The notation 5=2 indicates an indexical merger between the individuals described asa carandit.
There is, however, a second kind of anaphoric expression, so-calledidentityof-senseanaphora. The clearest example of
this is the pronounone. This denotes an individual withthe same description as its antecedent, but not necessarilywith
the same referential index. (29) illustrates.
Here the notation 5=2 indicates that the individual with index 5 falls under the description indexed 2, i.e. it's another
car. The referential tier does not specify whether these two individuals are identical—this depends on pragmatic
factors. For instance, inJoan saw a car, and Fred saw one too, it is possiblethat the twocars are the same, but the sentence
doesn't tell us.
Both kinds of anaphora appear at once in the expressionanother one. This designates an individual that, because of
another, is referentially distinct fro mits antecedent but, because ofone, satisfies the same description.
Conversely, so-calledanaphoric epithetssuch asthe poor guyandthe bumrequire identity of reference with an antecedent,
but offer a different description:
Andanaphoric definite descriptionsexpress coreference witha previously mentioned character of compatible description:^210
PHRASAL SEMANTICS 397
(^210) Not all definite NPs are anaphoric definite descriptions, though. Consider an expression likethe richest man in America. Here the definite article expresses a claim—on the
descriptive tier—that a unique individual satisfies this description (more or less as in Russell's 1905 explication of definite descriptions). I a minclined to think that the
anaphoric and uniqueness aspectsof definiteness oftenoverlap, forming a cluster concept in thesense of section 11.6—whichis whyneither of the mconstitutesa full and
exclusive explication of definiteness.