The discourse functions of Italian subjects: 
a centering approach 
Barbara Di Eugenio 
Computational Linguistics 
Carnegie Mellon University 
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213 USA 
dieugeni(c~.andrew.cmu.edu 
Abstract 
This paper examines the discourse fluic- 
tions that different types of subjects 
perform in Italian within the centering 
framework (Grosz el; al., 1995). I build 
on my previous work (Di gugenio, 1990) 
that accounted for the alternation of null 
and strong prottouns in subject position. 
I extend my previous atialysis in several 
wws: for examI)le, I refine the notion 
of CONTINUE altd discuss the centering 
functions of full NPs. 
1 Introduction 
hiterpreting referential expressions is importatlt 
for any large coverage NL system; while such sys- 
tems do exist for Italian, e.g. (Stock et al., 1993; 
Lombardo and Lesmo, 1994), to my knowledge 
not mudi attention has been devoted to the inter- 
pretation of Italian referential expressions. Some 
exceptions are (Samek-Lodovici and Strapparava, 
1990), that discusses interpretation of referential 
expressions within dialogues to access a videodisc 
on Italimi art; (Not and Zancanaro, 1995), that 
adopts a systemic gra,nmar approadi (Halliday, 
1976); and (Di Eugenio, 1990), which uses center- 
ing theory (Grosz et al., 1995) to account for the 
alternation of null and strong subjects. 
hi this paper, I build on and expand (Di Eu- 
genio, 1990) in several ways. First, I reanalyzc 
the hypotheses I proposed earlier with respect to 
a corl)uS of naturally occurring data} I show 
that those hypotheses are basically supported, 
iThe examples in (Di Euge.nio, 199{)) were 
constructed. 
and that when they aren't an elegant explmia- 
tion can be found by looking at a two member 
sequence of ce,ttering tra,tsitions rather than at 
just ()tie transition. Second, I extend my previous 
analysis by also discussing the centering functions 
of full NPs in subject position, and some occur- 
rences of pronotuis tuiaccounted for by centering. 
2 Centering theory 
Centering the.ory (Grosz et al., 1986; Brennan ct 
al., 1987; Grosz et al., 1995) models local coher- 
e.nee in discourse: it keet)s track of how local focus 
varies from one utterance to the next. (\]entering 
postulates that: ~ 
* Each utterance Un has associated with it a set 
of discourse entities, the FOH.WAI{I)-LOO|<IN(~ CEN- 
TERS or Cfs. The Cf list is ranked according to 
discourse salience. 
- The I{ACKWARD-LOOKIN(\] CENTEI{~ or Cb~ ix the 
t member of the Cf list that lJ,~ most centrally con- 
cerns~ attd that links U~ to the previous discourse. 
* Finally, the PI%EFERI{.ED CENTEI{, or Cp: is the 
highest rauked member of the Of list. The Cp rep- 
resents a prediction about die Cb of the following 
utterance. 
Transitions between two adjacent utterances 
U,>_I and U,~ can be characterized as a function of 
looking backward whether Cb(Un) is the same 
as Cb(Un 1) - attd of looking forward whether 
Cb(Ur~) is the same as Cp(U,~). Table 1 illustrates 
the Pour transitions that are detined according to 
diese constraints. (Brennan et al., 1987) proposes 
a default ordering on transitions which correlates 
with discourse coherence: CONTINUE is preferred 
to RETAIN is prelbrred to SMOOTH-SHIFT is pre- 
2The version of centering I presem; here is ti'om 
(Brennan et al., 1987). 
352 
H Cb(Uu) = Cb(Wn ,) Ct,(Un) 7 ~- Ct)(W,,. 1) n 
Cb(U,~) = Ct)(U,~) (X)NTINUI,; SMOOTII-SItlH' 
Cb(U,,) ¢ Cp(U,~) I{ETAIN II.()U(IlI-SIIIFT 
Tat)le 1: Ceutering Transitions 
ferred to I{()I\](\[III-SIIll.'T. 3 
The saliency ordering on the Cf list, which is 
generally equated with grmnmatieal function, for 
Wes(;ern language.s is SUBJE(,T > OILJI,;(',T2 > ()lb 
.IECT 7> OTI1ERS, where OTItEII.S includes pret)osi- 
tional phrases and adjuncts. (Kameyama, 1985) 
was the first; (,o point out that for languages such 
;ts .Japanese emt)athy and topi(: lnarking alfe(:t the 
Cf ordering, mid t)roposed the fl)lh)wing ranking 
(1) empathy > SIIILIE(:T > ()ILIE(:T2 > 
()BJE(H' > ()TIIEI{S 
I folh, w (Turan, 1995) in adopting (1) also for 
Westerll hmguages. TUFOAI ar~ll0.S l,h.'4t a IIotioll 
analogous to empathy arises in Wesl,ern languages 
as well: e.g. with I)erception verbs, it is the expe- 
richter, which is ofl;en in ot)jec.t i)osition, rather 
than the grammal, ieal sut)jet't, thai, shouhl be 
r~mked higher. 
Finally, centering provides an interesting fraltlt~= 
work for studying the functions of pronouns, as 
tim ot)servation that the Ct) is ofl;e.ll de.leted or 
pronominalized can be st&ted an the following rule: 
Rule 1 /f some element of CI(U,, ,) is realized 
as a pronoun in U~, then so is Cb(U,~). 
This rule has been (:omt)utationally int, erpreted 
to individuaix: the Cb. If U,~ has: 
- a single pronoun, that is Cb(U,,.); 
® zero or more than one pronoml, Cb(U,~) is: 
C\])(U,,. 1) if (~\[)(Un 1) is realized in U,,.; 
otherwise the highest ranked (\]f(U,~ l) 
wlfieh is realized in U,, 
Let's apt)ly centering to the constructed eXall\]- 
pl,, i. (2). ,n (2a) el, =- '? b,,cause the el, or 
a segment initial utterance is left unspecified; in 
(21)) the Ct) is ,lohn, as it is the only pronoun, and 
also the only entity t)elonging to the Cf list of (2@ 
a(Grosz et al., 1986; Gro,'z ct al., 1995) propose 
that (;tie ordo, ring on transi(;ions l)erl;~dns to sequences 
of transitions rather (;h3Jl to single transitions. 
r('alized in (21)). 
(2a) John is a nice guy. 
Cb = ? Cf = \[John\] 
(2t)) He met Mm'y ye.stc.rday. 
Cb = John, Cf = \[John > Mary\] 
(2c.) i. He likes her. ((:ONTINUE) 
Cb : John, Cf = \[John > Mary\] 
ii. Silo. likes him. (H,;TAIN) 
Cb = John, Cf = \[Mary > John\] 
iii. She was 'with Lucy. (SMOO'FII-SIlII,'T) 
Cb = Mary, Cf = \[Mary > Lucy\] 
iv. Lucy ,was with, her. (I{.OII(HI-SIlIFT) 
Cb = Mary, Cf = \[Lucy > Mary\] 
\[I1 (2c).i we have a (\]ONTINUI~, as its Cb is ,\]ohn 
(the higlms(; entity on the Cf list of (2t))), and so is 
its C1). In (2c).ii, the Ct) is still Joh, n as in (2(:).i, 
\])ILL the (\]I) llOW is Mary~ thus we have a I,I.ETAIN. 
In both (2(:).iii aud (2el.iv (;Ira Cb is Mary (the 
only entity belonging to the Cf list; in (2t)) thai, 
is realized): as Mary is also (,he Cp in (2c).iii, a 
SMOOTII-SIlIFT occurs. Insl;('.a(1, as Lucy is I,he C I) 
in (2el.iv, a I{OU(HI-SIIIFT oc.ctlrs. 
Centering theory has ;q)pealing traits from t)oth 
cognitive and comi)uLational points of view. From 
a cognitive t)erst)ec.tive, it explains certain ph(;- 
nOlilella of local discourse, eohe.reuce (e.g. prolloln- 
inal "garden l)aths'), and is supported by psy- 
cholinguisti(, e.xperiments (Gordon et al., 1993). 
Computationally, it is a simple mechanism, and 
thus it has been the basis for simple algoridm~s 
for anaphora resolution (Brennan el; al., 1987). 
Much work still remains to t)e done on (:en- 
tering. For examph;, most (tevelol)menl, so l\]u' 
has been based on simt)lc eonsLrucl;ed (;xamples: 
to aI:)ply centering to real text, issues such as 
how possessives and subordimtte clauses al'feet re.- 
ferring expression resolution lnust t)e addressed. 
This paper is a contribution in that dire.orion. 
3 The Italian pronominal system 
Italian has two pronominal systems (CabJ)rese, 
1986): weak l)ronouns, th;tt iIlust always be c.liti- 
cized to the verb (e.g. Io, le, gli - respeetiw:ly him, 
accusative; them, feminine accusative or her, da- 
tive.; him, dative), and strong t)ronouns (\[ui, tei, 
353 
Ioro - respee.tively tie or hiln; she or her; they or 
them).4 The null subject is considered part of the 
system of weak pronouns. 
Weak and strong pronouns are often in comple- 
mentary distribution, as strong pronouns have to 
be used in prepositional phrases, e.g. per lui, for 
him. However, this syntactic alternation doesn't 
apl)ly in subject position. The choice of null ver- 
sits strong pronoun de.ponds on pragmatic factors; 
the centering explanation offered in (Di Eugenio, 
1990) goes as follows: 
(3a) Typically, a nltll subject signals a CONTINUE, 
&lid a strong pronotin a RE'FAIN or a SIIIFT. 
(3b) A null subject can be felicitously used in 
eases of RETAIN or SHIFT if in U,~ the syn- 
tactic context tip to and including the ver- 
bal form(s) carrying tense and / or agreement 
forces the null subject to refer to a particular 
referent and not to Cb(U,~ l)- 
The evidence for (3b) provided in (Di Eug(> 
nio, 1990) derived, among others, from modal and 
control verb constructions, in which clitics may 
be clitieized to the infinitival complement of the 
higher verb or may climb in front of the higher 
verb. Wheu the clitic climbs, certain pronomiual 
"garden path" effects, deriving from a wrong in- 
terpretation initially assigned to the null slibject 
and later retracted, are avoided. 
4 Italian subjects in discourse 
4.1 The corpus 
The corpus amounts to about 25 pages of text, 
and 12,000 words; it is composed of excerpts from 
two books (yon Arnim, 1989; Fallaci, 1989), a 
letter (Mila, 1993), a posting on the Italian bul- 
letin board (SCI, 1994), a short story (Nichetti, 
1993), and three articles from two newspapers (del 
Buono, 1993; Pagetti, 1993; La Nazione, 1994). 
The excerpts are of different lengths, with the ex- 
cerI)tS from the two books being the longest. 
Texts were chosen to cover a variety of contem- 
porary written Italian prose, from formal (news- 
paper articles about politics mid literature), to in- 
formal (posting on the Italian bulletin board), and 
according to the following criteria: a) ,ninimal di- 
rect speech, which has not been addressed iu cen- 
4kui, lei, Ioro are the oblique forms of the strong 
system, while the nonfinative \[brms are respectively 
egN, ella, essi/e: in current Italian the latter forms are 
rarely used as the oblique forms have replaced them in 
subject position in my corpus there are only four 
occurrences of these nominative forms, and they all 
occur ii~ the same article (Pagetti, 1993). 
tering yet; b) prose that describes situations in- 
volving several animate refe, rents, bee, ause strong 
t)ronouns can refer only to animate referents. 
Table 2 shows the distrit)ution of animate third 
person subjects partitioned into: full NPs 
the numbers in parentheses refer to possessive 
NPs; strong pronouns; null subje(;ts I counted 
only those whose antecedents are not determined 
by contraindexing constraints (Chomsky, 1981).; 
other anaphors (e.g. tutte, allI~,,,) they won't 
be analyzed in this pat)er. 
4.2 Issues 
When applying (:entering to real text, one realizes 
that lnany issues have, llOt been solved yet. I will 
comment here on how deictics, possessives, and 
subordinate clauses affect centering. 
Deictics such its I, you, etc. The problem is 
whether they are part of the Cf list or not. I 
follow (Walker, 1993) in assuming that deictics 
are always available as part of global h)cus, and 
therefore are outside centering. 
Possessives. Table 3 includes a category 
marked possessive, which refers to hill NPs that 
inchtde a possessive adjective referring to an ani- 
mate entity, such as i suoi sforzi -his cfforts. 
The problem is how possessives affect Cb com- 
putation and Cf ordering. While Cb computation 
does not appear to be affected by a possessive, 
that behaves like a i)ronoun, the Cf ranking ueeds 
to be modified. An NP of type possessive refers 
to two entities, the possessor Po,. and the pos- 
sessed P~d. P~,d corresponds to the full NP, and 
thus its position in Cf is determined by the NP's 
grammatical flmction; as regards P,,., my working 
heuristics is to rank it as iinmediately preceding 
P~d if P~d is inanimate, as immediately following 
P~.~t if P~d is animate. Such heuristics appears to 
work, t)ut needs to be rigorously teste.d. 
Subordinates. Another important issue, that 
has not been extensively addressed ye.t - but see 
(Kameyama, 1997; Snri and McCoy, 1993) is 
how to deal with complex sentences that include 
coordinates and subordinates. The questions that 
arise concern whether there are independent Cb's 
and Cf lists for every clause; if not, how the Cb 
of the complex sentence is computed, and how se- 
mantic entities appearing in different clauses are 
ordered on the global Cf list. 
In this paper, I will loosely adopt Kmneyama's 
proposal (1997) that sentences containing con- 
jtlncts and tensed adjuncts are broken down iiito a 
linear sequence of centering "units", while tense- 
354 
Tex|; 
-~ii- Arnim, 1989) 
(Falbmi, 1989) 
(Mila, 1993) 
(sc, I, ~994) 
(Nichet Li, 1993) 
((h'.l Buono, 1993) 
(Pago.t,t;i, 1993) 
(La Na.zione, 1994) 
Tot,al 
Total 
111 
17 
8 
18 
4(1 
36 
22 
35 
287 
Full NPs 
45 (11) 
6 (0) 
7 (:t) 2(~ (~.) 
28 (6) 
19 (6) 
~7 (4) 
1,59 (29) 
SLrong Zero Or;her 
23 36 7 
2 9 (} 
2 4 t 
0 7 4 
1 13 0 
1 6 \[ 
3 0 (} 
1 5 2 
33 80 15 
Table 2: Animate 3rd l)ers()n subjects 
less adjuncts don't generate indeI)endent center- 
illg ltlliLs 5 . 
4.3 Centering Transitions 
Table 3 illust,r~ttes the disl,ribul;ion of referring 
expressions with respect I;o eenl;ering Lransil, ions. 
The number of full NPs in Table 3 is a.\[)(/lll; half 
I,heir number in ~l~bh,. 2: in 5tel;, full Nl's ofl;en 
inLroduce enl;iLies new 1;o Lhe discourse, in which 
case cenLerin g does li()l; ~ti)ply. 
Table 3 inehtdes two (:ohunns t;hal, don't refer t;() 
(:entering transitions. The ('.()tlllllu hd)eled (',ENT- 
ES'I' ell(lodes referring expressions that don'L re- 
fer 1,o a member of Cf(U,~ I)~ bltL l,o all eltLil, y 
ava.ilgd)le ill Lhc discourse. While su(:h LrmlsiLions 
do nol, t)elong t(i (:entering, Lhat models how (:en- 
l, ers change h'om one cenLe.ring uniL to the nexL, 
Lhey cons~il, ul,e leferc.nl;ial us;rges of i~rolll)ltltS I,hat 
need 1;o be exI)lailmd. \[ ('.all these Lransil,ions 
(H,;NT-I(STAB 5 for CF, NTEIL ESTAIH,ISIIMEN'\[': })e- 
cause such refer(,nces a.plle;tr Lo ('.sLaJ)lish the flew 
center of local discourse. Finally, (YI'HEI{ includes 
e.g. expr(;ssioils l,haL build a sel, ouL of Cb(U,~ ~) 
and some. other (.'nt,il;y, such a.s sia lui the sua 
moglic both. him and his wife.. II, is not clear 
how to deal with Lhese constructions within Lhe 
(:entering framework, and thus, I have left; lih(,m 
unanalyzed for the time t)eing. 
The resull;s are as follows. Null subje('l,s are, noL 
surprisingly, the m(isL frequenl, ly us('d expression 
58~) for C()NTINUF,'s; 1;tie difference tmLwec.n 
mill Stll)je(:l,s &lid all l;he other referring expres- 
sions is also st,aListically signilicant (X 2 -= 7.128, 
p <0.01). (; Vice vers~- h CONTINIIE'8 &C(:OttllL for 
70~0 of null subje('ts. However, ewm full NPs can 
be itsed for CONTINUErs stt('h IIS;I,ges &CCOIIII\[,S 
for 16% of (~ON'I'INUI,i'S, &lid for 20~) of fldl NPs. 
'~The siLuaLion for complc.mc.n|,s is more compli- 
(:aLe(l, iLil(l Sl)iR;e prc.venLs nle K()III dis('.ussi~tg it. 
6X2 l;(;sl; rc.suil,s ~trc rc.,1)orl;e.d here lilOrP, i~ts 2t sot\[fee 
of suggc.sLive evidence t, han as sLrong indicators, as 
I;hc. observal;ions in Lhe corplls~ which come Kern only 
8 auLhors, are not I;otally indct)en(lent. 
Also, 12% of (X)N'PlNIIE',q are encoded by moans of 
poss('ssive NP's, and vice versa, 41% of possessive 
NP's are used for {X)NTINUE's. 
The situal;ion for ILETA1N's and SIlIl,"l"s is nol, 
very (:lear, as none of l,he lbur ea.t;egorics of refer- 
ring expressions is t)redominml(;. All Lhese SHII,'T's 
are a,(:l, ually SM()()TII-SIIIFT's, i.e., l;here ;tre n() 
IR)U(III-SIIIFT's ~tl; all. This is n()l; surprising for 
null subj(~(:l,s, (;ha.L are never used for ILOII(IlI- 
SIlII,'T (TItr;m, 1995), however il, is puzzling for full 
NPs. AI)t)arently the \[l;;tli;tll wril;ers I seh'.(:Le(l a(1- 
her(~ l,o I,t1('. (tel;roll, rankin,,; of Lr;msi(;ions, in which 
I~()II(HI-SIIIF'I"S ar{~ l;he \[easL preferred. 
A signilic.;mL difference in (,he usages ()f (;he \['(mr 
referrillg expressions regards Cli;NT-EST. \[I1. this 
(:a.se., full NP's are used 59% or (;he times, ;rod 
(;he difR;renee between full NP's, and all (;he o(;h,r 
Cxl)ressi(ms is signitic;ml, (X '2 -- 8.88, i ) <0.01). 
I will now focus on the conl,rasl; t)etwet,.n ze- 
ros ;tlI(l sl,rong t)ron()ltlls, ill order to assess 1;he 
sLr~ttegies proposed in (3). hfiLi,tlly, (3a) zl'.- 
yes tls(~(1 for (X)NTINUI,)~ sl;rong l)r()llt)ltltS \[()r I{I,;- 
TAIN &lid S\[IIFq' ;q)peared nol, I,o be supportc(l, 
noL (wen as regards the preference for null sub- 
jec£s for C~ONTINIIE: given Lhe numbers in Ta,ble 3, 
Lhe difference bel;ween zeros and strong pronouns 
tlsed for C()NTINUE is llOt signitieant (X ~ = 2.436, 
I) < 0.20). This finding puzzled ,he, t)e('.~utse the 
usage of null sul)jeets for CONq'INI~E seems Lo be 
a robusl, cross-linguis~ic l)henomenon: it occurs 
in languages as diverse as .J;tpanese (Kameyama, 
1985; Walker ('.l, al., 1994; Shim;t, 1995) and Turk- 
ish (Turan, 1995). 
The puzzle can lie solved by examining Lhe 1;rano 
siLiou preceding ~he CONTINUE ill question. '\])~> 
ble d shows |;he dilf('.renl; possible transitions in 
U,, that precedes Unl I in which a (X)NTIN/IE (it- 
curs. The configuration in which a, CONTINIIE is 
preceded by st ILETAIN, whic.h \[ (:all ILET-CONT, (lilt 
fers from the other two be.cause, of Lhe constraint 
Cp(U,~) ~ Cb(Un) in l,he lUg:PAIN. This in ;t sense 
predicts l;h.~tI; L}te cenl;er will shift: but ill & ILET- 
355 
II Type II Total II CONTINUE I tI.ETAIN I SHIFT II C N "- ST II o,,,.,. II 
zero 80 56 4 6 12 2 
strong 33 13 3 5 11 1 
NP 81 17 11 7 44 2 
poss. 25 11 5 1 8 0 
\]\] Total \]\] 219 \]1 97 \] 23 I 19 II 75 II 5 II 
Table 3: Distribution of centering transitions 
CONT sudi prediction is not fultilled. As Table 5 
shows, this has some consequences on the usage of 
null and strong pronouns. Compared to strong 
CONTINUE RETAIN SItlFT 
U, Cb,~=Cb,~ t Cb,~=Cb,~ t Cb,~#Cb,~, 
Table 4: Transitions preceding a {;ONTINIIE 
I Tyt)e Total 
zero 56 
strong 13 
11 Total 11 69 \[I 
CONT-CONT \[- RET-CONT 
SllIFT-CONT 
51 
7 
58 11 
Table 5: Pronoun occurrences for ItET-CONT 
pronouns, null sul)jects are used 87% of the times 
for CONT-CONT and SHIFT-CONT t&kell together 
and only 45% of the times for RET-CONT, and the 
puzzle discussed above is explained, hi fact, in 
the ease of CONT-CONT and SHIFT-CONT, there is 
a significant ditference between zeros and strong 
pronouns, X 2 = 6.279, p < 0.02. Instead, in the 
CaSK of RET-(\]ONq', there is no significant differ- 
ence, )C 2 = 2.986, p < 0.10. 7 Fig. 1 I)resents two 
e.xamples of mg'r-(\]ONT, one in (4(:) realized witti 
a strong pronoun, the se.cond in (4e) realized with 
a null subject. In the utterance pre('eding (4a), 
Cb = Irais and Cf = \[Irais\]. 
As far as RETAIN's alld SHIFT's go, the numbers 
are both too small to draw any conclusion, and 
alley don't seem t6 identify any preferred usage 
for strong pronouns, contrary to what claimed by 
(3a); also in the ease of CEN'F-EST there doesn't 
seem to be any significaut difference in usage. A 
topic for future work is to verify whether there are 
any factors affecting the dioice between null and 
rAlso (Tin'an, 1995) independently noticed the ex- 
istence of RET-CONT'S, and reports results similar to 
mine. 
(4a) (1} lrzcomincer6 a ricondurre il suo pensiero 
sui suoi doveri ch, ie.dendole ogni giorno 
(I) will start to bring her thoughts back to her 
duties by asking her every day 
Cf: \[Irais > I's thoughts, I's duties\] , 
Cb:Irais, continue 
(4b) come sta suo inarito. 
how her husband is. 
el: \[husband > Irais\] , Cb:Irais, retain 
(4C) Non g'. the lei gli voglia granch6, bone, 
It's not the case that she cares nmch about him 
Cf:\[Irais > husband\], Cb:Irais, continue 
(4d) pcTvhd lul non corrc ad aprirle la porta 
because he doesn't run to open the door for her 
el:\[husband > Irais\], Cb:Irais, retain 
(4e) ogni volta the. (I~ si alza per lasciare la stanza; 
whenever (she) gets tip to leave the rooni. 
Cf: \[Irais\], Cb:Irais, continue 
Figure 1: Examples of RET-CONT 
strong pronouns in these cases, especially because 
null subjects used for SIIIFT or for (;ENT-EST some- 
times result in a slightly less coherent discourse. 
The second part of the clMm, (ab) a null sub- 
ject can be used if lJ,~ provides syntactic clues that 
force the null subject not to refer to Cb(U,~ l) 
is supported; however, given the small numbers 
(four I{ETAIN's and six SHIFT's) this conclusion 
(:all \]liSt be tentative. The most frequent clue is 
agreement in gender and / or number. 
5 Conclusions 
hi this paper, I examhled the referriug functions 
that diffe.rent types of subjects perform in Ital- 
ian within the centering framework. I built on 
the analysis presented in (Di Eugenio, 1990), and 
extended it in several directions: first, I used a 
corpus of really occurring examples; second, I in- 
eluded phenomena such as possessives and sub- 
ordinate clauses; third, I refined the notion of 
356 
CONTINUE by i)oinl;ing out (>h('. peculiarity of |(ET- 
(:()NT'S; four(;h, I included full NPs; lifth, I illus- 
tra.(;ed n t;yp(: (if l)rOllOlnill~tl ItS&g('.~ (:I,;NT-I,;S'I'~ t)ltl,- 
side (;It(: purview (if (:enb~ring. 
l"ublre work inchtd(~s furth(,r analysis ()\[ a strut(> 
whad, surl)risint,; lindint,; fiR)Ill I,h<~ curr('.nt sl;u(ly, i.e. 
(,ha.t Nl)'s (mt:oding C()NTINIII,;'s ;i.r('. It{H, S() r&re. \]11, 
is w()r(,h whih> 1,o (;x;l, lttill(~ I,h(! (lal;a flill,h(;l.', l,() ,q(~t; 
undc.r which condi(,ions a full NP is liccns(,d (,o ('.n- 
co(h: ;t (~()NTINUE. \[ &lso W/ill(, |,o (:olh'(:l; lit(ire II.I,;'I'- 
(J()N'I"s~ RE'lAIN's, ;tit(l SMO()TII-SIIII,'I"s 1;o re\[in(~ 
(,h(, ;ma.lysis pre.s('.nl;(;d in this pap('.r. Finally, an- 
oth(;r topi(: (if res(~ar(:h is C\],;N'I'-I,;S'I', CV(~lt if it, is 
Oltl,si(h'. l;lw ('(utt;(~rinl,; fl:am(,work, and un(h'r what 
(:(m(litions z(,r()s ;(,r(: us(~(l (,o (um()(h: il,. 
Heforences 
Susan Brenmm, Marilyn Walker Frie(hnan, nnd Carl 
Pollard. t987. A (:enl;eriltg approach l,o t)ronoltns. 
In Pr'oc. 251h Meeting, A.~sociat.ion for Computa- 
I, ional Linguist, its, t)ag(;s 155 162. 
Andrea Calabrese. 11.)86. I)RONOMINA - Some 
prot)erl;i('s of ttt(~ ltaflian i)ronomimd .~ys(;(!IU. In 
N. \]:")tkui, 'J'. Ratpol)or(; , and 1!~. Satg(;y, editors, M.IT 
Workinq papers in Linquistics. l'apcrs in 'Yhcorcti- 
cal Lingv, i,~tics. Vol. 3. 
Noam Chomsky. 1981. Lecture's on Go.t;crnmcnt and 
Hinding. Forts, Dordrcchl;. 
()reste (lel lhtono. 11.)93. Avanti it (;u(,(x) Met, z (:on(,ro la 
rel;orica f~tst:is(;a. La ,5'tampa, "131,tloLibvi, D(,.(:cml)er. 
Barbara l)i Eugenio. 1990. (}(mtering Theory and l;h(' 
Italian Pron(mfinal Sys(;eni. In l'roccedings ltth In 
lcrnational (}or&'~rcncc on Computational Linguis- 
tics (CO})\[NG 90), l)agos 2711 27(5. 
()ria,na ti'a.lla(:i. 1989. Per, elope alla 9ucrra. Bollatai 
Boringhieri, '\[brino. 
Pc(;er Gordon, Ba.rl)a.rit (l,osz, and l,aura Gilliom. 
1993. Pronouns, N~tltt(;,q, ittid I;h(! C,(utl;(~ring of Ar- 
t.mat;ion in Discourse. (,'ognitivc Science, 17:311 
347. 
Barl)ar;t Grosz, Aravind ,}oshi, mid Scott YVeins(;ein. 
1986. Towards a ctmq)utationa.1 (;heory of discourse 
\[nt(~rl)r(~tation. Untmblisht;d manusi:ripl,. 
Barl)a.ra Grosz, Aravind Joshi, and Scot(, Whinst(~in. 
11,)95. C,(ml;(~ring: A Prmn(~work for Modeling the 
Local Coherent(: of Discourse. Computational l;in- 
.quistic.% 21(2):21/3 225. 
M. A. I( IiMliday. 1976. System aud t/uracl, ion ira /)art- 
9ua.qe. London: Oxlbrd Un\[v(!rsity Press. Edited lay 
G. R. Kress. 
Megumi Kameyama. 1985. Zero anaph, ora: the case. 
of ,Iapancsc. Ph.D. the.sis, SI;anford Uniw;rsil, y. 
Mcgunfi Kameyama. 1997. Iutrasentential C(ml, ering: 
A Case SI, u(ly. To app(!ar in Ccnlcriug in Discourage, 
Ellen Print(!, Ara,vind Joshi, Lyn W~atker editors, 
()xlbrd Univ(!rsii;y Press. 
La Nazione. 1994. I1 de(:lino (li Ross \[)(!rol,: la 
n'~zione i)iu ' (:at)itali,'~l,a (h!l llIOll(lo ~;t (li non (~sser(~ 
un'nzi(mda, Marrch. 
Vincenzo i,oml)ardo and \[,('.oita.r(lo L(!,',ino. 199,1. A 
(:()zJttt);t(:l, synLa(:(,ic repr(~s(utl;al,ion, in (',. Martin- 
Vide, ('rill,or, (;v.rrcnl lssv, es in Math.cmal, ical Lm 
,quiM, iCs, l)ag(',S 191 200. Elsevier g,:ien,:(~ B.V. 
Massinto Mila. 1993. \],(H;l,(!r 1;o his tool;her, (Ib~printcd 
ira) La Stampa, Tut.loLibri, I)e(:emb(!r. 
Maurizio Nh'hel, I;\[. 191.)3. I,a l,v delle formichc. Comiz, 
84. 
Ehut;t Not; and Massi.mo Zan(:an;tro. 1995. The (lou- 
lHe nntur(~ of ;Utal)hora. ;t discus.~ion wii;h ;t fhtvour 
o\[ sysi,emic linguisl, ics. ill -Wolfgang Iliippner 
and iI(!hnul, Iloracek, ediix)rs, Principles of Natu 
ral \[,angua.qc (7cncro, l, ion. l'apcrs from o, l)agstv, hl 
Seminar. Tt't:lmical l,l.et)ort Duisburg UniversitS,(,, 
\]h;richt Nr. $I-\]2,2/(,)5. 
Carlo Page(at. \]993. Dh:k l'ilhmfina(,o. La St, o, mpa, 
7lb, l, toLibri, Dec(',nfl)er. 
Vieri S;mwk-l,odovic\[ and Carlo S(,rapparava. 1990. 
Id(;nl;i(ying Noun Phrase Relhr('.nt:es: the Topic 
Mo(hfle of (;he Alt,¥es(:o Sysl,(;m. IIt .l'roccedin.qs of 
ECAI 90, Ninth Eu,vpcan Confl.'rence on Artificial 
Intclligcncc, pages 573 578. 
S(~I. 1994. Posting on the so(:.(:ul(;ur(~.il;alia.n ch~c- 
(,ron\[c newsgroup, Mar(;h. 
Kaori Shima. 1995. Anaphora l{.esolu(,ion in 
.lal)am!se: ;t Cen(;e.rhtg At~proach. Masl;er's project, 
C, arnegi('. Mellon Univ('.rsi(,y, Mary. 
()liviero Slot:k, ()liuscppe Cnrenhti, f'ederico Ccc- 
(:oni, Enrico Francon\[, All)erl;o I,avelli, Bcrnardo 
Magnini, F(;deri(:o Piancsi, Marco Ponzi, Vieri 
Sam(;k-l,odovici, mM Carlo ,ql,rappa.rava.. \].993. Al- 
Fresco: \]';u joying I,he Coinhina(;ion of Nal;ural I,;m- 
glt:tg(: Processing and Ilypermedia for Informa(;ion 
F, xph)r;ttion, ht Mark T. Ma,ybury, edil,or, lnlclli 
gc.nt Mull.imcdia \[ul.crflu:c..~. Th(! MIT Press. 
IAnda Z. Suri and K;tl;hl(!en F. McCoy. 191.)3. Focus- 
utg and I)ronoun lq.esohtl;ion in Particular Kinds of 
Coml)h!x So, ill;circa!s. IIt Proceedings of Workshop on 
Centering, Uni'versity of I'c.nn.syl.i;ania. 
l~llnit Deiliz Turan. 1995. Subject and Object ira Turk- 
ish Discourse: a Centering Analysis. l'h.D, l;hesis, 
Univ(!rsil;y of l)mmsylwtnia. 
Elizabeth wm Arnim. 1981.I. //giard, irao di Elizabeth. 
Bollat,i Borhtghicri, Torino. 
Marilyn WMker, Masayo Iida, and Sharon Col;e. t994. 
,lapanese Discourse and the. Pro('.ess of C,(;nl.¢~ring. 
Computational Linguistic.% 20(2):i(,I3 231. 
Marilyfl WMk(!r. 1993. Initbd Contexts and Shifi, ing 
Ctmters. IIi Proceedings of Worksh, op on Centering, 
University of I'cransylvania. 
357 
