How do the various views along this spectrum impact the Quinean project of using paraphrase to provide substitutes for ordinary language theories that can be evaluated for ontological commitment? For Quine, as already noted, there is no presumption that ordinary language quantification is ontologically serious.  But it is crucial to Quine's project that some portion of ordinary language can be used for ontologically serious discourse, and that when so used, quantification holds the key to ontological commitment. The allist view, although compatible with the Quinean project, will lead to attributions of ontological commitment wildly different from Quine's own. It makes ontological commitment hard to avoid, leading to overpopulated ontological slums; the desert landscape favored by Quine will be hard to come by.  Hofweber's view is more congenial to the Quinean project, so long as the “domain conditions” reading of the quantifiers can be stipulated to be in effect. That can be done, Quine seems to presuppose, merely by taking an appropriately serious attitude to the discourse in question. Inside the philosophy room—or, better, the ontology room—that attitude is pervasive. Outside the philosophy room, the philosopher is no less free than other speakers to engage in ontologically frivolous discourse (see Quine 1960: 210). Yablo's view would be congenial to the Quinean project if it were possible to make out the line between literal and figurative discourse: Quine's ontologically serious discourse could then be identified with thoroughly literal discourse, assertively uttered. But Yablo is skeptical that any such project can succeed, and sees that as dooming the Quinean approach to ontology. Azzouni's view, of course, is outright incompatible with the Quinean project. It leads towards a substantially different account of ontological commitment in which quantification plays no role (see Azzouni 2004: ch. 4).