Abstract
We develop an analysis of discourse anaphora—the relationship between a pronoun and an antecedent earlier in the discourse—using games of partial information. The analysis is extended to include information from a variety of different sources, including lexical semantics, contrastive stress, grammatical relations, and decision theoretic aspects of the context.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Breheny R. (2002). Pragmatic analyses of anaphoric pronouns: Do things look better in 2-d? Cambridge: RCEAL, University of Cambridge.
Camerer C. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press
Clark R. Games, quantification and discourse structure. In: Pietarinen A.-V. (Ed), Logic, Games and Philosophy: Foundational Perspectives, Kluwer Academic Publishers, in press.
De Saussure F. (1916/1972). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Éditions Payot.
Dekker P. (2004). Grounding dynamic semantics. In: Reimer M., Bezuidenhout A. (eds), Descriptions and Beyond. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 484–502
Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39–100
Grosz B., Joshi A., & Weinstein S. (1983). Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse. In Proc. 21st annual meeting of the ACL (pp. 44–50). Menlo Park, CA.
Joshi A., & Weinstein S. (1981). Control of inference: Role of some aspects of discourse structure-centering. In Proc. international joint conference on artificial intelligence, pp. 385–387
Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht, the Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers
Miltsakaki E. (2003). The syntax-discourse interface: Effects of the main-subordinate distinction on attention structure. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Myerson R.B. (1991). Game theory: Analysis of conflict. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press
Parikh P. (2001). The use of language. Stanford, CA, CSLI Publications
Parikh P. (2006). Radical semantics: A new theory of meaning. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35, 349–391
Parikh P., & Clark R. (2005). The meaning of THE: A new account of definite descriptions. PA: University of Pennsylvania.
Pietarinen A.-V. (2004). Semantic games and generalised quantifiers. Helsinki, University of Helsinki
Prasad R. (2003). Constraints on the generation of referring expressions, with special reference to hindi. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Roberts C. (2004). Pronouns as definites. In: Reimer M., Bezuidenhout A. (eds), Descriptions and beyond. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 503–543
Rubinstein A. (1998). Modelling bounded rationality. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press
Sperber D., Wilson D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed). London, Basil Blackwell
Stalnaker R. (1998). On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7, 3–19
van Eijck J., Kamp H. (1997). Representing discourse in context. In: van Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds), Handbook of logic and language. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, pp. 179–237
Walker M., Prince E. (1996). A bilateral approach to givenness: A hearer-status algorithm and a centering algorithm. In: Fretheim T., Gundel J. (eds), Reference and referent accessibility. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 291–306
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Clark, R., Parikh, P. Game theory and discourse anaphora. J Log Lang Inf 16, 265–282 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-006-9037-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-006-9037-7