(49) S/P: [Holmes 1 wanted [to buy a cigar 2 ] 3 ] 4
RT:As Clark points out, characters in a narrative have“referential access” only to characters and events within the
narrative;theycannot“escape”thenarrativeand refer tothe“realworld.”Thishelpsaccountfor theungrammaticality
of example (17) (*Up on stage, Nixon saw himself walk out of the opera house);it is yet another case of the interactionof the
referential tier with anaphora.
Afinal case of referential dependency involves quantification. In traditional quantificational notation, the two readings
of our old favoriteEvery person in this room speaks two languageswould come out something like (50a, b).
(50) Every person in this roo mspeaks two languages.
a. For each person, there are two languages (narrow-scope reading oftwo languages)
∀xx in this room∃(y,z)y,z languages(SPEAK(x, x&z))
b. Two languages each of which is spoken by everyone (wide-scope reading oftwo languages)
∃(y,z)y,z languages∀xx in this room(SPEAK(x, y&z))In the present framework,speakimposes normal referential dependencies on its arguments: there cannot be an act (or
ability) of speaking without a speaker and a language. In addition, though, the quantifiereveryhas the effect of placing
speakin a special referential frame: the sentence does not assert a single act (or ability) of speaking, but rather one
ability per person in the room. Thus each person individually licenses an act of speaking. Now: iftwo languagesis
referentially licensed in the normal way byspeak, then there are two languages per person; but iftwo languagesis
independentlygrounded, thenwegetthereading inwhichthesame twolanguages are knownbyeveryone. (51) givesa
tentative structure; the dashed arrow indicates the optional grounding fortwo languages.
(51) S/P: [[Everyone in [this room] 2 ] 1 speaks [two languages] 3 ] 4
RT: