回指的DRT形式方案的问题及其解决
|
摘要
本文针对句法-语用界面上的一个特例问题——回指消解进行研究。“回指消解”（Anaphora Resolution）即为回指语（anaphor）确定先行语（antecedent）的过程。回指（anaphora）是最常见的一种语言现象，它体现了语言的形式与内容之间错综复杂的关系。回指消解的研究旨在揭示话语理解的一般规律问题。由于回指现象不仅存在于句子内部，还普遍存在于句子之间；不仅由句法因素控制，还可以由诸如语用、认知等非句法因素控制，因此，回指消解始终都是自然语言处理中最复杂、最难解决的问题之一。
以Kamp（1981）为代表的话语表征理论（Discourse Representation Theory，简称DRT）把话语解读过程看作是受话者建构心理表征（mental representation）的动态过程。在技术上，DRT在模型-理论语义学（Model-Theoretic Semantics）的基础上发展了一种带有嵌入函数的语义模型，同时将话语表征结构（DiscourseRepresentation Structure，简称DRS）作为一个心智表达式引入到模型中来，克服了以往形式语义学的静态性、封闭性等弱点，从而把传统模型论单句语义的静态研究扩展到句子序列的动态语义研究，解决了经典逻辑关于名词短语的指称论与量化论之争。DRT通过一系列的DRS-构造规则（Construction Rules）和算法（Algorithm）动态地解释了指称性回指、变项约束性回指、E-类代词回指等长期困扰传统形式语义学家的话语回指问题，为抽象的语言研究提供了最佳的元语言，使语言研究走出了用语言研究语言的窘境。
然而，在对DRT的进一步研究中我们发现，DRT能够解释的回指现象仅限于有显性先行语的表层话语回指，而对于那些交际中更常见的、涉及到复杂的语用推理的深层回指现象，DRT则无法给出有效的解释。同时，我们认为，与自然语言的层次丰富、内容多样的实际特征相比，DRT仅利用单一层面的DRS作为话语解读的语境，这种做法无论在思想上还是技术上都过于简单化。认知语言学的研究成果表明，由某种语言形式触发所激活的概念不仅仅是一个与语言形式直接对应的单一心理表征，而且是一系列与该心理表征相关联的、具有丰富内涵的心理表征的集合。据此，本文提出，作为DRT灵魂主体的DRS不仅应该起到话语表征的作用，同时还应起到对世界的表征作用。目前，DRT不仅没有区分处理这两种独立的表征结构，而且也没有给予世界心理表征结构应有的地位。这是DRT的一个很大的弱点，也是导致深层回指的DRT失效消解的根本原因。
鉴于此，针对深层回指的DRT消解失效问题，本文提出了一种基于话语表征结构（DRS）和知识表征结构（Knowledge-Based Representation Structure，简称KRS）的二维话语表征的语义模型（Two-Dimensional Discourse Representation StructureModel，简称2D-RS Model），旨在探索更有效的回指消解途径，以期在DRT理论的框架下解决更多的语言问题，进而使DRT在话语回指消解方面的应用更具普遍性。
在理论方面，本文把以知识为基础的心理表征结构（即KRS）作为DRT的自然演绎系统引入到2D-RS语义模型中，并通过确定语用推理解决了深层话语回指的DRT消解失效问题。2D-RS语义模型系统不仅刻画了受话者对话语本身的心理表征结构（即DRS），同时对话语之外的关于世界的心理表征结构（即KRS）也进行了刻画。本文所提出的2D-RS模型扩大了DRT在回指消解方面的应用范围，是对现有话语表征理论的一个重要的扩展和提升。
本文的方法创新在于，首先，我们将常规关系（stereotypical relation）和溯因推理（abductive reasoning）引入到DRT的自然演推系统，扩展了DRT的约束（Binding）概念。我们提出，在回指语无法直接受到其先行语的约束时，是溯因推理将两个话语所指的概念进行连通与匹配（matching），并将回指语所需的先行关系表达式f (x)→y “纳入”（Accommodation）到系统中来，以此完成回指消解。其次，在2D-RS的自然演推系统，我们通过把语义先设处理为回指消解的必要前提，完善了DRT的模型论语义解释。最后，借鉴Chomsky的约束原则（BindingPrinciples），我们对DRT原有的代词和反身代词的构造规则进行了技术修正，使其更具形式化方法的严谨性。
本文采用了西方分析哲学方法中的日常语言的分析方法。在表述形式上，以Chomsky所倡导的“方法论的自然主义”为范本（即符号化的数学公式和自然科学的逻辑推导构成的形式化方法），以自然演绎法作为基本的推导方式，用验证假设的形式探究回指消解的内在本质。
This thesis addresses a particular instance of syntax-semantics interface problems,commonly known as anaphora resolution. Anaphora is a ubiquitous phenomenon innatural language. Simply stated, anaphora resolution, which most commonly appears aspronoun resolution, is the problem of resolving references to earlier or latter items in thediscourse. Anaphora is one of the most complex phenomena in verbal communication. Itnot only exists at the intra-sentential level, but is widespread at the inter-sentential levelas well. The fact that anaphora resolution calls for a synthetic consideration of factorssuch as government and binding, context of various types, and even those concerningpsychology and cognition makes it one of the most complicated issues in naturallanguage processing.
Discourse Representation Theory (DRT for short) proposed by Hans Kamp in1981overcomes the fatal weakness encountered in the static semantics by introducingoriginally a discourse representation structure (DRS for short) as a new level ofpresentation along with a series of construction rules into the model-theoretic semantics.At this level, the conflict between the referential interpretation of noun phrases and theirquantificational interpretation is solved and thus the anaphora types such as referentialanaphora, bound-variables, and E-type anaphora are resolved effectively, whether theyare inter-sentential or intra-sentential, even if they span the entire discourse. What themost significant impact that DRT has made on linguistics is probably the innovative wayit brings with respect to formalization of context to usual model-theoretic account ofanaphora. It provides linguists with a way out of the current embarrassing situation inwhich natural language is used both as a tool and as an object in study and thus freesthem from the bondage of natural language.
Nonetheless, further research indicates that although DRT has successfully resolvedthe referential anaphora and some sorts of quantificational anaphora including that ofdefinite noun phrases and indefinite noun phrases, it fails to give an effectiveinterpretation to those types of deep-anaphora which require considerations of pragmaticinferences. The results of this study show that the DRS ought to fulfill a dual function, asa mental model of the discourse on the one hand and as a mental model of the world on the other. Unfortunately, DRT has not yet given the two separate considerations and thusgreatly reduced its interpretation force with respect to deep anaphora resolution. Withoutgoing into formal details, however, it is not difficult to be convinced that the DRTapproach suffers from the lack of generality. Upon careful reflection of the problemsrevealed in DRT, I suggest that DRT model is obviously an oversimplication in boththeory and practice comparing with the complexity inherited from natural language andthus a major revision of DRT is called for. In view of the above, the present research setsabout extending the original DRT to a Two-Dimensional Discourse RepresentationStructure Model (2D-RS for short) to give the mental model of the world in DRT a duediligence.
The theoretical innovation of this dissertation is that at baseline, the researchprovides a supplementary way to remedy the failures by separating the two differentroles played by the original DRS and to introduce yet another level of representation, alevel of knowledge-based representation structure (KRS for short) to accommodate themental model of the world and to use the original DRS only as a discourse model. KRSin2D-RS model is constructed on the basis of stereotypical relation. By employingabductive reasoning, the relation between an anaphor and its external anchor isestablished. By doing so,2D-RS has successfully depicted the way an addresseecompensates the implicated information conveyed in verbal communication throughpragmatic inferences.
As for the empirical innovation of the dissertation, first of all, stereotypical relationand abductive reasoning are introduced into DRT as a natural deductive system in whichdiscourse anaphora is resolved through the identification of pragmatic inference. Itbroadens the original binding resolution in DRT by introducing a new concept ofaccommodation resolution. Secondly, semantic presupposition is treated as a necessarycondition in judging the truth value of a discourse, which perfects the original modeltheoretic semantic interpretation in DRT. Finally, the CR.PRO is amended by referring tothe Binding Principles in Chomsky’s Government and Binding Theory.
In terms of methodology, our research adopts the analytical method of naturallanguage which is commonly used by analytic philosophy. To be more specific, takingChomsky’s “methodology of naturalism” as the model, we employ the method of hypothesis-testing based on formal mathematics formula and deductive reasoning inexploring the nature of anaphora resolution in our research.
以Kamp（1981）为代表的话语表征理论（Discourse Representation Theory，简称DRT）把话语解读过程看作是受话者建构心理表征（mental representation）的动态过程。在技术上，DRT在模型-理论语义学（Model-Theoretic Semantics）的基础上发展了一种带有嵌入函数的语义模型，同时将话语表征结构（DiscourseRepresentation Structure，简称DRS）作为一个心智表达式引入到模型中来，克服了以往形式语义学的静态性、封闭性等弱点，从而把传统模型论单句语义的静态研究扩展到句子序列的动态语义研究，解决了经典逻辑关于名词短语的指称论与量化论之争。DRT通过一系列的DRS-构造规则（Construction Rules）和算法（Algorithm）动态地解释了指称性回指、变项约束性回指、E-类代词回指等长期困扰传统形式语义学家的话语回指问题，为抽象的语言研究提供了最佳的元语言，使语言研究走出了用语言研究语言的窘境。
然而，在对DRT的进一步研究中我们发现，DRT能够解释的回指现象仅限于有显性先行语的表层话语回指，而对于那些交际中更常见的、涉及到复杂的语用推理的深层回指现象，DRT则无法给出有效的解释。同时，我们认为，与自然语言的层次丰富、内容多样的实际特征相比，DRT仅利用单一层面的DRS作为话语解读的语境，这种做法无论在思想上还是技术上都过于简单化。认知语言学的研究成果表明，由某种语言形式触发所激活的概念不仅仅是一个与语言形式直接对应的单一心理表征，而且是一系列与该心理表征相关联的、具有丰富内涵的心理表征的集合。据此，本文提出，作为DRT灵魂主体的DRS不仅应该起到话语表征的作用，同时还应起到对世界的表征作用。目前，DRT不仅没有区分处理这两种独立的表征结构，而且也没有给予世界心理表征结构应有的地位。这是DRT的一个很大的弱点，也是导致深层回指的DRT失效消解的根本原因。
鉴于此，针对深层回指的DRT消解失效问题，本文提出了一种基于话语表征结构（DRS）和知识表征结构（Knowledge-Based Representation Structure，简称KRS）的二维话语表征的语义模型（Two-Dimensional Discourse Representation StructureModel，简称2D-RS Model），旨在探索更有效的回指消解途径，以期在DRT理论的框架下解决更多的语言问题，进而使DRT在话语回指消解方面的应用更具普遍性。
在理论方面，本文把以知识为基础的心理表征结构（即KRS）作为DRT的自然演绎系统引入到2D-RS语义模型中，并通过确定语用推理解决了深层话语回指的DRT消解失效问题。2D-RS语义模型系统不仅刻画了受话者对话语本身的心理表征结构（即DRS），同时对话语之外的关于世界的心理表征结构（即KRS）也进行了刻画。本文所提出的2D-RS模型扩大了DRT在回指消解方面的应用范围，是对现有话语表征理论的一个重要的扩展和提升。
本文的方法创新在于，首先，我们将常规关系（stereotypical relation）和溯因推理（abductive reasoning）引入到DRT的自然演推系统，扩展了DRT的约束（Binding）概念。我们提出，在回指语无法直接受到其先行语的约束时，是溯因推理将两个话语所指的概念进行连通与匹配（matching），并将回指语所需的先行关系表达式f (x)→y “纳入”（Accommodation）到系统中来，以此完成回指消解。其次，在2D-RS的自然演推系统，我们通过把语义先设处理为回指消解的必要前提，完善了DRT的模型论语义解释。最后，借鉴Chomsky的约束原则（BindingPrinciples），我们对DRT原有的代词和反身代词的构造规则进行了技术修正，使其更具形式化方法的严谨性。
本文采用了西方分析哲学方法中的日常语言的分析方法。在表述形式上，以Chomsky所倡导的“方法论的自然主义”为范本（即符号化的数学公式和自然科学的逻辑推导构成的形式化方法），以自然演绎法作为基本的推导方式，用验证假设的形式探究回指消解的内在本质。
This thesis addresses a particular instance of syntax-semantics interface problems,commonly known as anaphora resolution. Anaphora is a ubiquitous phenomenon innatural language. Simply stated, anaphora resolution, which most commonly appears aspronoun resolution, is the problem of resolving references to earlier or latter items in thediscourse. Anaphora is one of the most complex phenomena in verbal communication. Itnot only exists at the intra-sentential level, but is widespread at the inter-sentential levelas well. The fact that anaphora resolution calls for a synthetic consideration of factorssuch as government and binding, context of various types, and even those concerningpsychology and cognition makes it one of the most complicated issues in naturallanguage processing.
Discourse Representation Theory (DRT for short) proposed by Hans Kamp in1981overcomes the fatal weakness encountered in the static semantics by introducingoriginally a discourse representation structure (DRS for short) as a new level ofpresentation along with a series of construction rules into the model-theoretic semantics.At this level, the conflict between the referential interpretation of noun phrases and theirquantificational interpretation is solved and thus the anaphora types such as referentialanaphora, bound-variables, and E-type anaphora are resolved effectively, whether theyare inter-sentential or intra-sentential, even if they span the entire discourse. What themost significant impact that DRT has made on linguistics is probably the innovative wayit brings with respect to formalization of context to usual model-theoretic account ofanaphora. It provides linguists with a way out of the current embarrassing situation inwhich natural language is used both as a tool and as an object in study and thus freesthem from the bondage of natural language.
Nonetheless, further research indicates that although DRT has successfully resolvedthe referential anaphora and some sorts of quantificational anaphora including that ofdefinite noun phrases and indefinite noun phrases, it fails to give an effectiveinterpretation to those types of deep-anaphora which require considerations of pragmaticinferences. The results of this study show that the DRS ought to fulfill a dual function, asa mental model of the discourse on the one hand and as a mental model of the world on the other. Unfortunately, DRT has not yet given the two separate considerations and thusgreatly reduced its interpretation force with respect to deep anaphora resolution. Withoutgoing into formal details, however, it is not difficult to be convinced that the DRTapproach suffers from the lack of generality. Upon careful reflection of the problemsrevealed in DRT, I suggest that DRT model is obviously an oversimplication in boththeory and practice comparing with the complexity inherited from natural language andthus a major revision of DRT is called for. In view of the above, the present research setsabout extending the original DRT to a Two-Dimensional Discourse RepresentationStructure Model (2D-RS for short) to give the mental model of the world in DRT a duediligence.
The theoretical innovation of this dissertation is that at baseline, the researchprovides a supplementary way to remedy the failures by separating the two differentroles played by the original DRS and to introduce yet another level of representation, alevel of knowledge-based representation structure (KRS for short) to accommodate themental model of the world and to use the original DRS only as a discourse model. KRSin2D-RS model is constructed on the basis of stereotypical relation. By employingabductive reasoning, the relation between an anaphor and its external anchor isestablished. By doing so,2D-RS has successfully depicted the way an addresseecompensates the implicated information conveyed in verbal communication throughpragmatic inferences.
As for the empirical innovation of the dissertation, first of all, stereotypical relationand abductive reasoning are introduced into DRT as a natural deductive system in whichdiscourse anaphora is resolved through the identification of pragmatic inference. Itbroadens the original binding resolution in DRT by introducing a new concept ofaccommodation resolution. Secondly, semantic presupposition is treated as a necessarycondition in judging the truth value of a discourse, which perfects the original modeltheoretic semantic interpretation in DRT. Finally, the CR.PRO is amended by referring tothe Binding Principles in Chomsky’s Government and Binding Theory.
In terms of methodology, our research adopts the analytical method of naturallanguage which is commonly used by analytic philosophy. To be more specific, takingChomsky’s “methodology of naturalism” as the model, we employ the method of hypothesis-testing based on formal mathematics formula and deductive reasoning inexploring the nature of anaphora resolution in our research.
引文
16转引自冯志伟为Ruslan Mitkov（Eds）.（2003）. The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics. ForeignLanguage Teaching and Research Press，所做的导读pp. ix。
64Frege, G.,1892.On Sense and Reference.转自Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege,1980.
Ariel, M., Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedent [M]. London: Rutledge,1990.
Ariel, M., Referring and Accessibility [J]. Journal of Linguistics,1988,(24):65-87.
Asher, N.&Lascarides, A., Logics of Conversation [M]. Cambridge University Press,2003.
Asher, N.,&Lascarides, A., The Semantics and Pragmatics of Presupposition [J].Journalof Semantics,1999,(3):239-300.
Asher, N., Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse [M]. Kluwer Academic Publishers,Dordrecht, the Netherlands,1993.
Barwise, J.&Cooper, R., Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language [J]. Linguisticsand Philosophy,1981,(4):159-219.
Barwise, J.&Perry, J., Situation and Attitude [M]. Cambridge MA: MIT Press,1983.
Beaver, D. I., Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics [M]. CambridgeStanford: CSLI Publications,2001.
Breheny, R., Pragmatic Analyses of Anaphoric Pronouns: Do Things Look Better in2-D?[A]. In: García-Carpintero, M. and Macia, J.,(eds.) Two-DimensionalSemantics[C]. OUP: Oxford,2006:22–37.
Brown, G.&Yule, G., Discourse Analysis [M]. London: Cambridge University Press,2000.
Bunt, H., Dialogue Control Functions and Interaction Design. In: R.J. Beun, M. Baker&M. Reiner (eds.), Dialogue in Instruction. Springer Verlag, Berlin,1995,197-214.
Bussmann, H., Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Beijing, ForeignLanguage Teaching and Research Press,2000.
Carter, D., Interpreting Anaphors in Natural Language Texts [M].New York: EllisHorwood, Wiley&Sons,1987.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S.&C.-T. James Huang., Two Types of Donkey Sentences [J]. NationalLanguage Semantics,1996,(4):121-163.
Chierchia, G., Anaphora and Dynamic Binding [J]. Linguistics&Philosophy,1983,(15):111-183.
Chierchia, G., Dynamics of Meaning [M].The University of Chicago Press, Chicago,1995.
Chomsky, N., Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use [M]. Beijing: ForeignLanguage Teaching and Research Press,2002.
Chomsky, N., Language and Nature [J]. Mind,1995,(104):1-16.
Chomsky, N., Lectures on Government and Binding.[J]. Dordrecht: Foris Publication,1981a.
Chomsky, N., Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government andBinding.[M].Massachusetts, Cambridge: The MIT Press,1975.
Clark, H. H., Inferring What Is Meant.[A].In Levelt, W. J. M.&d′Arcais, G. B. F.(eds.)Studying in the Perception of Language [C]. Chichester: John Wiley&Sons,1978.
Clark, H. H., Bridging. In Proceedings of the Conference on Theoretical Issues in NaturalLanguage Processing. Cambridge, Mass.,1975,(6),169-174.
Cooper, R., The Interpretation of Pronouns [J]. Syntax and Semantics,1979,(10):61-92.
Cornish, F., Antecedentless Anaphors: Dexis, Anaphora, or What? Some Evidence fromEngligh and French [J]. Journal of Linguistics,1996,(32):19-40.
Crystal, D., A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics [Z] Blackwell,1991.
Davidson, D., Essays on Actions and Events [M].Clarendon Press,1980.
Dell, G. S., McKoon, G.&Ratcliff, R., The Activation of Antecedent Information Duringthe Processing of Anaphoric Reference in Reading [J].Journal of Verbal Learningand Verbal Behavior,1983,(22):121-132.
Does, J. M. van., An E-type Logic [A]. Seligman, J.&Westerstahl, D.(eds.) Logic,Language and Computation [C]. vol.1, Stanford, Ca: CSLI.1996,555-570.
Dowty, D., Word Meaning and Montague Grammar [M].Reidel, Dordrecht,1979.
Ehrlich, S., Point of View: a Linguistic Analysis of Literary Style [M]. London: Routledge，1990.
Eijck, J. van., Discourse Representation Theory and Plurality [A]. In A.G.B. ter Meulen(eds.). Studies in Modeltheoretic Semantics [C]. Foris, Dordrecht/Cinnaminson,1983,85-106.
Evans, G., Pronouns [J].Linguistic Inquiry,1980,(11):337-362.
Evans, G., Pronouns, Quantifiers and Relative Clauses (I)[J]. Canadian Journal ofPhilosophy,1977,(7):467-536.
Fodor, J.A., The Language of Thought [M].New York: Crowell,1975.
Fodor, J.A., The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology [M]. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press,1983.
Fox, B.,(eds.), Studies in Anaphora [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John BenjaminPublishing Company,1996.
Garrod, S.C.&Sanford, A J., Resolving Sentences in a Discourse Context: HowDiscourse Representation Affects Language Understanding [J]. In M. Gernsbacher(eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. New York: Wiley,1994.
Geach, P., Reference and Generality [M]. Ithaca, Cornell University Press,1962.
Gernsbacher, M., Mechanisms that Improve Referential Access [J]. Cognition,1989,(32):99-156.
Geurts, B.&Beaver, D. I., Discourse Representation Theory. In Stanford Encyclopediaof Philosophy,2007.
Givon, T., The Grammar of Referential Coherence as Mental Processing Instructions [J].Technical report, No.89(7). Eurgene: University of Oregon.1989.
Goodman, D., An Implementation of an Extension to Discourse Representation Theory [J].Artificial Intelligence Research Group, Boyd Graduate Studies Center, TheUniversity of Georgia Research Report AI-1989-03, Athens, Georgia30602U.S.A.
Groenendijk, J.&Stokhof, M., Dynamic Montague Grammar [A].In Kalman, L. and Polos,L.(eds.), Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language[C]. Budapest.Akad′emiai Kaid′o.,1990.
Groenendijk, J.&Stokhof., Dynamic Predicate Logic [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy,1991,(14):39–100.
Guenthner, F., Linguistic Meaning in Discourse Representation Theory [J].Synthese,1987,(73):569-598.
Guenthner, F., Lehmann, H.,&Sch nfeld, W., A Theory For the Representation ofKnowledge [J]. IBM J. Res. Develop,1986,(30):39-56.
Haik, I., Pronouns of Laziness [J]. In S. Berman et al (eds.) NELS. U. Mass. Amherst:1986,(16):197-216.
Haviland, S. E.,&Clark. H. H., What’s New? Acquiring New Information as a Process inComprehension [J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,1974,(13):512-21.
Halliday, M. A. K.&Hasan, R., Cohesion in English [M]. London: Longman,1976.
Heim, I., E-Type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy,1990,(13):137-179.
Heim, I., File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness [A].InB autuerle, R., Schwarze, C.&Stechow, A. von (eds.), Meaning, Use andInterpretation of Language[C]. De Gruyter, Berlin,1983,164-189.
Heim, I., The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases [D]. University ofMassachusetts, Umass,1982.
Hess, M., Recent Developments in Discourse Representation Theory [A]. In: King, M.(eds.), Communication with Men and Machines[C].Geneva,1991.
Hirst, G., Anaphora in Natural Language Understanding. Lecture Notes in ComputerScience,119, Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York,1981.
Hobbs, J. R., Implicature and Definite Reference. Stanford: Report No.CSLI.-88-89.Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, Stanford,California,1987.
Horn, L. R., Towards a New Taxonomy from Pragmatic Inference: Q-and R-BasedImplicature. In Schiffrin, D.(eds.), Meaning, Form and Use in Context.Washington: Georgetown University Press,1985.
Huang, Yan., Anaphora and the Pragmatics-Syntax Interface [A]. In The Handbook ofPragmatics [C]. Blackwell, Oxford,2004.
Huang, Yan., Anaphora: a Cross-Linguistic Study [M].Oxford: Oxford University Press,2000.
Huang, Yan., Discourse Anaphora: Four Theoretical Models [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2000,(32):151-176.
Huang, Yan., The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora: A Study with Special Reference toChinese [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1994.
Janssen, T. M. V., Compositionality [A].In van Benthem and Ter Meulen (eds.),Handbook of Logic and Language[C],1997,417–473.
Jens，A., Lars-Gunnar. A.&sten, D., Logic in Linguistics [M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,1977.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., Mental Models [J]. Cognitive Science Series, Harvard U.P.Cambridge, MA,1983.
Kadmon, N., Formal Pragmatics [M]. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell,2001.
Kamp, H.,&Rossdeutscher, A., Remarks on Lexical Structure and DRS Construction[A]. Theoretical Linguistics,1994,(20):97-164.
Kamp, H.,&Reyle, U., From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Model TheoreticSemantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse RepresentationTheory [M]. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, the Netherlands,1993.
Kamp, H., Conditionals in DR Theory [J]. In: Hoepelman,1988,(88):66-124.
Kamp, H., A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation [A]. In Groenendijk, J.,&Stokhof, M.(eds.) Formal Methods in the Study of Language: Part1[C].Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam,1981,277–322.
Kanazawa, M., Weak vs. Strong Readings of Donkey Sentences and Mono-TonicityInference in a Dynamic Setting [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy,1994,17(2):109-158.
Karttunen, L., Discourse Referents [A]. In James McCawley (eds.), Syntax and Semantics[C], New York: Academic Press,1976,(7):363–385.
Karttunen, L., Pronouns and Variables [A]. In Binnick, R. et al.,(eds), Papers Form the5th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society [C]. Chicago: ChicagoLinguistic Society,1969,108-116.
Krahmer, E., Presupposition and Anaphora [M].Stanford: CSLI.1998.
Krahmer, E.&Muskens, R., Negation and Disjunction in Discourse Representation [J].Journal of Semantics,1995,(12):357–376.
Kratzer, A., Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates [A]. In The Generic Book [C].(eds). G.N. Carlson&F.J. Pelletier. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1995,125-175.
Lappin, S.,(eds.). The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory [C]. Blackwell,Oxford,1996.
Lascarides, A.&Asher, N., Temporal Interpretation, Discourse Relations andCommonsense Entailment [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy,1993,16(5):437-493.
Levinson, S. C., Pragmatic Reduction of the Binding Conditions Revised [J]. Journal ofLinguistics,1991,(27):107-121.
Levinson, S. C., Pragmatics and the Grammar of Anaphora [J]. Journal of linguistics,1987,(23):379-434.
Lewis, D., Language and languages [J]. In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science,University of Minnesota Press,1975,(7):3–35.
Mann, W. C.&Thompson, S. A., Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a FunctionalTheory of Text Organization [J]. Text,1988,8(3):243-281.
Mann, W. C.&Thompson, S. A., Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Framework for theAnalysis of Texts [J]. International Pragmatics Association Papers in Pragmatics,1987,(1):79-105.
McCawley, J.D., Where Do Noun Phrases Come From?[J]. In Jacobs. Reprinted inSteinberg,1970,(71):217-231.
Montague, R. M., The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English [J]. InFormal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, Yale University Press,1974,247-270.
Muskens, R., Combining Montague Semantics and Discourse Representation [J].Linguistics and Philosophy,1994,(19):143-186.
Partee, H. B., Bound Variables and Other Anaphors: Compositionality in FormalSemantics: Selected Papers [C]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,2004,110-121.
Partee, B., Quantificational Structures and Compositionality [A]. In E. Bach et al.(eds.)Quantification in Natural Language, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers,1995.
Partee, B., Noun Phrase Interpretation and Type Shifting Principles [A]. In Groenendijk, J.Jongh, D. de&Stokhof, M.(eds.). Studies in Discourse Representation Theory andthe Theory of Generalized Quantifiers[C]. GRASS8, Foris, Dordrecht,1987,115–144.
Partee, B., Bound Variables and Other Anaphors [J]. In D. Waltz (eds.), Proceedings ofTINLAP,1978,(2):79-85.
Partee, B., Montague Grammar and Transformational Grammar [J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1975,(6):203–300.
Piwek, P.&Krahmer, E., Logic, Presupposition in Context: Constructing Bridges. In P.Bronzon, M. Cavalcantic,&R. Nossum (eds.), Formal Aspects of Context. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers.2000.
Piwek, P., Logic, Information and Conversation. Ph.D. thesis, Eindhoven University ofTechnology.1998.
Reinhart, T., Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation [M]. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress,1983.
Reinhart, T., Definite NP Anaphora and C-command Domains [J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1981,(12):605-636.
Reinhart, T., Conditions for Text Coherence [J]. Poetics Today,1980,(1):161-180.
Reinhart, T.&Reuland, E., Reflexivity [J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1993,(24):657-720.
Reinhart, T., The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora [D]. MIT.,1976.
Reyle, U., Dealing with Ambiguities by Underspecification: Construction, Representationand Deduction [J]. Journal of Semantics,1993,(10):123–179.
Richards, B., On Interpreting Pronouns [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy,1984,(7):287-324.
Root, R., The Semantics of Anaphora in Discourse [D]. University of Texas at Austin,1986.
Sag, I. A.&Hankarner, J., Toward a Theory of Anaphoric Processing [J]. Linguistics andPhilosophy,1984,(7):325-345.
Saurer, W., A Natural Deduction System for Discourse Representation Theory [J].Journalof Philosophical Logic,1993,22(3):249–302.
Sanford, A.&Garrod. S., Understanding Written Language: Exploration inComprehension beyond the Sentence [M]. Chichester: John Wiley,1981.
Taboada, M.&Mann, W. C., Rhetorical Structure Theory: Looking Back and MovingAhead [J].Discourse Studies,2006,8(3):423-459.
Tarski, A., The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics [J].Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,1944,(4):341-376.
Thomason, R., Selected Papers of Richard Montague [C]. Yale University Press, NewHaven, CT,1974:222-246.
Van der Sandt, R., Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution [J]. Journal ofSemantics,1992,(9):333-377.
Van der Sandt, R., Presupposition and Discourse Structure [J]. in: R. Bartsch et al.(eds.),Semantics and Contextual Expression, Foris, Dordrecht,1989.
Van Eijck, J.&Kamp, H., Representing Discourse in Context [A]. In van Bethem, J.&ter Meulen, A.(eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language [C], Elsevier ScienceB.V., New York,1997,179-237.
Webber, B. L., A Formal Approach to Discourse Anaphora [D]. University, Published byGarland in Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics,1978.
Webber, B.L., Discourse Model Synthesis: Preliminaries to Reference [J].In Joshi,1981,(81):283-299.
Winograd, T., Understanding Natural Language [M].New York: Academic Press,1976.
陈平.汉语零形回指的话语分析[J].《中国语文》，1987，（5）：263-378.
陈荣、姜云飞、林笠.溯因推理研究现状与问题[J].《计算机科学》，2003，（5）：23-36.
陈治安、文旭.语用学研究在中国的新进展—第六届全国语用学研讨会论文综述[J].《外国语》，2000，（1）：14-19.
程雨民.语用分析如何介入语言理解：评Levinson照应理论兼评Huang的纯语用解释[J].《现代外语》，1993，（62）：1-7.
范晓、陈忠.预设和蕴涵[J].《信阳师范学院学报》（哲学社会科学版），2002：（5）68-73.
方立、文卫平等.《动态意义理论》[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社，2008.
方立.动态意义理论：逻辑语义学的继续发展[J].《语文学刊》（高教外文版），2006：（12）：1-8.
方立.《逻辑语义学》[M].北京：北京语言文化大学出版社，2000.
高卫东.《语篇回指的功能意义解析》[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社，2008.
韩晓方.溯因法与语言认知:以语言理论的建构为例[J].《外语学刊》，2009（2）：92-95
贺川生.乔姆斯基语言天赋思想的皮尔士哲学根源：溯因逻辑[J].《当代语言学》，2004，（6）：128-138.
何自然、陈明仁.《当代语用学》[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2004.
胡壮麟.《语篇的衔接与连贯》[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，1994.
黄国文.《语篇分析的理论与实践：广告语篇研究》[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2001.
黄华新、徐慈华.隐喻表达与经济性原则[J].《浙江大学学报》（人文社会科学版），2006：（5）2-36.
李勇忠.架桥式语用推理的认知研究[J].《天津外国语学院学报》（人文社会科学版），2004：（1）20-25.
刘根辉、金鐘讚.形式语用学研究综论—简论汉语形式语用学研究发展的思路[J].《语言研究》，2005，（1）：15-18.
刘向东.组合原则之是与非[J].《湖南医科大学学报》（社会科学版)，2009，（11）：123-125.
刘国辉、刘露营.认知推理与深层回指的确定[J].《重庆大学学报》（社会科学版），2005，（3）：83-86.
刘新文.周礼全自然语言逻辑思想综述[J].《哲学动态》，2001，（07）：10-13.
刘辰诞.《教学语篇语言学》[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999.
刘晓力.进化-涉身认知背景下的一种表征理论[J].《哲学研究》，2010，（11）：1-10.
刘宇红、王志霞.现实表征、心理表征、语言表征[J].《湘潭大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)，2005，（1）：147-150.
姜望琪. Zipf与省力原则[J].《同济大学学报》（社会科学版），2005（2）：87-95.
姜望琪.《语言学理论及应用》[M].北京：北京大学出版社，2000.
蒋严.论语用推理的逻辑属性—形式语用学初探[J].《外国语》，2002，（3）：18-29.
蒋严、潘海华.《形式语义学引论》.北京：中国社会科学出版社，1998.
金立.话语表现理论视角下的汉语指代分析[J].《哲学动态》，2006，增刊.
毛翊、周北海.分段式语篇表示理论—基于语篇结构的自然语言语义学[J].《语言学论丛》，2002，（35）.
苗兴伟.语言的信息连贯[J].《Foreign Language Education》，2003，（2）：13-16.
苗兴伟.论衔接与连贯的关系[J].《外国语》，1998，（4）：44-49.
梅德明.论句子的逻辑式[J].《外国语》，2000，（3）：10-16.
宁春岩.形式语言学的纯科学精神[J].《现代外语》，2000，（32):220-209.
潘海华.篇章表达理论概说[J].《国外语言学》，1996，（3）：17-26.
彭家法.当代形式语义学的争鸣与进展[J].《外语学刊》，2005，（3）：46-50.
钱冠连.论构建语用推理模式的出发点：新格莱斯理论评论[J].《现代外语》，1994，（65）：1-6.
秦洪武.第三人称代词在深层回指中的应用分析[J].《当代语言学》，2001，（1）：55-64.
王军、高明强.概念匹配、回指释义与概念转移：篇章回指研究的新思路[J].《外
语学刊》，2009，（05）：92-96.
王军.论语言语境对回指的限定作用[J].《外语学刊》，2005，（05）：18-21.
王健平.从逻辑看歧义的产生及其解决途径[J].《华南师范大学学报》（社会科学版），2006，（3）.
王宗炎（主编）.《英汉应用语言学词典》.湖南：湖南教育出版社，1988.
温宾利.《当代句法学导论》.北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2002.
翁依琴、熊学亮.回指的形式语用学初探[J].《外语研究》，2005，（2）：6-9.
文卫平.新格莱斯语用照应理论[J].《语文学刊》，2007，（10）：1-6.
文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.博士论文.2006，4.
文旭、匡芳涛.搭桥参照的认知语义观[J].《理论语言学研究》，2008，（2）：121-126.
夏年喜.从DRT与SDRT看照应关系的逻辑解释[J].《重庆理工大学学报》（社会科学），2010，（7）：8-11.
夏年喜.从DRT到SDRT—动态语义理论的新发展[J].《哲学动态》，2006，（6）：52-56.
夏年喜.从知识表示的角度看DRT与一阶谓词逻辑[J].《南京社会科学》，2006，（2）：26-30.
夏年喜.DRS与一阶谓词逻辑公式[J].《哲学动态》，2005，（11）：52-55.
夏年喜.从蒙太格语法的局限性看DRT的理论价值[J].《逻辑学》，2005，（12）：75-78.
徐赳赳.《现代汉语篇章回指研究》[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社.2003.
徐盛桓.常规关系与语句解读研究—语用推理形式化的初步探索[J].《现代外语》，2003，（4）：111-119.
徐盛桓.常规关系与认知化—再论常规关系[J].《外国语》，2002，（1）：6-16.
徐盛桓.含意本体论论纲[J].外语与外语教学，1997，（1）：5-10.
徐盛桓.上指预测的语用因素：评列文森的上指推导模式[J].《现代外语》，1994，（63）：8-14.
徐盛桓.论“常规关系”——新格赖斯会话含意理论系列研究之六[J].《外国语》，1993，（6）：11-18.
徐盛桓.“预设”新论[J].外语学刊，1993，（1）：1-8.
许余龙.语篇回指的认知语言学探索[J].《外国语》，2002，（1）：28-37.
许余龙.英汉指称词语表达的可及性[J].《外语教学与研究》，2000，（5）：321-328.
熊学亮.《语言使用中的推理》[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.2007.
熊学亮.话语连续性的图式分解研究[J].《外国语》，2001，（3）：1-7.
熊学亮.从指代研究看新格赖斯语用学的实用性[J].《外国语》，1997，（3）：13-19.
熊学亮.认知语境的语用可及程度分析[J].《外国语》，1999，（6）：17-23.
尹邦彦.英语零照应的类型与主要特征[J].《解放军外国语学院学报》，1999，（2）：15-18.
赵明、刘涛.语言回指加工的ERP研究述评[J].《心理科学进展》，2011，（3）：355-363.
曾凡桂.皮尔士“Abduction”译名探讨[J].《外语教学与研究》，2003，（6）：469-472.
曾凡桂、毛眺源.形式语用学发展脉络概略[J].《外语学刊》，2010，（1）：67-70.
张德禄.论衔接[J].《外国语》，2001，（3）：23-28.
张德禄.论语篇连贯[J].《外语教学与研究》，2000，（3）：103-109.
张德禄.语篇连贯研究纵横谈[J].《外国语》，1999，（3）：24-31.
张韧弦.《形式语用学导论》[M].上海：复旦大学出版社，2008.
周北海、毛翊.《一个关于常识推理的基础逻辑》[J].《哲学研究》，2003，（增刊）：1-10.
周礼全.《逻辑—正确思维和成功交际的理论》[M].北京：人民出版社，1994，4.
邹崇理.《自然语言逻辑研究》[M].北京：北京大学出版社，1996.
邹崇理.《逻辑、语言和信息》[M].北京：人民出版社，2002.
邹崇理.从语言到逻辑—范畴类型逻辑序列[J].《重庆工学院学报》，2006，（4）.
邹崇理.从逻辑到语言—Barbara H．Partee访谈录.《当代语言学》，2007，（9）：151-165.
邹崇理.组合原则[J].《逻辑学研究》，2008，（l）：75-83.
朱迎春.深层回指的诸类型及其语用分析[J].《浙江工程学院学报》，2004，（21）：158-162.
朱永生、苗兴伟.语用预设的语用功能[J].《外国语》，2000，（3）：25-30.
朱永生.试论语篇连贯的内部条件（上）[J].《现代外语》，1996，（4）：17-45.
朱永生.试论语篇连贯的内部条件（下）[J].《现代外语》，1997，（1）：11-14.
64Frege, G.,1892.On Sense and Reference.转自Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege,1980.
Ariel, M., Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedent [M]. London: Rutledge,1990.
Ariel, M., Referring and Accessibility [J]. Journal of Linguistics,1988,(24):65-87.
Asher, N.&Lascarides, A., Logics of Conversation [M]. Cambridge University Press,2003.
Asher, N.,&Lascarides, A., The Semantics and Pragmatics of Presupposition [J].Journalof Semantics,1999,(3):239-300.
Asher, N., Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse [M]. Kluwer Academic Publishers,Dordrecht, the Netherlands,1993.
Barwise, J.&Cooper, R., Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language [J]. Linguisticsand Philosophy,1981,(4):159-219.
Barwise, J.&Perry, J., Situation and Attitude [M]. Cambridge MA: MIT Press,1983.
Beaver, D. I., Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics [M]. CambridgeStanford: CSLI Publications,2001.
Breheny, R., Pragmatic Analyses of Anaphoric Pronouns: Do Things Look Better in2-D?[A]. In: García-Carpintero, M. and Macia, J.,(eds.) Two-DimensionalSemantics[C]. OUP: Oxford,2006:22–37.
Brown, G.&Yule, G., Discourse Analysis [M]. London: Cambridge University Press,2000.
Bunt, H., Dialogue Control Functions and Interaction Design. In: R.J. Beun, M. Baker&M. Reiner (eds.), Dialogue in Instruction. Springer Verlag, Berlin,1995,197-214.
Bussmann, H., Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Beijing, ForeignLanguage Teaching and Research Press,2000.
Carter, D., Interpreting Anaphors in Natural Language Texts [M].New York: EllisHorwood, Wiley&Sons,1987.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S.&C.-T. James Huang., Two Types of Donkey Sentences [J]. NationalLanguage Semantics,1996,(4):121-163.
Chierchia, G., Anaphora and Dynamic Binding [J]. Linguistics&Philosophy,1983,(15):111-183.
Chierchia, G., Dynamics of Meaning [M].The University of Chicago Press, Chicago,1995.
Chomsky, N., Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use [M]. Beijing: ForeignLanguage Teaching and Research Press,2002.
Chomsky, N., Language and Nature [J]. Mind,1995,(104):1-16.
Chomsky, N., Lectures on Government and Binding.[J]. Dordrecht: Foris Publication,1981a.
Chomsky, N., Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government andBinding.[M].Massachusetts, Cambridge: The MIT Press,1975.
Clark, H. H., Inferring What Is Meant.[A].In Levelt, W. J. M.&d′Arcais, G. B. F.(eds.)Studying in the Perception of Language [C]. Chichester: John Wiley&Sons,1978.
Clark, H. H., Bridging. In Proceedings of the Conference on Theoretical Issues in NaturalLanguage Processing. Cambridge, Mass.,1975,(6),169-174.
Cooper, R., The Interpretation of Pronouns [J]. Syntax and Semantics,1979,(10):61-92.
Cornish, F., Antecedentless Anaphors: Dexis, Anaphora, or What? Some Evidence fromEngligh and French [J]. Journal of Linguistics,1996,(32):19-40.
Crystal, D., A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics [Z] Blackwell,1991.
Davidson, D., Essays on Actions and Events [M].Clarendon Press,1980.
Dell, G. S., McKoon, G.&Ratcliff, R., The Activation of Antecedent Information Duringthe Processing of Anaphoric Reference in Reading [J].Journal of Verbal Learningand Verbal Behavior,1983,(22):121-132.
Does, J. M. van., An E-type Logic [A]. Seligman, J.&Westerstahl, D.(eds.) Logic,Language and Computation [C]. vol.1, Stanford, Ca: CSLI.1996,555-570.
Dowty, D., Word Meaning and Montague Grammar [M].Reidel, Dordrecht,1979.
Ehrlich, S., Point of View: a Linguistic Analysis of Literary Style [M]. London: Routledge，1990.
Eijck, J. van., Discourse Representation Theory and Plurality [A]. In A.G.B. ter Meulen(eds.). Studies in Modeltheoretic Semantics [C]. Foris, Dordrecht/Cinnaminson,1983,85-106.
Evans, G., Pronouns [J].Linguistic Inquiry,1980,(11):337-362.
Evans, G., Pronouns, Quantifiers and Relative Clauses (I)[J]. Canadian Journal ofPhilosophy,1977,(7):467-536.
Fodor, J.A., The Language of Thought [M].New York: Crowell,1975.
Fodor, J.A., The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology [M]. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press,1983.
Fox, B.,(eds.), Studies in Anaphora [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John BenjaminPublishing Company,1996.
Garrod, S.C.&Sanford, A J., Resolving Sentences in a Discourse Context: HowDiscourse Representation Affects Language Understanding [J]. In M. Gernsbacher(eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. New York: Wiley,1994.
Geach, P., Reference and Generality [M]. Ithaca, Cornell University Press,1962.
Gernsbacher, M., Mechanisms that Improve Referential Access [J]. Cognition,1989,(32):99-156.
Geurts, B.&Beaver, D. I., Discourse Representation Theory. In Stanford Encyclopediaof Philosophy,2007.
Givon, T., The Grammar of Referential Coherence as Mental Processing Instructions [J].Technical report, No.89(7). Eurgene: University of Oregon.1989.
Goodman, D., An Implementation of an Extension to Discourse Representation Theory [J].Artificial Intelligence Research Group, Boyd Graduate Studies Center, TheUniversity of Georgia Research Report AI-1989-03, Athens, Georgia30602U.S.A.
Groenendijk, J.&Stokhof, M., Dynamic Montague Grammar [A].In Kalman, L. and Polos,L.(eds.), Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language[C]. Budapest.Akad′emiai Kaid′o.,1990.
Groenendijk, J.&Stokhof., Dynamic Predicate Logic [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy,1991,(14):39–100.
Guenthner, F., Linguistic Meaning in Discourse Representation Theory [J].Synthese,1987,(73):569-598.
Guenthner, F., Lehmann, H.,&Sch nfeld, W., A Theory For the Representation ofKnowledge [J]. IBM J. Res. Develop,1986,(30):39-56.
Haik, I., Pronouns of Laziness [J]. In S. Berman et al (eds.) NELS. U. Mass. Amherst:1986,(16):197-216.
Haviland, S. E.,&Clark. H. H., What’s New? Acquiring New Information as a Process inComprehension [J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,1974,(13):512-21.
Halliday, M. A. K.&Hasan, R., Cohesion in English [M]. London: Longman,1976.
Heim, I., E-Type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy,1990,(13):137-179.
Heim, I., File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness [A].InB autuerle, R., Schwarze, C.&Stechow, A. von (eds.), Meaning, Use andInterpretation of Language[C]. De Gruyter, Berlin,1983,164-189.
Heim, I., The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases [D]. University ofMassachusetts, Umass,1982.
Hess, M., Recent Developments in Discourse Representation Theory [A]. In: King, M.(eds.), Communication with Men and Machines[C].Geneva,1991.
Hirst, G., Anaphora in Natural Language Understanding. Lecture Notes in ComputerScience,119, Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York,1981.
Hobbs, J. R., Implicature and Definite Reference. Stanford: Report No.CSLI.-88-89.Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, Stanford,California,1987.
Horn, L. R., Towards a New Taxonomy from Pragmatic Inference: Q-and R-BasedImplicature. In Schiffrin, D.(eds.), Meaning, Form and Use in Context.Washington: Georgetown University Press,1985.
Huang, Yan., Anaphora and the Pragmatics-Syntax Interface [A]. In The Handbook ofPragmatics [C]. Blackwell, Oxford,2004.
Huang, Yan., Anaphora: a Cross-Linguistic Study [M].Oxford: Oxford University Press,2000.
Huang, Yan., Discourse Anaphora: Four Theoretical Models [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2000,(32):151-176.
Huang, Yan., The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora: A Study with Special Reference toChinese [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1994.
Janssen, T. M. V., Compositionality [A].In van Benthem and Ter Meulen (eds.),Handbook of Logic and Language[C],1997,417–473.
Jens，A., Lars-Gunnar. A.&sten, D., Logic in Linguistics [M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,1977.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., Mental Models [J]. Cognitive Science Series, Harvard U.P.Cambridge, MA,1983.
Kadmon, N., Formal Pragmatics [M]. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell,2001.
Kamp, H.,&Rossdeutscher, A., Remarks on Lexical Structure and DRS Construction[A]. Theoretical Linguistics,1994,(20):97-164.
Kamp, H.,&Reyle, U., From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Model TheoreticSemantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse RepresentationTheory [M]. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, the Netherlands,1993.
Kamp, H., Conditionals in DR Theory [J]. In: Hoepelman,1988,(88):66-124.
Kamp, H., A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation [A]. In Groenendijk, J.,&Stokhof, M.(eds.) Formal Methods in the Study of Language: Part1[C].Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam,1981,277–322.
Kanazawa, M., Weak vs. Strong Readings of Donkey Sentences and Mono-TonicityInference in a Dynamic Setting [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy,1994,17(2):109-158.
Karttunen, L., Discourse Referents [A]. In James McCawley (eds.), Syntax and Semantics[C], New York: Academic Press,1976,(7):363–385.
Karttunen, L., Pronouns and Variables [A]. In Binnick, R. et al.,(eds), Papers Form the5th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society [C]. Chicago: ChicagoLinguistic Society,1969,108-116.
Krahmer, E., Presupposition and Anaphora [M].Stanford: CSLI.1998.
Krahmer, E.&Muskens, R., Negation and Disjunction in Discourse Representation [J].Journal of Semantics,1995,(12):357–376.
Kratzer, A., Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates [A]. In The Generic Book [C].(eds). G.N. Carlson&F.J. Pelletier. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1995,125-175.
Lappin, S.,(eds.). The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory [C]. Blackwell,Oxford,1996.
Lascarides, A.&Asher, N., Temporal Interpretation, Discourse Relations andCommonsense Entailment [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy,1993,16(5):437-493.
Levinson, S. C., Pragmatic Reduction of the Binding Conditions Revised [J]. Journal ofLinguistics,1991,(27):107-121.
Levinson, S. C., Pragmatics and the Grammar of Anaphora [J]. Journal of linguistics,1987,(23):379-434.
Lewis, D., Language and languages [J]. In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science,University of Minnesota Press,1975,(7):3–35.
Mann, W. C.&Thompson, S. A., Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a FunctionalTheory of Text Organization [J]. Text,1988,8(3):243-281.
Mann, W. C.&Thompson, S. A., Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Framework for theAnalysis of Texts [J]. International Pragmatics Association Papers in Pragmatics,1987,(1):79-105.
McCawley, J.D., Where Do Noun Phrases Come From?[J]. In Jacobs. Reprinted inSteinberg,1970,(71):217-231.
Montague, R. M., The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English [J]. InFormal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, Yale University Press,1974,247-270.
Muskens, R., Combining Montague Semantics and Discourse Representation [J].Linguistics and Philosophy,1994,(19):143-186.
Partee, H. B., Bound Variables and Other Anaphors: Compositionality in FormalSemantics: Selected Papers [C]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,2004,110-121.
Partee, B., Quantificational Structures and Compositionality [A]. In E. Bach et al.(eds.)Quantification in Natural Language, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers,1995.
Partee, B., Noun Phrase Interpretation and Type Shifting Principles [A]. In Groenendijk, J.Jongh, D. de&Stokhof, M.(eds.). Studies in Discourse Representation Theory andthe Theory of Generalized Quantifiers[C]. GRASS8, Foris, Dordrecht,1987,115–144.
Partee, B., Bound Variables and Other Anaphors [J]. In D. Waltz (eds.), Proceedings ofTINLAP,1978,(2):79-85.
Partee, B., Montague Grammar and Transformational Grammar [J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1975,(6):203–300.
Piwek, P.&Krahmer, E., Logic, Presupposition in Context: Constructing Bridges. In P.Bronzon, M. Cavalcantic,&R. Nossum (eds.), Formal Aspects of Context. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers.2000.
Piwek, P., Logic, Information and Conversation. Ph.D. thesis, Eindhoven University ofTechnology.1998.
Reinhart, T., Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation [M]. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress,1983.
Reinhart, T., Definite NP Anaphora and C-command Domains [J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1981,(12):605-636.
Reinhart, T., Conditions for Text Coherence [J]. Poetics Today,1980,(1):161-180.
Reinhart, T.&Reuland, E., Reflexivity [J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1993,(24):657-720.
Reinhart, T., The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora [D]. MIT.,1976.
Reyle, U., Dealing with Ambiguities by Underspecification: Construction, Representationand Deduction [J]. Journal of Semantics,1993,(10):123–179.
Richards, B., On Interpreting Pronouns [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy,1984,(7):287-324.
Root, R., The Semantics of Anaphora in Discourse [D]. University of Texas at Austin,1986.
Sag, I. A.&Hankarner, J., Toward a Theory of Anaphoric Processing [J]. Linguistics andPhilosophy,1984,(7):325-345.
Saurer, W., A Natural Deduction System for Discourse Representation Theory [J].Journalof Philosophical Logic,1993,22(3):249–302.
Sanford, A.&Garrod. S., Understanding Written Language: Exploration inComprehension beyond the Sentence [M]. Chichester: John Wiley,1981.
Taboada, M.&Mann, W. C., Rhetorical Structure Theory: Looking Back and MovingAhead [J].Discourse Studies,2006,8(3):423-459.
Tarski, A., The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics [J].Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,1944,(4):341-376.
Thomason, R., Selected Papers of Richard Montague [C]. Yale University Press, NewHaven, CT,1974:222-246.
Van der Sandt, R., Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution [J]. Journal ofSemantics,1992,(9):333-377.
Van der Sandt, R., Presupposition and Discourse Structure [J]. in: R. Bartsch et al.(eds.),Semantics and Contextual Expression, Foris, Dordrecht,1989.
Van Eijck, J.&Kamp, H., Representing Discourse in Context [A]. In van Bethem, J.&ter Meulen, A.(eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language [C], Elsevier ScienceB.V., New York,1997,179-237.
Webber, B. L., A Formal Approach to Discourse Anaphora [D]. University, Published byGarland in Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics,1978.
Webber, B.L., Discourse Model Synthesis: Preliminaries to Reference [J].In Joshi,1981,(81):283-299.
Winograd, T., Understanding Natural Language [M].New York: Academic Press,1976.
陈平.汉语零形回指的话语分析[J].《中国语文》，1987，（5）：263-378.
陈荣、姜云飞、林笠.溯因推理研究现状与问题[J].《计算机科学》，2003，（5）：23-36.
陈治安、文旭.语用学研究在中国的新进展—第六届全国语用学研讨会论文综述[J].《外国语》，2000，（1）：14-19.
程雨民.语用分析如何介入语言理解：评Levinson照应理论兼评Huang的纯语用解释[J].《现代外语》，1993，（62）：1-7.
范晓、陈忠.预设和蕴涵[J].《信阳师范学院学报》（哲学社会科学版），2002：（5）68-73.
方立、文卫平等.《动态意义理论》[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社，2008.
方立.动态意义理论：逻辑语义学的继续发展[J].《语文学刊》（高教外文版），2006：（12）：1-8.
方立.《逻辑语义学》[M].北京：北京语言文化大学出版社，2000.
高卫东.《语篇回指的功能意义解析》[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社，2008.
韩晓方.溯因法与语言认知:以语言理论的建构为例[J].《外语学刊》，2009（2）：92-95
贺川生.乔姆斯基语言天赋思想的皮尔士哲学根源：溯因逻辑[J].《当代语言学》，2004，（6）：128-138.
何自然、陈明仁.《当代语用学》[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2004.
胡壮麟.《语篇的衔接与连贯》[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，1994.
黄国文.《语篇分析的理论与实践：广告语篇研究》[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2001.
黄华新、徐慈华.隐喻表达与经济性原则[J].《浙江大学学报》（人文社会科学版），2006：（5）2-36.
李勇忠.架桥式语用推理的认知研究[J].《天津外国语学院学报》（人文社会科学版），2004：（1）20-25.
刘根辉、金鐘讚.形式语用学研究综论—简论汉语形式语用学研究发展的思路[J].《语言研究》，2005，（1）：15-18.
刘向东.组合原则之是与非[J].《湖南医科大学学报》（社会科学版)，2009，（11）：123-125.
刘国辉、刘露营.认知推理与深层回指的确定[J].《重庆大学学报》（社会科学版），2005，（3）：83-86.
刘新文.周礼全自然语言逻辑思想综述[J].《哲学动态》，2001，（07）：10-13.
刘辰诞.《教学语篇语言学》[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999.
刘晓力.进化-涉身认知背景下的一种表征理论[J].《哲学研究》，2010，（11）：1-10.
刘宇红、王志霞.现实表征、心理表征、语言表征[J].《湘潭大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)，2005，（1）：147-150.
姜望琪. Zipf与省力原则[J].《同济大学学报》（社会科学版），2005（2）：87-95.
姜望琪.《语言学理论及应用》[M].北京：北京大学出版社，2000.
蒋严.论语用推理的逻辑属性—形式语用学初探[J].《外国语》，2002，（3）：18-29.
蒋严、潘海华.《形式语义学引论》.北京：中国社会科学出版社，1998.
金立.话语表现理论视角下的汉语指代分析[J].《哲学动态》，2006，增刊.
毛翊、周北海.分段式语篇表示理论—基于语篇结构的自然语言语义学[J].《语言学论丛》，2002，（35）.
苗兴伟.语言的信息连贯[J].《Foreign Language Education》，2003，（2）：13-16.
苗兴伟.论衔接与连贯的关系[J].《外国语》，1998，（4）：44-49.
梅德明.论句子的逻辑式[J].《外国语》，2000，（3）：10-16.
宁春岩.形式语言学的纯科学精神[J].《现代外语》，2000，（32):220-209.
潘海华.篇章表达理论概说[J].《国外语言学》，1996，（3）：17-26.
彭家法.当代形式语义学的争鸣与进展[J].《外语学刊》，2005，（3）：46-50.
钱冠连.论构建语用推理模式的出发点：新格莱斯理论评论[J].《现代外语》，1994，（65）：1-6.
秦洪武.第三人称代词在深层回指中的应用分析[J].《当代语言学》，2001，（1）：55-64.
王军、高明强.概念匹配、回指释义与概念转移：篇章回指研究的新思路[J].《外
语学刊》，2009，（05）：92-96.
王军.论语言语境对回指的限定作用[J].《外语学刊》，2005，（05）：18-21.
王健平.从逻辑看歧义的产生及其解决途径[J].《华南师范大学学报》（社会科学版），2006，（3）.
王宗炎（主编）.《英汉应用语言学词典》.湖南：湖南教育出版社，1988.
温宾利.《当代句法学导论》.北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2002.
翁依琴、熊学亮.回指的形式语用学初探[J].《外语研究》，2005，（2）：6-9.
文卫平.新格莱斯语用照应理论[J].《语文学刊》，2007，（10）：1-6.
文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.博士论文.2006，4.
文旭、匡芳涛.搭桥参照的认知语义观[J].《理论语言学研究》，2008，（2）：121-126.
夏年喜.从DRT与SDRT看照应关系的逻辑解释[J].《重庆理工大学学报》（社会科学），2010，（7）：8-11.
夏年喜.从DRT到SDRT—动态语义理论的新发展[J].《哲学动态》，2006，（6）：52-56.
夏年喜.从知识表示的角度看DRT与一阶谓词逻辑[J].《南京社会科学》，2006，（2）：26-30.
夏年喜.DRS与一阶谓词逻辑公式[J].《哲学动态》，2005，（11）：52-55.
夏年喜.从蒙太格语法的局限性看DRT的理论价值[J].《逻辑学》，2005，（12）：75-78.
徐赳赳.《现代汉语篇章回指研究》[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社.2003.
徐盛桓.常规关系与语句解读研究—语用推理形式化的初步探索[J].《现代外语》，2003，（4）：111-119.
徐盛桓.常规关系与认知化—再论常规关系[J].《外国语》，2002，（1）：6-16.
徐盛桓.含意本体论论纲[J].外语与外语教学，1997，（1）：5-10.
徐盛桓.上指预测的语用因素：评列文森的上指推导模式[J].《现代外语》，1994，（63）：8-14.
徐盛桓.论“常规关系”——新格赖斯会话含意理论系列研究之六[J].《外国语》，1993，（6）：11-18.
徐盛桓.“预设”新论[J].外语学刊，1993，（1）：1-8.
许余龙.语篇回指的认知语言学探索[J].《外国语》，2002，（1）：28-37.
许余龙.英汉指称词语表达的可及性[J].《外语教学与研究》，2000，（5）：321-328.
熊学亮.《语言使用中的推理》[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.2007.
熊学亮.话语连续性的图式分解研究[J].《外国语》，2001，（3）：1-7.
熊学亮.从指代研究看新格赖斯语用学的实用性[J].《外国语》，1997，（3）：13-19.
熊学亮.认知语境的语用可及程度分析[J].《外国语》，1999，（6）：17-23.
尹邦彦.英语零照应的类型与主要特征[J].《解放军外国语学院学报》，1999，（2）：15-18.
赵明、刘涛.语言回指加工的ERP研究述评[J].《心理科学进展》，2011，（3）：355-363.
曾凡桂.皮尔士“Abduction”译名探讨[J].《外语教学与研究》，2003，（6）：469-472.
曾凡桂、毛眺源.形式语用学发展脉络概略[J].《外语学刊》，2010，（1）：67-70.
张德禄.论衔接[J].《外国语》，2001，（3）：23-28.
张德禄.论语篇连贯[J].《外语教学与研究》，2000，（3）：103-109.
张德禄.语篇连贯研究纵横谈[J].《外国语》，1999，（3）：24-31.
张韧弦.《形式语用学导论》[M].上海：复旦大学出版社，2008.
周北海、毛翊.《一个关于常识推理的基础逻辑》[J].《哲学研究》，2003，（增刊）：1-10.
周礼全.《逻辑—正确思维和成功交际的理论》[M].北京：人民出版社，1994，4.
邹崇理.《自然语言逻辑研究》[M].北京：北京大学出版社，1996.
邹崇理.《逻辑、语言和信息》[M].北京：人民出版社，2002.
邹崇理.从语言到逻辑—范畴类型逻辑序列[J].《重庆工学院学报》，2006，（4）.
邹崇理.从逻辑到语言—Barbara H．Partee访谈录.《当代语言学》，2007，（9）：151-165.
邹崇理.组合原则[J].《逻辑学研究》，2008，（l）：75-83.
朱迎春.深层回指的诸类型及其语用分析[J].《浙江工程学院学报》，2004，（21）：158-162.
朱永生、苗兴伟.语用预设的语用功能[J].《外国语》，2000，（3）：25-30.
朱永生.试论语篇连贯的内部条件（上）[J].《现代外语》，1996，（4）：17-45.
朱永生.试论语篇连贯的内部条件（下）[J].《现代外语》，1997，（1）：11-14.