Chapter published in:
Current Theoretical and Applied Perspectives on Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics
Edited by Diego Pascual y Cabo and Idoia Elola
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 27] 2020
► pp. 175188


Albrecht Jr., J., & Clifton, C.
(1998) Accessing singular antecedents in conjoined phrases. Memory & Cognition, 26(3), 599–610. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Almor, A.
(1999) Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106, 748–765. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Almor, A., & Eimas, P. D.
(2008) Focus and noun phrase anaphors in spoken language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(2), 201–225. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Almor, A., De Carvalho Maia, J., Cunha Lima, M. L., Vernice, M., & Gelormini-Lezama, C.
(2017) Language processing, acceptability, and statistical distribution: A study of null and overt subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 98–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M.
(1990) Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barker, C.
(1992) Group terms in English: Representing groups as atoms. Journal of Semantics, 9, 69–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boiteau, T. W., Bowers, E., Nair, V., & Almor, A.
(2014) The neural representation of plural discourse entities. Brain and Language, 137, 130–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, S., Friedman, M., & Pollard, C.
(1987) A centering approach to pronouns. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Stanford, CA, 6–9 July (pp. 155–162). Stroudsburg, PA: ACL. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Camacho, J.
(2000) Structural restrictions on comitative coordination. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 366–75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carminati, M. N.
(2002) The processing of Italian subject pronouns (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
(2005) Processing reflexes of the feature hierarchy (Person_Number_Gender) and implications for linguistic theory. Lingua, 115, 259–285. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L.
(1976) Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–55). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, C., & Smyth, R.
(1998) Structural parallelism and discourse coherence. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 593–608. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, R., Stevenson, R., & Kleinman, D.
(1990) The use of heuristic strategies in the interpretation of pronouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4, 245–264. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Carvalho Maia, J., Vernice, M., Gelormini-Lezama, C., Cunha Lima, M. L., & Almor, A.
(2016) Co-referential processing of pronouns and repeated names in Italian. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eschenbach, C., Habel, C., Herweg, M., & Rehkamper, K.
(1989) Remarks on plural anaphora. In Proceedings of the 4th conference of European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Manchester, UK, 10-12 April (pp. 161–167). Stroudsburg, PA: ACL.Google Scholar
Frederiksen. J.
(1981) Understanding anaphora: Rules used by readers in assigning pronominal referents. Discourse Processes, 4, 323–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garrod, S., & Sanford, A. J.
(1984) The mental representation of discourse in a focused memory system: Implications for the interpretation of anaphoric noun phrases. Journal of Semantics, 1, 21–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gelormini-Lezama, C., & Almor, A.
(2011) Repeated names, overt pronouns, and null pronouns in Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(3), 437–454. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Singular and plural pronominal reference in Spanish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 43, 299–313. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A.
(1989) Mechanisms that improve referential access. Cognition, 32, 99–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
(1987) On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press. (Revised edition (2018). Amsterdam: John Benjamins).Google Scholar
Gordon, P. C., & Scearce, K. A.
(1995) Pronominalization and discourse coherence, discourse structure and pronoun interpretation. Memory and Cognition, 23, 313–323. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P. C., & Hendrick, R.
(1998) The representation and processing of coreference in discourse. Cognitive Science, 22, 389–424. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P. C., Grosz, B. J., & Gilliom, L. A.
(1993) Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., Ledoux, K., & Yang, C. L.
(1999) Processing of reference and the structure of language: An analysis of complex noun phrases. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 353–379. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P.
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grober, E. H., & Beardsley, W., & Caramazza, A.
(1978) Parallel function strategy in pronoun assignment. Cognition, 6, 117–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grosz, B. J.
(1981) Focusing and description in natural language dialogues. In A. K. Joshi & B. L. Webber (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 84–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S.
(1983) Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse. In Proceedings of the 2lst Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Cambridge, MA (pp. 44–50). Stroudsburg, PA: ACL. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R.
(1993) Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N.
(1983) Mental models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaup, B., Kelter, S., & Habel, C.
(2002) Representing referents of plural expressions and resolving plural anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17(4), 405–450. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moxey, L. M., Sanford, A. J., Sturt, P., & Murrow, L. I.
(2004) Constraints on the formation of plural reference objects: The influence of role, conjunction and type of description. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 346–364. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moxey, L. M., Sanford, A. J., Wood, A. I. & Gintner, L. M. N.
(2011) When do we use “They” to refer to two individuals? Scenario-mapping as a basis for equivalence. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 79–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nair, V. A., & Almor, A.
(2006) Referential processing in word by word reading. Poster presented at the 2006 annual CUNY conference on sentence processing, New York.
Patson, N. D., & Ferreira. F.
(2009) Conceptual plural information is used to guide early parsing decisions: Evidence from garden-path sentences with reciprocal verbs. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 454–486. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Patson, N. D., & Warren, T.
(2011) Building complex reference objects from dual sets. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 443–459. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prince, E. F.
(1978) A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language, 34, 883–906. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sanford, A. J., & Lockart, F.
(1990) Description types and methods of conjoining as factors influencing plural anaphors: A continuation study of focus. Journal of Semantics, 7, 365–378. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sanford, A. J., & Moxey, L. M.
(1995) Notes on plural reference and the scenario-mapping principle in comprehension. In C. Habel & G. Rickheit (Eds.), Focus and cohesion in discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sheldon, A.
(1974) The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 272–281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, R.
(1994) Grammatical determinants of ambiguous pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 197–229. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W.
(1983) Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar