless an evidential 
appears that qualifies this knowledge.  In this passage, for example,
.(q
(1)
.br
     \*[1.1\*]Call knew there was no point in arguing.  
\*[1.2\*]That was what Augustus
wanted:  argument.
\*[1.3\*]He didn't really care what the question
was, \*[1.4\*]and it made no great difference to him which side he was on.
\*[1.5\*]He just plain loved to argue. [McMurtry, 
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 16]
.)q
Call presumes to know that Augustus loves to argue for the sake of
arguing.  Perhaps no evidentials are included because Call and Augustus
have worked together for many years, and Call has had ample evidence to
conclude this.  In fact, this passage continues with Call's memory
of an incident in which Augustus actually endangered their safety by
arguing about something insignificant.
But in the following passage,
.(q
(2)
.br
     \*[2.1\*]Japheth, evidently realizing that they were no longer
behind him, turned around \*[2.2\*]and jogged back toward them,
seemingly cool and unwinded. [L'Engle, 
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 24]
.)q
the evidential `evidently' qualifies the subjective character's
presumption that Japheth
realizes that they are no longer behind him.
.pp
However,
a psychological-action or perceptual-action term refers to an
action, even though the action is associated with a private state.
This allows for objective interpretations of sentences with
these terms.
.pp
An author may want to communicate something about a character's
consciousness without establishing expectations for later
subjective sentences of that character.
She may want to do this
if those expectations would supplant already-established expectations
for subjective sentences of another character.
For example (at the beginning of this passage, the situation is 
postsubjective-nonactive and 
Sandy and Dennys are the last subjective character):
.(q
(3)
.br
     \*[3.1\*]\c
.ul
Japheth looked at them.
\*[3.2\*]``You are flushed.  And wet.''
\*[3.3\*]He himself
did not seem to feel the intense heat.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters,
p. 20]
.)q
The author wants to communicate that Japheth observes that the boys
are flushed and wet;  this observation, which can be 
inferred from the perceptual action in (3.1), motivates his quoted
speech in (3.2).  If (3.1) were Japheth's subjective sentence,
then Sandy and Dennys would no longer be an expected subjective character.
However, interpreted to be an objective action sentence,
(3.1) retains
Sandy and Dennys as an expected subjective character.
Since (3.2) is quoted speech, the situation is still
postsubjective-nonactive (Japheth has
not been the subjective character) and Sandy and Dennys are still an
expected
subjective character at the beginning of (3.3).
So, the algorithm is able to recognize that (3.3), which contains
the subjective element `seem',
is Sandy's and Dennys's subjective sentence.
Thus, sentence (3.1) communicates something about Japheth's consciousness
without supplanting the expectations for later
subjective sentences attributed to Sandy and Dennys.  Sentence (3.1) is 
an example of
a psychological-action sentence that functions as an action sentence 
for the purpose
of recognizing subjective sentences:  It is interpreted to
be objective, so a character who is an expected subjective character before
it is processed is still an expected subjective character after.
The same would be true if (3.1) were
another kind of action performed by Japheth.
Intuitively, the author does not want to shift from
Sandy's and Dennys's psychological point of view to Japheth's.
.pp
So, an alternative to using a subjective sentence to communicate
something about a character's consciousness is to use a
psychological-action or perceptual-action sentence 
from which a private state can
be inferred.  It can be interpreted to be an objective sentence, and
a character who is an expected subjective character before the sentence
is processed can be retained as an expected subjective character for
the interpretation of later sentences.
.pp
Although a sentence denoting a perceptual or psychological action
can be an objective sentence, it can also be
the subjective sentence of the actor.
For example:
.(q
(4)
.br
     \*[4.1\*]Zoe looked at the notebook. \*[4.2\*]On the first page Joe had
written WAR WORK in large block letters in red and
blue crayon. \*[4.3\*]On the next page he had written the date
\*[4.4\*]and under it all about seeing Miss Lavatier's boyfriend
in the vacant lot.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 47]
.)q
Interpreted as Zoe's subjective sentence, (4.1) makes the situation 
continuing-subjective and Zoe an expected subjective character at the
beginning of (4.2).
Since the shifted
past is a subjective element in the continuing-subjective situation,
the algorithm can recognize that
(4.2) is Zoe's subjective sentence.
.pp
A psychological-action or perceptual-action sentence that is 
interpreted to be the subjective
sentence of the actor functions in the same way as a private-state
report.
These sentences exploit the fact that
a private state is inferrable from the psychological or perceptual action.
.pp
A stronger appeal to a character's consciousness than
a psychological or perceptual action is typically used to establish
a character as the subjective character for the first time.
A private-state sentence
or a narrative parenthetical is generally
used to establish a first-time subjective character.
.pp
Typically, the actor of a
psychological-action or perceptual-action sentence that is the
actor's subjective sentence 
.ul
has 
been the subjective character;
and the actor of a psychological-action or perceptual-action sentence that is 
objective has
.ul
not 
been the subjective character.
There are other possibilities:  A perceptual-action or 
psychological-action sentence
can be interpreted to be the subjective sentence of a character other than
the actor.  It turns out that what is relevant is whether a 
perceptual or psychological action is treated as a private state
or as an action.  In previous chapters,
we have seen that a private-state sentence can be
interpreted in different ways, and that an action sentence can be interpreted
in different ways, but we have also seen that private-state and action
sentences
are treated differently from one another for the purpose of
recognizing subjective sentences.  Since there are many possibilities,
the best way to explain the algorithm's treatment of psychological and
perceptual actions is to show the heuristic used, and then
motivate the heuristic through examples that illustrate various
possibilities.
.pp
Before proceeding, there are two points that need to be made.  First,
observations of published texts motivated the algorithm's treatment
of perceptual and psychological actions.  The above discussion 
of the nature of psychological and perceptual actions is
offered as an explanation for what was found in the data.  Second, the
fact that the algorithm's treatment of perceptual and psychological actions
is heuristic must be emphasized.  The heuristic is based on what was found
in the data, and it is a good one because it reflects
what authors tend to do.
It is sometimes clear that a reader could have
arrived at the proper interpretation without using the heuristic, even
if the heuristic does lead to the proper interpretation.
It can be hypothesized, however, that although the heuristic is not
always strictly necessary, it does correspond to expectations 
that facilitate a reader's comprehension of the text.
The heuristic is useful for the questions it
raises:  under what circumstances is it needed to arrive 
at the correct interpretation?
Under what circumstances is it not strictly necessary, but facilitates
comprehension?  And, under what circumstances does it play no role
at all in the reader's comprehension of the text?
These are worthwhile questions for future
investigation.
.sh 1 "CHOOSING THE EVENT TO CONSIDER."
In choosing the event to consider out of those denoted by
clauses in the current sentence, if
the actor of a psychological or perceptual action has been
the subjective character, then only a private state or seeming
state takes precedence over the perceptual or psychological action.
The algorithm's complete rule for choosing the event to consider
out of those denoted in the current sentence is the following:
.(q
If the main clause denotes a private state or seeming state
           then the event denoted by the main clause is chosen
.br
Else if the main clause denotes a perceptual or psychological action and the actor has been the subjective character
           then the event denoted by the main clause is chosen
.br
Else if any clause denotes a private state or seeming state,
           then one of these events that is not subordinated to a private state is chosen at random
.br
Else if any clause denotes a perceptual or psychological action and the actor has been the subjective character
           then one of these events is chosen at random
.br
Else the event denoted by the main clause is chosen.
.)q
.sh 1 "TREATMENT AS A PRIVATE STATE OR ACTION."
The algorithm uses the following rule to decide whether to treat
a psychological or perceptual action as a private state or as an action:
.(q
(PA)
.br
If the situation is continuing-subjective and the last subjective character is not the actor,
   \*[1\*]then a psychological or perceptual action is treated as an action
.br
Elseif the actor (or each of the actors if more than one) has been the subjective character,
   \*[2\*]then a perceptual or psychological action is treated as a private state
.br
Else \*[3\*]the perceptual or psychological action is treated as an action.
.)q
The general cases are handled by branches (2) and (3):  whether or not the
actor has been a subjective character determines whether the psychological
or perceptual action is to be treated as a private state or as an action.
Branch (1) handles a special case:  a perceptual or
psychological action that appears in the continuing-subjective situation 
and the last subjective character is not the actor.
In this case, the perceptual or
psychological action is treated as an action.  This choice is
somewhat arbitrary, because
neither a private-state sentence nor an
action-sentence is ever interpreted by the algorithm to begin a new subjective
context in the continuing-subjective situation.  
.pp
The following is a passage for which the algorithm uses branch (1) of
rule (PA).  Both Jake and Lorena have been the subjective character.
.(q
(5)
.br
     \*[5.1\*]Jake awoke not long after dawn to find Lorena up before him. 
\*[5.2\*]She sat at the foot of the bed, her face calm,
.ul
watching the first red light stretch over the mesquite flats. 
\*[5.3\*]He would have liked to sleep, to hide in
sleep for several days, make no decisions, work no cattle, just drowse.
\*[5.4\*]But not even sleep was really under his control.
\*[5.5\*]The thought that he had to get up and leave town\(emwith Lorie\(emwas 
in the front of his mind, and it melted his drowsiness. 
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 212]
.)q
Sentence (5.1) is Jake's subjective sentence, so the situation at the
beginning of (5.2) is continuing-subjective and Jake is the
last subjective character.
Treating (5.2) as an action-sentence (branch 2 of rule (PA)), the 
algorithm interprets (5.2) to be objective.
Jake's subjective context is resumed  
by (5.3).  If (5.2) were treated as a private-state sentence, the 
algorithm would interpret it to
be part of Jake's subjective context, which might
be a better interpretation.  In any event, the important thing is
that (5.2) be interpreted in such a way that it does 
.ul
not
begin a new subjective context with Lorena as the subjective character.
.pp
It may be that if there has not been a subjective sentence so far
in the text, then a perceptual or psychological action can make
the actor the subjective character for for the first time.  To be
conservative, the algorithm does not allow this to occur.
.pp
Branches (2) and (3) will be illustrated by cases
below.
Before they are,
an example is presented to illustrate the narrative
strategy for which rule (PA) is designed.
When this passage is encountered, Amy, but not Helen, has been the
subjective character.  Amy and Helen are conversing:
.(q
(6)
.br
Amy hurried over to her.
     ``Hi, Helen,'' she said pleasantly.
     ``Oh\(emhi,'' Helen answered, jumping over an assortment of books on 
the ground, and following the
other players as they wove in and out between the
books.
     ``Uh\(emHelen,'' Amy continued, ``can I see you for a
minute?''
     Helen stopped jumping \*[6.1\*]\c
.ul
and looked at her.
``What do
you want?'' she asked.
     ``In private,'' Amy explained.
     She led Helen over to an unoccupied corner of the
yard.
     ``What is it?'' said Helen.
     Amy put her books on the ground between her legs,
\*[6.2\*]\c
.ul
and looked at Helen's feet.
     ``Cynthia told me you're having a Halloween party,''
she said, and waited.
     ``That's right,'' Helen answered, and waited.
     ``Well, I just wondered,'' Amy continued, \*[6.3\*]\c
.ul
looking at her own feet now, 
``I mean, I understand most of the
girls in the class are going, and I just wondered\(emwell\(em(oh, how she 
hated Helen!)\(emI wondered if you forgot
to ask me.'' She took a deep breath, \*[6.4\*]\c
.ul
and looked right up at Helen.
     \*[6.5\*]There was a serious frown on Helen's face, \*[6.6\*]\c
.ul
so Amy looked down at her own feet again.
[Sachs,
.ul
Amy and Laura\c
, p. 15-16; my italics]
.)q
Both Amy and Helen perform looking actions in this passage (Amy
in (6.2), (6.3), (6.4) and (6.6);  Helen in (6.1)).
If a looking-action sentence is
the subjective sentence of the actor, then the text often continues
with a represented perception of what that character sees.
Note that sentence (6.5) is such a represented perception:  Amy looks
up at Helen (sentence (6.4)), and sees that there is a frown on Helen's
face.  This causes Amy to look away from Helen's face 
to avoid meeting Helen's frown (sentence (6.6)).  However,
there is no represented perception in the 
passage of what Helen sees when she looks at something; instead,
Helen's looking action (sentence (6.1)) is followed by her quoted speech.
.sh 1 "EXAMPLES."
This section contains examples that illustrate the use of branches (2) and (3)
of rule (PA).
Rule (PA) leads to correct interpretations of
these examples; without it, the algorithm's interpretations would
be incorrect.
The italics in these passages are mine unless otherwise
indicated.
In addition, it should be assumed that a scene break does
not occur and that a sentence does not have an active character
unless explicitly indicated.  Note that if a psychological or
perceptual action is treated as an action by rule (PA), then it
does not have an active character, since a character is the
active character only if she has been the subjective character.
.pp
Section 5 gives a list of perceptual and psychological actions
and Section 6 shows exceptions to rule (PA).  The chapter concludes
with a passage that is an interesting test of the algorithm's
treatment of perceptual and psychological actions.
.sh 2 "Psychological and Perceptual Actions Treated as Actions."
In these examples, the actor has not been a subjective character,
and so the psychological or perceptual action is treated as an action
(branch 3 of rule (PA)).
.sh 3 "Prior Expectations Persist."
In the passages cited in this section, 
the last subjective character is an expected subjective character 
when a psychological-action 
or perceptual-action sentence is encountered, and the last subjective 
character is not the actor.
In addition, the actor has not been the subjective character.
So, the psychological-action or perceptual-action sentence is
not interpreted to be the actor's subjective sentence, and
the character who was the last subjective character 
before the sentence is still the last subjective character after.
Then, by virtue of being an expected subjective character,
that character becomes the subjective character of a later subjective
sentence.
If the psychological or perceptual action were instead interpreted to
be the subjective sentence of the actor, then the actor would
replace the last subjective character, resulting in
the incorrect attribution of a later subjective
sentence to the actor of the psychological or perceptual action.
.pp
Thus, in these passages, expectations that persist over
a perceptual or psychological action are used by the algorithm to
correctly interpret later sentences.
.(q
(7)
.br
     \*[7.1\*]``Aha!''  \*[7.2\*]Joe Bunch bent over his notebook.
\*[7.3\*]\c
.ul
Then he looked up.
\*[7.4\*]\c
.ul
He
had a strange expression. 
\*[7.5\*]``What thing in the paper?'' he said.
     \*[7.6\*]``Didn't you read it?''
     \*[7.7\*]Joe looked funny.  \*[7.8\*]``Haven't had time,'' he said.
\*[7.9\*]``Plan to do it later.''
     \*[7.10\*]``I'll tell you about it.''
\*[7.11\*]Zoe felt kind.  \*[7.12\*]Joe Bunch was a terrible reader. 
\*[7.13\*]He was always being tutored.  \*[7.14\*]Sometimes she forgot that.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 49; original italics in (6.4)]
.)q
At the beginning of this passage, the situation is postsubjective-nonactive 
and Zoe is the last subjective character.
Sentence (7.3) is a perceptual-action sentence, and the actor has not been
the subjective character.  Since (7.3) is therefore treated as an 
action-sentence,
it is interpreted to be objective, and the situation is still
postsubjective-nonactive and Zoe is still the last subjective character.
The algorithm recognizes that (7.4) is Zoe's subjective sentence
because the subjective element `strange' appears.
If (7.3) were instead
interpreted to be Joe's subjective sentence, then the situation
at the beginning of (7.4) would be continuing-subjective and
Joe would be the last subjective character.
The
algorithm would interpret (7.4) to be Joe's subjective sentence.
Although this interpretation does not seem plausible, it
is not impossible:  If a reader did consider this
interpretation, she would have to consider whether Joe is observing
his own expression, in a mirror or in a picture, for example, or even whether
`he' in (7.4) refers to someone other than Joe.\**
.(f
\**As will be discussed in Chapter 8, there can be anaphoric references
in narrative to entities who are not in focus.
.)f
Even if after considering all possibilities the reader decides that the most
plausible interpretation of (7.4) is that it is Zoe's subjective sentence,
much computational effort would have been expended in the process.
The role hypothesized for rule (PA) in a reader's comprehension of the
text is that it can make this additional processing unnecessary:  if
the suggested interpretation is plausible, the reader can simply accept
it without considering alternative possibilities.
.pp
Here is a demonstration of the algorithm on (7.2)-(7.4):
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 21:32:30 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 21:32:36 1989
sneps

: Initialize situation to postsubj-nonactive.
The situation is now postsubj-nonactive

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.233 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char to Zoe.
Zoe is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.883 gc= 2.216) <=) 

: Joe bent over his notebook.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Zoe, the last subj_char 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still postsubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 6.083 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Then he looked up.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Zoe, the last subj_char 
Perc_action of Joe treated as an action:  Actor has not been the subj_char 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still postsubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 5.200 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: He had a strange expression.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Zoe, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  attitude_adjective
It is a subjective element 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  attitude_adjective
The subj_char is Zoe
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 7.100 gc= 2.333) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Mon Jul 24 21:37:03 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
Before proceeding to the next example, passage (7) will be used
to illustrate another reason that the algorithm might need to
treat a perceptual or psychological action as an action:  If the actor
has not been a subjective character, then even if it makes no difference
locally
to the algorithm's interpretation of the passage, it is important that the
perceptual or psychological action not be interpreted as
the actor's subjective sentence.  The reason is that interpreting
it to be the actor's subjective sentence would affect the
algorithm's treatment of all subsequent perceptual or psychological actions
that that character performs.  The following passage appears 
.ul
earlier
in the novel than
passage (7):
.(q
     \*[8.1\*]Joe Bunch stopped at the edge of the lot \*[8.2\*]\c
.ul
and squinted his eyes.
\*[8.3\*]``Let's cut across,'' he said.
     \*[8.4\*]``We could,'' said Zoe, \*[8.5\*]``but what'll happen is we'll
get lost in the sumac.''
     \*[8.6\*]``Oh, good grief!'' Joe said. \*[8.7\*]``How could we?''
     \*[8.8\*]``Listen, Joe, that sumac is way over our heads.''
     \*[8.9\*]``Well, I'm going through it,'' Joe said.
     \*[8.10\*]``Well, I'm not.''  \*[8.11\*]Once she'd said it Zoe wished she hadn't, because now she'd have to stick by it. 
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 22]
.)q
The algorithm interprets (8.2), Joe's perceptual-action sentence,
to be an objective
sentence, but this is not necessary to the algorithm's
interpretation of the rest of this passage.
In particular, the next subjective sentence, (8.11), is a 
private-state sentence
that is interpreted to be a private-state report, and how the
algorithm interprets (8.2) does not affect 
its interpretation of (8.11).
However, if (8.2) were treated as a private-state sentence, it would be
interpreted to be Joe's subjective sentence (since it doesn't
appear in the continuing-subjective situation and it contains no
subjective elements).
Then, when passage (7) is encountered later,
Joe would have been the subjective character, (7.3) would be treated
as a private-state sentence, and, as discussed above, the algorithm would
incorrectly interpret (7.4) to be Joe's subjective sentence.
This issue is discussed further in Section 6.1, below.
.(q
(9)
.br
     \*[9.1\*]\c
.ul
The old man and Japheth looked at Higgaion. 
\*[9.2\*]Higgaion raised his trunk toward the roof hole of the tent.
\*[9.3\*]The rosy glow had faded, 
\*[9.4\*]and the old man and Japheth and Higgaion were barely 
visible shadows in the tent.  \*[9.5\*]There was
a sudden flash, \*[9.6\*]and Sandy could see the shimmering silver
body of a unicorn.  \*[9.7\*]But no Dennys.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 32-33]
.)q
At the beginning of this passage, the situation is postsubjective-nonactive 
and Sandy is the last subjective character.
Sentence (9.1) is a perceptual-action sentence and the actors have not
been the subjective character.  Thus, the situation is still
postsubjective-nonactive and Sandy is still the last subjective character
at the beginning of (9.4).  The algorithm correctly
interprets
(9.4) to be Sandy's subjective sentence since it contains the
subjective elements `barely' and `visible'.
If (9.1) were treated as a private-state sentence, it would
be interpreted to be the old man's and Japheth's subjective sentence.
In this case, the situation at the beginning of (9.4) would
be interrupted-subjective and the old man and Japheth would be the
last subjective character.
The algorithm would therefore incorrectly interpret (9.4) to be
their subjective sentence rather than Sandy's.
.sh 3 "Allows a Private-State Sentence To Be Interpreted As A Report."
In this example, treating a psychological action as an
action enables the
algorithm to recognize that a subsequent
sentence is a private-state report of a character other
than the actor of the psychological action.
.(q
(10)
.br
     ``Just start writing,'' she [Amy] told herself.  ``Write
anything.''  But her pencil poised motionlessly above the paper.  ``Rosa,
write Rosa!'' she said to herself.  ``You know she's really your best
friend\(emnot just when she's mad at somebody but all the time.''  And
it was true.  Rosa never made fun of her the way Cynthia often did.
Never said she was a coward or skinny or disgusting.  Rosa never pushed
her around, or whispered secrets in somebody else's ear about her.
\*[10.1\*]``Write Rosa!'' she thought to herself.
     \*[10.2\*]But there were other thoughts too: of high adventure
in Crotona park, of the glory when she followed after
Cynthia in scaling Indian Rock and driving off their
foes, of the feel of her palm stinging when Cynthia
played handball with her in the schoolyard, of the joy
when Cynthia whispered in her ear about somebody
else.
     \*[10.3\*]Rosa put her pencil down, \*[10.4\*]leaned back in her seat,
\*[10.5\*]\c
.ul
and smiled over at Amy.
\*[10.6\*]All around her, she could hear
the rustling sound of children finished with their work.
     \*[10.7\*]I have to write something--anything, she thought
desperately.  I know, I know. I won't write about either
of them.  Frantically she began.
[Sachs,
.ul
Amy and Laura\c
, pp. 28-29]
.)q
Sentences (10.1) and (10.2) are Amy's subjective sentences.
A paragraph break follows, and
sentences (10.3)-(10.4) are objective sentences.  Rosa has not
been the subjective character, and so she is not the active
character of these sentences, even though they denote her current
actions.  Thus, the situation at the beginning of (10.5)
is postsubjective-nonactive.
Sentence (10.5) is a psychological-action sentence.
Since the actor, Rosa, has not been the subjective character,
the algorithm treats 
the psychological action as an action, and interprets
(10.5) to be objective.  So, the situation at the beginning of
(10.6) is still postsubjective-nonactive.
Sentence (10.6) is a private-state sentence.
Since (10.6) has no subjective elements and does not appear
in the continuing-subjective situation, the algorithm interprets
it to be Amy's subjective sentence.
If (10.5) were instead
treated as a private-state sentence, it would be interpreted
to be Rosa's subjective sentence (since, as above, it has no subjective
elements and does not appear in the continuing-subjective situation).
The situation at the beginning of (10.6) 
.ul
would 
be continuing-subjective, and the algorithm would incorrectly 
interpret (10.6) to be Rosa's rather than Amy's subjective sentence.
.sh 3 "Subordinated Subjective Elements Can Be Considered."
If a psychological-action or perceptual-action sentence is treated 
as an action-sentence, then the algorithm can consider 
all subjective elements, even subordinated ones (i.e., 
subjective elements that are in the scope of the perceptual or
psychological term; see Chapter 5).
On the other hand, if it is treated as a private-state sentence, then
subordinated subjective elements cannot be considered.
In these examples, subordinated subjective elements appear
in a perceptual-action or psychological-action sentence,
the actor has
not been the subjective character, and the algorithm uses the
subordinated subjective elements to recognize that the sentence
is an expected subjective character's
subjective sentence.
.(q
(11)
.br
     \*[11.1\*]Sandy also shortened Japheth's name.  \*[11.2\*]``What's 
that, Jay?''  
\*[11.3\*]The
mammoth pushed its head under Sandy's hand, \*[11.4\*]and he began to scratch
between the great fan-like ears.
     \*[11.5\*]\c
.ul
Japheth looked toward the barely visible creature, smiling in recognition.
\*[11.6\*]``Oh, that's a unicorn.''
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 22] 
.)q
At the beginning of this passage, the situation is postsubjective-nonactive 
and Sandy and Dennys are the last subjective character.  Sentences
(11.1)-(11.4) are objective, and so the situation at the
beginning of (11.5) is still postsubjective-nonactive and Sandy and
Dennys are still the last subjective character.
Since Japheth has not been the subjective
character, (11.5) is treated as an action-sentence.  There are two subjective
elements within the scope of `looked':  the modifying 
intensifier
adverb `barely'
and the percept term `visible'.  Because (11.5) is
treated as an action-sentence, the algorithm can use these subjective elements
to correctly
interpret (11.5) to be Sandy's and Denny's subjective sentences.
The appearance of `creature' in (11.5) is interesting.
As will be discussed in Chapter 8, references in subjective sentences
reflect the subjective character's beliefs.  One situation in
which this is significant is if a reference reflects the subjective
character's lack of knowledge.  One type of reference that can indicate a
lack of knowledge is one that contains a superordinate-level rather
than a basic-level term (cf., e.g., Rosch et al. 1976 and
Rosch and Lloyd 1978 for descriptions of basic-level categories), 
e.g., `person' rather than
`man' or `woman', or `animal' rather than `dog' or `cat'.
In (11.5), `creature' reflects Sandys and Dennys's inability to
categorize the referent at the basic level;  they don't know what the
creature is.  On the other hand, the
actor of the perceptual action, Japheth,
.ul
does 
know what it is (he specifically says, ``Oh, that's a unicorn.'').
Following is a demonstration of the algorithm on (11.5):
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 23:06:39 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 23:06:46 1989
sneps

: Initialize situation to postsubj-nonactive.
The situation is now postsubj-nonactive

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.283 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char to Sandy and Dennys.
Dennys and Sandy is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 2.050 gc= 2.350) <=) 

: Japheth looked toward the barely visible creature, smiling in recognition.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Dennys and Sandy, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective elements considered: 
  percept_term
  modifying_intensifier_adverb_B
Both of these are subjective elements 
Subjective context established by these features: 
  percept_term
  modifying_intensifier_adverb_B
The subj_char is Dennys and Sandy
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 12.300 gc= 0.00) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Mon Jul 24 23:11:40 1989
.)q
.fi
.(q
(12)
.br
\*[12.1\*]They [Amy and Gladys]
hurried up the stairs of Gladys' house, \*[12.2\*]opened her
door, \*[12.3\*]and hurried into the apartment.
     \*[12.4\*]``Ma, Ma,'' Gladys called, \*[12.5\*]``can I take one of your
brown shoes?''
.ul
     \*[12.6\*]Gladys' mother was listening to a program on the
.ul
radio.
\*[12.7\*]``Why do you need one of my brown shoes?''
she said mildly, still listening to the program.
     \*[12.8\*]``Just for a scavenger hunt. I'll bring it right back.''
     \*[12.9\*]\c
.ul
Gladys' mother laughed in response to something funny that was being said on the radio.
\*[12.10\*]``All right,''
she said good-naturedly, ``take one of the old ones.''
[Sachs,
.ul
Amy and Laura\c
, p. 72-73]
.)q
The situation at the beginning of this passage is postsubjective-nonactive and
Laura is the last subjective character.
This is
the first time Gladys's mother appears in the novel, and so she hasn't
been the subjective character.
There are two perceptual actions performed by Gladys's mother
in this passage:  one denoted by (12.6), the other by (12.9).
There are only three potential subjective elements in this passage:
the progressive in (12.6), and `something' and `funny' in (12.9).
The progressive is only a subjective element in the continuing-subjective 
situation,
and since (12.6) begins a paragraph,
there is no way for the progressive in (12.6) to be a subjective element.
Since there are no potential subjective elements that can be 
subjective elements
before (12.9),
the situation is still postsubjective-nonactive, but either
Amy or Gladys's mother is the last subjective character.
Gladys's mother would be the last subjective character at the beginning
of (12.9) if her
perceptual action denoted by
(12.6) is treated as a private state.  For the algorithm to correctly
interpret this passage, both of Gladys's mother's perceptual actions
have to be treated as actions.  Since this is the way that the
algorithm treats them, and since therefore the algorithm can
consider potential subjective elements subordinated to a clause
denoting a perceptual action treated as an action,
the algorithm correctly interprets (12.9) to be Amy's 
subjective sentence.  Under
this (correct) interpretation, it 
is Amy, not Gladys's mother, who does
not know what Glady's mother laughed at (that is, `something' is
attributed to Amy).
.sh 2 "Treated As a Private State."
We now turn to passages that contain a psychological or perceptual 
action of a character who
.ul
has
been a subjective character,
and so the action is treated as a private state rather than as an
action (branch (2) of rule (PA)).  In these passages, the algorithm needs 
to treat the action as a private state in order to arrive at correct
interpretations.
.sh 3 "Necessary For Potential Subjective Elements To Be Subjective."
In these passages, 
the algorithm needs to treat a perceptual action as a private state 
in order to recognize that the next sentence is subjective.  Specifically,
the algorithm recognizes that the next sentence is subjective because
it contains
a potential
subjective element that is associated only with the continuing-subjective 
situation.
.(q
(13)
.br
     \*[13.1\*]\c
.ul
Back in her own office in the executive suite, Christine looked briefly into Warren Trent's, 
\*[13.2\*]but the hotel proprietor had not yet
come down from his fifteenth-floor apartment.  \*[13.3\*]The morning mail was
stacked on her own desk, \*[13.4\*]and several telephone messages 
required attention
soon.  \*[13.5\*]She decided first to complete the matter which had taken her
downstairs.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 93-94]
.)q
Sentence (13.2) is in the shifted past,
a potential subjective element associated only with
the continuing-subjective situation.
Since Christine has been
a subjective character, (13.1), her perceptual-action sentence,
is treated as a private-state sentence.
Sentence (13.1) is the first sentence of the paragraph and so
does not appear in the continuing-subjective situation, and
it contains no subjective elements.  Thus, if (13.1) were a
private-state sentence, it would be interpreted to be Christine's
subjective sentence.
Sentence
(13.1) is therefore interpreted to be Christine's subjective sentence.
Then,
the situation at the beginning of (13.2) is continuing-subjective,
so the shifted past in (13.2) is a subjective element, and the
algorithm is able to recognize that (13.2) is Christine's subjective sentence.
If (13.1) were instead treated as an action-sentence, 
Christine would be its active character, but the situation at the
beginning of (13.2) would not be continuing-subjective and
the shifted past would 
.ul
not 
be a subjective element.  So, the
algorithm would not be able to recognize that (13.2) is Christine's
subjective sentence.
.(q
(14)
.br
     \*[14.1\*]\c
.ul
Zoe looked at the notebook.
\*[14.2\*]On the first page Joe had
written WAR WORK in large block letters in red and
blue crayon.  \*[14.3\*]On the next page he had written the date
\*[14.4\*]and under it all about seeing Miss Lavatier's boyfriend
in the vacant lot.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 47]
.)q
Just as in the previous example, the sentence following a
perceptual-action sentence is in the shifted past and contains
no other potential subjective elements (sentences (14.1) and (14.2)).
Thus, (14.1), Zoe's perceptual-action sentence
must be treated as a private-state sentence in order for the algorithm to
recognize that (14.2) is subjective.  Zoe has been the subjective character,
so this is the algorithm's interpretation.
Here is a demonstration:
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 22:42:21 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 22:42:29 1989
sneps

: Initialize situation to postsubj-nonactive.
The situation is now postsubj-nonactive

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.283 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char to Zoe.
Zoe is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.900 gc= 2.250) <=) 

: Zoe looked at the notebook.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Zoe, the last subj_char 
Perc_action of Zoe treated as a private_state:  Actor has been the subj_char 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  perc_action of Zoe
The subj_char is Zoe
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 6.533 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: On the first page Joe had written some words in large letters.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Zoe, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  shifted_past
It is a subjective element 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  shifted_past
The subj_char is Zoe
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 11.750 gc= 2.350) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> ^D
script done on Mon Jul 24 22:51:16 1989
.)q
.fi
.(q
(15)
.br
     \*[15.1\*]\c
.ul
Jake looked around.
\*[15.2\*]She [Lorena] was standing in her shift, a little red spot
on one cheek where he had slapped her, a lick that made no impression
on her at all. \*[15.3\*]It seemed to him there was never much time with
women.  \*[15.4\*]Before you could look at one twice, you were 
into an argument, 
and they were telling you what was going to happen.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 209]
.)q
The progressive aspect is a subjective element only in the
continuing-subjective situation.
Sentence (15.2) is Jake's subjective
sentence, and for the algorithm to recognize that it is,
the perceptual action denoted by (15.1) must be treated
as a private state.  Since Jake has been the subjective character, the
algorithm does treat it as a private state, and correctly
interprets (15.1) to be Jake's subjective sentence.
.sh 3 "Nonprivate states."
In this example, a subjective sentence follows a perceptual-action sentence,
and the algorithm can recognize that it is subjective only because it
is a nonprivate-state sentence appearing in the continuing-subjective 
situation.
It appears in the continuing-subjective situation only
because the perceptual-action sentence preceding it
is treated as a private-state sentence.
.(q
(16)
.br
     \*[16.1\*]He [Peter] was interrupted by Flora Yates, 
his homely freckle-faced secretary.
\*[16.2\*]Flora's stuffy fingers, which could dance over a typewriter keyboard
faster than any others he had ever seen, were clutching a sheaf of telephone 
messages.
\*[16.3\*]Pointing to them, he asked, ``Anything urgent?''
     \*[16.4\*]``A few things.  They'll keep until this afternoon.''
     \*[16.5\*]``We'll let them, then.  I asked the cashier's office to send me 
a bill for room 1126-7.  It's in the name of Stanley Dixon.''
     \*[16.6\*]``It's here.''  \*[16.7\*]Flora plucked 
a folder from several others on his desk.
\*[16.8\*]``There's also an estimate from the carpenters' shop for 
damages in the suite.  I put the two together.''
     \*[16.9\*]\c
.ul
He [Peter] glanced over them both.
\*[16.10\*]The bill, which included several
roomservice charges, was for seventy-five dollars, \*[16.11\*]the
carpenters' estimate for a hundred and ten.  \*[16.12\*]Indicating the bill,
Peter said, ``Get me the phone number for this address.  I expect it'll be 
in his father's name.''
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 111]
.)q
Peter has been a subjective character, so his perceptual action denoted
by (16.9)
is treated as a private state.  If (16.9) were a private-state sentence,
the algorithm would interpret it to be the experiencer's
subjective sentence:  (16.9) begins a paragraph and so doesn't
appear in the continuing-subjective situation, and it has no
subjective elements.
Sentence (16.9) is therefore interpreted
to be Peter's subjective sentence. 
Then,
the situation at the beginning of (16.10) is continuing-subjective and
Peter is the last subjective character, enabling the
algorithm to recognize that (16.10), a nonprivate-state sentence
with no subjective elements, is Peter's subjective sentence.
If (16.9) were instead treated as an action sentence, the
situation at the beginning of (16.10) would not be continuing-subjective,
and the algorithm would not be able to recognize that (16.10) is
subjective.
.sh 3 "Subordinated Subjective Elements Are Not Considered."
Subjective elements subordinated to a private-state term
cannot be
used to decide who the subjective character is (see Chapter 5).
This rule applies as well to perceptual-action or 
psychological-action sentences that are treated
as private-state sentences.  For example:
.(q
(17)
.br
     \*[17.1\*]That was 
true. \*[17.2\*]They had unpacked in the dark and made a mess of
it.  \*[17.3\*]Jake was looking 
for a whiskey bottle that wasn't where he thought
he'd put it.  \*[17.4\*]It was plain camping wasn't a neat way of life.
\*[17.5\*]There was
no place to wash, \*[17.6\*]and they were carrying very little water, which was
the main reason she had refused Jake.
\*[17.7\*]She [Lorena] liked a wash \*[17.8\*]and felt he
could wait until they camped near a river and could splash a little of
the dust off before bedding down.
     \*[17.9\*]\c
.ul
Augustus watched them eat the poor burned breakfast.
\*[17.10\*]It was eternally
amusing, the flow of human behavior.  \*[17.11\*]Who could have predicted Jake 
would be the one to take Lorena out of Lonesome Dove?
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 228]
.)q
Augustus has been a subjective character, and so (17.9), his
perceptual-action sentence,
is treated as a private-state sentence.  Thus, although there
is a subjective element in (17.9)\(emthe evaluative 
adjective `poor'\(emit cannot be used to interpret the sentence, because
it is subordinated to `watch'.  If `poor' 
.ul
were 
considered
in the decision, then (17.9) would instead be interpreted to be 
.ul
Lorena's 
subjective sentence,
the expected subjective character at the beginning of (17.9).
Here is a demonstration of the algorithm on modified versions of
(17.7)-(17.9):
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 23:23:48 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 23:23:53 1989
sneps

: Previous_subj_char Augustus.
Augustus has been the subj_char 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.900 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Previous_subj_char Jake.
Jake has been the subj_char 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.833 gc= 2.233) <=) 

: Initialize situation to continuing-subj.
The situation is now continuing-subj

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.200 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char to Lorena.
Lorena is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.916 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Lorena liked to wash.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Lorena, the last subj_char 
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Lorena
The subj_char is Lorena
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 5.050 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: She thought that Jake could wait awhile.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Lorena, the last subj_char 
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Lorena
The subj_char is Lorena
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 8.283 gc= 2.300) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Lorena, the last subj_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is broken-subj 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.300 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Augustus watched them eat the poor burned breakfast.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is broken-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Lorena, the last subj_char 
Perc_action of Augustus treated as a private_state:  Actor has been the subj_char 
Potential subjective element not considered: 
  eval_adjective
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  perc_action of Augustus
The subj_char is Augustus
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 10.933 gc= 0.00) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Mon Jul 24 23:30:15 1989
.)q
.fi
.sh 2 "Nonsubordinated Subjective Elements."
Subordinated subjective elements were considered in Sections 
2.1.4 and 2.2.3,
above.  This section is included to show that, just as for other
kinds of sentences, non-subordinated subjective elements make a
perceptual-action or psychological-action sentence the
expected subjective character's subjective sentence.
.(q
(18)
.br
     \*[18.1\*]Of course, he [Jake] 
could run:  he wasn't chained to the bedpost or
to the friends either.  \*[18.2\*]There was Mexico, right out the window.
\*[18.3\*]But
what would that get him?  \*[18.4\*]Mexico was even more violent than Texas.
\*[18.5\*]Mexicans were always hanging Texans to make up for all the Mexicans
Texans hung.
\*[18.6\*]If hanging was all he had to look forward to, he'd rather
take his in Arkansas.
     \*[18.7\*]\c
.ul
Lorie was watching him with a strange heat in her eyes.
\*[18.8\*]It wasn't
because he had slapped her either.  
\*[18.9\*]He felt she was reading his mind\(emsomehow most women 
could read his mind. 
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, pp. 209-210]
.)q
At the beginning of this passage, the situation is broken-subjective and
Jake is the last subjective character.
Sentences (18.1)-(18.6) are his subjective sentences.
The situation at the beginning of (18.7) is broken-subjective and
Jake is the last subjective character.
The subjective element `strange' in (18.7) appears in a clause that modifies
`watching', and so is a non-subordinated subjective element.  Sentence
(18.7) is therefore Jake's, and not Lorie's, subjective sentence,
even though Lorie has been the subjective character (and so even though
(18.7) is treated as a private-state sentence).
The following is a demonstration of the algorithm on (18.7).  The
prepositional phrase is preposed to avoid an ambiguity that the
parser cannot resolve:  whether a prepositional phrase following
a noun phrase should be attached to the noun phrase or to the
verb phrase (a famous example of this problem is ``She saw the
man on the hill with a telescope'').
.(q
.nf
Script started on Tue Jul 25 01:15:43 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Tue Jul 25 01:15:49 1989
sneps

: Previous_subj_char Lorena.
Lorena has been the subj_char 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.983 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize situation to broken-subj.
The situation is now broken-subj

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.200 gc= 2.266) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char to Jake.
Jake is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.983 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: With a strange heat in her eye, Lorena was watching him.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is broken-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
Perc_action of Lorena treated as a private_state:  Actor has been the subj_char 
Potential subjective elements considered: 
  progressive
  attitude_adjective
Of these, the following is a subjective element: 
  attitude_adjective
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  attitude_adjective
The subj_char is Jake
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 13.066 gc= 0.00) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Tue Jul 25 01:21:10 1989
.)q
.fi
.(q
(19)
.br
     \*[19.1\*]She [Amy] watched hopefully as Laura brought the bike
back to Helen.  \*[19.2\*]Maybe now.  \*[19.3\*]``Laura,'' Amy called,
rising and walking over to her, \*[19.4\*]``are you ready now?''
     \*[19.5\*]\c
.ul
Laura looked at her with that irritating, faraway look in her eyes. 
\*[19.6\*]``Soon, soon,'' she said, \*[19.7\*]and turned
\*[19.8\*]and hurried over to Roslyn Beckerman, who was riding
Gloria Fernbach's bike.
[Sachs,
.ul
Amy and Laura\c
, p. 151-152]
.)q
Sentences (19.1) and (19.2) are Amy's subjective sentences.  Sentences
(19.3) and (19.4) are objective, and a paragraph break follows
(19.4); so, the situation at the beginning of (19.5) is
postsubjective-nonactive, and Amy is the last subjective character.
The subjective element
`irritating' appears in a clause that modifies `look' in
(19.5), so (19.5) is Amy's subjective sentence, even though Laura
has been a subjective character (and so (19.5) is treated as
her private-state sentence).
.sh 1 "LIST OF PERCEPTUAL-ACTION AND PSYCHOLOGICAL-ACTION TERMS."
This section contains a partial
list of psychological-action and perceptual-action 
terms.
Note that 
.ul
communicative actions 
are not perceptual or psychological actions.
Examples of communicative actions are nodding one's head in agreement;
shaking one's head in disagreement; and shrugging one's shoulders.
They are actions performed with the purpose of communicating,
often in response to what a conversational partner says.
.sp
(A) Psychological Actions:
.in +2
.ul
chuckle, beam
(meaning 
.ul
smile\c
),
.ul
frown, grimace, grin, laugh, scowl, sigh, shiver, shudder, smile, 
.ul
snort 
(used without an
object, e.g., ``She snorted'' rather than ``She snorted cocaine''),
.ul
start
(used without an object, e.g., ``The man spoke and she started'' rather
than ``She started the car''),
.ul
wince
.in 0
.sp
(B) Perceptual Actions:
.in +2
.ul
examine, gaze, glance, prick up 
(where the subject is the actor's ears, e.g., ``John's ears pricked up''),
inspect
(with ones eyes; not inspect the troops, e.g.), 
.ul
listen, look 
(the dynamic verb, not the copula, e.g., ``She looked 
at Mary'' rather than ``She looked happy''), 
.ul
peer, scan, squint, stare, study, survey, 
(with ones eyes, not survey a property, e.g.),
.ul
watch
.sp
.in 0
Some of the perceptual action terms require further discussion.
First, it may not seem that 
studying 
and 
examining
are clearly perceptual actions rather than private states.
These involve not only attending one's gaze to something for a period
of time, but also reading or looking at it with concentration.
The motivation for considering these to be psychological actions are the
examples found in texts.  Note that an observer can usually
tell that someone is concentrating by observing that person's facial expression.
So, a person can be
observed to be studying or examining something because
her gaze is fixed
on an object for a period of time and because she has a certain expression on
her face.  In contrast, someone cannot be observed seeing or
hearing something.
.pp
The other perceptual action terms that
require discussion are `watch' and `listen'.
It is not at all clear that a person can be observed watching or
listening to something.  However, these are more observable than
seeing and hearing are.  It seems that `watch' and `listen' might
require special treatment; that is, they might be more likely
to appear in the actor's subjective sentence than, e.g., `look' and `glance'
are.
The special treatment that `watch' and `listen' might
require has been left to future research.
.pp
So, `examine', `study', `watch', and `listen' are not
prototypical perceptual action terms, and
errors can be expected with `watch' and `listen'.
Nevertheless, the algorithm does consider them to be
perceptual action terms.
It is interesting to note that these terms are
easily used with the progressive, e.g., 
.(q
He was examining/studying/listening to/watching Mary.
.)q
whereas the
private state perceptual terms are not so easily used with the progressive,
e.g.,
.(q
He was seeing/hearing Mary.
.)q
Whether a verb can be easily used with the progressive is one test
used to classify an English verb as grammatically stative or
dynamic.
And, although these grammatical categories do not strictly correspond
to the distinction between states and actions (a categorization
that cannot itself be classically defined) (Quirk et al. 1985),
treating 
`watch', `listen', `examine', and `study' 
as actions rather than as private states is consistent
with the fact that they are grammatically dynamic. 
.sh 1 "EXCEPTIONS."
This section discusses exceptions to rule (PA) that were found in the
texts considered.
.sh 2 "Insignificant Subjective Sentences."
The passages cited in this section suggest
that rule (PA)'s criterion for treating a character's psychological and
perceptual actions as private states\(emthat the character
has been the subjective character\(emshould be more stringent.
.pp
The following passage causes the algorithm to misinterpret sentences
that appear in later passages.  This is the first appearance of Yalith
in the novel, and so no subjective sentences of which she is
the subjective character have appeared before this passage.
.(q
(20)
.br
     The tent flap opened enough to let a girl through, a girl about the
size of the old man, barely four feet tall.  She carried a shallow stone
bowl which contained oil and a softly burning wick.  By its light, which was
brighter than the moonlight, which had moved beyond the roof
hole, Sandy could see that the girl, who wore only a loincloth, like
Japheth and Grandfather Lamech, was gently curved, with small rosy
breasts.  Her skin was the color of a ripe apricot.  Her softly
curling hair was a deep bronze, which glimmered in the lamplight and fell
against her shoulders.
She looked, Sandy thought, about his age, and suddenly his burning skin
was not as painful as it had been, and he felt energy returning to his
limbs.  He got to his knees and stood to greet her, bowing clumsily.
     \*[20.1\*]\c
.ul
She saw him 
\*[20.2\*]and almost dropped the stone lamp.
\*[20.3\*]``A giant!'' 
     \*[20.4\*]The mammoth reached up with his trunk to Sandy,
\*[20.5\*]and Grandfather Lamech 
said, ``He says that he is not a giant, dear Yalith.  Japheth carried
him here, and they tell me that there is another one just 
like him, but he went out with a unicorn.  Japheth is looking for
him.  This one''\(em\*[20.6\*]he beamed 
at Sandy\(em\*[20.7\*]``appears to be human, and he
just saved Higgaion from the manticore.''
     \*[20.8\*]Yalith shuddered.
\*[20.9\*]``I heard it screeching and going off with a rat.''
\*[20.10\*]She put her stone lamp on a wooden keg.
\*[20.11\*]``I've brought your night-light, Grandfather Lamech.''
     \*[20.12\*]``Thank you, my dear.''  \*[20.13\*]There was a 
deep tenderness in the
old man's voice.
     \*[20.14\*]Sandy bowed again.
\*[20.15\*]``Hello.  My name's Sandy Murry.''  \*[20.16\*]He could
not keep a foolish grin off his face.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters,
pp. 36-37]
.)q
The problem arises with (20.1).  It is a private-state sentence, and since
it contains no subjective elements and it doesn't appear
in the continuing-subjective situation (it begins a new paragraph),
it is
interpreted to be a private-state report, that is, Yalith's subjective sentence.
Now Yalith has been
the subjective character.
Thus, any
subsequent perceptual or psychological actions
performed by Yalith are treated as private states.  
Because of this,
the algorithm incorrectly interprets the following later passage:
.(q
(21)
.br
     \*[21.1\*]``The United States,'' Sandy said, though he knew it would 
mean nothing to this beautiful, strange girl [Yalith].
   \*[21.2\*]The girl smiled at Sandy, 
\*[21.3\*]and the warmth of her smile enveloped him.
[p. 57]
.)q
Because Yalith became a subjective character in passage (20),
the algorithm treats (21.2) as a private-state sentence, and interprets it
to be Yalith's subjective sentence.  Thus, the situation at the
beginning of (21.3) is continuing-subjective and Yalith is the
last subjective character.  Sentence (21.3) is a private-state sentence,
and the algorithm incorrectly interprets
(21.3) to be Yalith's subjective sentence.
.pp
The fact that Sentence (20.1) makes Yalith an expected subjective
character has no effect on the local interpretation of this
passage.  The next subjective sentence is (20.16), which is
a private-state sentence that does not appear in the continuing-subjective 
situation and that does not contain a non-subordinated subjective
element; thus, it is interpreted to be the experiencer's subjective
sentence.
If a subjective sentence does not affect the local interpretation of the
text, then it seems unlikely that it could affect the global
interpretation, i.e., the interpretation of later psychological-action
and perceptual-action sentences.
Rule (PA) should consider whether there has been a significant
subjective context attributed to the actor, not just whether the
actor has been the subjective character of
.ul
any 
subjective sentence, however insignificant its subjectivity is to
understanding the local passage in which it appears. 
.pp
Recall that Banfield (1982) and Galbraith (forthcoming) do not
consider all private-state reports to be subjective
sentences (see Chapter 6).  I believe that
they would not consider
sentence (20.1) to be subjective.
The fact that expectations do not arise from (20.1) that are
needed to interpret later subjective sentences might be significant to
this distinction.
.sh 2 "The Actor Has Often Been the Subjective Character."
This section cites a passage that is simply an exception to rule (PA).
No reasonable modification of rule (PA) would lead the algorithm
to correctly interpret it;  instead, information that the
algorithm does not have is needed.
It involves the following situation:  Despite 
the fact that there have
been many clear subjective sentences attributed to the actor,
his psychological action should not be treated as a private state,
but should instead be treated as action.  A passage of the same kind
is cited at the end of Section 8.
.pp
Lorena and Augustus are conversing.  Both have
been the subjective character.
.(q
(22)
.br
\*[22.1\*]She had stopped feeling silent \*[22.2\*]and was content to
let him loll for a few minutes.
     \*[22.3\*]``Well, do you and Jake aim to marry?'' he asked,
\*[22.4\*]\c
.ul
looking at her cheerfully.
     \*[22.5\*]``He ain't mentioned it,'' she said. 
\*[22.6\*]``He's taking me to San Francisco, though.''
     \*[22.7\*]\c
.ul
Augustus snorted.
\*[22.8\*]``I figured that was his game,'' he said.
     \*[22.9\*]``He promised,'' Lorena said.
\*[22.10\*]``I mean to hold him to it, Gus.''
     \*[22.11\*]``You'll need my help then,'' Augustus said.
\*[22.12\*]``Jake is a slippery eel.  The only way to keep him around 
is to chain him to a wagon.''
     \*[22.13\*]``I can keep him around,'' Lorena said confidently.
     \*[22.14\*]``Oh, he fancies you,'' Augustus said.
\*[22.15\*]``But that don't mean he'll stay around.
My guess is he'll use the drive as an excuse when the time comes.''
     \*[22.15\*]``If he goes with it, then I'm going too,'' she said.
     \*[22.16\*]``Why, Lorie, you're welcome, as far 
as I'm concerned,'' Augustus said.
\*[22.17\*]``The problem is Call. He ain't very tolerant of women.''
     \*[22.18\*]That was no news.
\*[22.19\*]Captain Call was one of the few men in the
region who had never been to visit her.  In fact, so far as she could
remember, he had never been in the saloon.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 192-193]
.)q
Since Augustus has been the subjective character, the algorithm treats
(22.4) and (22.7) as private-state sentences, and interprets them
to be Augustus's
subjective sentences.  Therefore, Augustus replaces Lorena as the 
last subjective character
(sentences (22.1) and (22.2) are her private-state reports).
Sentence (22.18) is obviously Lorena's reaction to what Augustus just
said, but since Augustus rather than Lorena is the last subjective character
when it is encountered,
the algorithm incorrectly interprets it to be Augustus's
subjective sentence.
.sh 1 "A FINAL EXAMPLE."
To conclude this chapter, a passage that is an interesting test
to rule (PA) is cited.
It is from
.ul
Amy and Laura
by Marilyn Sachs,
a novel that was considered after rule (PA) was developed.
In the first chapter,
which is
called ``Amy'',
Amy is the main character and the only subjective character.
In the second chapter, which is called ``Laura'', Laura is the main
character.  When Amy and Laura are in the scene together, Laura is
the only subjective character.
It is interesting to see how expectations for Laura's subjective
sentences are maintained
when Amy is present in the scene.  Rule (PA) predicts
that perceptual and psychological actions performed by Amy
cannot be used without care to communicate Amy's inner states:  Since
Amy has been a subjective character, a perceptual or psychological action
can make her an expected subjective character. 
.pp
Here is a passage from Chapter 2, ``Laura'', in which there are appeals 
to Amy's
inner states, but which does not shift to Amy's psychological point of view:
.(q
(23)
.br
     \*[23.1\*]The day had started almost like any other day.
\*[23.2\*]Almost, but not quite.
\*[23.3\*]Because this was the day before Mama came home, so it
was a special day,
\*[23.4\*]and Laura felt happy to begin with.
\*[23.5\*]Breakfast had been somewhat scantier than usual, 
since Aunt Minnie had so many odds and ends to tie up.
\*[23.6\*]Laura sliced a banana into her bowl of cold cereal, 
\*[23.7\*]sprinkled raisins and brown sugar on top,
\*[23.8\*]and poured milk over the whole
thing.
\*[23.9\*]She helped herself to two pieces of toast with
jelly,
\*[23.10\*]and drank a glass and a half of milk.
     \*[23.11\*]``Do you want an orange, Laura?'' suggested Aunt Minnie.
     \*[23.12\*]``Okay.''  Laura began peeling her orange, \*[23.13\*]\c
.ul
and watched Amy looking in disgust at her uneaten bowl of cereal.
     \*[23.14\*]``What's the matter, Amy?'' Aunt Minnie said, trying 
to sound patient.
     \*[23.15\*]\c
.ul
Amy pushed away her bowl.
\*[23.16\*]``I don't like corn flakes,'' she said.
\*[23.17\*]``I like French toast.''
     \*[23.18\*]``I don't have time this morning to make you French
toast,'' Aunt Minnie said, the patience fading in her
voice.  \*[23.19\*]``Come on, and eat your cereal now.''
     \*[23.20\*]\c
.ul
``I like pancakes too,'' Amy continued sullenly.
     \*[23.21\*]``I don't have time to make you pancakes either this morning!'' 
screamed Aunt Minnie.
     \*[23.22\*]\c
.ul
``I'm not hungry,'' Amy said, shrugging her shoulders, 
\*[23.23\*]\c
.ul
and rising from the table.
\*[23.24\*]``I'm not eating any thing.''
     \*[23.25\*]\c
.ul
Amy's picky eating habits were a source of great concern to grownups.
\*[23.26\*]Even Aunt Minnie, who was
always busy, gave up some of her valuable time every
day to prepare special dishes to tempt Amy's uncertain
appetite.
     \*[23.27\*]``You're a selfish brat,'' Laura said pleasantly, peeling
the white inside skin from her orange.  \*[23.28\*]``Mama's coming
home tomorrow, and nobody has time to fuss over
you. So sit down, and eat your breakfast like a good,
little girl or you can starve to death.''
     \*[23.29\*]\c
Amy pushed her chair back with great dignity 
\*[23.30\*]\c
.ul
and walked out of the room, her nose in the air.
[Sachs,
.ul
Amy and Laura\c
, p. 38-39]
.)q
Sentences (23.15), (23.22), and (23.23) are simply actions performed by Amy.
Sentence (23.13) contains Amy's perceptual action (`looking'), but it
is subordinated to Laura's perceptual-action term (`watched', which
is treated as a private-state term since Laura has been the subjective
character).  Sentence (23.20) communicates Amy's mood by
indicating how her voice sounds (`she continued sullenly').
Finally, (23.29)-(23.30), the sentences in which Amy gets up
and leaves the scene, 
contain the
manner adverbial `with great dignity' and the description ``her nose
in the air''; from these, something about her mood can be inferred.
Thus,
Amy's inner states are suggested in sentences (23.13), (23.20),
(23.29) and (23.30), but
none of these sentences replace Laura as the expected
subjective character.
Thus, Laura remain the expected subjective character throughout the passage.
.pp
However, rule (PA) does not work perfectly in
.ul
Amy and Laura:
.(q
(24)
.br
     \*[24.1\*]Amy's sobs could be heard very distinctly outside
the door.  \*[24.2\*]Laura took a deep breath, \*[24.3\*]opened the door,
\*[24.4\*]and followed the sobs into the living room. 
\*[24.5\*]Amy was a
miserable little bundle in one corner of the couch,
\*[24.6\*]and Mama, in the wheel chair, was leaning over her.
     \*[24.7\*]\c
.ul
Amy looked up as Laura entered the room, 
\*[24.8\*]and her
sobs grew into howls.
\*[24.9\*]Mama also looked up, \*[24.10\*]and before
Laura could say anything, she said, kind of bewildered, 
``Laura, is all this true?''
     \*[24.11\*]``But, Mama...'' Laura began.
     \*[24.12\*]``I can hardly believe it,'' Mama interrupted.
\*[24.13\*]``Did you actually report Amy to her teacher?  Report YOUR
OWN SISTER?''
     \*[24.14\*]There it was again\(emthat ``your own sister'' business.
\*[24.15\*]She never, in a million years, thought Mama would
say that.
[Sachs,
.ul
Amy and Laura\c
, p. 93]
.)q
At the beginning of this passage, the situation is postsubjective-nonactive 
and Laura is the last subjective character.
Sentence (24.1) is a private-state sentence with 
an unspecified experiencer, and is Laura's subjective sentence.
So, when 
(24.7) is encountered, Laura is the last subjective character.  
The algorithm treats
(24.7) as a private-state sentence and interprets it to be
Amy's subjective sentence.  Because if this, Amy, and not Laura,
is the expected subjective character at the beginning of (24.15) and
the algorithm incorrectly
interprets (24.15) to be Amy's subjective sentence.
However,
Rule (PA) works for the majority of perceptual and psychological
actions in
.ul
Amy and Laura\c
, a text considered after rule (PA) was developed.
.bp
.ce 10
.sz +2
.b
Chapter 8
References in Narrative Text
.r
.ce 0
.sz -2
.sp
.ls 2
.sh 1 "INTRODUCTION." 1
This chapter addresses a difference in the way that specific references 
are understood
in third-person narrative
text from the way they are understood in conversation.
.ul
Specific references
are references to particular entities, e.g., `a car' in (A) as opposed
to `a car' in (B), `the car' in (C), or `the winner of tomorrow's race'
in (D):\**
.(f
\**
For some AI work on the kinds of 
references italicized in (B), (C), and (D),
called 
.ul
non-specific, generic, 
and 
.ul
attributive
(Donnellan 1966),
respectively,
see Woods 1975; Webber 1981, 1983; Appelt 1985;
Fawcett 1986; Fawcett and Hirst 1986; Kronfeld 1986; and
Peters and Shapiro 1987ab.
.)f
.(q
(A) John bought 
.ul
a car 
yesterday.
.sp
(B) John wants to buy 
.ul
a car, 
but he hasn't chosen one yet.
.sp
(C) 
.ul
The car 
is a four-wheeled vehicle.
.sp
(D) 
.ul
The winner of tomorrow's race 
will receive a prize.
.)q
The difference
concerns the 
set of beliefs with respect to which the propositional content of a specific
reference
is understood.
The 
.ul
propositional content 
of a specific reference
are the propositions attributing to the referent the attributes
used to refer to it.
For example, the propositional content of `Mary' is that the referent is 
named `Mary',  the propositional content of `the car' is that the referent
is a car, and the propositional content of `he' is that the referent
is male.
The propositional content is objective information
conveyed by the reference.
During language comprehension, however, the recipient (the hearer or reader)
must determine the set of beliefs with respect to which this information
is to be understood:  for example,
her
own beliefs, or what she believes the producer (the speaker
or writer) or some other agent believes, or what she believes that
she and the producer mutually believe.
The set of beliefs that she chooses affects her acquisition of
beliefs about other agents' beliefs and also how she understands
utterances that are inconsistent with her own beliefs.  These are 
important concerns in AI, in particular to work on the role of
nested belief in language comprehension
(cf., e.g., Cohen and Perrault 1979; Allen and Perrault 1980;
Sidner and Israel 1981;
Wilks and Bien 1983; 
Rapaport and Shapiro 1984; Fawcett 1986; Fawcett and Hirst 1986; 
Rapaport 1986; Horton 1986; Horton and Hirst 1988)
and work on user modeling (cf., e.g., Kobsa 1984, 1985;
McCoy 1985; Kass and Finin 1987).
.pp
In the remainder of this chapter, it should be assumed that
any references under consideration are specific references.
.sh 1 "REFERENCES IN CONVERSATION."
In conversation, references are directed by the speaker toward
the hearer. 
To understand a reference,
the hearer cannot just consider her own beliefs, or even just what she believes
the speaker believes;  she may also have to consider 
what she believes the speaker
believes that she believes, and so on.
Clark and Marshall 1981 and Perrault and Cohen 1981 describe some of
the complexities of this process.
.pp
Clark and Marshall show the potential relevance of
an infinite conjunction of beliefs 
which comprise the speaker and hearer's 
.ul
mutual beliefs:
.(q
(MB)  S believes that P, and S believes that H believes that P, and S believes 
that H believes that S believes that P ... 
.)q
where `S' stands for the speaker, `H' stands for
the hearer, and P is the proposition mutually believed.
Clark and Marshall point out that speakers and hearers cannot really consider
an infinite series of conjuncts during processing, and they suggest some 
heuristics that speakers and hearers might use to assess their 
mutual beliefs in a finite amount of time.
.pp
Perrault and Cohen show that beliefs acquired privately about objects,
people, places, etc., can ``override'' some of the conjuncts of mutual belief.
They give the following example, adapted from Donnellan 1966:
.(q
(Ex1)
S and H are at a party.  They watch together as water and gin are being
poured in two identical glasses and given to women W1 and W2, respectively.
Unbeknownst to H, S sees W1 and W2 exchange glasses.  Later S tells 
H: ``The woman with the martini is the mayor's daughter.'' [Perrault and Cohen
1981, p. 222]
.)q
The speaker is referring to W2, even though she herself
does not believe that W2 is the woman with the martini.  However, she believes
that the 
.ul
hearer 
believes that W2 is the woman with the martini, and, since the hearer
doesn't know that the speaker has changed her belief, the speaker also 
believes that the hearer still believes that the 
speaker and hearer mutually believe that W2 is the woman with the martini.
.pp
Of course, from the hearer's 
perspective, the reference does reflect the series of conjuncts in (MB).
However, the hearer can also acquire a private belief that affects her
understanding of the speaker's reference.
Cohen, Perrault, and Allen (1982, p. 257) give the
following example (I have replaced `system' by `hearer'
and `user' by `speaker'):
.(q
(Ex2)
Suppose that at first hearer and speaker agreed that Kirk was the captain
[of the Enterprise].  Then suppose that the hearer found out through
direct, private access to the Enterprise that Kirk had been replaced
by Spock.  The hearer would therefore believe that Spock was the
captain, while believing that the speaker believed that Kirk was.
The speaker's utterance of ``the captain of the Enterprise'' still clearly
identifies Kirk, and should be understood as such by the hearer.
.)q
The hearer understands that the user is referring to Kirk because
although the hearer believes that Spock is the captain,
she believes that the speaker believes that Kirk is
the captain and also that the speaker still believes that the
hearer and speaker mutually believe that Kirk is the captain.
.pp
Perrault and Cohen show through example that any finite number of
the conjuncts of (MB) might not be true for a successful reference; what is
required, taking the hearer's perspective, is some nested belief of the form
.in +2
.sp
H believes that S believes ... (MB).
.in 0
.sp 
If a more nested environment than H believes (MB) is required,
then the hearer understands the reference in spite of some private belief
that
she holds or some private belief that she believes that the speaker holds.
Note that Cohen 1978 specifies a finite representation of mutual belief.
.pp
The importance of this discussion for our purposes is that the
hearer cannot consider only what she believes or only what the speaker
believes in order to understand references in conversation.  She has to
consider what she believes that the speaker believes that she believes, and 
she has to
distinguish what she privately believes (and what she believes that
the speaker privately believes) from what they mutually believe.
.pp
Before leaving this discussion of conversation to consider
narrative text, there is something obvious about conversation that needs
to be noted, so that objective sentences can be contrasted with it.
In conversation, a hearer always has the option of
questioning the veracity of the
speaker's utterances.\**
.(f
\**
The hearer may also question the speaker's sincerity.
.)f
Even the most gullible
listener with the greatest belief in the speaker's authority might
question the truth of the speaker's utterances.  There is always the
possibility that if things start to sound too preposterous,
doubt will begin to creep into the listener's mind.
In particular, the hearer can 
question the propositional content of references.
That is,
the hearer may believe that a reference
reflects an incorrect belief of the speaker (as discussed
previously in this section).  The
hearer may understand that the speaker herself holds the incorrect belief,
she may understand that the
speaker holds an incorrect belief about what the hearer believes, and so on.
.sh 1 "REFERENCES IN OBJECTIVE CONTEXTS."
Objective sentences narrate events independently of any
character's consciousness.
The major difference between objective sentences and conversation 
is that the reader does not
question the truth of an objective sentence.
In conversation, people talk about a reality to which they have
independent access,
but 
objective narration actually creates the
fictional world, to which the reader has no other recourse but 
through the text itself
(Hamburger 1973, Kuroda 1973b, Banfield 1982):
.(q
A fictional narrative statement is immune
to judgments of truth or falsity; in fiction, [these judgments] are 
suspended.  It is inappropriate to say that a fictional statement is false.
Rather, it creates by fiat a fictional reality which can only be taken
as fictionally true. [Banfield 1982, p. 258]
.)q
.pp
For example, consider a reader's response to the following narrative
statement, assuming that she interprets it to be objective: 
.(q
(a) Shea Stadium was a large stadium in Chicago. 
.)q
Even if the reader knows where Shea
Stadium and Chicago are, she does not question the truth of (a), but
instead simply updates her model of the fictional world.  That is,
even though she might believe that Shea Stadium is in Flushing Meadow
in the real world, from (a) she understands that Shea Stadium
is in Chicago in the fictional world that is being created.
(Chicago and Shea Stadium may themselves turn out to be completely
different in the fictional and the real worlds.)
.pp
A reader understands that the propositional content of references in
objective contexts is (fictionally) true.
This means that the reader does not have to question whether a reference
reflects an incorrect belief of a producer (either a producer's own incorrect
belief, or a producer's incorrect belief about the reader's beliefs, or
about the reader's beliefs about a producer's beliefs about the reader's
beliefs, etc.).  The reader cannot have private beliefs about what is 
true in the fictional world which would allow her to disagree with
the propositional content of a reference; in contrast to conversation,
in which the hearer has independent access to the world under
discussion (the real world), the reader of a narrative text does not
have any other access to the fictional world than that which is provided
by the text.
Of course, the reader might have beliefs about
the fictional world, for example, that it does not correspond to the real
world.
But she does not have private beliefs about the objects and characters in the
fictional world that would allow her to disagree with the propositional
content of references in objective contexts.\**  
.(f
\**
Actually, the author relies on the hearer bringing to the fictional
world the knowledge she has about the real world.  However, the reader
accepts any discrepancies, and updates her model of the fictional
world accordingly.
.)f
Consider some use of the 
reference `the king'.  In conversation, it is possible that the hearer
believe that the referent is actually a usurper and that the speaker
is expressing an incorrect belief about the referent,  or that the hearer
believe that the speaker is expressing the incorrect belief that
the hearer believes that the referent is the king, etc.
The reader of a narrative text, however,
cannot have the private belief that the referent of `the king' is a usurper,
or that a producer has the mistaken belief that the reader believes that
the referent is the king, etc.
If the propositional content of a reference in an objective
context is that a character is the king, then it is simply so.
.sh 1 "REFERENCES IN SUBJECTIVE CONTEXTS."
Since subjective sentences portray the thoughts and perceptions 
of the subjective character, the reader 
understands that the information they convey reflects the subjective
character's beliefs, even if the subjective character is mistaken, as
illustrated by (2):
.(q
(1)
She [Morgaine] was indeed a witch, he [Chei] thought.
[Cherryh,
.ul
Exile's Gate,
p. 64]
.)q
Sentence (1) reflects Chei's belief that Morgaine is a witch,
even though the reader knows that she isn't one.  (`Witch' is not
used here as a derogatory (i.e., evaluative) term;  Chei believes that there
are such things as witches and that Morgaine is one of them.)  In
the following passage, Morgaine is referred to as `the witch' in
Chei's subjective sentence, reflecting his incorrect belief about her:
.(q
(2)
He [Chei] reckoned even that it was a spell 
.ul
the witch 
had cast over him,
that from the time she surprised him with that look into his eyes,
from that moment his soul had been snared.
[Cherryh,
.ul
Exile's Gate,
p. 86]
.)q
.pp
As in conversation,
the reader does not automatically assume that the 
propositional content of references in subjective contexts is true, as
she does while reading objective contexts.
As in objective contexts, however,
subjective sentences are not understood with respect to the
relationship between a speaker and a hearer, as they are in conversation.
A subjective sentence is not directed
toward an addressee.  Instead, the pragmatic situation might be thought
of as the reader ``overhearing'' (or being ``privy to'') the character's
thoughts, or the reader ``perceiving'' the fictional world through 
the character's senses (or a combination of the two; cf.
Brinton 1980).  The subjective
character does 
.ul
not
address the reader; in fact, she is not even aware of the reader's 
existence.
A reference can reflect
an incorrect belief of the subjective character, and yet the reader will not
try to understand the disparity between her own beliefs and the subjective
character's in terms of some model of their mutual beliefs.  
Subjective sentences transparently reveal,
unobscured by any communicative relationship between the subjective
character and the reader, the subjective character's model of the fictional
world.\**
.(f
\**
That is, they are
.ul
propositionally transparent
(Casta\o"n~"eda 1970, p. 167ff).
.)f
.sh 1 "REPRESENTATION."
A single text can contain subjective contexts attributed to different
characters, as well as objective contexts.  So, simply to understand
references in a narrative text,
the reader must maintain a model of the objects, places, characters, etc.,
and their properties that are actually in the fictional world
(cf. Webber's 
.ul
discourse models 
(Webber 1983), Kamp's 
.ul
discourse representation structures 
(Kamp 1984), and Rapaport's
notion of an AI/NLU system's ``mind''
(Rapaport 1988)), and, for
each subjective character, another
model of the objects, characters, etc., and their properties that the reader
believes
that the character believes are in the fictional world (cf. Fauconnier's
.ul
mental spaces
(Fauconnier 1985, Dinsmore 1987)).\**  
.(f
\**
Since this chapter is concerned only with references, other uses
of these models in narrative comprehension are not considered.
.)f
Where one character's beliefs
differ from another character's beliefs, or from the reader's beliefs
about the actual fictional world, their models are distinct;  and
where their beliefs correspond to one another, their models overlap.
.pp
Section 4 noted the most obvious situation for
which these models must be maintained to understand
references in subjective contexts, namely when a character
has an incorrect belief about an individual.  Consider this passage:
.(q
(3) 
.br
\*[3.1\*]His [Dwayne's] brain worked slowly through what he
knew about this person [Casey].
\*[3.2\*]David's kid.  
\*[3.3\*]The name stumbled into place.
\*[3.4\*]This was David's boy.
\*[3.5\*]David was in the war, \*[3.6\*]and here
was his kid in the arcade scared of something.  
  \*[3.7\*]He wasn't sure of what.
\*[3.8\*]What in the arcade could scare a boy like that?
\*[3.9\*]He rubbed his head under his baseball cap.  
\*[3.10\*]He could see tears in Casey's eyes.
\*[3.11\*]He could tell they were tears because
.ul
his
eyes were too shiny.
\*[3.12\*]Too round.
\*[3.13\*]Well, it was all right to cry.
\*[3.14\*]He'd cried when they took him to that place a few years back.
\*[3.15\*]Now Casey was in a new place, too, feeling maybe the same as him.
\*[3.16\*]If he just knew what to do about it.
  \*[3.17\*]``Let's don't play that game anymore,'' he said.  
\*[3.18\*]``I don't like that one.''
  \*[3.19\*]Casey wiped
.ul
her
face on 
her 
sleeve ... [Bridgers,
.ul
All Together Now,
pp. 91-92, my italics]
.)q
Dwayne mistakenly thinks that Casey is a boy.
Both of the italicized pronouns (in (3.10)
and in (3.17)) refer to Casey; the first occurs in 
a subjective context attributed to Dwayne, and the second occurs after
the subjective context has ended.
.pp
Another situation in which the reader's and characters' beliefs about
the fictional world must be distinguished is when
the reader
(and perhaps other characters) knows more than the subjective character knows.
For example:
.(q
Perhaps the man understood.  Perhaps he did not.
[Cherryh,
.ul
Exile's Gate\c
, p. 24]
.)q
These sentences are the represented thoughts of the character Vanye about
Chei.  While the reference `the man' does not reflect an 
.ul
incorrect
belief of Vanye's about Chei (Chei really is a man), it does
reflect Vanye's limited knowledge about Chei:  At this point in the novel,
the reader but not Vanye knows Chei's name.  
.sh 2 "Representation of Proper Names."
One result of this and related work (Rapaport 1986; 
Wiebe and Rapaport 1986; Rapaport, Shapiro and Wiebe 1986),
is that when representing
an individual in an NLU system, it is important to represent the
individual in a way that is neutral with respect to any attributes
ascribed to it; in particular,
it must be represented independently of attributes used
to refer to it, even a proper name.  For example, 
the reader may know that a character has two names and that some of
the other characters know only one of the names.  In 
Robert Ludlum's
.ul
The Parsifal Mosaic,
for example,
the characters at
the State Department know an individual by the name `Arthur Pierce',
but the reader knows that he is a Russian spy whose real name is
`Nikolai Petrovich Malyekov'.  The individual cannot be represented
simply as Arthur Pierce, or as Nikolai Petrovich Malyekov, but has to be
represented as an individual whom the reader believes has both names,
but whom some of the other characters believe has only the name `Arthur
Pierce'.  References to this individual can reflect these different beliefs
held by the reader and by the other characters (in objective and subjective
contexts, respectively).
.sh 2 "Belief Spaces."
The reader's and characters' models of the fictional world are
represented by
.ul
belief spaces,
as developed by Rapaport (1986).
A belief space is accessed by a stack of individuals, and consists of
what the bottom member of the stack believes that ... that the top member
believes.
The reader is always the bottom member
of the stack, reflecting the fact that other agents' beliefs are not
directly
represented, but rather what the reader believes that those other 
agents believe.
The belief space corresponding to a stack consisting only of the reader
contains the beliefs that the reader herself holds; this belief space
will be referred to as ``the reader's belief space''.
The belief space corresponding to a stack consisting of a character and
the reader will be referred to as that character's belief space.
.pp
Belief spaces are represented
as follows:  The reader's belief space
consists of all propositions represented by nodes that are either 
non-dominated (i.e., no arcs point into them) or tagged by an
explicit ``asserted'' flag.
The belief space of
(\c
.ul
A\*<x\*> A\*<x-1\*> ...  A\*<1\*>
the reader)
consists of the
OBJECT cases of AGENT-ACT-OBJECT propositions that appear in the belief
space of 
(\c
.ul
A\*<x-1\*> ...  A\*<1\*>
the reader)
and of which 
.ul
A\*<x\*>
is the AGENT case and the reader's concept of `believe' is the
ACT case.
Thus, the belief space of
(\c
.ul
A
the reader)
consists of the OBJECT
cases of AGENT-ACT-OBJECT propositions that appear in the 
reader's belief space with 
.ul
A
as the AGENT case and the reader's concept of `believe' as the
ACT case.
In Figure 1, for example, the reader's belief space consists of
the beliefs represented by nodes m44 (that b7 is named `Dwayne'),
m33 (that b4 is named `Casey'), m39 (that b4 is a girl),
m54 (that b7 believes that b4 is named `Casey') and m61 (that
b7 believes that b4 is a boy).
The belief space of (b7 the reader) consists of the
beliefs represented by nodes m33 (that b4 is named `Casey') and
m60 (that b4 is a boy).
Note that a single proposition can appear in any number of belief
spaces.
Thus, the reader believes that both she
and the individual represented by b7, whom she believes is named
`Dwayne', believe that the same person is named `Casey'.  However,
although the reader
believes that Casey is a girl, the reader believes that Dwayne
believes that Casey is a boy.
.bp
Figure 1
.bp
.pp
An important feature of this representation is that it is 
.ul
intensional
(Maida and Shapiro 1982; Shapiro and Rapaport 1987); that is, 
there is not necessarily a one-to-one
correspondence between entities ``actually'' in the fictional
world and represented concepts of those entities.
For example, the reader might believe that two represented concepts
are actually concepts of the same individual; that is, the belief that
the concepts are concepts of the same individual might appear in the
reader's belief space.
These concepts are said to be
.ul
co-extensional.
That two concepts are co-extensional is represented by the
EQUIV-EQUIV case frame (Maida and Shapiro 1982; Shapiro and Rapaport 1987).
In Figure 2, for example, node m5 represents
the reader's belief that the individuals represented by
b2, whom the reader believes is named `Parsifal',
and b3, whom the reader believes is named `Alexei Kalyazin', are actually
the same person.  Since the reader believes that they are the same
person, anything that she believes about one of them she simultaneously
believes about the other.  Figure 3 illustrates the situation in
which an EQUIV-EQUIV proposition appears in a character's belief space:
Node m9 represents the reader's belief that the person whom she
believes is named `Michael' believes that the concepts 
represented by b4 and b3 are actually concepts of the same person.
Thus, the reader believes that anything that Michael
believes about one of them he believes about the other; in particular,
the reader believes that Michael believes
that both have the names `Parsifal' and `Raymond Alexander'.
In general, if the belief that two concepts are co-extensional
appears within a belief space, then anything believed about one
of them in that belief space is also believed about the other in
that belief space.
.pp
Appendix C illustrates the 
creation and access functions of this representation,
identifies the extensions made
to Rapaport's original definition for the
purposes of this dissertation, and gives algorithms for them.
.bp
Figure 2
.sp
Figure 3
.bp
.sh 1 "UNDERSTANDING REFERENCES."
The system illustrated in previous chapters combines its ability to
recognize subjective sentences with the belief representation described
above
in order to understand references in narrative text with respect to
an appropriate set of beliefs.
In particular, it understands references with respect to the
.ul
current belief space
(\c
.ul
CBS\c
), which is the reader's belief space while an objective sentence is
being processed, and the subjective character's belief space while
a subjective sentence is being processed.
Currently,
the system's ability to understand references is quite limited.
It does not address
determining whether a character's beliefs are true or
the effect of
segmenting the text into subjective and objective contexts on understanding
anaphoric references.
The purpose of this aspect of the system's behavior
is merely to show that the segmentation of a third-person narrative
text into subjective and objective contexts can affect the way
that references are understood.
.pp
The system uses the following algorithm to understand specific non-pronominal
references.
It does not consider focus of attention to understand definite references,
and so treats all references but pronouns as non-anaphoric.
.bp
.(q
  If `X' is an indefinite reference
     (1) then create a new concept, N; 
                add to CBS the proposition that N is X; 
                return N
  else if `X' is a definite reference,
          then if a proposition that N is X can be found in CBS
                 (2) then return N
          else if a proposition that N is X can be found in a belief space other than CBS
                 (3) then add the found proposition to CBS; 
                            return N
          (4) else create a new concept, N; 
                     add to CBS the proposition that N is X; 
                     return N.
.)q
.sh 2 "Definite References (branches 2-4)."
In general, a definite reference refers to an individual who is
already known.  Examples of definite references are `Ellen' and
`the mirror'.
The search for a definite reference begins in the CBS.  Branch 2 is
taken if the referent can be found there.
.pp 
If the test on branch (2) fails, then the rest of the knowledge base
is searched.
To see why,
suppose that the definite reference is `Ellen' and that it occurs 
in a subjective
context.  It is possible that Ellen has been referred to
previously in the narrative but not under any circumstances that would
have required the reader to 
explicitly attribute the belief that she is named `Ellen' to
the subjective character.  Perhaps she has only been referred to
in objective contexts, for example.  So, to find the referent, other
belief spaces than CBS must be searched.
.pp
Branch (3) is taken if the search is successful; and before the referent
is returned, the proposition that the referent is X is added to the
CBS.  In the case just discussed,
the fact that the reference occurs in a subjective context indicates
that the belief that the
referent is named `Ellen' should now be attributed to the subjective
character.
.pp
Branch 4 is taken
in order to understand definite references
to individuals who have not been previously introduced into
the narrative.  These kinds of references appear in both
objective and subjective sentences.
.pp
In objective contexts, 
a definite reference 
can refer to an individual who has not yet
been introduced into the fictional world.
This can be true for a reference such as `the jockey', which does
not specify which jockey is being referred to; this kind
of reference can appear quite natural and is
not necessarily perceived of as a mistake.
For example:
.(q
(4)
.ul
The jockey 
came to the doorway of the dining room, then after a moment
stepped to one side and stood motionless, with his back to the door.
[McCullers, ``The Jockey'', p. 58]
.)q
The italicized reference is the first mention of the jockey in the
short story.
This reference
would not be completely acceptable in conversation if the hearer
did not already know the referent.
A reader who knows how to read novels, however, would just accept that
there is a jockey in the story and read on to learn more about it.
In using a definite reference to a new individual, the author
``pretends'' that the reader is already familiar with the characters
in the fictional world (this seems to create a desired effect of
drawing the reader into the fictional world).
.pp
Now consider definite references to new individuals in subjective sentences.
As Fillmore (1974) discusses,
a speaker should use a definite reference in conversation only
if she believes that the hearer has 
enough information to identify the referent.
However,
the use of definite references in subjective contexts
is not subject to this constraint, since
subjective sentence are not directed toward an addressee.
So, just as in
objective contexts, 
there are often definite references in subjective contexts to new
individuals that are not perceived as erroneous references, even
if the same kind of reference would not be acceptable in
conversation.
For example:
.(q
(5)
\*[5.1\*]She [Hannah] winced as she heard them crash to the platform.
\*[5.2\*]The
lovely little mirror that she had brought for Ellen, and the gifts for
the baby! [Franchere,
.ul
Hannah Herself,
p. 3]
.)q
In (5.2) neither the mirror, the gifts, the baby,
nor Ellen have been mentioned before in the novel.
Branch 4 introduces a new concept for each 
into CBS; that is, by virtue of
understanding the references in (5.2), the reader comes to believe that
Hannah (the subjective character) believes that there is a mirror, some
gifts, a baby, and a person named `Ellen'.
.sh 2 "Indefinite References (Branch 1)."
Indefinite references, in general, refer to entities who are not
already known.  In third-person narrative, indefinite references
introduce new concepts
.ul
into CBS;
if CBS is a character's belief space (that is, if the current sentence
is subjective), then an indefinite reference introduces a new concept into
the subjective character's belief space.  This is important for three
reasons.
.pp
First,
.ul
definite 
references in subjective contexts refer to referents
familiar to the subjective character, whether the reader knows
about them or not (as discussed in Section 6.1).
So, as Fillmore (1974) notes,
when a specific 
.ul
indefinite 
reference appears in a subjective
context, the reader understands that the referent is 
.ul
not
familiar to the
subjective character; otherwise, a definite reference would have appeared.
.pp
Second, because there can be subjective contexts
attributed to different characters 
and objective contexts
within a single text, the reader
may believe that the new
concept introduced by an indefinite reference and
a concept the reader has already formed are co-extensional.
For example, even though the reader may know of an individual, a certain
character may not; a reference to the individual in the
character's subjective sentence will be indefinite.
Yukiko Ushie (1986) discusses indefinite references that ``are used
in coreference with a preceding element in a text'' (p. 427).
These kinds of references serve to ``present an already identified
referent in a new light and from a different perspective'' (p. 427).
However, she does not analyze any of her examples in terms of
character's beliefs.  Further, the referents of the indefinite
references in her examples are recently mentioned in the text,
and she states that these kinds of references ``contribute to the
cohesion of the text'' (p. 427).  Thus, the kinds of indefinite
references she identifies are anaphoric.  In contrast, the kinds of
references 
discussed here are not anaphoric.
In fact,
the referent may not have been mentioned for 
many pages.
.pp
Third, an indefinite reference can sometimes indicate that the
the subjective character does not know 
.ul
what
the referent is.  This occurs when the head noun is a superordinate 
term, e.g., `plant' or `vehicle', rather than a basic level
term, e.g., `flower' or `car', or a subordinate term, e.g., `violet'
or `station wagon'
(Rosch et al. 1976; Rosch and Lloyd 1978).
If a superordinate term appears in an indefinite reference in a subjective
context, the reader understands that the subjective character cannot
identify the referent at the basic level.  For example:
.(q
Slowly Hannah raised her head and blinked her eyes.  Small dots
of purple covered the ground around her and she reached out to
explore.  Violets!
[Franchere,
.ul
Hannah Herself\c
, p. 25]
.)q
When she first sees the violets, Hannah can only identify them as `small
dots of purple'.
The following is another example:
.(q
(6)
But what [Muhammad] had seen in those few moments made him 
catch his breath in amazement.  On the floor of the cave, which
curved back in a natural fault in the rock, there were several large cylindrical
objects standing in a row.
[Allegro,
.ul
The Dead Sea Scrolls,
p. 18; cited by Banfield 1982, p. 259]
.)q
The fact that the 
reference `several large cylindrical objects' includes
the superordinate term `objects' indicates that Muhammad doesn't know what the
referents are.
.pp
Peters and Shapiro (1987ab) and Peters, Shapiro, and Rapaport (1988)
describe
a representation for
natural category systems in which superordinate categories can be
distinguished from basic level and subordinate
categories.  In particular, their representation for membership
in a basic level category is the MEMBER-CLASS case frame.
In Figure 4, for example, node m4 represents
the proposition that Rover is a member of the
basic level category dog.
Their representation for membership in a non-basic level category
is the slightly more complicated case frame
ARG1-REL-isa-ARG2.  In Figure 5, for example, node m4 represents
the proposition that Rover is a member of the superordinate category
mammal.
Background knowledge is used to distinguish superordinate and
subordinate concepts from one another (see the papers cited above
for details).
After an indefinite reference with
a superordinate term in a subjective
sentence has been parsed,
the fact that the subjective character was able to identify the
referent only at a superordinate level will be captured
in the knowledge base by using their representation.
.bp
.pp
The following passage illustrates the three points made above.
.(q
(7)
There they [the King and his men] saw close beside them
a great rubbleheap;
and suddenly they were aware of 
.ul
two small figures 
lying on it at their
ease, grey-clad, hardly to be seen among the stones.
[Tolkien,
.ul
The Two Towers,
p. 206]
.)q
The reader knows that the King and his men have come upon two hobbits,
Merry and Pippin.
The King and his men do not know the hobbits, but other
characters also present in the scene do know them.
In a subjective sentence attributed to the King and his men, the hobbits
are referred to with
the indefinite reference `two small figures' rather than by name,
reflecting the fact that the King and his men do not know them.
Branch 1 creates new concepts
and, to the belief space of the King and his men,
adds propositions that they are small figures.
In addition, from the fact that the superordinate term `figures' appears
in the reference, the reader understands that the King and his men do
not know what the referents are (`hobbit' is a basic level term in this novel;
the kinds of sentient beings in this novel include hobbits, dwarves, elves,
men, etc.).
Finally, because the reader already has concepts of Merry and Pippin
before this passage, understanding the reference `two small figures'
results in the creation of multiple concepts of the same individuals.
In particular,
some of the propositions about Merry and Pippin appearing in various
belief spaces are the following.
The belief spaces of the reader and of the
characters in the scene other than the King and his men include
(at least) the following propositions about two concepts, call
them C1 and C2:  C1 is named `Merry', C2 is named `Pippin',
C1 is a hobbit, and C2 is a hobbit.  The belief space of the King and
his men include (at least)
the following propositions about two other concepts, call them
C3 and C4:  C3 is a small figure, and C4 is a small figure.
When the reader infers that the referents of `two small figures' are
in fact Merry and Pippin, two more propositions appear in the
reader's belief space:  that C1 and C3, and C2 and C4, are concepts of
the same individual.
.sh 2 "Updating the CBS."
This section
discusses a problem that can arise with understanding references
that appear in the first sentence of a subjective or objective
context.
.pp
Since the algorithm for recognizing subjective sentences decides
at the end of a sentence whether the sentence
is subjective, and,
if so, who the subjective character is, it updates the CBS at the
end of the sentence.  This represents a problem for understanding
references in the first sentence of a subjective or objective
context.  Note that if readers process sentences from left to right,
then a reader can face similar difficulties.  For example:
.(q
(7) John believed that the man was here, it seemed.
.)q
Until the reader encounters the comma, she may interpret this sentence
to be John's private-state report.  Then, upon reading `it seemed', she
may reinterpret the sentence as the expected subjective character's
subjective sentence, for example.  She may initially attribute beliefs
to John but then attribute them to the expected subjective character
after reading `it seemed'.
.pp
If the system determines after it has processed a sentence that the
CBS did not have the proper value while the sentence was being processed,
it revises its beliefs as follows.  Say that CBS was BS1 while the
sentence was being processed, and that CBS should have been BS2.
The system
removes any beliefs from BS1 that it added to BS1
while processing the sentence, and then it
adds those beliefs to BS2 (if they are not already there).
.pp
This does not entirely solve the problem, however.  The system
may have understood a reference with respect to a belief that already
appeared in BS1.  For example, suppose that the reader
believes that one individual is named `Parsifal', say
I1, and that a character Michael
believes that another individual is named `Parsifal', say I2.  If `Parsifal'
appears in the first sentence of a subjective context that is 
attributed to Michael and
that follows an objective context,
then the system incorrectly understands `Parsifal' as referring to
I1 rather than I2.  The kind of revision that should be performed in this
situation has been left to future research.
.pp
The system does update the value of the CBS in the middle of the 
sentence in one situation:  If the main verb phrase contains a
psychological or perceptual verb, if no potential subjective elements
have been encountered so far, and if the situation at the beginning
of the sentence is not continuing-subjective, then when the system
parses the main verb phrase, it updates the
CBS to the belief space of (the
subject of the sentence, the reader).  (If it turns out at the end of
the sentence that the sentence is not the subject's subjective sentence,
then the system updates its beliefs as discussed above.)  If
the algorithm's projection that the sentence
is the subject's subjective sentence is correct, then
this solves the problem discussed in
the previous paragraph for references that appear in the object
of the sentence. 
Suppose that the following sentence does not appear in the
continuing subjective situation, that the previous sentence is
objective,
that the system believes that I1 is named `Parsifal', and that
the system believes that
Michael believes that I2 is named `Parsifal':  
.(q
Michael believed that Parsifal was here.
.)q
The CBS becomes Michael's belief space when the psychological verb
`believed' is encountered, so `Parsifal' is understood to refer
to I2.  If this sentence is in fact Michael's subjective sentence,
then the system has correctly understood the reference. 
.pp
Finally, the CBS is set to the reader's belief space at the beginning
of a new scene, since there are no expected subjective characters in
this situation.
.sh 1 "DEMONSTRATIONS."
To enable us to see which beliefs are formed about
certain individuals, if 
a `*' followed by a number appears before
a noun phrase in an input sentence, the system adds the node
representing the referent to a Lisp
variable called ``refs_of_starred_noun_phrases''.
Then, we can ask which beliefs appear in various belief spaces about
the individuals represented by these nodes.
In particular, we are interested in propositions 
represented by
the EQUIV-EQUIV case frame and the kinds of
beliefs that the system can acquire from understanding noun phrase
references.
The latter are
propositions represented by the MEMBER-CLASS,
ARG1-REL-isa-ARG2, and OBJECT-PROPERNAME 
case frames (which were presented in Chapter 5)
and the OBJECT-PROPERTY and POSSESSOR-REL-OBJECT case frames, which are
shown 
in Figure 6.  Node m6 in Figure 6 represents the proposition that the
individual represented by node b1 has the property represented by
node m5, that is, that John is tall.  Node m8 represents the proposition
that the possessor represented by node b1 has the relation represented
by node m7 to the individual represented by node b2,
that is, that Mary is John's friend (Chun 1987).
.bp
Figure 6
.bp
.pp
The function ``beliefs_about'' takes as input a set of nodes, called
``refs'', and a belief
stack, called ``belstack''.
Let ``indivs'' be refs together with any nodes that are believed
to be co-extensional in the belief space of belstack
with any of the nodes in refs. 
Beliefs_about describes the following beliefs that appear
in the belief space of belstack:
.ip (i)
EQUIV-EQUIV propositions of which one of indivs is an EQUIV case,
.ip (ii)
MEMBER-CLASS propositions of which one of indivs is the MEMBER case,
.ip (iii)
ARG1-REL-isa-ARG2 propositions of which one indivs is the ARG1 case,
.ip (iv)
POSSESSOR-REL-OBJECT propositions of which one of indivs is the POSSESSOR
case
.ip (v) 
OBJECT-PROPERNAME and OBJECT-PROPERTY propositions of which one of indivs 
is the OBJECT case.
.in 0
.sp
A character can be referred to by name in belstack.
The name is interpreted to be a reference to the individual
whom the system believes has that name.
In addition, the system is referred to as `the reader'.
.pp
Beliefs_about uses the SNePS User Language (SNePSUL) function ``desc'', which 
describes pieces of the network in list form.
For example, desc describes nodes m2, m4, m6, and m8 in Figure
6 as follows:
.(q
.nf
(m2 (propername (m1 (lex (John)))) (object (b1)))
(m4 (propername (m3 (lex (Mary)))) (object (b2)))
(m6 (property (m5 (lex (tall)))) (object (b1)))
(m8 (object (b2)) (rel (m7 (lex (friend)))) (possessor (b1)))
.)q
.fi
.sh 2 "Indefinite References."
Following is a demonstration of the system on a modified version of
passage (7).  As in previous demonstrations, input to the system
follows a colon, and commands calling and exiting the parser have been
deleted.  The `*' is the SNePS prompt; beliefs_about is called from
SNePS.  Sentences following semi-colons are comments.
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Aug  7 23:26:36 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Aug  7 23:26:42 1989
sneps

; We first give the reader background information about Merry:

: *1 Merry was a hobbit.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still presubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 4.066 gc= 0.00) <=) 

; The reader now believes that there  is  hobbit  named  `Merry'.   The  node
; representing this individual is stored on `refs_of_starred_noun_phrases'.

; Now, the passage begins:

: The King saw beside him a great rubbleheap.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of |the King|
The subj_char is |the King|
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 8.200 gc= 2.333) <=) 

: Suddenly he was aware of *2 a small figure on it.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      |the King|, the last subj_char 
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of |the King|
The subj_char is |the King|
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 8.050 gc= 2.383) <=) 

; To understand `a small figure' in the previous sentence, the reader creates
; a  new  concept and adds the propositions that it is small and that it is a
; figure to the King's belief space.  The node representing this  concept  is
; added to refs_of_starred_noun_phrases.

; The reader believes that the referent of `Merry' in the first sentence is a
; hobbit  named  `Merry',  but  has no beliefs about the referent of `a small
; figure' in the third  sentence.  Note that since `hobbit' is a basic  level
; term, the MEMBER-CLASS case frame is used:
 
* (beliefs_about refs_of_starred_noun_phrases '(|the reader|))

The reader's beliefs about the individual represented by b4 (starred ref 1): 
(m23 (propername (m22 (lex (Merry)))) (object (b4)))
(m30 (class (m29 (lex (hobbit)))) (member (b4)))

The reader doesn't have beliefs about the individual represented by b12 (starred ref 2) 
t 
exec: 1.60 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; The King does not have beliefs about the referent of `Merry' in  the  first
; sentence,  but  believes that the referent of `a small figure' in the third
; sentence is small and is a figure.  Since `figure' is a superordinate term,
; the ARG1-REL-isa-ARG2 case frame is used:

* (beliefs_about refs_of_starred_noun_phrases '(|the King| |the reader|))

|the King| doesn't have beliefs about the individual represented by b4 (starred ref 1) 

|the King|'s beliefs about the individual represented by b12 (starred ref 2): 
(m74 (property (m66 (lex (small)))) (object (b12)))
(m70 (arg2 (m69 (lex (figure)))) (rel (isa)) (arg1 (b12)))
t 
exec: 6.95 sec    gc: 2.50 sec 

; The passage continues:

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      |the King|, the last subj_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is broken-subj 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.433 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: The King did not know that hobbits existed.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is broken-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      |the King|, the last subj_char 
Potentially-objective private-state sentence 
|the King| is the experiencer, so isn't an expected subj_char after all 
The sentence is not subjective 
Objective sentence without an active_char in broken-subj situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 7.850 gc= 0.00) <=) 

; We will now inform the reader that the concepts represented by b4  and  b12
; are  co-extensional.   This  is accomplished with a sentence the form <noun
; phrase> "be" <noun phrase>.  This  information  is not explicitly given  in
; the novel, so should be inferred:

: The small figure was Merry.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      |the King|, the last subj_char 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still postsubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 5.266 gc= 2.450) <=) 

; Branch 3 of the algorithm given in Section 6 is taken  to  understand  `The
; small  figure'  in the previous sentence. Thus, the reader assumes that the
; small figure is the same one that was referred to in  the  third  sentence;
; the propositions that it is small and that it is a figure are added to  the
; reader's belief space.
 
; Now, anything that the reader believes about the concept represented by  b4
; she simultaneously believes about the concept represented by b12:

* (beliefs_about refs_of_starred_noun_phrases '(|the reader|))

The reader's beliefs about the individual represented by b4 (starred ref 1): 
(m111 (equiv (b12) (b4)))
(m23 (propername (m22 (lex (Merry)))) (object (b4)))
(m74 (property (m66 (lex (small)))) (object (b12)))
(m30 (class (m29 (lex (hobbit)))) (member (b4)))
(m70 (arg2 (m69 (lex (figure)))) (rel (isa)) (arg1 (b12)))

The reader's beliefs about the individual represented by b12 (starred ref 2): 
(m111 (equiv (b12) (b4)))
(m23 (propername (m22 (lex (Merry)))) (object (b4)))
(m74 (property (m66 (lex (small)))) (object (b12)))
(m30 (class (m29 (lex (hobbit)))) (member (b4)))
(m70 (arg2 (m69 (lex (figure)))) (rel (isa)) (arg1 (b12)))
t 
exec: 2.66 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; The  King's  beliefs  about  these  concepts  are  not  affected,  however.
; Although the reader has learned more about them, the King has not:

* (beliefs_about refs_of_starred_noun_phrases '(|the King| |the reader|))

|the King| doesn't have beliefs about the individual represented by b4 (starred ref 1) 

|the King|'s beliefs about the individual represented by b12 (starred ref 2): 
(m74 (property (m66 (lex (small)))) (object (b12)))
(m70 (arg2 (m69 (lex (figure)))) (rel (isa)) (arg1 (b12)))
t 
exec: 7.90 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Mon Aug  7 23:47:04 1989
.)q
.fi
.sh 2 "Incorrect Beliefs."
This section contains two passages in which references in subjective sentences
reflect incorrect beliefs of the subjective character.
.pp
First consider these passages:
.(q
First [Miss Dubber] thought it was ``Greensleeves'' from the
garden, then she thought it was ``Jerusalem'' from the square,
and she was halfway to the window to yell out.  Only then
did she realize it was 
.ul
Mr. Canterbury
from upstairs, and this amazed her so much that that when she
opened her door to rebuke him, she paused instead to listen.
[Le Carr\o"e\(aa",
.ul
A Perfect Spy\c
, p. 6]
.sp
.ul
Pym 
briskly drew the curtains and switched on the light.
[Le Carr\o"e\(aa",
.ul
A Perfect Spy\c
, p. 17]
.)q
The reader
knows before these passages that the character whom Miss Dubber believes
is named `Canterbury' is actually named `Pym'.
The first italicized reference appears in Miss Dubber's subjective sentence
and reflects her incorrect belief.  The second italicized reference
appears in an objective sentence (in a later 
scene) and reflects true information.
Thus, two different names are understood to refer to the same
person without any change in belief.
.(q
.nf
Script started on Tue Aug  8 07:14:36 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Tue Aug  8 07:14:41 1989
sneps

; We begin with some background knowledge:

: *1 Pym was a spy.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still presubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 3.700 gc= 2.00) <=) 

: Miss Dubber believed that he was named Mr Canterbury.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of |Miss Dubber|
The subj_char is |Miss Dubber|
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 7.083 gc= 2.00) <=) 

; The reader believes that the referent of the first starred noun phrase is a
; spy named `Pym':

* (beliefs_about refs_of_starred_noun_phrases '(|the reader|))

The reader's beliefs about the individual represented by b4 (starred ref 1): 
(m23 (propername (m22 (lex (Pym)))) (object (b4)))
(m30 (class (m29 (lex (spy)))) (member (b4)))
t 
exec: 0.95 sec    gc: 2.03 sec 

; And the reader believes that Miss Dubber believes that the same  individual
; is named `Mr Canterbury':

* (beliefs_about refs_of_starred_noun_phrases '(|Miss Dubber||the reader|))

|Miss Dubber|'s belief about the individual represented by b4 (starred ref 1): 
(m50 (propername (m49 (lex (|Mr Canterbury|)))) (object (b4)))
t 
exec: 4.23 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; Now that background information has been supplied,
; reinitialize refs_of_starred_noun_phrases:

* (^(setq refs_of_starred_noun_phrases nil))
nil 
exec: 0.01 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; Now the passage begins:

: Miss Dubber heard a noise.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      |Miss Dubber|, the last subj_char 
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of |Miss Dubber|
The subj_char is |Miss Dubber|
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 5.533 gc= 2.050) <=) 

: *1 Mr Canterbury was singing.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      |Miss Dubber|, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  progressive
It is a subjective element 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  progressive
The subj_char is |Miss Dubber|
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 4.833 gc= 2.066) <=) 

: Scene break.
Before the scene break: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      |Miss Dubber|, the last subj_char 
After the scene break, the situation is presubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.416 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: *2 Pym briskly drew the curtains.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still presubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 5.133 gc= 2.083) <=) 

; The individual represented by node b4 is  the  referent  of  the  last  two
; starred  noun  phrases, and understanding them does not change the reader's
; beliefs:

* (beliefs_about refs_of_starred_noun_phrases '(|the reader|))

The reader's beliefs about the individual represented by b4 (starred ref 1): 
(m23 (propername (m22 (lex (Pym)))) (object (b4)))
(m30 (class (m29 (lex (spy)))) (member (b4)))

The reader's beliefs about the individual represented by b4 (starred ref 2): 
(m23 (propername (m22 (lex (Pym)))) (object (b4)))
(m30 (class (m29 (lex (spy)))) (member (b4)))
t 
exec: 1.60 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

;
* (beliefs_about refs_of_starred_noun_phrases '(|Miss Dubber||the reader|))

|Miss Dubber|'s belief about the individual represented by b4 (starred ref 1): 
(m50 (propername (m49 (lex (|Mr Canterbury|)))) (object (b4)))

|Miss Dubber|'s belief about the individual represented by b4 (starred ref 2): 
(m50 (propername (m49 (lex (|Mr Canterbury|)))) (object (b4)))
t 
exec: 6.58 sec    gc: 2.11 sec 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Tue Aug  8 07:16:22 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
Although most issues involved with understanding pronouns are not
addressed in this work (see Chapter 9),
there is one clear situation in which the CBS can influence 
pronoun resolution:  If it is believed in one belief space
that an individual is female and it is believed in another
belief space that the same individual is male, then when that
individual comes into focus, the CBS has to be consulted
to determine whether a feminine or masculine pronoun
referring to that individual is to be expected.
.pp
Naicong Li's pronoun resolution algorithm (Li 1987), which is
used by the system demonstrated in this section,
maintains
two lists of discourse items (DI's) that are currently in focus, called
.ul
the focuslist
and
.ul
newnodes.
After a reference is understood, a corresponding DI is added to
newnodes, and at the end of the clause, the focuslist is updated
to include the DI's in newnodes.  The algorithm searches for the
referent of a pronoun among the DI's in one or both of these lists,
depending on the syntactic role of the pronoun.
.pp
A DI consists of, among other things, the individual
referred to and its gender.  A pronoun can refer to an individual
of a DI in focus only if the pronoun and the DI
agree in gender.  Note, however, that when a DI is added to 
newodes, the gender of the individual is not always known.
For example, after
.(q
Bill saw a professor,
.)q
the professor's gender is not known, because professors can be male
or female.  The professor might be referred to with either a
masculine or feminine pronoun, so both genders are included in the
DI added to newnodes (see Li 1987 for details).
.pp
When a DI is added to newnodes, if the
individual is believed to be of
a certain gender in the CBS, then it is that gender that should
be included in the DI.  As the individual is mentioned throughout
the text, the gender of corresponding DI's may differ
depending on beliefs in the CBS.
Consider the following modified version of passage (3):
.(q
(7)
.br
\*[7.1\*]Dwayne was confused.  \*[7.2\*]Casey seemed to be crying.
\*[7.3\*]\c
.ul
His 
eyes were
shining.  \*[7.4\*]``Let's not play that game anymore,'' he said.  ``I don't
like that one''.
     \*[7.5\*]Casey wiped 
.ul
her 
face on her sleeve.
.)q
Recall that Dwayne believes that Casey is a boy when in fact she is
a girl.  The reference `Casey' in (7.2) places Casey in high focus.  Since the
CBS when it is encountered is Dwayne's belief space and Dwayne believes
that Casey is male, the gender of the corresponding DI is male.  Then,
the system is able to understand that `his' in (7.3) refers to Casey.
On the other hand, the CBS is the reader's when `Casey' is encountered
in (7.5).  Since the reader believes that Casey is a girl, the gender of
the corresponding DI is female.  This enables the system to understand
that `her' in (7.5) refers to Casey.  The system is demonstrated on
two versions of (7).  In the first, the system is told that Casey
is a girl and that Dwayne believes that Casey is a boy.  This allows
it to understand that both of the pronouns italicized in (7) refer
to Casey.  In the second version, the system is told that Casey
is a girl and that Dwayne believes this as well; with these incorrect
beliefs, the system does not understand the first italicized pronoun
correctly.  Note that the system uses the knowledge that boys are
male and that girls are female to determine if there is a belief about
an individual's gender in a belief space. 
.(q
.nf
Script started on Wed Aug  9 09:46:31 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Wed Aug  9 09:46:41 1989
sneps

; We begin with some background knowledge:

: *1 Casey was a girl.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still presubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 4.250 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Dwayne believed that Casey was a boy.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Dwayne
The subj_char is Dwayne
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 8.850 gc= 2.433) <=) 

; Branch 3 of the algorithm given in Section 6 is taken to understand `Casey'
; in  the previous sentence.  Thus, the reader assumes that `Casey' refers to
; the individual who was referred to by `Casey' in the  first  sentence,  and
; the  proposition that this individual is named `Casey' is added to Dwayne's
; belief space.

; Figure 1 shows the reader's beliefs at this point.

: Scene break.
Before the scene break: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Dwayne, the last subj_char 
After the scene break, the situation is presubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.433 gc= 0.00) <=) 

; Now the passage begins:

: Dwayne was confused.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Dwayne
The subj_char is Dwayne
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 4.600 gc= 0.00) <=) 

; In the following sentence, the gender of the DI  added  to  newnodes  after
; `Casey'  is  understood  is  male,  since the CBS is Dwayne's belief space.
; After this sentence, this DI is the one in highest focus:

: Casey seemed to be crying.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Dwayne, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective elements considered: 
  progressive
  seeming_verb
Both of these are subjective elements 
Subjective context continued by these features: 
  seeming_verb
  progressive
The subj_char is Dwayne
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 6.333 gc= 2.416) <=) 

; The pronoun `his' in the following sentence is resolved to  the  DI  intro-
; duced by the reference to Casey in the previous sentence:

: *2 his eyes were shining.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Dwayne, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective elements considered: 
  percept_term
  progressive
Both of these are subjective elements 
Subjective context continued by these features: 
  percept_term
  progressive
The subj_char is Dwayne
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 6.250 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Quoted_speech Dwayne said.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Dwayne, the last subj_char 
The sentence is not subjective 
Objective sentence in continuing-subj situation: 
  situation is now interrupted-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 4.00 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is interrupted-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Dwayne, the last subj_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is now postsubj-nonactive 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.450 gc= 2.450) <=) 

; In the following sentence, the gender of the DI  added  to  newnodes  after
; `Casey'  is  understood  is  female,  since  the CBS is the reader's belief
; space.  The pronoun `her' is then resolved to the  DI  introduced  by  this
; reference:

: Casey wiped *3 her face on her sleeve.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Dwayne, the last subj_char 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still postsubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 8.466 gc= 0.00) <=) 

; The reader believes that the referent of  the  first  starred  noun  phrase
; (represented  by  node  b4)  is  named  `Casey'  and is a girl.  The second
; starred noun phrase appears in Dwayne's subjective sentence, so  the reader
; does  not  have any beliefs about its referent.  But the third starred noun
; phrase is in an objective sentence; the reader believes that  its  referent
; is  the  face of  the  person whom she believes is named `Casey' (i.e., the
; POSSESSOR case of the POSSESSOR-REL-OBJECT  proposition is b4; the  face is
; represented by node b28):

* (beliefs_about refs_of_starred_noun_phrases '(Cassie))

The reader's beliefs about the individual represented by b4 (starred ref 1): 
(m33 (propername (m32 (lex (Casey)))) (object (b4)))
(m39 (class (m24 (lex (girl)))) (member (b4)))

The reader doesn't have beliefs about the individual represented by b18 (starred ref 2) 

The reader's belief about the individual represented by b28 (starred ref 3): 
(m123 (object (b28)) (rel (m122 (lex (face)))) (possessor (b4)))
t 
exec: 2.28 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; Dwayne believes  that  the  referent  of  the  first  starred  noun  phrase
; (represented by b4) is named `Casey' and is a boy.  The second starred noun
; phrase is in his subjective sentence; he believes that its referent are the
; eyes  of  the  person  whom he thinks is named `Casey' (i.e., the POSSESSOR
; case  of  the  POSSESSOR-REL-OBJECT  proposition  is  b4;  the   eyes   are
; represented  by  node  b18).   Since the third starred noun phrase is in an
; objective sentence, Dwayne does not have any beliefs about it:

* (beliefs_about refs_of_starred_noun_phrases '(Dwayne Cassie))

Dwayne's beliefs about the individual represented by b4 (starred ref 1): 
(m33 (propername (m32 (lex (Casey)))) (object (b4)))
(m60 (class (m19 (lex (boy)))) (member (b4)))

Dwayne's belief about the individual represented by b18 (starred ref 2): 
(m92 (object (b18)) (rel (m91 (lex (eye)))) (possessor (b4)))

Dwayne doesn't have beliefs about the individual represented by b28 (starred ref 3) 
t 
exec: 9.35 sec    gc: 2.51 sec 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> ^D
script done on Wed Aug  9 09:54:34 1989
.)q
.fi
Note that the fact that someone has eyes or a face (the propositions
represented by nodes m92 and m123, respectively) are kinds of
information that the reader typically does not have to question; there
is typically no need to add this information to the subjective
character's belief space
(see Chapter 9).
The important references in this passage are the possessive
pronouns referring to Casey, which reflect explicit beliefs
that appear in the reader's and Dwayne's belief spaces.
.pp
Now the system is demonstrated on the same passage, but with different
background information:  The reader is told that Dwayne believes
that Casey is a girl rather than that she is a boy.  Because of this,
the pronoun in the fifth sentence is not resolved to Casey but is
instead incorrectly resolved to Dwayne.
.(q
.nf
Script started on Wed Aug  9 10:14:11 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Wed Aug  9 10:14:17 1989
sneps

: *1 Casey was a girl.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still presubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 4.183 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Dwayne believed that Casey was a girl.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Dwayne
The subj_char is Dwayne
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 8.633 gc= 2.416) <=) 

: Scene break.
Before the scene break: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Dwayne, the last subj_char 
After the scene break, the situation is presubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.416 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Dwayne was confused.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Dwayne
The subj_char is Dwayne
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 4.583 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Casey seemed to be crying.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Dwayne, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective elements considered: 
  progressive
  seeming_verb
Both of these are subjective elements 
Subjective context continued by these features: 
  seeming_verb
  progressive
The subj_char is Dwayne
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 6.033 gc= 2.416) <=) 

; In the previous sentence, the gender of the  DI  added  to  newnodes  after
; `Casey' is understood is female, since the CBS is Dwayne's belief space and
; he believes that Casey is a girl.  This DI is now the one in highest focus.
; A  DI containing the node representing Dwayne is also in focus, but less so
; than the one introduced by `Casey'.

: *2 his eyes were shining.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Dwayne, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective elements considered: 
  percept_term
  progressive
Both of these are subjective elements 
Subjective context continued by these features: 
  percept_term
  progressive
The subj_char is Dwayne
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 5.950 gc= 0.00) <=) 

; In the previous sentence, the pronoun `his' is not resolved to the DI  con-
; taining  the  representation  of  Casey  because  the genders do not agree.
; Instead, it is resolved to the DI containing the representation of  Dwayne.
; Before  we call beliefs_about, we call the SNePSUL command ``find'' to show
; that Dwayne is represented by node b7 (find <arc-1>  <node-1>  ...  <arc-n>
; <node-n>  returns any nodes with <arc-1> to <node-1> and ... and <arc-n> to
; node <node-n>):

* (desc (find object b7 propername (find lex Dwayne)))
(m44 (propername (m43 (lex (Dwayne)))) (object (b7)))
(dumped) 

exec: 0.08 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; As the following call to beliefs_about shows,  the  reader  understood  the
; second  starred reference, `his eyes', as referring to Dwayne's rather than
; Casey's  eyes (i.e., the  POSSESSOR case is b7, rather than  b4); thus, the
; pronoun `his' was resolved to Dwayne rather than Casey:

* (beliefs_about refs_of_starred_noun_phrases '(Dwayne |the reader|))

Dwayne's beliefs about the individual represented by b4 (starred ref 1): 
(m33 (propername (m32 (lex (Casey)))) (object (b4)))
(m39 (class (m24 (lex (girl)))) (member (b4)))

Dwayne's belief about the individual represented by b18 (starred ref 2): 
(m91 (object (b18)) (rel (m90 (lex (eye)))) (possessor (b7)))
t 
exec: 6.93 sec    gc: 2.48 sec 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Wed Aug  9 10:19:58 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
Chapter 9 suggests some directions for future research both in
using information provided by references to recognize subjective
sentences and in understanding references
in third-person narrative text.

.bp
.ce 2
.b
.sz +2
Chapter 9
Directions for Future Research
.sz -2
.r
.sp
.ls 2
.sh 1 "INTRODUCTION." 1
This chapter discusses some areas for future research.  These are
(1)  relating the psychological point of view to the narrative deictic
center, (2) the use of potential subjective elements to perform a task
in non-fiction that is similar to recognizing subjective sentences
in third-person fictional narrative, (3) understanding potential subjective
elements, and (4) understanding references in third-person narrative
and using information provided by references to recognize subjective
sentences.
.sh 1 "THE NARRATIVE DEICTIC CENTER."
The psychological point of view needs to be related to the narrative WHEN,
narrative WHERE, and narrative WHO of the narrative deictic 
center.
.sh 2 "Deitic Situations in Subjective Contexts."
For a variety of reasons,
distinguishing among the kinds of deictic situations that can be
found in subjective contexts would be useful for determining the
psychological point of view.
I first describe some of these situations and then relate them to
the psychological point of view.
.pp
In the basic case,
the narrative WHERE 
of a subjective sentence is the location of the subjective character and
the narrative WHEN is a specific moment at which the subjective character
thinks, perceives, or experiences something.
.pp
In another situation,
the WHEN is of a greater time scale than a specific moment:  The passage
portrays a character's thoughts, perceptions, and experiences during
a period of time (Cohn 1978).  The following passage, for example, is
the beginning of a new scene:
.(q
\*[1.1\*]Newt's mind had begun to dwell on the north for long stretches.
\*[1.2\*]Particularly at night, when he had nothing to do but ride slowly
around and around the herd, listening to the small noises the bedded
cattle made, or the sad singing of the Irishmen, he thought of the north,
trying to imagine what it must be like ... \*[1.3\*]Mr. Gus had even talked of
great bears, so thick that bullets couldn't kill them, and deerlike
creatures called elk, twice the size of ordinary deer.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, pp. 199-200]
.)q
Sentences (1.1)-(1.2) are Newt's private-state reports and (1.3) is Newt's
represented thought.  The WHEN of this passage is not a specific moment
at which Newt experiences the reported private states and thinks the
represented thought.  Instead, it presents Newt's consciousness during
a period of time that is at least greater than one day (as indicated 
by ``particularly at night'').
.pp
In other situations, there might be two WHERE's, two WHEN's, or two of
each.  In the case of two WHERE's, one is the
location of the subjective character
and the other is the location of something that is observed or reflected
upon.  In the case of two WHEN's,
one is the time of the subjective character's
consciousness and the other is the time of something reflected upon
(Bruder et al. 1986,
Fauconnier 1985, Rapaport et al. 1989).
Rapaport et al. (1989) characterize these situations as resulting from
a shift in the deictic center within a subjective context.
A well-known
example of this situation is a flashback.
Another situation in which this 
occurs is when a character perceives something.
We can say that
the WHEN and WHERE of the object of thought or of the percept are
.ul
projected
(Rapaport et al. 1989).
(The three situations listed above are not all possible situations, but
they are sufficient for the following discussion.)
.sh 2 "A Shift in the Non-Projected WHERE."
We now turn to the importance of distinguishing the deictic situations
discussed above to determining the current psychological point of view.
First, consider situations in which there is only a non-projected WHERE.
Dolezel (1973), Hamburger (1973),
and Banfield (1982), among others, say that subjective
sentences are understood with respect to
the location of the subjective character.  This provides a useful constraint
for determining the psychological point of view.
If the WHERE shifts away from a character, then it seems that
the character should not be retained as an expected subjective character.
An example was given in Chapter 5:
.(q
(2)
.br
     \*[2.1\*]The second call, which followed immediately, was from
a pay telephone in the hotel lobby.  \*[2.2\*]``Hullo, Ogden,''
Curtis O'Keefe said when the caller identified himself.  \*[2.3\*]``I'm reading
your report now.''
     \*[2.4\*]In the lobby, eleven floors below, a balding sallow man who
looked like an accountant which\(emamong other things\(emhe was,
nodded confirmation to a younger male companion waiting outside
the glass-paneled phone booth.  \*[2.5\*]The caller, whose name was Ogden Bailey
and his home Long Island, had been registered in the hotel for
the past two weeks as Richard Fountain of Miami.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 129]
.)q
O'Keefe is an expected subjective character when this passage is
encountered.  At the paragraph break, however, the WHERE shifts
from O'Keefe's location to a location eleven stories below.  O'Keefe
should no longer be an expected subjective character; in particular, the
seeming verb `looked' in (2.4) is not attributed to him.
Thus, the shift of the non-projected WHERE away from the location of 
an expected subjective character
seems to be a discontinuity
over which the expected subjective character does not
survive.
However, the shift of the non-projected WHERE needs to be distinguished
from the establishment of a projected WHERE; in the latter case, a
subjective context continues.
.sh 2 "A shift in the Non-Projected WHEN."
The same issues arise for a shift in the WHEN:  If the non-projected
WHEN shifts to an earlier or later time (to narrate what did happen
and what will happen), then it seems that a character should not
be retained as an expected subjective character.  However, if
a projected-WHEN is established, then a subjective context continues.
Recall that the algorithm interprets the shifted past to be a subjective
element in the continuing-subjective situation, and thus determines
one situation in which a projected WHEN is established.  On the other
hand, its treatment of `would' and `going-to' needs to be revised:  In all
situations but the presubjective-nonactive situation, it
assumes that any mention of the future establishes a projected WHEN.
This does not allow for the possibility that the non-projected WHEN
shifts to the future.  Investigating this issue will involve distinguishing
the use of `would' to refer to the future and the use of `would' to 
express an intention 
(Casta\o"n~"eda 1975).
.sh 2 "Shifts in Temporal and Spatial Scale."
We now consider a specific versus non-specific (non-projected WHEN).
Passage (1) shows that the WHEN of a subjective context is not always
a specific moment.  Thus, we do not want to demand that the WHEN
of a subjective context be a specific moment.  However, the effect
on the psychological perspective of
a kind of
discontinuity discussed by Nakhimovsky (1988) needs to be
investigated:  a 
.ul
shift 
in spatial or temporal 
.ul
scale.
For example,
a shift from a
specific WHEN to a much greater time scale might signal a change
in the psychological perspective.
As discussed in Chapter 5, for example,
a passage might
leave the specific WHEN of a character's
thoughts, perceptions, or experience and begin to describe the general
state of things over a period of time, either
objectively or from the psychological perspective of a group or class of
characters.  In this case, it seems that the character should
not continue to be
an expected subjective character.
.sh 2 "The Projected WHERE in Represented Perception."
The idea that there are a projected and a non-projected WHERE in represented
perception 
will be a useful framework for extending the algorithm's
ability to recognize represented perception.  For example, the projected
WHERE has to be related to the non-projected WHERE in such a way that
the subjective character is able to see the percept.
.pp
A good place to start in this area will be to consider the algorithm's
rule for choosing the
last subjective character when there is competition between the
last subjective character and the last active character to be the
subjective character of a subjective sentence. 
The last subjective character is chosen if the sentence is about the last
active character.  If the sentence denotes a current action of the last active
character, then
the algorithm should consider whether the location of the last active
character is perceptually accessible from the location of the last
subjective character.
.pp
Rapaport et al. (1989) reports on an on-going interdisciplinary
cognitive science project investigating how a reader keeps track of
the narrative deictic center.  In particular, this project is investigating
the use of
linguistic elements such as deictic terms, tense, and aspect
to track the deictic center.
In addition, it is developing a representation of a reader's mental
map of the geographic layout of the narrative.  This is essential for
determining how the WHERE may be expanded, contracted, or shifted at
a particular point in the narrative.
Relating the psychological perspective to the deictic center
is a principled way to approach the question of how these and related
kinds of information can be used to determine the current psychological
perspective.
.sh 1 "POTENTIAL SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS IN NON-FICTION."
Another direction for future research involves
the use of potential subjective elements 
in non-fictional genres such as newspapers and
news magazines.
It appears that potential subjective elements can have 
a similar role in these
genres as they have in third-person narrative:  distinguishing
portions of the text that purport to present absolute fact from those
that present subjective views.
Not all potential subjective elements are relevant to this
issue; percept terms are examples.
But consider the appearance in a news article of
an intensifier subjunct such as `merely', for example, or a conjunct
such as `anyway'.  These might be used to
recognize editorial comment, i.e., to recognize that the
writer is making a judgment or making an argument, respectively,
rather than just presenting facts.
Questions to be investigated are which potential subjective elements
appear in non-fiction (some work has been done in this area, e.g.,
Biber and Finegan (1988) investigate the appearance
of disjuncts in various genres),
under what circumstances they are subjective elements,
and whether there are certain things that typically initiate subjective
passages i.e., whether there are things
that have a role similar to private-state reports in
third-person narrative.
.sh 1 "UNDERSTANDING POTENTIAL SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS."
A potential subjective element interpreted to be
a subjective element is a reason to understand a sentence to be subjective,
because it relates a portion of the text to a character's consciousness.
``Understanding potential subjective elements'' is not a reasonable research
program, however, because so many NLU issues are involved if the
range of potential subjective elements are considered.
It will be useful to begin with an investigation of how a particular
kind of potential subjective element is understood in third-person narrative. 
This will involve
the following.  An algorithm for interpreting a portion of the text with
respect to a character's consciousness as appropriate to that kind of
potential subjective element will be developed.  Knowledge
representations of the resulting interpretation will be defined as well.
In addition, if the potential subjective element can be
objective, then an algorithm for interpreting it objectively and a
representation of the resulting interpretation will be defined.
(Note that examples of
many potential subjective elements associated at the highest level
with the presubjective-active, postsubjective-active, and 
postsubjective-nonactive situations that appear in objective sentences have not
been found; thus, this aspect of the research may involve further observations
of texts to identify the objective interpretation, if there is one.)
The algorithm presented in this dissertation can be used to focus 
processing.  Its interpretation\(emwhether a potential subjective element
is being used as a subjective element and, if so, the character whose
consciousness is involved\(emwill be considered first.
How it can be determined if the resulting interpretation is plausible
and how alternative interpretations should be chosen will be
investigated.
.pp
I plan to begin with the potential subjective elements that indicate
a lack of knowledge\(emassertive indefinite pronouns (`something',
`someone', etc.), <wh>-`ever' subordinators (`whatever it was', `whoever
it was', etc.), the attitude adjectives `some kind of', `some sort of',
etc., the attitude adjective `unfamiliar', and the attitude noun `stranger'
(see Chapter 5 for the particular uses of these words that are potential
subjective elements).
These potential subjective elements implicitly indicate the lack of
different kinds of knowledge.  One can be attributed to a particular
character only if it is plausible that she lacks the appropriate kind
of knowledge about the individual referred to.
Note that a natural language interface should have the ability to
understand these potential subjective elements, because they are
implicit sources of information about the extent of the user's
knowledge (Kass and Finin (1987) demonstrate the importance of
implicitly acquiring information about the user's knowledge).
.pp
Understanding other kinds of potential subjective elements can then
be investigated, using the results of the initial investigation.
.sh 1 "REFERENCES."
This section discusses three areas of future research in understanding
references in third-person narrative and using information provided by
references to recognize subjective sentences.
.pp
First,
the flow of information between the algorithm for recognizing
subjective sentences and the reference algorithm presented in
Chapter 8
is only one way:  The algorithm for recognizing subjective sentences
(called the
.ul
discourse process
in this section)
determines the CBS, the belief space with respect
to which the propositional content of references 
is understood; the reference algorithm does
not question this interpretation or provide any information to the
discourse process.
However, a reference can indicate that the sentence in which it appears
is a particular character's subjective sentence.
For example, a reference might reflect information
that the reader knows that only a certain character believes.  Or,
the propositional content of a reference may not be consistent with 
the beliefs appearing in the CBS; this can indicate that the interpretation
should be revised.
In addition, an individual might be 
referred to in a certain way by one particular 
character (cf. Uspensky 1973).
An example of the latter type of reference is found in
.ul
Lonesome Dove
by Larry McMurtry.
Newt is always thought of as `the boy' by Call, and only Call thinks about
him in this way.  Thus, an appearance of `the boy', referring to Newt,
can mark a subjective context attributed to Call.
Further, 
if something is referred to in a way that is not appropriate from
the perspective
of the character whom the discourse process believes is 
the subjective character,
then the interpretation may have to be revised.  For example, Call
and Augustus are
authority figures to Newt; thus, the reference `Call' or `Augustus'
can suggest that the sentence is not Newt's subjective sentence.
Thus, information provided by references must be considered by
the discourse process.
.pp
Second,
the reference algorithm explicitly adds the propositional content
of all references to the CBS.
However, Wilks, Bien, and Ballim 
(Wilks & Bien 1983, Ballim 1986, Wilks & Ballim 1986)
argue that it is not a
cognitively valid model to assume that a cognitive agent 
explicitly represents all beliefs that she believes are held by others.
Instead, they argue, a cognitive agent should generate another agent's belief
space (which they call a
.ul
point of view)
only when it is needed;  only 
.ul
atypical 
beliefs 
(Ballim 1986, Wilks & Ballim 1986)
need to be explicitly represented.  So, for example, if the reader
decides
that the beliefs reflected by a reference in a subjective context
are true, and not atypical, then there may
be no need to explicitly store these beliefs in the subjective character's
belief space.  The kinds of beliefs that should and should not be
explicitly stored in a character's belief space need to be identified,
and how belief spaces
should be generated for the purpose of understanding
references in third-person narrative needs to be investigated.
.pp
Finally, we consider 
the manipulation of the attentional
state at subjective context boundaries.
If a subjective context of one character follows the subjective context
of another character, then entities in focus in the first subjective
context should no longer be in focus in the second.  This is due
to the fact that sentences in the second subjective context are not
understood in terms of the first; instead, the two subjective contexts
are distinct, non-hierarchically related discourse segments.  Thus, the
focus spaces of the discourse segments in the first subjective context
should be popped from the focus stack when the second subjective
context is encountered.  A question for future research is exactly
when this manipulation of the attentional state occurs, since the
reader may not realize until the end of the first sentence of the
second subjective context that a shift in the psychological point of view
has occurred.  It may be an important constraint for determining
the psychological point of view
that entities in focus
in one subjective context are no longer in focus in a following one.
The fact that
a sentence is about something that is not in the
current attentional state (or related to something in it) 
might indicate that a subjective context has ended.
Or, a full noun phrase referring to an entity that
is
in high enough
focus for an anaphoric reference to be used might also indicate that
a subjective context has ended.  These
suggestions are due to Nakhimovsky (1988).
.pp
However, observations of texts are required to determine how the
attentional state should be manipulated at a boundary between
an objective context and a subjective context (and vise versa).
It may be, for example, that something mentioned in an objective
context can be referred to anaphorically in a subsequent subjective
sentence.
.sh 1 "EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS."
This section discusses empirical investigations suggested by this
research.
.sh 2 "Kinds of Sentences Interpreted to be Subjective."
The first is the design and performance of an experiment
to test what kinds of sentences readers interpret to be subjective.
The results could be used to access the performance of the algorithm.
One might suggest that the terms ``subjective'' and ``objective'' be
explained to subjects and then ask the subjects to segment the text.
However, this would require subjects to become aware that they are
interpreting certain sentences to be subjective.  In addition, the
results would probably vary from subject to subject depending on
how they interpret the terms ``subjective'' and ``objective''.  Although
it is important to know about individual differences among subjects, the
important
individual differences are in the way that sentences are understood, not
in the extent to which different subjects are aware of their reading process
or in how they interpret the terms ``subjective'' and ``objective''.
.pp
A better kind of experiment might be to ask subjects to paraphrase
sentences in such a way that their paraphrases show
if they have related the content of a sentence 
to a character's consciousness.
Subjects' attention should be focussed
on the characters' consciousnesses and not, for example,
on the plot or on just the literal meaning of the sentence.
In addition, when paraphrases should be elicited and the amount of text
presented at one time will have to be carefully considered.
It would seem that many subjective sentences
are not ``important'' enough to be represented in a reader's long-term
memory representation of the story.  Thus, having subjects paraphrase
a text from long-term memory might not be the best design.
Perhaps, therefore, texts should
be presented one sentence at a time and responses should be
elicited immediately after a sentence is read.
This kind of experiment could show not only
the kinds of
sentences that readers interpret to be subjective but also specific
ways in which the content of a subjective sentence can be related to
a character's consciousness.
.sh 2 "Focussed Processing:  Expected Subjective Characters."
The second is the design and performance of experiments to test
if readers first consider if it is plausible that the expected subjective
character is the subjective character of a subjective sentence
and only consider other possibilities
if it isn't plausible.  (This experiment should exclude
private-state reports and sentences with
narrative parentheticals, since the
algorithm decides that the subjective character is the experiencer of
the denoted private state and the subject of the parenthetical, respectively,
not an expected subjective character.  In addition, sentences that appear
in a situation in which there are two expected subjective characters
could be excluded; competition could be considered later.)
One experiment could investigate whether the
expected subjective character is chosen to be the subjective character if
there are more than one character that could plausibly the subjective
character.  Another could investigate whether the expected subjective
character is the first character considered, and so if the expected
subjective character is the most plausible choice, other possibilities
are not considered.  Reading times 
could be compared in two situations:  the
situation in which the most plausible choice is the expected
subjective character, and the situation in which the most plausible
choice is 
.ul
not 
the expected subjective character.
If readers do consider the expected subjective character first, then
reading times in the first situation should be lower than in the
second situation.  However, results might vary depending on the reasons
why a sentence is subjective.  For example, suppose that a character
has a private pet name for another.
The appearance of the pet name in a sentence might be the reason
that the sentence is interpreted to be subjective in the first place.
It can be expected that only the character who uses the pet name
would be considered, whether or not she is the expected subjective character.
.sh 2 "The Effect of the Situation on Comprehension."
The third is the design and performance of an experiment
to test if the situation influences readers' interpretation of potential
subjective elements.  This kind of experiment might involve placing the
same sentence with a potential subjective element in different situations
to see if the sentence is interpreted to be subjective in some situations
but not in others.
.bp
.ce 2
.sz +2
.b
Chapter 10
Conclusions
.r
.sz -2
.sp
.ls 2
.sh 1 "INTRODUCTION." 1
This dissertation has presented
an algorithm for recognizing subjective
sentences and identifying their subjective characters in third-person
narrative.  The algorithm is 
based on regularities, found during extensive examinations
of naturally occurring texts, in the ways texts initiate, continue, and resume
a character's psychological point of view.
.pp
This chapter summarizes the main results of the work presented in
this dissertation.
.sh 1 "THE NEED FOR A DISCOURSE-LEVEL APPROACH."
This dissertation shows that to recognize subjective sentences
and to identify their subjective characters, sentences cannot be considered
in isolation.  In many cases, it is only in context that a sentence
is subjective or has a particular subjective character.
Thus, it is better to focus on discourse continuities and
discontinuities with respect to the psychological point of view
than to treat the psychological point of view merely as an aspect
of isolated sentences.
.sh 1 "EXPECTED SUBJECTIVE CHARACTERS."
The subjective character of a subjective sentence is sometimes
identifiable from the sentence itself.  This is the case if the sentence
contains a narrative parenthetical; it might also be the case if the
sentence is a private-state, perceptual-action, or 
psychological-action sentence, but not necessarily (see Sections
5 and 6 below).  A subjective sentence from which the subjective character
can be identified is one means to initiate a new psychological point of view.
.pp
A subjective character who is not
identifiable from the sentence is most often the
subjective character of the last subjective sentence.  In this
case, the current sentence continues the current psychological
point of view
(if the previous sentence was subjective) or resumes a character's
psychological point of view (if objective sentences have appeared since the
last subjective sentence).
.pp
Less commonly, the subjective character is the actor of an action
denoted by a previous objective sentence.  Since this actor might not be
the subjective character of the last subjective sentence, this is another way
to initiate a new psychological point of view.
.pp
In order to identify the subjective character in these situations, the algorithm
keeps track of characters who are likely to become subjective characters,
called
.ul
expected subjective characters. 
The last subjective character is of course not expected if only objective
sentences have appeared.  Further, the last subjective character
is not usually a source
for identifying the subjective character if the last subjective sentence
appeared in a previous scene.
Thus, the last subjective character is an expected
subjective character only if a subjective sentence has appeared in the current
scene.  The conditions under which an actor becomes the subjective character
were observed to be quite restrictive.  For example, something ``stronger''
than performing an action is usually required to make a character the
subjective character for the first time.  So, for an actor to be an expected
subjective character, it has to have been the subjective character of some
previous subjective sentence.  Other criteria for an actor to be an expected
subjective character involve the current text situation and also properties 
of the sentence denoting the action.
.pp
If the subjective character is not identifiable from the sentence, then the
algorithm identifies it to be an expected subjective character, if there is one.
If there isn't one, then the subjective character is unidentified.  
A heuristic is given for resolving competition 
between expected subjective characters.
.sh 1 "POTENTIAL SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS."
Banfield (1982) identified a set of linguistic elements that can only
appear in subjective sentences, so can be used to recognize
subjective sentences.  We show that other linguistic
elements can be used to recognize subjective sentences as well,
even though they may not appear exclusively in subjective sentences.
.pp
I define a category of linguistic elements called
.ul
potential subjective elements,
which can be understood with respect to a character's consciousness.
If
a potential subjective element appearing in a sentence 
.ul
is 
understood with respect to a character's consciousness, then it is a reason
to understand the sentence to be subjective.
The potential subjective elements can be understood with respect to
a character's consciousness for a variety of reasons.  For example, a
potential subjective element such as `maybe'
expresses uncertainty.
.pp
In addition to Banfield,
other researchers have discussed
some of the potential subjective elements in relation to subjective sentences.
Some of the potential subjective elements that have not, to my
knowledge, been discussed before in relation to subjective
sentences are 
adverbials such as `anyway' and `after all' (\c
used as
.ul
conjuncts
(Quirk et al. 1985)),
which can indicate
a character's reasoning; subordinators such as `whatever', which can
indicate a lack of knowledge; 
and adverbials such as `hardly' and `merely' 
(used as
.ul
intensifier subjuncts
(Quirk et al. 1985)), which
indicate that something is less than expected,
and express evaluation as well.
Even for the potential subjective elements that were discussed
by others in relation to subjective sentences, this dissertation
extends previous work
by giving detailed
specifications of the particular uses of
words and syntactic properties that are potential subjective elements.
.pp
If a potential subjective element appearing in a sentence
.ul
is 
understood with respect to a character's consciousness, then I say that
it is a
.ul
subjective element
(a term borrowed, but redefined, from Banfield (1982).)
.pp
We identify a factor that can be important to
determining if a potential subjective element appearing in the sentence
is a subjective element (so can be used to recognize that a
sentence is subjective): the
current 
.ul
text situation.
Factors that determine the current text situation include whether there
has been a subjective sentence in the current scene, whether the previous
sentence was subjective, whether a paragraph break appeared since the
last subjective sentence, and whether an objective sentence appeared since
the last subjective sentence.
The algorithm decides if a potential subjective element is a subjective
element on the basis of the current text situation.  For example, it interprets
the shifted past to be a subjective element only if the previous sentence
was subjective and no paragraph break separates the current and previous
sentences, but it interpets adverbials such as `merely' to be subjective
just as long as there has been a subjective sentence so far in the current
scene.  The idea is that
the ``closer'' a sentence appears to the last subjective sentence, the
less obviously subjective it can be (i.e., it can contain weaker potential
subjective elements).
.sh 1 "PRIVATE-STATE SENTENCES." 
The subjective character of a private-state sentence may or may not
be identifiable from the sentence itself.  If it is, then the subjective
character is the experiencer
of the reported private state, even if she is not an expected subjective 
character; so, the sentence is a way to initiate a new psychological 
point of view.
.pp
Thus, the reader needs to decide if the subjective character of a private-state
sentence is identifiable from the sentence or not.  How the sentence is
interpreted is an important factor; the current text situation is another.
.pp
There are two subjective interpretations of private-state sentences:  
a represented thought and a private-state report.
Interpreted to be a represented thought, a private-state sentence is
someone's thought 
.ul
about
a character's private state.  A private-state sentence that is interprepreted
to be a private-state report, on the other hand, is a report
.ul
of 
a character's private state.
.pp
The subjective character of a private-state
.ul
report
is always the
.ul
experiencer
of the reported private state. So, the subjective character of a private-state
report is identifiable from the sentence itself.  On the other hand, the
subjective character of a represented thought cannot be identified from
the sentence itself, but depends on the context.
Thus, if something indicates that a private-state sentence is not
a private-state report (but is instead a represented thought), then the
subjective character should be identified to be an expected subjective character
rather than the experiencer.
.pp
A subjective element can do this, but not always.
Within the scope of the private-state term in a
private-state
.ul
report\c
, subjective elements 
.ul
can 
appear that are attributed to the
.ul
experiencer
rather than to an expected subjective character.  Thus, they cannot be used
to distinguish private-state reports from represented thoughts (so cannot
be used to identify the subjective character).
Thus,
if a subjective element is
.ul
non-subordinated,
which means that it is not within the scope of the private-state term,
then the subjective character should be identified to be an
expected subjective character (with the exception of some kinds of 
subjective elements; see Chapter 6).
However, if a subjective element is
.ul
subordinated,
which means that it
.ul
is 
in the scope of the private-state term, then it
cannot be considered to identify the subjective character.
.pp
We
show that an important factor for identifying the
subjective character of a private-state sentence without
non-subordinated subjective elements is the current text situation.
The shift from the subjective context of one character to the
subjective context of another character is a strong kind of
discourse discontinuity.  Thus, a paragraph break usually accompanies
such a shift.  Suppose that the previous sentence was subjective,
the current sentence is a private-state sentence, and
the experiencer of the private-state is a character
other than the subjective character of the previous sentence.
Also suppose that a paragraph break does not separate the
current and previous sentences.  If the current sentence is interpreted
to be a private-state report, then a shift from the
subjective context of one character to the subjective context of another
occurs without a paragraph break.  The algorithm uses the fact that
a paragraph break usually accompanies this kind of shift to decide
that the current sentence continues the subjective context of the
first character instead of beginning a new subjective context of the
experiencer.  The algorithm can handle one exceptional case that can
occur,
.ul
broadening 
or
.ul
narrowing
of the psychological point of view upon a private-state sentence; see
Chapter 6.
.pp
We show that a private-state sentence does not always
specify the experiencer.  The algorithm identifies the experiencer
to be an expected subjective character, if there is one.
.pp
Finally, we identify a kind of private-state sentence that can be objective
or subjective, and show that if it is subjective, it cannot be the experiencer's
subjective sentence.
.sh 1 "PSYCHOLOGICAL-ACTION AND PERCEPTUAL-ACTION SENTENCES."
Another kind of sentence that has a role in recognizing subjective sentences
is one that denotes a 
.ul
psychological
or 
.ul
perceptual
action.
A sentence denoting a psychological-action or perceptual-action sentence
can be either objective or subjective.
A psychological or perceptual action is an action associated with a private
state, but it is not a private state itself.  
Because it is associated
with a private state, a sentence denoting it can have the same role
as a private-state report; and because it is an action,
it can have the same role as other kinds of actions.
The distinction
between private-state terms, on the one hand, and psychological-action and
perceptual-action terms, on the other, has been noted by other researchers.
However, the
algorithm's treatment of psychological and perceptual
actions is a contribution of this dissertation.
.pp
We identify one factor that can be important for determining whether a
perceptual action or psychological action should be treated as a private
state or as an action:  whether the actor has been the subjective character.
If the actor has been the subjective character, then the algorithm
treats the action
as a private state.
But if the actor has not been the subjective character, then the algorithm
treats the action just like other actions.  (The algorithm then interprets
the sentence as it would interpret a private-state sentence
or a sentence denoting an action, respectively.)
.sh 1 "REFERENCES."
Finally, we address a difference in the way that specific references
are understood in third-person narrative text from the way they
are understood in conversation.  The difference is the set of
beliefs with respect to which they are understood.
In conversation, references are understood with respect to the
mutual beliefs of the speaker and hearer.  In objective contexts,
however, their propositional content is understood to be unquestionably
true; in subjective contexts, their propositional content is understood
to be believed by the subjective character.  We illustrate how the
results of the algorithm for recognizing subjective sentences can
be used to understand references with respect to an appropriate set
of beliefs.
.sh 1 "IMPLEMENTATION."
The algorithm for recognizing subjective sentences has been implemented
in two systems.  These systems share the same implementation of the
algorithm, but have different parsers.  One takes actual sentences
as input and the other takes a preprocessed version of the sentence
(called the
.ul
code).
The code includes
the information about a sentence that the algorithm requires.  The
latter system was developed so that the algorithm could be tested
without having to be concerned with independent NLU problems.
.pp
I extended Rapaport's (1986) belief representation (as defined
by its creation and access functions) for the purposes of this
dissertation.
The system that takes actual sentences as input uses my versions of
these functions
to understand certain kinds of references with respect to an appropriate
set of beliefs.
.bp
.ce 2
.sz +2
.b
Chapter 11
Bibliography
.r
.sz -2
.sp 2
.ls 1
.sh 1 "REFERENCES." 1
.sp
.np
Allen, James F. & Perrault, C. Raymond (1980),
``Analyzing Intention in Utterances,''
.ul
Artificial Intelligence
15:  143-178.
.np
Allen, James F. (1984),
``Towards a General Theory of Action and Time,''
.ul
Artificial Intelligence
23:  123-154.
.np
Allen, James F. (1987),
.ul
Natural Language Understanding
(Menlo Park, CA:  Benjamin/Cummings).
.np
Almeida, Michael J. (1987),
``Reasoning about the Temporal Structure of Narratives,''
.ul
Technical Report 87-10
(Buffalo:  SUNY Buffalo Department of Computer Science).
.np
Appelt, Douglas E. (1985),
``Some Pragmatic Issues in the Planning of Definite 
and Indefinite Noun Phrases,''
.ul
Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Assoc. for Computational Linguistics (ACL-85; University of Chicago)
(Morristown, NJ:  Assoc. for Computational Linguistics):  198-203.
.np
Ballim, Afzal (1986),
``Generating Points of View,''
.ul
Technical Report MCCS-86-68
(New Mexico: New Mexico State University Computing Research Laboratory).
.np
Banfield, Ann (1982), 
.ul
Unspeakable Sentences:  Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction
(Boston:  Routledge & Kegan Paul).
.np
Banfield, Ann (1987),
``Describing the Unobserved,''
in Nigel Fabb et al. (eds.)
.ul
The Linguistics of Writing
(Methuen):  265-285.
.np
Barwise, Jon & Perry, John (1983),
.ul
Situations and Attitudes
(Cambridge, MA:  MIT Press).
.np
Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward (1988), ``Adverbial Stance Types
in English,''
.ul
Discourse Processes
11:  1-34.
.np
Black, John B.; Turner, Terrence J.; & Bower, Gordon H. (1979),
``Point of View in Narrative Comprehension, Memory, and Production,''
.ul
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior
18:  187-198.
.np
Bond, S. J. & Hayes, J. R. (1984),
``Cues People Use to Paragraph Text,''
.ul
Research in the Teaching of English
18:  147-167.
.np
Brennan, Susan E.; Friedman, Marilyn W.; & Pollard, Carl J. (1987),
``A Centering Approach to Pronouns,''
Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Assoc. for Computational Linguistics (ACL-87; Stanford)
(Morristown, NJ:  Assoc. for Computational Linguistics):  155-162.
.np
Brinton, Laurel (1980),
`` `Represented Perception':  A Study in Narrative Style,''
.ul
Poetics
9:  363-381.
.np
Bruder, Gail; Engl, Lorraine; & Schultz, J. (1985), ``Preposed
Adverbials Signal Change in the Narrative Deictic Center,''
paper presented at the Psychonomic Society, Boston.
.np
Bruder, Gail A.; Duchan, Judy F.; Rapaport, William J.; Segal, Erwin M.; 
Shapiro, Stuart C.; & Zubin, David A. (1986),
``Deictic Centers in Narrative:  An Interdisciplinary Cognitive-Science 
Project,''
.ul
Technical Report 86-20 
(Buffalo:  SUNY Buffalo Dept. of Computer Science).
.np
Bruder, Gail (1988),
``The Deictic Center and Sentence Interpretation in Natural Narrative,''
paper presented at the Psychonomic Society, Chicago.
.np
B$roman u dotdot$hler,
Karl (1934),
``The Deictic Field of Language and Deictic Words,'' in R. J.
Jarvella & W. Klein (trans. and eds.),
.ul
Speech, Place and Action:  Studies in Deixis and Related Topics
(Chichester, England:  John Wiley & Sons):  9-30.
.np
Bybee, Joan (1985),
.ul
Morphology:  a Study of the Relation Between Meaning and Form
.ul
[Typological Studies in Language 9]
(Amsterdam:  John Benjamins).
.np
Casta\o"n~"eda, Hector-Neri (1970),
``On the Philosophical Foundations of the Theory of Communication:  Reference,''
.ul
Midwest Studies in Philosophy
2 (1977): 165-186.
.np
Casta\o"n~"eda, Hector-Neri
(1975),
.ul
Thinking and Doing:  The Philosophical Foundations of Institutions
(Dordrecht:  D. Reidel).
.np
Chafe, Wallace (1986),
``Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing,''
in
W. Chafe & J. Nichols (eds.),
.ul
Evidentiality:  The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology
(Norwood, NJ:  Ablex).
.np
Chatman, Seymour (1978),
.ul
Story and Discourse:  Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film
(Ithaca, NY:  Cornell University Press).
.np
Chatman, Seymour (1986),
``Characters and Narrators:  Filter, Center, Slant, and Interest-Focus,''
.ul
Poetics Today
(7)2:  190-204.
.np
Chun, Soon Ae (1987), ``SNePS Implementation of Possessive Phrases,''
.ul
SNeRG Technical Note No. 19 
(Buffalo:  SUNY Buffalo Dept. of Computer
Science).
.np
Clark, Herbert H., & Marshall, Catharine R. (1981),
``Definite Reference and Mutual Knowledge,''
in 
A. Joshi, B. Webber, & I. Sag (eds.), 
.ul
Elements of Discourse Understanding
(Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press):  10-63.
.np
Cohen, Philip R. (1978),
``On Knowing What to Say:  Planning Speech Acts,''
.ul
Technical Report 118
(Toronto:  University of Toronto Dept. of Computer Science).
.np
Cohen, Philip R. & Perrault, C. Raymond (1979),
``Elements of a Plan-Based Theory of Speech Acts,''
.ul
Cognitive Science
3:  177-212.
.np
Cohen, Philip R.; Perrault, C. Raymond; & Allen, James F. (1982),
``Beyond Question Answering,''
in
W. Lehnert & M. Ringle (eds.),
.ul
Strategies for Natural Language Processing
(Hillsdale, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum):  245-274.
.np
Cohen, Robin (1987), ``Analyzing the Structure of Argumentative Discourse,''
.ul
Computational Linguistics
13:  11-24.
.np
Cohn, Dorrit (1978), 
.ul
Transparent Minds:  Narrative Modes for Representing Consciousness in Fiction
(Princeton:  Princeton University Press).
.np
Dinsmore, John (1987), 
``Mental Spaces from a Functional Perspective,'' 
.ul 
Cognitive Science
11:  1-21.
.np
Dole\o"z\(hc"el,
Lubomir (1973),
.ul
Narrative Modes in Czech Literature
(Toronto:  University of Toronto Press).
.np
Donnellan, Keith S. (1966),
``Reference and Definite Descriptions,''
.ul
Philosophical Review
60:  281-304.
.np 
Dyer, Michael G. (1983),
.ul
In-Depth Understanding: A Computer Model of Integrated Processing for Narrative Comprehension
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
.np
Ehrlich, Susan (1987),
``Aspect, Foregrounding and Point of View,''
.ul
Text
7(4):  363-376.
.np
Fauconnier, Gilles (1985),
.ul
Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
.np
Fawcett, Brenda (1986),
``The Representation of Ambiguity in Opaque Constructs,''
.ul
Technical Report No. CSRI-178
(Toronto:  University of Toronto Computer Systems Research Institute).
.np
Fawcett, Brenda, & Hirst, Graeme (1986),
``The Detection and Representation of Ambiguities of Intension and 
Description,''
.ul
Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Assoc. for Computational Linguistics (ACL-86; Columbia University)
(Morristown, NJ:  Assoc. for Computational Linguistics):  192-199.
.np
Fehr, Bernhard (1938),
``Substitutionary Narration and Description:  A Chapter in Stylistics,''
.ul
English Studies
20:  97-107.
.np
Fillmore, Charles (1974),
``Pragmatics and the Description of Discourse,''
in
C. Fillmore, G. Lakoff, & R. Lakoff (eds.),
.ul
Berkeley Studies in Syntax and Semantics I
(Berkeley:  University of California Dept. of Linguistics and Institute of 
Human Learning):  V1-V21.
.np
Fillmore, Charles (1975),
.ul
Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis
(Bloomington:  Indiana University Linguistics Club).
.np
Fox, Barbara A. (1987),
.ul
Discourse Structure and Anaphora
(Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press).
.np
Galbraith, Mary (forthcoming),
``Child Subjectivity in the Novel:  A Linguistics and Phenomenological
Approach to the Narration of Self,''
Ph.D. dissertation, 
.ul
Technical Report
(Buffalo:  SUNY Buffalo Dept. of Computer Science).
.np
Grosz, Barbara J. (1981), ``Focusing and Description in Natural 
Language Dialogues,''
in 
A. Joshi, B. Webber, & I. Sag (eds.),
.ul
Elements of Discourse Understanding
(Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press):  84-105.
.np
Grosz, Barbara J.; Joshi, Aravind K.; & Weinstein, Scott (1983), 
``Providing a Unified Account of Definite Noun Phrases in Discourse,''
.ul
Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Assoc. for Computational Linguistics (ACL-83; MIT),
(Morristown, NJ:  Assoc. for Computational Linguistics):  44-50.
.np
Grosz, Barbara J., & Sidner, Candace L. (1986), ``Attention, Intentions, 
and the Structure of Discourse,'' 
.ul
Computational Linguistics
12:  175-204.
.np
Hamburger, K$roman a dotdot$te (1973),
.ul
The Logic of Literature,
M. J. Rose (trans.)
(Indiana:  Indiana University Press).
.np
Hobbs, Jerry R. (1979),
``Coherence and Coreference''
.ul
Cognitive Science
3:  67-90.
.np
Horton, Diane (1986),
``Incorporating Agents' Beliefs in a Model of Presupposition,''
.ul
Technical Report CSRI-201
(Toronto:  University of Toronto Dept. of Computer Science).
.np
Horton, Diane & Hirst, Graeme (1988),
``Presuppositions as Beliefs,'' 
.ul
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-88, Budapest)
(Morristown, NJ:  Assoc. for Computational Linguistics):  255-260.
.np
Jackendoff, Ray (1972),
.ul
Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar
(Cambridge, MA:  MIT Press).
.np
Kamp, Hans
(1984),
``A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation,''
in
J. Groenendijk, T. M. V. Janssen, & M. Stokhof (eds.),
.ul
Truth, Interpretation and Information
(Dordrecht:  Foris):  1-41.
.np
Kass, Robert & Finin, Tim (1987),
``Rules for the Implicit Acquisition of Knowledge About the User,''
.ul
Proceedings of the 6th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-87; Seattle)
(Los Altos, CA:  Morgan Kaufmann):  295-300.
.np
Kobsa, Alfred (1984), 
``Three Steps in Constructing Mutual Belief Models From User Assertions,''
.ul
Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence
(Los Altos, CA:  Morgan Kaufmann):  423-427.
.np
Kobsa, Alfred (1985),
``Using Situation Descriptions and Russellian Attitudes for Representing
Beliefs and Wants,''
.ul
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-85)
(Los Altos, CA:  Morgan Kaufmann):  513-515.
.np
Kronfeld, Amichai (1986),
``Donnellan's Distinction and a Computational Model of Reference,''
.ul
Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Assoc. for Computational Linguistics (ACL-86; Columbia University)
(Morristown, NJ:  Assoc. for Computational Linguistics):  186-191.
.np
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1973),
``Where Epistemology, Style and Grammar Meet: A Case Study from the Japanese,''
in
P. Kiparsky & S. Anderson (eds),
.ul
A Festschrift for Morris Halle
(New York:  Holt, Rinehart & Winston):  377-391.
.np
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1976),
``Reflections on the Foundations of Narrative Theory\(emFrom a Linguistic Point
of View,''
in
T. A. van Dijk (ed.),
.ul
Pragmatics of Language and Literature
(Amsterdam:  North-Holland):  107-140.
.np
Lakoff, Robin (1974), ``Remarks on `this' and `that',''
.ul
Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society
(Chicago:  Chicago Linguistic Society):  345-356.
.np
Lehnert, Wendy G. (1981),
``Plot Units and Narrative Summarization,''
.ul
Cognitive Science
5:  293-331.
.np
Li, Naicong (1987), ``Pronoun Resolution in SNePS,'' 
.ul
SNeRG Technical Note 18
(Buffalo:  SUNY Buffalo Dept. of Computer Science).
.np
Lips, Marguerite (1926),
.ul
Le Style Indirect Libre
(Paris:  Payot).
.np
Longacre, Robert E. (1979),
``The Paragraph as a Grammatical Unit,''
in
Talmy Givon (ed.),
.ul
Syntax and Semantics,
Volume 12,
.ul
Discourse and Syntax
(New York:  Academic):  115-134.
.np
Lyons, John (1977),
.ul
Semantics,
Volume 2 (London:  Cambridge University Press).
.np
Maida, Anthony S., & Shapiro, Stuart C. (1982), ``Intensional Concepts 
in Propositional Semantic Networks,''
.ul
Cognitive Science
6:  291-330.
.np
Mann, William C., & Thompson, Sandra A. (1988),
``Rhetorical Structure Theory:  Toward a Functional Theory of Text
Organization,''
.ul
Text
8(3):  243-281.
.np
McCoy, Kathleen F. (1985),
``Responding to Object-Oriented Misconceptions,''
Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Pennsylvania.
.np
Morrow, Daniel G.; Greenspan, Steven L.; & Bower, Gordon H. (1987),
``Accessibility and Situational Models in Narrative Comprehension,''
.ul
Journal of Memory and Language
26:  165-187.
.np
Nakhimovsky, Alexander & Rapaport, William J. (1988),
``Discontinuities in Narratives,''
.ul
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-88, Budapest)
(Morristown, NJ:  Assoc. for Computational Linguistics):  465-470.
.np
Nakhimovsky, Alexander (1988),
``Aspect, Aspectual Class, and the Temporal Structure of Narrative,''
.ul
Computational Linguistics
14 (2):  29-43.
.np
Perrault, C. Raymond, & Cohen, Philip R. (1981),
``It's For Your Own Good:  A Note on Inaccurate Reference,''
in 
A. Joshi, B. Webber, & I. Sag (eds.), 
.ul
Elements of Discourse Understanding
(Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press):  217-230.
.np
Peters, Sandra L., & Shapiro, Stuart C. (1987a),
``A Representation for Natural Category Systems,''
.ul
Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Seattle)
(Hillsdale, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum):  379-390.
.np
Peters, Sandra L., & Shapiro, Stuart C. (1987b),
``A Representation for Natural Category Systems,''
.ul
Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-87; Milan)
(Los Altos, CA:  Morgan Kaufmann):  140-146.
.np
Peters, Sandra L.; Shapiro, Stuart C.; & Rapaport, William J. (1988),
``Flexible Natural Language Processing and Roschian Category Theory,''
.ul
Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Montreal)
(Hillsdale, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates):  125-131.
.np
Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sidney; Leech, Geoffrey; & Svartvik, Jan (1985),
.ul
A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language
(New York:  Longman). 
.np
Rapaport, William J. (1984),
``Belief Representation and Quasi-Indicators''
.ul
Technical Report 215
(Buffalo:  SUNY Buffalo Dept. of Computer Science).
.np
Rapaport, William J. (1986), ``Logical Foundations for Belief Representation,''
.ul
Cognitive Science
10:  371-422.
.np
Rapaport, William J., & Shapiro, Stuart C. (1984),
``Quasi-Indexical Reference in Propositional Semantic Networks,''
.ul
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-84; Stanford)
(Morristown, NJ:  Assoc. for Computational Linguistics):  65-70.
.np
Rapaport, William J.; Shapiro, Stuart C.; & Wiebe, Janyce M. (1986),
``Quasi-Indicators, Knowledge Reports, and Discourse''
.ul
Technical Report 86-15
(Buffalo:  SUNY Buffalo Dept. of Computer Science).
.np
Rapaport, William J. (1988),
``Syntactic Semantics:  Foundations
of Computational Natural-Language Understanding,''
in J. H. Fetzer (ed.),
.ul
Aspects of Artificial Intelligence
(Dordrecht, Holland:  Kluwer Academic Publishers):  81-131;
preprinted as,
.ul
Technical Report 86-24
(Buffalo:  SUNY Buffalo Department of Computer Science, 1986).
.np
Rapaport, William J.; Segal, Erwin M.; Shapiro, Stuart C.; Zubin, David
A.; Bruder, Gail A.; Duchan, Judith F.; Almeida, Michael J.; Daniels,
Joyce H.; Galbraith, Mary; Wiebe, Janyce M.; & Yuhan, Albert H. (1989),
``Deictic Centers and the Cognitive Structure of Narrative Comprehension,''
.ul
Technical Report 89-01
(Buffalo:  SUNY Buffalo Dept. of Computer Science).
.np
Reichenbach, Hans (1947),
.ul
Elements of Symbolic Logic
(London:  Macmillan).
.np
Reichman, Rachel (1985),
.ul
Getting Computers to Talk Like You and Me
(Cambridge:  The MIT Press).
.np
Reiser, Brian J. (1981),
``Character Tracking and the Understanding of Narrative,''
.ul
Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-81; Vancouver)
(Los Altos, CA:  Morgan Kaufmann):  209-211.
.np
Rosch, E.; Mervis, B.; Gray, W. D.; Johnson, D. M.; & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976),
``Basic Objects in Natural Categories,''
.ul
Cognitive Psychology
8:  382-439.
.np
Rosch, Eleanor, & Lloyd, B.B. (1978),
.ul
Cognition and Categorization
(Hillsdale, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum).
.np
Schank, Roger C. & Rieger, Charles J. III (1974), ``Inference 
and the Computer Understanding of Natural Language,''
.ul
Artificial Intelligence
5(4):  373-412.  Reprinted in 
R. J. Brachman & H. J. Levesque (eds.)
(1985),
.ul
Readings in Knowledge Representation
(Los Altos, Ca: Morgan Kaufmann):  120-139.
.np
Schank, Roger C. & Ableson, R. P. (1977),
.ul
Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding
(Hillsdale, NJ:  Erlbaum).
.np
Schiffrin, Deborah (1987),
.ul
Discourse Markers
(Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press).
.np
Shapiro, Stuart C. (1979), ``The SNePS Semantic Network Processing System,'' in
N.V. Findler (ed.),
.ul
Associative Networks
(New York:  Academic):  179-203.
.np
Shapiro, Stuart C., & Rapaport, William J. (1987), ``SNePS Considered as 
a Fully Intensional Propositional Semantic Network,'' in 
N. Cercone & G. McCalla (eds.),
.ul
The Knowledge Frontier
(New York:  Springer-Verlag):  262-315.
.np
Shapiro, Stuart C. & The SNePS Implementation Group (1989),
.ul
SNePS-2 User's Manual
(Buffalo:  SUNY Buffalo Dept. of Computer Science).
.np
Sidner, Candace L. & Israel, David J. (1981),
``Recognizing Intended Meaning and Speaker's Plans,''
.ul
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-1981)
(Los Altos, CA:  Morgan Kaufmann):  203-208.
.np
Sidner, Candace L. (1983), ``Focusing in the 
Comprehension of Definite Anaphora,'' in 
M. Brady & R. Berwick (eds.), 
.ul
Computational Models of Discourse
(Cambridge, MA:  MIT Press):  267-330.
.np
Stark, Heather A. (1987),
``Keeping Track of Characters in Narrative,''
Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Computer Science, Stanford University.
.np
Stark, Heather A. (1988),
``What Do Paragraph Markings Do?,''
.ul
Discourse Processes
11:  275-303.
.np
Thompson, Sandra A. (1987),
`` `Subordination' and Narrative Event Structure,''
in Russel S. Tomlin (ed.),
.ul
Coherence and Grounding in Discourse
(Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins):  435-454.
.np
Ushie, Yukiko (1986),
`` `Corepresentation' -- A Textual Function of the Indefinite Expression,''
.ul
Text
6(4):  427-446.
.np
Uspensky, Boris (1973), 
.ul
A Poetics of Composition
(Berkeley:  University of California Press).
.np
Vendler, Zeno (1957),
``Verbs and Times,''
.ul
Philosophical Review
66:  143-160.
.np
Webber, Bonnie L. (1981),
``Discourse Model Synthesis:  Preliminaries to Reference,''
in
A. Joshi, B. Webber, & I. Sag (eds.),
.ul
Elements of Discourse Understanding
(Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press):  283-299.
.np
Webber, Bonnie L. (1983),
``So What Can We Talk About Now?,''
in
M. Brady & R. Berwick (eds.),
.ul
Computational Models of Discourse
(Cambridge:  MIT Press).
.np
Webber, Bonnie L. (1987),
``The Interpretation of Tense in Discourse,''
.ul
Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Assoc. for Computational Linguistics (ACL-87; Stanford)
(Morristown, NJ:  Assoc. for Computational Linguistics):  147-154.
.np
Webber, Bonnie L. (1988),
``Tense as Discourse Anaphor,''
.ul
Computational Linguistics
14 (2):  61-73.
.np
Wiebe, Janyce M. & Rapaport, William J. (1986), ``Representing 
.ul
De Re 
and 
.ul
De Dicto 
Belief Reports in Discourse and Narrative,''
.ul
Proc. IEEE
74:  1405-1413.
.np
Wiebe, Janyce M. & Rapaport, William J. (1988), ``A Computational Theory
of Perspective and Reference in Narrative,''
.ul
Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Assoc. for Computational Linguistics (ACL-88; SUNY at Buffalo)
(Morristown, NJ:  Assoc. for Computational Linguistics):  131-138.
.np
Wilensky, Robert (1983), 
.ul
Planning and Understanding
(Reading, MA:  Addison-Wesley).
.np
Wilks, Yorick & Ballim, Afzal (1986),
``Multiple Agents and the Heuristic Ascription of Belief,''
.ul
Technical Report MCCS-86-75
(New Mexico: New Mexico State University Computing Research Laboratory).
.np
Wilks, Yorick, & Bien, Janusz (1983),
``Beliefs, Points of View, and Multiple Environments,''
.ul
Cognitive Science
7:  95-119.
.np
Willet, Thomas (1988),
``A Cross-Linguistic Survey of the Grammaticization of Evidentiality,''
.ul
Studies in Language
12(1):  51-97.
.np
Woods, William A. (1975),
``What's in a Link:  Foundations for Semantic Networks,''
in Bobrow & Collins (eds.),
.ul
Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science
(New York:  Academic Press):  35-82.
Reprinted in
.ul
Readings in Knowledge Representation,
R. Brachman & H. Levesque (eds.)
(Los Altos, CA:  Morgan Kaufman):  217-241.
.bp
.sh 1 "TEXTS CITED."
.sp
.lp
.np
Adler, Carole S. (1987),
.ul
The Magic of the Glits
(New York:  Macmillan).
.np
Allegro, John (1977),
.ul
The Dead Sea Scrolls
(Harmondsworth, Eng.:  Penguin).
.np
Bridgers, Sue Ellen (1979),
.ul
All Together Now
(New York:  Knopf).
.np
Caldwell, Taylor (1966),
.ul
No One Hears But Him
(Garden City, NY:  Doubleday).
.np
Cherryh, C.J. (1988),
.ul
Exile's Gate
(New York:  DAW Books).
.np
Clancy, Tom (1986),
.ul
Red Storm Rising
(New York:  G. P. Putnam's Sons).
.np
Franchere, Ruth (1964),
.ul
Hannah Herself
(New York:  Thomas Y. Crowell).
.np
Hailey, Arthur (1965),
.ul
Hotel
(New York:  Dell).
.np
Le Carr\o"e\(aa" (1986), 
.ul
A Perfect Spy
(New York:  Bantam Books).
.np
L'Engle, Madeleine (1962),
.ul
A Wrinkle in Time
(New York:  Dell Publishing). 
.np
L'Engle, Madeleine (1986),
.ul
Many Waters
(New York:  Dell Publishing). 
.np
Lorimer, Janet (1987),
.ul
Mystery of the Missing Treasure
(New York:  Scholastic).
.np
Ludlum, Robert (1982),
.ul
The Parsifal Mosaic
(New York:  Random House).
.np
McCullers, Carson (1931),
``The Jockey,''
in
M. Crane (ed.),
.ul
50 Great Short Stories
(New York:  Bantam Books, 1952).
.np
McMurtry, Larry (1985),
.ul
Lonesome Dove
(New York:  Simon & Schuster).
.np
Oneal, Zibby (1971),
.ul
War Work
(New York: Viking Press).
.np
Sachs, Marilyn (1966),
.ul
Amy and Laura
(Garden City, NY:  Doubleday).
.np
Tolkien, J.R.R. (1965),
.ul
The Two Towers
(New York:  Ballantine Books).
.np
Woolf, Virginia (1925),
.ul
Mrs. Dalloway
(New York:  Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich).
.np
Wu, William (1987),
.ul
Cyborg
(New York:  Ace Books).
.bp
.ls 2
.ce 10
.sz +2
.b
Appendix A
Implementation of the Algorithm
.r
.sz -2
.ce 0
.ls 2
.sp
This appendix presents an implementation in Lisp of the algorithm for 
recognizing subjective
sentences described in Chapters 4-7.
.pp
The algorithm requires the following information about the current
sentence.\**
.(f
\**
As in Chapters 5-8, I use
``sentence'' to mean ``input unit''.
.)f
First, it needs to know whether the sentence is a paragraph break, scene
break, or an actual sentence.  If it is an actual sentence, then the
algorithm needs to know:
.ip (1)
about each potential subjective element:  its potential-subjective-element 
category and whether it is subordinated to a private-state term.
.ip (2)
about each of the private states, seeming states, perceptual actions,
and psychological actions denoted by clauses of the sentence and also
about the event denoted by the main clause (whatever its event category): 
its event category, its argument (or, if it is a private state with an
unspecified experiencer, the fact that it has an unspecified 
experiencer),
whether it is denoted by the main clause, and whether
it is subordinated to a private state. 
.ip (3)
whether the sentence is a private-state sentence of which the main verb
phrase is a negated perceptual verb with a clausal object or a negated
factive verb with a propositional object
.ip (4)  
whether the sentence contains a narrative parenthetical and, if
so, the referent of the subject of the parenthetical
.ip (5)
who has been the subjective character
.sp
.in 0
In the system demonstrated in the body of the dissertation,
the sentence-level parser extracts
the above
information from the text.  In 
the system demonstrated in Appendix B, the above 
is the information that is included in the 
code.
.pp
When the algorithm is called:
.ip (A) 
the variable $situation$ should contain the situation at the beginning
of the sentence 
.ip (B) 
the variable $last_subj_char$ should contain the last
subjective character if there is one, and nil otherwise 
.ip (C) 
the variable $last_active_char$ should contain the last active 
character if there is one, and nil otherwise
.in 0
.pp
Note that which expected subjective characters there are, if any,
can be determined from $situation$:
.ip (a) 
If $situation$ is presubjective-nonactive, then there are
no expected subjective characters, 
.ip (b) 
If $situation$ is is presubjective-active then
only $last_active_char$ is an expected subjective character,  
.ip (c) 
If $situation$ is continuing-subjective, interrupted-subjective,
broken-subjective, or postsubjective-nonactive
then only $last_subj_char$ is an expected subjective
character, and
.ip (d) 
If $situation$ is postsubjective-active then both $last_subj_char$ and
$last_active_char$ are expected subjective characters.
.in 0
.sp
Thus, a separate variable to hold the expected subjective characters is not
required.
.pp
In essence, the algorithm does the following:
If the current sentence is not a paragraph break or a scene break, then
the algorithm decides if it is subjective and, if so,
who the subjective character is.  If the sentence has an active
character, then the algorithm updates $last_active_char$ for the 
next sentence, and
if the sentence is subjective, it updates $last_subj_char$ for the
next sentence.  In addition, it updates $situation$ for the next sentence.
If the current sentence is a paragraph break or a scene break, then
it updates $situation$.
.pp
Following is the implementation of the algorithm in Lisp, although
shortened somewhat from the version used in the actual system.
How the information in (1)-(6) is represented is not part of the
algorithm itself.
The system demonstrated in earlier chapters represents this information in 
SNePS.  To avoid having to explain details of SNePSUL, 
the definitions of functions accessing the information in (1)-(6) are
not given below; instead, their input and output is described.
In addition, the print statements have been removed, and also many commands
that store information and distinguish among cases for the purpose
of printing.  A summary of the association of potential subjective
elements with situations can be found in Appendix B.
.bp
junk
.bp
junk
.bp
junk
.bp
junk
.bp
junk
.bp
junk
.bp
junk
.bp
junk
.bp
junk
.bp
junk
.bp
junk
.bp
.bp
.ce 2
.sz +2
.b
Appendix B
Preprocessed Input
.r
.sz -2
.sp 2
.ls 2
.sh 1 "INTRODUCTION." 1
This appendix describes a code that can be given as input to the
algorithm.  By translating natural text into the code and then giving
it as input to the algorithm, the algorithm can be tested on texts
without having to be concerned with independent NLU problems.  After the 
code is described, it is demonstrated on two short passages from 
.ul
Lonesome Dove.
A summary of event names and the association of potential subjective elements
with situations is given at the end of this appendix.
.pp
A sentence of the code includes the following information about an actual
sentence; this information was identified in Appendix B as the
information required by the algorithm:
.in +2
.sp
(1)  about each potential subjective element:  its potential-subjective-element 
category and whether it is subordinated to a private-state term.
.sp 
(2)  about each of the private states, seeming states, perceptual actions,
and psychological actions denoted by clauses of the sentence and also
about the event denoted by the main clause (whatever its event category): 
its event category, its argument (or, if it is a private state with an
unspecified experiencer, the fact that it has an unspecified 
experiencer),
whether it is denoted by the main clause, and whether
it is subordinated to a private state. 
.sp
(3)  whether the sentence is a private-state sentence of which the main verb
phrase is a negated perceptual verb with a clausal object or a negated
factive verb with a propositional object
.sp
(4)  whether the sentence contains a narrative parenthetical and, if
so, the referent of the subject of the parenthetical
.sp
(5)  whether the sentence is a paragraph break, scene break, or actual
sentence.
.sp
.in 0
.sh 1 "THE CODE."
Actual sentences are broken up into input units as specified in
Chapter 4 (I will continue to use ``sentence'' to mean ``input unit'').
Each sentence ends with a period.
A paragraph break is written as
.(q
paragraph.
.)q
and a scene break is written as
.(q
scene break.
.)q
.sh 2 "Events."
The event
denoted by the main clause is included in the code as well as 
all private states,
seeming states, perceptual actions, and psychological actions.
Other events do not have to be included.
A reference
to the argument immediately follows an event-category name, e.g.,
.(q
private_state Call and Augustus.
.)q
An unspecified experiencer is indicated as follows:
.(q
private_state unspecified_experiencer.
.)q
.sh 2 "Main Versus Other Clauses."
Main clauses are distinguished from other clauses with the use of
``main'' and ``not_main''.  The event denoted by the main clause and
the reference to its argument
is listed between ``main'' and either ``not_main'' or the 
period that ends the sentence.  An event denoted by another clause and
the reference to its argument, unless it is subordinated to a private
state, seeming state, perceptual action, or psychological action, 
is listed between ``not_main'' and either ``main'', another
appearance of ``not_main'', or the end of the sentence.  For example, the
sentence:
.(q
John washed the dishes while Mary went to the store.
.)q
Is encoded as:
.(q
main action John not_main action Mary.
.)q
We are not concerned with the nesting of clauses that are not the
main clause.
Thus, all ``not_main'' clauses that need to be
listed are simply listed on the same level.
For example,
.(q
Enjoying herself,
Mary washed the dishes while standing next to the woman whom John liked.
.)q
is encoded as
.(q
not_main private_state Mary main action Mary not_main private_state John.
.)q
The private-state term ``liked'' appears in a relative clause which 
is itself part of
a noun phrase; the noun phrase is part of a prepositional phrase;
and the prepositional phrase is part of a clause that is subordinated to 
the main clause.
Note that ``not_main'' is only used in a sentence of the code if there is
a private state, seeming state, perceptual action, or psychological
action that is denoted by a clause other than the main clause and that
is not subordinated to a private state, etc.
In addition,
the order of clauses is not significant.
.sh 2 "Neg_perc_v_clausal_obj and Neg_factive_v_prop_obj."
The fact that
the verb phrase of the main clause is a negated perceptual
verb with a clausal object is indicated as follows:
.(q
main neg_perc_v_clausal_obj private_state John.
.)q
That is, ``neg_perc_v_clausal_obj'' appears between ``main'' and
``private_state''.  Similarly, the fact that the verb phrase of the
main clause is a negated factive verb with a propositional object
is indicated as follows:
.(q
main neg_factive_v_prop_object private_state John.
.)q
.sh 2 "Narrative Parentheticals."
If the sentence contains a narrative parenthetical, then
``narr_par'' followed by a reference to the subject of the parenthetical
is listed in the main clause.
.sh 2 "Potential Subjective Elements."
All potential subjective elements are listed by category.  If
a potential subjective element appears in the main clause in the actual
sentence, then it should appear in the main clause in the encoded sentence.
That is, it should appear between ``main'' and either ``not_main'' or the
period ending the sentence.
.sh 2 "Subordination To a Private State, Etc."
Commas are used to indicate which events and potential subjective
elements are subordinated to a private state, seeming state, perceptual
action, or psychological action.  A comma can only appear immediately
after a reference to the argument of an event.  Anything that appears
before another comma or the period at the end of the sentence is
subordinated to that event.  The word ``not_main'' is not used for
the portion of a sentence subordinated to a private-state term, 
seeming-state term,
perceptual-action term, or psychological-action term.
For example,
.(q
Augustus saw them eat the poor burned breakfast.
.)q
Is encoded as:
.(q
main private_state Augustus, eval_adjective.
.)q
And, 
.(q
Call knew that Augustus loved to argue.
.)q
is encoded as:
.(q
main private_state Call, private_state Augustus.
.)q
.sh 1 "DEMONSTRATIONS."
The system that parses the code uses the same
implementation of the algorithm as the one demonstrated previously 
in this dissertation.
As in previous demonstrations, certain information has been deleted
such as calls to the parser.
.pp
Here is the first passage:
.(q
    ``I ain't near as old as you,'' Jake reminded him.  (1) ``Why don't you
marry her?''  (2) It was talk he didn't care to hear.
     (3) Swift Bill Spettle had let a horse kick him that morning (4) and had
a knot on his forehead as big as a goose egg.
     (5) ``You best let Bol rub some ointment on that bump,'' Call
suggested.  (6) The Spettle boys were mighty green, (7) but they were not
afraid to work.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 197-198]
.)q
.(q
.nf
Script started on Sun Aug 13 20:38:49 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Sun Aug 13 20:38:55 1989
sneps

: Previous_subj_char Jake.
Jake has been the subj_char 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.833 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Previous_subj_char Augustus.
Augustus has been the subj_char 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.700 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Previous_subj_char Call.
Call has been the subj_char 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.683 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize situation to postsubj-nonactive.
The situation is now postsubj-nonactive

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.150 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char to Jake.
Jake is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.800 gc= 0.00) <=) 

; The main clause of the first sentence denotes Jake's private state:

: 1 main private_state Jake.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Jake
The subj_char is Jake
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 2.133 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is broken-subj 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.450 gc= 0.00) <=) 

; Sentences (1) and (3) contain potential subjective elements that
; are not subjective, the first the shifted_past and the second the
; as_modifier:

: 2 main shifted_past action Bill Spettle.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is broken-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  shifted_past
It is not a subjective element 
The sentence is not subjective 
Objective sentence without an active_char in broken-subj situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 2.700 gc= 1.500) <=) 

: 3 main nonprivate_state Bill Spettle as_modifier.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  as_modifier
It is not a subjective element 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still postsubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 2.566 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is still postsubj-nonactive 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.450 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: 4 main quoted_speech Call.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
Call is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
Sentence with an active_char in postsubj-nonactive situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 2.200 gc= 0.00) <=) 

; Sentence (5) contains the potential subjective element `mighty',
; which is a modifying_intensifier_adverb_A:

: 5 main nonprivate_state Bill Spettle and Pete Spettle modifying_intensifier_adverb_A.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
      Call, the last active_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  modifying_intensifier_adverb_A
It is a subjective element 
Competition between the last subj_char and the last active_char 
 Choosing the last active_char 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  modifying_intensifier_adverb_A
The subj_char is Call
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 4.133 gc= 0.00) <=) 

; The main clause of (7) is listed as denoting a private state because 
; ``afraid'' appears, and none of the restrictions given in Chapter
; 6 apply: 

: 7 main private_state Bill Spettle and Pete Spettle.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Call, the last subj_char 
private_state of a character who isn't the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of |Pete Spettle| and |Bill Spettle|
The subj_char is Call
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 3.550 gc= 1.500) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Sun Aug 13 20:39:49 1989
.fi
.)q
.pp
The following demonstration is included to illustrate the encoding
of subordinated potential subjective elements:
.(q
(1) She [Lorena] liked a wash (2) and felt he
could wait until they camped near a river and could splash a little of
the dust off before bedding down.
     (3) Augustus watched them eat the poor burned breakfast.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 228]
.)q
.(q
.nf
Script started on Sun Aug 13 18:42:42 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Sun Aug 13 18:42:48 1989
sneps

: Previous_subj_char Augustus.
Augustus has been the subj_char 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.583 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize situation to continuing-subj.
The situation is now continuing-subj

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.183 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char to Lorena.
Lorena is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.750 gc= 0.00) <=) 

; In (1) and (2), the main clauses denote Lorena's private states and there
; are no potential subjective elements:

: 1 main private_state Lorena.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Lorena, the last subj_char 
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Lorena
The subj_char is Lorena
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 2.100 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: 2 main private_state Lorena.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Lorena, the last subj_char 
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Lorena
The subj_char is Lorena
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 2.083 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Lorena, the last subj_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is broken-subj 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.416 gc= 0.00) <=) 

; In (3), there is a potential subjective element subordinated to
; Augustus's perceptual action:

: 3 main perc_action Augustus, eval_adjective.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is broken-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Lorena, the last subj_char 
Perc_action of Augustus treated as a private_state:  Actor has been the subj_char 
Potential subjective element not considered: 
  eval_adjective
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  perc_action of Augustus
The subj_char is Augustus
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 3.100 gc= 0.00) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Sun Aug 13 18:54:41 1989
.)q
.fi
.sh 1 "SUMMARY OF ASSOCIATION OF POTENTIAL SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS WITH SITUATIONS."
Here is a summary of the event categories and of the
association of potential subjective elements with situations.  The
names are listed as they are used in the implementation of the algorithm.
.sp
Event categories:  
.sp
.in +2
nonprivate_state, action, perc_action,
psych_action, seeming state, private_state_nonchar, 
and private_state (actually private_state of a character).
.in 0
.sp
Potential subjective elements associated with the continuing-subj
situation:
.in +2
.sp
shifted_past progressive
.in 0
.sp
Potential subjective elements associated with the broken-subj,
interrupted-subj, and continuing-subj situations:  
.in +2
.sp
impersonal 
generic habitual as_modifier comparative_like subj_verb_inversion 
reaction_signal
.in 0
.sp
Potential subjective elements associated with the presubj-active,
postsubj-nonactive, postsubj-active, broken-subj, interrupted-subj, and
continuing-subj situations:
.in +2
.sp
modal_content_disjunct attitude_diminisher modifying_intensifier_adverb_B 
attitude_adverbial as_though_clause as_if_clause seeming_verb might 
have_to_be could_have could_be be_likely_to be_bound_to 
be_supposed_to should ought_to must have_to had_better 
be_obliged_to going_to would conditional for_some_reason 
whoever wherever whenever whatever somewhere something someone 
somebody percept_term attitude_noun attitude_adjective sentence_fragment.
.in 0
.sp
Potential subjective elements associated with the postsubj-nonactive, 
postsubj-active, broken-subj, interrupted-subj, continuing-subj,
presubj-active, and presubj-nonactive situations:  
.in +2
.sp
kinship_term 
eval_adjective intensifier-too intensifier-such intensifier-so 
intensifier-enough question exclamation.
.in 0
.bp
.ls 2
.sz +2
.ce 2
.b
Appendix C
Belief Representation Functions
.r
.sz -2
.sp
.sh 1 "SNePSUL FUNCTIONS." 1
Some SNePSUL functions we need to know are:\**
.(f
\**
The version of SNePS used in this dissertation is SNePS-79 (Shapiro
1979).  For a description of a new version of SNePS, ``SNePS-2'',
see Shapiro et al. 1989.
.)f
.in +2
.ls 1
.sp
(build <arc-1><nodeset-1> ... <arc-n><nodeset-n>) builds and returns
a network consisting
of a non-dominated node (i.e., a node with no arcs pointing into it)
with <arc-1> pointing to each of <nodeset-1> and ... and <arc-n> pointing 
to each of <nodeset-n>.
.sp
(find <arc-1><nodeset-1> ... <arc-n><nodeset-n>) returns all nodes with
<arc-1> pointing to at least one of <nodeset-1> and ... and <arc-n> pointing 
to at least one of <nodeset-n>.  A nodeset-i may be a variable, and
an arc-i may be a path of arcs.
.sp
(findorbuild <arc-1><nodeset-1> ... <arc-n><nodeset-n>) returns the
result of (find <arc-1><nodeset-1> ... <arc-n><nodeset-n>) if the result
is non-nil; if the result is nil, returns the result of (build
<arc-1><nodeset-1> ... <arc-n><nodeset-n>).
.in 0
.sp
.ls 2
.sh 1 "BELIEF REPRESENTATION FUNCTIONS."
The creation and access functions of the belief representation described
in Chapter 8 are ``build-in-context'' and ``find-in-context'', respectively:
.sp
.in +2
.ls 1
(build-in-context <arc-1><nodeset-1> ... <arc-n><nodeset-n> 
context <belief stack>)
adds the node (or nodes) returned from 
(findorbuild <arc-1><nodeset-1> ... <arc-n><nodeset-n>) to the belief
space of <belief stack> and returns
that node (or nodes).
.sp
(find-in-context <arc-1><nodeset-1> ... <arc-n><nodeset-n> 
context <belief stack>) returns any nodes with <arc-1> pointing to
at least one of <nodeset-1> and ... and <arc-n> pointing to
at least one of <nodeset-n> that appear in the belief space of <belief
stack>.
.sp
.in 0
.ls 2
A <belief stack> = (A\*<x\*> A\*<x-1\*> ... A\*<1\*>)
is a list of nodes, where A\*<1\*> is the
system's self-concept.  For the sake of convenience, however,
find-in-context and build-in-context allow any of 
A\*<x\*> A\*<x-1\*> ...  A\*<2\*> to be proper names.\**
.(f
\**
Any of them can be lisp or SNePSUL forms as well.
.)f
A proper name appearing in position i of a belief stack is interpreted
to be the node that is the OBJECT case of an OBJECT-PROPERNAME
proposition that is in the belief space of (A\*<i-1\*> ...
A\*<1\*>) (it is a error if there isn't one).  In addition, the system's
self concept can be
be specified as `|the reader|'.
.pp
In a call to find-in-context or build-in-context, the <belief stack>
argument
is optional.  If it is not present, then nodes are found or
built in the belief space of the belief stack stored in the
SNePSUL variable $belstack$.  In the system demonstrated in Chapters
5-8 of this dissertation, the algorithm for recognizing subjective
sentences manipulates $belstack$, and the CBS is the belief space of
$belstack$.
.pp
A final point concerns a path of arcs in a call to find-in-context.
One kind of path is the following:  If 
X\*<1\*>, ..., X\*<n\*> are nodes and A\*<i\*> is an arc from
X\*<i\*> to X\*<i+1\*>, then 
A\*<1\*> ... A\*<n-1\*> is a path from X\*<1\*> to X\*<n\*>.
If the symbol !
appears between A\*<i-1\*> and A\*<i\*>, then if the <belief stack>
argument is present,
X\*<i\*> must be believed in the belief space of <belief stack>; if
the <belief stack> argument is not present, then X\*<i\*> must be
believed in the belief space of the belief stack stored in $belstack$.\**
.(f
\**
This is an extension of the SNePSUL interpretation of the symbol ! in
paths, which is that X\*<i\*> must be asserted (i.e., be in the reader's
belief space).
.)f
.sh 1 "EXTENSIONS TO RAPAPORT'S DEFINITION."
In Rapaport's definitions of the belief representation functions:
.ip (i)
If the belief stack argument was not present in calls to
find-in-context and build-in-context, then nodes were found or
built in the reader's belief space.  In the version described here,
if the belief stack argument is not present, then nodes are found
or built in the belief space of the belief stack stored
on the SNePSUL variable $belstack$, which may
or may not be the reader's belief space.
.ip (ii)
The symbol ! was not interpreted in paths as described above.
.ip (iii)
Build-in-context always created a new node representing the
proposition it added to a belief space.
Thus, a single proposition never appeared
in more than one belief space.  In the version described here, a
proposition can appear in any number of belief spaces.
.ip (iv)
Since it did not expect a proposition to appear in more than one
belief space,
find-in-context was able to find a proposition only in one belief space
even if it appeared in more than one.  The version of find-in-context
described here can find a proposition in all of the belief spaces
in which it appears.
.in 0
.sp
Minor extensions to the original definition include allowing
proper names to be included in the belief stack argument,
error-checking, provisions for unasserting a proposition in a belief
space (i.e., removing a proposition from a belief space), representing
the system's self-concept in the same way as other agents are
represented, so that the representation is more consistent (in the
original specification, the system was represented by the node `system'),
and changing find-in-context so that it returns all nodes corresponding
to <arc-1><nodeset-1> ... <arc-n><nodeset-n> in the appropriate
belief space; in the original version, just one node was ever returned.
.sh 1 "DEMONSTRATIONS."
This section demonstrates the belief representation functions.
The example is similar to a situation in
Robert Ludlum's 
.ul
The Parsifal Mosaic:  
Early in the novel, the reader learns that 
there is a spy named `Parsifal',
but does not know who it is.  As the novel progresses,
characters believe that various other characters are Parsifal.
.pp
Two additional things we need to know about SNePSUL
for the following demonstration are that
`#'<name> creates a new node that can later be accessed with
`*'<name>, and `(? x)' specifies a variable.
.(q
.nf
Script started on Thu Aug 10 06:30:41 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Thu Aug 10 06:30:49 1989
sneps

; Build the belief in the reader's belief space that there is someone named `Michael':  

* (desc (build-in-context object #m propername (findorbuild lex Michael) context (|the reader|)))

(m2 (propername (m1 (lex (Michael)))) (object (b2)))
(dumped) 
exec: 0.15 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; Build the belief that there is someone named `Parsifal' in Michael's belief space: 

* (desc (build-in-context object #p propername (findorbuild lex Parsifal) context (Michael |the reader|)))

(m6 (propername (m5 (lex (Parsifal)))) (object (b3)))
(dumped) 
exec: 0.30 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; Add the belief to the reader's belief space that the person whom Michael believes is named `Parsifal' 
; is named Parsifal:

* (desc (build-in-context object *p propername (findorbuild lex Parsifal) context (|the reader|)))

(m6 (propername (m5 (lex (Parsifal)))) (object (b3)))
(dumped) 
exec: 0.16 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; Build the belief that there is someone named `Arthur Pierce' in Michael's belief space:

* (desc (build-in-context object #a propername (findorbuild lex |Arthur Pierce|) context (Michael |the reader|)))

(m11 (propername (m10 (lex (|Arthur Pierce|)))) (object (b4)))
(dumped) 
exec: 0.35 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; Build the belief in the reader's belief space that the individual whom Michael believes is named
; `Arthur Pierce' is named `Nikolai Malyekov':

* (desc (build-in-context object *a propername (findorbuild lex |Nikolai Malyekov|) context (|the reader|)))

(m15 (propername (m14 (lex (|Nikolai Malyekov|)))) (object (b4)))
(dumped) 
exec: 0.16 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; Following are the OBJECT-PROPERNAME propositions that now appear in the reader's and Michael's
; belief spaces.  Note that the proposition represented by node m6 appears in both:

* (desc (find-in-context object (? x) propername (? y) context (|the reader|)))

(m15 (propername (m14 (lex (|Nikolai Malyekov|)))) (object (b4)))
(m6 (propername (m5 (lex (Parsifal)))) (object (b3)))
(m2 (propername (m1 (lex (Michael)))) (object (b2)))
(dumped) 
exec: 0.23 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

* (desc (find-in-context object (? x) propername (? y) context (Michael |the reader|)))

(m11 (propername (m10 (lex (|Arthur Pierce|)))) (object (b4)))
(m6 (propername (m5 (lex (Parsifal)))) (object (b3)))
(dumped) 
exec: 0.40 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; Build the belief in Michael's belief space that the person whom he believes is named `Parsifal'
; and the person whom he believes is named `Arthur Pierce' are the same:

* (desc (build-in-context equiv *p equiv *a context (Michael |the reader|)))

(m17 (equiv (b3) (b4)))
(dumped) 
exec: 0.33 sec    gc: 1.21 sec 

; Add the same belief to the reader's belief space:

* (desc (build-in-context equiv *p equiv *a context (|the reader|)))

(m17 (equiv (b3) (b4)))
(dumped) 
exec: 0.11 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; Figure 1 shows the reader's beliefs at this point (it can be found
; at the end of the demonstration).

; If two concepts are believed to be co-extensional in a belief space, then anything believed about
; one of them in that belief space is also believed about the other in that belief space.  

;The following:
; 
;   (compose object (kstar (compose equiv- ! equiv)))
; 
; defines a path consisting of an OBJECT arc followed by zero or more occurrences of 
; the path EQUIV- ! EQUIV.  The ! specifies that the EQUIV-EQUIV propositions have to appear 
; in the appropriate belief space. ``equiv-'' means to follow an EQUIV arc in the backward direction.
;
; The two paths that are followed because
;
;   (compose object (kstar (compose equiv- ! equiv))) 
;
; appears in the next call to find-in-context are from 
; node m6 to node b3 and from node m6 to node b4, respectively.

; The reader believes that the concepts represented by nodes b3 and b4 are concepts of the same 
; individual and that this individual is named both `Parsifal' and `Nikolai Malyekov'.

* (desc (find-in-context propername (? x) (compose object (kstar (compose equiv- ! equiv))) *p context (|the reader|)))

(m15 (propername (m14 (lex (|Nikolai Malyekov|)))) (object (b4)))
(m6 (propername (m5 (lex (Parsifal)))) (object (b3)))
(dumped) 
exec: 0.30 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; The reader believes that Michael believes that the concepts represented by nodes b3 and b4 are 
; concepts of the same individual and that this individual is named both `Parsifal' and `Arthur Pierce':

* (desc (find-in-context propername (? x) (compose object (kstar (compose equiv- ! equiv))) *p context (Michael |the reader|)))

(m11 (propername (m10 (lex (|Arthur Pierce|)))) (object (b4)))
(m6 (propername (m5 (lex (Parsifal)))) (object (b3)))
(dumped) 
exec: 0.60 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; So far, there is only one EQUIV-EQUIV proposition and it appears in both the reader's and Michael's 
; belief spaces.  To introduce another one, suppose that a character Jenna believes that Parsifal 
; is another character, Alexei Kalyazin:

* (desc (build-in-context object #j propername (findorbuild lex Jenna) context (|the reader|)))

(m22 (propername (m21 (lex (Jenna)))) (object (b5)))
(dumped) 
exec: 0.18 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; Create the SNePSUL variable $belstack$ (with the function ``createbelstack''), and push the 
; reader's self-concept (returned by the function ``reader'') and the concept of Jenna onto 
; belstack (with the function ``pushbelstack''):

* (createbelstack)
nil 
exec: 0.03 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

* (pushbelstack (reader))
(b1) 
exec: 0.05 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

* (pushbelstack 'b5)
(b5 b1) 
exec: 0.11 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; Now a belief stack does not have to be supplied as an argument to build-in-context if beliefs 
; are to be built in Jenna's belief space.

; Build the belief in Jenna's belief space that there is someone named `Alexei Kalyazin':

* (desc (build-in-context object #ak propername (findorbuild lex |Alexei Kalyazin|)))

(m25 (propername (m24 (lex (|Alexei Kalyazin|)))) (object (b6)))
(dumped) 
exec: 0.20 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; Add the belief to Jenna's belief space that *p, the person whom the reader and Michael believe 
; is named `Parsifal', is named `Parsifal':

* (desc (build-in-context object *p propername (findorbuild lex Parsifal)))

(m6 (propername (m5 (lex (Parsifal)))) (object (b3)))
(dumped) 
exec: 0.21 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; Build the belief in Jenna's belief space that the person she believes is named `Alexei Kalyazin' 
; and the person she believes is named `Parsifal' are the same:

* (desc (build-in-context equiv *ak equiv *p))

(m30 (equiv (b6) (b3)))
(dumped) 
exec: 0.21 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; Figure 2 shows the reader's beliefs at this point (it can be found at
; the end of this demonstration).

; Following are the beliefs about what the individual represented by b3 is named that appear in the reader's, 
; Michael's and Jenna's belief spaces.  Note that the proposition that the concepts represented by 
; nodes b3 and b6 are co-extensional appears only in Jenna's belief space.  So she, but neither the 
; reader nor Michael, believes that the individual represented by node b6 is named `Parsifal'.
; Also, since the belief that the concepts represented by nodes b3 and b4 are co-extensional does 
; not appear in Jenna's belief space, she does not believe that the individual represented by node 
; b4 is named `Parsifal'.

* (desc (find-in-context propername (? x) (compose object (kstar (compose equiv- ! equiv))) *p context (|the reader|)))

(m15 (propername (m14 (lex (|Nikolai Malyekov|)))) (object (b4)))
(m6 (propername (m5 (lex (Parsifal)))) (object (b3)))
(dumped) 
exec: 0.28 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

* (desc (find-in-context propername (? x) (compose object (kstar (compose equiv- ! equiv))) *p context (Michael |the reader|)))

(m11 (propername (m10 (lex (|Arthur Pierce|)))) (object (b4)))
(m6 (propername (m5 (lex (Parsifal)))) (object (b3)))
(dumped) 
exec: 0.66 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

* (desc (find-in-context propername (? x) (compose object (kstar (compose equiv- ! equiv))) *p context (Jenna |the reader|)))

(m25 (propername (m24 (lex (|Alexei Kalyazin|)))) (object (b6)))
(m6 (propername (m5 (lex (Parsifal)))) (object (b3)))
(dumped) 
exec: 0.61 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; The following are the reader's beliefs about Michael's beliefs (see Figures  1 and 2):

* (desc (find-in-context agent *m act (find lex believe) object (? x) context (|the reader|)))

(m18 (object (m17 (equiv (b3) (b4)))) (act (m4 (lex (believe)))) (agent (b2)))
(m12 (object (m11 (propername (m10 (lex (|Arthur Pierce|)))) (object (b4))))
     (act (m4 (lex (believe))))
     (agent (b2)))
(m7 (object (m6 (propername (m5 (lex (Parsifal)))) (object (b3))))
    (act (m4 (lex (believe))))
    (agent (b2)))
(dumped) 
exec: 0.23 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; The following are the reader's beliefs about Jenna's beliefs (see Figure 2):

* (desc (find-in-context agent *j act (find lex believe) object (? x) context (|the reader|)))

(m31 (object (m30 (equiv (b6) (b3)))) (act (m4 (lex (believe)))) (agent (b5)))
(m28 (object (m6 (propername (m5 (lex (Parsifal)))) (object (b3))))
     (act (m4 (lex (believe))))
     (agent (b5)))
(m26 (object (m25 (propername (m24 (lex (|Alexei Kalyazin|)))) (object (b6))))
     (act (m4 (lex (believe))))
     (agent (b5)))
(dumped) 
exec: 0.23 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; Finally, we demonstrate the removal of a proposition from a belief space.  The function
; ``unassert'' takes as input a set of nodes representing propositions and a belief stack; it removes
; any of the propositions from the belief space of the belief stack that appear there.

; Suppose that the reader changes her mind and decides that the  person  whom
; she believes is Nikolai Malyakov is not Parsifal:

* (unassert (find-in-context equiv *p equiv *a context (|the reader|)) '(|the reader|))
nil 
exec: 0.18 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; The belief that these two concepts are co-extensional no longer appears in the reader's belief space:

* (find-in-context equiv *p equiv *a context (|the reader|))
nil 
exec: 0.08 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

; The reader still believes that Michael believes that those two concepts are co-extensional, however:

* (desc (find-in-context equiv *p equiv *a context (Michael |the reader|)))

(m17 (equiv (b3) (b4)))
(dumped) 
exec: 0.28 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

* (desc (find-in-context propername (? x) (compose object (kstar (compose equiv- ! equiv))) *p context (Michael |the reader|)))

(m11 (propername (m10 (lex (|Arthur Pierce|)))) (object (b4)))
(m6 (propername (m5 (lex (Parsifal)))) (object (b3)))
(dumped) 
exec: 0.65 sec    gc: 0.00 sec 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Thu Aug 10 06:34:38 1989
.)q
.fi
.bp
Figure 1
.bp
Figure 2
.bp
.sh 1 "THE REFERENCE ALGORITHM PRESENTED IN CHAPTER 8."
This section shows the calls to find-in-context and build-in-context
used to implement the algorithm to understand non-pronominal references
given in Chapter 8.
The CBS is the belief space of the belief stack stored on the 
SNePSUL variable $belstack$.  Here is the algorithm:
.(q
  If `X' is an indefinite reference
     (1) then create a new concept, N; 
                add to CBS the proposition that N is X; 
                return N
  else if `X' is a definite reference,
          then if a proposition that N is X can be found in CBS
                 (2) then return N
          else if a proposition that N is X can be found in a belief space other than CBS
                 (3) then add the found proposition to CBS; 
                            return N
          (4) else create a new concept, N; 
                     add to CBS the proposition that N is X; 
                     return N.
.)q
For the sake of brevity, the only kind of indefinite reference considered
is one of which the head noun is a basic level category and the
only kind of definite reference considered is a proper name.
In addition, some details involved with including lisp-forms in
calls to find-in-context and build-in-context have been omitted.
.pp
Branch (1) is implemented as follows ($X$ is a variable whose value is
the basic level term used in the indefinite reference):
.sp
.nf
(build-in-context member #newnode class (findorbuild lex $X$))
.br
Return *newnode.
.fi
.sp
Branches (2)-(4) are implemented as follows ($X$ is a variable whose value
is the proper name used in the reference):
.sp
.nf
If (find-in-context object (? y) propername (find lex $X$))
      Then return (find object- (find-in-context object (? y) propername (find lex $X$)))
Else if (find object (? y) propername (find lex $X$))
           Then set $referent$ to (find object- (find object (? y) propername (find lex $X$)))
                   (build-in-context object $referent$ propername (find lex $X$))
                   Return $referent$
Else (build-in-context object #newnode propername (findorbuild lex $X$))
Return *newnode.
.fi
.ls 2
.sh 1 "ALGORITHMS."
The basic algorithms of find-in-context and build-in-context are given in
this section.  The following data structures are used
(these are mainly the same as those given in Rapaport (1986)):
.sp
.in +2
 <arcnodeset>     :=  <arc><nodeset>
 <arcnodelist>    :=  <arcnodeset>+
 <belief stack>   :=  <node>+
 <Context>        :=  context <belief stack>
 <believed-node>  :=  <arcnodelist> [<Context>]
.sp
.in 0
The function ``arcnodelist'' takes as input a <believed-node> and
returns its <arcnodelist>; the function ``Context'' takes as
input a <believed-node> and returns its <Context> if it has one
and nil otherwise; the function ``belief_stack'' takes as input
a <Context> and returns its <belief stack>; the function
``topstack'' takes as input a stack and returns the top member,
and the function ``reststack'' takes as input a stack and
returns the stack after popping its top member.
.pp
The basic algorithm for build-in-context is the following (some
details omitted are managing
``asserted'' flags on propositions built in the reader's belief
space, processing proper names that appear 
in (belief_stack (Context <believed-node>)) and error checking):
.sp
.nf
.b
build-in-context 
.r
input:  $believed-node$, a <believed-node>
local variables:  $bs$, a <belief stack>
                     $return-value$, a <nodeset>
global variable referenced:  $belstack$, a <belief stack>

   If (Context $believed-node$)
         Then set $bs$ to (belief_stack (Context $believed-node$))
   Else set $bs$ to *belstack {end if}
   Set $return-value$ to (findorbuild (arcnodelist $believed-node$))
   If $bs$ = (the reader)
         Then return $return-value$
   Else (build-in-context1 agent (topstack $bs$) 
                              act (findorbuild lex believe) 
                              object $return-value$
                              context (reststack $bs$))
           Return $return-value$.

.b
build-in-context1 
.r
input:  $believed-node$, a <believed-node>
local variable:  $props$, a <nodeset>

Set $props$ to (findorbuild (arcnodelist $believed-node$))
If (belief_stack (Context $believed-node$)) not = (the reader)
      Then (build-in-context1 agent (topstack (belief_stack (Context $believed-node$)))
                                 act (findorbuild lex believe)
                                 object $props$
                                 context (reststack (belief_stack (Context $believed-node$))))
.fi
.sp
.ls 2
Following is the basic algorithm for find-in-context.  A node is asserted
in the version of SNePS used if either it is non-dominated or
there is an explicit asserted flag pointing to it (actually, if the
node is the ARG case of a MIN 1 MAX 1 ARG proposition that is itself
asserted; see Shapiro 1979).
Relevant details
omitted from the algorithm given for build-in-context are omitted
here as well.  In addition, the manipulation of belstack needed for
the proper interpretation of ! appearing in paths is not included below,
but is discussed here:
if (Context $believed-node$) is non-nil, then the value of belstack at the
beginning of the call is saved; belstack is temporarily given the
value (belief_stack (Context $believed-node$)), and the previous
value of belstack is restored upon exiting from find-in-context.
.sp
.nf
.b
find-in-context 
.r
input:  $believed-node$, a <believed-node>
local variable:  $bs$, a <belief stack>
global variable referenced:  $belstack$, a <belief stack>

   If (Context $believed-node$)
         Then set $bs$ to (belief_stack (Context $believed-node$))
   Else set $bs$ to *$belstack$ {end if}
   Return (find-in-context1 (find (arcnodelist $believed-node$)) $bs$).

.b
find-in-context1 
.r
input:  $nodes$, a <nodeset> 
           $belief_stack$, a <belief stack>

   If $nodes$ is nil or $belief_stack$ is nil
         Then return nil
   Else if (is_context_of $belief_stack$ (firstnode $nodes$))
              Then return (cons (firstnode $nodes$)(find-in-context1 (restnodes $nodes$) $belief_stack$))
   Else return (find-in-context1 (restnodes $nodes$) $belief_stack$).

.b
is_context_of 
.r
input:  $belief_stack$, a <belief stack>
           $node$, a <node>

If $belief_stack$ = (the reader)
      Then if $node$ is asserted
                 Then return t
           Else return nil
Else if (find agent (topstack $belief_stack$) act (find lex believe) object $node$)
           Then return (is_context_of (reststack $belief_stack$)
                          (find agent (topstack $belief_stack$) act (find lex believe) object $node$))
Else return nil.