Anaphora

Walter De Mulder
Table of contents

The objective of this contribution is to present, after a very short historical survey, the approaches to anaphora which can be related to two of the dominant frameworks in current pragmatics, the neo-Gricean theory and the theory of relevance. After discussing these two approaches and related suggestions, a pragma-semantic approach will be introduced, which combines a more traditional analysis of the semantic value of the anaphoric expressions with the pragmatic inferences necessary to analyse their use in discourse.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Almog, J., J. Perry & H. Wettstein
(eds.) 1989 Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, A., S. Garrod & A. Sanford
1983 The accessibility of pronominal antecedents as a function of episode shifts in narrative text. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 35A: 427–440.Google Scholar
Apothéloz, D.
1995 Rôle et fonctionnement de l’anaphore dans la dynamique textuelle. Droz.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M.
1988 Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24: 65–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990 Accessing NP antecedents. Routledge/Croom Helm.Google Scholar
1994 Interpreting anaphoric expressions: A cognitive versus a pragmatic approach. Journal of Linguistics 30(1): 3–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 Referring expressions and the +/- coreference distinction. In T. Fretheim & J.K. Gundel (eds.): 13–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asher, N.
1993 Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Kluwer. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Balota, D., G. Flores D’arcais & K. Rayner
(eds.) 1990 Comprehension processes in reading. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L.
1935 Language. Allen & Unwin.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Bosch, P.
1983 Agreement and anaphora. A study of the role of pronouns in syntax and discourse. Academic Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1987 Pronouns under control? Journal of Semantics 5, 65–78. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1988 Representing and accessing focussed referents. Language and Cognitive Processes 3(3): 207–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosch, P. & B. Geurts
1990 Processing definite NPs. Rivista di Linguistica 2(1): 177–199.Google Scholar
Brown, G. & G. Yule
1983 Discourse analysis. Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Brummel, J.
1995 Focus and anaphora. A selected bibliography (1985–1993). In G. Rickheit & C. Habel (eds.): 261–198.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bühler, K.
1934 Sprachtheorie. Fischer.Google Scholar
Cantrall, W.
1974 Viewpoint, reflexives, and the nature of noun phrases. Mouton.Google Scholar
Carston, R.
1995 Quantity maxims and generalised implicature. Lingua 96: 213–244. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W.
(ed.) 1980 The Pear Stories: cognitive, cultural and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Ablex.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Charolles, M.
1992 La veuve et l’orphelin, ou: Comment les îlots anaphoriques refont surface. In J.-E. Tyvaert , (ed.): 131–173.Google Scholar
1994 Comment et quand sont interprétés les NP définis notamment associatifs? In C. Schnedecker et al. (eds.): 175–208. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Charolles, M. & C. Schnedecker
1993 Coréférence et identité: le problème des référents évolutifs. Langages 112: 106–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G.
1995 Dynamics of Meaning: Anaphora, Presupposition, and the Theory of Grammar. University of Chicago Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. & S. Mcconnell-Ginet
1990 Meaning and Grammar. An Introduction to Semantics. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1981 Lectures on government and binding. Foris.Google Scholar
Clancy, P.
1980 Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In W. Chafe (ed.): 127–202.Google Scholar
Clark, H. & C. Sengul
1979 In search of referents for noun phrases and pronouns. Memory & Cognition 7: 35–41. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Clements, G.N.
1975 The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 2: 141–177.Google Scholar
Cole, P.
(ed.) 1981 Radical pragmatics. Academic Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Corbett, A. & F. Chang
1983 Pronoun disambiguation: Accessing potential antecedents. Memory & Cognition 11: 283–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, A.
1984 Prenominal adjectives and the disambiguation of anaphoric nouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 23: 683–695. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corblin, F.
1987 Indéfini, défini et démonstratif. Constructions linguistiques de la référence. Droz.Google Scholar
1995 Les formes de reprise dans le discours. Anaphores et chaînes de référence. Presses University de Rennes.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Cornish, F.
1986 Anaphoric relations in English and French. A discourse perspective. Croom Helm.Google Scholar
1987 Anaphoric pronouns: Under linguistic control or signalling particular discourse representations? Journal of Semantics 5: 233–260. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1996 Coherence: The lifeblood of anaphora. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 10: 37–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999 Anaphora, discourse, and understanding. Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Culy, C.
1997 Logophoric pronouns and point of view. Linguistics 35(5): 845–860. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Ö. & K. Fraurud
1996 Animacy in grammar and discourse. In T. Fretheim & J.K. Gundel (eds.): 47–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
David, J. & G. Kleiber
(eds.) 1986 Déterminants: syntaxe et sémantique. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Deane, P.
1991 Limits to attention: A cognitive theory of island phenomena. Cognitive Linguistics 2(1): 1–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Mulder, W., L. Tasmowski-De Ryck & C. Vetters
(eds.) 1997 Relations anaphoriques et (in)cohérence. Rodopi.  BoPGoogle Scholar
De Swart, H.
1998 Introduction to Natural Language Semantics. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Diessel, H.
1999 The morphosyntax of demonstratives in synchrony and diachrony. Linguistic Typology 3: 1–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehlich, K.
1982 Anaphora and deixis: same, similar, or different?In R. Jarvella & W. Klein (eds.): 315–338.Google Scholar
Epstein, R.
1999 Roles, frames and definiteness. In K. Van Hoek, A. Kibrik & L. Noordman (eds.), 53–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faltz, L.M.
1985 Reflexivization: A study in universal syntax. Garland.Google Scholar
Farmer, A. & M. Harnish
1987 Communicative reference with pronouns. In M. Papi & J. Verschueren (eds.): 547–565.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
1974 La coréférence: syntaxe ou sémantique? Seuil.Google Scholar
Fox, B.
1987 Discourse structure and anaphora. Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1984 Espaces mentaux. Aspects de la construction du sens dans les langues naturelles. Minuit.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1996 Studies in anaphora. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraurud, K.
1990 Definiteness and the processing of noun phrases in natural discourse. Journal of Semantics 7: 395–433. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1992 Processing noun phrases in natural discourse. Ph.D., University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Fretheim, T. & J.K. Gundel
(eds.) 1996 Reference and referent accessibility. John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Garnham, A.
1985 Psycholinguistics. Central topics. Methuen.Google Scholar
Garnham, A. & J. Oakhill
1988 “Anaphoric islands” revisited. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 40A(4): 719–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrod, S.
1995 Distinguishing between explicit and implicit focus during text comprehension. In G. Rickheit & C. Habel (eds.): 3–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrod, S. & A. Sanford
1982 The mental representation of discourse in a focussed memory system: Implications for the interpretation of anaphoric noun phrases. Journal of Semantics 1: 21–41. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1990 Referential processing in reading: focussing on roles and individuals. In D. Balota, G. Flores D’arcais & K. Rayner (eds.): 465–485.Google Scholar
Givón, T.
(ed) 1979 Discourse and syntax: 355–375. Academic Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Givó, N. T.
(ed.) 1983 Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greene, J. & M. Coulson
1995 Language Understanding. Current Issues. Open University Press. Second edition.Google Scholar
Grober, E.H., W. Beardsley & A. Caramazza
1978 Parallel function in pronoun assignment. Cognition 6: 117–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosz, B., A. Joshi & S. Weinstein
1983 Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse. Proceedings of the 21th annual meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics: 44–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosz, B.A. Joshi & S. Weinstein
1986 Towards a computational theory of discourse interpretation. Ms.Google Scholar
Gundel, J.
1996 Relevance theory meets the givenness hierarchy. In T. Fretheim & J. Gundel (eds.): 141–153. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J., N. Hedberg & R. Zacharski
1989 Givenness, implicature and demonstrative expressions in English discourse. Papers from the 25th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: 89–103.Google Scholar
1990 Givenness implicature, and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Papers from the 16th regional meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society: 442–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993 Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L.
1994 Introduction to government & binding theory. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. & J. Gueron
1999 English Grammar. A Generative Perspective. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hagège, C.
1974 Les pronoms logophoriques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 69: 287–310.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan
1976 Cohesion in English. Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J.
1978 Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. Croom Helm.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1991 On (in)definite articles: Implicature and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics 27: 405–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, I. & A. Kratzer
1998 Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N.
1996 Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses. In B. Fox (ed.): 205–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 Deiktikon, Artikel, Nominalphrase. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirst, G.
1981 Anaphora in natural language understanding. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, L.
1984 Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q- and R-based implicature. In D. Schiffrin (ed.): 11–42.Google Scholar
1989 A natural history of negation. Chicago University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Huang, Y.
1994 The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora. A study with special reference to Chinese. Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Jarvella, R. & W. Klein
(eds.) 1982 Speech, place and action: Studies in deixis and related topics. John Wiley.Google Scholar
Joshi, A. & S. Weinstein
1981 Control of inference: role of some aspects of discourse structure-centering. Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
Just, M. & P. Carpenter
1980 A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review 87: 329–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987 The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. & U. Reyle
1993 From Discourse to Logic. Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Kluwer.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, D.
1977 Demonstratives. An essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics, and Epistemology of Demonstratives and Other Indexicals. In J. Almog, J. Perry & H. Wettstein (1989), 481–563.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A.
1980 Psychological processes underlying pronominalization and non-pronominalization in children’s connected discourse. In J. Kreiman & A.E. Ojeda (eds.): 231–250.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L.
1976 Discourse referents. In J.D. Mccawley (ed.): 363–394.Google Scholar
Kempson, R.
1988 Grammar and conversational principles. In F. Newmeyer (ed.): 139–163.Google Scholar
Kęsik, M.
1988 La cataphore. Presses University de France.Google Scholar
Kirsner, R.
1979 Deixis in discourse: an exploratory quantitative study of the modern Dutch demonstrative adjectives. In T. Givón (ed.): 355–375.Google Scholar
Kleiber, G.
1981 Problèmes de référence: Descriptions définies et noms propres. Klincksiechk.Google Scholar
1986a Déictiques, embrayeurs, “token-reflexives”, symboles indexicaux, etc.: comment les définir? L’information grammaticale 30: 3–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1986b Adjectif démonstratif et article défini en anaphore fidèle. In J. David & G. Kleiber (eds.): 169–185.Google Scholar
1986c Pour une explication du paradoxe de la reprise immédiate. Langue française 7: 54–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987a L’énigme du Vintimille ou les déterminants “à quai”. Langue française 75: 107–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987b L’opposition cist/cil en ancien français ou comment analyser les démonstratifs? Revue de linguistique romane 51: 5–35.Google Scholar
1990a Marqueurs référentiels et processus interprétatifs: pour une approche “plus sémantique”. Cahiers de linguistique française 11: 241–258.Google Scholar
1990b Quand il n’a pas d’antécédent. Langages 97, 24–50. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1991 Du nom propre non modifié au nom propre modifié: le cas de la détermination des noms propres par l’adjectif démonstratif. Langue française 92, 82–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992 Article défini, unicité et pertinence. Revue romane 27/1: 61–89.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1993 Lorsque l’anaphore se lie aux temps verbaux. In C. Vetters (ed.): 117–166.Google Scholar
1994a Anaphores et pronoms. Duculot.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1994b Lexique et cognition: y a-til des termes de base? Rivista di Linguistica 6(2): 237–266.Google Scholar
1994c Catégorisation et hiérarchie: sur la pertinence linguistique des termes de base. Hermès 13: 213–233.Google Scholar
1996 Référents évolutifs et pronoms: une suite. In G. Kleiber, C. Schnedecker & J. -E. Tyvaert (eds.) La continuité référentielle: 115–148. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
1997 Anaphore pronominale et référents évolutifs ou Comment faire recette avec un pronom. In W. De Mulder, L. Tasmowski-De Ryck & C. Vetters (eds.): 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kleiber, G., C. Schnedecker & L. Ujma
1994 L’anaphore associative, d’une conception à l’autre. In C. Schnedecker, M. Charolles, G. Kleiber & J. David (eds.): 5–64.Google Scholar
Kleiber, G., C. Schnedecker & J. -E. Tyvaert
(eds.) 1996 La continuité référentielle. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Koster, J. & E. Reuland
(eds.) 1991 Long-distance anaphora. Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Kreiman, J. & A.E. Ojeda
(eds.) 1980 Papers from the parasession on pronouns and anaphora. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
Kuno, S.
1987 Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, R.
1974 Remarks on this and that. Papers from the 10th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: 345–356.Google Scholar
Larrivée, P.
(ed.) 1997 La structure conceptuelle du langage. Peeters.Google Scholar
Lees, R. & R. Klima
1963 Rules for English pronominalisation. Language 39(1): 17–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S.
1987a Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: a partial pragmatic reduction of binding and control phenomena. Journal of linguistics 23: 379–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987b Minimization and conversational inference. In M. Papi & J. Verschueren (eds.): 61–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991 Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 27: 107–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 Three levels of meaning. In F. Palmer (ed.) Grammar and meaning. Cambridge University Press: 90–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, C. & S. Thompson
1979 Third-persons pronouns and zero anaphora in Chinese discourse. In T. Givón (ed.) 1979: 311–335.Google Scholar
Löbner, S.
1985 Definites. Journal of Semantics 4: 279–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, C.
1998 Definiteness. Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Maes, A.
1991 Nominal anaphors and the coherence of discourse. Ph.D., University of Tilburg.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1996 Nominal anaphors, markedness and the coherence of discourse. Peeters.Google Scholar
Maes, A. & L. Noordman
1995 Demonstrative nominal anaphors: a case of nonidentificational markedness. Linguistics 33: 255–282. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Marandin, J. -M.
1986 CE est un autre: l’interprétation anaphorique du syntagme démonstratif. Langages 81: 75–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W., E. Levy & L. Komisarjevsky Tyler
1982 Producing interpretable discourse: The establishment and maintenance of reference. In R. Jarvella & W. Klein (eds.) Speech, Place and Action: 339–378. John Wiley & Sons.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Mccawley, J.D.
(ed.) 1976 Syntax and semantics VII: Notes from the linguistic underground. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mccray, A.
1980 The semantics of backward anaphora. Cahiers linguistiques d’Ottawaw 9: 311–335.Google Scholar
Milner, J. -C.
1978 De la syntaxe à l’interprétation. Quantités, insultes, exclamation. Seuil.Google Scholar
1982 Ordres et raisons de langue. Seuil.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. & A. Reboul
(eds.) 1994 Dictionnaire encyclopédique de pragmatique. Seuil.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Morris, L.
1997 The grammatical role of English pronominal gender. In P. Larrivée (ed.): 149–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morrow, D.
1985 Prominent characters and events organize narrative understanding. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 24: 304–319.Google Scholar
Müsseler, J.
1995 Focussing and the process of pronominal resolution. In G. Rickheit & C. Habel (eds.): 53–74.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F.
(ed.) 1988 Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, Vol. II: Linguistic theory: Extensions and applications. Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, G.
1993 Indexicality and deixis. Linguistics and Philosophy 16(1): 1–43. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
O’connor, K.
1987 Disjoint reference and pragmatic inference: anaphora and switch reference in N. Pomo. Paper presented to Wenner-Gren Conference on ‘The role of theory in language description’, Jamaica, Nov. 1987.
Östman, J. -O.
1995 Recasting the deictic foundation, using physics and Finnish. In M. Shibatani & S. Thompson (eds.): 247–278.Google Scholar
Papi, M. & J. Verschueren
(eds.) 1987 The pragmatic perspective. John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Partee, B.
1973 Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. Journal of Philosophy 70, 601–609. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984 Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and philosophy 7: 243–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pollard, C. & I. Sag
1992 Anaphors and the scope of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 261–303.Google Scholar
Postal, P.
1969 Anaphoric islands. Chicago Linguistics Society 5: 205–239.Google Scholar
Prince, E.
1981 Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (ed.): 223–256.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Radford, A.
1981 Transformational syntax. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1997 Syntactic theory and the structure of English. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reboul, A.
1994 Déixis et anaphore. In J. Moeschler & A. Reboul (eds.): 349–372.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Reichler-Béguelin, M. -J.
1995 Alternatives et décisions lexicales dans l’emploi des expressions démonstratives. Pratiques 85: 53–87.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T.
1983 Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Croom Helm.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Rickheit, G. & H. Strohner
(eds.) 1985 Inferences in text processing. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Rickheit, G. & C. Habel
(eds.) 1995 Focus and coherence in discourse processing. de Gruyter. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Robins, R.H.
1951 Ancient and medieval grammatical theory in Europe. Longmans.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. et al.
1976 Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8: 382–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosén, V.
1996 The interpretation of empty pronouns in Vietnamese. In T. Fretheim & J.K. Gundel (eds.): 251–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanford, A.
1985 Aspects of pronoun interpretation: Evaluation of search formulations of inference. In G. Rickheit & H. Strohner (eds.): 183–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanford, A. & S. Garrod
1981 Understanding Written Language. John Wiley & Sons.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D.
(ed.) 1984 Meaning, form and use in context: 11–42. Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Schnedecker, C. & M. Charolles
1993 Les référents évolutifs: points de vue ontologique et phénoménologique. Cahiers de linguistique française 14: 197–227.Google Scholar
Schnedecker, C., M. Charolles, G. Kleiber & J. David
(eds.) 1994 L’anaphore associative (Aspects linguistiques, psycholinguistiques et automatiques). Klincksieck.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sells, P.
1987 Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 445–479.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. & S. Thompson
(eds.) 1995 Essays in semantics and pragmatics. John Benjamins.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Singer, M.
1990 Psychology of Language. An Introduction to sentence and discourse processes. Erlbaum.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson
1986 Relevance: Communication and cognition. Blackwell.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Stirling, L.
1988 Swith-reference and logophoricity in Discourse Representation Theory. Ph.D. Diss. University Of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Tasmowski-De Ryck, L. & P. Verluyten
1982 Linguistic control of pronouns. Journal of Semantics 1: 323–346. (1985). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1985 Control mechanisms of anaphora. Journal of Semantics 4: 341–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tesnière, L.
1959 Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R.S.
1987 Linguistic reflections of cognitive events. In R.S. Tomlin (ed.) Coherence and gronding in discourse: 455–480. John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Tyler, L. & W. Marslen-Wilson
1982 The resolution of discourse anaphora: Some on-line studies. Text 2: 263–291.Google Scholar
Tyvaert, J. -E.
(ed.) 1992 Lexique et inférence(s). Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Van Hoek, K.
1996 Anaphora and conceptual structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Van Hoek, K. & A. Kibrik & L. Noordman
(eds.) 1999 Discourse Studies in Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Vetters, C.
1993 Le temps: de la phrase au texte. Presses Univ. de Lille. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Vonk, W., L. Hustinx & W. Simons
1992 The use of referential expressions in structuring discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes 7: 301–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, M. & E. Prince
1996 A bilateral approach to givenness: A hearer-status algorithm and a centering algorithm. In T. Fretheim & J.K. Gundel (eds.): 291–306. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Walker, M., A. Joshi & E. Prince
(eds.) 1997 Centering Theory in Discourse. Clarendon Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Ward, G., R. Sproat & G. Mckoon
1991 A pragmatic analysis of so-called anaphoric islands. Language 67(3): 439–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiese, B.
1983 Anaphora by pronouns. Linguistics 21(2). 373–417. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D.
1992 Reference and relevance. University College of London working papers in linguistics 4: 167–191.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A.
1989 Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse. Language 65: 695–727. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996a L’anaphore et les pronoms. Septentrion.Google Scholar
1996b Some wondering remarks on the development of syntactic theories: the case of long-distance reflexives. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(eds.) 1997 Les pronoms. Morphologie, syntaxe et typologie. Presses University de Vincennes. DOI logoGoogle Scholar