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.


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