Chapter 5
Potential Subjective Elements
.r
.ls 2
.sp
.sh 1 "INTRODUCTION." 1
The topic of this chapter is the use of
linguistic elements
to recognize subjective
sentences.
Later chapters (Chapters 6 and 7) are devoted to the treatment of
private-state sentences, seeming-state sentences, and psychological-action and
perceptual-action sentences; these kinds of sentences are not considered 
in the discussion that follows.
Sentences with narrative parentheticals are also
not considered.
A narrative parenthetical explicitly indicates that a sentence is subjective,
so the linguistic elements discussed in this chapter are not needed to
recognize subjective sentences in which narrative parentheticals
appear.
.pp
Banfield (1982) identifies a set of linguistic elements that
can appear only in subjective sentences, which she calls
.ul
subjective elements.
Examples are exclamations, which express an emotion such as surprise or
alarm, e.g.,
.(q
(1)
.br
     \*[1.1\*]Zoe glanced up from her feet.
.ul
\*[1.2\*]Standing in the changing-room door was Mr. Pear!
.br
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 79]
.)q
and questions, which express wonder, curiosity, puzzlement, etc., e.g.,
.(q
(2)
.br
\*[2.1\*]He [Sandy] wanted to talk to Dennys.
.ul
\*[2.2\*]How were they going to be able to get home from this strange desert
.ul
land into which they had been cast and which was heaven knew where in
.ul
all the countless solar systems in all the countless galaxies?
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 91]
.)q
To understand an exclamation or a question, the emotion that is expressed has
to be attributed to someone.  In conversation, the
emotion is understood to be the speaker's.
In narrative text, there are two possibilities:  the emotion can be
an overt narrator's (see Chapter 2) or it can be a character's.
Since this dissertation focuses on texts without overt narrators,
the only possibility we need to consider is that the subjective element
expresses the emotions of a character.
.pp
There are other linguistic elements that can, but need not, 
evoke a character's consciousness.
An example is the conditional, a sentence with a subordinated clause
beginning with `if' (other subordinators can be used as well; see
Section 9.3.6).
Conditionals make reference to possibilities, which can be elements
of reasoning.
In the following passage, for example, Lorena is deciding
whether she should take Gus's bet.  In the process of her decision making,
she considers the possibility that she will win the bet:
.(q
(3)
.br
     \*[3.1\*]Lorena thought she might as well.  \*[3.2\*]After all, it 
was just gambling, which was what Jake did.
.ul
\*[3.3\*]If she won it would all seem like a joke, something that Gus
.ul
had cooked up to pass the time.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 192]
.)q
In the following passage, 
a character forms an intention based on a possibility
expressed by a conditional:
.(q
(4)
.br
\*[4.1\*]Gus liked to be a rival more than anything else, Jake figured.
\*[4.2\*]And as for Lorie going through with it\(emwell, it relieved him of
a certain level of responsibility for her.
.ul
\*[4.3\*]If she was going to to keep that much independence, so would he.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 213]
.)q
Jake forms the intention, expressed in (4.3), to keep his independence
under the condition that Lorena keeps hers.
.pp
However, although no examples were found in the texts considered, 
a conditional can conceivably appear in an objective sentence.  If the
following were an objective sentence, for example,
.(q
If it had rained in April, the drought would not have occurred.
.)q
then it is simply true that rain in April would have averted the drought.
Thus, conditionals are not necessarily understood with respect to 
a character's consciousness.
In contrast, an exclamation or a question 
necessarily expresses someone's emotion.
.sh 1 "POTENTIAL SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS AND SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS."
I define a category of linguistic elements called
.ul
potential subjective elements,
which consists of Banfield's subjective elements together with
linguistic elements that can, but do not necessarily, indicate a character's
consciousness.
It is defined extensionally
in Section 9.
Note that by ``linguistic'' in ``linguistic element'' I do not
mean ``lexical''. 
Many potential subjective elements are words used in particular ways.
Others are syntactic, e.g., that the subject and verb of a sentence
are inverted.  Section 9 does not specify potential subjective elements
simply by listing words and syntactic properties.  Instead, it
specifies the particular uses of words and syntactic properties that are
potential subjective elements.
Much of the terminology in Section 9 is from
.ul
A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language
by Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik.
However, that text does not address
identifying linguistic elements that can be used
to recognize subjective sentences.
.pp
I use the term ``subjective element'' to refer to a 
potential subjective element that
.ul
is
understood with respect to a character's consciousness.
Thus, this dissertation redefines Banfield's term.
As Banfield uses the term, a subjective element is a linguistic element
that is always subjective, whenever it appears.
As the term is used here, a subjective element is 
a potential subjective
element, appearing in a particular sentence, that actually is subjective.
The difference in meaning is significant for
potential subjective elements that are not
necessarily subjective, such as conditionals.
.pp
A sentence that contains a subjective element is subjective.
To use potential subjective elements to recognize subjective sentences,
therefore, we need some way to determine when potential subjective
elements are subjective elements.  This is addressed in Section 3,
below.
.pp
Other researchers have discussed
some of the potential subjective elements in
relation to subjective sentences, as will be indicated in
relevant sections below.  However,
the identification of many of them
is a contribution of this dissertation.
Additional contributions are
showing 
the need to decide if a potential subjective element is a subjective
element and providing detailed specifications of the particular uses of
words and syntactic properties that are potential subjective elements.
.pp
The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows:  Sections 3 and
4 show how the algorithm decides if a potential subjective element
is a subjective element, Section 5 gives some reasons why potential subjective
elements can be subjective, and Sections 6-8 present additional
preliminary material.
Section 9 presents the potential
subjective elements, cites illustrative passages, and specifies how
the algorithm processes each of the cited passages.
Section 9 is over seventy pages long.  A thorough reading of this
section is not essential for understanding the remaining sections
of this chapter or later chapters.  A list of the 
potential-subjective-element categories can be found at the end of this chapter.
.pp
Section 10 discusses linguistic elements that should be considered
in future research, Section 11 illustrates competition between
the last subjective character and the last active character, Section
12 illustrates passages without observers, Section 13 shows
exceptions to the algorithm's rules, Section 14 discusses 
parsing issues, Section 15 considers situation types,
expected subjective characters, and a reader's comprehension of
the text, and the last section, Section 16, lists the potential 
subjective element categories, as mentioned above.
Demonstrations of the algorithm can be found in Section 9.2.1,
at the end of Section 9, and in Sections 11 and 12.
.sh 1 "TEXT SITUATIONS AND SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS."
Some potential subjective elements are subjective elements more often than
others are.
However, the appearance of various potential subjective elements 
in subjective sentences
is not random.  For example, if the previous sentence was subjective 
and no paragraph break separates the current and previous sentences, then 
usually any 
kind of potential subjective element in the current sentence is a subjective
element.  On the other hand, some potential subjective elements
are usually subjective elements even if a paragraph break 
and objective sentences
have appeared since the last subjective sentence, as long as the last 
subjective sentence appeared in the current scene.
Generally, most potential subjective elements are usually
subjective elements in particular text situations (see Chapter 4 for
definitions of the text situations).
Some potential subjective elements, however,
are subjective regardless of the text situation in which
they appear.  An example is the exclamation.
.pp
The algorithm decides whether a potential subjective element appearing in a 
sentence is a subjective element by considering the situation in
which the sentence appears.  Each kind of potential subjective element is
associated with certain situations.  If a sentence contains a
potential subjective element, and the sentence appears in a situation
with which the potential subjective element is associated, then
the algorithm decides that that the use of the potential subjective 
element is a subjective element.  For example,
a conditional is a subjective element in all situations but
the presubjective-nonactive situation;
the shifted past is a subjective element
only in the continuing-subjective situation (i.e., the previous
sentence was subjective and a paragraph break does not appear between
the previous and current sentences), and an exclamation is a
subjective element in any situation.
Thus, since the algorithm considers the current text situation to 
decide
if the use of a potential subjective element is a subjective element,
it operates on the following principle:  The use of a 
potential subjective element is a subjective element
if it appears in a text situation with which it is associated.
.pp
Before continuing, it should be noted that of Banfield's subjective
elements, only those with evaluative or emotive meanings are considered
by the algorithm to be necessarily subjective.
This excludes sentence fragments, of which
examples were found that are not clearly subjective.  In these instances,
sentence fragments are used for stylistic effects other than expressing
someone's consciousness.
This also excludes something Banfield calls a 
.ul
repetition
or 
.ul
hesitation, 
of which she gives the following example:
.(q
His wife still loved him, physically. 
.ul
But, but
\(em he was almost the unnecessary party in the affair.
[Lawrence, ``England, 
My England'', p. 310; cited by Banfield 1982, p. 75]
.)q
Banfield does not specify in detail what qualifies as a subjective
repetition or hesitation; this question is not addressed in this
dissertation.
.sh 1 "ASSOCIATION OF POTENTIAL SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS WITH SITUATIONS."
The potential subjective elements form groups according to the text
situations with which they are associated.
The text situations are ordered as follows:
.ip (1)
The presubjective-nonactive situation
.ip (2)
The presubjective-active, postsubjective-active, and postsubjective-nonactive
situations
.ip (3)
The broken-subjective and interrupted-subjective situations
.ip (4)
The continuing-subjective situation
.in 0
.sp
If a potential subjective element is associated
with the situation(s) in group (i) of this list, then it is also
associated with the situation(s) in groups (i+1)...(4).
A potential subjective element is associated 
.ul
at the highest level
with the situation(s) in
group (i) if it is associated with the situation(s) in groups
(i)...(4) but not with the situation(s) in groups 1...(i-1).
Note that the potential subjective elements associated with group
(1) are subjective elements in any situation; those associated
with group (2) are subjective elements if there is an
expected subjective character; those associated with group (3)
are subjective elements if there is a last subjective character, and
if either the previous sentence is subjective
or the last subjective sentence 
appeared in the current paragraph;
and those associated with group (4) are subjective elements only
if the previous sentence was subjective and no paragraph break appears
between the current and previous sentences.
.pp
With the exception of two situations discussed in the next paragraph,
the association of potential subjective elements with text
situations is conservative in order that the algorithm err
on the side of not recognizing sentences that actually are
subjective, rather than on the side of misinterpreting sentences to be
subjective that actually are not.
In particular, only Banfield's emotive and evaluative subjective elements,
which must be understood to express someone's emotions or evaluations,
are associated with the presubjective-nonactive situation.
The number of subjective sentences that appear in this situation is small,
because, by definition, only the first subjective sentence of a scene appears 
in a presubjective situation.
It may be that other potential subjective elements
should also be associated 
with this situation,
particularly those associated
with the situations in group (2).
Evidence against 
associating some of them with 
the presubjective-nonactive situation\(emtheir 
appearance in sentences that are not characters' subjective
sentences\(emwas not found;
on the other hand,
evidence 
.ul
for 
doing so\(emtheir appearance in
subjective sentences in the presubjective-nonactive situation\(emwas not found
either.
.pp
The problematic situations are the presubjective-active and 
interrupted-subjective situations, because there are few subjective sentences
that appear in these situations, and because there isn't an independent
reason for associating potential subjective elements with them, as there
is for the presubjective-nonactive situation.  
The reason that the number of subjective sentences in the presubjective-active
situation is small was given above:  only the first subjective sentence
of a scene is in a presubjective situation.
The reason that
few subjective sentences appear in the interrupted-subjective situation
(i.e., the situation in which a subjective sentence appears earlier in
the current paragraph and an objective sentence has appeared since the
last subjective sentence), is that
a subjective context tends to continue to the end of
the paragraph, or, if an objective context follows a subjective context
within a paragraph, the objective context tends to continue to the end
of the paragraph.  Thus, a larger body of texts must be examined in future
work to justify associating the same potential subjective elements
with the presubjective-active and the 
postsubjective situations, and associating the same potential subjective
elements with the interrupted-subjective and broken-subjective situations.
.sh 1 "WHY POTENTIAL SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS CAN BE SUBJECTIVE."
This section outlines some reasons why potential subjective elements 
can be subjective elements.
These reasons are not entirely distinct.
.sh 2 "Evidentiality."
Many potential subjective elements are
.ul
evidentials.
Willet (1988) and Bybee (1985), among others,
apply the term 
.ul
evidential
to ``markers that indicate
something about the
.ul
source
of the information in the proposition''
(Bybee 1985, p. 184; italics in original).
That is, ``evidentiality is the linguistic means
of indicating how the speaker obtained the information on which s/he
bases an assertion.'' (Willet 1988, p. 55).
However, Chafe (1986) uses the term in a broader sense; he does not restrict
its application to the expression of evidence for a statement.
Instead, he applies the term to the expression of 
attitudes toward knowledge in general.
Chafe's use of the term is adopted here.
.pp
As Chafe (1986) describes them,
evidentials qualify the status of the basic information conveyed in a
statement.  The qualification can concern how 
reliable the information
is.  Both uncertainty and certainty can be expressed by an evidential, for
example by the adverbials `maybe' and `surely'.
The 
.ul
mode of knowledge
is another kind of qualification.  This concerns the various ways knowledge
can be acquired from various kinds of sources.
For example, knowledge can be acquired through induction, in which case
the source is evidence.  For example, the auxiliary `must' is often
used as this kind of evidential.
I have observed a discourse relation in
third-person narrative text that holds between, on the one hand,
a represented perception or
perceptual report, and, on the other, a sentence containing this kind of
evidential.
The discourse relation is that the content of the latter was inferred
by the subjective character from the perception of the former.
An example appears in the following:
.(q
(5)
.br
\*[5.1\*]Newt took the gun and slipped it out of his holster.
\*[5.2\*]It smelled faintly
of oil\(em\*[5.3\*]the Captain must have oiled it that day.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 111-112]
.)q
Sentence (5.2) is Newt's represented perception and (5.3) contains
`must' used as an evidential expressing that knowledge was
acquired through induction.  Newt infers that the Captain oiled the
gun recently from his perception that the gun smells of oil.
The two sentences involved can be in either order:  The same relation
would hold if (5.3) were to come before (5.2):
.(q
New took the gun and slipped it out of his holster. The Captain must
have oiled it that day\(emIt smelled faintly of oil.
.)q
.pp
Deduction can also be the means of acquisition; evidentials that can mark this
situation are the adverbials `therefore' and `thus'.
.pp
An evidential can also hedge
the appropriateness of a term for expressing the information in a statement.
Examples are `sort of' and `kind of':
``A piece of knowledge may match a verbal category more or less well.
A less than perfect match is signaled by a hedge like `sort of' 
or `kind of' ''(Chafe 1986, p. 272).
The final kind of evidential
Chafe identifies are those that signal expectations of some kind against
which knowledge is matched.  These evidentials can express that
the information in a statement 
.ul
is 
in line with expectations (e.g., the adverbial `of course') or
that it is 
.ul
not
in line with expectations (e.g., the adverbial `even').
.pp
Since objective sentences create the story-world and the events that
occur, there is no reason in a truly objective sentence to indicate
certainty or uncertainty, for example, or to indicate the source of
the information.
However,
evidentials can appear in passages that are not characters'
subjective contexts, but instead present what one would perceive and
the impressions one would have if one were observing the scene
(see Section 12).
In particular, evidentials such as `as if' and `seem' 
have been found in passages of
this type.
If they appear in a character's subjective
sentence, then the subjective
character is an external observer.  But if they appear
in a sentence that is not a character's subjective sentence, then
perceptions and impressions that an observer would have if one
were present are given.
.sh 2 "Lack of Knowledge."
Some potential subjective elements indicate a lack of knowledge
about who or what something is.
Examples are `whoever' and `a kind of'.
.sh 2 "Emotion, Evaluation, and Judgment."
Two potential subjective elements that express emotion have already
been identified:  the exclamation and the question.  There are many
kinds of evaluation and judgment that can be expressed by potential
subjective elements.
Judgments can be judgments of goodness and badness, e.g.,
`good', `wonderful', `terrible', and `dreadful'; value or moral
judgments, e.g., `reprehensible' and `right'; or judgments of
obligation, e.g., `had better' and `ought to'.
Many
potential subjective elements that are evaluative also express emotion:
for example, `idiot' expresses a negative evaluation of the referent,
and it also expresses a negative emotion toward him or her (Dolezel
1973).
.sh 2 "Psychological Effect."
Some potential subjective elements indicate that something has a
psychological effect on someone.  For example, a boring object
causes boredom, and a surprising object causes surprise.
Fillmore (1974) notes that if a term such as `boring' or `surprising'
appears in a represented thought, and the experiencer is not specified
(i.e., the person who is bored or surprised), then the experiencer
is the subjective character.
.sh 2 "Intensification."
Intensifiers indicate the degree of something; they
scale upward or downward from an assumed norm (Quirk et al.,
p. 445).  Some intensifiers that are potential subjective elements are
evaluative, e.g.,
.ul
`absurdly
slow'; some express a judgment, e.g., 
`hot
.ul
enough';
some involve psychological effect, e.g.,
.ul
`surprisingly 
quiet'; and others are evidentials, e.g., hedges, such as
.ul
`sort of
peach', and elements that address expectations, such as
`It was
.ul
only
bread and water'
(something ``more than'' bread and water is expected).
.sh 2 "Relationship."
Potential subjective elements can express a relationship to something.
Some express a kinship relationship, e.g.,
.ul
Mom 
and
.ul
Aunt Margaret.
Familiarity is another kind of relationship expressed by potential
subjective elements.  For example,
a person is
a `stranger' to someone who does not know her, and
something is `familiar' to someone who is familiar with it.
.sh 2 "Reasoning."
In a subjective context, the
subjective character's reasoning or train of thought
can be reflected in the discourse
relations among the sentences.
For example, a subjective sentence might give a conclusion,
decision, or opinion, 
and other sentences in the same subjective
context might indicate something about the origin of the conclusion,
decision, or opinion:  Evidence or reasons might be given, or the
process by which it was reached might be shown.
In fact, subjective contexts are often similar to argumentative
discourse, in which positions are given and supported.  However,
the purpose of argumentative discourse is to convince someone of
one's position, but in subjective sentences, which express private thoughts,
perceptions, and other private states,
the subjective character is not trying to convince another
person of a position.  Thus,
a subjective context is not, strictly speaking, 
argumentative discourse.
One might say, as Fillmore (1974) does, that a subjective
context represents the subjective character talking to herself.  Then,
subjective contexts in which support is given for positions could
be interpreted as the subjective character trying to convince
herself of the position.  However,
although sometimes the subjective character 
.ul
is
trying to convince herself of something,
and even challenges her own conclusions or defends them to herself
(which are other features of argumentative discourse in addition to 
position and support (Schiffrin 1987)), 
subjective contexts giving support for positions can simply represent
the character coming to a conclusion, or can simply 
express a character's beliefs and the reasons why she holds them.
.pp
In whatever way subjective contexts of these types should be
characterized, it is important to note that subjective contexts with
different subjective characters comprise separate discourse segments
that are not hierarchically related.
The discourse relations within the subjective context
of a particular character originate with that character:  It is she
who believes that something provides support for something else, for example,
and it is her logic that is reflected in the relations among sentences.
If one character's subjective context immediately follows another character's
subjective context, then there
is a shift from a
discourse originating with one character to a discourse originating with 
another.
.pp
Some potential subjective elements can indicate how what is expressed
in a sentence fits into a character's reasoning or train of thought.
Examples are the adverbials `for example' and `besides'.  Note that 
evidentiality and reasoning are not completely distinct reasons why
a potential subjective element can be a subjective element.  For example,
a linguistic element
that indicates that information was induced (and so is an evidential)
simultaneously
indicates that a conclusion was reached (and so indicates reasoning).
In addition, as Schiffrin (1987)
notes, part of a position can be an indication of confidence in the
truth of the position, such as evidentials that express certainty or
uncertainty; hedges; and some intensifiers.
.sh 1 "POTENTIAL SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS IN NARRATIVE SENTENCES."
Recall from Chapter 4 that the algorithm considers
only one of the events denoted by clauses in the current sentence
(more precisely, in the current 
input unit).  If none of the clauses denotes a private state, seeming
state, perceptual action or psychological action, then the event chosen
is the one denoted by the main clause.  However, the algorithm does not
consider only
potential subjective elements that
appear in a certain clause.
If the chosen
event is not quoted speech (see Section 7), a private or seeming state
(see Chapter 6), or a perceptual or psychological action (see Chapter 7),
then the algorithm considers all potential subjective elements in the
current sentence, wherever they appear.
.sh 1 "TREATMENT OF QUOTED SPEECH."
Quoted speech can have the properties of subjective sentences discussed
in Chapter 1:  a speaker's utterance often
expresses her emotions, judgments, and
evaluations, reveals her motivations, and reflects her beliefs
(actually, her beliefs about the mutual beliefs of herself
and the hearer; see Chapter 8).  However, quoted speech differs
from subjective sentences in that speaking is a public action rather
than the expression or report of a thought, perception, or experience.  
Quoted speech
.ul
as an action
can be important for recognizing subjective sentences.
That is, quoted speech can make the speaker
an active character, and she might then become the subjective character of
a subsequent subjective sentence.
However, the fact that quoted speech expresses 
the speaker's emotions, judgments,
etc., is not important for recognizing subjective sentences,
even if the speaker's subjectivity is expressed by subjective elements.
Thus, the algorithm does not consider subjective elements that
appear in quoted speech.
.pp
On the other hand,
subjective elements that appear in discourse parentheticals
.ul
are
important, and are considered by the algorithm.  For example:
.(q
(6)
.br
     \*[6.1\*]``I'll talk to Amy,'' 
.ul
Daddy 
said, \*[6.2\*]``and make sure she
behaves herself.''
[Sachs,
.ul
Amy and Laura\c
, p. 100]
.)q
The subjective element `Daddy' (see Section 9.2.5)
in the discourse parenthetical in (6.1) is
attributed to an expected subjective character, Laura.
A subjective element that appears in a clause subordinated to
a direct speech main clause is also considered:
.(q
(7)
.br
     \*[7.1\*]``We've never shot airy other gun,'' Swift Bill said,
.ul
as if that meant they couldn't.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 177]
.)q
The subjective elements `as if' (see
Section 9.3.9) and `meant' (see Section 9.3.8) in the subordinated clause
are considered.  As this sentence appears in context, it is Call's
subjective sentence.
.sh 1 "NONPRIVATE-STATE SENTENCES."
Typically, if a nonprivate-state sentence immediately follows a
subjective sentence, it continues the subjective context.
For example:
.(q
(8)
.br
     \*[8.1\*]Lorena didn't like it that Gus acted like Jake wasn't much.
.ul
\*[8.2\*]He had a reputation for being a cool man in a fight.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 190]
.)q
Sentence (8.1) is Lorena's subjective sentence, and (8.2), 
a nonprivate-state sentence, continues her subjective context.
.pp
The algorithm, therefore, uses the following rule:
.(q
If a nonprivate-state sentence appears in the continuing-subjective situation,
   then the sentence is subjective, even if no subjective elements appear.
.)q
This rule is based only on observation of texts.
There is no more compelling reason why a nonprivate-state sentence should
continue a subjective context than that
a nonprivate state is something that can be reflected upon or
perceived.
Subjective elements are more reliable than nonprivate-state sentences,
so
if a nonprivate-state sentence appears in the continuing-subjective 
situation, the algorithm can be more certain
that the sentence is subjective if a subjective element appears than
if one does not appear.
Thus, if a nonprivate-state sentence appears in the continuing-subjective 
situation,
and the sentence contains
a subjective element, then the algorithm reports that the sentence
is subjective because it contains a subjective
element, not because the sentence is a nonprivate-state sentence.
.pp
In the following passage, there is a nonprivate-state sentence that is
.ul
not 
a subjective sentence, even though it appears in the continuing-subjective 
situation.
The algorithm incorrectly interprets this sentence to be subjective.
Since this sentence
does not contain any subjective elements, the rule just given
is responsible for the algorithm's failure:
.(q
(9)
.br
     \*[9.1\*]In his private six-room suite on the hotel's fifteenth floor,
Warren Trent stepped down from the barber's chair in which Aloysius
Royce had shaved him.  \*[9.2\*]A twinge of sciatica jabbed savagely in
his left thigh like hot lancets\(ema warning that this would
be another day during which his mercurial temper might need curbing.
.ul
\*[9.3\*]The private barber parlor was in an annex adjoining 
.ul
a capacious bathroom,
.ul
the latter complete with steam cabinet, sunken Japanese-style tub
.ul
and built-in aquarium from which tropical fish watched, broody-eyed,
.ul
through laminated glass.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 77]
.)q
Sentence (9.2) is Trent's subjective sentence, and so (9.3)
appears in the continuing-subjective situation.
Even so, sentence (9.3), a nonprivate-state sentence, is not a subjective
sentence.
It is not subjective, because it does not continue Trent's train of
thought.  Where the private barber parlor is and what can be found
in his bathroom, described in (9.3), are not related to Trent's concern,
expressed in (9.2), that he might have to curb his temper because his
sciatica is bothering him.
.pp
Additional examples of nonprivate-state sentences that appear in the
continuing-subjective situation and that do continue the subjective
context can be found in passages
cited elsewhere in this and later chapters.
.sh 1 "THE POTENTIAL SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS."
Dolezel's (1973) analyses of linguistic elements that characterize
represented thought in Czech (his term for represented thought is
.ul
represented discourse)
suggested to me some kinds of potential subjective elements to look for.
In addition to discussing person, tense, and deixis, Dolezel 
lists the following general categories of linguistic elements
that characterize represented thought:
.ip (i)
Linguistic elements with emotive functions,
such as interjections (e.g.,
`Ugh'), exclamatory sentences, and questions.
.ip (ii)
.ul
Attitudinal
terms,
which are
adjectives, adverbs and nouns with evaluative meanings.
He also includes kinship terms such as `Daddy' in this category.
.ip (iii)
Linguistic elements concerned with
.ul
modality,
which attribute to a statement ``the quality of reality, unreality,
possibility, conditionality, desirability, or necessity'' (p. 37).
.in 0
.sp
Many of the potential subjective elements listed below could be included
in one of these categories.
.pp
Before discussing the potential subjective elements themselves,
there are some things to note.  First,
how the algorithm decides if certain kinds of sentences\(emprivate-state 
sentences, seeming-state sentences, and psychological-action and
perceptual-action sentences\(emare subjective and how it identifies their
subjective characters are the topics of Chapters 6 and 7 and
have not yet been discussed.
Thus, for 
sentences of these kinds that
appear in passages cited below, I simply indicate if they are subjective
and, if so, who their subjective characters are.
.pp
Second, many of the reasons that a potential subjective element can
be a subjective element given in Section 5 involve some kind of
attitude, either toward information or individuals.  
The word ``attitude'' is used in the name of a potential subjective 
element category if the members of that category are potential subjective
elements for different reasons, all of which involve some
kind of attitude.  Note that this use of ``attitude'' does not
correspond exactly to Dolezel's use of ``attitudinal''.  For example,
an evidential such as ``possible'' would fall into Dolezel's third
category, linguistic elements concerned with modality; in this dissertation,
``possible'' is included in the potential subjective element category
``attitude adjective'', because it expresses an attitude toward knowledge.   
.pp
Third, some grammatical concepts used below need to be defined
(this information is taken from Quirk et al. 1985).
A 
.ul
complement
is a clause element in a copular relationship with another clause element.
That is,
it applies some attribute or definition to another clause element.
A complement can be an adjective phrase or a noun phrase.
A 
.ul
subject complement
relates to the subject, and the verb is copular (examples of copular verbs 
are `be', `become', and `seem').  For example:
.(q
Mary was 
.ul
afraid to go out at night.
.sp
It was 
.ul
something that she had to do.
.sp
The country became 
.ul
a separate nation.
.)q 
An
.ul
object complement 
relates to the object.  
For example:
.(q
Carol made John 
.ul
her assistant.
.)q
The copular relation between the object and complement of this
sentence is that
John became Carol's assistant.
.pp
.ul
Apposition
is a relation between noun phrases that are identical in reference.
The appositive noun phrase identifies or further specifies the
referent.  For example:
.(q
John,
.ul
her best friend,
visited her last night.
.sp
Mary,
.ul
someone John used to date,
visited last night.
.sp
Mary Smith,
.ul
a wonderful singer,
performed at the club last night.
.)q
.pp
Italics appearing in the passages cited below
are mine unless otherwise
indicated.  In addition, it should be assumed that a scene break
does not occur and that a sentence does not have an active character
unless indicated otherwise.
.sh 2 "Ordering of the Situations."
Recall that the situations are ordered as follows:
.ip (1)
The presubjective-nonactive situation
.ip (2)
The presubjective-active, postsubjective-active, and postsubjective-nonactive
situations
.ip (3)
The broken-subjective and interrupted-subjective situations
.ip (4)
The continuing-subjective situation
.in 0
.sp
and that
if a potential subjective element is associated
with the situation(s) in group (i) of this list, then it is also
associated with the situation(s) in groups (i+1)...(4).
.sh 2 "Potential Subjective Elements Associated with Group (1)."
This section presents the potential subjective elements associated
at the highest level with
the presubjective-nonactive situation, the situation in group
(1).  Thus, these potential subjective elements 
are subjective elements in any situation.
.sh 3 "Exclamations."
Exclamations are expressed not only by sentences with exclamation points,
but also by 
.ul
verbless exclamatory phrases
such as the following: 
.sp
.in +2
.ul
boy, for heaven's sake, in heaven's name, <wh-word> in the world,
.ul
<wh-word> in heaven's name,
.ul
heaven knows, small wonder, thank goodness, no wonder
.in 0
.sp
Interjections, such as
.sp
.in +2
.ul
aha, oh, ugh, wow
.in 0
.sp
can also have exclamatory force.
.pp
Recall that if a subjective sentence appears in the 
presubjective-nonactive
situation (and
it isn't a private-state sentence, seeming-state sentence, 
psychological-action or perceptual-action sentence),
then
the subjective character is unidentified.  Few examples of this situation 
were found, even in texts others than those listed in Chapter 1,
and so there were few data from which to draw conclusions
about how the subjective character is later identified.  The algorithm
identifies the subjective character to be the next character to be the
argument of the event chosen to consider in a subsequent sentence.
This rule will have to be evaluated in future research once more
examples are found.
.pp
The following passage is the beginning of a novel:
.(q
(10)
.br
\*[10.1\*]Captain Scalawag's treasure!
\*[10.2\*]It was the first thing Pete thought
of when he woke up.
[Lorimer,
.ul
The Mystery of the Missing Treasure\c
, p. 1]
.)q
Sentence (10.2) identifies the subjective character of (10.1).  The
following is a demonstration of the algorithm using the sentence-level
parser on a simplified version of this passage.  The parser assumes
that the situation is initially presubjective-nonactive unless it
is explicitly told otherwise.  In this and all subsequent demonstrations
given in this dissertation, certain information has been deleted
from the actual output of the system in order to save space.  These
are the listing of the arcs defined, the commands calling and
exiting from the ATN parser and the messages printed in response, and
messages about the source of the input stream.  The input to the
system are the sentences following colons; all other lines are
the system's output:
.(q
.nf
Script started on Tue Jul 18 14:19:22 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Tue Jul 18 14:19:28 1989
sneps

: Captain Scalawag's treasure!
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Potential subjective elements considered: 
  exclamation
  sentence_fragment
Of these, the following is a subjective element: 
  exclamation
New subj_char who is unidentified 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  exclamation
The subj_char is b9 (unidentified)
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 4.433 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Pete thought of it when he woke up.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      b9 (unidentified), the last subj_char 
The last subj_char is now identified:  Pete
private_state of the last subj_char 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  private_state of Pete
The subj_char is Pete
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 9.733 gc= 2.133) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> ^D
script done on Tue Jul 18 14:22:05 1989
.fi
.)q
The algorithm recognizes that the first sentence is subjective because
it is an exclamation.  Since there isn't an expected subjective character 
when this sentence
is encountered, its subjective character is unidentified (`b9' is the
system's arbitrary name for its representation of the
unidentified subjective character).
After processing the second sentence,
the algorithm correctly identifies the subjective character of the
first sentence to be Pete,
the experiencer of a private state denoted by the second sentence.
.pp
Here is an example of an exclamation that appears when there is an 
expected subjective character:
.(q
(11)
.br
\*[11.1\*]He [Dennys] had seen pictures of bedouin tents in his 
social studies books at school.
\*[11.2\*]These were similar, though they seemed smaller and more
closely clustered.  \*[11.3\*]It was probably from one of these tents that he
had been thrown.  \*[11.4\*]Beyond the tents were palm trees, \*[11.5\*]and he
staggered toward these.
     \*[11.6\*]He needed to shower.  
.ul
\*[11.7\*]Did he ever need to shower!
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 55]
.)q
Sentence (11.1) is Dennys's subjective sentence.  The algorithm 
recognizes that (11.2) continues his subjective context because
it contains the 
seeming verb
`seem' (see Section 9.3.8), and it recognizes that (11.3) continues
his subjective context because it contains the 
attitude adverbial
`probably' (see Section 9.3.13.4).
Sentence (11.4) is a nonprivate-state sentence,
so the algorithm recognizes that it also is Dennys's subjective sentence.
Thus, the situation just after (11.5) is
continuing-subjective.  Sentence (11.5) is objective, and there is
a paragraph break before (11.6); thus, the situation at the beginning
of (11.6) is postsubjective-nonactive.  Sentence (11.6) is
Dennys's subjective sentence, since it expresses his
judgment that he needs to shower, but the algorithm
is unable to recognize that it is (Section 10.10 discusses
`need').  According to the algorithm, therefore, the
situation at the beginning of (11.7) is postsubjective-nonactive, but in
fact, it is continuing-subjective.  The exclamation is a subjective element 
in either case, and so the algorithm recognizes that sentence (11.7)
is subjective; it correctly identifies Dennys to be the subjective character,
because he is the last subjective character.
.sh 3 "Questions."
.ul
Direct
questions rather than
.ul
indirect 
questions are potential subjective elements (Banfield 1982).
Most direct questions employ operators such as the verbs `be', 
`do', and `have',
and contain some kind of inversion in comparison with corresponding
declarative forms.  If an operator appears, then the operator and
subject are inverted.  For example:
.(q
Direct question:  Had he given the girl an apple?
.br
Declarative statement:  He had given the girl an apple.
.sp
Direct question:  Do they offer a rebate?
.br
Declarative statement:  They do offer a rebate.
.sp
Direct question:  Where is John going to school?
.br
Declarative statement:  John is going to school in Buffalo.
.)q
The only verb in a direct question might be `be'.  In this case,
the subject and `be' are usually inverted:
.(q
Direct question:  Where is John?
.br
Declarative statement:  John is at the library.
.)q
Direct questions do not always contain inversion, for example:
.(q
John is where?
.sp
They offer a rebate?
.)q
.pp
Indirect questions do not contain inversion, and contain
a verb such as `wonder' or `ask' in the main clause:
.(q
He asked if he had given the girl an apple.
.sp
He wondered if they offer a rebate.
.sp
He asked where John is going to school.
.sp
He wondered where John was.
.)q
.pp
Dolezel (1973) uses 
B$roman u dotdot$hler's
categorization of the functions of language
to analyze direct questions in subjective sentences.  According to
B$roman u dotdot$hler (1934),
there are three functions of language:
the
.ul
expressive
function, which involves the relationship of an utterance to the speaker
(or to the SELF, in Banfield's terminology);
the
.ul
allocutional function,
which involves the relationship of an utterance to the addressee;
and the
.ul
referential function,
which involves the relationship of the utterance to the topic of the utterance.
An allocutional question is a request for information and presupposes
an answer.
Rhetorical and deliberative questions, on the other hand, do not
presuppose answers; their function is expressive rather than
allocutional.  Since a subjective sentence is not directed toward
an addressee, expressive rather than allocutional questions
appear in subjective sentences (Dolezel 1973).
Objective sentences do not make any references to an addressee or
to a SELF (Banfield 1982), so neither allocutional nor expressive
questions appear in objective sentences.
.pp
In the following passage, a question appears in the postsubjective-nonactive
situation:
.(q
(12)
.br
\*[12.1\*]He [Sandy] was 
ready to ask ``What
are you?'' when he noticed a tiny bow near the pouch of arrows.
     \*[12.2\*]``No. No.''  \*[12.3\*]The young man looked at them doubtfully.
\*[12.4\*]``Only giants are as tall as you.  And the 
seraphim and nephilim.  But you have no wings.''
.ul
     \*[12.5\*]What was this about wings?
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 17]
.)q
Sentence (12.1) is Sandy's subjective sentence, so
the situation after (12.1) is continuing-subjective.
There is a paragraph break before (12.2), and (12.2) is objective (it
does not have an active character because the speaker, the young
man, has not been the subjective character),
so the situation at the beginning of (12.3) is postsubjective-nonactive.
Although (12.3) is a perceptual-action sentence, it is not subjective (the actor has not been the subjective
character; see Chapter 7).  Sentence (12.4) also is not subjective,
so the situation is still postsubjective-nonactive at the
beginning of (12.5).
The algorithm correctly recognizes that (12.5)
is subjective because it is a question, and it correctly identifies the
subjective character to be Sandy because he is the last subjective character.
.sh 3 "The Intensifiers `Enough', `So', `Such', and `Too'."
One of Banfield's subjective elements is an
.ul
intensifier.
However, she does not discuss intensifiers in detail, but
only mentions them and gives
some examples:
.(q
Satin shoes were always 
.ul
too
tight.
[Woolf, 
.ul
The Years,
p. 288]
.sp
She was 
.ul
so silent.
[Woolf,
.ul
To the Lighthouse,
p. 190]
.)q
.pp
The following are
intensifiers that can have strong evaluative meanings:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
enough, so, such, too
.in 0
.sp
These intensifiers have their strongest evaluative meanings when
.ul
not
used in certain kinds of clauses.  For `too', the kind of clause is
a comparison clause of
excess
(Quirk et al., p. 1127).  For example:
.(q
They were
.ul
too poor to own a car.
.)q
For `enough', the kind of clause is a comparison clause of
sufficiency
(Quirk et al., p. 1127), as in:
.(q
They were rich 
.ul
enough to buy a car.
.)q
For `so' and `such', the type of 
clause is a `so'...`that' or `such'... `that' correlative, where 
the clause beginning with `that' is a 
result clause 
(Quirk et al. 1985, p.
1109).  For example:
.(q
It was 
.ul
so late that the store was closed.
.sp
She was 
.ul
such a good lecturer that everyone wanted to take her class.
.)q
Note that the subordinator `that' can be omitted (the result
clause in the following sentence is italicized):
.(q
Already the debts which existed were so complicated 
.ul
it gave Newt a headache to think about them.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 202]
.)q
In the following examples, these intensifiers do not appear in the
constructions given above:
.(q
She was too easily defeated.
.sp
It was so late.
.sp
Dish was nice 
.ul
enough\c
\(emit was just that he couldn't compare with Jake Spoon.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 186]
.sp
It would
be a while before he had
.ul
such
a good shady porch to sit on, drinking the afternoon out.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 229]
.)q
When they do 
.ul
not 
appear in the constructions given
above, these intensifiers
are potential subjective elements.  They form distinct
potential subjective element categories called, respectively,
.ul
intensifier `enough', intensifier `so', intensifier `such',
and
.ul
intensifier `too'.
.pp
In this passage, intensifier `too' appears in the continuing-subjective 
situation:
.(q
(13)
.br
\*[13.1\*]She [Yalith] looked, startled, at the 
glorious creature by her, light shimmering like water from the purple wings.  
     \*[13.2\*]``I, sweet little one, I, Eblis, of the nephilim.''
     \*[13.3\*]No nephil had paid attention to her before.  \*[13.4\*]She was
.ul
too
young.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 46]
.)q
Sentence (13.1) is Yalith's subjective sentence.  It is followed by
a paragraph break and the next sentence (sentence (13.2)) is objective,
so the situation at the beginning of (13.3) is postsubjective-nonactive. 
Sentence (13.3) is Yalith's subjective
sentence:  Yalith is startled because a nephil has never
paid attention to her before.  However,
the algorithm is not able to recognize that it is because it
contains no subjective elements.
According to the algorithm, therefore,
the situation is still postsubjective-nonactive at the beginning
of (13.4); however, it is actually continuing-subjective.
In either case,
the algorithm correctly interprets (13.4) to be
Yalith's subjective sentence, because intensifier `too' appears, and
because Yalith is the last subjective character.
.pp
In the following passage, intensifier `so' appears in the
postsubjective-nonactive situation.  At the beginning of this
passage, the situation is postsubjective-nonactive, and Marsha
is the last subjective character:
.(q
(14)
.br
     \*[14.1\*]He [Peter] seemed surprised.  \*[14.2\*]``Yesterday was your 
birthday?''
     \*[14.3\*]``I was nineteen.''
     \*[14.4\*]``And you were alone?''
     \*[14.5\*]Now that she [Marsha] had revealed
.ul
so
much,
there was no point in holding back.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 107]
.)q
The algorithm recognizes that (14.1) is Marsha's subjective sentence,
because the subjective element `seem' appears (see Section 9.3.8), and because
she is the last subjective character.  The situation at the beginning
of (14.5) is postsubjective-nonactive, since objective sentences and
paragraph breaks have appeared since the last subjective sentence, (14.1).
The algorithm interprets (14.5) to be Marsha's subjective
sentence, because intensifier `so' appears, and because Marsha is the
last subjective character.  This is the correct interpretation.
.sh 3 "Evaluative Adjectives."
Some adjectives
have both
evaluative 
and
non-evaluative 
meanings (Banfield 1982).
An example is `poor'.
According to Banfield,
if such an adjective appears in a subject complement
or in an indefinite noun phrase,
it is not evaluative.
In the following sentences, for example,
`poor' means `impoverished', which is its non-evaluative meaning.  It appears
in a subject complement in the first, and in an indefinite noun
phrase in the second:
.(q
John was poor.
.sp
A poor man came through the door.
.)q
However, if this kind of adjective appears in
a definite noun phrase, then, according to Banfield, it is evaluative.
For example, `poor' appears in definite noun
phrases in the following sentences, and
means `unfortunate', which is its
evaluative meaning:
.(q
Poor John came through the door.
.sp
Augustus watched them eat the poor breakfast.
.)q
Although these syntactic rules work in many cases, they do not always.
In the following sentence, for example, `poor' has its non-evaluative
meaning even though it appears in a definite noun phrase:
.(q
The poor man is wiser than the rich man.
.)q
.pp
An adjective that has both evaluative and non-evaluative meanings is called
an
.ul
evaluative adjective
(Banfield 1982) and, when used with its evaluative meaning,
is a potential subjective element.
The following are the clearest examples given by Banfield:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
blasted, bloody, confounded, damned, dirty, divine, poor
.in 0
.sp
Other examples that she gives are:
.in +2
.ul
darn, darling, incredible, weird
.in 0
.sp
However, it is not clear to me that the adjectives in the latter group
have non-evaluative 
meanings, at least in modern usage.
Future research is required to identify the contexts in which each
evaluative adjective has its evaluative meaning.
.pp
Note that many members of the potential subjective element category
.ul
attitude adjectives
(see Section 9.3.2) are similar to the adjectives included in this category.
The evaluative adjectives have been retained as a separate
potential-subjective-element category only because they are one of
Banfield's subjective-element categories, and no evidence was
found against doing so.
.pp
The evaluative adjective `weird' appears in the following passage in the
continuing-subjective situation:
.(q
(15)
     \*[15.1\*]Dennys frowned.  \*[15.2\*]This pre-flood world was 
.ul
weird.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 96]
.)q
Sentence (15.1) is a psychological-action sentence that is
Dennys's subjective sentence.  The algorithm correctly interprets
(15.2) to be Denny's subjective sentence because it contains the
subjective element `weird'.
.pp
In this example, `weird' appears in the postsubjective-nonactive
situation:
.(q
(16)
     \*[16.1\*]Sandy's ears pricked up.  \*[16.2\*]``What do you 
mean, he was not?''
     \*[16.3\*]Grandfather Lamech said, ``He walked with El.  He was a man
of warm heart.  And El took him.''
     \*[16.4\*]It was a 
.ul
weird 
story.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 144]
.)q
Sentence (16.1) is a perceptual action sentence that is Sandy's subjective
sentence.  The situation at the beginning of (16.4) is 
postsubjective-nonactive, because paragraph breaks and objective
sentences have appeared since the last subjective sentence, (16.1).
The algorithm correctly interprets (16.4) to be Sandy's subjective
sentence, because it contains the subjective element `weird', and
because Sandy is the last subjective character.
The kinship term 
`Grandfather', which appears in (16.3), can be a
potential subjective element.
However,
Grandfather Lamech is
generally called `Grandfather Lamech', even by characters who are not
his grandchildren, so the kinship term
assumes the status of a proper name.  It
is therefore not a 
potential subjective element (see Section 9.2.5).
.sh 3 "Kinship Terms."
This section presents the final kind of potential subjective element
that is associated with the presubjective-nonactive situation.
This category is
comprised of kinship terms such as:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
Aunt Margaret, Dad, Daddy, Father, Grandfather,
.ul
Grandpa, Grandma, Grandmother, Mom, Mommy, Mother
.in 0
.sp
These are terms that one would use to directly address a family member.
Kinship terms used in possessive noun phrases are not
potential subjective elements, for example:
.(q
Her mother was in Italy.
.)q
Also, as noted in Section 9.2.4,
a kinship term can acquire the status of a proper name.
In L'Engle's
.ul
Many Waters, 
for example, there is a character who is generally referred
to as ``Grandfather Lamech'', even by characters who are not his grandchildren.
A kinship term that is used as a proper name is not a potential subjective
element.  However, this dissertation does
not offer a solution to how it is determined whether a kinship term
is used as a potential subjective element or as a proper name.
.pp
The kinship term `Mama' appears in the following passage:
.(q
(17)
.br
\*[17.1\*]There were people in the living 
room, Daddy\(emhome from work at this time?
Aunt Minnie...Amy...\*[17.2\*]and in the wheel chair in front of the drapes, 
sat...a woman.
     \*[17.3\*]``Laura!'' said the woman.  \*[17.4\*]It was
.ul
Mama.
[Sachs,
.ul
Amy and Laura\c
, p. 48]
.)q
Sentence (17.1)-(17.3) are Laura's subjective sentences.  There is
a paragraph break after (17.2), and the algorithm interprets (17.3)
to be objective;
so, the situation at the beginning of (17.4) is postsubjective-nonactive.
The algorithm recognizes that (17.4) is subjective because it contains
the subjective element `Mama', and it identifies the subjective character
to be Laura because she is the last subjective character.  Sentence
(17.3) actually is Laura's subjective sentence:  `the woman' reflects
Laura's lack of knowledge at that moment about the identity of the
referent.
.sh 2 "Potential Subjective Elements Associated with Group (2)."
This section presents the potential subjective elements that are
associated at the highest level with the situations in Group (2),
the postsubjective-nonactive, postsubjective-active,
and presubjective-active situations.  Thus, these
potential subjective elements are subjective elements if there
is an expected subjective character.
.sh 3 "Sentence Fragments."
In the following passage,
a sentence fragment appears in the postsubjective-nonactive situation:
.(q
(18)
.br
     \*[18.1\*]Dennys touched the back 
of his hand to his cheek, which
felt quite cool.  \*[18.2\*]``Sorry.  Your name is\(emwhat?''
     \*[18.3\*]``Noah.  How many times do I have to tell you?''
.ul
     \*[18.4\*]Noah.
\*[18.5\*]Noah and the flood.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 95; italics in original]
.)q
Sentence (18.1) is Dennys's subjective sentence.  The situation at
the beginning of (18.4) is postsubjective-nonactive, since paragraph
breaks and objective sentences have appeared since (18.1), the last
subjective sentence.  The algorithm recognizes that (18.4) is subjective
because it is a sentence fragment, and attributes the sentence to
Dennys because he is the last subjective character.
.sh 3 "Attitude Adjectives."
The members of this category can express an attitude of some
kind toward the object of description.  Although its name is
``attitude 
.ul
adjectives'',
some modifying expressions that are not adjectives are included as
members.
The members of this category can be subjective elements for a variety
of reasons.
.sp
Evidentiality:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
apparent, certain
(meaning
.ul
sure,
e.g., ``It was certain'',
rather than 
.ul
some,
e.g,
``Certain people attended''), 
.ul
clear
(meaning 
.ul
obvious
or 
.ul
evident,
not 
.ul
transparent\c
),
.ul
evident, indubitable, likely, obvious, plain
(meaning
.ul
evident
rather than
.ul
not fancy
or
.ul
not pretty\c
),
.ul
possible, unlikely
.sp
.in 0
Some of these can be accompanied by a to-clause:
.(q
It was apparent/clear/evident/obvious/plain to John that Mary had been there.
.)q
If accompanied by a to-clause, these adjectives are
.ul
not
potential subjective elements;
instead, the clauses in which they appear denote seeming states.  
Seeming
states are treated in the same way that private states are:  The experiencer
of a private state or seeming state can be the subjective character
of the sentence denoting that state, even if the experiencer is not
an expected subjective character (see Chapter 7).
.sp
Evaluation and Judgment:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
awful, crazy, curious, dreadful, foolish, fortunate, 
.ul
funny, good, horrible, magnificent, mere,
.ul
odd, peculiar, silly, strange, terrific, terrible, unfortunate,
.ul
unreasonable, wonderful, wondrous
.in 0
.sp
For example,
.(q
They had
been going back south, over their own tracks, which was
.ul
curious.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 181]
.)q
If `certain' or `curious' is used with an animate, 
non-propositional 
subject, then it is not a potential subjective element; instead, the
clause in which it appears
denotes a private state.
For example,
`certain' and `curious' in the following
.ul
are 
potential subjective elements:
.(q
It was certain that Mary had been there.
.sp
The fact that Mary didn't send the letter was curious.
.)q
But in the following sentences, which denote John's private states, `certain' 
and `curious' are 
.ul
not
potential subjective elements:
.(q
John was certain that Mary had been there.
.sp
John was curious about the letter.
.)q
.pp
In addition, if one of the attitude adjectives listed above modifies `mood',
then it is not a potential subjective element but instead appears
in a clause denoting a private state:
.(q
He was in a good/terrible/wonderful mood.
.)q
.sp
Value Judgment:
.in +2
.ul
correct, incorrect, false, questionable, reprehensible, right, so
(used as a complement, e.g., `It was so'),
.ul
true, unquestionable, unseemly, untrue, wrong
.in 0
.sp
For example,
.(q
She had gifts of healing.  Ham was
.ul
right
about that.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 67]
.)q
Psychological Effect:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
boring, disappointing, maddening, startling, surprising, vexing
.in 0
.sp
These adjectives can also appear with a `to-clause' identifying
who it is that is bored, disappointed, etc.  For example:
.(q
The class was boring to John.
.sp
The outcome was disappointing to John.
.)q
If used with a `to-clause', then these adjectives are not potential
subjective elements, but instead appear in clauses denoting private states.
.sp
Relationship:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
familiar, recognizable, unfamiliar, unwelcome, welcome
.in 0
.sp
Lack of Knowledge (the items listed here are not adjectives):
.in +2
.sp
.ul
a kind of, a sort of, some kind of, some sort of, some type of,
.ul
of some kind
.sp
.in 0
These are potential subjective elements when a particular individual\**
.(f
\**
By `individual', I mean a particular entity, i.e., a person, place,
thing, etc.
.)f
is being categorized.
For example, the appearance of
`a kind of' in the following generic
sentence is not
a potential subjective element:
.(q
The tiger is a kind of mammal.
.)q
In the following sentence, on the other hand,
`some kind of' 
.ul
is
a potential subjective element:
.(q
The object in her hand was some kind of weapon.
.)q
These constructions can
indicate an inability to satisfactorily
categorize an individual. 
Further discussion can be found in Chapter 8.
.pp
Another attitude adjective is
.in +2
.sp
.ul
same
.in 0
.sp
The property 
.ul
sameness
involves more than one argument that are either the same as each other
or that share some property.  The adjective `same' is a
potential subjective element only if just one of those arguments
is mentioned in the sentence.  The effect can be that someone
has the other arguments in mind.  In the following sentence,
`same' is 
.ul
not 
a potential subjective element:
.(q
John and Bill had on the same kind of coat.
.)q
But it 
.ul
is 
a potential subjective element in the following:
.(q
Zoe's heart bounced.
He had on the 
.ul
same 
wrinkled gray suit.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 79]
.)q
.pp
Other attitude adjectives are:
.in +2
.sp
<adjective>\c
.ul
-looking, 
<adjective>\c
.ul
-smelling, 
<adjective>\c
.ul
-sounding, very
.in 0
.sp
For example,
.(q
He was funny-looking.
.sp
It was the very truth she had discovered for herself.
.)q
When used as a subject complement,
the modifier
.in +2
.sp
.ul
no use 
.in 0
.sp
which is not an adjective,
is categorized as an attitude adjective.
For example,
.(q
It was no use.
.)q
.pp
Other attitude adjectives are comparative and superlative forms of
the attitude adjectives already given, e.g.,
.in +2
.sp
.ul
best, better, odder, oddest, stranger, strangest 
.in 0
.sp
However, `best' used in the phrase `best friend' is not a 
potential subjective element.
.pp
In the following passage, an attitude adjective appears in the
broken-subjective situation:
.(q
(19)
.br
\*[19.1\*]Then he [Augustus] drove off, amused that Dish Boggett looked
so out of sorts just from being in love with a woman who didn't
want him.  \*[19.2\*]It was a peril too common to take seriously.
     \*[19.3\*]A half mile from the main camp he came upon the
.ul
very
woman
who had given Dish the pain.  \*[19.4\*]She was attempting 
to cook some fryback, \*[19.5\*]and was getting no help from 
Jake Spoon, who hadn't even provided her with 
a good fire.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 227]
.)q
Sentences (19.1) and (19.2) are Augustus's subjective sentences.
Sentence (19.3) appears in the broken-subjective situation:  the
previous sentence, (19.2), is subjective, and a paragraph break separates
(19.2) and (19.3).
The algorithm correctly interprets (19.3) to be Augustus's subjective
sentence because it contains the attitude adjective `very', and because
Augustus is the last subjective character.
.pp
In the next two passages, an attitude adjective appears in the
postsubjective-nonactive situation.
.(q
(20)
.br
\*[20.1\*]Call had known many men who died, \*[20.2\*]but somehow had not 
expected it of Pedro, though he himself had fired several bullets at him.
     \*[20.3\*]``I'd like to know what took him,'' Call said.
     \*[20.4\*]``He might have choked on a pepper,'' Augustus said.
\*[20.5\*]``Them
that can't be killed by knives or bullets usually break their
necks falling off the porch or something.  Remember Johnny Norvel,
dying of that bee sting?  I guess Johnny had been shot twenty times,
but a dern bee killed him.''
     \*[20.6\*]It was
.ul
true.
\*[20.7\*]The man had rangered with them, \*[20.8\*]and yet the bee sting 
had given him
a seizure 
.ul
of some kind,
\*[20.9\*]and no one could bring him out of it.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 182]
.)q
Sentences (20.1)-(20.2) are Call's subjective sentences.  Sentences
(20.3)-(20.5) are objective.  The situation at the beginning of
(20.6) is postsubjective-nonactive, since paragraph breaks and objective
sentences have appeared since the last subjective sentence.
The algorithm is able to recognize that (20.6) is Call's subjective sentence,
because it contains the attitude adjective `true', and because Call
is the last subjective character.
Note that (20.8) contains the attitude adjective `of some
kind'; that and other subjective elements (the
shifted past and the attitude adverbial `yet') enable the algorithm to
recognize that (20.8) is Call's subjective sentence.
.pp
The situation at the beginning of this passage is postsubjective-nonactive,
and Zoe is the last subjective character:
.(q
(21)
.br
     \*[21.1\*]``Maybe Joe Bunch found some diamonds,'' Rosie said.
     \*[21.2\*]Sometimes it was
.ul
embarrassing 
to be related to Rosie. 
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 14]
.)q
Sentence (21.1) is objective, so
the situation is still postsubjective-nonactive at the beginning
of (21.2).
The algorithm recognizes that (21.2) is subjective because it contains
the attitude adjective `embarrassing', and it identifies the 
subjective character to be Zoe, because she is the last subjective character.
.(q
(22)
.br
\*[22.1\*]Around them they [Sandy and Dennys] could hear a noisy grating
of rock, and a deep, thunderous roaring below them.  \*[22.2\*]Then 
there was
silence, abrupt and complete.  \*[22.3\*]The rock steadied under them.
\*[22.4\*]The
earthquake, or whatever it was, had lasted less than 
a minute, \*[22.5\*]but
it had been of sufficient force to push up a large section of
rock, making a small cliff about six feet high.  \*[22.6\*]It was
striated and raw-looking, 
\*[22.7\*]but it provided a shadow that stretched across the sand.
     \*[22.8\*]Both boys climbed to their feet \*[22.9\*]and headed into the
.ul
welcome 
shade.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 14-15]
.)q
With the exception of (22.3), all of the sentences in the first
paragraph are Sandy's and Dennys's subjective sentences, and the
algorithm is able to recognize that they are.
The algorithm does not interpret (22.3) to be subjective,
but perhaps it is best interpreted to be subjective, as 
Sandy's and Dennys's
perception of the rock under their feet.  If so, then it is
a subjective sentence that the algorithm is unable to recognize.
In either case, the situation before (22.8) is continuing-subjective, and
Sandy and Dennys are the last subjective character.
.pp
Sentence (22.8) is objective, and the active character is Sandy and
Dennys.  The situation at the beginning of (22.9) is postsubjective-active,
because there have been a paragraph break and an objective sentence
since the last subjective sentence, and because an earlier sentence in 
the paragraph has an active character.
The algorithm recognizes that
(22.9) is Sandy's and Dennys's subjective sentence because (22.9)
contains the subjective element `welcome'.  It identifies Sandy and
Dennys to be the subjective character, since they are both the
last subjective character and the last active character.
Note that there is another
attitude adjective in this passage which the algorithm uses to
recognize a subjective sentence:  `raw-looking' in (22.6).
.(q
(23)
.br
\*[23.1\*]Zoe would have liked to punch her.  \*[23.2\*]She could not 
understand why her parents didn't know Rosie was a phony.
     \*[23.3\*]``Rosie's just saying that.  She doesn't really care,'' Zoe
said.
     \*[23.4\*]``I do too!'' cried Rosie.
     \*[23.5\*]``Phony!'' Zoe yelled.
     \*[23.6\*]``That will be enough.''  \*[23.7\*]Their father 
stood up.  \*[23.8\*]``You may
take your plate to the kitchen.''
     \*[23.9\*]``What about Rose!'' Zoe yelled.
     \*[23.10\*]``\c
.ul
I 
will worry about Rosie.''
     \*[23.11\*]There was
.ul
no use
arguing.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 40; italics in (23.10) in original]
.)q
Sentences (23.1)-(23.2) are Zoe's subjective sentences.  The situation
at the beginning of (23.11) is postsubjective-nonactive, since paragraph
breaks and objective sentences have appeared since the last
subjective sentence.
The algorithm correctly interprets (23.11) to be Zoe's subjective
sentence, since the attitude adjective `no use' appears, and since
Zoe is the last subjective character.
.sh 3 "Attitude Nouns."
The members of this category can be subjective elements for a variety of
reasons.
.sp
Evidentiality:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
impression, indication, sign
(meaning
.ul
indication,
not,
.ul
a publicly displayed board,
e.g., ``He read the sign in the window'')
.in 0
.sp
Note that if `impression' is used in the verb phrase
.ul
give the impression,
it is a potential subjective element in the category 
``seeming verb'' (see Section 9.3.8),
rather than in the category ``attitude noun''.
.sp
Judgment or Evaluation:
.r
.in +2
.sp
.ul
bastard, chit, fool, idiot, jerk, magnificence, old bag, geezer
.in 0
.sp
Banfield includes words such as `bastard' and `idiot' 
in her category ``subjective elements'',
but she specifically considers their appearance in constructions
like the following:
.(q
That idiot of a doctor.
.)q
Rather than define a separate potential-subjective-element category
for these constructions, I simply include
these kinds of nouns in the category ``attitude noun''.
.sp
References to Truth:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
fact, truth
.in 0
.sp
Relationship:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
enemy, home, reminder, stranger
.in 0
.sp
To be potential subjective elements,
`home' and `enemy' cannot be used in
a possessive noun phrase (e.g., `His home').
.pp
In the first two
passages that follow, an attitude noun appears in the broken-subjective 
situation.
Sandy is the last subjective character at the beginning of the first
passage (which was cited in Chapter 2):
.(q
(24)
.br
\*[24.1\*]Frantically he [Sandy] scrambled up the side, 
climbing, slipping on bones,
on ooze, on decaying filth, sliding back, climbing, sliding,
slipping, scrabbling, until at last he pulled himself out and 
up onto his feet \*[24.2\*]and stood there tottering, filthy and terrified.
     \*[24.3\*]There was no
.ul
sign
of Dennys.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 55]
.)q
Sentence (24.1) is Sandy's subjective sentence:  its repetitive
syntax and unusual number of verbs express his difficult experience
of getting out of a garbage pit.
However, the
algorithm is not able to recognize that it is.  
The private-state term `terrified' in (24.2) enables the algorithm
to recognize 
that (24.2)
is Sandy's subjective sentence, however.  In any event, there is
a paragraph break after (24.2), and so the situation at the
beginning of (24.3) is broken-subjective.
The algorithm correctly interprets (24.3)
to be Sandy's subjective sentence, because `sign' appears, and because
Sandy is the last subjective character.
.(q
(25)
.br
\*[25.1\*]He [Sandy] lay back \*[25.2\*]and looked at the vast 
expanse of sky, \*[25.3\*]then
quickly shut his eyes against the glare.
     \*[25.4\*]At 
.ul
home
the summer sky was blue, \*[25.5\*]and the blue was made brighter
by the white cumulus clouds.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 152]
.)q
Sentences (25.2)-(25.3) are perceptual action sentences that
are Sandy's subjective sentences.
A paragraph break appears after (25.3), so the situation at the
beginning of (25.4) is broken-subjective.  The algorithm recognizes that
(25.4) is Sandy's subjective sentence because it contains the attitude
noun `home', and because Sandy is the last subjective character.
.(q
(26)
.br
\*[26.1\*]Wondering why some nurses felt they had to sound like official
bulletins, Christine replied, ``In that case, perhaps I can
drop in.''
     \*[26.2\*]``Not for some time, I'm afraid.''  \*[26.3\*]There 
was the
.ul
impression
of a guardian hand raised firmly.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 94]
.)q
Sentence (26.1) is Christine's subjective sentence.  There is a
paragraph break after (26.1), and (26.2) is objective; thus, the
situation at the beginning of (26.3) is postsubjective-nonactive.
The algorithm correctly interprets (26.3) to
be Christine's subjective sentence, because it contains the
attitude noun `impression', and because she is the last subjective character.
.sh 3 "Percept Terms."
Among the members of this category are adjectives, verbs, and nouns.
.sp
Adjectives:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
audible, blinding, brilliant
(but not with the meaning
.ul
intelligent\c
),
.ul
glimmering, glistening, glowing
(but not if it describes a person's facial expression),
.ul
shimmering, shiny, twinkly, visible
.in 0
.sp
Verbs:
.sp
.in +2
.ul
glimmer, shimmer, shine, sparkle
.sp
Only if the subject is a source of light or light itself:
.ul
dim, brighten, flash
.in 0
.sp
Nouns:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
glow 
(but not if it refers to a person's facial expression),
.ul
odor, shine, sight, sound, smell, stench, view, whiff, whine
(but not if it refers to a person's voice)
.sp
.in 0
.pp
The first two passages given in this section
contain percept terms that appear in the broken-subjective situation.
Dennys is the
last subjective character when the first passage is encountered:
.(q
(27)
.br
\*[27.1\*]The older woman was wrinkled and discontented-looking.
     \*[27.2\*]The unicorn's light 
.ul
flashed 
against the younger woman's
green eyes, making them 
.ul
sparkle 
like emeralds.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 53]
.)q
The algorithm recognizes that (27.1) is Dennys's subjective sentence,
because it contains the attitude adjective `discontented-looking' and
because he is the last subjective character.
After the paragraph break, the situation is broken-subjective.
There are two percept terms, both verbs, in (27.2):  `flashed' and
`sparkle'.  They enable the algorithm to recognize that (27.2) is
Dennys's subjective sentence.
.(q
(28)
.br
\*[28.1\*]Certainly, Dennys thought, anything would be better than this 
horrible-smelling place full of horrible little people.
     \*[28.2\*]There was a brief
.ul
whiff
of fresh air.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 54]
.)q
Sentence (28.1) contains a narrative parenthetical indicating that
the sentence is subjective and that Dennys is the subjective character. 
The situation is broken-subjective after the paragraph
break, and the algorithm recognizes that (28.2) is Dennys's subjective
sentence, because the percept term `whiff' appears, and
because Dennys is the last subjective character.
.pp
In the following two passages, percept
terms appear in the postsubjective-nonactive situation.
At the beginning of the first passage, the situation is broken-subjective
and Dennys is the last subjective character.
.(q
(29)
.br
     \*[29.1\*]``What\(em'' he [Dennys] gasped.
     \*[29.2\*]``A seraph,'' Yalith said.
     \*[29.3\*]The 
.ul
glowing 
skin of the seraph was the color of Yalith's,
\*[29.4\*]and there were great silvery wings, \*[29.5\*]and hair the 
color of the wings.
\*[29.6\*]Was it a man?
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 100]
.)q
The situation at the beginning of (29.3) is postsubjective-nonactive, since
paragraph breaks and objective sentences appear since the last
subjective sentence.
The algorithm recognizes that (29.3) is
Dennys's subjective sentence because it contains the percept
term `glowing', an adjective, and because Dennys is the last 
subjective character.
.pp
At the beginning of the following passage, the situation is
postsubjective-nonactive, and
Sandy and Dennys are the last subjective character:
.(q
(30)
.br
     \*[30.1\*]The mammoth turned \*[30.2\*]and faced the horizon.
\*[30.3\*]A faint 
.ul
shimmering
.ul
glimmered 
on the sand in front of him.
\*[30.4\*]Slowly it took the shape of
a unicorn, transparent but recognizable.  \*[30.5\*]Beside it, another unicorn
began to shimmer.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 25]
.)q
After (30.1) and (30.2), which are not subjective, the situation is
still postsubjective-nonactive (the mammoth has not been the
subjective character, and so he is not an active character).
There are two percept terms
in (30.3), `shimmering' and `glimmered'; the former is used as
a noun and the latter is used as a verb.  The algorithm correctly
interprets (30.3) to be Sandy's and Dennys's subjective sentence
because these subjective elements appear, and because they are
the last subjective character.
.sh 3 "Assertive Indefinite Pronouns and <Wh>-`ever' Subordinators."
Two similar kinds of potential subjective elements are presented in
this section.
The first are
.ul
assertive indefinite pronouns
(Quirk et al. 1985):
.sp
.in +2
.ul
somebody, someone, something, somewhere
.in 0
.sp
The second are 
.in +2
.sp
.ul
whatever, whenever, wherever, whoever
.sp
.in 0
when used as subordinators.  For example:
.(q
The earthquake, or whatever it was, lasted only a short time.
.)q
.pp
Both of these kinds of elements are potential subjective elements only
if they are
.ul
specific references;
that is, they are potential subjective elements only if
used to refer to particular individuals.
Representing and understanding
specific as opposed to nonspecific and
generic references is a significant problem 
(cf. Woods 1975; Webber 1981, 1983; Appelt 1985; Fawcett
1986; Fawcett and Hirst 1986; Kronfeld 1986;
Peters and Shapiro 1987ab; and Peters, Shapiro, and Rapaport 
1988 for some AI research addressing
these problems),
and this dissertation does not investigate
how it can be determined if a reference is specific.
.pp
In the following,
an assertive indefinite pronoun is used specifically:
.(q
(31)
.br
\*[31.1\*]Suddenly she [Zoe] gasped. \*[31.2\*]She had touched 
.ul
somebody\c
!
[Oneal, 
.ul
War Work,
p. 129]
.)q
The pronoun `somebody' in (31.2) refers to a specific person whom Zoe
touched.
.pp
In the following passage, however, the assertive
indefinite pronoun `something' is not used specifically:
.(q
(32)
.br
\*[32.1\*]Deets watched the boy [Newt], hoping he wouldn't chop 
his foot off cutting
the wood.  \*[32.2\*]He knew how to handle an ax, \*[32.3\*]but he was 
forgetful once he got his mind on 
.ul
something.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 204]
.)q
The pronoun `something' in (32.3) does not refer to a particular thing
that Newt has on his mind.
.pp
In the following sentences, <wh>-`ever' subordinators
are 
.ul
not 
used specifically:
.(q
They gladly accepted whatever came their way.
.sp
Whoever requested a copy received one.
.sp
She could call him whenever she liked.
.sp
Wherever there's smoke, there's fire.
.)q
But in these sentences,
<wh>-`ever' subordinators are used
specifically:
.(q
The earthquake, or whatever it was, lasted only a short time.
(A particular thing lasted only a short time.)
.sp
Whenever John arrived, it was after midnight.
(A particular time, the time when John arrived, was after midnight.)
.sp
Wherever they were was very hot.
(The particular place that they are is very hot.)
.sp
Whoever it was was nearby.
(A particular person is nearby.)
.)q
.pp
If used specifically,
assertive indefinite pronouns and <wh>-`ever' subordinators
can indicate that the individual referred to is not known.
In (31.2), for example, `somebody' indicates that Zoe, the subjective
character, does not know whom she touched.  (Uspensky (1973) gives
an example of `something' referring to an object a character is unable
to identify.)
.pp
Other criteria that must be met for an assertive indefinite
pronoun to be a potential subjective element are, first, that it not
appear in an appositive noun phrase, e.g.,
.(q
John,
.ul
someone Mary used to date,
called last night,
.)q
and second, that it is not the modifying
item in a copular relationship.  So, if it is in a subject
complement, e.g.,
.(q
John was 
.ul
someone she could trust.
.)q
or in an object complement, e.g.,
.(q
His criminal record made John 
.ul
someone to be feared.
.)q
then it is not a potential subjective element.
.pp
Although it is not an assertive indefinite pronoun, the phrase
.in +2
.sp
.ul
for some reason
.in 0
.sp
is included in the potential subjective element category
``assertive indefinite pronoun'', because it also can indicate
a lack of knowledge.
.pp
In the following passage, `whatever' used specifically appears
in the continuing-subjective situation.
.(q
(33)
.br
\*[33.1\*]He [Bol] had never been sure what she 
wanted\(em\*[33.2\*]after all, their
children were beautiful\(em\*[33.3\*]but
.ul
whatever
it was, he had been unable to give it to her.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 219]
.)q
Sentence (33.1) is a private-state sentence of which Bol
is the subjective character.  The algorithm recognizes that
(33.2) is Bol's subjective sentence because the subjective element
`after all' appears (see Section 9.3.13.6).  The situation at the
beginning of (33.3) is thus continuing-subjective, and Bol
is the last subjective character.
The algorithm correctly interprets (33.3) to be Bol's
subjective sentence because it contains
`whatever' (and also because (33.3) is in the shifted past, a
subjective element when there is an active subjective character).
.pp
Consider passage (22) again.
.(q
(22)
.br
\*[22.1\*]Around them they [Sandy and Dennys] could hear a noisy grating
of rock, and a deep, thunderous roaring below them.  \*[22.2\*]Then 
there was
silence, abrupt and complete.  \*[22.3\*]The rock steadied under them.
\*[22.4\*]The
earthquake, 
.ul
or whatever it was, 
had lasted less than 
a minute, \*[22.5\*]but
it had been of sufficient force to push up a large section of
rock, making a small cliff about six feet high.  \*[22.6\*]It was
striated and raw-looking, 
\*[22.7\*]but it provided a shadow that stretched across the sand.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 14-15]
.)q
As discussed
in Section 9.3.2, the algorithm does not interpret (22.3) to be a
subjective sentence, but it should perhaps be interpreted that way.
Thus, according to the algorithm
the situation at the beginning of (22.3) is interrupted-subjective,
but perhaps it is actually
continuing-subjective.
In either case,
the algorithm correctly interprets (22.3) to be Sandy's and Dennys's subjective
sentence, because `whatever' used specifically appears, and because they
are the last subjective character.  
The subordinator `whatever' indicates that
Sandy and
Dennys are not sure if what they just experienced was an
earthquake.
.pp
In passage (34), `something' used specifically appears in the
postsubjective-nonactive situation,
and `wherever' used specifically
appears in the continuing-subjective situation:
.(q
(34)
.br
\*[34.1\*]Sandy relaxed 
into Grandfather
Lamech's kindness.
     \*[34.2\*]The mammoth started toward 
the water jar, \*[34.3\*]then dropped 
to its haunches, whimpering in terror, as
.ul
something
screeched past the tent like an out-of-control jet plane.  \*[34.4\*]But 
on this planet, 
.ul
wherever 
it was, there were no planes.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 34]
.)q
Sentence (34.1) is Sandy's subjective sentence.  After the
paragraph break and after (34.2) (which is not subjective, and of
which the mammoth is not an active character, because he has not
been the subjective character), the situation is postsubjective-nonactive.
The algorithm recognizes that (34.3) is
Sandy's subjective sentence because `something' used specifically appears, and
because he is the last subjective character.
The situation at the beginning of (34.4) is continuing-subjective, and
the algorithm recognizes that (34.4) continues Sandy's subjective
sentence
because `wherever' used specifically appears, and because Sandy
is the last subjective character.
In (34.3), it is Sandy who doesn't 
know what it is that screeches past, and in (34.4), it is Sandy who
doesn't know where the planet is.
.pp
The following passage contains a specific use of `something' that
appears
in the postsubjective-active situation:
.(q
(35)
.br
     \*[35.1\*]The seraph smiled again, not answering 
the question.  \*[35.2\*]He
touched Sandy's forehead gently, \*[35.3\*]and the touch helped him to clarify
his thoughts, which seemed to lose their focus.  \*[35.4\*]``And from where on
planet earth do you come?''
     \*[35.5\*]``From the United States.  The Northeast. New England.''
     \*[35.6\*]``How did you get here?''
     \*[35.7\*]``I'm not sure, uh, sir.''  \*[35.8\*]There was 
.ul
something
about Adnarel's presence which brought out the old-fashioned forms of
respect.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 41]
.)q
Sentence (35.3) is Sandy's subjective sentence.  At the beginning
of (35.8), the situation is postsubjective-active:  there have been
paragraph breaks and objective sentences since the last
subjective sentence, (35.3), and there is a sentence earlier in
the paragraph with an active character, (35.7).  Sandy is
both the last subjective character and the last active character.
The algorithm correctly interprets (35.8) to be
Sandy's subjective sentence because it contains `something'
used specifically.
Note that `something' in (35.8) is not used in a subject
complement, even though it follows the copula `be'.
Sentences like (35.8),
.ul
there-existential sentences,
have two subjects: `there' and what Quirk et al. (1985) call a 
.ul
notional subject.
In (35.8), ``something about Adnarel's presence'' is the notional
subject.
Thus, `something' in (35.8) does not fall under the restriction that
`something' is not a potential subjective element if used in a
complement.
.sh 3 "Conditionals." 
Conditionals concern possibilities, and can be elements of a character's
reasoning or train of thought.
.pp
Conditionals are clauses beginning with certain subordinators.
The most widely used subordinator is `if'.  Others are the following
(Quirk et al. 1985, p. 1089):
.in +2
.sp
.ul
as long as, assuming (that), given (that), in case, in the event that,
.ul
just so (that), provided (that), providing (that), supposing (that), unless
.sp
.in 0
Some conditional clauses combine condition with recurrence or
habitualness.  In fact, 
the subordinators `whenever' and 
`wherever' can begin these kinds of clauses (see Section 9.3.5), in which
case they are used non-specifically.
For example:
.(q
Whenever children are involved, divorce gets nasty.
.sp
Whenever there's smoke, there's fire.
.)q
Others are `once', `when', and `where'.  In a clause of this type,
the subordinator can be paraphrased as `in cases when' or
`in circumstances where' (Quirk et al. 1985, p. 1086).
A conditional is included in the potential subjective element category
``conditional'' if it only involves condition, 
.ul
not 
if it combines
condition with habitualness.
.pp
In the following passage, a conditional appears in the postsubjective-nonactive
situation:
.(q
(36)
.br
\*[36.1\*]Right now, when she [Zoe] wanted more 
than anything else to prove
her courage to Joe, she couldn't even talk.
     \*[36.2\*]The railroad station was just ahead at the end of the block.
\*[36.3\*]``You'll have to go in alone,'' Joe said.  \*[36.4\*]``I don't 
want Mr. Pear to see us together.''  \*[36.5\*]Zoe nodded again.
     \*[36.6\*]``O.K.,'' she croaked.
.ul
     \*[36.7\*]If it hadn't been for Rosie she would have turned around and
.ul
run home that minute.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 90]
.)q
Sentence (36.1) is Zoe's subjective sentence.
Sentence (36.7) appears in the postsubjective-nonactive situation,
since paragraph breaks and objective sentences have appeared since
the last subjective sentence.
The 
algorithm correctly interprets (36.7) to be Zoe's subjective sentence, because
it contains a conditional, and because Zoe is the last subjective character.
.sh 3 "Auxiliary Verbs."
This section presents
auxiliary verbs and phrases that are potential subjective elements.
.pp
Three potential subjective elements are:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
would, should, going to
.in 0
.sp
which are means of expressing the future (recall from Chapter 2 that,
in narrative text,
`would' replaces `will' and `should' replaces `shall' in expressing
the future).
The future tense can be a subjective element because references
to the future are often predictions, speculations, and forecasts
about what will happen.  However, an objective sentence can be
in the future tense, in which case the reader is told what is
actually going to happen.  
.pp
Another use of `would', which is also a potential subjective element,
is to express conditional meaning (see Section 9.3.6 for a discussion of
conditional clauses).
However, `would' is not a potential subjective element if used in
the phrase `would rather/sooner', which is a private-state phrase.
.pp
The auxiliary `should' is also a potential subjective element when used
with its other meaning:  to express obligation, which involves judgment.
Other auxiliaries that are
potential subjective elements for this reason are the following:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
be obliged to, be supposed to, had better, have to, must, ought to, 
.sp
.in 0
For example,
.(q
She must remember to write to Aunt Sally.
.sp
She had to get back by five o'clock.
.sp
She [Lorena] was 
beginning to 
feel cornered, something she had not expected to have to feel again.
Jake 
.ul
was supposed to 
have ended that, and yet he hadn't.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 191]
.)q
.pp
The final kind of
auxiliary that is a potential subjective element is an
.ul
epistemic modal.
These are auxiliaries that can express possibility, necessity, and
prediction:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
be bound to, 
.ul
be likely to,
.ul
could (be), could (have), have to be, might, must (be), must (have)
.in 0
.sp
The auxiliary `must' is an epistemic modal if accompanied by `be' or `have'.
It
and `have to be' are evidentials
which signal inference with a high degree of reliability
(Chafe 1986, p. 266).  An example of `must have' appears in passage (5):
.(q
(5)
.br
\*[5.1\*]Newt took the gun and slipped it out of his holster.
\*[5.2\*]It smelled faintly
of oil\(em\*[5.3\*]the Captain 
.ul
must 
have oiled it that day.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 111-112]
.)q
The following is an example of `have to be':
.(q
     There
.ul
had to be 
a tent flap.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 226]
.)q
Prediction is expressed by `be bound to', for example:
.(q
He was bound to come back one of these days.
.)q
The other epistemic modals are evidentials concerned with the reliability
of information.  Note that `could' has roughly the same meaning as
`might' if accompanied by `be' or `have'.  For example:
.(q
It might be/could be true.
.sp
It might have/could have happened that way.
.)q
However, `could' can also mean `able', in which case it is not a 
potential subjective element.  For example:
.(q
John could type thirty words a minute.
.)q
Thus,
`could' is a potential subjective element only if accompanied by
`be' or `have'; identifying other uses of `could' that are
potential subjective elements is left to future research. 
.pp
In the following passage, `would' appears in the broken-subjective
situation:
.(q
(37)
.br
     \*[37.1\*]The realization didn't disturb her [Lorena's] calm, though.  
It meant he needed her more than he would admit; \*[37.2\*]she 
recognized the need \*[37.3\*]and didn't care whether he 
admitted it or not.  \*[37.4\*]If Jake had been as firm as
he pretended to be, it would have left her with little security.
\*[37.5\*]He
.ul
could have
just walked off.
     \*[37.6\*]But he
.ul
wouldn't.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 185]
.)q
Sentences (37.1)-(37.4) are Lorena's subjective sentences.
Thus, the situation at the beginning of
(37.5) is continuing-subjective, and
the algorithm is able to recognize that it is Lorena's
subjective sentence because it contains the subjective elements
`could have' and `just', and
because she is the last subjective character.  The situation after
the paragraph break is broken-subjective.  The algorithm
recognizes that (37.6) is Lorena's subjective sentence, since
the subjective element `would' (in its negated form) appears, and
since Lorena is still the last subjective character.
.pp
In the following passage,
`would' appears in the postsubjective-active situation.
.(q
(38)
.br
\*[38.1\*]Or was it?  \*[38.2\*]``I wish I had a Bible,'' he [Dennys] said.
    \*[38.3\*]``A\(emPerhaps you need a drink of something cool?''
     \*[38.4\*]``I'm all right.  I'm sorry.''  \*[38.5\*]There 
.ul
would
not have been a Bible in Noah's time.  \*[38.6\*]Probably not even a written
language.  \*[38.7\*]Not yet.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 95]
.)q
Sentence (38.1) is Dennys's subjective sentence.  At the beginning
of (38.5), the situation is postsubjective-active:  there have been
paragraph breaks and objective sentences since the last subjective sentence,
and an earlier sentence in the paragraph, (38.4) (Dennys's quoted
speech), has an active character.
Because (38.5) contains the subjective element `would', and because
Dennys is an expected subjective character (actually, he is both
the last subjective character and the last active character), the
algorithm recognizes that (38.5) is Dennys's subjective sentence.
.pp
The obligation term `had to' appears in the postsubjective-nonactive 
situation in the following passage:
.(q
(39)
.br
     \*[39.1\*]``You mean it could be someone we know?  A neighbor
even?''  \*[39.2\*]Zoe felt excited \*[39.3\*]but she tried not 
to sound that way.
     \*[39.4\*]``I suppose it could be.''
     \*[39.5\*]Rosie's eyes 
had been getting wider.  \*[39.6\*]Suddenly she put down
her ear of corn.  \*[39.7\*]``We weren't supposed to talk about it!'' she said.
     \*[39.8\*]``I read about spies in the paper, for your information,''
said Zoe.
     \*[39.9\*]``Well, Joe Bunch said it was a secret!''
     \*[39.10\*]``Said what was, dear?'' their mother asked.
     \*[39.11\*]Zoe kicked Rosie under the table.
     \*[39.12\*]``She kicked me!'' Rosie cried.  \*[39.13\*]``She kicked 
me hard!''
     \*[39.14\*]``I did not.  I was just swinging my leg,'' Zoe said.
     \*[39.15\*]``She meant to!'' said Rosie.  \*[39.16\*]``She wanted me 
not to tell!''
     \*[39.17\*]``Not 
to tell what, for heaven's sake?'' their mother asked.
     \*[39.18\*]Zoe
.ul
had to
kick Rosie again.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 39]
.)q
Sentence (39.2) is Zoe's subjective sentence.  Sentence (39.18) appears
in the postsubjective-nonactive situation, because paragraph breaks
and objective sentences have appeared since the last subjective sentence.
The algorithm recognizes that (39.18) is
Zoe's subjective sentence because it contains the subjective
element `had to', and because Zoe is the last subjective character.
.sh 3 "Seeming Verbs."
The core
members of this category are the following copular verbs,
which Quirk et al. (1985) call 
.ul
seeming verbs:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
appear, feel, look, seem, smell, sound, taste
.in 0
.sp
Depending upon the complement, either these verbs are used to
indicate how something is perceived by the senses, or they
are evidentials indicating that the source of information is
induction and that there is some degree of doubt.  In the following
sentences, for example, the seeming verbs are perceptual:
.(q
It felt cold and slimy.
.sp
It looked beautiful.
.sp
It smelled sweet.
.sp
It sounded melodic.
.sp
It tasted salty.
.)q
But in these sentences, the seeming verbs are evidentials:
.(q
She looked happy.  (It is inferred from her facial expression, perhaps, that she is happy.)
.sp
She sounded angry. (It is inferred from the sound of her voice that she is angry.)
.)q
Note that `feel' can be a private-state term, e.g.,
.(q
She felt sick.
.sp
She felt that Mary could have waited a little longer.
.)q
It is a seeming verb (and so a potential subjective element) only if
the subject is a percept.  Also note that `seem' and `appear' do not 
have strictly perceptual meanings, and
are always evidentials indicating some degree of doubt.
.pp
The true seeming verbs are often accompanied by 
`as if' and `as though' comparison clauses (see Section 9.3.9), or by
comparative `like' (see Section 9.4.3), e.g.:
.(q
She appeared/looked/seemed as if she were happy.
.sp
It tasted like seaweed.
.)q
.pp
If used as evidentials, the verbs listed above indicate that some
inference has been made about the subject.  Other verbs are included
in the potential-subjective-element category 
``seeming verbs'' that, although not seeming verbs as Quirk et al.
use the term, are also evidentials indicating inferences about the
subject:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
indicate, make sense, mean, prove, reveal, suggest
.sp
.in 0
These are in the potential-subjective-element category ``seeming verbs''
if used with inanimate subjects.  For example:
.(q
The clue indicated/meant/proved/revealed/suggested that the butler did it.
.sp
The sudden flap of its tail 
.ul
proved
it was still alive.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 14]
.)q
.pp
Each of the true seeming verbs and the others just listed can
be accompanied by a to-clause, in which case
it is
.ul
not
a potential subjective element;
instead, the clause in which it appears denotes a seeming state.
For example, the seeming verbs in these sentences are
.ul
not
potential subjective elements; instead they are in clauses
denoting seeming states:
.(q
To John, Mary seemed happy.
.sp
The soup tasted great to John.
.sp
The letter proved to him that Mary was the culprit.
.)q
.pp
There are four other members of the potential-subjective-element category
``seeming verbs'':
.in +2
.sp
.ul
give the impression, make apparent, make clear, show
.in 0
.sp
However, `show' is a potential subjective element only if used
with an inanimate subject.
Examples of these potential subjective elements follow:
.(q
Her bed 
.ul
showed
the rumples of where her body had been, but she
wasn't in either the bed or the room now.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 41]
.sp
He 
.ul
gave the impression 
of not exactly liking anything around the Hat Creek outfit.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 57]
.sp
His tone 
.ul
made clear
that he was already tired of the subject.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 82]
.)q
If `give the impression', `make apparent', `make clear', or `show'
is used with an animate indirect object, then it is not a potential 
subjective element, but is instead a private-state term:
.(q
The rumpled bed showed 
.ul
John
that she had slept there last night.
.)q
.pp
The following passage contains a seeming verb that appears in the
interrupted-subjective situation:
.(q
(40)
     \*[40.1\*]The seraph listened gravely, nodding at what Sandy felt was
an insufficient and unclear explanation.  \*[40.2\*]``Fear not,'' Adnarel said
to Sandy.  \*[40.3\*]``Your brother will be returned.  Meanwhile, Grandfather
Lamech and Higgaion are doing the best thing for you, in keeping your
skin moistened.''
\*[40.4\*]From a pocket deep in his gown he took out what
.ul
looked 
like
a handful of herbs \*[40.5\*]and dropped them in the water jar.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 42]
.)q
Sentence (40.1) is Sandy's subjective sentence.  Sentences (40.2)-(40.3)
are not subjective, so the situation is interrupted-subjective at the
beginning of (40.4).
The algorithm recognizes
that (40.4) is Sandy's subjective sentence because the seeming verb `look'
appears, and because he is the last subjective character.
.pp
In this passage, a seeming verb appears in the broken-subjective situation:
.(q
(41)
.br
\*[41.1\*]There was a sudden flash, \*[41.2\*]and Sandy could see
the shimmering silver body of a unicorn.  \*[41.3\*]But no Dennys.
     \*[41.4\*]``Dennys!'' he cried.
     \*[41.5\*]And heard Japheth echo, ``Den!''
     \*[41.6\*]Higgaion
.ul
appeared 
to be consulting with the unicorn.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 31]
.)q
Sentence (41.2) is Sandy's subjective sentence.
The algorithm recognizes that
(41.3) continues his subjective context because it is a sentence
fragment.  A paragraph break and an objective sentence, (41.4), follow,
and so the situation at the beginning of (41.5) is postsubjective-nonactive.
The algorithm recognizes
that (41.5) is Sandy's subjective sentence because it is a sentence
fragment and Sandy is the last subjective character.  A paragraph break
appears after (41.5), so the situation at the beginning of (41.6) is
broken-subjective.
The algorithm correctly interprets
(41.6) to be Sandy's subjective sentence, since it contains `appear', and
since Sandy is the last subjective character.
.pp
The following passage contains a seeming verb that appears in the
postsubjective-nonactive situation:
.(q
(42)
.br
     \*[42.1\*]The girl smiled at Sandy, \*[42.2\*]and the warmth of her smile
enveloped him.
     \*[42.3\*]``The United States is\(emare\(ema place,'' he tried to explain.
\*[42.4\*]``You might say that my brother and I are representatives.''\(em
even if inadvertent ones.
     \*[42.5\*]``And you have a brother, who is out with a unicorn?''
     \*[42.6\*]Her question made it
.ul
sound 
as though
Dennys and the unicorn had gone off cavorting someplace together.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 38]
.)q
Sentence (42.2) is Sandy's subjective sentence.  Because sentence (42.4)
contains the subjective elements `even' (see Section 9.3.13.3)
and a conditional, and because Sandy is the last subjective character,
the algorithm
correctly interprets (42.4) to be Sandy's subjective sentence.
At the beginning of (42.6), the situation is postsubjective-nonactive, since
a paragraph break and an objective sentence have appeared since the last
subjective sentence, (42.4).
The algorithm correctly interprets
(42.6) to be Sandy's subjective sentence, because it contains the
seeming verb `sound' (and also an `as if' comparison clause), and
because Sandy is the last subjective character.
.sh 3 "`As If' and `As Though' Clauses."
The `as if' and `as though' comparison clauses are similar
to the members of two other potential subjective element categories.  
They are similar to seeming verbs in that they can be used to
indicate that the source of information is inference and also
that there is some degree of doubt.
They can also involve comparison, where the
way something is is compared to the way that it seems (Section 9.4.3
presents comparative potential subjective elements).
.pp
The next passage contains an `as if' clause that appears in
the interrupted-subjective situation:
.(q
(43)
.br
     \*[43.1\*]But when he sat down at the table and set a glass
in front of her she [Lorena] soon realized it was not her who had put the
tight look in his face.  \*[43.2\*]She saw nothing unfriendly in his eyes.
\*[43.3\*]She took a sip or two of whiskey, \*[43.4\*]and about that time Lippy
came over \*[43.5\*]and sat down at the table with them
.ul
as if 
he'd been invited.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 206]
.)q
Sentences (43.1) and (43.2) are Lorena's subjective sentences.
Sentence (43.3) is not subjective, so the situation is
interrupted-subjective at the beginning of (43.4).
The situation is still interrupted-subjective at the beginning of (43.5),
which the algorithm correctly interprets
to be Lorena's subjective sentence, because it contains an `as if' clause,
and because Lorena is the last subjective character.
.pp
The next passage contains an `as though' clause that appears in the
broken-subjective situation:
.(q
(44)
.br
\*[44.1\*]Yalith looked up \*[44.2\*]and saw a circle of strange animals.
\*[44.3\*]In the
center of the circle stood Mahlah, looking pale and frightened.
\*[44.4\*]Her dark hair covered her breasts, her body.  \*[44.5\*]Yalith 
started to cry
out, to leap up and go to her sister, \*[44.6\*]but it seemed that
a firm hand came across her mouth, held her down on the rock.
     \*[44.7\*]The cobra uncoiled, hood spreading, swaying
.ul
as though
to unheard music, \*[44.8\*]then stretched up and up into 
the loveliness of lavender wings, and amethyst eyes that 
reflected the starlight.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 124]
.)q
Sentences (44.1)-(44.2) are Yalith's subjective sentences.  The algorithm
recognizes that (44.3) continues her subjective context because
the seeming verb `look' appears, and it recognizes that (44.4) continues
her subjective context because it is a nonprivate-state
sentence.
The algorithm does not interpret
(44.5) to be subjective, so the situation is interrupted-subjective at
the beginning of (44.6).
Sentence (44.6) is
interpreted to be Yalith's subjective sentence because `seem' appears.  
A paragraph break appears before (44.7), and so (44.7) appears in the
broken-subjective situation.
The algorithm interprets (44.7) to be Yalith's
subjective sentence, because an `as though' clause appears, and
because Yalith is the last subjective character.
.pp
In the following passage, an `as if' clause appears in the
postsubjective-nonactive situation:
.(q
(45)
.br
     \*[45.1\*]She noted that he brought her a glass, which struck her as
bold, \*[45.2\*]but then Gus would do anything, as Jake was always saying.
     \*[45.3\*]``What I can't figure out is why there ain't but two
sinners in this saloon,'' Gus said. 
     \*[45.4\*]Lorena made no comment, \*[45.5\*]but Lippy piped up.
     \*[45.6\*]``I've tried to sin all my life\(emain't you gonna
count me?'' he asked.
     \*[45.7\*]``No, you got a hole in your stomach,'' Augustus said.
\*[45.8\*]``You paid for yours, but so 
far me and Lorie have got off scot-free.''
     \*[45.9\*]Gus poured a little 
whiskey in her glass, \*[45.10\*]and filled his
to just below the brim.
     \*[45.11\*]``I want a poke,'' he said, as casual
.ul
as if 
he were asking her to loan him two bits.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 188]
.)q
Sentence (45.1) is Lorena's subjective sentence.  The algorithm recognizes
that (45.2) continues her subjective context because it contains
`would', a subjective element.
The situation at the beginning of (45.11) is postsubjective-nonactive,
since an objective sentence and a paragraph break have appeared
since the last subjective sentence (which is (45.2), according to
the algorithm, but actually is (45.9), because `Gus' rather than
`Augustus' appears (see Chapter 9)).
The algorithm correctly interprets (45.11)
to be Lorena's subjective sentence, because it contains an `as if' clause,
and because Lorena is the last subjective character.
.sh 3 "Adverbials and Modifying Adverbs."
The potential subjective elements that are adverbs are not simply
lexical items, but are instead adverbs used in certain ways with certain
meanings.  This section briefly describes Quirk et al.'s (1985)
analysis of the grammatical functions of adverbs, which will be useful
for identifying the uses of adverbs that are potential subjective elements.
.pp
I will discuss
two basic syntactic functions of adverbs that Quirk et al.
identify.
First, an adverb can 
modify an adjective or another
adverb.  For example, the adverb `quite' in
.(q
They were quite happy.
.)q
modifies the adjective `happy'.  In the following sentence,
.(q
They were quite happily married.
.)q
`quite' modifies the adverb `happily'.  I call an adverb used to
modify an adverb or adjective a
.ul
modifying adverb.
.pp
Second, an adverb may function as an
.ul
adverbial.
An adverbial (A) is a clause element that is distinct from subject (S), 
verb phrase (V),
object (O), and complement (C), the other 
clause elements.  Quirk et al. subcategorize
adverbials into four classes:  adjuncts, subjuncts, disjuncts, and conjuncts.
None of the potential subjective elements are adjuncts, and so adjuncts will
not be discussed.
.pp
Subjuncts have a subordinate role in comparison to the other clause elements.  
In the following sentence, `merely' is a subjunct
that is subordinate in comparison to the verb phrase:
.(q
She merely typed him a letter.
.)q
In the following sentence, `even' is a subjunct that has a subordinate
role in comparison with the subject:
.(q
Even John was there.
.)q
.pp
Disjuncts and conjuncts have superordinate
syntactic roles in comparison with the other clause elements.
The scope of a 
.ul
disjunct 
is the sentence as a whole rather than
simply one of its constituents.  According to Quirk et al., this
is because
.(q
Semantically, disjuncts express an evaluation of what is being said
either with resect to the form of communication or to its meaning.
We identify disjuncts with the speaker's authority for, or comment on,
the accompanying clause.
[p. 440]
.)q
Of course, a disjunct expresses the speaker's evaluation only
in speech; in subjective contexts, a disjunct expresses the
subjective character's evaluation.
An example of a disjunct is `obviously' in the following sentence:
.(q
Obviously, John had been there earlier.
.)q
.pp
A 
.ul
conjunct 
is also syntactically superordinate to the other clause elements,
but for a different reason than are disjuncts.  Conjuncts connect
units of a discourse.  They differ from other items that have
discourse functions in that they not only connect units, but they
express an assessment of the relationship between them (Quirk et al. 1985,
p. 631-632).  An example of a conjunct is `after all' in the following
sentence:
.(q
After all, she was here now.
.)q
.sh 3 "Modifying Intensifier Adverbs."
A 
.ul
modifying intensifier adverb 
scales upward or
downward from an assumed norm (Quirk et al. 1985, p. 445).
There are
two potential-subjective-element categories comprised of modifying
intensifier adverbs,
.ul
modifying intensifier adverbs A 
and 
.ul
modifying intensifier adverbs B.
The reason why these are two categories rather than
one concerns the interpretation of private-state sentences
and is given in Chapter 6.
Note that if an adverb modifies another adverb, it must
be an intensifier (Quirk et al. 1985, p. 449).
.pp
Modifying intensifier adverbs A
have adjectival bases that are attitude adjectives:
.in +2
.sp 
.ul
absurdly, amazingly, awful, awfully, ideally, incredibly, maddeningly,
.ul
notably, peculiarly, perfectly, strikingly, surprisingly,
.ul
terribly, truly, unbelievably, unnaturally, unusually
.in 0
.sp
The `ly' suffix can be omitted.  In the following
sentence, for example, `peculiar' is used as an adverb:
.(q
Miss Lavatier had definitely acted peculiar when she said that.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 47]
.)q
.pp
Some modifying intensifier adverbs B express
evaluation or judgment:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
a bit, a little, barely, downright, hardly, mighty, plain, plenty, pretty, 
.ul
quite, real, really\**
.(f
\** Although Quirk et al. categorize `really' (and its less formal
version, `real') used as
a modifying adverb as an 
.ul
emphasizer 
adverb (see Section 9.3.12), 
I include it here, as an 
.ul
intensifier 
adverb.
Its clear use as an emphasizer is as an adverbial (see Section 9.3.13.2).
.)f
.in 0
.sp
Others are hedges:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
almost, kind of, more or less, sort of
.in 0
.sp
A hedge signals that there is a less than perfect match between
a piece of knowledge and a verbal category (Chafe 1986, p. 272).
Quirk et al. (1985) use the term
.ul
metalinguistic comment
for hedges.  The use of `almost' as a potential subjective element is
exemplified by the following,
.(q
He was almost fussy.
.)q 
in which `almost' means
.ul
he was what might almost be called fussy
(Quirk et al. 1985, p. 619).
This use is to be compared with the one exemplified by this sentence:
.(q
It was almost dark.
.)q
in which `almost' means
.ul
it was almost but not entirely dark
(Quirk et al. 1985, p. 619), which is not a potential subjective element.
.pp
The intensifiers `very' and `nearly' can express someone's judgment,
but can easily be used objectively.  Thus, they are not reliable
reliable indicators of subjectivity, and are not potential subjective elements.
.pp
In the following passage, `perfectly' appears in the continuing-subjective
situation:
.(q
(46)
.br
\*[46.1\*]There had been
plenty of times when he'd [Call had] wondered if he himself could match Gus,
if Gus really tried.  \*[46.2\*]It was a question that never got tested,
because Gus seldom tried.  \*[46.3\*]As a team, the two of them were 
.ul
perfectly 
balanced; \*[46.4\*]he did more than he needed to, while Gus did less.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 180]
.)q
Sentence (46.1) is Call's subjective sentence.  The algorithm 
recognizes that (46.2) continues his subjective context because the sentence
is habitual, a subjective element (see Section 9.5.1).  The algorithm recognizes
that (46.3) is Call's subjective context because `perfectly' appears.
.pp
In the following 
passage, `ideally' appears in the postsubjective-active situation:
At the beginning of this passage, the situation is postsubjective-nonactive,
and Keycase is the last subjective character:
.(q
(47)
.br
     \*[47.1\*]From the terminal building Keycase returned to the parking lot
and the five-year-old Ford sedan which he had bought in Detroit and
driven first to Kansas City, then New Orleans.  \*[47.2\*]It was
an
.ul
ideally
inconspicuous car for Keycase, a dull gray, and neither old nor
new enough to be unduly noticed or remembered.  \*[47.3\*]The only feature
which bothered him a little were the Michigan license plates\(eman
attractive green on white.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 105]
.)q
Sentence (47.1) is an objective sentence of which Keycase is
the active character, so the situation at the beginning of (47.2)
is postsubjective-active.
The algorithm
recognizes that (47.2) is Keycase's subjective sentence because
it contains `ideally', and because Keycase is an expected
subjective character (in fact, he is both the last subjective character and
the last active character).
Note that `enough' in (47.2) is not a
subjective element because it appears in a comparison clause of
sufficiency (see Section 9.2.3).
.sh 3 "Modifying Emphasizer Adverbs."
.ul
Modifying emphasizer adverbs
``add to the force'' of the adjectives
they modify.  The potential subjective elements in 
this category are:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
just
beautiful,
.ul
indeed
excellent (or excellent
.ul
indeed\c
),
.ul
all
confused.
.in 0
.sp
However,
no examples of modifying emphasizer adverbs were found in the texts
from which the examples are taken.  Nevertheless, a 
potential-subjective-element category is defined for them,
because
they are so similar
to other potential subjective elements of which examples were found.
.sh 3 "Adverbials."
Adverbials that are potential subjective elements are now presented.
With two exceptions
(``minimizer subjuncts'',
a category of
``intensifier subjuncts''
(Section 9.3.13.1), and ``modal content disjuncts'' (Section
9.3.13.4))
all of them are in the potential-subjective-element category
``attitude adverbial''.
.sh 4 "Intensifier Subjuncts."
.ul
Intensifier subjuncts, 
like modifying intensifier adverbs, scale upward
or downward from an assumed norm.
The difference between them is grammatical:  modifying intensifier adverbs
apply some scale to
adjectives and other adverbs, but intensifier subjuncts apply some
scale to another clause element.
.sp
Boosters:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
a good deal, a great deal, by far, enormously, far, much, plenty, terribly
.in 0
.sp
Boosters
indicate a high degree on the appropriate scale (Quirk et al. 1985,
p. 590).  Note
that some of these items can also be used as
.ul
quantifiers
(see Section 40).
Boosters appear in the follow sentences:
.(q
She was 
enormously/terribly
skittish about these things.
.sp
He had
.ul
plenty
to handle this summer without carting around a cast with enough
white plaster in it to cover a whole ceiling.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 3]
.)q
Boosters are
often used with
comparatives.  For example:
.(q
It was far/a good deal/much more than she could afford.
.sp
She was by far the brighter of the two.
.)q
.sp
Hedges:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
practically, as good as, all but, just about, kind of, sort of, more or less
.in 0
.sp
Hedges are evidentials indicating that there is a less
than perfect match between a piece of knowledge and a verbal category
(Chafe 1986, p. 272).
For example:
.(q
After all, the man had
.ul
more or less
held nearly a hundred-mile stretch of the border, and for nearly
thirty years.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 182]
.sp
John sort of stumbled as he walked away.
.sp
Mary as good as ruined his career.
.)q
Attitude diminishers:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
all, just, merely, only, simply
.in 0
.sp
For example:
.(q
She was only/merely/just joking.
.sp
It was only/just Bob.
.sp
He [Augustus]
.ul
just
sat and drank, perfectly friendly and in no hurry.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 191]
.)q
Attitude diminishers ``seek to imply that the
force of the item concerned is limited''
(Quirk et al. 1985, p. 598).
An attitude diminisher
addresses an expectation that the item concerned is in some
sense more than it is.  The item concerned in the first example above
is `joking'; this sentence might appear when there is the expectation
that she was more than joking, perhaps that she was insulting someone.
In the second example, the item concerned is `Bob'; this sentence might
appear when someone who is preferable to Bob for some
reason is expected.
Finally, the last sentence is a subjective sentence; the subjective
character expected that Augustus would do more than sit and drink.
.pp
Although Quirk et al. do not include `all' in their list of
attitude diminishers, I believe that it belongs in this category.
It indicates that the item concerned is less than expected.  In the
following sentence, for example,
.(q
That was 
.ul
all 
it took to get the game started.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 202]
.)q
what it takes to get the game started is less than expected.
.sp
Minimizers:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
at all, barely, hardly, scarcely
.in 0
.sp
For example:
.(q
It was curious, for Xavier had had stuff enough to survive
a hellion like Therese, but was devastated by the
departure of Lorena, who could
.ul
hardly
be expected to stay in one room over a saloon all her life.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 230]
.sp
The boys themselves\(emJimmy and Ben Rainey\(em\c
.ul
scarcely
said a word.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 177]
.sp
She had met one or two men who were proven killers, and Jake
didn't have their manner
.ul
at all.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 190]
.)q
.pp
Minimizer subjuncts
need to
be distinguished from the other potential-subjective-element adverbials 
for the purpose of interpreting private-state sentences 
(see Chapter 6).  Thus, they form a
separate potential-subjective-element category,
.ul
minimizer subjunct.
.pp
In this passage, an intensifier subjunct appears in the
continuing-subjective situation:
.(q
(48)
.br
     \*[48.1\*]Now, it seemed to him [Deets], the Captain had forgotten his
own rule.  \*[48.2\*]Jake Spoon came home one day, \*[48.3\*]and the 
next day the
Captain was ready to go, with a crew that was
.ul
just
a patched-together bunch, a lot of wild cattle, and horses most of which
were 
.ul
only
half broke.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 203]
.)q
Sentence (48.1) is Deets's subjective sentence.  Although (48.2)
is actually a subjective sentence, the algorithm is unable
to recognize it as such.  According to the algorithm, the situation at
the beginning of (48.3) is interrupted-subjective; in fact, it
is continuing-subjective.
In either case, the algorithm is able to recognize that (48.3)
is Deets's subjective sentence, because `just' and `only' used
as attitude diminishers appear, and because Deets is the last 
subjective character.
.pp
This passage contains `far' appearing in the broken-subjective situation:
.(q
(49)
.br
\*[49.1\*]He [Call] would take as good care of them as he could, 
\*[49.2\*]and yet what did that mean,
with a drive of twenty-five hundred miles to make?
     \*[49.3\*]He made the Rainey ranch by sundown, a 
.ul
far
more cheerful place than the Spettle homestead.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 177]
.)q
Sentence (49.1) is Call's subjective sentence.  Sentence (49.2)
continues his subjective context because it contains the following
subjective elements:  `yet' (see Section 9.3.13.6),
the seeming verb `mean', and the fact that (49.2) is a question.
A paragraph break follows, and so the situation at the beginning
of (49.3) is broken-subjective.
The algorithm recognizes that (49.3) is Call's 
subjective sentence because `far' used as an intensifier subjunct
appears, and because Call is the last subjective character.
.pp
In this passage, two intensifier subjuncts appear in the 
postsubjective-nonactive situation:
.(q
(50)
.br
     \*[50.1\*]She [Lorena] felt the
beginnings of indignation.  \*[50.2\*]``I guess I got the right to think, if I
want to,'' she added.
     \*[50.3\*]Gus 
.ul
just
grinned.  \*[50.4\*]``Oh, you got the right,'' he said.  \*[50.5\*]``It's
just that it's fearsome for a man to have a woman start thinking
right in front of him.  It always leads to trouble.''
     \*[50.6\*]He paused \*[50.7\*]and drank a healthy swallow of whiskey.
     \*[50.8\*]``I'm with Jake now,'' Lorena said, 
.ul
merely
stating the obvious.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 188]
.)q
Sentence (50.1) is Lorena's subjective sentence.  It is followed
by an objective sentence and a paragraph break, so (50.3)
appears in the postsubjective-nonactive situation.  The algorithm 
recognizes that (50.3) is Lorena's subjective sentence, because
`just' used
as an attitude diminisher appears, and because she is
the last subjective character.  This sentence is followed by objective
sentences and paragraph breaks, so that the situation at the beginning
of (50.8) is postsubjective-nonactive, and Lorena is the
last subjective character.  The algorithm correctly interprets
this sentence, in which `merely' used as an attitude diminisher 
appears, to be Lorena's subjective sentence.
.pp
The following passage contains an
an intensifier subjunct that
appears in the postsubjective-nonactive situation.  At the
beginning of this passage,
the situation is postsubjective-nonactive, and Zoe is the
last subjective character:
.(q
(51)
.br
     \*[51.1\*]``Wow\(emeight whole summers!'' said Zoe.  \*[51.2\*]``I've 
gone for ten.  Anyway, we can't this year.''
     \*[51.3\*]``Because of the War,'' said Rosie.
     \*[51.4\*]``Do tell,'' said Zoe.
     \*[51.5\*]The War was
.ul
all
anyone talked about.  Zoe was sick of it.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 10]
.)q
The situation at the beginning of (51.5) is postsubjective-nonactive, since
objective sentences and paragraph breaks have appeared since the
last subjective sentence.
The algorithm is able to recognize that (51.5)
is Zoe's subjective sentence because `all' used as an intensifier
subjunct appears, and because Zoe is the last subjective character.
.sh 4 "Emphasizer Subjuncts."
As Quirk et al. use the term, an
.ul
emphasizer
emphasizes the ``truth of communication'' (p. 583) or ``adds to the force''
of the item to which it is related (p. 447).
An emphasizer is an evidential concerned with the reliability
of information.  The 
.ul
emphasizer subjuncts
that are potential subjective elements are the following:
.sp
.in +2
.ul
actually, all right, certainly, clearly, definitely, indeed, 
.ul
in fact, obviously, of course, okay,
.ul
plainly, really,
.ul
surely, for certain, for sure, of course
.in 0
.sp
Many of these items can also be used as content 
disjuncts (Section 9.3.13.4), and `of course' can 
also be used as a conjunct (Section 9.3.13.6).
As subjuncts, they do not have scope over the sentence
as a whole (as do disjuncts and conjuncts),
but instead are related to just part of the sentence.
For example:
.(q
He was 
.ul
definitely 
in a hurry.
.sp
She 
.ul
indeed 
sat next to him.
.sp
She was there 
.ul
okay/all right.
.)q
While all of the emphasizer subjuncts that are potential subjective elements
express certainty, some of them involve other
kinds of evidentiality as well.
.pp
The subjuncts `clearly', `obviously', and `plainly' indicate that 
information was inferred with a high
degree of reliability.
In this sentence, for example,
.(q
John was plainly/clearly/obviously in a hurry.
.)q
they indicate that
there is something about John, perhaps the way he acts, from
which it is inferred with certainty that he is in a hurry.
.pp
As Chafe (1986) observes,
others are evidentials involving expectations.  The subjunct
`of course' indicates that the item concerned is in line with
expectations:
.(q
John 
.ul
of course 
sat next to her.
.)q
On the other hand, `actually' expresses surprise in light of
expectations:
.(q
John 
.ul
actually
sat next to her.
.)q
.pp
The adverb `really' can be used as a 
modifying intensifier adverb (Section 9.3.11, above).  For example, in
.(q
She was really beautiful.
.)q 
`really' modifies the adjective `beautiful'.  Since `beautiful'
is a gradable adjective (i.e., one can be more or less beautiful),
in this sentence `really' can indicate a ``high 
degree'' of beauty, instead of emphasizing truth.
Used as an emphasizer subjunct (and also as a content disjunct; see
Section 9.3.13.4), `really' does express emphasis.
For example, in:
.(q
John really did sit next to her.
.)q
the emphasizer subjunct `really' 
expresses that in reality John
sat next to her, not that he sat next to her to a high degree
(Quirk et al. 1985, p. 578).
.pp
In the following passages, emphasizer subjuncts appear in the
continuing-subjective situation:
.(q
(52)
.br
\*[52.2\*]He [Jake] felt she was reading 
his mind\(em\*[52.2\*]somehow most women could
read his mind.  \*[52.3\*]He had only 
.ul
really
out-maneuvered one, a little redheaded whore in
Cheyenne who was all heart and no brain.  \*[52.4\*]Lorena wasn't going to be
fooled.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 210]
.)q
Sentence (52.2) is Jake's subjective sentence, and the subjective
element `somehow' in (52.2) continues his subjective context.  The
algorithm recognizes that (52.3) is Jake's subjective sentence
because it contains `really'.
.(q
(53)
.br
\*[53.1\*]Still, she [Zoe] was pleased with the conversation.  \*[53.2\*]She 
hadn't found
out much about Miss Lavatier's boyfriend, \*[53.3\*]but she had mentioned the
War and the spy ring.  \*[53.4\*]Miss Lavatier had
.ul
definitely 
acted peculiar when she said that.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 47]
.)q
Sentence (53.1) is Zoe's subjective sentence.  Sentence (53.2) is
in the shifted past and contains the quantifier `much' (see Section 9.4.5),
both subjective elements, and so it continues the subjective context.
Sentence (53.3) does as well, because it is in the shifted past.
The algorithm recognizes that (53.4) is Zoe's subjective sentence
because it contains the subjunct `definitely' (and also because it
is in the shifted past, and contains `peculiar' used as a modifying
intensifier adverb).
.pp
In this passage, `indeed' appears in the postsubjective-nonactive 
situation:
.(q
(54)
.br
     \*[54.1\*]Sandy squinted \*[54.2\*]and could just make out a range of
mountains against the sky, with one peak higher than the
others, along way off, much farther off than the palm trees which had
led them to Japheth and Higgaion and the oasis.  \*[54.3\*]``A volcano?'' he
asked.
     \*[54.4\*]Lamech nodded.
     \*[54.5\*]``Does it erupt often?''
     \*[54.6\*]Lamech shrugged.  \*[54.7\*]``Perhaps once in every man's lifetime.
It is far away.  When it goes off, we do not get the fire,
but we get a rain of black dust that kills our crops.''
     \*[54.8\*]The light tingeing the horizon was
.ul
indeed
so far away that it did not even dim the magnificence of the stars.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 85]
.)q
Sentences (54.1) and (54.2) are Sandy's subjective sentences.  Sentences
(54.3)-(54.7) are objective, and there are paragraph breaks
between (54.2) and (54.8); thus, the situation at the beginning
of (54.8) is postsubjective-nonactive.
The algorithm recognizes (54.8) to be Sandy's
subjective sentence because the subjunct `indeed' appears (as
well as the subjective elements `even' used as a focusing
subjunct
(Section 9.3.13.3) and
`magnificence', an attitude noun), 
and because he is the last subjective character.
.sh 4 "Focusing Subjuncts."
Focusing subjuncts ``draw attention to a part of the sentence
as wide as the predication or as narrow as a single constituent of an
element'' (Quirk et al 1985, p. 604).  Some adverbs used as focusing
subjuncts can also be used as attitude diminishers (a subcategory
of intensifier subjuncts; see Section 9.3.13.1, above),
in particular 
.ul
just, merely, only, 
and
.ul
simply.
Recall that as attitude diminishers, these address an expectation that the
item concerned is in some sense more than it is.  It seems that these
can be used as focusing subjuncts with the same effect, and,
in these cases, the grammatical distinction is not clear to me.
However, `just' and `only', in
particular, can be used as focusing subjuncts without this
effect, and in such a way that
they are not potential subjective elements.  For example:
.(q
She had just typed a letter to a friend.
.)q
In this sentence, `just' is a focusing subjunct (the item focused
is 
.ul
typed a letter to a friend\c
)
but `just' is used temporally, meaning 
.ul
very recently.
This temporal meaning cannot arise when `just' is used as an attitude 
diminisher.
And, in the following sentence, 
.(q
There were only five thousand people in the sparsely populated town.
.)q
`only' is a focusing subjunct (the item focused is
.ul
five thousand people\c
),
but it does not have the strong subjective force that it has when used
as an attitude diminisher.
Thus, 
.ul
just, only, simply,
and 
.ul
merely,
when used as subjuncts,
are potential subjective elements
only if used as attitude diminishers, not as
focusing subjuncts.
.pp
The following focusing subjuncts
.ul
are
potential subjective elements:
.in +2
.ul
at least, even 
.in 0
.sp
Estimation is involved with the focusing subjunct `at least':
.(q
There were at least fifty people in the room.
.)q
The subjunct `even' addresses expectations:  The focused item is surprising
in light of expectations (Jackendoff 1972, Chafe 1986).  For example,
the following sentence might appear when it
is not expected that Bob would be there:
.(q
Even Bob was there.
.)q
.pp
In these passages, the focusing subjunct `even' appears in the
continuing-subjective situation:
.(q
(55)
.br
     \*[55.1\*]Call was impatient to get off, \*[55.2\*]but Gus's remark stopped
him.  \*[55.3\*]Gus was never one to do the usual, \*[55.4\*]but this 
was stretching things, 
.ul
even 
for him.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 199]
.)q
Sentences (55.1) and (55.2) are Call's subjective sentence.  
The algorithm is able to recognize that (55.3) is
Call's subjective sentence, because it is habitual (see Section 9.5.1), and
because he is the last subjective character.
The algorithm is able to recognize that (55.4) is Call's subjective sentence,
because `even' used as a focusing subjunct appears, and because
Call is still the last subjective character.
.(q
(56)
.br
\*[56.1\*]Newt was embarrassed\(em\*[56.2\*]at the moment 
he had made his slip, his
mind had drifted to Lorena.  \*[56.3\*]He was wondering what spending a day
with her would actually be like.  \*[56.4\*]Would they just sit
in the saloon playing cards, or what?  \*[56.5\*]Since he had not spoken to her,
it was hard for him to know what the two of them could
do for a whole day, \*[56.6\*]but he liked to think about it.
     \*[56.7\*]Deets didn't say a word \*[56.8\*]or 
.ul
even 
look at Newt accusingly, \*[56.9\*]but Newt
was sill mortified. 
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 205]
.)q
Sentences (56.1)-(56.6) are Newt's subjective sentences, and after
the paragraph break, the situation is broken-subjective.
The algorithm doesn't interpret (56.7) to
be Newt's subjective sentence, even though it may be best interpreted
in that way.  According to the algorithm, therefore, the situation 
at the beginning of (56.8) is postsubjective-nonactive, but
it may actually be continuing-subjective.
In either case,
the algorithm is able to recognize that (56.8) is Newt's subjective
sentence because `even' used as a focusing subjunct appears, and
because Newt is the last subjective character.
.sh 4 "Content Disjuncts."
.ul
Content disjuncts
comment on the information in a statement (Quirk et al. 1985).
Disjuncts have scope that extends over the
sentence as a whole.
.pp
Content disjuncts can be subjective elements for a variety of reasons.
Some are evidentials expressing certainty:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
actually, certainly, definitely, indeed, in fact, in truth,
.ul
really, surely, unquestionably
.sp
.in 0
Some are evidentials indicating that the information in a statement
was inferred and that there is a high degree of reliability:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
clearly, obviously, plainly
.in 0
.sp
Some are evidentials expressing some degree of doubt:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
likely, maybe, perhaps, possibly, presumably
.in 0
.sp
The disjuncts listed just above form a separate 
potential-subjective-element category,
.ul
modal content disjuncts.
One reason that these need to be distinguished from other attitude
adverbials is that if one appears in a sentence, the sentence
cannot have an active character (see Chapter 4).
.pp
Some content disjuncts are evidentials indicating that the 
information in a statement
was inferred and there is some degree of doubt:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
apparently, evidently, seemingly
.in 0
.sp
Many have adjectival bases that are attitude adjectives, which
can themselves be subjective elements for a variety of
reasons (see Section 9.3.2, above):
.in +2
.sp
.ul
amazingly, amusingly, annoyingly, astonishingly,
.ul
correctly, curiously, delightfully, disappointingly, disturbingly, foolishly,
.ul
fortunately, ideally, incorrectly, incredibly,
.ul
justly, oddly, pleasingly, regrettably, remarkably, rightly, strangely,
.ul
stupidly, unexpectedly unfortunately, unjustly, wrongly
.in 0
.sp
Finally, the following are also content disjunct
potential subjective elements:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
conveniently, hopefully, mercifully, preferably, thankfully
.in 0
.sp
Although it is not an adverb, I also include the phrase
.in +2
.sp
.ul
judging by
.in 0
.sp
in this potential-subjective-element category because it
is an evidential that explicitly indicates the source of the
information in a statement.  The following is a subjective sentence
in the context in which it appears:
.(q
He was in a tent, a sizable tent made of goatskins,
.ul
judging by the smell.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 30]
.)q
The disjunct `judging by the smell' indicates that the subjective
character
concludes from the way the tent smells that it is made of
goatskins.
.pp
This passage contains a content disjunct appearing in the 
continuing-subjective situation:
.(q
(57)
.br
     \*[57.1\*]Lorena knew that was true, as far as it went.  \*[57.2\*]Jake 
was not
hard to take care of, \*[57.3\*]and 
.ul
probably 
not hard to fool.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 189]
.)q
Sentence (57.1) is Lorena's subjective sentence, as is (57.2), a 
nonprivate-state sentence.  The algorithm recognizes that (57.3) continues
her subjective context because `probably' appears, and because she
is the last subjective character.
.pp
In the following passage, a content disjunct appears in the
broken-subjective situation:
.(q
(58)
.br
     \*[58.1\*]``Bol ain't said that 
he's going,'' Call said.  \*[58.2.\*]It was a mild
anxiety.  \*[58.3\*]If Bol quit and they had to depend on Gus to do the cooking,
the whole trip would be in jeopardy.  \*[58.4\*]Apart from 
biscuits, his cooking was of the sort that caused tempers to flare.
.ul
     \*[58.5\*]In fact, 
Bolivar was standing by the cook fire, staring into
it with an expression of deep gloom.  \*[58.6\*]If he heard the remark he gave
no sign.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 225]
.)q
Sentence (58.2) is Call's subjective sentence.  
The algorithm recognizes that
sentences (58.3)-(58.4)
continue his subjective context, (58.3) because it contains subjective
elements (the conditional, `would', and `had to'), and (58.4) because it
is a nonprivate-state sentence.  After the paragraph break, at the
beginning of (58.5), the
situation is broken-subjective.
The algorithm correctly interprets (58.5)
to be Call's subjective sentence, since `in fact' appears, and
since Call is the last subjective character.
.pp
In the next two passages, content disjuncts appear in the
postsubjective-nonactive situation:
.(q
(59)
.br
\*[59.1\*]She [Christine] decided first to complete the matter which had taken
her downstairs.  \*[59.2\*]Lifting the telephone, she asked for room 1410.
     \*[59.3\*]A woman's voice answered\(em\c
.ul
presumably
the private duty nurse.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 94]
.)q
Sentence (59.1) is Christine's subjective sentence.  Sentence (59.2)
is objective and there is a paragraph break after (59.2), so the
situation at the beginning of (59.3) is postsubjective-nonactive.
The algorithm recognizes
that (59.3) is Christine's subjective sentence due to the appearance of
`presumably', and because she is the last subjective character.
.(q
(60)
.br
\*[60.1\*]As reality returned, the moment 
passed.  \*[60.2\*]Her [The Duchess's] eyes opened.
     \*[60.3\*]``It was a hotel 
detective.  He insists on coming here in an hour.''
     \*[60.4\*]``Then he knows!  My God\(emhe knows!''
     \*[60.5\*]``Obviously he's aware of something.  He didn't say what.''
.ul
     \*[60.6\*]Unexpectedly 
the Duke of Croydon straightened, his head moving upright 
and shoulders squaring.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 117]
.)q
Sentence (60.1) is the Duchess's subjective sentence (reality returns to 
.ul
her\c
).  The situation at the beginning of (60.6) is postsubjective-nonactive,
since objective sentences and paragraph breaks have appeared since the
last subjective sentence.
The algorithm correctly interprets (60.6) to be the Duchess's subjective
sentence, because it contains the content disjunct `unexpectedly', and
because she is the last subjective character.
.sh 4 "Disjuncts of Metalinguistic Comment."
We have seen that 
some modifying intensifier adverbs (Section 9.3.11) and some intensifier
subjuncts (Section 9.3.13.1) are hedges.  Other hedges are 
what Quirk et al. call 
.ul
disjuncts of metalinguistic comment.
The following is a potential subjective element:
.sp
.in +2
.ul
exactly
.sp
.in 0
Note that this use of `exactly' appears rarely in the texts considered.
It is included in the potential-subjective-element category ``attitude
adverbial'' because is it quite similar to other attitude adverbials.
.pp
In this passage, it appears in the continuing-subjective situation:
.(q
(61)
.br
\*[61.1\*]Jake had more than once considered Denver, regretted more than once 
that he hadn't stopped there instead of going to Fort Smith.  \*[61.2\*]Going
along with a drive would be a good enough way to get back to Denver.
\*[61.3\*]Of course, that didn't settle the question of Lorie,
.ul
exactly.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 198]
.)q
Sentence (61.1) is Jake's subjective sentence.  The algorithm
recognizes that (61.2) continues his subjective context because it
contains the subjective elements `would', `good', and `enough'.
It recognizes that (61.3) is Jake's subjective sentence because it
contains `exactly' used as a disjunct of metalinguistic comment,
and also `of course' used as a conjunct (Section 9.3.13.6).
.sh 4 "Conjuncts."
.ul
Conjuncts
connect units of a discourse.  Additionally, they express an assessment
of the connection between them (Quirk et al. 1985).
Conjuncts have a superordinate role in comparison with the 
other clause elements. 
.pp
As discussed in Section 5.7, subjective contexts can be
discourses that take the form of argumentative discourse, in which
support is given for positions.
Conjuncts
can indicate how that which is expressed in a sentence fits into
a character's reasoning or train of thought.  Schiffrin (1987) notes that
arguments are not comprised only of
ideas; empirical evidence, personal experience, analogy, etc., can
also be part of an argument.  Similarly, a character's train of
thought or reasoning is not always a self-contained progression of
ideas, but can be
related to something perceived, or to what someone
says, for example.
.pp
The conjuncts that
are potential subjective elements are listed below;
all of them but four, `at least', `either', `one thing', `another thing',
are given in (Quirk et al. 1985, pp. 631-647).
Note that
some conjuncts are phrases rather than simple adverbs.
.sp
Enumerative:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
first (second, etc.), firstly (secondly, etc.), in the first place
.ul
(in the second place, etc.), first of all (second of all),
.ul
for one thing, for another thing, for a start,
.ul
next, number one (number two, etc.), last, lastly
.sp
.in 0
The following subjective context contains enumerative conjuncts:
.(q
.br
His mother said
all children were trouble.  Probably that was how Dave felt, too.
But
.ul
number one,
David didn't have a wife now, and
.ul
number two,
Dave loved a hot breakfast, and
.ul
number three,
he hated cooking his own.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 29]
.)q
Additive:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
above all, in addition, further, furthermore, likewise, moreover, 
.ul
in particular, similarly 
.in 0
.sp
Inferential, Resultative, Summative:
.sp
.in +2
.ul
altogether, as a result,
.ul
consequently, else, otherwise, overall, so, then, therefore, thus
.sp
.in 0
Appositive:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
for example, for instance, that is
.in 0
.sp
Antithetic:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
instead, on the contrary, in contrast, on the one hand, on the other hand,
.ul
rather
.sp
.in 0
The adverb `rather' is my addition to Quirk et al.'s list of conjuncts.
For example:
.(q
Rather, she would give the book to John.
.)q
Concessive:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
admittedly, after all, all the same, 
.ul
although, anyhow, anyway, anyways, besides, else, however, 
.ul
in any case, in any event, at any rate, in spite of that, in spite of it all, 
.ul
nevertheless, only, still, though, yet
.sp
.in 0
Concession is a relationship between two units under which the
situation in one unit is contrary to expectation in light of
the situation in the other unit (Quirk et al. 1985, p. 1098).
It can involve the claim that an apparent contradiction is
only apparent (Mann and Thompson 1988).
Concession can also be involved in the consideration of 
potential negative support
for a position.
For example:
.(q
(62)
.br
\*[62.1\*]It was better that the boys go; \*[62.2\*]there was not enough work
for them there.  \*[62.3\*]And
.ul
yet
they were the pride of the family.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 177]
.)q
Call, the subjective character, believes that it is better that
the boys go.  Support for this position is given in (62.2):  There
isn't enough work for them where they are.  Sentence (62.3) has
a concessive relation to (62.1), marked by the conjunct `yet':
The fact that it is better that the boys go is contrary to
expectation in light of the fact that they are the pride of the family.
However, Call considers that their being the
pride of the family is negative support for his position that
it is better that the boys go.
.pp
The following passage illustrates the use of `only' as a concessive conjunct;
it appears in Newt's subjective sentence, (62.2): 
.(q
(63)
.br
\*[63.1\*]Already the debts which existed were so complicated it gave Newt
a headache to think about them.  \*[63.2\*]Jasper Fant had lost his
saddle to Dish Boggett,
.ul
only
Dish was letting him keep it and use it.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 202]
.)q
Finally, the next passage illustrates the use of `although' as a conjunct;
it appears in Sandy's subjective sentence, (63.4).
.(q
(64)
.br
\*[64.1\*]Perhaps the fierceness of the sun burned away things that would cause
disease.
\*[64.2\*]He'd [Sandy'd] have to ask Dennys.
\*[64.3\*]Dennys knew more about sanitation and viruses and germs than Sandy
did.  
.ul
\*[64.4\*]Although,
if he went into environmental law when he grew up, he'd have to
learn about such things.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 158]
.)q
.pp
In addition to their concessive function,
Reichman (1985) shows that `anyway', `anyhow', and `in any case'
indicate a return to a previous part of the discourse.
.pp
Six other conjuncts, four of which are my additions to Quirk et al.'s
list of conjuncts\(em`another thing', `at least',
`either', `one thing'\(emdo not 
fit neatly into any of the above categories:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
another thing, at least, either, of course, one thing, well
.in 0
.sp
When used as a conjunct, `either' appears at the end of the sentence, as
in (65.3) of the following passage (which is Jeremy's subjective sentence):
.(q
(65)
.br
\*[65.1\*]It didn't look to Jeremy as 
if she'd grown at all since he last saw her
snugged in beside her brown and gentle, seal-smooth mother.
\*[65.2\*]She and her mother had both been listeners.  \*[65.3\*]That 
hadn't changed
.ul
either.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 2]
.)q
Here is an example of `one thing' appearing in a subjective
sentence, (66.3):
.(q
(66)
.br
     \*[66.1\*]When he [Call] approached the town he saw the horses,
grazing upriver a little ways, with Deets and Newt and the Irishmen holding
them.  \*[66.2\*]They looked to be all there, so evidently nothing had happened.
.ul
     \*[66.3\*]One thing 
about Gus McCrae,
he was easily found.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 181]
.)q
.pp
Some comments about `well' are in order.
In conversation, according to
Schiffrin (1987), `well' is a 
.ul
response marker
used when what is about to be said is not ``fully consonant with
prior coherence options'' (p. 103).  Thus, it is surprising that
it can be found in subjective sentences.  Perhaps it is used
when the subjective character ``thinks in response'' to another person.
In the following passage, the conjunct `well' appears in 
Jeremy's subjective sentence:
.(q
(67)
.br
\*[67.1\*]Jeremy glared at his father.  \*[67.2\*]All his father considered an
accomplishment was some kind of scholastic success.
.ul
\*[67.3\*]Well,
stone skipping was important too, in its way.
[Adler,
.ul
The Magic of the Glits\c
, p. 85]
.)q
.pp
It was mentioned above that subjective contexts can take the form
of argumentative discourse.
Cohen (1987) shows that conjuncts such as enumerative
`first', inferential `as a result', summative `in sum', and contrastive
`on the other hand' carry information about the structure of argumentative
discourse.
.pp
I now illustrate
the algorithm's use of conjuncts to recognize subjective sentences.
In the following passage, a conjunct appears in the 
postsubjective-active situation:
.(q
(68)
.br
\*[68.1\*]``All that was a 
long time ago.''  \*[68.2\*]He [Sandy] was
surprised at how cross his voice sounded.  \*[68.3\*]``We've both been well
for months now.''
     \*[68.4\*]``For what?''
     \*[68.5\*]``Oh.  Many moons.''
.ul
\*[68.6\*]Moon 
and 
.ul
month
did come from the same root,
.ul
after all,
\*[68.7\*]but the people of the oasis thought of time in 
moons and crops and the movement of the stars.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 185-186, `Moon' and `month' italicized in original]
.)q
Sentence (68.2) is Sandy's subjective sentence.  Sentences (68.3)-(68.5)
are objective sentences, paragraph breaks appear between (68.2) and
(68.6), and sentence (68.5) has an active character (Sandy).  Thus,
the situation at the beginning of (68.6) is postsubjective-active.
The algorithm recognizes that (68.6) is subjective because
it contains the conjunct `after all'.  The algorithm attributes (68.6) to
Sandy, who is both the last subjective character and the last active character.
.pp
In the following two passages, a conjunct appears in the
postsubjective-nonactive situation.
At the beginning of the first passage, the situation is 
postsubjective-nonactive, and Lorena is the last subjective character:
.(q
(69)
.br
     \*[69.1\*]``Why should I?'', Lorena said.  \*[69.2\*]``You didn't 
earn it and you
didn't stop it.''  
.ul
     \*[69.3\*]Besides,
he had money from his own card playing.  \*[69.4\*]If she knew anything, it was
not to give a man money.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 209]
.)q
Sentences (69.1) and (69.2) are objective, and so the
situation is still postsubjective-nonactive at the beginning of
(69.3).
The algorithm correctly interprets (69.3) to be Lorena's
subjective sentence, because the conjunct `besides' appears, and
because she is the last subjective character.
.pp
At the beginning of the next passage, the situation is
continuing-subjective, and Sandy is the last subjective character:
.(q
(70)
.br
\*[70.1\*]The eyes were an
incredibly
bright blue, like the sea with sunlight touching the waves.
     \*[70.2\*]Lamech greeted him respectfully.  \*[70.3\*]``Adnarel, we 
thank you.''
\*[70.4\*]Then he said to Sandy, ``The seraph well 
be able to help you.  Seraphim 
know much about healing.''
.ul
     \*[70.5\*]So 
this was a seraph.  \*[70.6\*]Tall, even taller than the twins.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 39]
.)q
Sentence (70.1) continues Sandy's subjective context because it
contains the subjective elements `incredibly' and comparative
`like' (Section 9.4.3).
Sentences (70.2)-(70.4) are objective and paragraph breaks appear
between (70.1) and (70.5), so the situation at the beginning of
(70.5) is postsubjective-nonactive.
The algorithm correctly interprets (70.5) to be
Sandy's subjective sentence, because it contains inferential `so',
and because Sandy is the last subjective character.
.sh 2 "Potential Subjective Elements Associated with Group (3)."
I now present the potential subjective elements associated at the highest
level
with the situations in Group (3), broken-subjective and interrupted-subjective.
Recall that in the broken-subjective situation, the previous sentence
is subjective and a paragraph break separates the current and previous
sentences; in the interrupted-subjective situation, a subjective sentence 
appears earlier in the current paragraph, but an objective sentence
appears between the last subjective sentence and the current sentence.
In both of these situations, the last subjective character is an
expected subjective character.
.sh 3 "Reaction Signals."
.ul
Reaction signals 
(Quirk et al. 1985)
are interjections used to react to someone's utterances.
They appear in sentence-initial position and are following
by a comma.  They include 
.in +2
.sp
.ul
no, yes, yeah, yep, m, mm, hm, hmm
.in 0
.sp 
It would seem that a signal such as `yes' or `no'
would be restricted to dialogue, and could not appear in
subjective sentences, because subjective sentences
are private thoughts, perceptions, and experiences,
and are not utterances directed toward another person.
However, as mentioned in Section 5.7, a subjective context can take
the form of a conversation in which the subjective character is
talking to herself (Fillmore (1974)).  For example, the subjective character
might try to convince 
.ul
herself
of something.
In this case, linguistic elements that typify conversation, including
reaction signals,
can appear in subjective sentences.
.pp
In the texts considered, examples of these were found only in
sentences appearing in the broken-subjective and continuing-subjective
situations; all of those sentences are subjective.
Although it is most likely the case that reaction signals are 
subjective even in the presubjective-nonactive situation,
for lack of evidence they are associated
with the situations in Group (3).
.pp
In this passage, `Yes' appears in the broken-subjective situation:
.(q
(71)
.br
     \*[71.1\*]The sadness washed over him [Sandy] again.  \*[71.2\*]Violence was
no longer an option.  \*[71.3\*]The splitting of 
the atom had put an end to that,
though the world was slow to realize it.
.ul
     \*[71.4\*]Yes,
he could overcome Tiglah with ease.  \*[71.\*]She was inviting 
him.  \*[71.5\*]But even
if there was no trick in it, he would not do it.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 232-233]
.)q
Sentences (71.1)-(71.3) are Sandy's subjective sentences, and after the
paragraph break the situation is broken-subjective.
The algorithm correctly interprets (71.4) to be Sandy's subjective sentence
because `yes' in initial position appears, and because he is the
last subjective character.
.sh 3 "Subject-Verb Inversion."
Subject-verb inversion in a declarative sentence is a potential 
subjective element, with
the exception of an 
adverbial (A), verb phrase (V), subject (S) sentence 
with a
copular verb.
Subject-verb inversion places the sentential
focus on the subject to a very high degree.  Unusual sentential
focus can create the effect that a character is perceiving or
aware of the focussed item (Banfield 1982; Mary Galbraith, personal
communication).
.pp
The reason that AVS sentences with copular verbs are not
included in this potential subjective element category is that they
do not place focus on the subject
to as high a degree as other kinds of sentences with
subject-verb inversion.  For example,
.(q
On one leg was a steel brace.
.)q
The adverbial of this sentence is `On one leg'; the verb is `was'; and
the subject is `a steel brace'.  Thus, it is an AVS sentence.
.pp
Subject-verb inversion in a discourse parenthetical is not a
potential subjective element:
.(q
``I am here,'' said she.
.)q
.pp
Although examples were found of inverted sentences that appear in the
postsubjective-nonactive situation and that 
.ul
are 
the
last subjective character's subjective sentences,
in all of these
examples other subjective elements appear as well.  For example:
.(q
(72)
.br
\*[72.1\*]He [Sandy] did not know what it was like to go to sleep without
Dennys.
     \*[72.2\*]Higgaion came in \*[72.3\*]and went to Grandfather Lamech, plucking
something from his ear with his trunk and holding it out to the
old man.  \*[72.4\*]Grandfather Lamech took it on his palm, a scarab beetle,
glinting bronze in the lamplight.  \*[72.5\*]The old man stroked it gently with
a trembling forefinger, \*[72.6\*]and closed his palm.
.ul
     \*[72.7\*]Then came a vivid flash of light,
similar to that of the unicorn's horn, \*[72.8\*]and a tall presence stood
in the tent, smiling at the old man, then looking quietly at Sandy.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 39]
.)q
The situation at the beginning of (72.7) is postsubjective-nonactive
(there is a paragraph break and other sentences, (72.5)-(72.6), since the
last subjective sentence, (72.4), appeared), and
Sandy is the last subjective character.  Sentence (72.7) is
Sandy's subjective sentence, but it contains not only subject-verb
inversion, but also the subjective elements `vivid' and `flash'.
.pp
Thus, subject-verb inversion is not associated with the situations
in Group (2), for lack of evidence.
.pp
The following passage contains an inverted sentence in the
continuing-subjective situation:
.(q
(73)
.br
\*[73.1\*]Again he [Sandy] looked around.  \*[73.2\*]The stars were so 
clear that he seemed to 
hear a chiming of crystal.  
.ul
\*[73.3\*]From the mountain came a wisp of smoke, a small tongue of fire.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 57]
.)q
Sentences (73.1)-(73.2) are Sandy's subjective sentences.  The
algorithm correctly interprets (73.3) to be Sandy's subjective sentence
because its subject and verb are inverted.
.pp
There is an inverted sentence in the following passage that appears
in the broken-subjective situation:
.(q
(74)
.br
\*[74.1\*]Some entryways were curtained with strands of bright beads, 
which tinkled in the evening breeze.
.ul
     \*[74.2\*]Out of one of these came a nephil, 
his arm around a 
young woman who was gazing up at him adoringly,
.br
leaning against
him so that her rosy breasts touched his pale flesh.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 50]
.)q
Sentence (74.1) is Yalith's subjective sentence, and, because
a paragraph break follows, the situation is broken-subjective at
the beginning of (74.2).  The algorithm recognizes that (74.2)
is Yalith's subjective sentence, because its subject and verb
are inverted.
.sh 3 "Comparisons."
One interesting area of future research will be
the role of metaphor and simile in recognizing subjective
sentences (Sandra Peters and Carol Seigel, personal communication).
Comparative `like' and
comparison clauses of the form `as' <modifier>, which are used in
similes, are
potential subjective elements (Brinton (1980) points out that
similes can be a marker of represented perception).
The reason why these are not associated with the situations in
Group (2) is that examples were found in sentences appearing
in the
postsubjective-nonactive situation that are not clearly subjective.
Thus, there is evidence against associating them with this
situation.
.pp
The restriction that `as' is followed by a modifier, e.g.,
.(q
It was 
.ul
as large 
as the other one they had seen,
.)q
excludes manner
adverbials such as the following:
.(q
She cooked dinner each evening
.ul
as her mother did before her.
.)q
.pp
The following passages contain comparative potential subjective elements 
that appear in the broken-subjective situation:
.(q
(75)
.br
\*[75.1\*]Call was not as fond of Maude, Joe's fat red-faced wife,
as Augustus was, \*[75.2\*]but then he had to admit he was not as fond of
any woman as Augustus was.
     \*[75.3\*]Maude Rainey was built like a barrel, with a bosom 
.ul
as big as 
buckets 
and a voice that some claimed would make hair fall out.  \*[75.4\*]It
was the general consensus around Lonesome Dove that if
she and Augustus had married their combined voices would have
deafened whatever children they might have produced.  \*[75.5\*]She talked
at the table like some men talked when they were driving mules.
     \*[75.6\*]Still, 
she and Joe had managed to produce an even dozen children
so far, eight of them boys and all of them strapping.  \*[75.7\*]Among them
the Raineys
probably ate as much food in one meal as the Spettles consumed in a week. 
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 178]
.)q
Sentences (75.1)-(75.2) are Call's subjective sentences.  A paragraph
break follows, and so the situation at the beginning of (75.3) is
broken-subjective.
The algorithm recognizes that (75.3) is Call's subjective
sentence because it contains the subjective element `as big as', and
because Call is the last subjective character.
.(q
(76)
.br
\*[76.1\*]He [O'Keefe] noticed a convention was assembling.  \*[76.2\*]A banner
suspended from the vaulted lobby roof proclaimed:
.sp
.ce 2
WELCOME DELEGATES
CONGRESS OF AMERICAN DENTISTRY
.sp
     \*[76.3\*]Dodo joined him, two laden bellboys following
.ul
like
acolytes behind a goddess.  \*[76.4\*]Under the big floppy picture hat, which
failed to conceal the flowing ash-blond hair, her baby blue eyes
were wide as ever in the flawless childlike face.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 100]
.)q
Sentence (76.1) is O'Keefe's subjective sentence.  Although `proclaimed'
can appear in a clause denoting an action, it is used in (76.2)
to denote a state; that is, the sentence describes what appears on the
sign.  Thus, (76.2) is a nonprivate-state sentence that continues O'Keefe's 
subjective context.  After the paragraph break, the situation is
broken-subjective.
The algorithm is able to recognize that (76.3) is
O'Keefe's subjective sentence, because comparative `like' appears,
and because he is the last subjective character.
.sh 3 "General Statements."
There are three kinds of sentences in this category.  The first
is a 
.ul
generic sentence,
a sentence
about generic concepts rather than particular individuals.
For example:
.(q
Dogs bark. 
.)q
The second is what I call a
.ul
habitual sentence.
Strictly speaking, habitual sentences are about
recurrent events, e.g.,
.(q
John goes to church on Sundays.
.)q 
However, the term is used here more generally for sentences
concerned with the frequency of events, that is, for sentences about
events that always, usually, often, sometimes, seldom, or never occur.
Adverbs such as the following often
appear in what I call ``habitual sentences'', although an adverb is
not required:
.in +2
.sp
.ul
always, commonly, constantly, customarily, daily (weekly, etc.), frequently,
.ul
generally, habitually, never, normally,
.ul
occasionally, often, ordinarily, rarely,
.ul
regularly, seldom, sometimes, usually
.sp
.in 0
Adverbials such as the following, which are not realized by adverbs,
can also appear:
.in +2
.ul
from time to time, every Sunday, whenever it gets dirty
.in 0
.sp
Note that ``whenever it gets dirty'' is a conditional clause that
combines condition with recurrence (see Section 9.3.6).
The fact that a sentence is habitual is a potential subjective element 
only if it is the main clause of the sentence that is habitual.
.pp
The third kind of general statement is one that employs the impersonal
pronoun `one' or the pronoun `you' without a referent.  For example:
.(q
(77)
.br
     \*[77.1\*]There was something different about her, Jake 
had to admit.  \*[77.2\*]She
had a beautiful face, a beautiful body, but also a distance in her
such as he had never met in a woman.  \*[77.3\*]Certain mountains were that way,
like the Bighorns.
.ul
\*[77.4\*]The air around them was so clear you could ride toward them for days
.ul
without seeming to get any closer.  \*[77.5\*]And yet, if 
.ul
you kept riding
.ul
you would get to the mountains.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 211]
.)q
.pp
Of the three kinds of general statements,
there was only evidence against associating
habitual sentences with the postsubjective-nonactive situation (a
situation in Group (2)):  Examples
were found that are not clearly subjective and that appear in this
situation.
There was little
evidence for associating the other two kinds of general statements
with the situations in Group (2), which is why
they are not associated with these situations either.
.pp
In this passage, a generic sentence appears when in the
continuing-subjective situation:
.(q
(78)
.br
\*[78.1\*]What does the FBI want with a stalk?  Zoe thought crossly.
.ul
\*[78.2\*]Grownups talked in code.
\*[78.3\*]She wondered whether it was something you caught on to as you
grew older.
[Oneal,
.ul
War Work\c
, p. 37]
.)q
The first sentence is Zoe's subjective sentence, as indicated
by the narrative parenthetical.  The algorithm is able to recognize 
that (78.2) is subjective because it is a generic sentence, that is,
it is a sentence about grownups in general.
.pp
This passage contains a habitual sentence appearing in the
broken-subjective situation:
.(q
(79)
     \*[79.1\*]He [Call] worried about that possibility most of the way
home.  \*[79.2\*]Not that Gus wasn't competent\(em\*[79.3\*]so far 
as sheer ability went,
Gus was 
as competent as 
any man he'd ever known.  \*[79.4\*]There had been
plenty of times when he'd wondered if he himself could match Gus,
if Gus really tried.  \*[79.5\*]It was a question that never got tested,
because Gus seldom tried.  \*[79.6\*]As a team, the two of them were 
perfectly 
balanced; \*[79.7\*]he did more than he needed to, while Gus did less.
.ul
     \*[79.8\*]Gus himself often joked about it.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 180]
.)q
All of the sentences of the first paragraph are Call's subjective sentences
(note that (79.5) is habitual).  Thus, the situation at
the beginning of (79.8), the first sentence of the next paragraph, is
broken-subjective.
The algorithm is able to recognize that (79.8) is Call's subjective
sentence because it is a habitual sentence, and because Call is the
last subjective character.
.sh 3 "Quantifiers."
Quantifiers that involve intensification
can be subjective elements.
The following are potential subjective elements:  
.in +2
.sp
.ul
a good deal of, a good number of, a great deal of, lots of, much, plenty of
.in 0
.sp
Few examples of these quantifiers were found in the texts considered,
all appearing in the broken-subjective or continuing-subjective
situation.
Thus, they are not associated with the situations in Group (2)
due to lack of evidence.
.pp
Note that the quantifier `much' is often used in sentences with negation, e.g.,
.(q
There wasn't much time.
.)q
Also, the quantified item may not be specified, in which case
the quantifier
appears alone in a noun phrase.  In this case, `of' in the 
quantifiers ending with `of' is omitted:
.(q
A good deal never did.
.)q
.pp
A quantifier appears in the continuing-subjective situation in
the following
passage:
.(q
(80)
.br
\*[80.1\*]He [Call] had heard it said that Ned had 
never got over the war, which might
have explained it.
.ul
\*[80.2\*]Plenty
hadn't.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 176]
.)q
Sentence (80.1) is Call's subjective sentence, and the algorithm
recognizes that (80.2) continues his subjective context because it
contains the quantifier `plenty' (and also because it is in the
shifted past (Section 9.5.2)).
.pp
In the next passage, `much' appears in the broken-subjective situation:
.(q
(81)
.br
\*[81.1\*]She [Lorena] waited for him to leave and go buy the horses, running
over in her mind the few things she could take with her.
     \*[81.2\*]There was not 
.ul
much.
\*[81.3\*]Her favorite thing was a mother-of-pearl
comb Tinkersley had bought her when they first got to San Antonio.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 213]
.)q
Sentence (81.1) is Lorena's subjective sentence.   A paragraph break
follows, and so the situation at the beginning of (81.2) is
broken-subjective.
The algorithm recognizes that (81.2) is Lorena's subjective sentence,
because it contains the quantifier `much', and because she is
the last subjective character.
.sh 2 "Potential Subjective Elements Associated with Group (4)."
The only situation in Group (4) is continuing-subjective.  Potential
subjective elements associated at the
highest level with Group (4), therefore, are
subjective elements only if the previous sentence is subjective,
and no paragraph separates the current and previous sentences.
.sh 3 "Progressive Aspect."
The progressive aspect, marked by `be' and `-ing' in English, expresses
simultaneity.  The progressive aspect can indicate that a sentence
is subjective (Fehr 1938, Brinton 1980, Banfield 1982, and Ehrlich 1987).
As Ehrlich says,
.(q
In certain discourse contexts, the past progressive is interpreted
as describing events from a character's point of view, an interpretation
which is not as readily available with the simple past in the same
context.
[p. 366]
.)q
The progressive is an imperfective aspect.  As such, ``it explicitly
refers to the internal temporal structure of a situation'' (Ehrlich 1987,
p. 369).  In narrative, an event denoted by a clause in the progressive
overlaps with previous events of the narrative.  If the 
immediately-preceding 
utterances describe events of thinking, Ehrlich argues, then
``the events in the progressive aspect are interpreted as overlapping
with'' (p. 369) a character's thoughts; thus, 
the events denoted by the clause in the progressive are observations or
perceptions of the thinking character.  According to Ehrlich, therefore,
the progressive aspect is interpreted as describing
events from a character's point of view if the immediately preceding
discourse is represented thought.  Interestingly, Ehrlich shows
that a paragraph break alters the interpretation of the progressive:  as
she describes it,
a paragraph break ``means that previous events of the narrative
are no longer salient or in focus'' (p. 371).  Thus, even if
the previous sentence was a character's thought, the progressive
does not indicate that the sentence is an observation or perception.
.pp
Ehrlich's analysis of the progressive is consistent with what was
found in the texts from which the examples given in this dissertation
are taken.  Thus, the progressive is associated with the
continuing-subjective situation.
However, it is a potential subjective element
only if it is the verb phrase of the main clause that is in
the progressive.
.pp
The stipulation that the progressive is subjective in the
continuing-subjective situation
actually encompasses more situations
than those considered by Ehrlich.  First, the situation is 
continuing-subjective if the previous sentence is any kind
of subjective sentence, not just if it is a represented thought (and
if no paragraph break appears).
She does cite a passage in which a
progressive sentence immediately follows a subjective sentence that
is not a represented thought, but she does not discuss whether
the sentence in the progressive is a perception (she gives the example
for a different purpose):
.(q
(82)
.br
\*[82.1\*]He [John Williams] sat up in bed \*[82.2\*]and listened.
.ul
\*[82.3\*]The wind was howling around the old house; \*[82.4\*]the shutters were
.ul
creaking.
[Aristar and Dry 1982, p. 2]
.)q
Clause (82.2) is John Williams's private-state report,
not his represented thought.
The immediately
following sentence is in the progressive.
In this example and in the other such examples found in the texts
considered, the sentence in the progressive is clearly subjective.
.pp
Second, Ehrlich and Banfield specify that a subjective sentence
in the progressive is an observation or a perception.  However,
a subjective sentence in the progressive can also be a represented
thought, or, by temporally placing
the subjective character within the current situation, it can
describe the subjective character's experience.
.pp
One final point about the relevance of Ehrlich's work to the 
algorithm can be made.
Ehrlich argues that simple-past sentences that denote
actions 
do not generally describe events from
a character's point of view
(she doesn't explicitly say that she is talking about
sentences that denote actions, but it is clear from her
discussion that she is).
This supports one aspect of the
algorithm's behavior:  A sentence denoting an action that does not contain
a subjective element and that appears in the continuing-subjective 
situation 
is not interpreted to be subjective.  It is after such a sentence
that the situation is interrupted-subjective.
And, since the progressive, the shifted past, and the future tense are
all subjective elements in the continuing-subjective situation,
the beginning of a segment of text in the interrupted-subjective 
situation is always a sentence
in the simple past.
.pp
The following are passages in which sentences in the progressive
appear in the continuing-subjective situation.  The first
is passage (19):
.(q
(19)
.br
\*[19.1\*]Then he [Augustus] drove off, amused that Dish Boggett looked
so out of sorts just from being in love with a woman who didn't
want him.  \*[19.2\*]It was a peril too common to take seriously.
     \*[19.3\*]A half mile from the main camp he came upon the
very woman
who had given Dish the pain.  \*[19.4\*]She was attempting 
to cook some fryback, \*[19.5\*]and was getting no help from 
Jake Spoon, who hadn't even provided her with 
a good fire.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 227]
.)q
As discussed in Section 9.3.2, Sentences (19.1)-(19.3) are Augustus's
subjective sentences ((19.3) is subjective because the
attitude adjective `very' appears).  The situation at the
beginning of (19.4) is thus continuing-subjective.
The
algorithm recognizes that (19.4) is Augustus's subjective
sentence, because the verb phrase of its main clause is in the 
progressive, and because he is the last subjective character.
.(q
(83)
.br
\*[83.1\*]Call had heard from someone that she had been raised 
rich, in the East,
with servants to comb her hair and help her into her shoes when she got
up.  \*[83.2\*]It might just have been a story\(em\*[83.3\*]it was hard 
for him to imagine
a grownup who would need to be helped into their own shoes\(em\*[83.4\*]but
if even part of it was true she had come a long way down.  \*[83.5\*]Ned
Spettle had never got around to putting a floor in the shack
of a house he built.  
.ul
\*[83.6\*]His wife was rearing eight children on the bare dirt.
\*[83.7\*]He had heard it said that Ned had never got over the war, which might
have explained it.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 176]
.)q
Sentences (83.1)-(83.5) are Call's subjective sentences, and the algorithm
recognizes that (83.6) continues Call's subjective context because its
main verb phrase is in the progressive.  Note that (83.6) is not
a perception or observation, but instead continues Call's train of
thought:  It is another reason for Call's belief that she ``had come
a long way down.''
.sh 3 "Shifted Past."
As discussed in Chapter 2, the shifted past, which uses the
auxiliary `have', is how the past is expressed in narrative.
The shifted past is only a potential subjective element if it is
the main verb phrase of the sentence that is in the shifted past.
An event denoted by a sentence in the
shifted past does not occur in the scene, but occurred at some earlier
time.  The shifted past can be a subjective element because
a character can reflect on what occurred (or might have occurred) in the past.
.pp
For example:
.(q
(84)
.br
     \*[84.1\*]When he [Call] got within fifteen miles of Lonesome Dove he cut
west, thinking they would be holding the herd in that 
direction.  \*[84.2\*]He
rode around the southern edge of the bad brush country \*[84.3\*]and struck
the trail of the horses.  \*[84.4\*]They had been going 
back south, over their own
tracks, which was curious.  
.ul
\*[84.5\*]Gus had taken them back to town.
\*[84.6\*]Probably he had a reason, \*[84.7\*]but it was not one Call 
could guess, so he
loped on home.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 181]
.)q
Sentence (84.1) is Call's subjective sentence, and an objective
sentence, (84.2), follows.  Thus, the situation at the beginning
of (84.3) is interrupted-subjective.
Sentence (84.4) is
subjective because it contains the subjective element `curious', and
so the situation at the beginning of (84.5) is continuing-subjective.
The algorithm recognizes that (84.5) is Call's subjective sentence
because it is in the shifted past.
>From his observation 
about the trail made by the horses in (84.4), Call
concludes that Gus took the horses back to town.
.pp
There are sentences that describe events occurring before the
now in the story that are not in the shifted past.  These occur
in the midst of passages presenting a character's memories (i.e.,
flashbacks).  The first sentence (or the first few
sentences) of this kind of passage is in the shifted past,
but then subsequent sentences might be in the simple past (Cohn 1978,
Almeida 1987).  
The return from the flashback
to the present moment in these kinds of passages is not signaled
by any formal linguistic device (Almeida 1987).  
In other passages presenting flashbacks, however, all of the
sentences describing past events are in the shifted past, and
a sentence in the simple past signals a return to the present moment
in the story (Almeida 1987).
The question of how it is determined whether a simple past
sentence continues a flashback or signals the end of a flashback
is beyond the scope of this dissertation.  
.sh 2 "Demonstrations."
The following demonstrate the algorithm's treatment of potential
subjective elements.
.pp
A potential subjective element that is not a subjective element
appears in the following passage:
.(q
     \*[1\*]``Thank you,'' Sandy said.
     \*[2\*]``We'd like to come with you,'' Dennys added.
     \*[3\*]``At this point, we don't have much choice,'' Sandy murmured.
     \*[4\*]Dennys nudged him, \*[5\*]then took 
his turtleneck from the bundle of
clothes \*[6\*]and pulled it back on, his head emerging from the rolled
cotton neck, which had mussed up his light brown hair so that a tuft
stuck out 
.ul
like 
a parakeet's.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 21]
.)q
The situation at the beginning of this passage is postsubjective-nonactive,
and Sandy and Dennys are the last subjective character.  Since sentences
(4)-(5) denote current actions performed by Dennys, he is the active
character of these sentences.  Thus, the situation at the beginning
of (6) is postsubjective-active.  However, the potential subjective
element comparative `like', which appears in (6), is associated at
the highest level with the situations in Group (3), the broken-subjective
and interrupted-subjective situations.  Since comparative like is
not associated with the postsubjective-active situation, the
algorithm does not interpret it to be a subjective element, as
shown by the following demonstration.
The first line of the demonstration informs the
system that the situation at the beginning of the passage is
postsubjective-nonactive, and the second line informs the
system that the last subjective character is Sandy and Dennys.
Note that after the system is informed that a character
(or characters) is the last subjective character, it also
believes that the character (or characters) has been the subjective
character of some previous sentence.
In the third line of input, `Quoted_speech' is a ``stub'' for what
is between the quotes in the text.
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 03:02:11 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 03:02:25 1989
sneps

: Initialize situation to postsubj-nonactive.
The situation is now postsubj-nonactive

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.266 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char to Sandy and Dennys.
Dennys and Sandy is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 2.083 gc= 2.266) <=) 

: Quoted_speech Sandy murmured.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Dennys and Sandy, the last subj_char 
Sandy is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
Sentence with an active_char in postsubj-nonactive situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 4.566 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Dennys and Sandy, the last subj_char 
      Sandy, the last active_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive 
  The last active_char is no longer an expected subjective character 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.450 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Dennys nudged him.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Dennys and Sandy, the last subj_char 
Dennys is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
Sentence with an active_char in postsubj-nonactive situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 7.766 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Then he took his turtleneck from the pile.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Dennys and Sandy, the last subj_char 
      Dennys, the last active_char 
Dennys is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 10.083 gc= 2.266) <=) 

: He put it on, his head emerging from the cotton neck, which made his brown hair stick up like a parakeet's tuft.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Dennys and Sandy, the last subj_char 
      Dennys, the last active_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  comparative_like
It is not a subjective element 
Dennys is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 28.800 gc= 2.366) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> ^D
script done on Mon Jul 24 03:12:29 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
In passage (68), a potential subjective element appears in a
situation that is at the highest level with which it is associated.
In particular, the conjunct `after all' appears in the postsubj-nonactive
situation.  Here is a demonstration of the algorithm on simplified
versions of (68.2)-(68.6):
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 04:11:22 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 04:11:27 1989
sneps

: Initialize situation to interrupted-subj.
The situation is now interrupted-subj

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.266 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char to Sandy.
Sandy is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.883 gc= 2.166) <=) 

: Sandy was surprised at his voice.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is interrupted-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Sandy, the last subj_char 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Sandy
The subj_char is Sandy
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 6.733 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Quoted_speech Sandy said.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Sandy, the last subj_char 
The sentence is not subjective 
Objective sentence in continuing-subj situation: 
  situation is now interrupted-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 3.766 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is interrupted-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Sandy, the last subj_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is now postsubj-nonactive 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.300 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Quoted_speech Japheth said.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Sandy, the last subj_char 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still postsubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 3.783 gc= 2.200) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Sandy, the last subj_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is still postsubj-nonactive 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.283 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Quoted_speech Sandy said.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Sandy, the last subj_char 
Sandy is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
Sentence with an active_char in postsubj-nonactive situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 3.883 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Moon and month did come from the same root, after all.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Sandy, the last subj_char 
      Sandy, the last active_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  attitude_adverbial
It is a subjective element 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  attitude_adverbial
The subj_char is Sandy
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 8.366 gc= 0.00) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> ^D
script done on Mon Jul 24 04:22:50 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
Finally, passage (57) contains a potential subjective element
that appears in a situation that is not in the highest group with
which it is associated but instead is in a lower one.  In particular,
the modal content disjunct (a subcategory of attitude adverbials)
`probably' appears in the continuing-subjective
situation.  The following is a demonstration.  The first line of
the demonstration informs the system that Jake was the subjective
character of some previous sentence.  A similar initialization sentence
is not required for Lorena, because the system is informed in the
third line that
she is the last subjective character.  After this initialization sentence,
the system believes that she has been the subjective character of some
previous sentence.
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 06:11:12 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 06:11:17 1989
sneps

: Previous_subj_char Jake.
Jake has been the subj_char 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.933 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize situation to postsubj-nonactive.
The situation is now postsubj-nonactive

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.216 gc= 2.300) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char to Lorena.
Lorena is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 1.016 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Lorena knew that it was true.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Lorena, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element not considered: 
  attitude_adjective
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Lorena
The subj_char is Lorena
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 8.550 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Jake was probably not hard to fool.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Lorena, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  modal_content_disjunct
It is a subjective element 
Subjective context continued by this feature: 
  modal_content_disjunct
The subj_char is Lorena
The situation is still continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 7.816 gc= 2.283) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Mon Jul 24 06:17:06 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
Section 11 demonstrates competition between the
last active character and the
last subjective character.  Section 12 illustrates the situation in
which there are no expected subjective characters, so even potential subjective
elements associated with Group (2) are not subjective elements.
.sh 1 "OTHER ELEMENTS THAT MAY BE POTENTIAL SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS." 
This section suggests some other linguistic elements that should perhaps
be treated as potential subjective elements.  Future work is needed
to determine if and under what uses they are subjective elements.
.sh 2 "Deictic Terms."
As discussed in Chapter 2, a sentence that is not understood with
respect to a character's consciousness
can take that character's
spatial and
temporal points of view (Uspensky 1973).
It does appear, however,
that if there is an expected subjective character,
deictic terms that must be understood with respect to the
narrative WHERE or the narrative WHEN can be subjective elements.
The following are 
examples of such deictic terms: 
.ul
ago 
(Fillmore 1974),
.ul
already, here, just 
(used with its temporal meaning),
.ul
last night (evening, week, year),
.ul
now, so far, there, this morning (afternoon, etc.), yet 
(used with its temporal meaning).
.sh 2 "Initial Coordinators."
Sometimes a
sentence-initial coordinator is clearly a subjective element
(Banfield 1982), but other times it is not.
In the following passage, for example, the first
occurrence of initial `And' does not seem to be subjective, but
the second appearance is clearly subjective:
.(q
     ``We're coming,'' Oholibamah said.
.ul
And
they hurried toward the central section of the oasis, where
Noah's vineyards were, and his grazing grounds, and his tents.
.ul
And
where Dennys was waiting for them.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 118]
.)q
Further research is required to determine when initial conjunctions
are subjective elements.
.sh 2 "Logical Clauses."
Logical clauses and constructions other
than conditional clauses can indicate a character's
reasoning.  One in particular is similar to a conditional clause
in that it makes reference to possibilities:  an
.ul
`either'...`or' correlative,
which is comprised of a clause beginning with `either' followed by
a clause beginning with `or'.
Other logical clauses 
are
.ul
reason clauses,
for example,
.(q
She took the money,
.ul
because she was planning to leave him.
.)q
.ul
result clauses,
for example, 
.(q
John canceled classes,
.ul
so the students went out to dinner.
.)q
and
.ul
concession clauses,
for example,
.(q
.ul
Although the work was done, 
there was much more to do.
.)q
Correlatives are not treated as potential subjective elements because
they are not well represented in the texts from which the examples
in this dissertation are taken.  The others\(emreason, result, and
concession clauses\(emcan easily appear in sentences that are not
subjective, and so future work is needed to determine if they can be useful
for recognizing subjective sentences.
.sh 2 "Idiomatic Phrases."
Some idiomatic phrases are clearly subjective, for example:
.ul
a far cry,
.ul
once and for all, 
.ul
that was
.ul
a good one,
.ul
who should <verb phrase> but,
.ul
too bad.
The types of idiomatic phrases that are subjective requires
further investigation.
.sh 2 "Sentential Focus."
Recall that subject-verb inversion is a potential subjective element because
it places unusually high focus on the subject.  Other syntactic
structures that place unusually high focus on an element, such as
there-existential and cleft sentences, might be potential subjective elements 
as well.
.sh 2 "Expressive Uses of Auxiliaries."
There are expressive uses of the auxiliaries `have' and `do' (Fillmore
1974).  For example:
.(q
She never had enjoyed listening to her husband lecture, and this time
was no exception.
[Fillmore 1974, p. V-6]
.sp
She really did want to see him.
.)q
In these examples, the auxiliaries express the subjective character's
emotions, so are subjective.
.sh 2 "Expressive Uses of Coordination."
There are also expressive uses of coordination (Quirk et al. 1985, pp. 
980-982).
For example, the iterative use of coordination ``conveys the idea of a 
repeated or continuing process'' (Quirk et al. 1985, p. 980).  This
might be used in narrative to indicate that an event seems
interminable to a character, for example:
.(q
She talked and talked and talked.
.)q
.sh 2 "Expressive Uses of Demonstrative Pronouns."
Robin Lakoff (1974) calls certain uses of
`this', `that', `these', and `those' 
.ul
emotional deixis.
In
conversation, they are ``generally linked to the speaker's
emotional involvement in the subject-matter of his utterance'' 
(Lakoff 1974, p. 347).
In third-person
narrative, they might be linked to a character's emotional involvement
in the subject matter of his thoughts or perceptions.  For example:
.(q
As she watched, a wave of jealousy spread through her.
.ul
That
insufferable
stranger who had passed them on the road was receiving the welcome that
she had been dreaming of all the way from Connecticut.  [Franchere,
.ul
Hannah Herself,
p. 15]
.)q
.sh 2 "Punctual Adverbials."
Ehrlich (1987) mentions that what she calls
.ul
punctual adverbials,
e.g., 
.ul
just then, suddenly, all of a sudden,
can be attributed ``to a character's perceptions'' (p. 374).
Thus, these are additional elements that might be useful for
recognizing subjective sentences.
.sh 2 "`Need'."
The verb `need' can express judgment.  
It is not included as a potential
subjective element because it seems that it might behave either as a potential
subjective element or as a private-state term.
Examples were not found that suggested one or the other treatment, 
and so `need' is
not treated as either a potential subjective element or as a
private-state term.
.sh 1 "THE LAST ACTIVE CHARACTER."
This section illustrates situations in which the last active character
becomes the subjective character.  Recall that if both the
last active character and the last subjective character are
expected subjective characters when
a subjective sentence is encountered, and they are not the same,
then one must be chosen to be the
subjective character.  The algorithm uses the rule that if the sentence
is about the last active character, then the subjective character is the
last subjective character; otherwise the subjective character is
the last active character.  A sentence is about a character if she
is the argument of the event chosen for consideration in that sentence,
e.g., the actor of an action or the experiencer of a state.
Recall also that
a character is the
active character
of a sentence if
.ip (i)
the sentence is an objective sentence denoting a current action,
and 
.ip (ii)
the character is the actor of the action, and
.ip (ii)
the actor has been the subjective character (or all of the actors have
been the subjective character, if more than one character performed the action).
.in 0
.sp
If a subjective sentence has not appeared earlier in the current paragraph,
and an earlier sentence in the current paragraph has
an active character, then the last active character is an expected subjective
character.
To denote a current action, a sentence has to be in the simple past,
cannot be
habitual,
cannot contain
modal auxiliary verbs or modal content disjuncts,
and cannot be negated.
.pp
A sentence with an active character
makes that character a focal character.
The algorithm's criterion for choosing the last subjective 
character to be the subjective character works in the situation in which
the last subjective character's attention is directed toward
the last active character, and a subjective sentence about the last active 
character is the last subjective character's reflection about or
observation of him or her.  Based on the texts from which the examples
of this dissertation are taken, this situation is the one that most
often occurs.  Only one passage was found for which this
rule does not work.
However, it is likely that if a wider range of texts were
examined, more examples would be found for which the rule does not work.
.pp
First, consider the situation in which the last active character is the
only expected subjective character.  Recall that this occurs only
in the presubjective-active situation.
.(q
(85)
.br
     \*[85.1\*]Noah's tears fell like rain.
     \*[85.2\*]``Our dear twins\(em''
     \*[85.3\*]``What, Father?''
     \*[85.4\*]The old man gasped, \*[85.5\*]and then smiled a 
surprised smile of joy, so
radiant that it seemed to light the darkened tent.  \*[85.6\*]Had 
lightning flashed
to make the smile visible?
     \*[85.7\*]``Father!'' Noah cried.  \*[85.8\*]And 
then, ``Father!''  \*[85.9\*]And then his sobs
broke like waves across the dry sands of the desert.
     
     \*[85.10\*]The stars did not sing.  \*[85.11\*]The sky was 
silent.  \*[85.12\*]Higgaion sat up,
ears alert.  \*[85.13\*]Dennys raised his head,
.ul
\*[85.14\*]and it seemed that the stars were holding their light.
\*[85.15\*]And suddenly the bright presence 
of a seraphim stood before him, \*[85.16\*]and the
starlight again fell onto his upturned face.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 217-218]
.)q
Only Noah and his father are in the scene of (85.1)-(85.9).  The extra
blank line before (85.10)
does accompany a scene break:  The narrative shifts from
a scene with Noah and his father to one with Dennys and Higgaion.
Thus, the situation is presubjective-nonactive at the beginning
of (85.10), and
even though Noah is the last subjective character, he is
.ul
not 
an expected subjective character.
Higgaion
has not been the subjective character, so he is not
the active character of (85.12), even though (85.12) denotes
his current action.
However, 
.ul
Dennys 
has been the subjective character, and so he is the active
character of (85.13), which denotes his current action of
raising his head.  After (85.13), therefore, the situation is
presubjective-active.
The seeming verb `seem' in (85.14) is a subjective element in this
situation, and so the sentence is subjective.  The subjective
character is Dennys, the last active character.
.(q
(86)
.br
     \*[86.1\*]Ugiel bent over Mahlah \*[86.2\*]and with one long 
finger touched the baby
on its eyelids, its nose.  \*[86.3\*]``I am pleased,'' Ugiel said again.

     \*[86.4\*]Oholibamah sat in the big tent, letting Elisheba feed them
lentil soup.  
     \*[86.5\*]Oholibamah said, ``He didn't care whether she lived or not,
as long as she had the baby.''
     \*[86.6\*]Yalith paused in the 
act of raising her bowl to her lips.  \*[86.7\*]``Do you really think that?''
     \*[86.8\*]``You heard him, didn't you?  `Why 
doesn't she get on with it?' he said.
`Why is it taking so long?'  And then he would go away and not come back for
hours and hours.''
     \*[86.9\*]``Mother said she didn't want 
him around\(em''\*[86.10\*]Then Yalith stopped.
\*[86.11\*]Matred had been with her older daughters when they 
gave birth, shooing their 
husbands away but giving a running account of the delivery.  \*[86.12\*]Nor 
had the husbands gone far away.  
.ul
\*[86.13\*]They had, in fact, been maddeningly underfoot.
\*[86.14\*]They had not simply vanished, like Ugiel, leaving everything
to the women.  \*[86.15\*]She finished her soup in silence.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, pp. 208-209]
.)q
There is a scene break at the extra blank line before (86.4),
so the situation at the beginning of (86.4) is presubjective-nonactive.
Since no subjective sentences appear in this passage
before the last paragraph, let us
consider the last
paragraph.  Yalith has been the subjective character, so
she is the active character of (86.9), which denotes her quoted
speech.  She is also the active character of (86.10), which denotes
her current action.
Sentences (86.11) and (86.12) are actually Yalith's subjective
sentences, 
but the algorithm is unable to recognize them, because
they contain no potential subjective elements that
the algorithm considers to be subjective elements.
(Sentence (86.10) may actually be a psychological action; if so, and
if the algorithm were able to recognize it as such, then the algorithm
would consider the shifted
past of (86.11) to be a subjective element; then, it would be able to recognize
that (86.11) is subjective.)
According to the algorithm, therefore,
the situation at the beginning of (86.13) is still presubjective-active, and
Yalith is still the last active character.
Even though Matred has
been the subjective character by this
point in the novel, and sentence (86.11) denotes her
action, she is not the active character of (86.11) because the
sentence is in the shifted past.
The first subjective sentence in the passage
that
the algorithm is able to recognize is (86.13):  It contains the
subjective elements `in fact' and `maddeningly'.  Since Yalith is
the last active character, the algorithm attributes this sentence
to her, which is the correct interpretation.
.pp
Now consider the postsubjective-active situation, in which both the
last subjective character and the last active character are
expected subjective characters.
First, two passages are presented in which competition
is resolved in favor of the last subjective character:
.(q
(87)
.br
     \*[87.1\*]Newt had always missed 
having a father, \*[87.2\*]but the fact that Sean
spoke so coldly of his put the matter in a different light.  \*[87.3\*]Perhaps
he was not so unlucky, after all.
     \*[87.4\*]He was riding around the herd when 
Jake Spoon trotted past on his way to Lonesome Dove.
     \*[87.5\*]``Going to town, Jake?'' Newt asked.
     \*[87.6\*]``Yes, I think I will,'' Jake said.  
\*[87.7\*]He didn't stop to pass
the time; \*[87.8\*]in a second he was
out of 
.ul
sight
in the shadows.  \*[87.9\*]It made Newt's spirits fall a little, for Jake had
seldom said two words to him since he came back.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 200]
.)q
Sentences (87.1)-(87.3) are Newt's subjective sentences.  A paragraph
break follows, and so the situation at the beginning of (87.4) is
broken-subjective.  Sentence (87.4) is not subjective and a paragraph
break follows it, so at the beginning of (87.5), the situation is
postsubjective-nonactive.  Newt has been the subjective character, so
he is the active character of (87.5) (which denotes his quoted
speech).  After the paragraph break before (87.6), however, the
situation is once again postsubjective-nonactive.
Jake has been the subjective character, so he is the active
character of (87.6).  The situation at the beginning of (87.8) is
postsubjective-active, Newt is the last subjective character, and
Jake is the last active character.
The algorithm
recognizes that (87.8) is subjective because it contains the subjective element 
`sight'.  It chooses Newt, the last subjective character, to be
the subjective character, because the sentence is about Jake (the sentence
is a nonprivate-state sentence and Jake is the experiencer).  This is
the correct interpretation.  Following is a demonstration of the
algorithm on simplified versions of (87.4)-(87.8):
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 12:20:10 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 12:20:19 1989
sneps

: Previous_subj_char Jake.
Jake has been the subj_char 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.883 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize situation to broken-subj.
The situation is now broken-subj

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.200 gc= 2.200) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char Newt.
Newt is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.850 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Newt was riding around the herd when Jake went by on his way to Lonesome Dove.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is broken-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Newt, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  progressive
It is not a subjective element 
Newt is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
Sentence with an active_char in broken-subj situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 14.166 gc= 2.333) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Newt, the last subj_char 
      Newt, the last active_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive 
  The last active_char is no longer an expected subjective character 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.383 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Quoted_speech Newt asked.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Newt, the last subj_char 
Newt is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
Sentence with an active_char in postsubj-nonactive situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 4.050 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Newt, the last subj_char 
      Newt, the last active_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive 
  The last active_char is no longer an expected subjective character 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.400 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Quoted_speech Jake said.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Newt, the last subj_char 
Jake is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
Sentence with an active_char in postsubj-nonactive situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 3.933 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: He did not stop to pass the time.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Newt, the last subj_char 
      Jake, the last active_char 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 9.183 gc= 2.316) <=) 

: In a second he was out of sight in the shadows.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Newt, the last subj_char 
      Jake, the last active_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  percept_term
It is a subjective element 
Competition between the last subj_char and the last active_char 
  Choosing the last subj_char because the sentence is about the last active_char 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  percept_term
The subj_char is Newt
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 12.516 gc= 0.00) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Mon Jul 24 12:24:47 1989
.)q
.fi
.(q
(88)
.br
     \*[88.1\*]Still, it had felt good to ride out 
of Lonesome Dove.  \*[88.2\*]She [Lorena]
had not seen Xavier again.  \*[88.3\*]The Dry Bean had been empty as they made
their preparations.  \*[88.4\*]The pants had been Jake's idea.  \*[88.5\*]He 
had known a woman
mule skinner in Montana who had worn pants.
     \*[88.6\*]While Jake had been fixing the 
pack horse Lippy had come out on the
steps of the saloon \*[88.7\*]and waved his lip at her one more time.
     \*[88.8\*]``I never tolt on you, Lorie,'' he said.  
.ul
\*[88.9\*]He looked like he might cry too.
\*[88.10\*]You'll just have to cry, she thought.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 218]
.)q
Sentences (88.1)-(88.5) are Lorena's subjective sentences.
A paragraph break follows, and then objective sentences 
appear (sentences (88.6)-(88.7)),
so the situation at the beginning of (88.8) is postsubjective-nonactive.
Lippy has been the subjective character, so he is the active character
of (88.8); the situation is now postsubjective-active, the last 
active character is Lippy, and the last subjective character is Lorena.
Sentence (88.9) is subjective
because it contains the subjective elements `look' and `might'.
Since it is about Lippy, the algorithm interprets the sentence to
be Lorena's, the last subjective character's, subjective sentence.
This is the correct interpretation.
.pp
In the following two passages, competition between the 
last subjective character and the last active character is resolved
in favor of the last active character.
When the first passage is encountered, the situation is 
postsubjective-nonactive, and Jake is the last subjective character:
.(q
(89)
.br
     \*[89.1\*]``I ain't near as old as you,'' Jake reminded 
him.  \*[89.2\*]``Why 
don't you marry her?''  \*[89.3\*]It was talk he didn't care to hear.  
     \*[89.4\*]Swift Bill Spettle had let a horse kick him that morning
\*[89.5\*]and had a knot on his forehead as big as a goose egg.
     \*[89.6\*]``You best let Bol rub 
some ointment on that bump,'' Call suggested.
.ul
\*[89.7\*]The Spettle boys were mighty green,
\*[89.8\*]but they were not afraid to work.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 197-198]
.)q
Sentence (89.3) is Jake's subjective sentence.  A paragraph break
and an objective sentence follow, and so the situation at the
beginning of (89.5) is postsubjective-nonactive.
The algorithm does not interpret (89.5) to be subjective, because
the potential subjective element `as big' is not a subjective element 
in the postsubjective-active situation.  Call is the active
character of (89.6), since he has been the subjective character.
At the beginning of (89.7), therefore, the situation is
postsubjective-active, the last subjective character is Jake, and
the last active character is Call.
Sentence (89.7) is subjective
because it contains the modifying intensifier adverb 
`mighty', a
subjective element in this situation.  Since (89.7)
is not about Call,
the algorithm interprets it to be Call's subjective
sentence, which is the correct interpretation.
A demonstration of the algorithm on simplified versions of
(89.2)-(89.7) follows.
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 13:17:04 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 13:17:10 1989
sneps

: Previous_subj_char Call.
Call has been the subj_char 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 1.316 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize situation to postsubj-nonactive.
The situation is now postsubj-nonactive

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.200 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Initialize last_subj_char to Jake.
Jake is the last_subj_char

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 1.00 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Quoted_speech Jake said.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
Jake is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
Sentence with an active_char in postsubj-nonactive situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 4.816 gc= 2.350) <=) 

: He did not want to hear this.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
      Jake, the last active_char 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  private_state of Jake
The subj_char is Jake
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 12.383 gc= 2.450) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is continuing-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is broken-subj 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.350 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Swift Bill Spettle had let a horse kick him.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is broken-subj
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  shifted_past
It is not a subjective element 
The sentence is not subjective 
Objective sentence without an active_char in broken-subj situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 13.266 gc= 2.450) <=) 

: He had a knot on his forehead as big as a goose egg.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  as_modifier
It is not a subjective element 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still postsubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 17.066 gc= 2.516) <=) 

: Paragraph.
Before the paragraph break: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
After the paragraph break: 
  The situation is still postsubj-nonactive 
  The last subj_char is still an expected subjective character 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 0.350 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: Quoted_speech Call said.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-nonactive
  Expected subjective character: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
Call is the active_char of this sentence 
The sentence is not subjective 
Sentence with an active_char in postsubj-nonactive situation: 
  situation is now postsubj-active 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 4.633 gc= 0.00) <=) 

: The boys were mighty green.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is postsubj-active
  Expected subjective characters: 
      Jake, the last subj_char 
      Call, the last active_char 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  modifying_intensifier_adverb_B
It is a subjective element 
Competition between the last subj_char and the last active_char 
 Choosing the last active_char 
Subjective context established by this feature: 
  modifying_intensifier_adverb_B
The subj_char is Call
The situation is now continuing-subj 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 6.400 gc= 2.550) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:4> 
script done on Mon Jul 24 13:27:22 1989
.)q
.fi
.pp
The following passage is interesting because two characters are
the last active character:
.(q
(90)
.br
\*[90.1\*]Newt had not expected the jump \*[90.2\*]and lost 
both stirrups, \*[90.3\*]but
fortunately diverted the heifers so that they turned
back into the main herd.  \*[90.4\*]He found his heart was
beating fast, partly because he had almost been thrown and partly because
he had nearly left thirty cattle behind.  \*[90.5\*]With such a start, it
seemed to him he would be lucky to get to Montana without disgracing himself.
     \*[90.6\*]Call and Augustus rode 
along together, some distance from the herd.
\*[90.7\*]They were moving through 
fairly open country, flats of chaparral with only
here and there a strand of mesquite.  
.ul
\*[90.8\*]That would soon change:
the first challenge would be the
brush country, an almost impenetrable band of thick mesquite between them
and San Antonio.  \*[90.9\*]Only a few of the hands were experienced in the
brush, \*[90.10\*]and a bad run of some kind might cost them hundreds of cattle.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 241]
.)q
Sentences (90.1)-(90.5) are Newt's subjective sentences.  The situation
after the paragraph break is broken-subjective.  Call and Augustus
have both been the subjective character, so they are the
active character of both (90.6) and (90.7), which denote their current actions
(the progressive in (90.7) is not a subjective element, because the
progressive is a subjective element only in the continuing-subjective 
situation).
The situation at the beginning of (90.8), therefore, is
postsubjective-active, the last subjective character is Newt, and
the last active character is Call and Augustus.
Sentence (90.8) is subjective because `would' appears; the algorithm
chooses Call and Augustus to be the subjective character because
they are the last active character and the sentence is not about them.
This is the correct interpretation.
.pp
There are, however, some
passages that pose problems for the algorithm's treatment of
the last active character.
The first relates to the
example just given:  the actor is more than one character,
but in contrast to the example just given, not all of them
have been the subjective character.  According to the algorithm,
a group
of characters cannot be the active character unless each of them
has been the subjective character.
As mentioned in Chapter 4, Section 2.2, this rule is arbitrary; a larger
body of texts need to be examined to determine if it is justified.
In the following passage,
this rule seems to result in the less preferable interpretation:
.(q
(91)
.br
     \*[91.1\*]``You cannot have them both, you know,'' Ugiel said.
     \*[91.2\*]Then he was gone.

     \*[91.3\*]Yalith and Oholibamah spread skins over some low scrub palms.
.ul
\*[91.4\*]Some skins they would discard, if they were too soiled.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 191]
.)q
The extra blank line does accompany a scene break, and
so the situation at the beginning of (91.3) is presubjective-nonactive.
Yalith, but not
Oholibamah, has been the subjective character.  If they were the active
character of (91.3), then the situation at the beginning of
(91.4) would be presubjective-active.  The algorithm would
interpret (91.4) to be subjective, because `would' and
conditionals are subjective elements
in the presubjective-active situation; it would attribute the
sentence to Yalith and Oholibamah, the last active character.
Under this reading,
the conditional expresses their intention.
On the other
hand, since the algorithm does not allow a set or group of characters
to become the active character unless all of them have been the
subjective character,
Yalith and Oholibamah do not become the active character of (91.3).
The situation at the beginning of (91.4) is presubjective-\c
.ul
nonactive,
and, since `would' and conditionals are
.ul
not
subjective elements in this situation, the algorithm does not
interpret (91.4) to be subjective.
Under this reading,
the reader is simply being told what will happen in the future.
However, interpreting (91.4) to be subjective seems to be the
preferable interpretation.
.pp
The way that sentences are broken up into input units is responsible
for the algorithm's misinterpretation of the following passage:
.(q
(92)
.br
     \*[92.1\*]``Well, he is,'' Call said, not anxious to have to explain
the situation.
     \*[92.2\*]``Jake won't camp with us old cobs,'' Augustus 
said.  \*[92.3\*]``He's
traveling with a valet, if you know what that is.''
     \*[92.4\*]``No, but if it's traveling with Jake I bet it wears skirts,''
Soupy said\(em\c
.ul
a remark which for some reason seemed to catch everybody wrong.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 225]
.)q
Sentence (92.1) is Call's subjective sentence.  Paragraph breaks
and objective sentences follow, and the situation at the beginning
of (92.4) is postsubjective-nonactive.
The italicized part of (92.4) should be attributed to 
.ul
Soupy:
.ul
He 
doesn't know why his remark has the effect that it does.  However,
since the italicized part of (92.4) is subordinated, and not
coordinated to the other parts, it does not form a separate input
unit.  Thus, the algorithm misinterprets (92.4) to be the subjective
sentence of 
the last subjective character,
Call.
Soupy has been the subjective character, so
if the italicized portion of (92.4) 
were 
a separate input unit,
Soupy would be the active character of the input unit denoting his
quoted speech.
Then the algorithm 
.ul
would 
be able to recognize that the italicized
portion of (92.4) is Soupy's subjective clause, since it
is not about Soupy.
.pp
Finally, consider the restriction that a sentence has to be
in the simple past for it to make a character the topic character.
This typically works, but not always.
The situation is postsubjective-nonactive at the beginning of the 
following passage, 
and the last subjective character is
Augustus, not Jake.
.(q
(93)
.br
     \*[93.1\*]He [Jake] had got the thorn in his thumb hobbling the
horses the night before, and had been unable to get it out in the
dark.  \*[93.2\*]Now his thumb was swollen to twice its size,
for a green mesquite thorn was only slightly less poisonous than a
rattlesnake.
.ul
\*[93.3\*]Besides,
he had slept badly on the stony ground, \*[93.4\*]and Lorie had 
refused him again, when
all he wanted was a little pleasure to take his mind off his
throbbing thumb.
.)q
Because (93.1) is in the shifted past, Jake is not the active
character of this sentence.
However, (93.3) is clearly his, and not Augustus's,
subjective sentence.  In addition, even if he were the active
character of (93.1) (so the situation would be postsubjective-active
at the beginning of (93.3), and he would be the last active character),
the algorithm would still misinterpret (93.3)
to be Augustus's subjective sentence, since the sentence is about Jake.
This is the example found for which the rule for resolving 
competition between the last subjective character and 
the last subjective character fails.
.sh 1 "IMPRESSIONS AND PERCEPTIONS WITHOUT AN OBSERVER."
Recall from Chapter 2 that some passages describe what one
would see and the impressions one would have if observing the
scene, but there isn't a character present who experiences the
perceptions and impressions.
The passage below is an example.
It appears just after a scene break, and so there isn't an
expected subjective character.
It does not contain potential subjective elements associated with
the presubjective-nonactive situation,
but it does contain others,
even some that are
associated with the postsubjective-nonactive, postsubjective-active, and
presubjective-active situations.
But, since there isn't an expected subjective character to whom the
potential subjective elements can be attributed, the algorithm does
not interpret any sentences to be subjective.
This interpretation is right,
given that the algorithm's goal is to recognize 
.ul
characters'
subjective sentences.
.pp
The potential subjective elements that would be subjective elements if
there were an expected subjective character are italicized.
Note that the sentences following `\(em' are a kind of unuttered
quoted speech.  Although it is long, the entire passage is
cited to show that no observer is present to whom the potential 
subjective elements are attributed.
.(q
     ``We're coming,'' Oholibamah said.  And they hurried
toward the central section of the oasis, where Noah's vineyards were,
and his grazing grounds, and his tents.  And where Dennys was waiting
for them.

     The moon set, its path whiter than the desert sands dwindling
into shadow.  The stars moved in their joyous dance across the
sky.  The horizon was dark with that deep darkness which comes
just before the dawn.
     A vulture flew down,
.ul
seemingly
out of nowhere, stretching its naked neck, settling its dark feathers.
     \(emVultures are underestimated.  Without us, disease would wipe out
all life.  We clean up garbage, feces, dead bodies of man and beast.  We
are not appreciated.
     No
.ul
sound
was heard and
.ul
yet
the words
.ul
seemed
scratched upon the air.
     A scarab beetle burrowed up out of the sand and blinked
at the vulture.  \(emIt is true. You help keep the world clean.
I appreciate you.
     And it disappeared beneath the sand.
     A crocodile crawled across the desert, lumbering along
clumsily, far from its native waters.  It was followed by the
dragon/lizard, who stretched his leather wings, showing
off.  A dark, hooded snake slithered past them both.
     A small, brown, armored creature, not 
.ul
much 
bigger than
the scarab beetle, skittered along beside the snake.  \(emWe
are invulnerable.  We have survived the fire of the volcanoes, 
the earthquakes that pushed the continents apart
and raised the mountain ranges.  We are immortal. We
cover the planet.
     A bat, brighter than gold, swooped low over the cock
roach.  \(emYou are proud, and you can survive fire and ice,
but I could eat you if I had to.  I hope I never have to.
    And the golden bat soared high, a 
.ul
bright flash 
against
the dark.
     A tiny mimicry of a crocodile, with a blunt nose, a skunk
scrabbled along beside the crocodile and the dragon/lizard.
\(emI am small, and swift, and my flesh is not edible and
causes damage to the brain.  I am the way that I am.  That
is how I am made.
     On the skunk's back, a flea tried to dig through the
armored flesh.  \(emI, too, am the way that I am.
     A 
.ul
shrill whine 
cut across the clear air.  A mosquito
droned.  \(emI, too. I, too. I will feast on your blood.
     A small, slimy worm wriggled across the sand, leaving
a thin trail.  A slug's viscous path followed.  \(emI am not like
the snail, needing a house.  I am sufficient unto myself.
     A red ant crawled along the dragon/lizard's wing, and
held tight as it tried to shake the biting insect off.  A rat,
sleek and well filled, wriggled its nose and whiskers and
looked at the vulture's naked neck.  \(emI, too, eat the filth
off the streets.  I eat flesh.  I prefer living flesh, but I will
take what I can get.  I, too, help keep the world clean.
     No 
.ul
sound 
was heard. Like negative light, the words
cracked the desert night.
    The twelve 
.ul
oddly 
assorted creatures began to position
themselves into a circle.
.ul
    The nephilim.

     Oholibamah lay in Japheth's arms on a large, flat stone a short
walk into the desert.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 118-119]
.)q
For example, the algorithm does not interpret the following sentence to
be subjective even though it contains an attitude_adverbial, since
it appears in the presubjective-nonactive situation:
.(q
.nf
Script started on Mon Jul 24 13:56:02 1989
gort:1:1> sneps
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
Mon Jul 24 13:56:10 1989
sneps

: A vulture flew down, seemingly out of nowhere.
At the beginning of this sentence: 
  The situation is presubj-nonactive
  There are no expected subjective characters 
Potential subjective element considered: 
  attitude_adverbial
It is not a subjective element 
The sentence is not subjective 
The situation is still presubj-nonactive 

(time (sec.) : => (cpu= 7.450 gc= 0.00) <=) 

*(exit)
No files updated. 
gort:1:2> 
script done on Mon Jul 24 14:00:46 1989
.)q
.fi
.sh 1 "EXCEPTIONS."
This section discusses sentences that the algorithm misinterprets
in one of two ways:  either it interprets a sentence to be
subjective that is actually not subjective, or it attributes
a subjective sentence to the wrong character.  Failure
due to the rule that a nonprivate-state sentence is subjective in
the continuing-subjective situation
was illustrated in Section
8, and failure due to the algorithm's treatment of the last active
character
was illustrated in Section 11.  Further, subjective sentences that the algorithm
is unable to recognize appear in some passages cited in previous sections;
these sentences were pointed out in the discussion of those passages.
.sh 2 "Discontinuities."
An area for future research are other kinds of narrative discontinuities
(Bruder et al. 1986; Nakhimovsky and Rapaport 1987)
than scene breaks that an expected subjective character does not survive.
In
this passage, for example, there is a shift in the narrative WHERE.
O'Keefe is the last subjective character when it is 
encountered:
.(q
(94)
.br
     \*[94.1\*]The second call, which followed immediately, was from
a pay telephone in the 
hotel lobby.  \*[94.2\*]``Hullo, Ogden,'' Curtis 
O'Keefe said when the caller identified himself, \*[94.3\*]``I'm reading your
report now.''
     \*[94.4\*]In the lobby, eleven floors below, a balding sallow man who
.ul
looked
like an accountant which\(emamong other things\(emhe was,
nodded confirmation to a younger male companion waiting outside
the glass-paneled phone booth.  \*[94.5\*]The caller, whose name was Ogden
Bailey and his home Long Island, had been registered in the
hotel for the past two weeks as Richard Fountain of Miami.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 129]
.)q
The narrative WHERE
shifts from O'Keefe's location to a location eleven
stories below.  It seems that O'Keefe does not survive as an
expected subjective character 
over this shift in place, and that although (94.4) contains 
the seeming verb `looked', it does not seem to be a character's
subjective sentence.
.sh 2 "Non-Specific Narrative-WHEN."
Passages that do not have a specific 
narrative WHEN, 
but instead describe how
things are in general during a certain time period,
can also pose
problems for the algorithm.  Although these passages can begin
with a particular character's subjective sentences, they can
``drift away'' from that character and take a group or class
psychological point of view.  For interested readers,
examples of passages like these are 
.ul
Lonesome Dove,
the last paragraph of page 193 through the fourth paragraph of
page 195, and
.ul
Many Waters,
paragraph nine of page 180 through paragraph two of page 181,
which are too long to cite here.
The 
.ul
Many Waters 
passage
appears just after a scene break, and it begins with ``Every day''.
One problem that the algorithm encounters in this passage is
that `would' is not used subjectively, but instead refers to
the general time of the passage.  For example:
.(q
Japheth, like his wife and Yalith, would stay to eat, to talk.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 180]
.)q
In the context in which it appears, this sentence is not a prediction
about the future.  It is interpreted as if it began with ``Every day''.
.sh 2 "The Expected Subjective Character Needs to be Refreshed."
Even if 
.ip (i)
there is a specific narrative WHEN, and
.ip (ii) 
there are no discontinuities in a passage, so that the
story remains at the same narrative WHERE and narrative WHEN, and 
.ip (iii)
the last subjective sentence appeared in the current scene, and
the last subjective character remains in the scene
.in 0
.sp
if a passage continues for too long without a subjective sentence,
the last subjective character can cease to be an expected subjective character. 
Then,
potential subjective elements that are associated
with the postsubjective-nonactive situation (but not with the
.ul
pre\c
subjective-nonactive situation)
can appear without strongly subjective meanings.
This is the situation when the following sentence is encountered:
.(q
Elisheba, Shem's wife, stocky and
.ul
sensible-looking,
with thickly curling black hair and dark, placid eyes, snorted.
[L'Engle,
.ul
Many Waters\c
, p. 73-74]
.)q
As it appears in context,
this sentence seems simply to describe Elisheba for the benefit of the
reader, and not describe Elisheba from the perspective of the
last subjective character,
since the last subjective sentence appeared over two pages ago.
.sh 2 "`When'-Clauses." 
Thompson (1987) shows that although `when'-clauses are subordinated
clauses, they can advance the narrative line.  It seems that some
sentences with `when'-clauses that denote actions, and of which the
verb phrase of the main clause is in the progressive, should be
the actors' subjective sentences.
For example:
.(q
(95)
.br
     \*[95.1\*]``I want you to be the scout,'' the Captain 
said.  \*[95.2\*]``We got
plenty of men to keep the stock moving.  I want you to find
us water and a good bed ground every night.''
     \*[95.3\*]Deets nodded modestly, but 
inside he felt proud.  \*[95.4\*]Being made
scout was more of an honor than having your name on a sign.
\*[95.5\*]It was proof that the Captain thought highly of his abilities.
     \*[95.6\*]When they got back to the wagon Augustus was oiling his
guns.  \*[95.7\*]Lippy fanned himself with his bowler, \*[95.8\*]and most of the
other hands were just sitting around wishing it was cooler.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 235]
.)q
Sentence (95.6) is the
kind of sentence mentioned above:  there is a `when'-clause, and the
verb phrase of the main clause, 
.ul
Augustus was oiling his guns,
is in the progressive.
As I read it, Augustus oiling his guns is
what The Captain and Deets
perceive when they get back to the wagon.  
However, the
algorithm misinterprets
this passage.  It does not interpret (95.6)-(95.7) to be subjective,
and it interprets (95.8), which contains `just' used as a subjective
element, to be 
Lippy's 
subjective sentence:  He has been the subjective character and so
he is the active character of (95.7);
since the sentence isn't
about him, competition is resolved in his favor.
However, sentence (95.7) is not Lippy's subjective sentence.
.sh 2 "Sentences that Are Not Clearly Subjective or Objective."
Consider this passage:
.(q
(96)
.br
     \*[96.1\*]But the St. Gregory isn't my hotel, Curtis O'Keefe reminded
himself.  \*[96.2\*]Not yet.
     \*[96.3\*]He headed for Reception, a slender, dapper six-foot figure
in precisely pressed charcoal gray, moving with dance-like,
.ul
almost 
mincing steps.  The last was an O'Keefe characteristic whether on
a handball court, as he often was, a ballroom floor or on the
rolling deck of his ocean-going cruiser 
.ul
Innkeeper IV.
His lithe athlete's body had been his pride through most of his
fifty-six years in which he had manipulated himself upward from
a lower-middle-class nonentity to become one of the nation's 
richest\(emand most restless\(emmen.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 99]
.)q
O'Keefe is the suspended subjective character when `almost' used
as a hedge is encountered in (96.3).  Sentence (96.3) seems subjective,
but it is very hard to read as O'Keefe's subjective sentence.  The
reason why I entertain the
possibility that (96.3) is in some way O'Keefe's subjective
sentence is the appearance of the
following strange passage, which appears just two
paragraphs before (96):
.(q
(97)
.br
     \*[97.1\*]Curtis O'Keefe marched into the busy, cavernous lobby
swiftly, like an arrow piercing an apple's core.  
.ul
\*[97.2\*]And a slightly decayed apple, he thought critically.
.)q
This appears just after a scene break, so it appears in the
presubjective-nonactive situation.
Since comparative `like' is
not a subjective element in this situation,
the algorithm
does not interpret (97.1) to be subjective.  And, up to this point, the passage
does seem to simply be objective description.  I found O'Keefe's
thought about this description in (97.2) to be very strange.
Passages such as these, which include description that is not clearly
just subjective or just objective,
can pose problems for the algorithm.
.sh 2 "Over-Recognition of Subjective Sentences."
Even if the kinds of complications discussed so far in this
section do not arise, a potential subjective element might not
be subjective even if it appears in a situation with which it
is associated.
These occur in the
considered texts infrequently, however.
.sh 3 "`As If' Clauses."
A few sentences that are not clearly a character's subjective sentence
were found that contain `as if' clauses, even though there is an
expected subjective character
when the sentence is encountered.  This potential subjective element requires
further investigation.
First, it 
can be used when someone is pretending to do something he is not:
.(q
For Keycase, the rest was routine.  Strolling past the trash can, he
tossed in his own folded newspaper, then,
.ul
as if abruptly changing his mind,
turned back and recovered it.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 104]
.)q
Keycase is the last subjective character
at the beginning of this passage.  The `as if'
clause describes his behavior; he is only pretending that he abruptly
changed his mind.  It is not an evidential indicating that someone
inferred from his behavior that he abruptly changed his mind.
.pp
But, consider this passage:
.(q
(98)
.br
     \*[98.1\*]Then he [Newt] immediately felt silly for 
asking it.  \*[98.2\*]``I
guess it's a mighty far piece, up north,'' he said,
.ul
as if to relieve the Captain of the need to answer.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 223]
.)q
Newt is the last subjective character at the beginning of (98.2), and
the algorithm interprets (98.2) to be his subjective sentence because
`as if' appears.
However, it is difficult to understand
this sentence as his subjective sentence.  Note that this use
of `as if' is not like the one in the previous passage, where
it is used to describe dissembling behavior.
.sh 3 "Other Potential Subjective Elements."
Some examples were found of potential subjective elements
other than `as if' clauses appearing
in sentences that are not clearly characters' subjective
sentences, even though they appear in situations with which they
are associated.
An example is the following:
.(q
(99)
.br
     \*[99.1\*]Then the thought of how empty the saloon would soon be
filled him [Xavier] with gloom, \*[99.2\*]and he stood by 
the door most of the night,
his washrag dripping down his leg.
     \*[99.3\*]Lippy was kept
.ul
plenty
busy, for the cowboys were always requesting songs.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 186]
.)q
Although the situation at the beginning of (99.3) is broken-subjective,
and `plenty' is associated with this situation,
(99.3) is not Xavier's (the last subjective character's) subjective sentence.
.sh 2 "The Wrong Subjective Character."
One situation in which the algorithm can attribute a subjective sentence
to the wrong character is if the actual subjective character is
a participant in a conversation, particularly
a telephone conversation.  In most cases, however, the subjective
character is an expected subjective character, even if a 
conversation is taking place.
.pp
Further, if the content of a subjective sentence is not related at all
to what
the expected subjective character 
has been thinking about, then it is not the expected subjective character's
subjective sentence.
Consider this passage:
.(q
     He [Jake] felt distinctly irritated with Call\(emthe man never
seemed to need any of the things other humans needed, like
sleep or women.  Life for Call was work, and he seemed to think
everyone else ought to see it the same way.
     ``Why, Jake, you look plumb grumpy,'' Augustus said,
when Jake sat down and began to eat.   ``Honest work don't agree with
you, I guess.''
     ``No, I'm about as cooked as this beef,'' Jake said.
     Newt and the two Irishmen were holding the herd.  The Irishmen
were
.ul
particularly
good night herders because they could sing; their melodies seemed to
soothe the cattle.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 196]
.)q
Although Jake is the last subjective character when `particularly'
is encountered, the sentence in which it appears is not related to
Jake's current concerns.
By the end of the last paragraph, it becomes clear that the
text has shifted to Call's subjective context.
.pp
Another issue is discussed in Chapter 5:  There can be
broadening of the psychological point of view.
.sh 2 "No Scene Break." 
Suppose that there has been a subjective sentence in the current
scene,
so that the last subjective character is an expected subjective character.
There is nothing that prevents an author from beginning
an objective context, and including in it some potential subjective 
elements that are associated with situations in which the
last subjective character is an expected subjective character.
It is just that this typically is not done;
instead, a scene break (or another kind of discontinuity, see 
Section 13.1, above)
usually appears that makes the last subjective character
no longer an expected subjective character.
The following passage is not typical.
.(q
\*[100.1\*]On this latest trip he [Cy Lewin] noticed that the jerkiness
had stopped.  \*[100.2\*]Well, whatever
.ul
that 
trouble was, he guessed it had fixed itself.
.ul
     \*[100.3\*]He could not have been more wrong.
     \*[100.4\*]High above Cy Lewin, perched like an eyrie on the hotel
roof, was the elevator control room.  \*[100.5\*]There, in the mechanical
heart of number four elevator, a small electrical relay
had reached the limit of its useful life.
[Hailey,
.ul
Hotel\c
, p. 390; italics in (100.2) in original]
.)q
Sentences (100.1)-(100.2) are clearly Lewin's subjective sentences.  Then,
with only a paragraph break (and without any spatial or temporal
discontinuities), the passage shifts to an objective context that
contains potential subjective elements that the algorithm interprets
to be subjective elements, in particular `wrong' and `could' (which is
accompanied by `have') in (100.3).
If (100.3)
were Lewin's subjective sentence, the situation at the beginning
of (100.4) would be broken-subjective,
so the comparative use of `like' in
(100.4) would be a subjective element, and would continue his subjective
context.  Instead, (100.3)-(100.5) are not Lewin's subjective sentences;
information that Lewin
.ul
does not
have is suddenly presented.
.sh 1 "DETERMINING IF AN ELEMENT IS A POTENTIAL SUBJECTIVE ELEMENT."
As is evident from Section 9, determining if a
linguistic element is used as a potential subjective element is
often not straightforward.  Since many potential subjective elements 
are defined in terms of their grammatical functions and their meanings,
the ability to determine in general if a linguistic element is
used as a potential subjective element requires that both syntactic
and semantic ambiguities be resolved.  In addition, for some
potential subjective elements, whether or not a sentence is
about a specific individual or event must be determined (e.g.,
assertive indefinite pronouns).
Solving these problems is beyond the scope of 
this dissertation.  Note that any NLU
system, whether or not one of its goals is to recognize subjective sentences,
is faced with these problems.  For example, determining whether `then'
indicates something
about the structure of an argument (an inferential conjunct), refers
to a time (a deictic term), or advances a narrative line (e.g. ``Then
she left'')
is essential
to understanding both the sentence itself and the discourse in which it
appears.
My contribution is to show how a linguistic element that is
used in a certain way
grammatically and semantically can be used to recognized subjective
sentences.
.pp
The sentence-level parser is able to determine if certain linguistic
elements, for which it is straightforward
to do so, are used as potential subjective elements.
These are exclamations that end with exclamation points,
questions, kinship terms (although it cannot determine if a
kinship term has assumed the status of a proper name, such
as `Grandfather Lamech' in 
.ul
Many Waters; 
see Section 9.2.5), 
noun-phrase and verb-phrase sentence fragments,
the shifted past, the progressive, conditionals beginning with `if'
(`if' unambiguously begins a conditional clause), reaction signals,
comparative `like', comparison clauses of the form `as' <modifier>,
and adverbs,
adjectives, nouns, auxiliary verbs,
and verbs that are always potential
subjective elements, such as `surprisingly', `strange',
`fool', `must', and `glimmered'.  It can determine that a sentence is
habitual if an adverb such as `occasionally' appears.
In addition, it uses Banfield's syntactic rules for deciding if
an evaluative adjective is used with its evaluative meaning,
but as discussed in Section 9.2.4, these rules are not sufficient in general.
The parser treats all occurrences of `seem' and `appear' as seeming
verbs, and never as seeming-state sentences.  In addition, `look'
is always treated as a psychological-action term, never as a seeming verb.
The verb `feel' is so ambiguous that it cannot be given to the parser
as input.
.sh 1 "ROLE IN COMPREHENSION."
It is possible that text situations and expected subjective characters
are useful for recognizing subjective
sentences only because texts happen to be written the way that they are,
and that this information has no role in a reader's comprehension
of narrative text.  However, the following ways in which this information might
affect a reader's comprehension
are useful areas for future empirical investigation.
.pp
First, consider the use of the text situation to decide if a potential
subjective element is a subjective element.
There is discourse continuity among the sentences of a subjective context
in the sense that the sentences are all understood with respect to the
same psychological point of view.
The algorithm's use of the text situation to decide if a potential subjective 
element is a subjective element assumes that textual continuity
is related to discourse continuity:  Potential subjective elements that
are interpreted to be subjective elements 
only if the immediately preceding
sentence is subjective can be weaker than those that are
interpreted to be subjective elements in other situations as well.
Textual continuity might similarly influence a reader's interpretation of
potential subjective elements.
Suppose that the current sentence is an action sentence in the shifted
past, and that it immediately follows a subjective sentence.
It may be that because the sentence immediately follows a subjective
sentence, the reader directs her efforts toward determining why
the action is relevant to the expected subjective character's concerns 
as expressed in the
previous subjective sentence(s).  This might be so even though sentences
in the shifted past can easily be understood to be objective narrative
statements.
Consider passage (84):
.(q
(84)
.br
     \*[84.1\*]When he [Call] got within fifteen miles of Lonesome Dove he cut
west, thinking they would be holding the herd in that 
direction.  \*[84.2\*]He
rode around the southern edge of the bad brush country \*[84.3\*]and struck
the trail of the horses.  \*[84.4\*]They had been going 
back south, over their own
tracks, which was curious.  
.ul
\*[84.5\*]Gus had taken them back to town.
\*[84.6\*]Probably he had a reason, \*[84.7\*]but it was not one Call 
could guess, so he
loped on home.
[McMurtry,
.ul
Lonesome Dove\c
, p. 181]
.)q
Sentence (84.5) is an action sentence in the shifted past.  It is not
an objective statement narrating that Gus took the horses back
to town.  Instead, it is Call's conclusion, based on his observations
about the trail made by the horses.  It is hypothesized that
because (84.5)
immediately follows Call's subjective sentence, the reader asks herself 
why the action is relevant to what Call is concerned with, rather than
simply understanding the sentence to be an objective sentence.
.pp
The difference between the continuing-subjective and 
broken-subjective situations
is whether
a paragraph break separates the current and previous sentences.
Stark (1988) 
showed empirically that a paragraph break can influence
the reader's comprehension of the text,
although readers do not
pursue a blind strategy whereby paragraph breaks alone are 
considered:  ``The effect of a paragraph cue is an interaction between
the cue and the content of what is being cued'' (p. 299).
Her stimulus materials were expository rather than narrative texts, and so she
did not specifically investigate how paragraph breaks might influence
a reader's recognition of subjective sentences.
.pp
Paragraph breaks often accompany discontinuities.  Stark's results
showed a significant correlation between discontinuities in
local semantic connectedness and paragraph breaks.  That is,
if a sentence is not related to its predecessor through
a relation such as contrast or coordination, then a paragraph break
often appears.  In addition, as Nakhimovsky and Rapaport (1988) suggest,
changes in the psychological point of
view are often accompanied by paragraph breaks.  Stark suggests
for future investigation that perhaps readers orient their attention
away from their representation of the immediately preceding material
when they encounter a paragraph break.  In narrative, if a paragraph
break is encountered just after a subjective sentence, the reader
may orient her attention away from the subjective character's
consciousness, and be less disposed to interpreting the sentence 
to be subjective than if the paragraph break did not appear.
.pp
In the postsubjective-nonactive, postsubjective-active, and
presubjective-active situations, there is not
a local context directing the reader to understand
a sentence with respect to a character's consciousness.
Thus, if a sentence appears in one of these situations,
and it only contains a potential subjective element that
can easily be understood to be objective (such as the shifted past),
then the reader may be inclined to simply understand the sentence to be 
objective.
The potential subjective elements that are associated
with these situations can be
subjective elements for strong reasons.  Perhaps whenever one of them
appears, the reader tries 
to identify whose evaluation, emotion, lack of
knowledge, etc., is being expressed, even if the previous sentence
was not subjective.
.pp
Now consider the algorithm's use of expected subjective characters
to identify subjective characters.
The following discussion concerns sentences that are not
private-state sentences, seeming-state sentences, psychological-action
and perceptual-action sentences, or sentences with narrative
parentheticals.  In addition, it concerns situations in which
there is only one expected subjective character (a more complicated
version of the same discussion could address the complexity of
two expected subjective characters).
.pp
It may merely be coincidence that
the subjective character of a subjective sentence is typically the
expected subjective character; the reader 
might not consider who the expected subjective character is
when identifying the subjective character, but only consider
the content of the sentence.  In some cases, however, it is equally
plausible that more than one character is the subjective character, and
the expected subjective character
must be considered to identify the subjective character.
In other cases, there is only one character who is plausibly
the subjective character, so the reader could arrive at the proper
interpretation by considering all possibilities and then selecting
the most plausible one.  Sidner's work on pronoun resolution
(Sidner 1983) suggests a hypothesis for how the reader might
use the expected subjective character to 
identify the subjective character, even in cases where
only one character is plausibly the subjective character.
.pp
Sidner shows that the syntactic roles of individuals (e.g., the subject)
suggest a referent for a pronoun in the current sentence.\**
.(f
\**
Grosz and Sidner (1986) show in addition 
that the discourse segment in which the sentence appears and the
corresponding focus space also influences who the referent is (see also
Reichman 1985 and Fox 1987).
.)f
Her algorithm considers the suggested referent first; if the resulting
interpretation is plausible, then the suggested referent is chosen
to be the referent of the pronoun.  Only if the resulting interpretation
is 
.ul
not 
plausible do other possibilities need to be considered.  Thus, since
the rules used to determine the suggested referent are often
reliable, the algorithm avoids unnecessary computation.
.pp
Similarly,
the reader might first consider if it is plausible that the
expected subjective character
is the subjective character, and only consider other
possibilities if it isn't plausible.  Since the expected subjective 
character typically 
.ul
is
the subjective character, this would avoid unnecessary computation.
A future empirical investigation could involve two studies.  
The first could investigate whether the 
expected subjective character is chosen to be
the subjective character if there are more than one character that
could plausibly be the subjective character.  The second could investigate
whether the expected subjective character is 
the first character considered, and so if the
expected subjective character is the most plausible choice, 
other possibilities are
not considered.  Reading times could be compared in two 
situations:  the situation in which the most plausible choice is the
expected subjective character, and the situation in 
which the most plausible choice is
.ul
not
the expected subjective character.
If readers do consider the expected subjective character 
first, then reading
times in the first situation will be lower than in the second situation.
.sh 1 "SUMMARY OF ASSOCIATIONS."
This section summarizes the association of potential subjective elements
with text situations.
.sp
Potential subjective elements associated at the highest level with the
presubjective-nonactive situation:
.in +2
.sp
exclamations, questions, the intensifiers
`enough', `so', `such', and `too',
evaluative adjectives and kinship terms.
.in 0
.sp
Potential subjective elements associated at the highest level with the
presubjective-active, postsubjective-nonactive, and postsubjective-active
situations:
.in +2
.sp
sentence fragments, attitude adjectives, attitude nouns, percept terms,
assertive indefinite pronouns, <wh>-`ever' subordinators, conditionals,
auxiliary verbs and operators, seeming verbs, `as if' clauses,
`as though' clauses, modifying intensifier adverbs A,
modifying intensifier adverbs B,
modifying emphasizer adverbs, attitude adverbials, and attitude diminishers
(a distinguished subcategory of attitude adverbials). 
.in 0
.sp
Potential subjective elements associated at the highest level with the
interrupted-subjective and broken-subjective situations:
.in +2
.sp
reaction signals, subject-verb inversion, comparative `like', `as' <modifier>
clauses, generic sentences, habitual sentences, impersonal sentences, and
quantifiers.
.in 0
.sp
Potential subjective elements associated at the highest level with the
continuing-subjective situation:
.in +2
.sp
the progressive aspect and shifted past tense.
.bp
.sz +2
.ce 2
.b