Conjunction reduction of sentences using 'exist' with different alleged senses (e.g., 'Toronto exists', 'Numbers exist', 'Triadic relations exist') into a single sentence does not produce zeugma
conjunction reduction(Canonical ambiguity detection test from Zwicky and Sadock (1975))
A test for ambiguity in which two sentences containing a purportedly ambiguous term are conjoined using the term only once, to determine whether zeugma or loss of interpretations results
zeugma(Central test throughout the passage; zeugmatic anomaly is taken as evidence of genuine ambiguity, but the reliability of this test is subject to several confounds discussed in the text)
A construction in which a single word or expression governs two or more other expressions under different senses, producing anomaly; used as a diagnostic test for lexical or structural ambiguity
Clearly, the ‘him’ in (43) can be interpreted as Phil or Stanley. But, crucially, how you interpret ‘him’ will depend on how you connect the two sentences. On the one hand, the interpretation of ‘him’ as referring to Phil goes hand in hand with a causal relation – its was the tickling that caused the poking (known as a result relation. Interpreting ‘him’ as referring to Stanley suggests goes hand in hand with a parallel relation. Of course the inference is defeasible – one can always break the c