to the maximal set (i.e. to all the children, both ice-cream-eating-children and non-ice-cream-eating-children) or some hybrid or variant set, including potentially one of those noted to the right of example b. The various possible referents in complement anaphora are discussed by Corblin (1996), Kibble (1997), and Nouwen (2003). Resolving complement anaphora is of interest in shedding light on brain access to information, calculation, mental modeling, communication. Anaphora resolution – centering theory There are many theories that attempt to prove how anaphors are related and trace back to their antecedents, with centering theory (Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein 1983) being one of them. Taking the computational theory of mind view of language, centering theory gives a computational analysis of underlying antecedents. In their original theory, Grosz, Joshi, & Weinstein (1983) propose that some discourse entities in utterances are more "central" than others, and this degree of centrality imposes constraints on what can be the antecedent. In the theory, there are different types of centers: forward facing, backwards facing, and preferred. Forward facing centers A ranked list of discourse entities in an utterance. The ranking is debated, some focusing on theta relations (Yıldırım et al. 2004) and some providing definitive lists. Backwards facing center The highest ranked discourse entity in the previous utterance. Preferred center The highest ranked discourse entity in the previous utterance realised in the current utterance. See also – A phenomenon sometimes viewed as modal or temporal anaphora Notes Literature Bussmann, H., G. Trauth, and K. Kazzazi 1998. Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics. Taylor and Francis. Chomsky, N. 1981/1993. Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Mouton de Gruyter. Corblin, F. 1996. "Quantification et anaphore discursive: la reference aux comple-mentaires". Linguages. 123, 51–74. Grosz, Barbara J.; Joshi, Aravind K.; and Weinstein, Scott (1983). "Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse". In Proceedings, 21st Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics. 44–50. Kibble, R. 1997. "Complement anaphora and dynamic binding". In Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory VII, ed. A. Lawson, 258–275. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University. McEnery, T. 2000. Corpus-based and computational approaches to discourse anaphora. John Benjamins. Moxey, L. and A. Sanford 1993. Communicating quantities: A psychological perspective. Laurence Erlbaum Associates. Nouwen, R. 2003. "Complement anaphora and interpretation". Journal of Semantics, 20, 73–113. Sanford, A., L. Moxey and K. Patterson 1994. "Psychological studies of quantifiers". Journal of Semantics 11, 153–170. Schmolz, H. 2015.