as WALLACE CHARE cexpresed by intonation units into separate ideas, «pura that leds 10 “examine instances of exaiation. We then looked for ways of stings {ng aces ides from new ones. In the end we sa how parila gram. ati consruction have come to be used by wrist combine separate now ideas, thus exceeding the bounds of spoken language “This dsanson has Heenan iia exploration ofa teritory that neds such more attention. can oly hope thai wil suges that further expo ‘ation wil be worthwhile, while providing some ideas and methods that may rove useful on subsequent forays into the same area, Tisan area that ‘wil ave to be beter understood i we are going to know more about how thought and language intrsetin rea time. Tt ih fo fgg" Wh), Daan (Gee Pr Copeaes Cn ad Lange peso Nor 1961 “Capae cna ema fw” Rum Toe), Clee ning Dns Ameo ft Beri js ping a ig" ee 1A 2 Tie) repre pte nd ween gigs” Riad Hore aS. ay ‘int (ot), Cnpahndng Onde Wr Langage New Yak ne? 50 paten nd ines mo of mening te Retin Hus 5. ay Se cpg dr Nea a TRS "Leann" Grown Uniry Round Tole on Lange nd Ling sf Wann: Gaugtun erat Pr ie pe: lr main rye Gr ‘The ZPG Letter: Subjects, Definiteness, and Information-status: Ellen F. Prince University of Pennsylvania Introduction Although terms like "scourse analysis! and ‘text analysis) have been ‘ound for over 35 years (eg, Hares 1952,5, there isl noone gener. ally accepted theory of discourse a th basis of which ane might provide the analysis of ext. For one thing, one may take two diferent tacks! the "humaninti’ tack, according to which one seek 0 cover what i speci shout or unigoe to a particule text, what set i spt from all other oxts ofits eas oe gente and the semife’ tack, according to which one seeks to discover what general principles oftexthod ae dicen from 3 single token of text That follows, shall tke the later approach. Tati shal assume that a particular naturaly-oceuring text, the Zero Population Growth funding eter chosen for analysis bythe editors of ths volume, i an ‘unexceptional member oft ies of texte and therefore i epresentative of that genre. Although, at turns ost, I sall present some evidence that ‘suggest that pare of hs text are not 2s natural as they might have been ‘shall presen no evidence thatthe extn ft ferent from anyother in “Toa hw hn Sea Pt nd ha op ei lp Tan shane Desh Bo onan Gel ary Hem Ari oth on a2 [Grebe very apd naar cne mo mg ha a hen ‘pest gt hs pe ayy prt Tom Semon Sse ‘ie each wan gpd nr NP BE AUT (AK, Pspits gone, since such «demonstration would require an ational corps of| ‘analogous texts Second, text may be analyzed with respect any numberof var bles apna pattern, sytactic complet, rept, rhetoric devices, Pesuppostions and narrate! and ao on and a complete analy of any text would dea wth all posible variables. Clearly, tat is beyond the scope ‘ofthis paper as well asthe competence and interest ofits author, Rather, 1 shal look at just one feature: how sbjects dr trom nonsabjecs nthe text. More special, I shall investigate the diferencs between subjects and nonsabjecs with respect o one formal phenomenon, definiteness, and fone discourse phenomenon, the information tats of the ents thatthe Subjects and nonsbjects represent 1. Overview of the ZPG Letter efore proceeding with a disusion ofthe analysis, however, let us fst onside briely the general content and syntacti form of he ZPG leer Lt Coment ofthe 2PG Lener “The fete, addressed to ‘Dear Friend of ZPG" and signed by its exeotve rector, primary an sppeal fr money. The putea petet for hs lestanee of fund-easing is that (A) a study of Urban population elated problems carted out and published by the organization hus elicited an {enormous numberof requests for information, (B) is very important For the cause that these requests be answered, and (C) the organization cannot rect thew demands without more money, presumably for extra postage ‘Printing, sal phone lines, and 0 forth A secondary goal of the leer Tequet Yo the adesioe to flout an enclosed questionnaire about what, they have heard about the above-mentione sty and where 1.2 Syntace Form ofthe ZPG Leer Fist, there ate $6 clauses, distributed as follows SUBJECTS, DEFINITENESS, ANDINFORMATIONSTATUS 297 () Clasesin 2P6 tever: Mame 2 AS67890, [DNAT a Rhos 16 7Gn9i=0, 1 aba RaoH, te. thats 21920, 21s) Boa) xi ‘These clauses display a fair amount of syntactic vation, Five finite elauses are passive (Segments 15 (2), 20,23, 29), and there i one paren ‘etc (Segment 23). In addon, thre & good deal of embedding of finite clauses — three complement clauses (Segment 7,9, 30), sx relative lauses (Segments 9, 10 24), 18, 2,28), ewo fre relatives (Segments 1, 23), one indret question (Segment I), tree adverbial clases (Segment 1718, 1), and one comparative subdeeton (Segment 23). Finally, there Some noncanonical word order tice preposed adverbial phrases (See ‘ments 4, 9 10), four preposedininvas (Segments 14,18, 2,21), and two prepored finite adverbial clases (Segments 7,19) and dere one centraposed relative cau (Segment 20). Interestingly, however, there i no clause ia which arguments ofthe ‘verb (ourfac) subject or object NPs occur ost of hr anon pos tion. That is there i n0 Topicaization, no tnversion, no Dative Shift oF Particle Shit and no Heavy NP-Shit. In aio, there are no Therese tenes, Tus, this text lends itself wel to 3st ofthe dscourse-related ‘properties of eanonial subject nd objects, i particular to those hated to distinguish (canonical subjects from other ver-arguments. “Two Properties of Subjects: Definite and “Old ‘Asis wel known, NPs representing discourse ents, or elertng expres in the broadest rene, donot occur in ferent syntactic postions28 ELLEN F. PRINCE randomly. Among other thing, i has often been claimed or argued that ‘whether an NP ia subject oF not is elated toe defntenss und othe informacion tats of the ascourse entity i represent: subjects tend to Be ‘Sefnite and tend to represent old information“ Note tht these are simply ‘statistical tendencies. See, for example, the compatison of subjects and Topics in Li and Thompson 1976, where ts arged tht the tendency of subjects to be definite and ‘ld corresponds to a eategorial requirement for topics. (Ofcourse, what sat sue here are ‘canonical subjects, subjects which ‘occur in unmarkedicanonical poston. In Enpsh, this means preverbl Subjects, asi @), i eats to noncanonical subjects, a ia (3) 2) & Leebough a book. The book was writen by Rossa, Tomotrow shel buy another book, ‘There was a book onthe sel (On the table was ing a pomp Nothing ese dt se “That i the semences of (2), wheter active 246) or passive (2b), whether sujet nial (2a, or not 2), have thei subject inthe canonical prever. bal postion, In contrast, the sentences of (3) have ther subjects in some nopeanonical postverbal positon = "As metoned above, the particular aims we shall consider abou the ‘eltionship between defniteness and information stats, om the one hand, nd subjecthood, on the other, are basicaly that canonical subjects tend 16 be define (e. Li and Thompson 1976, Givon 1976, Keenan 1976, inte als) and 10 represent old information (ep. Linde 1973, Chafe 1976, Keenan 1976, Sva-Corvaldn 1983, Lambrecht 1985, inter ai). In what follows, we shall analyze the ZPG ltr with respect to these two aims, In articular, we shal consider the following questions. Fist, ven hat ifor- ‘mation ean be olin variety of ways, which definition of ‘old inform ‘ms evant to subject?” And, second, can we tee apart the impor tance of ‘ld information fom that of defiitenes? Tht iy ae thee 0 Independent variables each having an effect on subjecthood, or doe oe in fact follow from the ober? However, before dealing withthe deals of the analysis, a discussion ofthese two phenomena iin order. ° SUBJECTS, DEFIITENESS, ANDINFORMATIONSTATUS 209 2A Definenss [Athough the ation of defintenesindetinieness seems tobe relatively ‘traighforward, it infact has been subjet to» good deal of conten. In articular, iis taken tobe a formal property of NPs but, often st the same time, is also taken tobe a conceptual property of ents in a discourse ‘model Formal definiteness pertains to the marking of the NP as definite oF Indefinite in those languages lke Englsh which have such marking ‘Marking of definite NPs in English may be done by the definite article (he, demonstrative articles (hs, that, ands forth), posesive adjectives (Gog: my howe, her work), personal pronouns (eh) and (unmod ed) proper aouns (eg. Sandy, Bil Mann, In). In addition, certain ‘aunties (eg all, every) have Been argued to be definite, Marking of Indefinite NPs in English may be done bythe indefinite atles (a, the 50 ftce) and by other quantifiers, including the numerals (e. some, any, ‘ne, st). Tus, whether a given NP is formally definite o indefinite ‘eciable,emirely and exclusively, onthe basis ofthe form of that NP. ‘At the rime time, ts fequcnty claimed that only indefinite NPs may ‘occur in, say, Theresentences (eg. most recently, Safir 198591), This predicts the dflerence in grammatialityeicity found in the two versions ‘OF (4b) (the symbol # ingiates thatthe sentence i incu) (a Ae man was inthe room, 1, There wav ate mtn in the room. However, a5 aoted i Rando and Napoli 1978, Ziv 198, and elsewhere, it is simpy not true that only indfites may oer in Theresentences, at shown nS (9) a There wee the same peopl at both conferences. ‘There wat the usual rom a he beac, There was the stupidest arte on the reading lis. Likewise ifthe claim that only indeinites occur in Tere sentences sto account forall he facts — that, that all and ony definites ecu in “Theresentences — then problem aries with plural ened, which are formally indefinite but which cannot occur in Teresemences. Tat, the same formally indefinite NP can have a generic understanding, a in (6). oF ‘ nongenric understanding, asin (7); only the nongenerc understanding tvailabe in There sentence, an (8(6) a Love bagels, 1. Unicon ate gute popular in sme pitsophy circles ) & Thowght bagts . 1 eat hat unicorns were paving in front of College Hal ‘There ate bagels with canamon nowadays 1. There are uncom in font of Callege Hall [A this pat, one often hes that certain indeinites are realy definite (og Slr 1985) and that coraindeite are eal indefinite e-,Prince 198), but them one i construing the terms as eating to information- status nd a longer a decidable onthe bass flings form, Obviously, ‘ne perry fre wo use the ters “deiitesindefnite” for information statuses, but then one must Keepin mind thats what one doing and not ‘we defnitnes for analyses based on form (Sai 1985 and ebewhre ‘ompare Mibark 1974) Of coure, for rowing or istorial purposes, icrmight make sense to tlk about Tormaldefiitenes v3 informations etntenes' so ast be able to compae diferent formal systems for mark: ing the same informational classes. In what follows, howevee, I shall ake ‘etinitenes 0 be a formal ategry and use her terms for the informa tional. That, with respect tothe she a hand, shall onstrate elim ‘that subjects tnd tobe definite a asin tha subjects ae more bey than nonsubjets tobe formally definite and iis this aim that I shall est with respeet to the ZPG leer ® 2.2 Information Stas {Asis wellknown (Allerton 1978, Prince 1981b, Horn 1986, inte ala, the terms ‘ldlven” and new nformaton have meant variety of things over the years. However I think we ca iferentnte three notions of ‘oldies informatio, 2.2.1 OldiNew: Focus Presuppostion Consmutions Fist, let ws ditngush one Sense of odin information so that we may proceed to ignore i, sine i not particularly relevant to the ZPG leer This the sense of oldnew tpl exemplified by sentences lik (9) ©) WsJohe ie 1. What he ate was athe Banana SURJECTS, DEFINITENESS, AND INFORMATIONSTATUS 301 “Thats, such focus presupposition’ constructions (Chomsky 1971) suctare the proposition tha they convey into two pat, an pen proposition, an 10s, and an nstanition ofthe warble in that open propio, aa 1b: (0) a. ke x bX John, {Asis often noted (Chomsky 1971, Prince 1978, Hom 1981, Wison and Sperher 1999, Delabuaty 1982, Gunde! 1985, intr ali) the open propos ‘on is genealy taken to te ‘ol information, alteady inthe discourse ‘model or atleast known o inferrabl, whe the foes i taken 19 be the ew formation terms of linguistic form, focurpresipposton constructions are marke by ses or by syntactic form in conjunction with stress): el ‘sive, Topiclization, Focus Movement, and so forth (Pince 198). However there ae virtually no foci presuppostion constructions in the ZPG leter. (Clear exceptions ae the fee relatives in Segments 1 and 23) Of far greater relevance tothe present study are the two other ations ‘of olinew information, nd itt them that we shall now tu, 2.2.2 OUdINew: inthe Hears Head Information, by which i here generally meant “niiesreleent, may be llnew with respect to (the speaker's Beles about) the hearers belies ‘Thus, for example, when Tuer (1) ta colleague, [presume that his col league already has a metal entity withthe atribte of having the name Sandy Thompton and wil believe tha hiss the entity Tam speaking of (11) Fm wating fort 0 be noon 50 I can call Sandy Thompson. ‘Tati, in this stuation, the NP Sandy Thompson represents information that I, the speaker tke t0 Be old — with respect to my hearer’ head (Chrstophersen 1939, Cafe 1975, 197). Convers, iT were to want 10 tomey the same genera information 10 my neighbor (who I believe does ‘ot know Sandy Thompson) might say something Uk (12): (22) Ym waiting fo i tobe non 5 ancl someone in California, ‘Thats, Leieve my neighbor does not already know of Sandy Thompson, {believe that this pater enity is new wth respect to my hearers head, The ype of information exemphiied in (1), ol onl) with respect fo the hearers Beliefs, as been called 8 varity of things inte it crature “inthe permanest repistry (Kuno 1972), ‘Culturally copresentan ELLEN PRINCE, (Clark and Marshall 198), "Unusea (rine 19816), among ober things, With sich an understanding ool iformation, ‘new information woul then be an eaty assumed ott be already Known to the hearer, of wha hive previously (Prine 1981) called "Brand-new, Perhaps more easly ‘remembered terms — though no more euphonious would be Hearer od and Hearer-new. ‘With respect to linguistic form, Heare-old ettes are typical def site, a is the proper name Sand) Thompson in (11); Heater new ents fare tpicalyindlinite, asi someone California in (2). Likewise, the Sndefint in (1) tls he reader thatthe kid ha threw up is Hesrer new same unknow-to-earer ki, while the definite in (13) tls the reader ‘hat the sik Kid is Hearerold — some known-o-heater kid, se. the speaker's: (13) a. ne park yesterday, ahd threw yp on me 1h tne park yesterday, he Ad threw yp on me ‘Wie this corelation of definite NPs with Heaero entities and of indefinite NPs with Heart-new entities is ypical itis by no means peri For one thing, both indefinite and definite NPs may represent Inferrable ete, to be daeasted below, ‘Second, some deiite NPs represent Hearer-new eis this infact th casein (8) above, where defines “behave ike indefinite, i. cur felctouly in Theresemenes. In pont of fact, Theresentenes do not requir indefinite NPs at all; rather, they require Heate-aew NPs. Thus, for example, the same people inthe Tere semen in (5), while formally ‘definite, evokes an entity tha is Heaernew: the hearer leans that some ‘set of people were atone ofthe conferences and tht some set of people “were a the other conference an thatthe two sts were the same. This Set 0 people, however i pesened snot already known to the hear. Com ae (188) with 24) ($a) (1) a. The same people were at both conferences, '. There were the same people at both conferences, Note that (14) is ambiguous: the set of peopl at both conferences may be Some se ot already denied to the hearer (Hearer nes), or may mean ‘that some previously identified set of people (Harrold) was also at both conferences. Thus (1S) mayen (15s) but (1S) doesnot entail (1S, (25) a. Nine hundred people atended the Institute and the same people were at bth conferences. b. Nive hundred peopl attended the Institute and there were the same pene at both conferences ce. The set of ine hondred people atended both conferences, “Third, some indefinite NPs represent Hearer-ol emits. This is the ‘ase, for example, with generics, mentioned above. That isi speaker thinks the hearer knows the mening of some noun, «minimal condition on its norma feito we, andi that nous denotes an entity, then the speaker must ssume thatthe heger already knows that there i sof ch ent-types; therefore, generics ae Heaterol. AS forthe unaval bility of generic understandings in There-sentencs. a illustrated in (8) shove, note that this fllows automaticly fom the dscoare constrain 8 “There-entences that their lgia subject be Hearer-new * In sum then, Hearer sats pialy but at eategorclly marked by efnitness, wth Hearerok eties typlelly being represented by de rite NPs and Hesrerew by ado 22.3 OidiNew: inthe Diacoure Model Instead of sessing the age of a entity om the point of view ofthe hearers head, we may ass i from the poi of view ofthe discourse rode! being consucted during dicourse proceaing. Ths, an ety may be olanew with respect to the discourse model, or “Disoure-old "Die “Thai, an NP may cle to an catty that has already been evoked in te prior scousestetch, or it may evoke an entity which has not peeve ‘ously oecuted inthe prior discourse stretch. For exaple if (1) and (12) bose were each discourse ntl (r, more likely Ifthey were prceded by Simply Hi, what are you doing?) bot Sandy Thompson and someone it California woatd evoke new eas in the dscouse-mode, of “Dicourse- new ees, epadlss fee fact thatthe former was Heaverold and the latter Hearevnex: Thus, Discourse-newness tell ws nothig about an centy’s Hearerstatys, OF course, an emit satus as Hearet-new wold tell we something about its Dscarse-tatus it would necessary be Dis course-new, since hearers ate expected to femember whit they have been tol, ‘With respect to linguistic form, consider (16h), 36a response to (16) 1) (16) a. Tm waiting for tobe 08 5 I ean cal Sandy Thorpe. '. Why are you tying to get in touch with Sandy Thompson?sae ELLEN. PRINCE ‘The icied NP in (16) presents ane that as eds ben evoked inthe dicoune and theeove Dacre. Noe tate Dhaoere, ‘Sandy Thompson ni) oral inguin tom he Be Counc ol scree of he sme NP (69) Ina seca ha in Engl at lent, tere ay mo malig of an NP whee ots ‘Dicouestat othe eny represent Of cose ian NP dese Andi therbyundesio ateoking something Hercrney, wee ie Dicoure nw, However, its ot so martes ten, with one eng, ‘canna am is form whee hanced ren edacce ‘Thea poie cpio he oraon ha Diss is ot mae (rep nar alow om Hearse ee Cay marked) s that of pronouns, Pronurs inte ats cot ey screen ate set, Le. appropitly inthe hearers someones {hate 176, Clack and Marca 8s inter ala) at os eee rutin ofthe esau mast heres hy tre pena sey te douse mode. Therefore, thy ae Bieoune al" Hones a oop {en Gene) tne ely te, Pope fe ns ey evoke are set and hence ae repeats by Sen utero thew ofs promo, ees) when he ir eee in 4 deren sentence, ten ota, Ths, wie he we eles ty ental tht the emi represent Dscouse Was cary sas Dison os taal a lb opeont yap sum, while te eatery of eines ges at at apeoimate aig ot Here tts erro Hen) thee to salon ns making of Nx scring to he Dacor sates (Deadons at Dscourse-ten) tough wey gt en cus st Dhue e from an NP bing marked ne Heserncw or otal. talent Din coun 224 Infrrables Unfortunately for these relatively net binary distinctions, there i third posible stats for an entity inthe discourse mode: Infrae. That ‘when a speaker evokes some emt ia the dicours, it uta the cate that ‘ho assumes that ae Bearer ca infer the (scours exten of certain other etiies, based on the speaker's els abou he hearer belies and reasoning ability. Consider, for example, 17): SUBJECTS, DEFINITENESS, AND INFORMATIONSTATUS 305 (17) a. He passed by the door oF the Haile and the door was painted purple 1. He posed bythe Baste and she door was painted purple. In (178, the bearers asumed to have amenity forthe dor under diss. son before heating he alized NP: hence it Discurso I conta, fn (17, the hearer isnot asumed to aleady have any mental represents. tion ofthe door im question, hence itis not Dscouse-al. However, this ‘oor i weated as tough twee ready kaow to he heater, Indeed, the hearer of (17H) know 3 great deal abou this Goor — she knows wich ‘dor itis: the dor of te Bastille. Hence i not quite Discourse-n ‘OF couse, not just any entity canbe inrodueed this way. Minimal, the speaker mst have warrant for feieving (Aa the hearer alten ‘sth bli thatthe ent in question plausibly related to some other “egg entity (he Basile, i 17), where the tiger ent isl not (. rinimaly, would not be), at the elvan point ime, Hearernem, and (Bhat the Reare is therefore able infer the existence ofthe ent #0 ‘vention, Ths am cling sich ens Tnferables Ith ease of (17), tthe pint of hering the door, the Nearer assimed wo have aca a ‘mental representation of the bulding under deasson and ako to beiove Something like" bling (senealyplausibly) has associate witht par ‘ular door, namely the main door wed for emeiag and Jeane." Coat pare (18) (8) #1 pase bythe Baste and she unk was pints purple In the abseace of special prior knowledge (e.g the Basile had a uk riled om faade o the Bastille was infact cr, in which ease typ Ealy hd a trnk asoited with, or the Bastille was 2 uk, in which ase the trunk would be eoteferentl withthe Basile and Discourse od ‘athe han Infrae). (18) sini, ince the Bali ot» rigger forany inferences eral ivoling trunks and there i, therefore no wat- ‘ant foe msuming that the hearer ean plausibly infer the existence vf this trunk.” Tnferabes are thus ike Hearrold enti hat they rely om certain assumption about what the hearer does now eg that Builings yell have doors ia (17), and they ate like Discourse ents in tha hey relyon there ing aire nthe course model sme ent Wigaet he fafeence, ete Basile in (17) At he same time, tafnables are The Heatev-aew (and, therefore, Dissourse-new) emis in thatthe Heater ie06 ELLEN . PRINCE ot expe to sendy hive in ier hea he ety in guesion. The esto ten as whether Inferssoa cle ah neo the other category, peering inurnes, or tether they orn epee ‘hr gory or wheter formation saws ae sey foe ee ‘oui, st teri nthe me ‘The evidence for eolaping fers wth on ofthe other tein sativa Foren ing. nc am aothepio sec, Since eatrold and Dicoureald ems ae gently erence Se sa pe of Ns Fate, Cla sf Haand 197 Pest expcrincal evden forthe dace of Ines tae ee leagth ine errs keto poe them, Fal Mi sad Se {988 stow thin Tok asi, a8 Engh aed pg cet ends, retin hee an nga gmt se maig a tam ce fr mth pan o he igo “Th as appeach comin snl sath vou on op te oud, a poi tn hfe 191, Cntr oe, tet is to could it mesn tat here continu betwen hat We hae 4d what we one? To my know, the ony eben ene, is preset in Sa-Corvaldn 183. Unortaatay. Son Coreg tas sisingush Discoureats fom feterstas, hr eit ender fe omni beng that dn my ters) 2 Dsecusc-new Rete ‘ler thar Disourseeuesernew nip and-nene tas Die couneoearrol) emg’? ‘Al the same ie, what ping together unde the Inrab' may sel be obvi pony 8s contin, seen {he tp and ete of inerencing tat & requted. Thar am ipo ee {or pycboingicresach a oe that sal ot pre: Ree tn what flows then, Thal inp sve neater hid ete "yan we halle ow heya net eae nie see Astor te ing form of NP repesening near the sain ‘tainty amples If we recone (70, ne ste at Teas ay ‘speed by dente NPx Hone consi) (19) a. ples up tat book I bought. 1. Ticked up that book I bought Jn (193), the indetite NP «cockroach represents a Hearer-aew entity ‘ockroach whose existence the hearer asumed not steady Know of In SUBJECTS, DEFINITENESS, AND INFORMATIONSTATLS 307 (490), on the other hand, the mos! aual understanding is that thi isnot Simpy any old page uta page from the Book just mentioned. Ths, for trample, te Bearer of (198) san infer thatthe book became defective, ace 1s now missing a page: cannot however be sid ne mang cock oc, Thus, «page (198) isan Inferable: the speaker expects thatthe nearer believes that Books typically Rave asoeited with them set of ‘ages and that she wi infer tha this page 5 one Of the set of pages, {sociated withthe Book in question, Unik the Inferrable a (178), how ‘veri i indeliite. The reason for this ems vo be tha the prior ele! involves ast (of pages in 19) rather than single entity (@ door a 17). ‘As we might expect the whole sts evoke, the NP is define: (20) .41 picked up tha bok 1 bought ante cookroaches flo picked up that ok (boupht and the pages el ut, (Sce Hawkins 1978 forthe elation of cts to defnitenes) { som, Inerabe entities ae fechnialy Hearer-ew (and therefore, Discoursenew) but, unlike Heaer new ents, thelr existence famed tobe inferrable by the hearer onthe bai of some trigger en sll ie ‘ourself, in combination with some Belief the hearer i assumed fo have ‘which sys that ents like the trgker have asoeated with them emis, Tike the lnferabe 2.2.8 Containing nfrabies Finaly in Prince 198, 1 stingvihed a ith category, which I called Containing Iaerables. These are exemplified i 2): 21) a, The door ofthe Bastille was painted porpe 1 The pages ofthat book I Bough fel ou ‘Once again, we find NPs which are formed in such away that we ee we ‘are supposed to kaow about the enity they terest, Bu infact we may ‘very well nt. These NPs ae similar to Inferables in that they require inferencng on the bass of certain background kowledge we hae: the di ference is thatthe emy which trggcsthe inference ot asin he case of| the Inlerabies, necessarily inthe prior dicouse, but eather within he [NP ist. Thos (2a) and (21) cam be gute felitous where the Baste and the Book in guexton, though Known to the heaer, hve a yot been ‘mentioned inthe discourse, a wel where the Reser hae no poe kaon ge ofthe relevant oor or pages A hat Is amaly quired is thatsus ELLEN F PRINCE the speaker already know about the Basile and the book and thatthe Speaker believe that uiding like the Batile typically as door an tot book typically has pages. Compare wth (2) 2) 4. #The rank onthe Baste ws pained purple 1. The cockroach in that book I bought fell ut 20s without saying that the propositions conten in (22) an of course be conveyed however, in the absence of speci Belc, it woul be much ‘more felctously conveyed along the lines of (23) (23) 4. The Baste had » trunk aie tot. The tank was pine pup ‘>. That book 1 bought hada cockroach init, Te cakrosch fell Thats, hee ar constrains on felitous Containing Inferebls, jus as Inferales: the inferences required ofthe hearer must be based on bets te hearer can reasonably be expected to have As for tngusic form, the most salient feature of Containing Infrra= bless their syntactic complexity They neces have some NP sotaied {in them, often within a subordinate cus. Interestingly, itis pera the se that what sa Containing lnfereabie for one este (or, mre lie, eader) can flictousy serve as a Heareyol, Discourse new ently for another. For example, imagine that a heater were tld the fs semenee of (23a) (The Baste had un naed 1) in ome Uacoure aad 5) The ‘rank on the Basile was pained purple) in 4 subsequent gacoure, The ‘alcized NP in (22) would sil be feictous, but i would be undestoed a8 representing a Heare-old,Discurse-new entity eather than # Conta ing Inferrable. Or, more commonty, imagine that half fan aadence heard {he first sentence of (23a) on one eccason and the other haf dino, Ina subsequent clscourse, the speaker could ute (22) flstouly tothe whole tudience: the half that had previously heard the fist sentence of 38a) ‘would understand the underlined NP ia (2a) a representing» Heart, Discourse-new emit, while the other half would understand ite 9 Come taining Inferrable. As T mentioned in Prince 198, this makes Covtsning Inerables very suitable for mult-ecsver discourse, in particular formal ‘nt prose, where the sender either i ot sue of the recive kno igeroeliets, or where she elves that there ate relevant dfecnces among the receivers SUBJECTS, DEFINITENESS, AND INFORMATIONSTATUS 300, 2. herman Sit A Saary Fis, date etc ay We mere ol ne wi pec 0 he fear or Heserlienerac, Sn, hy nay bcos od few wih pe tthe dour, or Duce Boe ne Pinterore,Dacour-sate snd eters nepal nde pcoict of ra ober. To gaat, Dose cw sos noting of iret, shown in () ad (2) aor, an Meer toting of Deca aat,scat be seen in (8) Tncontas the sts Durr sot npn of Here staan ty has has por rao a ene sc ten {slow tics Heald, tr wel mt Dasounald Bei re ‘Sued toromene te ene we veld hes ou tt fhe ton of te ine Lhsw, i somebing Herc, dea ‘rou be Dususe nme for ire then thee wl end {ow abou Ths wc he telling pons, xe i) (2 ech comet conguet core egal uc mes. (20). Tm waking for itt enon eal smcane i Calor Tipe she py 9, eine. (25) wating fr toe 0000 an al Sandy Thompuon Tipe sande bop by 9h ie (25) Heater and Dicoure-status of «discourse entity Heeraee Bande IDNA Fears) Unnet Bote BSnymomen Be ‘Tied, discourse estes may be of a third category, Inerable, where they are technically Hearernew and Diewre-new but depend upon belts assumed tobe Hearerold, and where thew beliefs eusally invoe some trigger entity, which i sll Dscouse-ol, and where they them Selves are being teated a though they were Heatcrod and possibly a0 Drouse ol.10 ELLENE: PRINCE Finally, discourse entities may’ be Containing Inferrables, similar to Inferabes but containing the eigger entity within their description. ‘Thus we have 4 fairy complerintraton of the speaker's belief shout what the heafer knows, potentially Knows, and doesnot yet know, nd this interaction is erucialy involved in the prodetion and comprehen” Son ofeach relerring expression in csoure, Goal and Methodology “The goal ofthe analysis was to determine the following 22) a. Ace subjects significantly more likly thon nonsubiets to be ‘etn? bi. Are subjects igi Hester ents? Are sbjects signiicaniy more ikl Discourse-old emies? 4. Ifthe anne o 28 60 of the above iafrmative, ae they independent endences, ori one a refx ofthe ther? “The methodology wed was quantitative analyst. To that end, «data fie wae created cousstig ofeach NP in the ZPG letras a separate token, Each was coded for information status as dscused above an formal def ‘tenes 8 well a forthe dependent variable, grammatical role (abject! nonesje), In addition, a numberof other vaibles were coded for, [NPsype (fll NP, pronoun, et), lanetype (main, relative clause, nd eet question, ete}, smtctic and informational complenity of the NP (ce ‘whether i contained a clase andlor ater NP), and so on. The datafile va then run on VARBRUL Certain clases of tokens wer ignored NPs which T could not code (eg the whine, Segment 9), subjects represented by etace (eg the subject of need, Segment 73), NPs which were not part of clases (8 Dear Friend of ZPG, Segment 3), and wbjet of nonfnte ‘vets (€ reporters, Segment 9). The coding for static information was stagitforward. However, afew words are la order onthe cong for etisiteness nd information sates, nonsbjects ote SUBJECTS, DEFINITENESS, AND INFORMATIONSTATUS SIL 3.1 Coding for Deftones Detiniteness was constiued, as mentioned above, 26a formal category. “Thus, NPs with definite or demonstrative artes, NP-ith univers qua tiers, proper names, and personal pronouns were code a deft. (NPS like Octaer 25 were cosideted tobe proper names.) NP wth indefaite arcs, incluing the zero arte, and NPs with now-univera quantifiers fade, ©. how populaonlinked presuresafet U.S. eles, Segment 11, were Tet uncoded 32 Coding for Information Sas Coding for information tts never an easy mater, and no dou other nals mipht have somewhat diferent coding. For what iis worth, 1 coded a numberof dificult tokens and the changes had no signcat ‘fect on the VARBRUL ress, That std, the NPs were ccd fr infor ‘maton stats 38 Follows NPs evoking entities which had already been mentioned in the letter were coded as Discouse-ald (= Evoked), exemplified in (28), whese the ‘pronoun dey i understood a refering the lea atv arad intro ‘uve (28) Discoureold (and, ergo, Hearerold) = Bvoked: rowing network of loa activists with the materials hey nec. (Segment 1) NPs evoking entities which had no prior mention in the Fetter and which I av representative intended adresse (ho in fat reeves age ‘numbers of fundrasing lees from ZPG), had never heard of (and could ‘ot infer the existence of) were ced as Heater-new (= Brand-new), 2 in (@9), where the intended reader is presumably not supposed 10 have slteady a mera en for hit complex, ecical dat: (29) Hearcr ew (and, ego, Discouse-new) = Brand-new: "he Urhaa Suess Tost alates comple, techni data into (Gegment 3) [NPs evoking entities which had no prior mention in the dicourse but which F already knew of were cnded as Disoure-new, Hearenolda2 ELLEN. prance ‘Unusal, a8 in (0), where he tlcized NP certainly represents an entity 1 lreadytaew existed (60) Discourse new, Heaterold = Unused “from reporters eager to tlhe public about." (Sepment 9) [NPs evoking enties which were not previously mentioned and which I 1 the reader had no prot knowledge of, but whose existence I ould infer ‘on the bass of some entity that was previously evoked and some bli T hve sbout such entities weve coded a Inferabl, ss ilstated in (3 1) aferabe: "Safers stayed late ito the ight." (Segment 6) That i, while I did nt aeady have a mental entity for ay personel in that paricalar ZPG office, this NP did oo nduse wet fete new abi set of staffers but rather to infer tat these wer the individuals that ff the ZPG office since Ibelieve that am orgaizaton fe ZPG typically hasan ofc, which pialy ha tates Finally. T tok advantage of the sustion that one man’s Containing | Inferabe is another man's Unused, and colapsed the two categories, on the rationalization that, titre ta speakers asally, writes) use Com taining Inferables partly becouse they can be understood ao as Unused fete, then the two categories should no fer wih respect othe gram ‘mail role ofthe NP that represents them. For example, consider the ialied NP in (32 (62) "When we release the ren of ZPG's 185 Urban Sires Tet. (Geyment 7) ‘Clearly, 2PG expects that some readers already know ofthe entity this NP rept of, Segment 301, however, id not know oft; for me, and 90 ‘Sut for many other reader, war a Contsining Inferable. Clary, ZPG had to alow for both pes of readers. Therefore, it should ot be the ease ‘hat the writer of the letter would ea them difeently with repost ub- jeethood, the phenomenon beng studied here. 4 Analysis {Let us now tn tothe quantitative anal ofthe NPS in the ZPG letter to se the effect of information-stats and dfinitenes om sbjethood FTENESS, AND INFORMATIONSTATUS 313, “41 The Effec of Information Sans on Subjethood tn onder to check the ea that subjects tend to be ‘oli infomation and it that claim is cortct, to see what i cant by “ol ran VARBRUL 09 the token fle, the dependent variable being whether the NP is a subject o 2 onsbject. The independent variables were Hearerstats, ic, whether the eniy represented by the NP is Hearerold or Hearernew, and Dis ‘oursestatur Le. wheter the ety represented by the variable is Dis ‘coutse-old or Discoure-new. The rans were made twice, once exchadng Tnferrabes, once including tenn 4 thi factor in each factor group. In total, 106 NPs were counted inthe analysis of which 31 aceur a subjects. “The results show the folowing fi, taken separately, each informa tion variable — Hearerstatus and Discourse statue — sigan sc ‘ond, both Hearerol and Discouse-old entities are more ily oe ub jects than Hearernew and Discourse-new, respectively: and, tid, the Inclsion oF exclusion of Inferabes has no signicat tect of these Pa terns. The numbers, percentages, and VARBRUL probabilities of NPS in ‘ach categoryoccurting as subjects are presented in (33) (63). NPsin each category occuring x sbjocte Tsunr S PehS Pa ‘While subjects tnd be old with respect to both Hearerstatus and Dis courses, the figures (3) lead uso suspect that Discourse tata has f stonger lec Indeed, when we run the two information statuses together, she results ate'cles given both stones, the variance is toured for by Discourses, withthe etter of Hearerstates com etl losing tatstal significance. Tee VARBRUL probabilities an ig: "alcane figures fortis um are presented in (34).a ELLEN. PRINCE G4) Prob. of NPs as subjets, Hearer status vs, Discousestatus: Seiten (Novient] p< “Thos we may bein to aniwer the questions we have set ou investigate: the claim that subjet tend to represent “ak information i borne ou by the data inthe ZPG leter, However, ti borne out js in cate we under: ‘stand ol information fo mean ‘ld in the acoure' oF Discourse. I ‘we take i to mean old forthe hearer’, or Heaerad, then the evidence prevented here clearly contacts i. That ithe fact thatthe heater is sumed to know of some entity which has not already been mentioned in 10 way favors that entity for beng represented by «subject NP, whereas the fact that some enity has aleady been introduced ito the discourse, whether or aot it was known to the hearer before the discourse, does indeed favor that emt for being represented by a subject NP at Fess in the 2PG ltr, Finding that Discourse entities ae favored for subject pasion, we smest now ask whether this sa unitary set or whether contains subsets shih behave differedy wih respect to occurence in subject poston ‘One important feature by which to soni the et of Discouse-old entities f that of activation as Chafe 1987 has ealled it. Tati, do all Discourseoid ents have an equal chance of occurring in subject pos ‘ion, oF do those that are ativated a thei moment of occurence ave a freter chance than those tht are ot activated? Given the findings pre ‘ete by Chafe over the past 15 years, one would certainly expect activa tion tobe a significant factor. I sally to shed ight on the se, even if not definitively sing the category “pronoun. (Clearly, otal eivated NPs at any pint in dscourse-ime ae rep seeented by pronouns (for example, 16 above) Therefore, «patton (Of the NPs ing dacouse into pronominal and noapronominal wil no necesriy map omorphically onto a partition of the corresponding tntites int activated snd nonacvate, However it st be the case hat Pronouns generally represent NPs taken by the speaker to be activated: how ele could the hearer he expected t interpret them? Thus, «pation SUBJECTS, DEFISITENESS, AND INFORMATIONSTATUS 315, ‘NPs into pronominal and nonproneminal should the worst be eq lent toa pation of the corresponding eties ino scated and tt ‘atedphs-nonactvated Ifa sanscally significant ference were found then ane might have good reason to infer that saivation i spnifeant. fact, a VARBRUL ran of the data withthe fcr ‘Discourse’ broken ‘pinto "Pronominal and "Nonpronomina” shows that pronominal tatu, id therefore quite pouubly activation, doer indeed make subjecthood nore key. The figures are presented in (35) 65) NPsin ean tory, ishing Fronominal, as sbjets: DacmunestdNonpomomna: a8 S038 Ina Si8> one O57 ‘We may now consider the question of whether Inferabls shouldbe ‘ollased with one of the other eateperis, I fat they are no olapsible ‘with Discourse-aew, wheter cr nt Discourse i subivied into Pro nominal ad Nonpronomina. Simlrly, they are aot collapsible wih Dis ‘ouri.od, when Dicoure-ol not subdivided according to pronominl form. Furthermore, Inferabes are certainly not collapsible with Dis: ‘coure-oldPronomindl! However, nferrable are indeed ella wth Discourse-old Nonprosominas; the probate are presented i (36) (26) NPsin exch category inclating Pronomina, as subjects nfera es and Discourse oid Nonpronominl collapsed SINE % Prob pista ee ‘ao = om Oe Signin of olpig Intra and Docoane old Roop Sonia te npca6 ELLEN. PRINCE (Of couse, the figures here are smal and the probabilities should be sven weight acordingly. Furthermore, the parioning of Dicoure-old ‘on the bas of pronominal orm merely an attempt otvesigate salience insect. Thetfore, we cannot daw define conclusions about either the role of slence in subjecthood or about the callaptiity of Inferable nies with Disaurse-old Nonpronomiaals. However, the relevance 1 Subjecthood of Disourse-sttus — and the irelevance of Hearerstatus — does seem clear, at eat i the ZPG letter being analyzed: eis which have previously arated i the discourse are more key than those which have ot formerly occurred to be represented by NPs in subject position 42 The Effect of Definieness on Subjethood ‘We shall now turn to the analysis ofthe data with respect tothe ai that subjects tend oe definite, The figures for dfinteness of subjects ¥. nor subject are shown in 733 (67) Desiniteness of bjs vs. nonsabjets SubjNP Probably a Senin p= 8 However, when Discoursstats, with or without Hearerstats, i also taken into account, the fvoring of sublets for defitenes is no longee Still significant, whereas Dicounestats remains significant at rate than the 001 level, as shown in (8) (G8) Discoure-stats and dfritenes af subjects. noasubjet: “Thus of he thee factor groups studied — Disouree-status, Meare: status, and Defintenss, one nas found by the VARBRUL program 10 ccount all By itself for the subestnonsbjecs diribation: Discourse SURIECTS, DEFINITENESS, AND INFORMATIONSTATUS 317, “tats, Furthermore, within the Discourse status factor pocp three-way Parton ofthe factors into iscouseoldPronomial,Disconse-ld No pronominal + Inferrble and Discourse-new, as shown in (34, was found to be the best 5. Diaceaion ‘We may now propose answers tothe questions raise in (27) above nthe PG leer we have aalyed, subjects are more likely than nonsubjes to be definite and to represent both Heare-ol and Discourse-aldentes. However, when we ran the corpus through the VARBRUL multvarte ‘nays program, we se tha thee tendencies remot ndependent. In pa ticular, the apparent tendency for subjects to be Hearerold is simply a refler of real tendency for them tobe Discouse-ol; when both are taken lato acount, Discoure-tats acsounts for all the vaitne and Heare. satus loss stata sigan. ln addition, the apparent tendeney for ‘abject to be definite likewise seen to be simply a reflex of thee te Geney to be Discourse analyzed together with Discouse-statu, the elect of defiitenes lowes statistical sintcance, ‘Ofcourse, given the lack of sigaiiance of Hearerstatus on subject: ‘noo, the lack of sgificance of defitense not surprising definite ‘ess a appears to be, 2 grammaticiation of Heaertatus, On the ‘ther hand, the lack of iniicance of Hearer tats, the fact hat an entiy’s being (asumed tbe) known to the hearer does nt increas Tikeinood of being subject, may indeed be surprising. What makes st more phusle, however, the fact that, among, Discourse-old entities, {ose represented by pronoune are more likey to be subject than those "epescnted by fll NP: if this means that salience flevant to subject hood, then i follows tht Discoure-old entities, presumably more salient than HeareroldDiscourenew (Unused) ene, are mote likely than they tobe subjects, ‘These ndings if they ae generalizable to ther teats, ave possible bearing on a receat controversy about the informational properties of topics. Although me have not hee investigated topichood pe se, che ub jects inthe ZPG letter would presumably count ar topics folowing & ‘umber of analyses, among that Reinhart 1981, Gundel 988, and Horn 1996, Reinhart 1981 presents arguments against the widespread view thata8 ELLEN. eRunce topics must represent ‘ol information; following her analysis al the sub jet in the ZPG letter could be topics. If tpichood is in fact a relevant otion for Englsh and if canonical subjects are default topics, the analyse [presented here would support he psion: although the ope inthe ZPG. letter ate statistically more likely to be “ld, they te not categorically rested o that sats contrast, Gundel 185 and Horn 1986 argue, slong very dierent tines, fora ditineton by what me are calling Hearersatus, Fit, Gundel 1088 argues that topics follow the “Topic Famiarty Principe. that topics ate Hearerold If she is correct and even if this i strong te dency rather than the fairly categorical principle se presents, we should {ind Hearer stats tobe the signican variable In fst as we ave seen i Finally, Hor 1986, ying (canonical) sbjeethood together with topic: ‘hod, proposes that (canonical) subjectsopics be ether ‘salient’ o pre- suppostional. From his cussion, I eleve that his slientnonaien parumeter i equivalent to Dacoureesats and that hs presupposition onpresuppostional parameter is equivalent to Hearer-status, ts defined ‘ere It this i correct, we should find that subjet inthe ZPG letter are ‘more likely be HeareroldDiscoure-new (= Untied) than Hearernew Discourse-new (= Brand-new). As we have seu, there may be such a di ference, butt not statistically significant. “Ths, if canonical subjects are default topic, the patter sen inthe PG ietter ingests that topics may be old orn, ba hat hey are more kel tobe eady evoked inthe dscoure than aot Aterthoughts: The Form of Iferbles Although the results presented here seem (Jo oe) totally inuitve and plausible, I must speak briefly of certain strangeacs in the ZPG ltr. ‘While there is nothing incoberent or infeliitous init, one feature of i strikes me as not being as natural as posible: the frm of certain Infra es [As mentioned above, NPs representing Inferrables are ypc some- times definite, sometimes indefinite. General, they ae define when they {efertosone entity E that elated to some ater trigger entity T by sme ‘eit along the lines of “A typialy hasan E ascated with it” And, SUBIECTS, DEFINITENESS, ANDINFORMATIONSTATUS 319 _snerly, they are indefinite when the belie s something ike °A T yp: ‘ly ha Es aesociated with and when the Infereele refers to proper Suet of the sot of Es. Thos the Infrrble in (96) is represented by an indefinite (apap), whi the Inferrabls i (17) and (2b) are represented by detntes (he door andthe pages respectively) Now consider the following Infrables from the ZPG letter: G9) a. “Lou phones started to ring] Cll jammed our svt board all day. (Segment 5) +b, “Safes stayed nt ito the night” (Segment 6) ‘When originally coding the NPs considered ells in (384) 1 be Heater row; firther consideration made me realize that these cll are realy not row to me: they were the calls that resulted from the phone ringing Forthermore, they are presumably all the relevant cll certainly the author has no reason to implicate that there Were ao eal that day and right tht did not jam the ZPG switchboard. Thus it soemed to me that, While the texts coherent as it stands, he als woul! Rave been somewhat thors natral than eal inthis conte ‘he station with stafers in (294) i analogous: true enough, maybe some staffers weat home and only a proper suet of safes stayed late it the nigh, but what would be the point of implicating this? Again, the indefinite doesnot predace incoherence, bu it does seem puzling To test my intuition that deft would be mote natural hee, I had te Iter translated ito Russian by a Russan-doinant Russian-English Pingu 1d not il him my reaton for wanting translated hen ad istration tranlted into English by another Resian- Engh bilingsl, ths one dominant in English, gai wth no explanation snd ofcourse wih. ‘ut showing him the original eter. My purpose was to take the ‘ontent of, the leter though a language with no artes onthe assumption that wht cer artes cecurred inthe English anslation of the Russian would be at lest one other peron’s objective choice forthe most natural. The Russian ‘eanlaton of 39,5) presented in 4): (40) a. “[-nashi feefony nathan} fur telephones began ring svonki we davai pokoya nashemu Kommutatory tet rings not gave fet our switchboard whole den ay= ELLEN. PRINCE b. ‘somudn'ki bora po poade'ey noth employees worked through late night, As expected, the Ruin translation of theNPsin question have no mathe ing of defniteness However, not, that they ar in tatal(cnonical post ‘on. Now consider the English atsaton of (404) G1) 8, ‘(our phones started te ring] The ringing ewe our ‘operator no pace al day be. “Our comorkers worked tate in thei [Note that both NPS are definite, True, in each case, a itferent noun is ‘ed, and I donot know if his should make a diference. However, Lm ‘ow faisly confident that these indfiites inthe orginal eter are more Imarked than definites would have ben. ‘As [sd at the oust, the sor analysis done here cannot tll ws ‘wha, if anything, especial about th txt The bulk of thas attempted to Investigate some frequently made chins about subjecthood, andthe ests ‘ofthat investigation are plausible indeed. The question eased in thie fil ‘ection about the naturalness of te indefntenss of two NPs ci ony be ‘that: a question. Without an exhaostve stay of large umber of compa. able texts, we cannot even sy that thisunnatualas i typical. Further more een fit were found tobe atypical, we sl could not determine the reason, we still ould not conclude with confidence thatthe author wa, say, a natve speaker of some language other than English, oF simply ithosyneatie, ofa computer text generation sytem. Whatever tbe answer, though, it does seem that eet puts the intitvely right kind of ents i aut poston, evens smetimes in not the most predictable form. Notes ‘vse melts knw eee i re 2 Tee we ao sence non ae reel lies ‘is i ms hr na ne 4 Sic ah agent i eee, imate een, prop, atop Wes el ey wt hap ee yo SUBJECTS, DEFINITENESS, ANDINFORMATIONSTATUS 321 ‘lr he ten in th my ne shen wl pony me ‘Seraron pst on iy i,m ibe sesh fsa) kn ee jn ha bo cena hee tt mh fo staple, mod mich ete NPL (6) a eae a Denne Nie lee Oe Mota “cing eit en ee crit 9 esi a tn ima he ee at nia te fies ee Shea py ny et (0 1898. wherei jt eure hmv and whee A bene yw Itoi pamer ‘tity tithe omg Inde ar ap forte ee ewe Ha cer Seesmic Hes ae Pa Ss Lt 0 ge aN he ak ah pe Frat READTOR 11, MAKECELL 220. WAND so CROSSTAB ro Ine VAX cr, Comat slain Sent Depa Mase ec Suara count pc aa i So sn Sopot etn fh Hes wih unig er, eid = 27: ngces vie, ing arabe, Mion = A ecg Ie Sivigineioe poe facact man 033 032 rope 2% Ging ri, ns = 8 ne Mtb = Lop Metond = 4646 Conese mean = 023. 2. Ligeia = SL. Coneced mean = 023 Threat ei peumee emule VAROROU eae Seis Damme, neal 1 Doel! enema Dane Pe ecules, ones men 2, Ga a eT Fm Pine mh pe i in References Cte Shean ope NAc Po 38 scape oman tmnt Tomi), Coe nt AU Itt et) Son An ep Reade Pas Tin nd py Neco Ua res HO SUBIECTS, DEFINITENESS, AND INFORMATIONSTATUS 38 conten. ean A Sty of hr ay nk Eh open {im “competion athe hen esta" Fe), Dre Po ‘ee on Congres Hie Ns Ema ah Tit "SD mle ed mtn nokia AK. Jo BL Weber aA She (0B of Borne Uderann.Cambe Cama Us To To ad On th Spt Re Span Ae Ne "387 Deon, ei, ad cone IY. Wie, ol), Poedg of 7 12495 Tul me amar nue pron 13 Top me ad Seman of Eg Cif Se ULC TB Top, pono gna agen” Wise) Stand Toe TS) “Spent " maf Prgms 91817 1s “Dace nase en ange 28418, i and nnn Ac hed NI: MamadsP (ei Pe om 116 ral ecg of he Non Ese Le Sch. 1886 “Peston. at tof A: Ft. ae), Page om rte n Pv nd a i Ri “om ner ion of SUBIECE a 8), Saad opst FLLEN PRINCE "Pete ete mn GEE meus ta ei ‘Sey mnt er peme cnm # a se gt tne HE 1 Sin eee ieee TA cme th WT Ti °A compan of Wick a etn rane 105 5 lw of nae Endy: Cn Coe ho ny fe fron. Ca (aa Po 286 re ae mang propa open pn” nA. Pty. (Fea Pn Ponsa hry a TS “Pgs nt agin x an of seep" Pipi 2753, {msg Oi Contig: Cope Ue re SUBJECTS, DEFINITENESS, ANDINFORMATIONSTATUS 225 Spano F Kiem, Dura eaprtay oma N Nee ‘Wien D an Spee 08, Dace), Sy on Ss Pepto, MY, So