In computer science, a graph means a network: a collectionof things (people, web pages, subway stations, animal species, . . .) wheresome pairs of those things are joined by some kind of pairwise relationship(spent more than 15 minutes inside an enclosed space with, has a [hyper]linkto, is the stop before/after on some subway line, is a predator of, . . .).It’s possible to make graphs sound hopelessly abstract and utterlyuninteresting—a graph is a pair〈V, E〉, where V is a nonemptycollection of entities called nodes and E is acollection of edges that join pairs ofnodes—but graphs are fascinating whenever the entities andthe relationship represented by the edges are themselves interesting!Here are just a few examples.

Complement clause constructions express an event that functions as a participant in another event -- expressed as the complement and the complement-taking predicate (CTP), respectively. Complement clause constructions often differ depending on the type of CTP, and sometimes by the factivity (epistemic stance) of the complement event. Semantic types of CTPs form a hierarchy, the Binding Hierarchy, in terms of whether their complement will be expressed by a balanced or deranked dependent clause construction. Balanced complement clause constructions may originate in independent clauses, particularly direct speech complements, and spread down the Binding Hierarchy; some deranked complement clauses originate in purpose adverbial clause constructions. Complement clauses may share participants with the CTP event; this is inherent to CTP meaning at the lower end of the Binding Hierarchy, which includes TAMP forms. The argument structure constructions associated with complement clause constructions may reflect sharing of participants through partially or fully merged argument structure strategies, or via logophoric constructions.

Reference can be done by words defined by type (common nouns), token or individual (proper nouns), or contextually (pronouns). Reference in these three ways is almost always to individuals. The animacy of common noun categories is often relevant for grammatical behavior. Personal pronouns and demonstrative pronouns are defined by properties of the speech act context. Contextual expressions may stand alone for reference or function as modifiers of nouns, i.e. attributives or articles. Articles are defined by two subtle contextual properties, referent status and identifiability. Referent status involves accessibility in discourse or shared knowledge, and, for non-accessible referents, whether they are real or not. Identifiability pertains to whether the referent’s identity is known, or is only identifiable by type. Distribution of pronoun/article uses can be represented as semantic maps on a crosslinguistic conceptual space of functions. Tracking of a referent in discourse is grammatically encoded as often as referent accessibility or identifiability. Finally, reference to a type (generic) reference is possible; strategies are typically recruited from reference to a token.