The question of discourse representation 109lae such as ‘AS PER p 171 ’ are employed in order to avoid having to dupli-
cate, at the interpersonal level, information that needs in any case to be
stated at the representational level.
(15) a. (p 171 : [(e 171 : [(f 201 ) (x 251 ) (x 252 )] (e 171 ))] (p 171 ))
b. (Cl 171 : [(PrP 231 : [(likeV)] (PrP 231 )) (RP 281 : [(JayN)] (RP 281 )) (RP 282 :
[(KayN)] (RP 282 ))] (Cl 171 ))
(16) a. (p 172 : [(e 172 : [(f 202 ) (x 251 ) (x 252 )] (e 172 ))] (p 172 ))
b. (Cl 172 : [(PrP 232 : [(dateV)] (PrP 232 )
(RP 283 : [(hePron)] (RP 283 )) (RP 284 : [(herPron)] (RP 284 ))] (Cl 172 ))
(17) a. NO PROPOSITIONAL CONTENT
b. Gosh
(18) a. (p 173 : [(e 173 : [(f 203 ) (x 253 ) (p 174 : [(e 174 : [NOT(f 204 ) (x 251 ) (x 254 : (f 205 )
(x 254 ))] (e 174 ))] (p 174 )) (P 2 )] (e 173 ))] (p 173 ))
b. (Cl 173 : [(PrP 233 : [(tellV)] (PrP 233 )) (RP 285 : [(EllaN)] (RP 285 ))
(Cl 174 : [(PrP 234 : [(not goV for)] (PrP 234 ))
(RP 286 : [(hePron)] (RP 286 )) (RP 287 : [(womanN: tallA)] (RP 287 ))] (Cl 174 ))
(RP 288 : [(mePron)] (RP 288 ))] (Cl 173 ))
Other information can also be included within the description of an act.
First of all, rhetorical relations can be specified, as for instance in act A 152 ,
which is described as an elaboration of the preceding act, by means of the
line ‘A 152 = Elaboration(A 151 )’. Relationships within adjacency sequences
can also be specified. For example, within the description of act A 153 , the
final line, ‘A 153 = Acknowledgement(A 151 , A 152 )’, shows the act in question
to be an acknowledgement of the acts comprising the previous move. In
addition, the adoption of a particular attitude can be indicated. This, too, is
exemplified in act A 153 (corresponding, as it does, to the interjection Gosh),
which is shown to be marked by surprise, through the inclusion of the line
‘Attitude(A 153 ) = surprise’.
There are quite a number of points to be made in relation to the form of
discourse representation just presented. Let us begin with some matters of
notation. Firstly, it is assumed that every type of unit in the hierarchy is
numbered in sequence, starting from the opening of the discourse. Hence,
for instance, Move M 1 would be the first move in the entire interaction, and
not just within the transaction of which it forms part. Secondly, no use has
been made of boxes, in contrast to the DRT notation. This is in order to
make the representation quicker to produce. Thirdly, the notation as exem-