Indirect anaphora: Testing the limits of corpus-based linguistics

International Journal of Corpus Linguistics

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 73-112

  Botley, Simon Philip ^a  

^a UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA   (Malaysia)

Author keywords

Corpus; Deixis; Indirect anaphora; Labelling; Situation reference

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248693471     PISSN: 13846655     EISSN: 15699811     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/ijcl.11.1.04bot     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Aston, G. & Burnard, L. (1998). The BNC Handbook: Exploring the British National Corpus with SARA. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
2. Bäuerle, R. (1988a). Ereignisse und Repräsentationen. LILOG-Report 43. Frankfurt: IBM Germany
3. Bäuerle, R. (1988b). Aspects of Anaphoric Reference to Events and Propositions in German. Unpublished Ms
4. Baker, J. P. (1997). Consistency and accuracy in correcting automatically tagged data. In R. Garside, G. Leech & A. McEnery (Eds.), Corpus Annotation (pp. 243-250). London and New York: Longman
5. Biber, D. (1993). Representativeness in Corpus Design. Literary and Linguistic Computing 8 (4), 243-57
6. Biber, D. (1990). Methodological Issues Regarding Corpus-based Analyses of Linguistic Variation. Literary and Linguistic Computing 5, 257-269
7. Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
8. Bosch, P. (1983). Agreement and Anaphora. New York: Academic Press
9. Botley, S. P. & McEnery, A. M. (2001). Demonstratives in English: a Corpus-based Study. Journal of English Linguistics 29: 7-33
10. Byron, D. (2002). Resolving pronominal reference to abstract entities. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting, Association of Computational Linguistics (pp. 80-87). University of Pennsylvania
11. Clark, H. H. (1977). Bridging. In P. N. Johnson-Laird & P. C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
12. Conte, M-E. (1996). Anaphoric Encapsulation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 10, 1-10
13. Conte, M-E. (1981). Textdeixis und Anapher. Kodikas/Code 3, 121-132
14. Conte, M-E. (1980). Coerenza Testuale. Lingua e Stile 15, 135-154
15. D'Addio, W. (1990). Tre capsule anaforiche e sinonimi contestuali, aspetti testuali del lessico. Linguistica Selecta I (Pubblicazioni del Dipartamento di Scienze del Linguaggio dell'Universita de Roma "La Sapienza") (pp. 6-32). Roma: Bagatto Libri
16. D'Addio, W. (1988). Nominali anaforici incapsulatori: un aspetto della coesone lessicale. Dalla Parte Del Ricevente: Percezione, Comprensione, Interpretazione. Atti del XIX Congresso Internazionale della Societa di Linguistica Italiana (Roma, 1985) (pp. 143-151). Roma: Bulzoni
17. Ehlich, K. (1982). Anaphora and deixis: same, similar or different. In R. Jarvella & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, Place, Action (pp. 315-338). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons
18. Francis, G. (1994). Labelling discourse: an aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis (pp. 83-101). London: Routledge
19. Francis, G. (1989). Aspects of Nominal Group Lexical Cohesion. Interface. Journal of Applied Linguistics 4, 27-53
20. Francis, G. (1986). Anaphoric Nouns. Discourse Analysis Monograph 11. Birmingham: English Language Research
21. Fraurud, K. (1992). Processing Noun Phrases in Natural Discourse. PhD Thesis (by Publications), Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University
22. Fraurud, K. (1992a). Situation Reference: What Does 'It' Refer To?. GAP Working Paper No 24, Fachbereich Informatik, Universität Hamburg
23. Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K. & Weinstein, S. (1995). Towards a Computational Theory of Discourse Interpretation. Computational Linguistics 21 (2), 203-225
24. Grosz, B. J. & Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, Intentions and the Structure of Discourse. Computational Linguistics 12, 175-204
25. Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R. (1988). The generation and interpretation of demonstrative expressions. In Proceedings from the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING 1988 (pp. 216-221). Budapest: University of Budapest
26. Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman
27. Hawkins, J. A. (1978). Definiteness and Indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm
28. Kamp, H. (1988). Discourse representation theory: what it is and where it ought to go. In A. Blaser (Ed.), Natural Language and the Computer (pp. 34-52). Heidelberg: Springer Verlag
29. Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk, T. M. V. Janssen & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language (pp. 66-83). Amsterdam: Mathematische Centrum
30. Krenn, M. (1985). Probleme der Diskursanalyse im Englischen. Verweise mit this, that, it und Verwandtes. Tübingen: Narr
31. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
32. Lyons, C. (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
33. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Volume 1 and 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
34. McEnery, A. M. & Wilson, A. (1996). Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
35. Mourelatos, A. P. D. (1981). Events, processes and states. In P. Tedesci & A. Zaenen (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics Volume 14: Tense and Aspect (pp. 191-212). London: Academic Press
36. Petch-Tyson, S. (2000). Demonstrative expressions in argumentative discourse: a computer corpus-based comparison of non-native and native English. In S. P. Botley. & A. M. McEnery (Eds.), Corpus-Based and Computational Approaches to Discourse Anaphora (pp. 46-66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins
37. Poesio, M. & Vieira, M. (1998). A Corpus-based Investigation of Definite Description Use. Computational Linguistics 24 (2), 183-216
38. Poesio, M., Vieira, M. & Teufel, S. (1997). Resolving bridging references in unrestricted text. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Operational Factors in Robust Anaphor Resolution (pp. 1-6). Madrid, Spain, July 1997
39. Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of Symbolic Logic. Toronto: Macmillan
40. Schuster, E. (1986). Towards a Computational Model of Anaphora in Discourse: Reference to Events and Actions. MS-CIS-86-34, LINC LAB 17, University of Philadelphia
41. Scott, M. R. (1996). WordSmith Tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press
42. Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics and Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press
43. Walker, M. A., Joshi, A. K. & Prince, E. F. (Eds.). (1998). Centering Theory in Discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press
44. Webber, B. L. (1991). Structure and Ostention in the Interpretation of Discourse Deixis. Language and Cognitive Processes 6 (2). 107-135
45. Webber, B. L. (1987). Two Steps Closer to Event Reference. MS-CIS-86-74, LINC LAB 159, University of Philadelphia
46. Webber, B. L. (1979). A Formal Approach to Discourse Anaphora. PhD Thesis, Harvard University. New York: Garland
47. Winter, E. O. (1982). Towards a Contextual Grammar of English. London: Allen and Unwin