In these cases it is obvious that the pronouns don't refer, so they can't be coreferential with their antecedents, either.    From Wordnik.com.  [Discourse Representation Theory] Reference

If the pronoun were coreferential with its antecedent, the indefinite “a donkey” would have to be a referential term, which seems unlikely, e.g. because the negation of.    From Wordnik.com.  [Discourse Representation Theory] Reference

Note that this account of propositions (including the commitment to names being directly referential) entails that sentences that differ only with respect to coreferential names express the same proposition.    From Wordnik.com.  [Structured Propositions] Reference

They also have another property: aboutness or intentionality. (not intensionality, and not thinking of contexts in which coreferential terms are not substitutable salva veritate) Represent reality or some part of it as being thus and so.    From Wordnik.com.  [Backing Into an Evidentiary Standard for ID] Reference

We all know the “John cut himself while shaving” is correct, but stating the rule accurately and completely would require something like this: Given a sentence in which the subject and object of the verb are coreferential, you must substitute for the second of the two from the set of reflexive pronouns which matches the first in person, number, and gender.    From Wordnik.com.  [The Volokh Conspiracy » Against descriptivism and prescriptivism:] Reference

You skin laser treatment brightly be in my clothier, my frisbee and i introspection burp all the coreferential bolshy i vetchworm with you.    From Wordnik.com.  [Rational Review] Reference

˜water™-words were coreferential.    From Wordnik.com.  [Narrow Mental Content] Reference

˜a™ by coreferential term.    From Wordnik.com.  [Intentionality] Reference

“his” cannot be coreferential with it.    From Wordnik.com.  [Discourse Representation Theory] Reference