This constrains temporal and modal anaphora.
Such anaphora is simple and well understood.
A controlled use of copying is used in the analysis of anaphora resolution in Jäger 2005.
From the fourteenth century onwards, other properties were also abandoned, so that finally the important lasting properties were signification, supposition, ampliation and restriction, and the supposition of relatives (that is, anaphora).
Such examples reveal certain parallels between compound nominal interpretation and anaphora resolution: At least in the more difficult cases, N N interpretation depends on previously seen material, and on having understood crucial aspects of that previous material (in the current example, the concepts of wearing a rabbit suit, being a breeder of rabbits, or being a rabbit-like creature).
Among the most important developments in the latter area were Richard Montague's profound insights into the logical (especially intensional) semantics of language, and Hans Kamp's and Irene Heim's development of Discourse Representation Theory (DRT), offering a systematic, semantically formal account of anaphora in language.
Indeed, it turns out that both explicit and implicit variants of Skolemization, including functional Skolemization, are possible even for donkey anaphora (e.g., in sentences such as "If every man has a gun, many will use it"—see Schubert 2007).
In [4a], by contrast, anaphora is possible, because x and y are accessible to v and w (the accessibility relation being reflexive).
Thus in [6c] anaphora is not possible because y is not accessible to z.
This raises the question how DRT's new-fangled notion of anaphora relates to the dichotomy between referential and bound-variable pronouns.
We can ask whether the problem of cross-attitudinal anaphora supports semantic innocence.
