Pronouns often don't have reference -- they have cross-reference. It is like the difference in high-school algebra between constants and variables. Constants are comparable to simple names of individuals, and when used, they have reference to those individuals.

Variables, like the "him" in "Everyone wants someone to love him", do not refer to individuals until a constant is substituted; then that constant will be the reference: "Horace wants someone to love him."

Pronouns can sometimes be used referentially, also, as above "him" refers to Horace. The previous example "Everyone wants someone to love him" is ambiguous in writing, since if the "him" is stressed, it could be used to refer to a certain person who is a desired object of affection in everyone's mind.

It is easier to discuss the referentiality of pronouns if we can used the notation of predicate logic and avoid distracting multiple interpretations.

Let's take an example similar to the one asked about: "Noone who respects himself should eat his hat." The "one", "who", "himself", and "his" are crossreferenced, though of course no individual is referred to -- the sentence is a generality. Using a variable to get at the logic of this, we could write "No x such that x respects x should eat x's hat".

If we use restricted quantification, one more step gives us a logical form: "(Any x: x respects x) not(x should eat x's hat)".

In the linguistic literature, instead of the term crossreference that I used above, one generally finds "coindex", or even "coreference", for the relationship between arguments represented by the same variable in a logical form. This is not the best terminology, since it seems to imply reference.

Pronouns often don't have reference -- they have cross-reference. It is like the difference in high-school algebra between constants and variables. Constants are comparable to simple names of individuals, and when used, they have reference to those individuals.

Variables, like the "him" in
1. "Everyone wants someone to love him",
do not refer to individuals until a constant is substituted. Then that constant will be the reference:
2. "Horace wants someone to love him."

Pronouns can sometimes be used referentially, also. In 2, "him" refers to Horace.
1 is ambiguous in writing, since if the "him" is stressed, "him" could be used to refer to a certain person who is a desired object of affection in everyone's mind.

It is easier to discuss the referentiality of pronouns if we can use the notation of predicate logic and avoid distracting multiple interpretations.

Let's take an example similar to the one asked about: "No one who respects himself should eat his hat." The "one", "who", "himself", and "his" are cross-referenced, though of course no individual is referred to -- the sentence is a generality. Using a variable to get at the logic of this, we could write "No x such that x respects x should eat x's hat".

If we use restricted quantification, one more step gives us a logical form: "(Any x: x respects x) not(x should eat x's hat)".

In the linguistic literature, instead of the term cross-reference that I used above, one generally finds "coindex", or even "coreference", for the relationship between arguments represented by the same variable in a logical form. This is not the best terminology, since it seems to imply reference.

Pronouns often don't have reference -- they have cross-reference. It is like the difference in high-school algebra between constants and variables. Constants are comparable to simple names of individuals, and when used, they have reference to those individuals.

Variables, like the "him" in "Everyone wants someone to love him", do not refer to individuals until a constant is substituted; then that constant will be the reference: "Horace wants someone to love him."

Pronouns can sometimes be used referentially, also, as above "him" refers to Horace. The previous example "Everyone wants someone to love him" is ambiguous in writing, since if the "him" is stressed, it could be used to refer to a certain person who is a desired object of affection in everyone's mind.

It is easier to discuss the referentiality of pronouns if we can used the notation of predicate logic and avoid distracting multiple interpretations.

Pronouns often don't have reference -- they have cross-reference. It is like the difference in high-school algebra between constants and variables. Constants are comparable to simple names of individuals, and when used, they have reference to those individuals.

Variables, like the "him" in "Everyone wants someone to love him", do not refer to individuals until a constant is substituted; then that constant will be the reference: "Horace wants someone to love him."

Pronouns can sometimes be used referentially, also, as above "him" refers to Horace. The previous example "Everyone wants someone to love him" is ambiguous in writing, since if the "him" is stressed, it could be used to refer to a certain person who is a desired object of affection in everyone's mind.

It is easier to discuss the referentiality of pronouns if we can used the notation of predicate logic and avoid distracting multiple interpretations.

Let's take an example similar to the one asked about: "Noone who respects himself should eat his hat." The "one", "who", "himself", and "his" are crossreferenced, though of course no individual is referred to -- the sentence is a generality. Using a variable to get at the logic of this, we could write "No x such that x respects x should eat x's hat".

If we use restricted quantification, one more step gives us a logical form: "(Any x: x respects x) not(x should eat x's hat)".

In the linguistic literature, instead of the term crossreference that I used above, one generally finds "coindex", or even "coreference", for the relationship between arguments represented by the same variable in a logical form. This is not the best terminology, since it seems to imply reference.