Self-Contradiction And Circular Reasoning

Martin (1992: 103):

Text [3:16] shows that generic reference can be phoric: they refers generically to hot deserts, which information has to be recovered from the co-text.  But [3:16] also shows that generic participants can be introduced either definitely or indefinitely: the true hot deserts vs cool deserts.  Significantly, it does not seem to matter whether definite or indefinite deixis is used. … The reason for this is that with generic reference definiteness does not matter; as long as the experiential content of a generic nominal group is understood, it is clear which participant is being identified.

Blogger Comments:

[1] By definition, all reference is "phoric", whether endophoric (anaphoric or cataphoric), exophoric or homophoric.

[2] This again confuses the system for referring with the referent.  It is the referent that is generic, not the referral.

[3] To be clear, this is inconsistent with (contradicts) the unsupported claim on the previous page; Martin (1992: 102):

Presenting ["indefinite"] reference is thus strongly associated with first mention and presuming ["definite"] reference categorically associated with second mention.

[4] This again confuses the nominal group system of un/specific deixis — misconstrued as in/definite — with the cohesive system of reference.

[5] This is an instance of the logical fallacy known as circular reasoning.  The reason it does not seem to matter is that it does not matter.

[6] This again confuses the system for referring with the referent.  Given that it is actually the referent that is generic, the claim here is that as long as the experiential meaning of the generic referent is understood, it is clear which of the possible referents resolves the identity of the reference item.  If this were true, anaphora resolution wouldn't be the huge problem it is in Natural Language Processing (NLP).