意识流语篇中搭桥回指的生成
|
摘要
本研究旨在将修正的新格莱斯语用方式原则融入标准向心理论,以实现对标准向心理论代词规则和转换规则的扩充与修正,找出意识流语篇中搭桥回指生成机制的制约因素,提出搭桥回指生成算法。
从研究方法而言,本研究以定性研究为主,以自建意识流语料库为辅,重理论阐释,意在运用修正向心理论规则的形式化表征推导出搭桥回指生成的规则制约,从而对意识流语料库中的搭桥回指现象有一定的预测力和解释力。标准向心理论作为一个基于一般自然语篇的关于语篇局部连贯性和代词化的“参数化理论”,其核心参数——回指中心和前瞻中心集因语言、领域和体裁的变化而异。这就导致标准向心理论对一些语言现象尚不能作出充分解释,例如,在复杂虚拟叙述语篇——意识流语篇中,因内心独白语段的联想跳跃性和非线性化叙事性,语段间或语句间实现为搭桥回指的回指中心看似不连贯,但在读者头脑中实则是连贯的,这一点与标准向心理论的直觉相悖。换言之,一方面,标准向心理论关注代词回指中心在相邻语句间的实现方式和运作模式；另一方面,意识流语篇中实现为名词(词组)和省略零形代词的回指中心则多为搭桥回指。如何运用意识流语篇搭桥回指生成特点(搭桥回指中心在意识流语篇中的实现形式和运作模式)形成搭桥回指生成算法就成为有待解决的问题。因此,保持向心理论的形式化优势,对该理论的规则进行修订和补充,会更全面地从计算语篇语言学角度对意识流语篇中注意状态、推理复杂性和语篇连贯三者之间的互动与关联作出充分合理的解释。鉴于此,搭桥回指生成算法的推导需回答下述问题：
1.在意识流语篇中,名词(词组)和省略零形代词为什么可作为回指中心?
2.在意识流语篇中,名词(词组)和省略零形代词的语篇功能是什么?
3.在意识流语篇中,作为回指中心的名词(词组)和省略零形代词是如何生成的?
4.修正的转换规则对语篇切分和连贯的作用是什么?
对意识流语料库进行向心分析的研究显示,意识流数据结构的向心描述主要依赖搭桥回指中心,标准向心理论的规则显然不能充分解释语料库中的语篇片段连贯问题。标准向心理论描述所有形式的“x转换倾向于以y形式编码回指中心”。研究显示,回指中心编码和转换形式之问的关系表现出一些趋势。本研究侧重描述与常规趋势相异的意识流语料中出现的非常规趋势。
最显著的趋势为COHESIVE1和COHESIVE2转换类型的回指中心编码为名词(词组)和省略零形代词,这与以往向心理论对回指中心实现形式的预测相悖。意识流语料显示,COHESIVE1和COHESIVE2转换类型的回指中心中有76%编码为名词(词组)和省略零形代词。这就意味着读者不仅依赖形式结构,而且还要依赖形式结构引发的语用推理来完成回指中心的信息延展,以构筑语篇的局部与整体连贯。由先行词蕴涵或激发的名词(词组)或省略零形代词由于其担负的独特语篇功能而倾向于同指。数据表明,超细和超定的标记繁琐形式——名词(词组)和超未定的非常规标记性减省形式——省略零形代词,则选择另外的、非常规的、不可预见的先行词实现同指。修正的向心理论认为,作者倾向于选择标记形式暗示另外的、非常规的、不可预见的情景同指解读,而减省的非标记形式则不然。
研究表明,在意识流语篇中,名词(词组)搭桥回指在语篇片段内与在语篇片段间具有不同的语篇功能。在语篇片段内,它们主要用于详述、延伸和增强信息流,它们主要把新信息融入已知信息,从而建立一个包含新信息与已知信息的实体。另外,它们也可用于解歧,突出主题,转换主题和标示修辞对比关系。在语篇片段间,其承载的主要功能为标示参与者的视角转换和以信息冗余形式担当语篇切分标记。相邻语段间的回指中心也可由省略零形代词通过部分——整体关系或框架关系间接实现。其语篇功能为：激活和维系主题,标示主观视角,蕴涵特殊情感、态度和性格特征,诸如烦乱、逃遁和怯懦。
本研究将标准向心理论与修正的新格莱斯语用方式原则相结合,对回指中心的实现方式和运动模式施加语法和语用制约,为从语法与语用互动和分工的角度解释名词(词组)或省略零形代词搭桥回指的生成制约提供了理论依据。两者在不同语言层面系统关联、共同运作形成意识流语篇搭桥回指生成算法。一方面,句法对搭桥回指的显著度和分布施加语法制约,调控与语法结构相关的解释；另一方面,作者对搭桥回指的选择和读者对其的解析则受到调控语言使用和交际的方式原则制约。因此,基于支配语言交际的、修正的新格莱斯方式原则与标准向心理论相融合的搭桥回指生成算法为名词(词组)和省略零形代词搭桥回指生成提供了一个简洁而又合理的解释。
修正后的向心理论转换规则可更有助于意识流语篇连贯的描述和测量。有别于标准向心理论的“显著度”和“衔接”二分评价标尺和Kibble修正的“衔接”、“显著度”、“省力”和“无回指中心”四分评价标尺,本研究以“衔接”和“连贯”的区别为前提,将以往评价标尺延展为“连贯”、“显著度”、“省力”、“衔接”和“无回指中心”五个标准,以测量转换序列的连贯程度。新增的“连贯”标准以及对词汇衔接和认知或语用衔接的区别对描述意识流语料库的连贯至关重要。关于这一点,标准向心理论的规则二却难以做到。衔接主要关注相邻两个回指中心间的语义关联,可在框架语义学范围内获得解决。而连贯聚焦相邻两个回指中心间受认知或语用驱动的语义关联,即两个回指中心可能语义并无关联,但可由认知或语用因素在两回指中心间创设暂时或永久关联。
总之,在搭桥回指生成算法推导中,向心理论通过对语句施加语法制约,选择每一语句的回指中心,确定语句间的注意中心,即相邻语句间的回指中心。然后,候选回指中心经由修正的新格莱斯方式原则的语用制约,生成标记性搭桥回指——名词(词组)或省略零形代词,从而为回指中心间接实现为名词(词组)和省略零形代词提供语用理据。同时,通过实现回指中心的不同回指词类型,不同回指词蕴涵或激活的不同语境类型可得以预测。
本研究通过对意识流语篇的具体分析来修正计算语篇语言学的向心回指理论,或者说是在标准向心回指理论的基础上增加了意识流语篇的向心回指生成模式。意识流语篇搭桥回指生成算法是基于意识流搭桥回指生成特点的考量之上推导而成,该生成算法是对基于一般自然语篇的标准向心理论的丰富和发展,也是本研究对计算语篇语言学理论的特殊贡献。
This dissertation mainly focuses on the revision and extension of two Rules of standard Centering Theory (Pronoun Rule and Transition Rule) to develop the constraints on the generation algorithm of bridging anaphora (BA) in stream-of-consciousness (SOC) discourse from a revised Centering perspective by incorporating the revised neo-Gricean pragmatic M-principle into the standard Centering.
Methodologically, the present study is mainly qualitatively oriented, supported by a self-built stream-of-consciousness corpus. It explicitly targets theoretical description rather than practical application. So it is intended to derive some general heuristic rules to address bridging anaphora generation under a revised Centering Theory, which may predict and explain promising results for the stream-of-consciousness corpus. The standard Centering Theory is a "parametric theory", which is built on local coherence and pronominalization. Its core parameters—backward-looking center (Cb) and forward-looking center (Cf) ranking vary with languages, domains and genres. Standard Centering Theory can not adequately handle language phenomena yet to be explained. For example, in complex fictional narrative—stream-of-consciousness discourse, the interior monologue segment is characterized by associative leaps in syntax and narrative non-linearization. Cb realized as bridging full noun phrases (FNP) and elliptical zero pronouns (EZP) across discourse segment boundaries or between two adjacent utterances seem incoherent, but they are actually coherent in the reader's mind, which defies the intuition of standard Centering Theory. In other words, on the one hand, standard Centering Theory focuses on pronoun Cb realization and movement across two adjacent utterances in naturally occurring discourse; on the other hand, full noun phrases or elliptical zero pronouns are mainly responsible for Cb realization and movement in stream-of-consciousness discourse. Then, the question is how to develop a Centering-oriented generation algorithm of bridging anaphora based on its generation characteristics, i.e., bridging Cb realization and Cb movement. Hence, in terms of formalization claims of standard Centering, certain aspects of the theory need to be modified and extended if the theory is to provide a more comprehensive discourse-oriented computational account of attentional state, inferential complexity, and ultimately discourse coherence. In light of the above-stated problem, the task of modelling a bridging anaphora generation algorithm can be fulfilled by addressing research questions spelled out below:
1. Why can full noun phrases and elliptical zero pronouns be employed as backward-looking centers in stream-of-consciousness discourse?
2. What are the discourse functions of full noun phrases and elliptical zero pronouns in stream-of-consciousness discourse?
3. How are full noun phrases and elliptical zero pronouns as backward-looking centers generated in stream-of-consciousness discourse?
4. How does the revised Transition Rule contribute to stream-of-consciousness discourse segmentation, and how does it relate to coherence?
Upon subjecting a stream-of-consciousness corpus to a centering analysis, we can discern that a centering description of the stream-of-consciousness data structures relies heavily on bridging centers realized as full noun phrases and elliptical zero pronouns. Therefore, it is inadequate to capture coherence this corpus displays under standard Centering.
The standard Centering Theory describes all of the type "x transition tends to encode the backward-looking center in y form." There are some clear tendencies that can be observed. The main concern of the present study is the realizations that do not follow standard tendencies. The most clearly stated tendency is that the backward-looking center of a COHESIVE1or COHESIVE2transition is realized via full noun phrases and elliptical zero pronouns, which is quite against the expectation previous Centering Theory literature sets up for backward-looking center realization. In stream-of-consciousness discourse, seventy-six percent of the backward-looking centers in COHESIVE1and COHESIVE2are realized as full noun phrases and elliptical zero pronouns. That is, readers can not only rely on expressions but also largely depend on expression-induced pragmatic inferencing to fulfill the backward-looking-center-based information continuity and progression, and to construct discourse local and global coherence. Full noun phrases and elliptical zero pronouns, whose meanings are entailed or evoked by their respective antecedents, result in the highest consensus in favor of a coreferential reading due to the particular discourse functions they serve. The tendency for overspecified/overdetermined marked prolix expressions—full noun phrases or over-underspecified minimal non-conventional marked forms—elliptical zero pronouns to pick out alternative, non-stereotypical or less predictable anchors supports the revised Centering's prediction in terms of the revised neo-Gricean pragmatic M-principle. According to the revised Centering, the writer's choice of a marked form tends to implicate an alternative, non-stereotypical, or less predictable interpretation in a marked situation, which would not have been implicated by a more minimal, unmarked expression.
The study reveals that full noun phrase bridging anaphora serves different functions both within segments and across segments in stream-of-consciousness discourse. With regard to full noun phrase bridging anaphora within segments, they are mainly used to elaborate, extend and enhance information flow, to put it another way, they are used to incorporate something new into the given entity and establish an entity integrating the given with the new one. In addition, they may be employed for disambiguation, thematic prominence, a topic shift and a signal of a rhetorical relation of contrast, whilst full noun phrase bridging anaphora across segments can serve the functions such as alteration of the participants'perspectives and informationally redundant utterances as segmentation markers. The relation between two indirectly realized backward-looking centers of adjacent utterances can also be mereologically related or frame-related via elliptical zero pronouns. They may be used for topic activation and maintenance, as a signal of a subjective point of view, and to implicate special feelings, attitudes and characters such as hidden fidgets, evasion and cowardice.
Centering Theory combined with the revised neo-Gricean pragmatic M-principle is supposed to impose some grammatical and pragmatic constraints on backward-looking center realization and movement. It provides theoretical rationale for an account of constraints on full noun phrase and elliptical zero pronoun bridging anaphora generation in terms of the interaction and the division of labor between syntax and pragmatics. As to both, one can not alone handle bridging anaphora without the other. Despite the fact that syntax and pragmatics operate at distinct levels of linguistic explanation, they appear to interact systematically in the case of bridging anaphora generation. On the one hand, syntax sets certain restrictions on salience and distributions of bridging anaphora, and regulates the part of interpretation which is related to grammatical structure. On the other hand, the choice of bridging anaphoric expressions by writers and their interpretation by readers is heavily dependent on preference which is regulated by the M-principle of language use and communication. Hence, the bridging anaphora generation algorithm based on the incorporation of the revised neo-Gricean pragmatic M-principle of communication into Centering provides a neat and reasonable explanation for bridging full noun phrase and elliptical zero pronoun generation.
The revision of Transition Rule of Centering allows us to come closer to understanding and comprehensively modeling coherence in stream-of-consciousness discourse. An evaluation metric comprising a battery of five-test criteria other than the standard version of "salience" and "cohesion" and Kibble's version of "cohesion","salience","cheapness" and "no backward-looking center", is developed to involve "coherence","salience","cheapness","cohesion" and "no backward-looking center" in measuring the degree of coherence of different transition sequences on the premise of the distinction between coherence and cohesion. The addition of "coherence" and the distinction between the notion of lexical cohesion and cognitive and/or pragmatic coherence are crucial to the characterization of coherence in this corpus, which the Rule2of standard Centering Theory cannot adequately capture. Cohesion mainly dwells on semantic relatedness between two backward-looking centers, which can be resolved in frame semantics. Coherence cares more about relatedness between two backward-looking centers motivated by cognitive and/or pragmatic factors. In other words, two backward-looking centers may be semantically unrelated, but they strike up a relation with each other either temporarily or permanently due to cognitive and/or pragmatic factors.
In conclusion, in this bridging anaphora generation algorithm, Centering identifies the center of attention intersententially. That is, the backward-looking center across adjacent utterances, by means of imposing grammatical constraints as filters on the selection of the appropriate backward-looking center of each utterance. Then, the candidate center is further mediated by the revised neo-Gricean pragmatic M-principle. It provides an explicit clue to delving into why the backward-looking center can be indirectly realized as full noun phrases or elliptical zero pronouns, and how different kinds of context are evoked and encoded by different anaphoric expressions, which can be predicted via different backward-looking center realizations.
On the basis of a detailed analysis of stream-of-consciousness discourse, one of the most influential discourse-oriented computational models, i.e., standard Centering Theory on anaphora generation is revised. Put differently, another anaphora generation model is added to the standard Centering Theory on anaphora generation. The generation algorithm of bridging anaphora developed in the study is predicated on its generation characteristics in stream-of-consciousness discourse. This bridging anaphora generation algorithm modelling can be counted as a special contribution to the development of discourse-oriented computational linguistics.
从研究方法而言,本研究以定性研究为主,以自建意识流语料库为辅,重理论阐释,意在运用修正向心理论规则的形式化表征推导出搭桥回指生成的规则制约,从而对意识流语料库中的搭桥回指现象有一定的预测力和解释力。标准向心理论作为一个基于一般自然语篇的关于语篇局部连贯性和代词化的“参数化理论”,其核心参数——回指中心和前瞻中心集因语言、领域和体裁的变化而异。这就导致标准向心理论对一些语言现象尚不能作出充分解释,例如,在复杂虚拟叙述语篇——意识流语篇中,因内心独白语段的联想跳跃性和非线性化叙事性,语段间或语句间实现为搭桥回指的回指中心看似不连贯,但在读者头脑中实则是连贯的,这一点与标准向心理论的直觉相悖。换言之,一方面,标准向心理论关注代词回指中心在相邻语句间的实现方式和运作模式；另一方面,意识流语篇中实现为名词(词组)和省略零形代词的回指中心则多为搭桥回指。如何运用意识流语篇搭桥回指生成特点(搭桥回指中心在意识流语篇中的实现形式和运作模式)形成搭桥回指生成算法就成为有待解决的问题。因此,保持向心理论的形式化优势,对该理论的规则进行修订和补充,会更全面地从计算语篇语言学角度对意识流语篇中注意状态、推理复杂性和语篇连贯三者之间的互动与关联作出充分合理的解释。鉴于此,搭桥回指生成算法的推导需回答下述问题：
1.在意识流语篇中,名词(词组)和省略零形代词为什么可作为回指中心?
2.在意识流语篇中,名词(词组)和省略零形代词的语篇功能是什么?
3.在意识流语篇中,作为回指中心的名词(词组)和省略零形代词是如何生成的?
4.修正的转换规则对语篇切分和连贯的作用是什么?
对意识流语料库进行向心分析的研究显示,意识流数据结构的向心描述主要依赖搭桥回指中心,标准向心理论的规则显然不能充分解释语料库中的语篇片段连贯问题。标准向心理论描述所有形式的“x转换倾向于以y形式编码回指中心”。研究显示,回指中心编码和转换形式之问的关系表现出一些趋势。本研究侧重描述与常规趋势相异的意识流语料中出现的非常规趋势。
最显著的趋势为COHESIVE1和COHESIVE2转换类型的回指中心编码为名词(词组)和省略零形代词,这与以往向心理论对回指中心实现形式的预测相悖。意识流语料显示,COHESIVE1和COHESIVE2转换类型的回指中心中有76%编码为名词(词组)和省略零形代词。这就意味着读者不仅依赖形式结构,而且还要依赖形式结构引发的语用推理来完成回指中心的信息延展,以构筑语篇的局部与整体连贯。由先行词蕴涵或激发的名词(词组)或省略零形代词由于其担负的独特语篇功能而倾向于同指。数据表明,超细和超定的标记繁琐形式——名词(词组)和超未定的非常规标记性减省形式——省略零形代词,则选择另外的、非常规的、不可预见的先行词实现同指。修正的向心理论认为,作者倾向于选择标记形式暗示另外的、非常规的、不可预见的情景同指解读,而减省的非标记形式则不然。
研究表明,在意识流语篇中,名词(词组)搭桥回指在语篇片段内与在语篇片段间具有不同的语篇功能。在语篇片段内,它们主要用于详述、延伸和增强信息流,它们主要把新信息融入已知信息,从而建立一个包含新信息与已知信息的实体。另外,它们也可用于解歧,突出主题,转换主题和标示修辞对比关系。在语篇片段间,其承载的主要功能为标示参与者的视角转换和以信息冗余形式担当语篇切分标记。相邻语段间的回指中心也可由省略零形代词通过部分——整体关系或框架关系间接实现。其语篇功能为：激活和维系主题,标示主观视角,蕴涵特殊情感、态度和性格特征,诸如烦乱、逃遁和怯懦。
本研究将标准向心理论与修正的新格莱斯语用方式原则相结合,对回指中心的实现方式和运动模式施加语法和语用制约,为从语法与语用互动和分工的角度解释名词(词组)或省略零形代词搭桥回指的生成制约提供了理论依据。两者在不同语言层面系统关联、共同运作形成意识流语篇搭桥回指生成算法。一方面,句法对搭桥回指的显著度和分布施加语法制约,调控与语法结构相关的解释；另一方面,作者对搭桥回指的选择和读者对其的解析则受到调控语言使用和交际的方式原则制约。因此,基于支配语言交际的、修正的新格莱斯方式原则与标准向心理论相融合的搭桥回指生成算法为名词(词组)和省略零形代词搭桥回指生成提供了一个简洁而又合理的解释。
修正后的向心理论转换规则可更有助于意识流语篇连贯的描述和测量。有别于标准向心理论的“显著度”和“衔接”二分评价标尺和Kibble修正的“衔接”、“显著度”、“省力”和“无回指中心”四分评价标尺,本研究以“衔接”和“连贯”的区别为前提,将以往评价标尺延展为“连贯”、“显著度”、“省力”、“衔接”和“无回指中心”五个标准,以测量转换序列的连贯程度。新增的“连贯”标准以及对词汇衔接和认知或语用衔接的区别对描述意识流语料库的连贯至关重要。关于这一点,标准向心理论的规则二却难以做到。衔接主要关注相邻两个回指中心间的语义关联,可在框架语义学范围内获得解决。而连贯聚焦相邻两个回指中心间受认知或语用驱动的语义关联,即两个回指中心可能语义并无关联,但可由认知或语用因素在两回指中心间创设暂时或永久关联。
总之,在搭桥回指生成算法推导中,向心理论通过对语句施加语法制约,选择每一语句的回指中心,确定语句间的注意中心,即相邻语句间的回指中心。然后,候选回指中心经由修正的新格莱斯方式原则的语用制约,生成标记性搭桥回指——名词(词组)或省略零形代词,从而为回指中心间接实现为名词(词组)和省略零形代词提供语用理据。同时,通过实现回指中心的不同回指词类型,不同回指词蕴涵或激活的不同语境类型可得以预测。
本研究通过对意识流语篇的具体分析来修正计算语篇语言学的向心回指理论,或者说是在标准向心回指理论的基础上增加了意识流语篇的向心回指生成模式。意识流语篇搭桥回指生成算法是基于意识流搭桥回指生成特点的考量之上推导而成,该生成算法是对基于一般自然语篇的标准向心理论的丰富和发展,也是本研究对计算语篇语言学理论的特殊贡献。
This dissertation mainly focuses on the revision and extension of two Rules of standard Centering Theory (Pronoun Rule and Transition Rule) to develop the constraints on the generation algorithm of bridging anaphora (BA) in stream-of-consciousness (SOC) discourse from a revised Centering perspective by incorporating the revised neo-Gricean pragmatic M-principle into the standard Centering.
Methodologically, the present study is mainly qualitatively oriented, supported by a self-built stream-of-consciousness corpus. It explicitly targets theoretical description rather than practical application. So it is intended to derive some general heuristic rules to address bridging anaphora generation under a revised Centering Theory, which may predict and explain promising results for the stream-of-consciousness corpus. The standard Centering Theory is a "parametric theory", which is built on local coherence and pronominalization. Its core parameters—backward-looking center (Cb) and forward-looking center (Cf) ranking vary with languages, domains and genres. Standard Centering Theory can not adequately handle language phenomena yet to be explained. For example, in complex fictional narrative—stream-of-consciousness discourse, the interior monologue segment is characterized by associative leaps in syntax and narrative non-linearization. Cb realized as bridging full noun phrases (FNP) and elliptical zero pronouns (EZP) across discourse segment boundaries or between two adjacent utterances seem incoherent, but they are actually coherent in the reader's mind, which defies the intuition of standard Centering Theory. In other words, on the one hand, standard Centering Theory focuses on pronoun Cb realization and movement across two adjacent utterances in naturally occurring discourse; on the other hand, full noun phrases or elliptical zero pronouns are mainly responsible for Cb realization and movement in stream-of-consciousness discourse. Then, the question is how to develop a Centering-oriented generation algorithm of bridging anaphora based on its generation characteristics, i.e., bridging Cb realization and Cb movement. Hence, in terms of formalization claims of standard Centering, certain aspects of the theory need to be modified and extended if the theory is to provide a more comprehensive discourse-oriented computational account of attentional state, inferential complexity, and ultimately discourse coherence. In light of the above-stated problem, the task of modelling a bridging anaphora generation algorithm can be fulfilled by addressing research questions spelled out below:
1. Why can full noun phrases and elliptical zero pronouns be employed as backward-looking centers in stream-of-consciousness discourse?
2. What are the discourse functions of full noun phrases and elliptical zero pronouns in stream-of-consciousness discourse?
3. How are full noun phrases and elliptical zero pronouns as backward-looking centers generated in stream-of-consciousness discourse?
4. How does the revised Transition Rule contribute to stream-of-consciousness discourse segmentation, and how does it relate to coherence?
Upon subjecting a stream-of-consciousness corpus to a centering analysis, we can discern that a centering description of the stream-of-consciousness data structures relies heavily on bridging centers realized as full noun phrases and elliptical zero pronouns. Therefore, it is inadequate to capture coherence this corpus displays under standard Centering.
The standard Centering Theory describes all of the type "x transition tends to encode the backward-looking center in y form." There are some clear tendencies that can be observed. The main concern of the present study is the realizations that do not follow standard tendencies. The most clearly stated tendency is that the backward-looking center of a COHESIVE1or COHESIVE2transition is realized via full noun phrases and elliptical zero pronouns, which is quite against the expectation previous Centering Theory literature sets up for backward-looking center realization. In stream-of-consciousness discourse, seventy-six percent of the backward-looking centers in COHESIVE1and COHESIVE2are realized as full noun phrases and elliptical zero pronouns. That is, readers can not only rely on expressions but also largely depend on expression-induced pragmatic inferencing to fulfill the backward-looking-center-based information continuity and progression, and to construct discourse local and global coherence. Full noun phrases and elliptical zero pronouns, whose meanings are entailed or evoked by their respective antecedents, result in the highest consensus in favor of a coreferential reading due to the particular discourse functions they serve. The tendency for overspecified/overdetermined marked prolix expressions—full noun phrases or over-underspecified minimal non-conventional marked forms—elliptical zero pronouns to pick out alternative, non-stereotypical or less predictable anchors supports the revised Centering's prediction in terms of the revised neo-Gricean pragmatic M-principle. According to the revised Centering, the writer's choice of a marked form tends to implicate an alternative, non-stereotypical, or less predictable interpretation in a marked situation, which would not have been implicated by a more minimal, unmarked expression.
The study reveals that full noun phrase bridging anaphora serves different functions both within segments and across segments in stream-of-consciousness discourse. With regard to full noun phrase bridging anaphora within segments, they are mainly used to elaborate, extend and enhance information flow, to put it another way, they are used to incorporate something new into the given entity and establish an entity integrating the given with the new one. In addition, they may be employed for disambiguation, thematic prominence, a topic shift and a signal of a rhetorical relation of contrast, whilst full noun phrase bridging anaphora across segments can serve the functions such as alteration of the participants'perspectives and informationally redundant utterances as segmentation markers. The relation between two indirectly realized backward-looking centers of adjacent utterances can also be mereologically related or frame-related via elliptical zero pronouns. They may be used for topic activation and maintenance, as a signal of a subjective point of view, and to implicate special feelings, attitudes and characters such as hidden fidgets, evasion and cowardice.
Centering Theory combined with the revised neo-Gricean pragmatic M-principle is supposed to impose some grammatical and pragmatic constraints on backward-looking center realization and movement. It provides theoretical rationale for an account of constraints on full noun phrase and elliptical zero pronoun bridging anaphora generation in terms of the interaction and the division of labor between syntax and pragmatics. As to both, one can not alone handle bridging anaphora without the other. Despite the fact that syntax and pragmatics operate at distinct levels of linguistic explanation, they appear to interact systematically in the case of bridging anaphora generation. On the one hand, syntax sets certain restrictions on salience and distributions of bridging anaphora, and regulates the part of interpretation which is related to grammatical structure. On the other hand, the choice of bridging anaphoric expressions by writers and their interpretation by readers is heavily dependent on preference which is regulated by the M-principle of language use and communication. Hence, the bridging anaphora generation algorithm based on the incorporation of the revised neo-Gricean pragmatic M-principle of communication into Centering provides a neat and reasonable explanation for bridging full noun phrase and elliptical zero pronoun generation.
The revision of Transition Rule of Centering allows us to come closer to understanding and comprehensively modeling coherence in stream-of-consciousness discourse. An evaluation metric comprising a battery of five-test criteria other than the standard version of "salience" and "cohesion" and Kibble's version of "cohesion","salience","cheapness" and "no backward-looking center", is developed to involve "coherence","salience","cheapness","cohesion" and "no backward-looking center" in measuring the degree of coherence of different transition sequences on the premise of the distinction between coherence and cohesion. The addition of "coherence" and the distinction between the notion of lexical cohesion and cognitive and/or pragmatic coherence are crucial to the characterization of coherence in this corpus, which the Rule2of standard Centering Theory cannot adequately capture. Cohesion mainly dwells on semantic relatedness between two backward-looking centers, which can be resolved in frame semantics. Coherence cares more about relatedness between two backward-looking centers motivated by cognitive and/or pragmatic factors. In other words, two backward-looking centers may be semantically unrelated, but they strike up a relation with each other either temporarily or permanently due to cognitive and/or pragmatic factors.
In conclusion, in this bridging anaphora generation algorithm, Centering identifies the center of attention intersententially. That is, the backward-looking center across adjacent utterances, by means of imposing grammatical constraints as filters on the selection of the appropriate backward-looking center of each utterance. Then, the candidate center is further mediated by the revised neo-Gricean pragmatic M-principle. It provides an explicit clue to delving into why the backward-looking center can be indirectly realized as full noun phrases or elliptical zero pronouns, and how different kinds of context are evoked and encoded by different anaphoric expressions, which can be predicted via different backward-looking center realizations.
On the basis of a detailed analysis of stream-of-consciousness discourse, one of the most influential discourse-oriented computational models, i.e., standard Centering Theory on anaphora generation is revised. Put differently, another anaphora generation model is added to the standard Centering Theory on anaphora generation. The generation algorithm of bridging anaphora developed in the study is predicated on its generation characteristics in stream-of-consciousness discourse. This bridging anaphora generation algorithm modelling can be counted as a special contribution to the development of discourse-oriented computational linguistics.
引文
Alshawi, H. (1987). Memory and context for language interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Apothrloz, D. (1994). Role et fonctionnement de l'anaphore dans la dynamique textuelle. Genrve:Librairie Droz.
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing NP antecedents. London:Routledge.
Ariel, M. (1994). Interpreting anaphoric expressions:A cognitive versus a pragmatic approach. Journal of Linguistics,30,3-42.
Ariel, M. (1996). Referring expressions and the +/- coreference distinction. In T. Fretheim & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp.13-35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ariel, M. (2001). Accessibility theory: An overview. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation:Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp.29-88). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Asher, N.,& Lascarides, A. (1993). Lexical disambiguation in a discourse context. Journal of Semantics,12,69-108.
Asher, N.,& Lascarides, A. (1998). A computational account of syntactic, semantic, and discourse principles for anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics,6,309-344.
Baker C. L. (1995). Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reflexives in British English. Language,71,63-101.
Banfield, A. (1982). Unspeakable sentences. London:Routledge and Paul.
Barwise, J. (1988). The situation in logic-iv:On the model theory of common knowledge. Technical Report No.122. CSLI.
Beaver, D.,& Clark, B. (2002). Monotonicity and focus sensitivity. In B. Jackson (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT. Cornell:CLC Publications.
Beaver, D. (2004).The optimization of discourse anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(1).3-56.
Bezuidenhout, A.& Morris. R. (2004). Implicature, relevance and default inferences. In I. Noveck & D. Sperber (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.
Birner, B. J. (1992). Inversion in English. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University.
Birner, B. J. (1994). Information status and word order:An analysis of English inversion. Language,70,233-259.
Blackwell, S. E. (1994). A neo-Gricean approach to Spanish NP-anaphora. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburgh.
Blackwell, S. E. (1998). Constraints on Spanish NP anaphora:The syntactic versus the pragmatic domain. Hispania,81 (3),606-618.
Blackwell, S. E. (2000). Anaphora interpretations in Spanish utterances and the neo-Gricean pragmatic theory. Journal of Pragmatics,32,389-424.
Blackwell, S. E. (2001). Testing the neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora:The influence of consistency constraints on interpretations of coreference in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics,33,901-941.
Blackwell, S. E. (2003). Implicatures in discourse:The case of Spanish NP-anaphora. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Bolinger, D. (1977). Meaning and form. New York:Longman
Bolinger, D. (1979). Pronouns in discourse. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics,12, 289-309. New York:Academic Press.
Brennan, S. E. (1995). Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(2),137-167.
Brennan, S. E. (1998). Centering as a psychological resource for achieving joint reference in spontaneous discourse. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi,& E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse (pp.227-249). Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Brennan, S. E., Friedman, M. W.,& Pollard, C. J. (1987). A centering approach to pronouns. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the ACL (pp.155-162). Stanford, California.
Brown, G.,& Yule. G. (1983). Dicourse analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Burkhardt, P. (2006). Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language,98(2),159-168.
Butler, C. (2000). Joyce's modernism and postmodernism. In D. Attridge (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to James Joyce. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Education Press.
Byron, D.,& Stent, A. (1998). A preliminary model of centering in dialog. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.1475-1477). Montreal, Canada.
Carberry, S. (1990). Plan recognition in natural language dialogue. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Caselli, T. (2009). Using a generative lexicon resource to compute bridging. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural, Revista,42,71-78.
Chae, Sook-Hee (2000). A centering approach to complex sentences. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Graduate School of Seoul National University.
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic. New York:Academic Press.
Chafe, W. L. (1979). The flow of thought and the flow of language. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics:Discourse and syntax (pp.159-182). New York:Academic Press.
Chafe, W. L. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time:The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Chafe, W. L. (1996). Inferring identifiability and accessibility. In T. Fretheim & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp.37-46). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Charolles, M. (1999). Associative anaphora and its interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 37.311-326.
Chinchor, N. A.,& Sundheim, B. (1995). (MUC) tests of discourse processing. In Proceedings AAAI SS on Empirical Methods in Discourse Interpretation and Generation (pp.21-260). Stanford, California.
Chiou. M. (2007). NP-anaphora in Modern Greek:A neo-Gricean pragmatic approach. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Reading.
Chiou, M.,& Huang, Y. (2010). NP-anaphora in Modern Greek:A partial neo-Gricean pragmatic approach. Journal of Pragmatics,42 (7),2036-2057.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht:Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Clark, H. H. (1975). Bridging. In R. Schank & B. Nash-Webber (Eds.), Theoretical issues in national language processing (pp.169-174). Cambridge:MIT Press.
Clark, H. H. (1977). Bridging. In P. N. Johnson-Laird & P. C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science (pp.411-420). London/New York:Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. H.,& Haviland, S. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (pp.1-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Clark, H. H.,& Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, B. Webber & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp.10-63). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Clancy, P. M. (1980). Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In W. L. Chafe (Ed.), The pear stories (pp.127-202). Norwood:N.J. Ablex.
Cohen, R. (1984). A computational theory of the function of clue words in argument understanding. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp.251-255). Stanford, California.
Consten, M. (2004). Anaphorisch oder deiktisch? Zu einem integrativen Modell domdnengebundener Referenz. Tubingen:Niemeyer.
Cooreman, A.,& Sanford, A. J. (1996). Focus and syntactic subordination in discourse. Research Paper 79. HCRC.
Cornish, F. (1986). Anaphoric relations in English and French:A discourse perspective. London:Croom Helm.
Cornish, F.. Garnham. A., Cowles H. W., Fossard, M.,& Andre, V. (2005). Indirect anaphora in English and French:A cross-linguistic study of pronoun resolution. Journal of Memory and Language.52(3),363-376.
Costermans. J.,& Bestgen. Y. (1991). The role of temporal markers in the segmentation of narrative discourse. CPC:European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology,11,349-370.
Cote, S. (1998). Ranking forward-looking centers. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi & E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse (pp.55-70). Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Dale, R (1989). Cooking up referring expressions. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.68-75). Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Dale, R. (1992). Generating referring expressions:Constructing descriptions in a domain of objects and processes. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Danes, F. (1974). Papers on functional sentence perspective. Prague:Academia.
de Beaugrande, R.& Dressier, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London/New York:Longman.
Deming, R. H. (1997). James Joyce:The critical heritage. London:Routledge.
Di Eugenio, B. (1990). Centering theory and the Italian pronominal system. In COLING 90: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp.270-275). Helsinki, Finland.
Di Eugenio, B. (1998). Centering in Italian. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi & E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Dowty, D. (1980). Comments on the paper by Bach and Partee. In K. J. Kreiman & A. E. Ojeda (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on pronouns and anaphora. Chicago Linguistic Society.
Eckert, M. (1998). Discourse deixis and null anaphora in German. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Edinburgh.
Ehrlich, S. (1987). Aspect, foregrounding and point of view. Text,7,363-376.
Ehrlich, S. (1990). Point of view:A linguistic analysis of literary style. London/New York: Routledge.
Ehrich, V.,& Koster, C. (1983). Discourse organisation and sentence form:The structure of room description in Dutch. Discourse Processes,6,169-195.
Emmott, C. (1994). Frames of reference:Contextual monitoring and narrative discourse. R. M. Coulthard (Ed.):Advances in written text analysis. London:Routledge.
Emmott, C. (1997). Narrative comprehension:A discourse perspective. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Emmott, C. (1999). Embodied in a constructed world:Narrative processing, knowledge representation, and indirect anaphora. In K. van Hoek, A. A. Kibrik & L. Noordman (Eds.) Discourse studies in cognitive linguistics (pp.5-28). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Erku, F.,& Gundel, J. (1987). Indirect anaphors. In J. Verschueren & M. Bertuccelli-Papi (Eds.), The pragmatic perspective (pp.533-546). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Fais, L.,& Yamura-Takei, M. (2003). The nature of referent resolution in Japanese email. Discourse Processes,36(3),167-204. NL:Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Fais, L. (2004). Inferable centers, centering transitions, and the notion of coherence. Computational Linguistics,30(2),119-150.
Fan, J., Barker, K.,& Porter, B. (2005). Indirect anaphora resolution as semantic path search. KCAP'05. Alberta. Canada.
Fauconnier, G. (1994)，Mental spaces:Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G.& Turner, M. (1999). Metonymy and conceptual integration. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.77-90). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2003). The way we think:Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities.New York:Basic Books.
Fellbaum, C. (Ed.). (1998). WordNet:An electronic lexical database. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Forret, L. B. (1992). How grammar codes cognition:Syntactic subject and focus of attention. (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Oregon.
Fox. B. A. (1987). Discourse structure and anaphora:Written and conversational English. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Fox, B. A. (1996). Studies in anaphora. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Fraurud， K. (1990). Definiteness and the processing of noun phrases in natural discourse. Journal of Semantics,7,395-433.
Gaizauskas, R., Wakao, T., Humphreys, K., Cunningham, H.,& Wilks, Y. (1995). Description of the LaSIE system. In Proceedings of MUC-6 (pp.207-220). Morgan Kaufmann.
Gardent, C., Manuelian, H.,& Kow, E. (2003). Which bridges for bridging definite descriptions? In Proceedings of LINC'03 (pp.69-76). Budapest, Hungary.
Garrod, S.,& Sanford, A. J. (1982):The mental representation of discourse in a focussed memory system:Implications for the interpretation of anaphoric noun phrases. Journal of Semantics,1(1),21-41.
Garrod, S.,& Terras, M. (2000). The contribution of lexical and situational knowledge to resolving discourse roles:Bonding and resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 42,526-544.
Gasperin, C.,& Vieira, R. (2004). Using word similarity lists for resolving indirect anaphora. In Proceedings of ACL'04:Workshop on Reference Resolution and its Applications (pp.40-46). Barcelona, Spain.
Gasperin, C.,& Briscoe, T. (2008). Statistical anaphora resolution in biomedical texts. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Vol. 1,pp.257-264).
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc.
Givon, T. (1983). Topic continuity in spoken English. In T. Givon (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse:A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Gordon, P. C., Grosz, B. J.,& Gilliom, L. A. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science,17.311-347.
Green, G. (1989). Pragmatics and natural language understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Greenberg, J. (1966). Language universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague:Mouton.
Greene, S. B., McKoon， G.,& Ratcliff. R. (1992). Pronoun resolution and discourse models. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory and Cognition,18(2), 266-283.
Grosz, B. J. (1977). The representation and use of focus in dialogue understanding. Technical Report 151, SRI International,333 Ravenswood Ave, Menlo Park, Ca. 94025.
Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K.,& Weinstein, S. (1983). Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp.44-50). Cambridge, MA.
Grosz, B. J.,& Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attentions, intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics,12,175-204.
Grosz, B. J..& Sidner, C. L. (1998). Lost intuitions and forgotten intentions. In Walker et al. (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Grosz, B. J.,& Hirschberg, J. (1992). Some intonational characteristics of discourse structure. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp.429-432). Banff:ICSLP.
Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K.,& Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering:A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics,21(2),203-225.
Gundel, J., Hedberg, N.,& Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language,69 (2),274-307.
Hahn, U., Markert, K.,& Strube, M. (1996). A conceptual reasoning approach to textual ellipsis. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp.572-576), Chichester:John Wiley.
Hahn, U.,& Strube, M. (1996). PARSETALK about functional anaphora. In G. McCalla (Ed.), Advances in artificial intelligence. Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence (pp.133-145). Berlin:Springer.
Hahn. U., Strube, M.,& Markert. K. (1996). Bridging textual ellipses. In Proceedings of COLING-96 (pp.496-501). Copenhagen.
Hahn. U.,& Strube. M. (1997). Centering in-the-large:Computing referential discourse segments. In proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 8th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.104-111). Somerset, NJ:Association for Computational Linguistics.
Haiman, J. (1985). Natural syntax. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Hajicova, E.,& Vrbova, J. (1982). On the role of the hierarchy of activation in the process of natural language understanding. Coling 8—Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp.107-113). Prague:Amsterdam.
Hajicova, E., Kubon, P.,& Kubon, V. (1990). Hierarchy of salience and discourse analysis and production. Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp.144-148). Helsinki, Finland.
Hajicova, E., Kubon, V.,& Kubon, P. (1992). Stock of shared knowledge:A tool for solving pronominal anaphora. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp.127-133). Nantes.
Hajicova, E., Skoumalova, H.,& Sgall, P. (1995). An automatic procedure for topic-focus identification. Computational Linguistics,27(1):81-94.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics,3,199-244.
Halliday, M. A. K.,& Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London:Longman.
Haviland, S. E.,& Clark, H. (1974). What's new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,13(5),512-521.
Hawkins, J. A. (1978). Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm.
Hawkins, J. A. (1984). A note on referent identifiability and co-presence. Journal of Pragmatics,8,649-659.
Hearst, M. A. (1993). TextTiling:A quantitative approach to discourse segmentation. Technical Report 93/24. Berkeley:University of California.
Hearst. M. A. (1997). TextTiling:Segmenting text into multi-paragraph subtopic passages, Computational Linguistics,23(1),33-64.
Heim. I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusets.
Heim, I. (1988). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. New York:Garland Publishing.
Heim, I. (1991). Artikel und definitheit. In Arnim von stechow & dieter wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik:Ein internationales handbuch des zeitgenossischen forschung (pp. 487-535). Berlin:de Gruyter.
Hendriks, P.,& De Hoop, H. (2001). Optimality theoretic semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy,24(1),1-32.
Henschel, R., Cheng, H.,& Poesio, M. (2000). Pronominalization revisited. In Proceedings of the 18th COLING. Saarbruecken.
Heusinger, K. (2007). Accessibility and definite noun phrases. In M. Schwarz-Friesel, M. Consten & M. Knees (Eds.), Anaphors in text:Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference (pp.3-20). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Hirschberg. J.,& Pierrehumbert, J. (1986). The intonational structuring of discourse. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp.136-14). New York.
Hwang, C. H.,& Schubert, L. K. (1992). Tense trees as the'fine structure'of discourse. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp.232-240). Newark.
Hirschberg, J.,& Grosz, B. (1992). Intonational features of local and global discourse structure. In Proceedings of the Speech and Natural Language Workshop (pp. 441-446). Harriman, NY:Morgan Kaufmann.
Hirschberg, J.,& Litman, D. (1993). Empirical studies on the disambiguation of cue phrases. Computational Linguistics,19(3),501-530.
Hobbs. J. (1976). Pronoun resolution. Research Report 76-2. New York:City University of New York.
Hobbs, J. (1979). Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science,3,67-90.
Hobbs, J. (1985). On the coherence and structure of discourse. Technical Report CSLI-85-37. Center for the Study of Language and Information. Stanford:Stanford University.
Hoffman. B. (1995).The computational analysis of the syntax and interpretation of "free' word order in Turkish.(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania.
Horn, L. (1986). Presupposition, theme and variations. In A. M. Farley, P. T. Farley & K. McCullough (Eds.), Papers from the 22nd Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society (pp.168-192). University of Chicago.
Horn, L. (1989).A natural history of negation. Chicago:The University Chicago Press.
Hovy, E. H.,& Maier, E. (1990). Parsimonious and profligate Approaches to the question of discourse structure relations. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Text Generation (pp.59-65). Pittsburgh.
Huang, Y. (1991). A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics,27, 301-335.
Huang, Y. (1994). The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora: A study with special reference to Chinese. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Y. (1995). On null subjects and null objects in generative grammar. Linguistics,33, 1081-1123.
Huang, Y. (1996). A note on the head-movement analysis of long-distance reflexives. Linguistics,34,833-840.
Huang, Y. (2000a). Anaphora:A cross-linguistic study. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Huang, Y. (2000b). Discourse anaphora:Four theoretical models. Journal of Pragmatics, 32,151-176.
Huang, Y. (2001a). Reflections on theoretical pragmatics. Waiguoyu,131,2-14.
Huang, Y. (2001b). Anaphora. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences,1,486-90. New York:Elsevier Science.
Huang, Y. (2002). Typology of coreferential anaphora and neo-Gricean pragmatics: Implications for a newly defined artificial language. Journal of Universal Language,3, 31-56.
Huang. Y. (2003). On neo-Gricean pragmatics. International Journal of pragmatics,13, 87-110.
Huang. Y. (2004). Anaphora and the pragmatic-syntax interface. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp.288-314). Oxford:Blackwell.
Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Hudson-D'Zmura, S. (1988). The structure of discourse and anaphor resolution:The discourse center and the roles of nouns and pronouns. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Rochester.
Hudson-D'Zmura, S.,& Tanenhaus. M. K. (1998). Assigning antecedents to ambiguous pronouns:The role of the center of attention as the default assignment. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi & E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse (pp.199-226). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Hurewitz, F. (1998). A quantitative look at discourse coherence. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi & E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse (pp.273-291). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Iida, M. (1998). Discourse coherence and shifting centers in Japanese text. In M. A.Walker, A. K. Joshi & E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse (pp.161-180). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Inoue, N., Iida, R., Inui, K.,& Matsumoto, Y. (2010). Resolving direct and indirect anaphora for Japanese definite noun phrases. Journal of Natural Language Processing, 77(1),1-26.
Irmer, M. (2011). Bridging inferences:Constraining and resolving underspecification in discourse interpretation. Berlin/Boston:Walter de Gruyter GmbH and KG.
James, W. (1890/1981). The principles of psychology. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
Joshi, A. K.,& Kuhn, S. (1979). Centered logic:The role of entity centered sentence representation in natural language inferencing. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp.435-439). Tokyo, Japan.
Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1981). Control of inference:Role of some aspects of discourse structure centering. In Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp.385-387). Vancouver, B.C.
Joyce, J. (1982). Ulysses. Harmondsworth:Penguin Books Ltd.
Kameyama. M. (1985). Zero anaphora:The case of Japanese. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University.
Kameyama, M. (1986). A property-sharing constraint in centering. In Proceedings ACL-86 (pp.200-206). New York, NY.
Kameyama, M. (1998). Intrasentential centering:A case study. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi & E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse (pp.89-112). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Karamanis, N., Poesio, M., Mellish, C.,& Oberlander, J. (2004a). Evaluating centering-based metrics of coherence for text structuring using a reliably annotated corpus. Proceedings of the Association of Computational Linguistics. Barcelona.
Karamanis, N., Mellish, C., Oberlander, J.,& Poesio, M. (2004b). A Corpus-based methodology for evaluating metrics of coherence for text structuring. Proceedings of INLG. Brighton.
Karamanis, N., Poesio, M., Mellish, C.,& Oberlander, J. (2009). Evaluating centering for information ordering using corpora. Computational Linguistics,3.5(1),29-46.
Kasahara, K., Matsuzawa, K., Ishikawa, T.,& Kawaoka, T. (1996). Viewpoint-based measurement of semantic similarity beween words. In H. F. Douglas & L. Hans (Eds.), Learning from data:AI and statistics V(pp.433-442). New York:Springer-Ver lag.
Kehler, A. (1997). Current theories of centering for pronoun interpretation:A critical evaluation. Computational Linguistics,23(3),467-475.
Kempson, R. M. (1984). Pragmatics, anaphora, and logical form. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context:Linguistic applications (pp.1-10). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Kempson, R. M. (1988). Grammar and conversational principles. In F. J. Newmeyer (Ed.), Linguistics (Vol.2):The Cambridge survey (pp.139-163). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Kibble, R. (1999). Cb or not Cb? Centering applied to NLG In Proceedings of the ACL'99 Workshop on Discourse and Reference. College Park, MD.
Kibble. R. J., Richard. D.,& Power, J. (2000). An integrated framework for text planning and pronominalisation. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Natural Language Generation (pp.77-84).
Kibble, R. (2001). A reformulation of rule 2 of centering theory. Computational Linguistics, 27(4):579-587.
Kibrik, A. A. (1996). Anaphora in Russian narrative prose:A cognitive calculative account. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp.255-303). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Kim, M. H. (1996). Pragmatic determinants of syntactic subject in English. Journal of Pragmatics,25,839-854.
Kintsch, W.,& van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Towards a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review,85,363-94.
Kleiber, G (1999). Associative anaphora and part-whole relationship:The condition of alienation and the principle of ontological congruence. Journal of Pragmatics,3, 339-362.
Knott, A., Oberlander, J., O'Donnell, M., & Mellish, C. (2001). Beyond elaboration:The interaction of relations and focus in coherent text. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation:Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp.181-196). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Kozima, H. (1993). Text segmentation based on similarity between words. Proceedings of the 31th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp. 286-288). Tokyo, Japan.
Kuno, S. (1976). Subject, theme and speaker's empathy:A re-examination of relativization phenomena. In C. Li (Ed), Subject and topic (pp.417-444). New York:Academic Press.
Kuno, S.,& Kaburaki, E. (1977). Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry,8,62-672.
Kuno, S. (1987). Functional syntax:Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker. R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. (Vol. Ⅰ):Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford/California:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. (Vol. Ⅱ):Descriptive application. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker. R.W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (2004). Remarks on nominal grounding. Functions of Language,11, 77-113.
Levinson, S. C. (1987a). Minimization and conversational inference. In J. Verschueren & M. Bertuccelli-Papi (Eds.), The pragmatic perspective:Selected papers from the 1985 international pragmatics conference (pp.61-129). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Levinson, S. C. (1987b). Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics, 23,379-434.
Levinson, S. C. (1998). Minimization and conversational inference. In A. Kasher (Ed.), Pragmatics:Critical concepts,4,545-612. London:Routledge.
Levinson, S. C. (1991). Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics,27,107-161.
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings:The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Li, C.N. (Ed.) (1976). Subject and topic. New York:Academic Press.
Li, C.N.,& Thompson, S.A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese:A functional reference grammar. Berkeley:University of California Press.
Linde, C. (1979). Focus of attention and the choice of pronouns in discourse. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol.12):Discourse and syntax (pp.337-354). New York: Academic Press.
Litman, D.,& Allen, J. (1990). Discourse processing and commonsense plans. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lobner, S. (1996). Associative anaphora. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Indirect Anaphora. Lancaster.
Lust, B. (1986). Studies in the acquisition of anaphora. (Vol.2):Applying the constraints. Boston:D. Reidel Pub. (Kluwer) Co.
Lyons, J. (1981). Language, meaning and context. London:Fontana.
MacGregorand, R.,& Bates, R. (1987). The LOOM knowledge representation language. Technical Report RS-87-188. Information Sciences Institute, USC.
Mann, W.,& Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory:Toward a functional theory of text organisation. Text,8,243-248.
Markert, K., Strube, M.,& Hahn, U. (1996). Inferential realization constraints on functional anaphora in the centering model. In Proc. of the 18th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society; La Jolla, Cal,12-15 July 1996, pp.609-614.
Markert, K.,& Nissim, M. (2005). Comparing knowledge sources for nominal anaphora resolution. Computational Linguistics,31(3),367-402.
Marslen-Wilson, W., Levy, W.,& Tyler, L.K. (1982). Producing interpretable discourse: The establishment and maintenance of reference. In R. Jarvella & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, place, and action (pp.339-378). New York:Wiley.
Matsui, T. (1993a). Bridging reference and notions of'topic'and'focus'. In Lingua,90, 49-68.
Matsui, T. (1993b). Accessing a scenario-based account of bridging reference assignment. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics,5,211-247.
Matsui, T. (2000). Bridging and relevance. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
McCoy, K.,& Strube, M. (1999). Generating anaphoric expressions:Pronoun or definite description? In Proceedings of ACL Workshop on Discourse and Reference Structure (pp.63-71). University of Maryland, College Park.
Mieville, D. (1999). Associative anaphora:An attempt at formalization. Journal of Pragmatics,3,327-337.
Miller G. (1990). Five papers on WordNet. Special Issue of International Journal of Lexicography,3 (4).
Miltsakaki, E. (1999). Locating topics in text processing. In Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands:Selected Papers from the Tenth CLIN Meeting (pp.127-138). Utrecht.
Miltsakaki, E. (2002). Toward an aposynthesis of topic continuity and intrasentential anaphora. Computational Linguistics,28 (3),319-355.
Miltsakaki, E. (2007). A rethink of the relationship between salience and anaphora resolution. In Proceedings of the 6th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphora Resolution Colloquium (pp.91-96). Lagos, Portugal.
Miltsakaki, E. (2011). Not all subjects are born equal:A look at complex sentence structure. E. Gibson, Neal J. Pearlmutter (Eds.), The Processing and Acquisition of Reference. Cambridge, MA.:MIT Press.
Mineur, A. M. (2006). The resolution of bridging anaphora in OT. Retrieved from http://www.let.rug.nl/～mineur/docs/Bridging-in-OT.
Mittwoch, A. (1983). Backwards anaphora and discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 7,129-139.
Modjeska, N. N. (2002). Lexical and grammatical role constraints in resolving other-anaphora. In Proceedings of DAARC2002 (pp.129-134). Lisbon, Portugal.
Morris, J.,& Hirst, G (1991). Lexical coherence computed by thesaural relations as an indicator of the structure of text. Computational Linguistics,17(1),21-42.
Murata, M., Isahara, H.,& Nagao, M. (1999 a). Pronoun resolution in Japanese sentences using surface expressions and examples. In Proceedings of the ACL'99 Workshop on Coreference and Its Applications (pp.39-46).
Murata, M., Isahara, H.,& Nagao, M. (1999b). Resolution of indirect anaphora in Japanese sentences using examples "X no Y (Y of X)". In Proceedings of the ACL 1999 Workshop on Coreference and Its Applications. Maryland, USA.
Nakhimovsky, A. (1988). Aspect, aspectual class, and the temporal structure of narrative. Computational Linguistics,14(2),29-43.
Nariyama, S. (2000). Markedness theory and ellipsis:Ellipsis as the unmarked representation of 'sameness'. Melbourne Papers in Linguistics and Applied Linguisics, 1,55-68.
Nariyama, S. (2003). Ellipsis and reference tracking in Japanese. Studies in language companion series 66. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Nariyama, S. (2004). Subject ellipsis in English. Journal of Pragmatics,36,237-264.
Nariyama, S. (2006). Pragmatic information extraction from subject ellipsis in informal English. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Scalable Natural Language Understanding (pp.1-8). New York City.
Navarretta, C. (2002). Combining information structure and centering-based models of salience for resolving intersentential pronominal anaphora. In A. Branco, T. McEnery & R. Mitkov (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphora Resolution Colloqium (pp.135-140). Edicoes Colibri.
Navarretta, C. (2004). An algorithm for resolving individual and abstract anaphora in Danish texts and dialogues. In Proceedings of Reference Resolution and Its Applications Workshop at ACL 2004. Barcelona, Spain.
Nomoto, T.,& Nitta, Y. (1994). A grammatico-statistical approach to discourse partitioning. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp.1145-1150). Kyoto, Japan.
Passonneau, R. J. (1993). Getting and keeping the center of attention. In M. Bates & R. Weisehedel (Eds.), Challenges in natural language processing (pp.179-227). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Passonneau, R. J.,& Litman, D. J. (1993). Intention-based segmentation:Human reliability and correlation with linguistic cues. In Proceedings of the 31st Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp.148-155). Columbus. Ohio.
Passonneau. R. J. (1994). Protocol for coding discourse referential noun phrases and their antecedents. Technical report. Columbia University.
Passonneau, R. J. (1995). Integrating Gricean and attentional constraints. In IJCAI-95 (pp. 1267-1273). Montreal, Quebec.
Passonneau. R. J.,& Litman, D. J. (1996). Empirical analysis of three dimensions of spoken discourse:Segmentation, coherence and linguistic devices. In E. Hovy & D. Scott (Eds.), Computational and coversational Dicourse (pp.1-26). Berlin:Springer Verlag.
Passonneau. R. J.,& Litman, D. J. (1997). Discourse segmentation by human and automated means. Computational Linguistics,23 (1),103-140.
Passonneau. R. (1998) Interaction of discourse structure with explicitness of discourse anaphoric noun phrases. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi & E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse (pp.327-358). Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Pearson. J., Stevenson, R.,& Poesio, M. (2000). Pronoun resolution in complex sentences. In Proceedings of AMLAP. Leiden.
Pierrehumbert, J.,& Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. Intentions in communication (pp.271-313). Cambridge: MIT press.
Poesio, M., Stevenson, R.,& Hitzeman, J. (1997). Global focus and pronominalization. In D. Jurafsky & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of First Conference on Computational Psycholinguistics. Berkeley, CA:University of California.
Poesio, M., Vieira, R.,& Teufel, S. (1997). Resolving bridging references in unrestricted text. In R. Mitkov (Ed.), Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Operational Factors in Robust Anaphora Resolution (pp.1-6). Madrid, Spain.
Poesio, M.,& Vieira, R. (1998). A corpus-based investigation of definite description use. Computational Linguistics,24 (2),183-216.
Poesio M., Bruneseaux, F.,& Romary, L. (1999). The MATE meta-scheme for coreference in dialogues in multiple languages. In M.A.Walker (Ed.), Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Standards and Tools for Discourse Tagging (pp.65-74). Maryland.
Poesio, M. (2000a). Annotating a corpus to develop and evaluate discourse entity realization algorithms:issues and preliminary results. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Language Resources and Engineering. Athens.
Poesio, M. (2000b). The GNOME annotation scheme manual. Edinburgh:University of Edinburgh.
Poesio, M., Cheng, H., Henschel, R., Hitzeman, J., Kibble, R.,& Stevenson, R. (2000). Specifying the parameters of centering theory:A corpus-based evaluation using text from application-oriented domains. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Hong Kong.
Poesio, M., Cheng, H., Di Eugenio, B., Hitzeman, J. M.,& Stevenson, R. (2002). A corpus-based evaluation of centering theory. Submitted.
Poesio, M. (2003). Associative descriptions and salience. In Proceedings of the EACL Workshop on Computational Treatments of Anaphora. Budapest.
Poesio, M., Stevenson, R., Di Eugenio, B.,& Hitzeman, J. (2004). Centering:A parametric theory and its instantiations. Computational Linguistics,30(3),309-363.
Poesio. M. (2004a). The MATE/GNOME scheme for anaphoric annotation, revisited, Proceedings o SIGDIAL. Boston.
Poesio, M. (2004b). Discourse annotation and semantic annotation in the GNOME corpus. Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Discourse Annotation. Barcelona.
Poesio, M.,& Modjeska, N. N. (2005). Focus, activation, and THIS-Noun phrases. In A. Branco, T. McEnery & R. Mitkov (Eds.), Anaphora processing (pp.429-456). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Poesio, M., Sturt, P., Artstein, R.,& Filik, R. (2006). Underspecification and anaphora: Theoretical issues and preliminary evidence. Discourse Processes,42 (2),157-175.
Poesio, M., Patel, A.,& Di Eugenio, B. (2006). Discourse structure and anaphora in tutorial dialogues:An empirical analysis of two theories of the global focus. Research in Language and Computation,4,229-257.
Poesio, M. (2008). Linguistic claims formulated in terms of Centering:A re-examination using parametric CB-tracking techniques. In J. Gundel & N. Hedberg (Eds), Reference: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Polanyi, L.,& Scha, R. (1984). A syntactic approach to discourse semantics. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp.413-419). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Polanyi, L. (1987). The linguistic discourse model:Towards a formal theory of discourse structure. Technical Report 6409. Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Cambridge, Mass.
Pollard, C. J.,& Sag, I. A. (1988). An information based approach to syntax and semantics: (Vol.1) Fundamentals. CSLI lecture notes 13. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
Prasad, R. (1997). The topic marker "to "in Hindi and information packaging. ms. Linguistics. University of Pennsylvania.
Prasad, R.,& Strube, M. (2000). Discourse salience and pronoun resolution in Hindi. In A. Williams & E. Kaiser (Eds.). Penn working papers in linguistics:Current work in linguistics,6 (3),189-208.
Prasad, R. (2003). Constraints on the generation of referring expressions:With special reference to Hindi. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania.
Prince. E. F. (1981). Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp.223-256). New York:Academic Press.
Prince, E. F. (1990). Syntax and discourse:a look at resumptive pronouns. In Hall et al. (Ed.). Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp.482-497). Berkeley, CA:Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Prince, E. F. (1992). The ZPG letter:Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In S. Thompson & W. Mann (Eds.), Discourse description:Diverse analyses of a fund raising text (pp.295-325). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Prince, A.,& Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar.Technical Report CU-CS-696-93. Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Boulder and Technical Report TR-2. Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
Prince, A.,& Smolensky, P. (1997). Optimality:From neural networks to universal grammar. Science,275,1604-1610.
Prince, E. F. (1994). Subject pro drop in yiddish. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus and natural language processing. (Vol.1) Intonation and syntax (pp.159-173). Working Papers of the Institute for Logic and Linguistics. IBM Deutschland.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G.,& Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London:Longman.
Rambow,O. (1993). Pragmatic aspects of scrambling and topicalization in German. In Workshop on Centering Theory in Naturally-occurring Discourse. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.
Reichman, R. (1985). Getting computers to talk like you and me:Discourse context, focus, and semantics. Cambridge:MIT press.
Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics, an analysis of sentence topics. Philosphica, 27(1),53-94.
Reinhart, T. (1983). Coreference and bound anaphora:A restatement of the anaphora questions. Linguistics and Philosophy,6,47-88.
Samet, J.,& Schank, R. (1984). Coherence and connectivity. Linguistics and philosophy,7, 11-35.
Sanders， T., Spooren. W. P.,& Noordman, L. G. (1992). Towards a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes,15,1-35.
Sanders, T, Spooren, W. P.,& Noordman, L. G. (1993). Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics.4.93-133.
Sanford, A.， & Garrod. S. (1981). Understanding mitten language:Explorations of comprehension beyond the sentence. Chichester:John Wiley.
Sanford, A. J., Moar, K.,& Garrod, S. C. (1988). Proper names as controllers of discourse focus. Language and speech,31,43-56.
Sasano, R.,& Kurohashi, S. (2009). In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp.1455-1464). Singapore.
Schwarz, M. (2000). Indirekte anaphern in texten:Studien zur dom anengebundenen referenz und koh arenz im Deutschen. Niemeyer, Tuebingen.
Schwarz-Friesel, M. (2007). Indirect anaphora in text:A cognitive account. In M. Schwarz-Friesel, M. Consten & M. Knees (Eds), Anaphors in text:Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference (pp.3-20). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Shimazu, A., Naito, S.,& Nomura, H. (1987). Semantic structure analysis of Japanese noun phrases with adnominal particles. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the ACL (pp.123-130). Stanford, California.
Sidner, C. L. (1979). Toward a computational theory of definite anaphora comprehension in English. Technical Report AI-TR-537. Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT.
Sidner, C. L. (1981). Focusing for interpretation of pronouns. American Journal of Computational Linguistics,7,217-231.
Sidner, CL (1983). Focusing in the comprehension of definite anaphora. In M. Brady & R. Berwick (Eds.), Computational models of discourse (pp.267-330). Cambridge:MIT Press.
Singer, M. (1979). Processes of inference during sentence encoding. Memory and Cognition.7(3),192-200.
Song, F.,& Cohen, R. (1991). Tense interpretation in the context of narrative. In Proceedings of the 9th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (pp.131-136). Anaheim, CA.
Sperber. D.,& Wilson. D. (1986). Relevance:Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stevenson. R. J., Alexander W. R. N.,& Stenning, K. (1993). Strategies in annual conference of the cognitive pronoun comprehension. In Proceedings of the 15th Science Society (pp.976-981). Hillsdale, NJ.
Stevenson, R., Crawley, R.,& Kleinman, D. (1994). Thematic roles, focus and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Process,9,519-548.
Stevenson, R. J.,& Urbanowicz, A. (1995). Structural focusing, thematic role focusing and the comprehension of pronouns. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.328-333). Pittsburgh, PA.
Stirling, L.,& Huddleston, R. (2002). Deixis and anaphora. In R. Huddleston & G K. Pullum (Eds), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (pp.1449-1564). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Stone, H. S. (1987). High performance computer architecture. Reading, MA:Addison Wesley.
Strand, K. (1997). A taxonomy of linking relations. Manuscript.
Strawson, P. F. (1964). Identifying reference and truth values. Theoria,3,96-118.
Strube, M.,& Hahn, U. (1995). ParseTalk about sentence-and text-level anaphora. In Proceedings of EACL05 (pp.237-244). Dublin, Irland.
Strube, M.,& Hahn, U. (1996). Functional centering. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp.270-277). Santa Cruz, California.
Strube, M. (1998). Never look back:An alternative to centering. In Proceedings of the 17 International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 36 Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. (Vol.2, pp.1251-1257). Montreal, Quebec.
Strube, M.,& Hahn, U. (1999). Functional centering:Grounding referential coherence in information structure. Computational Linguistics,25(3),309-344.
Suri, L. Z.,& Kathleen F. M. (1994). RAFT/RAPR and centering:A comparison and discussion of problems related to processing complex sentences. Computational Linguistics.20(2).301-317.
Taboada, M.,& Zabala. H. (2008). Deciding on units of analysis within centering theory. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory,1,63-108.
Takahashi. H. (1997). Indirect anaphors:A cognitive grammar account. The Annual Reports on Science.46(1).1-22.
Tomlin, R.,& Pu, M. (1991). The management of reference in Mandarin discourse. Cognitive Linguistics,2,65-93.
Turan, U. D. (1996). Null vs. overt subjects in Turkish discourse:A Centering analysis. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania.
Turan, U. D. (1998). Ranking forward-looking centers in Turkish:Universal and language specific properties. In M.A.Walker, A. K. Joshi & E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse (pp.138-160). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Vallduvi, E.,& Engdahl, E. (1996). The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics,34,459-519.
van Dijk, T. A.,& Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
van Hoek, K. (1992). Paths through conceptual structure:Constraints on pronominal anaphora. (Doctoral dissertation). San Diego:University of California,
van Hoek, K. (1995). Conceptual reference points:A cognitive grammar account of pronominal anaphora constraints. Language,71,310-340.
van Hoek, K. (1997). Anaphora and conceptual structure. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Vater, H. (1984). Referenz und determination im text. In I. Rosengren (Ed.), Sprache und pragmatik, lunder symposium 1984 (pp.323-344).
Veilleux, N. (2000). Application of the centering framework in spontaneous dialogues. In Sixth International Conference on Spoken Language.
Vieira, R.,& Teufel, S. (1997). Towards resolution of bridging descriptions. In Proceedings of the ACL-EACL'97 Joint Conference: 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 8th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.7-12). Madrid, Spain.
Vieira, R.,& Poesio, M. (2000a). An empirically-based system for processing definite descriptions. Computational Linguistics,26(4),539-593.
Vieira, R.,& Poesio, M. (2000b). Processing definite descriptions in corpora. In S. Botley & T. McEnery (Eds.). Corpus-based and computational approaches to discourse anaphora (pp.189-212). Amsterdam/New York:John Benjamins.
Vonk, W., Hustinx, L.G.M.M.,& Simons, W.H.G. (1992). The use of referential expressions in structuring discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes,7,301-333.
Walker, M. A. (1989). Evaluating discourse processing algorithms. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp.251-261). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Walker, M. A., Iida, M.,& Cote, S. (1990). Centering in Japanese discourse. In COLING 90:Proceedings of thel3th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp.1-8). Helsinki, Finland.
Walker, M. A. (1993). Informational redundancy and resource bounds in dialogue. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania.
Walker, M. A. (1993). Initial contexts and shifting centers. In Workshop on Centering Theory in Naturally-Occurring Discourse. Philadelphia, PA.
Walker, M. A.,& Prince, E. F. (1993). A bilateral approach to givenness:A hearer-status algorithm and a centering algorithm. In T. Fretheim & J. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp.291-306). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Walker, M. A., Iida, M.,& Cote, S. (1994). Japanese discourse and the process of centering. Computational Linguistics,20(2),193-233.
Walker, M. A. (1996a). Limited attention and discourse structure. Computational Linguistics,22(2),255-264.
Walker, M. A.,& Prince, E. (1996b). A bilateral approach to givenness. In J. Gundel & T. Fretheim (Eds.), Reference accessibility (pp.291-306). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Walker, M. A. (1998). Centering, anaphora resolution and discourse structure. In Walker et al. (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Walker, M. A., Joshi, A. K.,& Prince, E. (Eds). (1998). Centering theory in discourse. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Webber, B. L. (1978). A formal approach to discourse anaphora. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Harvard University.
Webber, B. L. (1988). Discourse deixis:Reference to discourse segments. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.113-122). Buffalo.
Werth, P. (1999). Text worlds:Representing conceptual space in discourse. London: Longman.
Wiebe, J. M.,& Rapaport, W. J. (1988). A computational theory of perspective and reference in narrative. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.131-138). Morristown, NJ:Association for Computational Linguistics.
Wiebe, J. M. (1994). Tracking point of view in narrative. Computational Linguistics,20(2), 233-287.
Wilson, D.,& Matsui, T. (1998). Recent approaches to bridging:Truth, coherence, relevance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics,10,1-28.
Winston, M., Chaffin, R.,& Herrmann, D. (1987). A taxonomy of part-whole relations. Cognitive Science,11,417-444.
Yeh, C. L. (1995). Generation of anaphors in Chinese. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Edinburgh.
Yeh, C.L.,& Chen, Y. C. (2001). An empirical study of zero anaphora resolution in Chinese based on centering theory. In Proceedings of ROCLING XIV (pp.1-15). Tainan, Taiwan.
Yeh, C.L.,& Chen, Y. C. (2003). Zero anaphora resolution in Chinese with partial parsing based on centering theory. In Proceedings of IEEE NLP-KE03 (pp.683-688). Beijing, China.
Yuksel, O.,& Bozsahin, C. (2002). Contextually appropriate reference generation. Natural Language Engineering,8,69-89.
陈辉,陈国华(2001).人称指示视点的选择及其语用原则.当代语言学,3,175-186.
陈平(1987).汉语零形回指的话语分析.中国语文,5,363-278.
陈香兰,周流溪(2007).异形回指和联想回指理解的转喻动机.外语与外语教学,2,1-4.
程琪龙(1998).信息流中的语篇连贯.外国语,1,6-11.
戴从容(2002a).乔伊斯与形式.外国文学评论,4,5-14.
戴从容(2002b).用词语实现一切——乔伊斯小说中的词语.外国语,5,67-75.
丁芸(2005).“过程的同时性”与《尤利西斯》的意识流程.外国文学研究,6,100-104.
丁芸(2007).论《尤利西斯》内心独白的构建.外国文学研究,3,56-61.
丁芸(2008).《尤利西斯》中内心独白的深度开发.宁波大学学报,5,37-41.
段嫚娟(2006).向心理论的参数化研究及其在汉语指代消解中的应用.上海外国语大学博士论文,未出版,上海市.
段嫚娟,许余龙,付相君(2009).前瞻中心的排序对指代消解的影响——一项向心理论参数化实证研究.外国语,3,21-27.
凤群(2005).意识流小说心理象似修辞之探索.四川外语学院学报,1,67-71.
高原(2003).照应词的认知分析.北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
高卫东(2008).语篇回指的功能意义解析.上海：上海交通大学出版社
郭宝亮(2006).王蒙小说文体研究.北京：北京大学出版社.
韩丹,许宁云(2006).指称转喻的回指照应机制.解放军外国语学院学报,2,6-10.
何自然(2000).语用推理的照应.福建外语,1,1-10.
黄碧蓉(2008).英汉第三人称代词照应功能的认知解析.外语学刊,5,26-29.
贾光茂(2006).篇章回指确认中的制约因素研究.西安外国语学院学报,4,8-10。
蒋平(2003).影响先行语可及性的因素.外国语,5,43-50.
蒋平(2004a).零形回指的句法和语篇特征研究——关于汉语零形回指先行语的识别.上海外国语大学博士论文,未出版,上海市.
蒋平(2004b).零形回指现象考察.汉语学习,3,23-28.
姜望琪(2001).也谈新格莱斯照应理论.外语教学与研究,3,29-36.
蒋严,潘海华(1998).形式语义学引论.北京：中国社会科学出版社.
金隄(1997).尤利西斯.北京：人民文学出版社.
孔芳,朱巧明,周国栋,钱培德(2009).基于中心理论的指代消解研究.计算机科学,6,219-222.
李丛禾(2005).英汉语会话中第三人称回指现象的认知阐释.上海外国语大学博士论文,未出版,上海市.
李丛禾(2006).《照应现象的跨语言研究》述评.当代语言学,4,354-359.
李从禾(2007).语篇向心理论在回指解析中的运用.外国语言文学,1,14-19.
李维屏(2000a).英美意识流小说.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
李维屏(2000b).乔伊斯的美学思想和小说艺术.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
李维屏(2007)。现代主义精神的演示——论《尤利西斯》的人物描写艺术.外国语,5,70-74.
李勇忠(2003).架桥式语用推理的认知研究。天津外国语学院学报,1,20-25.
李佐文,叶慧君(2004).跨联现象与认知推理.外语研究,5,40-44.
廖秋忠(1992).廖秋忠文集.北京：北京语言学院出版社.
梁鲁晋(2008).语篇中回指的功能.厦门：厦门大学出版社.
刘礼进(2004).可推知照应再考——专就语篇中的照应性名词短语而论外国语,5,28-33.
刘礼进(2005a).自然语言理解中的回指解析研究概述.外语教学与研究,6,439-445.
刘礼进(2005b).中心理论和回指解析计算法.外语学刊,6,23-28.
刘礼进(2010).视点回指和汉英长距离反身代词研究.上海外国语大学博士论文,未出版,上海市.
柳鸣九(1989)。意识流.北京：中国社会科学出版社.
刘宇红(2003).前指关系的类型研究.外语教学,5,23-26.
陆振慧(2002).英汉语篇中指同表达的对比研究.外语教学与研究,5,324-331.
马晶静(2004).双先行成分间接回指的语用分析。解放军外国语学院学报,3,13-17.
马晶静,熊学亮(2004).换卡理论和间接回指的先行成分确定.外语与外语教学,2,1-6.
马兰英,姚灯镇(2009).间接回指中先行语和回指语的指称特征.解放军外国语学院学报,5,15-20.
马博森(2010).自然话语中的代词间接回指分析.外国语,2,26-34.
马文(2004).会话篇章中指称表达的选择与阐释.外国语,5,34-40.
马萧,何自然(2004).推理照应的几种解释模式比较.广东外语外贸大学学报.
苗兴伟(2001).语篇照应的动态分析.外语教学,6,17-20.
苗兴伟(2003).语篇向心理论述评.当代语言学,2,149-157.
莫爱屏(2004a).话语中推理照应关系的研究.外语与外语教学,9,9-13.
莫爱屏(2004b).汉语话语中推理照应的实证研究.现代外语,3,231-238.
潘海华(1996).篇章表述理论概说.国外语言学,3,17-26.
彭宣维(2004).从计算识别和生成的角度论英语句子的主题系统.外国语,5,19-27.
秦洪武(2001).第三人称代词在深层回指中的应用分析.当代语言学,1,55-64.
瞿世镜(1989).意识流小说理论.成都：四川文艺出版.
申富英(2005).《达洛卫夫人》的叙事联接方式和时间序列.外国文学评论,3,59-66.
申迎丽,孙致礼(2004).由《尤利西斯》中译本看小说翻译中叙事视角的传译.解放军外国语学院学报,5,51-57.
孙峻(2012).英语定冠词the的桥接作用.现代外语,3,238-246.
孙姗姗(2011).向心理论的参数设定及其在英汉指代消解中的应用研究.上海外国语大学博士论文,未出版,上海市.
王灿龙(2000).人称代词“他”的照应功能研究,中国语文,3,228-237.
王大方(2012).以“修辞结构理论”为导向的回指优选解析--对中心优选理论的理论性修正.外语教学,5,13-17.
王德亮(2004).汉语零形回指解析--基于向心理论的研究.现代外语,4,350-359.
王德亮(2005).语篇研究的新视角--《语篇向心理论》评介.外语与翻译,2,74-77.
王德亮(2006a).基于向心理论的汉语回指消解研究.北京师范大学博士论文,未出版,北京市.
王德亮(2006b).语篇脉络理论述评--宏观语篇处理.现代外语,3,309-316.
王东风(2006).有标记连贯与小说翻译中的连贯重构--以意识流小说Ulysses的翻译为例.外语教学与研究,5,303-308.
王厚峰(2001).汉语指代消解与省略恢复研究,中国科学院声学研究所博士后研究报告,未出版,北京市.
王劫(2012).基于角色与值的指称关系分析.天津外国语大学学报,4,18-23.
王军(2003a).联想回指现象琐议.西安外国语学院学报,1,10-13.
王军(2003b).间接回指的确认与语义网络激活扩散.外语学刊,4,61-66.
王军(2003c).论间接回指释义的基础外语教学,6,1-5.
王军(2004a).论关联度在间接回指释义中的主导作用.现代外语,3,239-247.
王军(2004b).英语叙事篇章中间接回指释义的认知研究.苏州：苏州大学出版社.
王军(2005a).“框棂关系”对间接回指研究的启示.外语教学,4,15-17.
王军(2005b).汉英间接回指形式对比初步.四川外语学院学报,1,1-5.
王军(2006).论篇章距离对回指先行语可及性的影响.山东外语教学,26-29.
王军(2007a).直接回指与间接回指.天津外国语学院学报,5,1-5.
王军(2007b).主题性：整体回指关系体现出的一种篇章属性.外语与外语教学,7,6-8。
王军(2009).模糊回指及其语用功能.西安外国语大学学报,4,1-4.
王军,高明强(2009).概念匹配、回指释义与概念转移：篇章回指研究的新思路.外语学刊,5,92-96.
王军(2012).如何精确理解“整体—部分”的优势顺序——兼论陆丙甫先生的分析方法.外国语,1,26-35.
王青(2011).基于语料库的《尤利西斯》汉译句式特征研究.外国语言文学,2,99-107.
王义娜(2003).话语指称的认知构建与心理空间可及性.外国语,5,35-42。
王义娜(2005).概念参照视点：语篇指称解释的认知思路.外语学刊,5,81-85.
王义娜(2006a).从可及性到主观性：语篇指称模式比较.外语与外语教学,7,1-4.
王义娜(2006b).指称的概念参照视点：认知语篇学的探索.北京：外文出版社.
王勇(2007).切分语篇表征理论对搭桥推理的解释.西安外国语大学学报,1,1-4.
文旭(2004).搭桥参照：以图景为基础的解释方法.外语学刊,4,11-16.
翁依琴,熊学亮(2005).回指的形式语用学初探.外语研究,2,6-9.
翁依琴(2006).汉语零形回指的认知研究.复旦大学博士论文,未出版,上海市.
吴庆军(2006a).论《尤利西斯》的互文性艺术.天津外国语学院学报,5,9-13.
吴庆军(2006b).本真与戏仿：《尤利西斯》的叙述模式.四川外语学院学报,4,42-46.
吴庆军(2008).话语建构的双重指向——论《尤利西斯》的辅助叙述.山西师大学报,5,117-120.
吴显友(2005).《尤利西斯》的前景化语言特征——文体学解读.河南大学博士论文,未出版,开封市.
夏年喜(2010).从DRT与SDRT看照应关系的逻辑解释.重庆理工大学学报,7,8-11.
项成东(2004a).间接照应及其认知推理.西安外国语学院学报,2,5-8.
项成东(2004b).代词性和指示性间接回指语及其认知基础.外语与外语教学,3,10-14.
项成东(2004c).间接照应与语篇理解.四川外语学院学报,3,87-90.
萧乾,文洁若(2005).尤利西斯.南京：译林出版.
熊学亮(1999).英汉前指现象对比.上海：复旦大学出版社.
熊学亮(2001).话语连续性的图式分解研究.外国语,3,1-7.
熊学亮,翁依琴(2005a).回指的形式语用学初探.外语研究,2,6-9.
熊学亮,翁依琴(2005b).回指的优选解析.外语教学与研究,6,432-438.
熊学亮(2010).语段表征理论和抽象回指.复旦外国语言文学论丛(秋季号),53-59.
徐赳赳(2003).现代汉语回指研究.北京：中国社会科学出版社。
徐赳赳(2005).现代汉语联想回指分析.中国语文,3,195-204.
许保芳,肖德法(2008).语篇回指的多维研究综述.西安外国语大学学报,1,22-24.
许宁云,韩丹(2005).非常规间接前指照应的释义策略.外语学刊,2,50-53.
许宁云(2005).关于向心理论中代词规则问题的探讨.外语与翻译,3,14-19.
许宁云(2006).汉语篇章零回指的解析与生成：一项基于语料的向心研究.复旦大学博士论文,未出版,上海市.
许余龙(1996).汉英篇章中句子主题的识别.外国语,6,3-9.
许余龙(2000).英汉指称词语表达的可及性.外语教学与研究,5,321-327.
许余龙(2002).语篇回指的认知语言学探索.外国语,1,28-36.
许余龙(2003a).语篇回指的认知语言学研究与验证.外国语,2,17-24.
许余龙(2003b).汉语主从句间的回指问题.当代语言学,2,97-107.
许余龙(2005a).篇章回指的功能语用探索——一项基于汉语民间故事和报刊语料的研究.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
许余龙(2005b).从回指确认的角度看汉语叙述体篇章中的主题标示.当代语言学,2,122-131.
许余龙(2008).向心理论的参数化研究.当代语言学,3,225-236.
许余龙,段嫚娟,付相君(2008).“语句”与“代词”的设定对指代消解的影响——项向心理论参数化实证研究.现代外语,2,111-120.
杨朝军(2002).照应关系的篇章功能研究.福建外语,4,15-21.
张春(2004).《尤利西斯》文体研究.上海外国语大学博士论文,未出版,上海市.
张凤(2006).联想回指的话语分析.外语研究,6,42-46.
张俊,孟静,苗兴伟(2009).回指语的指称功能和表情功能.河北工程大学学报,1,99-101.
张曼(2005).从主位结构看意识流小说中的人物塑造.外国语言文学,54-58.
张宁(2008).无明示先行词回指的句法特征与确定.外语研究,6,40-43.
张宁(2009a).英汉零形回指的表现特征与翻译.外国语文,6,57-59.
张宁(2009b).歧义回指的表现形式和确定.中国外语,6,39-42.
赵宏,邵志洪(2002).英汉第三人称代词语篇照应功能对比研究.外语教学与研究,3,174-179.
赵鸣,刘涛(2011).语言回指加工的ERP研究述评.心理科学进展,3,355-363.
赵秀凤(2004).意识流体裁特征前景化的功能解析.石油大学学报,6,95-98.
赵秀凤(2006a)语篇视角的语言表达.山东外语教学,1,22-25.
赵秀凤(2006b).叙事语篇中视角交汇的认知解析。四川外语学院学报,6,88-91.
赵秀凤(2006c).过去完成时在意识流语篇中的空间构建功能.解放军外国语学院学报,1,19-22.
赵秀凤(2006d).语篇的主观性等级与指称形式的选择——意识流语篇的认知解读视角.外国语言文学研究,4,25-31.
赵秀凤,董静萍(2007).视角的选取与指称语的选择.外语教学,4,20-23.
赵秀凤(2009a).语篇视角的语言表征——指称在意识流语篇中的视角标识作用.北京：科学出版社.
赵秀凤(2009b).意识的隐喻表征与合成——意识流小说《到灯塔去》的认知文体学分析.外国语文,2,11-17.
赵秀凤(2010).意识流语篇中心理空间网络体系的构建.解放军外国语学院学报,5,7-11.
周流溪(2001).指称词语的语用学地位及其使用准则.语言研究与语言教学.香港：华人出版社.
周平(2002).英语间接前指现象产生的条件.外语学刊,3,80-82.
周晔,孙致礼(2009).以残传残,以缺译缺——从《尤利西斯》看“残缺”艺术手法及传译手段.外语与外语教学,6,46-50.
朱勘宇(2002).汉语零形回指的句法驱动力.汉语学习,4,76-80.
Apothrloz, D. (1994). Role et fonctionnement de l'anaphore dans la dynamique textuelle. Genrve:Librairie Droz.
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing NP antecedents. London:Routledge.
Ariel, M. (1994). Interpreting anaphoric expressions:A cognitive versus a pragmatic approach. Journal of Linguistics,30,3-42.
Ariel, M. (1996). Referring expressions and the +/- coreference distinction. In T. Fretheim & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp.13-35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ariel, M. (2001). Accessibility theory: An overview. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation:Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp.29-88). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Asher, N.,& Lascarides, A. (1993). Lexical disambiguation in a discourse context. Journal of Semantics,12,69-108.
Asher, N.,& Lascarides, A. (1998). A computational account of syntactic, semantic, and discourse principles for anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics,6,309-344.
Baker C. L. (1995). Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reflexives in British English. Language,71,63-101.
Banfield, A. (1982). Unspeakable sentences. London:Routledge and Paul.
Barwise, J. (1988). The situation in logic-iv:On the model theory of common knowledge. Technical Report No.122. CSLI.
Beaver, D.,& Clark, B. (2002). Monotonicity and focus sensitivity. In B. Jackson (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT. Cornell:CLC Publications.
Beaver, D. (2004).The optimization of discourse anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(1).3-56.
Bezuidenhout, A.& Morris. R. (2004). Implicature, relevance and default inferences. In I. Noveck & D. Sperber (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.
Birner, B. J. (1992). Inversion in English. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University.
Birner, B. J. (1994). Information status and word order:An analysis of English inversion. Language,70,233-259.
Blackwell, S. E. (1994). A neo-Gricean approach to Spanish NP-anaphora. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburgh.
Blackwell, S. E. (1998). Constraints on Spanish NP anaphora:The syntactic versus the pragmatic domain. Hispania,81 (3),606-618.
Blackwell, S. E. (2000). Anaphora interpretations in Spanish utterances and the neo-Gricean pragmatic theory. Journal of Pragmatics,32,389-424.
Blackwell, S. E. (2001). Testing the neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora:The influence of consistency constraints on interpretations of coreference in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics,33,901-941.
Blackwell, S. E. (2003). Implicatures in discourse:The case of Spanish NP-anaphora. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Bolinger, D. (1977). Meaning and form. New York:Longman
Bolinger, D. (1979). Pronouns in discourse. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics,12, 289-309. New York:Academic Press.
Brennan, S. E. (1995). Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(2),137-167.
Brennan, S. E. (1998). Centering as a psychological resource for achieving joint reference in spontaneous discourse. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi,& E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse (pp.227-249). Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Brennan, S. E., Friedman, M. W.,& Pollard, C. J. (1987). A centering approach to pronouns. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the ACL (pp.155-162). Stanford, California.
Brown, G.,& Yule. G. (1983). Dicourse analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Burkhardt, P. (2006). Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language,98(2),159-168.
Butler, C. (2000). Joyce's modernism and postmodernism. In D. Attridge (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to James Joyce. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Education Press.
Byron, D.,& Stent, A. (1998). A preliminary model of centering in dialog. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.1475-1477). Montreal, Canada.
Carberry, S. (1990). Plan recognition in natural language dialogue. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Caselli, T. (2009). Using a generative lexicon resource to compute bridging. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural, Revista,42,71-78.
Chae, Sook-Hee (2000). A centering approach to complex sentences. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Graduate School of Seoul National University.
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic. New York:Academic Press.
Chafe, W. L. (1979). The flow of thought and the flow of language. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics:Discourse and syntax (pp.159-182). New York:Academic Press.
Chafe, W. L. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time:The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Chafe, W. L. (1996). Inferring identifiability and accessibility. In T. Fretheim & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp.37-46). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Charolles, M. (1999). Associative anaphora and its interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 37.311-326.
Chinchor, N. A.,& Sundheim, B. (1995). (MUC) tests of discourse processing. In Proceedings AAAI SS on Empirical Methods in Discourse Interpretation and Generation (pp.21-260). Stanford, California.
Chiou. M. (2007). NP-anaphora in Modern Greek:A neo-Gricean pragmatic approach. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Reading.
Chiou, M.,& Huang, Y. (2010). NP-anaphora in Modern Greek:A partial neo-Gricean pragmatic approach. Journal of Pragmatics,42 (7),2036-2057.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht:Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Clark, H. H. (1975). Bridging. In R. Schank & B. Nash-Webber (Eds.), Theoretical issues in national language processing (pp.169-174). Cambridge:MIT Press.
Clark, H. H. (1977). Bridging. In P. N. Johnson-Laird & P. C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science (pp.411-420). London/New York:Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. H.,& Haviland, S. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (pp.1-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Clark, H. H.,& Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, B. Webber & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp.10-63). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Clancy, P. M. (1980). Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In W. L. Chafe (Ed.), The pear stories (pp.127-202). Norwood:N.J. Ablex.
Cohen, R. (1984). A computational theory of the function of clue words in argument understanding. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp.251-255). Stanford, California.
Consten, M. (2004). Anaphorisch oder deiktisch? Zu einem integrativen Modell domdnengebundener Referenz. Tubingen:Niemeyer.
Cooreman, A.,& Sanford, A. J. (1996). Focus and syntactic subordination in discourse. Research Paper 79. HCRC.
Cornish, F. (1986). Anaphoric relations in English and French:A discourse perspective. London:Croom Helm.
Cornish, F.. Garnham. A., Cowles H. W., Fossard, M.,& Andre, V. (2005). Indirect anaphora in English and French:A cross-linguistic study of pronoun resolution. Journal of Memory and Language.52(3),363-376.
Costermans. J.,& Bestgen. Y. (1991). The role of temporal markers in the segmentation of narrative discourse. CPC:European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology,11,349-370.
Cote, S. (1998). Ranking forward-looking centers. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi & E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse (pp.55-70). Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Dale, R (1989). Cooking up referring expressions. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.68-75). Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Dale, R. (1992). Generating referring expressions:Constructing descriptions in a domain of objects and processes. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Danes, F. (1974). Papers on functional sentence perspective. Prague:Academia.
de Beaugrande, R.& Dressier, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London/New York:Longman.
Deming, R. H. (1997). James Joyce:The critical heritage. London:Routledge.
Di Eugenio, B. (1990). Centering theory and the Italian pronominal system. In COLING 90: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp.270-275). Helsinki, Finland.
Di Eugenio, B. (1998). Centering in Italian. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi & E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Dowty, D. (1980). Comments on the paper by Bach and Partee. In K. J. Kreiman & A. E. Ojeda (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on pronouns and anaphora. Chicago Linguistic Society.
Eckert, M. (1998). Discourse deixis and null anaphora in German. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Edinburgh.
Ehrlich, S. (1987). Aspect, foregrounding and point of view. Text,7,363-376.
Ehrlich, S. (1990). Point of view:A linguistic analysis of literary style. London/New York: Routledge.
Ehrich, V.,& Koster, C. (1983). Discourse organisation and sentence form:The structure of room description in Dutch. Discourse Processes,6,169-195.
Emmott, C. (1994). Frames of reference:Contextual monitoring and narrative discourse. R. M. Coulthard (Ed.):Advances in written text analysis. London:Routledge.
Emmott, C. (1997). Narrative comprehension:A discourse perspective. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Emmott, C. (1999). Embodied in a constructed world:Narrative processing, knowledge representation, and indirect anaphora. In K. van Hoek, A. A. Kibrik & L. Noordman (Eds.) Discourse studies in cognitive linguistics (pp.5-28). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Erku, F.,& Gundel, J. (1987). Indirect anaphors. In J. Verschueren & M. Bertuccelli-Papi (Eds.), The pragmatic perspective (pp.533-546). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Fais, L.,& Yamura-Takei, M. (2003). The nature of referent resolution in Japanese email. Discourse Processes,36(3),167-204. NL:Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Fais, L. (2004). Inferable centers, centering transitions, and the notion of coherence. Computational Linguistics,30(2),119-150.
Fan, J., Barker, K.,& Porter, B. (2005). Indirect anaphora resolution as semantic path search. KCAP'05. Alberta. Canada.
Fauconnier, G. (1994)，Mental spaces:Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G.& Turner, M. (1999). Metonymy and conceptual integration. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.77-90). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2003). The way we think:Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities.New York:Basic Books.
Fellbaum, C. (Ed.). (1998). WordNet:An electronic lexical database. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Forret, L. B. (1992). How grammar codes cognition:Syntactic subject and focus of attention. (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Oregon.
Fox. B. A. (1987). Discourse structure and anaphora:Written and conversational English. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Fox, B. A. (1996). Studies in anaphora. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Fraurud， K. (1990). Definiteness and the processing of noun phrases in natural discourse. Journal of Semantics,7,395-433.
Gaizauskas, R., Wakao, T., Humphreys, K., Cunningham, H.,& Wilks, Y. (1995). Description of the LaSIE system. In Proceedings of MUC-6 (pp.207-220). Morgan Kaufmann.
Gardent, C., Manuelian, H.,& Kow, E. (2003). Which bridges for bridging definite descriptions? In Proceedings of LINC'03 (pp.69-76). Budapest, Hungary.
Garrod, S.,& Sanford, A. J. (1982):The mental representation of discourse in a focussed memory system:Implications for the interpretation of anaphoric noun phrases. Journal of Semantics,1(1),21-41.
Garrod, S.,& Terras, M. (2000). The contribution of lexical and situational knowledge to resolving discourse roles:Bonding and resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 42,526-544.
Gasperin, C.,& Vieira, R. (2004). Using word similarity lists for resolving indirect anaphora. In Proceedings of ACL'04:Workshop on Reference Resolution and its Applications (pp.40-46). Barcelona, Spain.
Gasperin, C.,& Briscoe, T. (2008). Statistical anaphora resolution in biomedical texts. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Vol. 1,pp.257-264).
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc.
Givon, T. (1983). Topic continuity in spoken English. In T. Givon (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse:A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Gordon, P. C., Grosz, B. J.,& Gilliom, L. A. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science,17.311-347.
Green, G. (1989). Pragmatics and natural language understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Greenberg, J. (1966). Language universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague:Mouton.
Greene, S. B., McKoon， G.,& Ratcliff. R. (1992). Pronoun resolution and discourse models. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory and Cognition,18(2), 266-283.
Grosz, B. J. (1977). The representation and use of focus in dialogue understanding. Technical Report 151, SRI International,333 Ravenswood Ave, Menlo Park, Ca. 94025.
Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K.,& Weinstein, S. (1983). Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp.44-50). Cambridge, MA.
Grosz, B. J.,& Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attentions, intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics,12,175-204.
Grosz, B. J..& Sidner, C. L. (1998). Lost intuitions and forgotten intentions. In Walker et al. (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Grosz, B. J.,& Hirschberg, J. (1992). Some intonational characteristics of discourse structure. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp.429-432). Banff:ICSLP.
Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K.,& Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering:A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics,21(2),203-225.
Gundel, J., Hedberg, N.,& Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language,69 (2),274-307.
Hahn, U., Markert, K.,& Strube, M. (1996). A conceptual reasoning approach to textual ellipsis. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp.572-576), Chichester:John Wiley.
Hahn, U.,& Strube, M. (1996). PARSETALK about functional anaphora. In G. McCalla (Ed.), Advances in artificial intelligence. Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence (pp.133-145). Berlin:Springer.
Hahn. U., Strube, M.,& Markert. K. (1996). Bridging textual ellipses. In Proceedings of COLING-96 (pp.496-501). Copenhagen.
Hahn. U.,& Strube. M. (1997). Centering in-the-large:Computing referential discourse segments. In proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 8th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.104-111). Somerset, NJ:Association for Computational Linguistics.
Haiman, J. (1985). Natural syntax. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Hajicova, E.,& Vrbova, J. (1982). On the role of the hierarchy of activation in the process of natural language understanding. Coling 8—Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp.107-113). Prague:Amsterdam.
Hajicova, E., Kubon, P.,& Kubon, V. (1990). Hierarchy of salience and discourse analysis and production. Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp.144-148). Helsinki, Finland.
Hajicova, E., Kubon, V.,& Kubon, P. (1992). Stock of shared knowledge:A tool for solving pronominal anaphora. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp.127-133). Nantes.
Hajicova, E., Skoumalova, H.,& Sgall, P. (1995). An automatic procedure for topic-focus identification. Computational Linguistics,27(1):81-94.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics,3,199-244.
Halliday, M. A. K.,& Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London:Longman.
Haviland, S. E.,& Clark, H. (1974). What's new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,13(5),512-521.
Hawkins, J. A. (1978). Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm.
Hawkins, J. A. (1984). A note on referent identifiability and co-presence. Journal of Pragmatics,8,649-659.
Hearst, M. A. (1993). TextTiling:A quantitative approach to discourse segmentation. Technical Report 93/24. Berkeley:University of California.
Hearst. M. A. (1997). TextTiling:Segmenting text into multi-paragraph subtopic passages, Computational Linguistics,23(1),33-64.
Heim. I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusets.
Heim, I. (1988). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. New York:Garland Publishing.
Heim, I. (1991). Artikel und definitheit. In Arnim von stechow & dieter wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik:Ein internationales handbuch des zeitgenossischen forschung (pp. 487-535). Berlin:de Gruyter.
Hendriks, P.,& De Hoop, H. (2001). Optimality theoretic semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy,24(1),1-32.
Henschel, R., Cheng, H.,& Poesio, M. (2000). Pronominalization revisited. In Proceedings of the 18th COLING. Saarbruecken.
Heusinger, K. (2007). Accessibility and definite noun phrases. In M. Schwarz-Friesel, M. Consten & M. Knees (Eds.), Anaphors in text:Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference (pp.3-20). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Hirschberg. J.,& Pierrehumbert, J. (1986). The intonational structuring of discourse. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp.136-14). New York.
Hwang, C. H.,& Schubert, L. K. (1992). Tense trees as the'fine structure'of discourse. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp.232-240). Newark.
Hirschberg, J.,& Grosz, B. (1992). Intonational features of local and global discourse structure. In Proceedings of the Speech and Natural Language Workshop (pp. 441-446). Harriman, NY:Morgan Kaufmann.
Hirschberg, J.,& Litman, D. (1993). Empirical studies on the disambiguation of cue phrases. Computational Linguistics,19(3),501-530.
Hobbs. J. (1976). Pronoun resolution. Research Report 76-2. New York:City University of New York.
Hobbs, J. (1979). Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science,3,67-90.
Hobbs, J. (1985). On the coherence and structure of discourse. Technical Report CSLI-85-37. Center for the Study of Language and Information. Stanford:Stanford University.
Hoffman. B. (1995).The computational analysis of the syntax and interpretation of "free' word order in Turkish.(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania.
Horn, L. (1986). Presupposition, theme and variations. In A. M. Farley, P. T. Farley & K. McCullough (Eds.), Papers from the 22nd Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society (pp.168-192). University of Chicago.
Horn, L. (1989).A natural history of negation. Chicago:The University Chicago Press.
Hovy, E. H.,& Maier, E. (1990). Parsimonious and profligate Approaches to the question of discourse structure relations. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Text Generation (pp.59-65). Pittsburgh.
Huang, Y. (1991). A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics,27, 301-335.
Huang, Y. (1994). The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora: A study with special reference to Chinese. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Y. (1995). On null subjects and null objects in generative grammar. Linguistics,33, 1081-1123.
Huang, Y. (1996). A note on the head-movement analysis of long-distance reflexives. Linguistics,34,833-840.
Huang, Y. (2000a). Anaphora:A cross-linguistic study. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Huang, Y. (2000b). Discourse anaphora:Four theoretical models. Journal of Pragmatics, 32,151-176.
Huang, Y. (2001a). Reflections on theoretical pragmatics. Waiguoyu,131,2-14.
Huang, Y. (2001b). Anaphora. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences,1,486-90. New York:Elsevier Science.
Huang, Y. (2002). Typology of coreferential anaphora and neo-Gricean pragmatics: Implications for a newly defined artificial language. Journal of Universal Language,3, 31-56.
Huang. Y. (2003). On neo-Gricean pragmatics. International Journal of pragmatics,13, 87-110.
Huang. Y. (2004). Anaphora and the pragmatic-syntax interface. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp.288-314). Oxford:Blackwell.
Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Hudson-D'Zmura, S. (1988). The structure of discourse and anaphor resolution:The discourse center and the roles of nouns and pronouns. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Rochester.
Hudson-D'Zmura, S.,& Tanenhaus. M. K. (1998). Assigning antecedents to ambiguous pronouns:The role of the center of attention as the default assignment. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi & E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse (pp.199-226). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Hurewitz, F. (1998). A quantitative look at discourse coherence. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi & E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse (pp.273-291). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Iida, M. (1998). Discourse coherence and shifting centers in Japanese text. In M. A.Walker, A. K. Joshi & E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse (pp.161-180). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Inoue, N., Iida, R., Inui, K.,& Matsumoto, Y. (2010). Resolving direct and indirect anaphora for Japanese definite noun phrases. Journal of Natural Language Processing, 77(1),1-26.
Irmer, M. (2011). Bridging inferences:Constraining and resolving underspecification in discourse interpretation. Berlin/Boston:Walter de Gruyter GmbH and KG.
James, W. (1890/1981). The principles of psychology. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
Joshi, A. K.,& Kuhn, S. (1979). Centered logic:The role of entity centered sentence representation in natural language inferencing. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp.435-439). Tokyo, Japan.
Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. (1981). Control of inference:Role of some aspects of discourse structure centering. In Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp.385-387). Vancouver, B.C.
Joyce, J. (1982). Ulysses. Harmondsworth:Penguin Books Ltd.
Kameyama. M. (1985). Zero anaphora:The case of Japanese. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University.
Kameyama, M. (1986). A property-sharing constraint in centering. In Proceedings ACL-86 (pp.200-206). New York, NY.
Kameyama, M. (1998). Intrasentential centering:A case study. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi & E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse (pp.89-112). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Karamanis, N., Poesio, M., Mellish, C.,& Oberlander, J. (2004a). Evaluating centering-based metrics of coherence for text structuring using a reliably annotated corpus. Proceedings of the Association of Computational Linguistics. Barcelona.
Karamanis, N., Mellish, C., Oberlander, J.,& Poesio, M. (2004b). A Corpus-based methodology for evaluating metrics of coherence for text structuring. Proceedings of INLG. Brighton.
Karamanis, N., Poesio, M., Mellish, C.,& Oberlander, J. (2009). Evaluating centering for information ordering using corpora. Computational Linguistics,3.5(1),29-46.
Kasahara, K., Matsuzawa, K., Ishikawa, T.,& Kawaoka, T. (1996). Viewpoint-based measurement of semantic similarity beween words. In H. F. Douglas & L. Hans (Eds.), Learning from data:AI and statistics V(pp.433-442). New York:Springer-Ver lag.
Kehler, A. (1997). Current theories of centering for pronoun interpretation:A critical evaluation. Computational Linguistics,23(3),467-475.
Kempson, R. M. (1984). Pragmatics, anaphora, and logical form. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context:Linguistic applications (pp.1-10). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Kempson, R. M. (1988). Grammar and conversational principles. In F. J. Newmeyer (Ed.), Linguistics (Vol.2):The Cambridge survey (pp.139-163). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Kibble, R. (1999). Cb or not Cb? Centering applied to NLG In Proceedings of the ACL'99 Workshop on Discourse and Reference. College Park, MD.
Kibble. R. J., Richard. D.,& Power, J. (2000). An integrated framework for text planning and pronominalisation. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Natural Language Generation (pp.77-84).
Kibble, R. (2001). A reformulation of rule 2 of centering theory. Computational Linguistics, 27(4):579-587.
Kibrik, A. A. (1996). Anaphora in Russian narrative prose:A cognitive calculative account. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp.255-303). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Kim, M. H. (1996). Pragmatic determinants of syntactic subject in English. Journal of Pragmatics,25,839-854.
Kintsch, W.,& van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Towards a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review,85,363-94.
Kleiber, G (1999). Associative anaphora and part-whole relationship:The condition of alienation and the principle of ontological congruence. Journal of Pragmatics,3, 339-362.
Knott, A., Oberlander, J., O'Donnell, M., & Mellish, C. (2001). Beyond elaboration:The interaction of relations and focus in coherent text. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation:Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp.181-196). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Kozima, H. (1993). Text segmentation based on similarity between words. Proceedings of the 31th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp. 286-288). Tokyo, Japan.
Kuno, S. (1976). Subject, theme and speaker's empathy:A re-examination of relativization phenomena. In C. Li (Ed), Subject and topic (pp.417-444). New York:Academic Press.
Kuno, S.,& Kaburaki, E. (1977). Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry,8,62-672.
Kuno, S. (1987). Functional syntax:Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker. R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. (Vol. Ⅰ):Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford/California:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. (Vol. Ⅱ):Descriptive application. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
Langacker. R.W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (2004). Remarks on nominal grounding. Functions of Language,11, 77-113.
Levinson, S. C. (1987a). Minimization and conversational inference. In J. Verschueren & M. Bertuccelli-Papi (Eds.), The pragmatic perspective:Selected papers from the 1985 international pragmatics conference (pp.61-129). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Levinson, S. C. (1987b). Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics, 23,379-434.
Levinson, S. C. (1998). Minimization and conversational inference. In A. Kasher (Ed.), Pragmatics:Critical concepts,4,545-612. London:Routledge.
Levinson, S. C. (1991). Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics,27,107-161.
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings:The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Li, C.N. (Ed.) (1976). Subject and topic. New York:Academic Press.
Li, C.N.,& Thompson, S.A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese:A functional reference grammar. Berkeley:University of California Press.
Linde, C. (1979). Focus of attention and the choice of pronouns in discourse. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol.12):Discourse and syntax (pp.337-354). New York: Academic Press.
Litman, D.,& Allen, J. (1990). Discourse processing and commonsense plans. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lobner, S. (1996). Associative anaphora. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Indirect Anaphora. Lancaster.
Lust, B. (1986). Studies in the acquisition of anaphora. (Vol.2):Applying the constraints. Boston:D. Reidel Pub. (Kluwer) Co.
Lyons, J. (1981). Language, meaning and context. London:Fontana.
MacGregorand, R.,& Bates, R. (1987). The LOOM knowledge representation language. Technical Report RS-87-188. Information Sciences Institute, USC.
Mann, W.,& Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory:Toward a functional theory of text organisation. Text,8,243-248.
Markert, K., Strube, M.,& Hahn, U. (1996). Inferential realization constraints on functional anaphora in the centering model. In Proc. of the 18th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society; La Jolla, Cal,12-15 July 1996, pp.609-614.
Markert, K.,& Nissim, M. (2005). Comparing knowledge sources for nominal anaphora resolution. Computational Linguistics,31(3),367-402.
Marslen-Wilson, W., Levy, W.,& Tyler, L.K. (1982). Producing interpretable discourse: The establishment and maintenance of reference. In R. Jarvella & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, place, and action (pp.339-378). New York:Wiley.
Matsui, T. (1993a). Bridging reference and notions of'topic'and'focus'. In Lingua,90, 49-68.
Matsui, T. (1993b). Accessing a scenario-based account of bridging reference assignment. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics,5,211-247.
Matsui, T. (2000). Bridging and relevance. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
McCoy, K.,& Strube, M. (1999). Generating anaphoric expressions:Pronoun or definite description? In Proceedings of ACL Workshop on Discourse and Reference Structure (pp.63-71). University of Maryland, College Park.
Mieville, D. (1999). Associative anaphora:An attempt at formalization. Journal of Pragmatics,3,327-337.
Miller G. (1990). Five papers on WordNet. Special Issue of International Journal of Lexicography,3 (4).
Miltsakaki, E. (1999). Locating topics in text processing. In Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands:Selected Papers from the Tenth CLIN Meeting (pp.127-138). Utrecht.
Miltsakaki, E. (2002). Toward an aposynthesis of topic continuity and intrasentential anaphora. Computational Linguistics,28 (3),319-355.
Miltsakaki, E. (2007). A rethink of the relationship between salience and anaphora resolution. In Proceedings of the 6th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphora Resolution Colloquium (pp.91-96). Lagos, Portugal.
Miltsakaki, E. (2011). Not all subjects are born equal:A look at complex sentence structure. E. Gibson, Neal J. Pearlmutter (Eds.), The Processing and Acquisition of Reference. Cambridge, MA.:MIT Press.
Mineur, A. M. (2006). The resolution of bridging anaphora in OT. Retrieved from http://www.let.rug.nl/～mineur/docs/Bridging-in-OT.
Mittwoch, A. (1983). Backwards anaphora and discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 7,129-139.
Modjeska, N. N. (2002). Lexical and grammatical role constraints in resolving other-anaphora. In Proceedings of DAARC2002 (pp.129-134). Lisbon, Portugal.
Morris, J.,& Hirst, G (1991). Lexical coherence computed by thesaural relations as an indicator of the structure of text. Computational Linguistics,17(1),21-42.
Murata, M., Isahara, H.,& Nagao, M. (1999 a). Pronoun resolution in Japanese sentences using surface expressions and examples. In Proceedings of the ACL'99 Workshop on Coreference and Its Applications (pp.39-46).
Murata, M., Isahara, H.,& Nagao, M. (1999b). Resolution of indirect anaphora in Japanese sentences using examples "X no Y (Y of X)". In Proceedings of the ACL 1999 Workshop on Coreference and Its Applications. Maryland, USA.
Nakhimovsky, A. (1988). Aspect, aspectual class, and the temporal structure of narrative. Computational Linguistics,14(2),29-43.
Nariyama, S. (2000). Markedness theory and ellipsis:Ellipsis as the unmarked representation of 'sameness'. Melbourne Papers in Linguistics and Applied Linguisics, 1,55-68.
Nariyama, S. (2003). Ellipsis and reference tracking in Japanese. Studies in language companion series 66. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Nariyama, S. (2004). Subject ellipsis in English. Journal of Pragmatics,36,237-264.
Nariyama, S. (2006). Pragmatic information extraction from subject ellipsis in informal English. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Scalable Natural Language Understanding (pp.1-8). New York City.
Navarretta, C. (2002). Combining information structure and centering-based models of salience for resolving intersentential pronominal anaphora. In A. Branco, T. McEnery & R. Mitkov (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphora Resolution Colloqium (pp.135-140). Edicoes Colibri.
Navarretta, C. (2004). An algorithm for resolving individual and abstract anaphora in Danish texts and dialogues. In Proceedings of Reference Resolution and Its Applications Workshop at ACL 2004. Barcelona, Spain.
Nomoto, T.,& Nitta, Y. (1994). A grammatico-statistical approach to discourse partitioning. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp.1145-1150). Kyoto, Japan.
Passonneau, R. J. (1993). Getting and keeping the center of attention. In M. Bates & R. Weisehedel (Eds.), Challenges in natural language processing (pp.179-227). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Passonneau, R. J.,& Litman, D. J. (1993). Intention-based segmentation:Human reliability and correlation with linguistic cues. In Proceedings of the 31st Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp.148-155). Columbus. Ohio.
Passonneau. R. J. (1994). Protocol for coding discourse referential noun phrases and their antecedents. Technical report. Columbia University.
Passonneau, R. J. (1995). Integrating Gricean and attentional constraints. In IJCAI-95 (pp. 1267-1273). Montreal, Quebec.
Passonneau. R. J.,& Litman, D. J. (1996). Empirical analysis of three dimensions of spoken discourse:Segmentation, coherence and linguistic devices. In E. Hovy & D. Scott (Eds.), Computational and coversational Dicourse (pp.1-26). Berlin:Springer Verlag.
Passonneau. R. J.,& Litman, D. J. (1997). Discourse segmentation by human and automated means. Computational Linguistics,23 (1),103-140.
Passonneau. R. (1998) Interaction of discourse structure with explicitness of discourse anaphoric noun phrases. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi & E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse (pp.327-358). Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Pearson. J., Stevenson, R.,& Poesio, M. (2000). Pronoun resolution in complex sentences. In Proceedings of AMLAP. Leiden.
Pierrehumbert, J.,& Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. Intentions in communication (pp.271-313). Cambridge: MIT press.
Poesio, M., Stevenson, R.,& Hitzeman, J. (1997). Global focus and pronominalization. In D. Jurafsky & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of First Conference on Computational Psycholinguistics. Berkeley, CA:University of California.
Poesio, M., Vieira, R.,& Teufel, S. (1997). Resolving bridging references in unrestricted text. In R. Mitkov (Ed.), Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Operational Factors in Robust Anaphora Resolution (pp.1-6). Madrid, Spain.
Poesio, M.,& Vieira, R. (1998). A corpus-based investigation of definite description use. Computational Linguistics,24 (2),183-216.
Poesio M., Bruneseaux, F.,& Romary, L. (1999). The MATE meta-scheme for coreference in dialogues in multiple languages. In M.A.Walker (Ed.), Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Standards and Tools for Discourse Tagging (pp.65-74). Maryland.
Poesio, M. (2000a). Annotating a corpus to develop and evaluate discourse entity realization algorithms:issues and preliminary results. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Language Resources and Engineering. Athens.
Poesio, M. (2000b). The GNOME annotation scheme manual. Edinburgh:University of Edinburgh.
Poesio, M., Cheng, H., Henschel, R., Hitzeman, J., Kibble, R.,& Stevenson, R. (2000). Specifying the parameters of centering theory:A corpus-based evaluation using text from application-oriented domains. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Hong Kong.
Poesio, M., Cheng, H., Di Eugenio, B., Hitzeman, J. M.,& Stevenson, R. (2002). A corpus-based evaluation of centering theory. Submitted.
Poesio, M. (2003). Associative descriptions and salience. In Proceedings of the EACL Workshop on Computational Treatments of Anaphora. Budapest.
Poesio, M., Stevenson, R., Di Eugenio, B.,& Hitzeman, J. (2004). Centering:A parametric theory and its instantiations. Computational Linguistics,30(3),309-363.
Poesio. M. (2004a). The MATE/GNOME scheme for anaphoric annotation, revisited, Proceedings o SIGDIAL. Boston.
Poesio, M. (2004b). Discourse annotation and semantic annotation in the GNOME corpus. Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Discourse Annotation. Barcelona.
Poesio, M.,& Modjeska, N. N. (2005). Focus, activation, and THIS-Noun phrases. In A. Branco, T. McEnery & R. Mitkov (Eds.), Anaphora processing (pp.429-456). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Poesio, M., Sturt, P., Artstein, R.,& Filik, R. (2006). Underspecification and anaphora: Theoretical issues and preliminary evidence. Discourse Processes,42 (2),157-175.
Poesio, M., Patel, A.,& Di Eugenio, B. (2006). Discourse structure and anaphora in tutorial dialogues:An empirical analysis of two theories of the global focus. Research in Language and Computation,4,229-257.
Poesio, M. (2008). Linguistic claims formulated in terms of Centering:A re-examination using parametric CB-tracking techniques. In J. Gundel & N. Hedberg (Eds), Reference: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Polanyi, L.,& Scha, R. (1984). A syntactic approach to discourse semantics. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp.413-419). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Polanyi, L. (1987). The linguistic discourse model:Towards a formal theory of discourse structure. Technical Report 6409. Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Cambridge, Mass.
Pollard, C. J.,& Sag, I. A. (1988). An information based approach to syntax and semantics: (Vol.1) Fundamentals. CSLI lecture notes 13. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
Prasad, R. (1997). The topic marker "to "in Hindi and information packaging. ms. Linguistics. University of Pennsylvania.
Prasad, R.,& Strube, M. (2000). Discourse salience and pronoun resolution in Hindi. In A. Williams & E. Kaiser (Eds.). Penn working papers in linguistics:Current work in linguistics,6 (3),189-208.
Prasad, R. (2003). Constraints on the generation of referring expressions:With special reference to Hindi. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania.
Prince. E. F. (1981). Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp.223-256). New York:Academic Press.
Prince, E. F. (1990). Syntax and discourse:a look at resumptive pronouns. In Hall et al. (Ed.). Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp.482-497). Berkeley, CA:Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Prince, E. F. (1992). The ZPG letter:Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In S. Thompson & W. Mann (Eds.), Discourse description:Diverse analyses of a fund raising text (pp.295-325). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Prince, A.,& Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar.Technical Report CU-CS-696-93. Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Boulder and Technical Report TR-2. Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
Prince, A.,& Smolensky, P. (1997). Optimality:From neural networks to universal grammar. Science,275,1604-1610.
Prince, E. F. (1994). Subject pro drop in yiddish. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus and natural language processing. (Vol.1) Intonation and syntax (pp.159-173). Working Papers of the Institute for Logic and Linguistics. IBM Deutschland.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G.,& Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London:Longman.
Rambow,O. (1993). Pragmatic aspects of scrambling and topicalization in German. In Workshop on Centering Theory in Naturally-occurring Discourse. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.
Reichman, R. (1985). Getting computers to talk like you and me:Discourse context, focus, and semantics. Cambridge:MIT press.
Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics, an analysis of sentence topics. Philosphica, 27(1),53-94.
Reinhart, T. (1983). Coreference and bound anaphora:A restatement of the anaphora questions. Linguistics and Philosophy,6,47-88.
Samet, J.,& Schank, R. (1984). Coherence and connectivity. Linguistics and philosophy,7, 11-35.
Sanders， T., Spooren. W. P.,& Noordman, L. G. (1992). Towards a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes,15,1-35.
Sanders, T, Spooren, W. P.,& Noordman, L. G. (1993). Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics.4.93-133.
Sanford, A.， & Garrod. S. (1981). Understanding mitten language:Explorations of comprehension beyond the sentence. Chichester:John Wiley.
Sanford, A. J., Moar, K.,& Garrod, S. C. (1988). Proper names as controllers of discourse focus. Language and speech,31,43-56.
Sasano, R.,& Kurohashi, S. (2009). In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp.1455-1464). Singapore.
Schwarz, M. (2000). Indirekte anaphern in texten:Studien zur dom anengebundenen referenz und koh arenz im Deutschen. Niemeyer, Tuebingen.
Schwarz-Friesel, M. (2007). Indirect anaphora in text:A cognitive account. In M. Schwarz-Friesel, M. Consten & M. Knees (Eds), Anaphors in text:Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference (pp.3-20). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Shimazu, A., Naito, S.,& Nomura, H. (1987). Semantic structure analysis of Japanese noun phrases with adnominal particles. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the ACL (pp.123-130). Stanford, California.
Sidner, C. L. (1979). Toward a computational theory of definite anaphora comprehension in English. Technical Report AI-TR-537. Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT.
Sidner, C. L. (1981). Focusing for interpretation of pronouns. American Journal of Computational Linguistics,7,217-231.
Sidner, CL (1983). Focusing in the comprehension of definite anaphora. In M. Brady & R. Berwick (Eds.), Computational models of discourse (pp.267-330). Cambridge:MIT Press.
Singer, M. (1979). Processes of inference during sentence encoding. Memory and Cognition.7(3),192-200.
Song, F.,& Cohen, R. (1991). Tense interpretation in the context of narrative. In Proceedings of the 9th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (pp.131-136). Anaheim, CA.
Sperber. D.,& Wilson. D. (1986). Relevance:Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stevenson. R. J., Alexander W. R. N.,& Stenning, K. (1993). Strategies in annual conference of the cognitive pronoun comprehension. In Proceedings of the 15th Science Society (pp.976-981). Hillsdale, NJ.
Stevenson, R., Crawley, R.,& Kleinman, D. (1994). Thematic roles, focus and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Process,9,519-548.
Stevenson, R. J.,& Urbanowicz, A. (1995). Structural focusing, thematic role focusing and the comprehension of pronouns. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.328-333). Pittsburgh, PA.
Stirling, L.,& Huddleston, R. (2002). Deixis and anaphora. In R. Huddleston & G K. Pullum (Eds), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (pp.1449-1564). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Stone, H. S. (1987). High performance computer architecture. Reading, MA:Addison Wesley.
Strand, K. (1997). A taxonomy of linking relations. Manuscript.
Strawson, P. F. (1964). Identifying reference and truth values. Theoria,3,96-118.
Strube, M.,& Hahn, U. (1995). ParseTalk about sentence-and text-level anaphora. In Proceedings of EACL05 (pp.237-244). Dublin, Irland.
Strube, M.,& Hahn, U. (1996). Functional centering. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp.270-277). Santa Cruz, California.
Strube, M. (1998). Never look back:An alternative to centering. In Proceedings of the 17 International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 36 Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. (Vol.2, pp.1251-1257). Montreal, Quebec.
Strube, M.,& Hahn, U. (1999). Functional centering:Grounding referential coherence in information structure. Computational Linguistics,25(3),309-344.
Suri, L. Z.,& Kathleen F. M. (1994). RAFT/RAPR and centering:A comparison and discussion of problems related to processing complex sentences. Computational Linguistics.20(2).301-317.
Taboada, M.,& Zabala. H. (2008). Deciding on units of analysis within centering theory. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory,1,63-108.
Takahashi. H. (1997). Indirect anaphors:A cognitive grammar account. The Annual Reports on Science.46(1).1-22.
Tomlin, R.,& Pu, M. (1991). The management of reference in Mandarin discourse. Cognitive Linguistics,2,65-93.
Turan, U. D. (1996). Null vs. overt subjects in Turkish discourse:A Centering analysis. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania.
Turan, U. D. (1998). Ranking forward-looking centers in Turkish:Universal and language specific properties. In M.A.Walker, A. K. Joshi & E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse (pp.138-160). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Vallduvi, E.,& Engdahl, E. (1996). The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics,34,459-519.
van Dijk, T. A.,& Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
van Hoek, K. (1992). Paths through conceptual structure:Constraints on pronominal anaphora. (Doctoral dissertation). San Diego:University of California,
van Hoek, K. (1995). Conceptual reference points:A cognitive grammar account of pronominal anaphora constraints. Language,71,310-340.
van Hoek, K. (1997). Anaphora and conceptual structure. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Vater, H. (1984). Referenz und determination im text. In I. Rosengren (Ed.), Sprache und pragmatik, lunder symposium 1984 (pp.323-344).
Veilleux, N. (2000). Application of the centering framework in spontaneous dialogues. In Sixth International Conference on Spoken Language.
Vieira, R.,& Teufel, S. (1997). Towards resolution of bridging descriptions. In Proceedings of the ACL-EACL'97 Joint Conference: 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 8th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.7-12). Madrid, Spain.
Vieira, R.,& Poesio, M. (2000a). An empirically-based system for processing definite descriptions. Computational Linguistics,26(4),539-593.
Vieira, R.,& Poesio, M. (2000b). Processing definite descriptions in corpora. In S. Botley & T. McEnery (Eds.). Corpus-based and computational approaches to discourse anaphora (pp.189-212). Amsterdam/New York:John Benjamins.
Vonk, W., Hustinx, L.G.M.M.,& Simons, W.H.G. (1992). The use of referential expressions in structuring discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes,7,301-333.
Walker, M. A. (1989). Evaluating discourse processing algorithms. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp.251-261). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Walker, M. A., Iida, M.,& Cote, S. (1990). Centering in Japanese discourse. In COLING 90:Proceedings of thel3th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp.1-8). Helsinki, Finland.
Walker, M. A. (1993). Informational redundancy and resource bounds in dialogue. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania.
Walker, M. A. (1993). Initial contexts and shifting centers. In Workshop on Centering Theory in Naturally-Occurring Discourse. Philadelphia, PA.
Walker, M. A.,& Prince, E. F. (1993). A bilateral approach to givenness:A hearer-status algorithm and a centering algorithm. In T. Fretheim & J. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp.291-306). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Walker, M. A., Iida, M.,& Cote, S. (1994). Japanese discourse and the process of centering. Computational Linguistics,20(2),193-233.
Walker, M. A. (1996a). Limited attention and discourse structure. Computational Linguistics,22(2),255-264.
Walker, M. A.,& Prince, E. (1996b). A bilateral approach to givenness. In J. Gundel & T. Fretheim (Eds.), Reference accessibility (pp.291-306). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Walker, M. A. (1998). Centering, anaphora resolution and discourse structure. In Walker et al. (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Walker, M. A., Joshi, A. K.,& Prince, E. (Eds). (1998). Centering theory in discourse. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Webber, B. L. (1978). A formal approach to discourse anaphora. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Harvard University.
Webber, B. L. (1988). Discourse deixis:Reference to discourse segments. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.113-122). Buffalo.
Werth, P. (1999). Text worlds:Representing conceptual space in discourse. London: Longman.
Wiebe, J. M.,& Rapaport, W. J. (1988). A computational theory of perspective and reference in narrative. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.131-138). Morristown, NJ:Association for Computational Linguistics.
Wiebe, J. M. (1994). Tracking point of view in narrative. Computational Linguistics,20(2), 233-287.
Wilson, D.,& Matsui, T. (1998). Recent approaches to bridging:Truth, coherence, relevance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics,10,1-28.
Winston, M., Chaffin, R.,& Herrmann, D. (1987). A taxonomy of part-whole relations. Cognitive Science,11,417-444.
Yeh, C. L. (1995). Generation of anaphors in Chinese. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Edinburgh.
Yeh, C.L.,& Chen, Y. C. (2001). An empirical study of zero anaphora resolution in Chinese based on centering theory. In Proceedings of ROCLING XIV (pp.1-15). Tainan, Taiwan.
Yeh, C.L.,& Chen, Y. C. (2003). Zero anaphora resolution in Chinese with partial parsing based on centering theory. In Proceedings of IEEE NLP-KE03 (pp.683-688). Beijing, China.
Yuksel, O.,& Bozsahin, C. (2002). Contextually appropriate reference generation. Natural Language Engineering,8,69-89.
陈辉,陈国华(2001).人称指示视点的选择及其语用原则.当代语言学,3,175-186.
陈平(1987).汉语零形回指的话语分析.中国语文,5,363-278.
陈香兰,周流溪(2007).异形回指和联想回指理解的转喻动机.外语与外语教学,2,1-4.
程琪龙(1998).信息流中的语篇连贯.外国语,1,6-11.
戴从容(2002a).乔伊斯与形式.外国文学评论,4,5-14.
戴从容(2002b).用词语实现一切——乔伊斯小说中的词语.外国语,5,67-75.
丁芸(2005).“过程的同时性”与《尤利西斯》的意识流程.外国文学研究,6,100-104.
丁芸(2007).论《尤利西斯》内心独白的构建.外国文学研究,3,56-61.
丁芸(2008).《尤利西斯》中内心独白的深度开发.宁波大学学报,5,37-41.
段嫚娟(2006).向心理论的参数化研究及其在汉语指代消解中的应用.上海外国语大学博士论文,未出版,上海市.
段嫚娟,许余龙,付相君(2009).前瞻中心的排序对指代消解的影响——一项向心理论参数化实证研究.外国语,3,21-27.
凤群(2005).意识流小说心理象似修辞之探索.四川外语学院学报,1,67-71.
高原(2003).照应词的认知分析.北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
高卫东(2008).语篇回指的功能意义解析.上海：上海交通大学出版社
郭宝亮(2006).王蒙小说文体研究.北京：北京大学出版社.
韩丹,许宁云(2006).指称转喻的回指照应机制.解放军外国语学院学报,2,6-10.
何自然(2000).语用推理的照应.福建外语,1,1-10.
黄碧蓉(2008).英汉第三人称代词照应功能的认知解析.外语学刊,5,26-29.
贾光茂(2006).篇章回指确认中的制约因素研究.西安外国语学院学报,4,8-10。
蒋平(2003).影响先行语可及性的因素.外国语,5,43-50.
蒋平(2004a).零形回指的句法和语篇特征研究——关于汉语零形回指先行语的识别.上海外国语大学博士论文,未出版,上海市.
蒋平(2004b).零形回指现象考察.汉语学习,3,23-28.
姜望琪(2001).也谈新格莱斯照应理论.外语教学与研究,3,29-36.
蒋严,潘海华(1998).形式语义学引论.北京：中国社会科学出版社.
金隄(1997).尤利西斯.北京：人民文学出版社.
孔芳,朱巧明,周国栋,钱培德(2009).基于中心理论的指代消解研究.计算机科学,6,219-222.
李丛禾(2005).英汉语会话中第三人称回指现象的认知阐释.上海外国语大学博士论文,未出版,上海市.
李丛禾(2006).《照应现象的跨语言研究》述评.当代语言学,4,354-359.
李从禾(2007).语篇向心理论在回指解析中的运用.外国语言文学,1,14-19.
李维屏(2000a).英美意识流小说.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
李维屏(2000b).乔伊斯的美学思想和小说艺术.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
李维屏(2007)。现代主义精神的演示——论《尤利西斯》的人物描写艺术.外国语,5,70-74.
李勇忠(2003).架桥式语用推理的认知研究。天津外国语学院学报,1,20-25.
李佐文,叶慧君(2004).跨联现象与认知推理.外语研究,5,40-44.
廖秋忠(1992).廖秋忠文集.北京：北京语言学院出版社.
梁鲁晋(2008).语篇中回指的功能.厦门：厦门大学出版社.
刘礼进(2004).可推知照应再考——专就语篇中的照应性名词短语而论外国语,5,28-33.
刘礼进(2005a).自然语言理解中的回指解析研究概述.外语教学与研究,6,439-445.
刘礼进(2005b).中心理论和回指解析计算法.外语学刊,6,23-28.
刘礼进(2010).视点回指和汉英长距离反身代词研究.上海外国语大学博士论文,未出版,上海市.
柳鸣九(1989)。意识流.北京：中国社会科学出版社.
刘宇红(2003).前指关系的类型研究.外语教学,5,23-26.
陆振慧(2002).英汉语篇中指同表达的对比研究.外语教学与研究,5,324-331.
马晶静(2004).双先行成分间接回指的语用分析。解放军外国语学院学报,3,13-17.
马晶静,熊学亮(2004).换卡理论和间接回指的先行成分确定.外语与外语教学,2,1-6.
马兰英,姚灯镇(2009).间接回指中先行语和回指语的指称特征.解放军外国语学院学报,5,15-20.
马博森(2010).自然话语中的代词间接回指分析.外国语,2,26-34.
马文(2004).会话篇章中指称表达的选择与阐释.外国语,5,34-40.
马萧,何自然(2004).推理照应的几种解释模式比较.广东外语外贸大学学报.
苗兴伟(2001).语篇照应的动态分析.外语教学,6,17-20.
苗兴伟(2003).语篇向心理论述评.当代语言学,2,149-157.
莫爱屏(2004a).话语中推理照应关系的研究.外语与外语教学,9,9-13.
莫爱屏(2004b).汉语话语中推理照应的实证研究.现代外语,3,231-238.
潘海华(1996).篇章表述理论概说.国外语言学,3,17-26.
彭宣维(2004).从计算识别和生成的角度论英语句子的主题系统.外国语,5,19-27.
秦洪武(2001).第三人称代词在深层回指中的应用分析.当代语言学,1,55-64.
瞿世镜(1989).意识流小说理论.成都：四川文艺出版.
申富英(2005).《达洛卫夫人》的叙事联接方式和时间序列.外国文学评论,3,59-66.
申迎丽,孙致礼(2004).由《尤利西斯》中译本看小说翻译中叙事视角的传译.解放军外国语学院学报,5,51-57.
孙峻(2012).英语定冠词the的桥接作用.现代外语,3,238-246.
孙姗姗(2011).向心理论的参数设定及其在英汉指代消解中的应用研究.上海外国语大学博士论文,未出版,上海市.
王灿龙(2000).人称代词“他”的照应功能研究,中国语文,3,228-237.
王大方(2012).以“修辞结构理论”为导向的回指优选解析--对中心优选理论的理论性修正.外语教学,5,13-17.
王德亮(2004).汉语零形回指解析--基于向心理论的研究.现代外语,4,350-359.
王德亮(2005).语篇研究的新视角--《语篇向心理论》评介.外语与翻译,2,74-77.
王德亮(2006a).基于向心理论的汉语回指消解研究.北京师范大学博士论文,未出版,北京市.
王德亮(2006b).语篇脉络理论述评--宏观语篇处理.现代外语,3,309-316.
王东风(2006).有标记连贯与小说翻译中的连贯重构--以意识流小说Ulysses的翻译为例.外语教学与研究,5,303-308.
王厚峰(2001).汉语指代消解与省略恢复研究,中国科学院声学研究所博士后研究报告,未出版,北京市.
王劫(2012).基于角色与值的指称关系分析.天津外国语大学学报,4,18-23.
王军(2003a).联想回指现象琐议.西安外国语学院学报,1,10-13.
王军(2003b).间接回指的确认与语义网络激活扩散.外语学刊,4,61-66.
王军(2003c).论间接回指释义的基础外语教学,6,1-5.
王军(2004a).论关联度在间接回指释义中的主导作用.现代外语,3,239-247.
王军(2004b).英语叙事篇章中间接回指释义的认知研究.苏州：苏州大学出版社.
王军(2005a).“框棂关系”对间接回指研究的启示.外语教学,4,15-17.
王军(2005b).汉英间接回指形式对比初步.四川外语学院学报,1,1-5.
王军(2006).论篇章距离对回指先行语可及性的影响.山东外语教学,26-29.
王军(2007a).直接回指与间接回指.天津外国语学院学报,5,1-5.
王军(2007b).主题性：整体回指关系体现出的一种篇章属性.外语与外语教学,7,6-8。
王军(2009).模糊回指及其语用功能.西安外国语大学学报,4,1-4.
王军,高明强(2009).概念匹配、回指释义与概念转移：篇章回指研究的新思路.外语学刊,5,92-96.
王军(2012).如何精确理解“整体—部分”的优势顺序——兼论陆丙甫先生的分析方法.外国语,1,26-35.
王青(2011).基于语料库的《尤利西斯》汉译句式特征研究.外国语言文学,2,99-107.
王义娜(2003).话语指称的认知构建与心理空间可及性.外国语,5,35-42。
王义娜(2005).概念参照视点：语篇指称解释的认知思路.外语学刊,5,81-85.
王义娜(2006a).从可及性到主观性：语篇指称模式比较.外语与外语教学,7,1-4.
王义娜(2006b).指称的概念参照视点：认知语篇学的探索.北京：外文出版社.
王勇(2007).切分语篇表征理论对搭桥推理的解释.西安外国语大学学报,1,1-4.
文旭(2004).搭桥参照：以图景为基础的解释方法.外语学刊,4,11-16.
翁依琴,熊学亮(2005).回指的形式语用学初探.外语研究,2,6-9.
翁依琴(2006).汉语零形回指的认知研究.复旦大学博士论文,未出版,上海市.
吴庆军(2006a).论《尤利西斯》的互文性艺术.天津外国语学院学报,5,9-13.
吴庆军(2006b).本真与戏仿：《尤利西斯》的叙述模式.四川外语学院学报,4,42-46.
吴庆军(2008).话语建构的双重指向——论《尤利西斯》的辅助叙述.山西师大学报,5,117-120.
吴显友(2005).《尤利西斯》的前景化语言特征——文体学解读.河南大学博士论文,未出版,开封市.
夏年喜(2010).从DRT与SDRT看照应关系的逻辑解释.重庆理工大学学报,7,8-11.
项成东(2004a).间接照应及其认知推理.西安外国语学院学报,2,5-8.
项成东(2004b).代词性和指示性间接回指语及其认知基础.外语与外语教学,3,10-14.
项成东(2004c).间接照应与语篇理解.四川外语学院学报,3,87-90.
萧乾,文洁若(2005).尤利西斯.南京：译林出版.
熊学亮(1999).英汉前指现象对比.上海：复旦大学出版社.
熊学亮(2001).话语连续性的图式分解研究.外国语,3,1-7.
熊学亮,翁依琴(2005a).回指的形式语用学初探.外语研究,2,6-9.
熊学亮,翁依琴(2005b).回指的优选解析.外语教学与研究,6,432-438.
熊学亮(2010).语段表征理论和抽象回指.复旦外国语言文学论丛(秋季号),53-59.
徐赳赳(2003).现代汉语回指研究.北京：中国社会科学出版社。
徐赳赳(2005).现代汉语联想回指分析.中国语文,3,195-204.
许保芳,肖德法(2008).语篇回指的多维研究综述.西安外国语大学学报,1,22-24.
许宁云,韩丹(2005).非常规间接前指照应的释义策略.外语学刊,2,50-53.
许宁云(2005).关于向心理论中代词规则问题的探讨.外语与翻译,3,14-19.
许宁云(2006).汉语篇章零回指的解析与生成：一项基于语料的向心研究.复旦大学博士论文,未出版,上海市.
许余龙(1996).汉英篇章中句子主题的识别.外国语,6,3-9.
许余龙(2000).英汉指称词语表达的可及性.外语教学与研究,5,321-327.
许余龙(2002).语篇回指的认知语言学探索.外国语,1,28-36.
许余龙(2003a).语篇回指的认知语言学研究与验证.外国语,2,17-24.
许余龙(2003b).汉语主从句间的回指问题.当代语言学,2,97-107.
许余龙(2005a).篇章回指的功能语用探索——一项基于汉语民间故事和报刊语料的研究.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
许余龙(2005b).从回指确认的角度看汉语叙述体篇章中的主题标示.当代语言学,2,122-131.
许余龙(2008).向心理论的参数化研究.当代语言学,3,225-236.
许余龙,段嫚娟,付相君(2008).“语句”与“代词”的设定对指代消解的影响——项向心理论参数化实证研究.现代外语,2,111-120.
杨朝军(2002).照应关系的篇章功能研究.福建外语,4,15-21.
张春(2004).《尤利西斯》文体研究.上海外国语大学博士论文,未出版,上海市.
张凤(2006).联想回指的话语分析.外语研究,6,42-46.
张俊,孟静,苗兴伟(2009).回指语的指称功能和表情功能.河北工程大学学报,1,99-101.
张曼(2005).从主位结构看意识流小说中的人物塑造.外国语言文学,54-58.
张宁(2008).无明示先行词回指的句法特征与确定.外语研究,6,40-43.
张宁(2009a).英汉零形回指的表现特征与翻译.外国语文,6,57-59.
张宁(2009b).歧义回指的表现形式和确定.中国外语,6,39-42.
赵宏,邵志洪(2002).英汉第三人称代词语篇照应功能对比研究.外语教学与研究,3,174-179.
赵鸣,刘涛(2011).语言回指加工的ERP研究述评.心理科学进展,3,355-363.
赵秀凤(2004).意识流体裁特征前景化的功能解析.石油大学学报,6,95-98.
赵秀凤(2006a)语篇视角的语言表达.山东外语教学,1,22-25.
赵秀凤(2006b).叙事语篇中视角交汇的认知解析。四川外语学院学报,6,88-91.
赵秀凤(2006c).过去完成时在意识流语篇中的空间构建功能.解放军外国语学院学报,1,19-22.
赵秀凤(2006d).语篇的主观性等级与指称形式的选择——意识流语篇的认知解读视角.外国语言文学研究,4,25-31.
赵秀凤,董静萍(2007).视角的选取与指称语的选择.外语教学,4,20-23.
赵秀凤(2009a).语篇视角的语言表征——指称在意识流语篇中的视角标识作用.北京：科学出版社.
赵秀凤(2009b).意识的隐喻表征与合成——意识流小说《到灯塔去》的认知文体学分析.外国语文,2,11-17.
赵秀凤(2010).意识流语篇中心理空间网络体系的构建.解放军外国语学院学报,5,7-11.
周流溪(2001).指称词语的语用学地位及其使用准则.语言研究与语言教学.香港：华人出版社.
周平(2002).英语间接前指现象产生的条件.外语学刊,3,80-82.
周晔,孙致礼(2009).以残传残,以缺译缺——从《尤利西斯》看“残缺”艺术手法及传译手段.外语与外语教学,6,46-50.
朱勘宇(2002).汉语零形回指的句法驱动力.汉语学习,4,76-80.