Диссертация (Механизмы анафоры при речепорождении и речепонимании экспериментальное исследование на материале русского языка), страница 43

Gernsbacher // Cognitive Psychology. — 1985. — № 17. — P. 324–363.106. Givón, T. Syntax: A fuctional-typological introduction / T. Givón. —Amsterdam:Benjamins. — Volume 2. —1990. — 410 p.107. Givon, T. Topic continuity in discourse : a quantitative cross-language study /T. Givon — J. Benjamins, 1983. — 492 p.108.

Grober, E. H. Parallel function strategy in pronoun assignment / E. H. Grober,W. Beardsley, A. Caramazza // Cognition. — 1978. — № 6. — P. 117–133.109. Grodzinsky, Y. The breakdown of binding relations / Y. Grodzinsky, K. Wexler,Y.-C.

Chien, S. Marakovitz, J. Solomon // Brain and Language. — 1993. — №45. — P. 371–395.110. Grodzinsky, Y. The innateness of binding and coreference. / Y. Grodzinsky,T. Reinhart // Linguistic Inquiry. — 1993. — № 24. — P. 69–101.246111. Grodzinsky, Y. The neurology of syntax: Language use without Broca`s area /Y. Grodzinsky // Brain and Behavioral Science. — 1999. — № 23. — P.

47–117.112. Grosz B. J. Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence ofdiscourse / B. J. Grosz, A. K. Joshi, S. Weinstein // Computational Linguistics. —1995. — № 21(2). — P. 202–225.113. Grosz, B. J. Attention, intention, and the structure of discourse. / B. J.

Grosz, C.L. Sidner // Computantional Linguistics. — 1986. — № 12(3). — P. 175–204.114. Gruening, A. Referential Choice and Activation Factors: A Neural NetworkApproach / A. Gruening, A. A. Kibrik // Proceedings of the 4th Discourseanaphora and anaphor resolution colloquium. — Lisbon, 2002.

— P. 81–86.115. Grüning, A. Modeling referential choice in discourse: A cognitive calculativeapproach and a Neural Networks approach / A. Grüning, A. A. Kibrik //Anaphora processing: Linguistic, cognitive and computational modelling. —Amsterdam, 2005. — P. 163–198.116. Gundel, J. K. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse /J. K. Gundel, N.

Hedberg, R. Zacharski // Language. — 1993. — № 69(2). — P.274–307.117. Hagège, C. Les pronoms logophoriques. / C. Hagège // BSLP, LXIX, 2, 1974. —P. 287–310.118. Heim, I. The semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. / I. Heim //Ph.D. Dissertation University of Massachusetts — New York, 1982. — 413 p.119. Hestvik, A. Subjectless binding domains. / A. Hestvik // Natural Language &Linguistic Theory. — 1991. — № 9. — P. 455–497.120. Hobbs, J. R.

Coherence and coreference / J. R. Hobbs // Cognitive Science. —1979. — № 3(1). — P. 67–90.247121. Hobbs, J. R. Literature and Cognition / J. R. Hobbs — Center for the Study ofLanguage (CSLI), 1990. — 180 p.122. Jakobson, R. Child Language, aphasia, and phonological universals / Jakobson.— The Hague: Mouton publishers, 1968. — 104 p.123.

Järvikivi, J. Ambiguous Pronoun Resolution: Contrasting the First-Mention andSubject Preference Accounts / J. Järvikivi, R. P. G. van Gompel, J. Hyona,R. Bertram // Psychological Science. — 2005. — № 16. — P. 260–264.124. Joshi, A. K. Control of inference: Role of some aspects of discourse structure–centering / A.

K. Joshi, S. Weinstein // Proceedings of International JointConference on Artificial Intelligence, 1981. — P. 435–439.125. Kaiser, E. Investigating the interpretation of pronouns and demonstratives inFinnish: Going beyond salience / E. Kaiser, J. C. Trueswell // The processing andacquisition of reference, 2011. — P.

323–353.126. Kameyama, M. Intra-sentential centering: A case study / M. Kameyama //Centering Theory in Discourse. — Oxford, 1998. — P. 89–112.127. Kameyama, M. Stressed and unstressed pronouns: complimentary preferences /M. Kameyama // Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives.— Cambridge, 1999.

— P. 306–321.128. Kantola, L. Does the addressee matter when choosing referring expressions? /L. Kantola, R. van Gompel // Proceedings of PRE-Cogsci: Bridging the gapbetween computational, empirical and theoretical approaches to reference. —Boston, 2011. — P. 1–5.129. Karmiloff-Smith, A. Language and cognitive processes from a developmentalperspective / A. Karmiloff-Smith // Language and Cognitive Processes. — 1985.— № 1.

— P. 61–85.130. Kehler, A. Coherence and Coreference Revisited / A. Kehler, H. Kertz, H. Rohde,J. Elman // Journal of Semantics. — 2008. — № 25. — P. 1–44.248131. Kehler, A. Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar / A. Kehler —Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. — 200 p.132. Kehler, A. Coherence-driven constraints on the placement of accent / A. Kehler //Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT15), 2005. — P.

98–115.133. Kibrik, A. A. A Cognitive Calculative Approach Towards Discourse Anaphora /A. A. Kibrik // Proceedings of the Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor ResolutionConference (DAARC2000) . — Lancaster, 2000. — P. 72–82.134. Kibrik, A. A. Anaphora in Russian Narrative Prose: A Cognitive Account / A. A.Kibrik // Studies in Anaphora. — Amsterdam, 1996. — P. 255–304.135. Kibrik, A. A. Cognitive inferences from discourse observations: Reference andworking memory / A. A.

Kibrik // Discourse studies in cognitive linguistics.Proceedings of the 5th International cognitive linguistics conference. —Amsterdam, 1999. — P. 29–52.136. Kibrik, A. A. Maintenance of Reference in Sentence and Discourse / A. A. Kibrik// Language Typology. — Amsterdam, 1991. — P. 57–84.137. Kibrik, A. A. Reference in discourse / A. A. Kibrik — Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 2011. — 688 p.138. Kibrik, A.

A. Reference in discourse / A. A. Kibrik — Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 2011. — 651 p.139. Kolk, H. Does Agrammatic Speech Constitute a Regression to Child Language?A Three-Way Comparison between Agrammatic, Child, and Normal Ellipsis /H. Kolk // Brain and Language. — 2001. — № 77(3). — P. 340–350.140. Koornneef, A. W. Towards a modular approach to anaphor resolution. / A.

W.Koornneef, F. Wijnen, E. Reuland // Ambiguity in anaphora workshopproceedings. — Malaga, Spain, 2006. — P. 65–72.249141. Lambrecht, K. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and themental representations of discourse referents / K. Lambrecht — Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1994. — 390 p.142. Linell, P. Troubles with mutualities: Towards a dialogical theory ofmisunderstanding and miscommunication / P. Linell // Mutualities in dialogue. —Cambridge, 1995. — P. 176–213.143. Lukatela, K. Syntactic processing in agrammatic aphasia by speakers of a Slaviclanguage / K. Lukatela, D.

Shankweiller, S. Crain // Brain and Language. —1995. — № 49. — P. 50–76.144. MacDonald, M. C. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. / M. C.MacDonald, N. J. Pearlmutter, M. S. Seidenberg // Psychological Review. —1994. — № 101. — P. 676–703.145. Mann, W. Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis / W.

Mann,C. Matthiessen, S. A. Thompson // Discourse description. — Amsterdam, 1992.— P. 39–78.146. Mann, W. Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of textorganization / W. Mann, S. A. Thompson // Text. — 1988. — № 8. — P. 243–281.147. Marantz, A. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations / A. Marantz — Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press, 1984. — 339 p.148. McDonald, J. The time course of anaphor resolution: Effects of implicit verbcausality and gender / J. McDonald, B. MacWhinney // Journal of Memory andLanguage. — 1995.

— № 34. — P. 543–566.149. Miltsakaki, E. Locating topics in text processing / E. Miltsakaki // Proceedings ofComputational Linguistics in the Netherlands (CLIN). — Utrecht, 1999. — P. 1–12.250150. Myachykov, A. Perceptual priming and structural choice in Russian sentenceproduction / A. Myachykov, R. S. Tomlin // Journal of Cognitive Science. —2008. — № 9(1). — P. 31–48.151. Nicol, J. The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentececomprehension. / J. Nicol, D. Swinney // Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.

—1989. — № 18. — P. 5–19.152. Penke, M. Controversies about CP: A Comparison of Language Acquisition andLanguage Impairments in Broca's Aphasia / M. Penke // Brain and Language. —2001. — № 77(3). — P. 351–363.153. Philip, W. Event Quantification in the Acquisition of Universal Quantification /W. Philip — Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts, 1995. — 221 p.154. Philip, W. Quantification in agrammatic aphasia / W. Philip, S. Avrutin // Theinterpretive tract. — Cambridge, 1998.

— P. 63–72.155. Philip, W. The role of lexical feature acquisition in the development ofpronominal anaphora / W. Philip, P. Coopmans // Amsterdam series on childlanguage development. — 1996. — № 5. — P. 73–106.156. Piñango, M. M. Thep sychological reality of the syntax-discourse interface: Thecase of pronominals. / M.

M. Piñango, P. Burkhardt, D. Brun, S. Avrutin // FromSentence Processing to Discourse Interpretation: Crossing the Borders. —Utrecht, 2001. — P. 15-16.157. Poesio, M. Centering: A parametric theory and its instantiations / M. Poesio,R. Stevenson, B. D. Eugenio, J. Hitzeman // Computational Linguistics. — 2004.— № 30. — P. 309–363.158. Reinhart, T. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. / T. Reinhart — London:Croom Helm, 1983.

— 223 p.159. Reinhart, T. Reflexivity / T. Reinhart, E. Reuland // Linguistic Inquiry. — 1993.— № 24. — P. 657–720.251160. Reinhart, T. Strategies of anaphora resolution. / T. Reinhart // Interface Strategies.— Amsterdam, 2000. — P. 295–325.161. Reuland, E. Anaphora and Language Design.

/ E. Reuland — Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press, 2011. — 464 p.162. Reuland, E. Primitives of Binding. / E. Reuland // Linguistic Inquiry. — 2001. —№ 32. — P. 439–492.163. Rohde, H. Grammatical and Information-Structural Influences on PronounProduction / H. Rohde, A. Kehler // Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience. —2014. — № 29(8).

— P. 912–927.164. Ruigendijk, E. A cross-linguistic study on the interpretation of pronouns bychildren and agrammatic speakers: Evidence from Dutch, Spanish and Italian /E. Ruigendijk, S. Baauw, S. Zuckerman, N. Vasic // The Processing andAcquisition of Reference. — Cambridge MA, London, 2011. — P. 133–156.165. Ruigendijk, E. Reference assignment: Using language breakdown to choosebetween theoretical approaches / E. Ruigendijk, N. Vasić, S. Avrutin // Brain andLanguage.

— 2006. — № 96(3). — P. 302–317.166. Runner, J. T. Tanenhaus M.K Processing reflexives and pronouns in picture nounphrases. / J. T. Runner, R. S. Sussman // Cognitive Science. — 2006. — № 30. —P. 193–241.167. Sanford, A. J. Understanding written language / A.