Pronoun resolution normally takes place without conscious effort or awareness, yet the processes behind it are far from straightforward. A large number of cues and constraints have previously been recognised as playing a role in the identification and integration of potential antecedents, yet there is considerable debate over how these operate within the resolution process. The aim of this thesis is to investigate how the parser handles multiple antecedents in order to understand more about how certain information sources play a role during pronoun resolution. I consider how both structural information and information provided by the prior discourse is used during online processing. This is investigated through several eye tracking during reading experiments that are complemented by a number of offline questionnaire experiments. I begin by considering how condition B of the Binding Theory (Chomsky 1981; 1986) has been captured in pronoun processing models; some researchers have claimed that processing is faithful to syntactic constraints from the beginning of the search (e.g. Nicol and Swinney 1989), while others have claimed that potential antecedents which are ruled out on structural grounds nonetheless affect processing, because the parser must also pay attention to a potential antecedent’s features (e.g. Badecker and Straub 2002). My experimental findings demonstrate that the parser is sensitive to the subtle changes in syntactic configuration which either allow or disallow pronoun reference to a local antecedent, and indicate that the parser is normally faithful to condition B at all stages of processing. Secondly, I test the Primitives of Binding hypothesis proposed by Koornneef (2008) based on work by Reuland (2001), which is a modular approach to pronoun resolution in which variable binding (a semantic relationship between pronoun and antecedent) takes place before coreference. I demonstrate that a variable-binding (VB) antecedent is not systematically considered earlier than a coreference (CR) antecedent online. I then go on to explore whether these findings could be attributed to the linear order of the antecedents, and uncover a robust recency preference both online and offline. I consider what role the factor of recency plays in pronoun resolution and how it can be reconciled with the first-mention advantage (Gernsbacher and Hargreaves 1988; Arnold 2001; Arnold et al., 2007). Finally, I investigate how aspects of the prior discourse affect pronoun resolution. Prior discourse status clearly had an effect on pronoun resolution, but an antecedent’s appearance in the previous context was not always facilitative; I propose that this is due to the number of topic switches that a reader must make, leading to a lack of discourse coherence which has a detrimental effect on pronoun resolution. The sensitivity of the parser to structural cues does not entail that cue types can be easily separated into distinct sequential stages, and I therefore propose that the parser is structurally sensitive but not modular. Aspects of pronoun resolution can be captured within a parallel constraints model of pronoun resolution, however, such a model should be sensitive to the activation of potential antecedents based on discourse factors, and structural cues should be strongly weighted. / Pronomenauflösung erfolgt normalerweise scheinbar mühelos und ohne bewusste Anstrengung. Jedoch ist die Verarbeitung von pronominalen Referenzen aus linguistischer Sicht ein hochkomplexer Prozess. Durch unterschiedliche wissenschaftliche Studien wurden bereits zahlreiche Faktoren ermittelt, die bei der Pronomenauflösung eine Rolle spielen, allerdings herrscht weitgehend noch keine Einigkeit darüber, wie genau diese Faktoren die Verarbeitung von Pronomen beeinflussen. Ziel dieser Dissertation ist es zu untersuchen, wie der Leser/Hörer mit Pronomen umgeht, denen mehrere Antezedenten zugeordnet werden können, um zu verstehen, welche Rolle bestimmte Informationsquellen in der Verarbeitung von Pronomen spielen. Besondere Beachtung findet dabei, wie strukturelle Eigenschaften sowie Informationen aus dem vorangegangenen Diskurs für die Suche nach einem passenden Antezedenten benutzt werden. Die angewandte Untersuchungsmethode der vorliegenden Dissertation ist Eye-tracking during reading, ergänzt mit verschiedenen offline-Fragebögen. Die Experimente erforschen die Rolle der folgenden Aspekte in der Verarbeitung von Pronomen: Prinzip B der Bindungstheorie (Chomsky 1981; 1986), Koreferenz und Variablenbindung laut der Primitives of Binding Hypothese (Reuland 2001, Koornneef 2008), Antezedentenreihenfolge im Satz, und Diskursstatus des Antezedents. Obwohl es zeigt sich, dass der Hörer/Leser sensibel für subtile Veränderungen in der syntaktischen Konfiguration ist, wie z.B. für die Reihenfolge der Antezedenten im Satz und für den Diskursstatus des Antezedenten, gibt es keinen Nachweis dafür, dass Variablenbindung zeitlich vor Koreferenz erfolgt. Einige Aspekte der Auflösung pronominaler Referenzen können in einem parallel constraints model erfasst werden, allerdings sollte so ein Modell strukturelle Informationen stark gewichten und sensitiv sein für die Aktivierung potenzieller Antezedenten aufgrund von Diskursfaktoren.

This study presents a contrastive analysis of the pronominal uses of this and that in academic written discourse. As data, the pronominal uses of this and that are retrieved from journal articles on linguistics. From these journals, 586 articles are scanned for the pronominal uses of this and that and 198 tokens are analysed. The contrastive analysis is done in terms of the kind and span of referents this and that pick out in discourse, the types of centering transitions they signal and the rhetorical relations in which they are used. In order to investigate the types of transition they signal, the version of centering theory proposed by Grosz and Sidner (1986) and Grosz, Joshi and Weinstein (1995) is used. Also, Marcu&rsquo / s version (2000) of Rhetorical Structure Theory is used to analyze the rhetorical relations in which the expressions are used. The study also investigate the possible factors that lead an addresser to select one deictic expression instead of the other. The study concludes that this and that are cue phrases rather than discourse markers that construct local and global coherence.

The thesis provides an analysis of the different ways the Occupy Wall Street was presented by OccupyWallSt.org ( the movement’s own media source), and The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and USA Today from July 2011 up to the end of June 2012. This was done by using Entman’ theory of media framing together with Castells’ network theory of power. The former provided a way of addressing the different types of frames that mainstream media utilize, while the latter offered an understanding of how power is built through the media processes. Additionally, Castells’ theory described another type of media frame which is mostly used by alternative media, the counter frame, which could successfully be applied to study the content that the social movement decided to provide about itself.The study first employs a quantitative approach by using Crawdad, a centering resonance analysis (CRA) software. This provides a reliable pool of data that was then analyzed by using the above theories. Additionally, in order to check the reliability of the qualitative conclusions, a statistical test was done for the overall top centers resulting from the CRA.

Submitted by Viviane Lima da Cunha (viviane@biblioteca.ufpb.br) on 2016-09-23T12:22:42Z No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivototal.pdf: 3967529 bytes, checksum: 17e8000091e75546f18d4625ec646445 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-09-23T12:22:42Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivototal.pdf: 3967529 bytes, checksum: 17e8000091e75546f18d4625ec646445 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009-12-22 / The co-reference is usually defined as a strategy of textual progression that recalls a previous entity, called antecedent, through the use of an anaphora. Different areas of science have studied the co-reference for its relevance to the local coherence, as well as to the discourse comprehension. However, a crucial question remains and requires to be clarified, that is about the cognitive mechanisms and the linguistics principles that underlie the choice of anaphora among the various forms of the language. The current work has its theoretical connection with Experimental Psycholinguistics which deals with the process of the phases, and more especifically with the processing of the co-reference. This work compares the efficiency of the lexical pronouns vs. repeated-name, as well as hiperonimos vs. hiponimos, both seen as ways of one's inter-sentential anaphoric recalling in Brazilian Portuguese. It was also verified that the wide range of the Centering Theory (Grosz, Joshi e Weinstein, 1983, 1995), which states a slower effect known as Repeated NP Penalty when recalling an antecedent using the repeated noun instead of a pronoun, as well as the The Informational Load Hypotheses (Almor 1990, 1999, 2000), as an alternative concept that connects the processing cost with the discourse function. For that, the current research used three on-line self paced reading experiments and analyzed its results by using both the T-Test and the ANOVA one. In the first experiment the lexical pronouns were read faster than the repeated pronouns, in accordance to the Centering Theory and the he Informational Load Hypotheses. The second experiment, the co-reference was better established by the hiperônimos instead of hipônimos, reinforcing the cost-funcion principle stated by Almor (1990, 1999, 2000), while the Repeated NP Penalty by Gordon et. al. (1993, 1995), is concerned about the dichotomy between lexical pronouns vs repeated nouns. The syntactic prominence was also discussed in Chamber's & Smith (1999) research as well as in Leitão's (2005), but the third experiment stated the independent act of the syntactic prominence in relation to the type of the anaphora, even though that does not exclude the influence of the structural parallelism. / A co-referência é cornumente definida como uma estratégia de progressão textual e caracterizada pela retomada de urna entidade prévia, também denominada antecedente, através de urna anáfora. Ela vem sendo estudada por várias áreas do conhecimento científico, devido a sua importância para a coerência local e, conseqüentemente, para a compreensão do discurso, mas uma questão crucial continua em aberto e requer maiores esclarecimentos: quais os mecanismos cognitivos e os princípios lingüísticos que subjazem a escolha da anáfora, entre a multiplicidade de formas existente na língua. O presente trabalho se insere no quadro teórico da Psicolingüística Experimental que trata do processamento de frases e, mais especificamente, do processamento da co-referência. Nele, compararnos a eficiência dos pronomes lexicais vs. nomes repetidos e dos hiperônimos vs. hipônimos, como formas de retomada anafórica inter-sentencial do sujeito em Português Brasileiro. Verificamos também a abrangência explicativa da Teoria da Centralização (Grosz, Joshi e Weinstein, 1983, 1995), que postula urn efeito de retardamento, mais conhecido corno Penalidade do Nome Repetido, ao retomar um antecedente proeminente sintaticamente usando urn nome repetido em vez de urn pronome, e da Hipótese da Carga Informacional (Almor 1990, 1999, 2000), com uma concepção alternativa que relaciona o custo de processarnento e atenção discursiva. Para isso, aplicamos três experimentos on-line de leitura auto-monitorada e validamos estatisticamente seus resultados através do Teste-T e da ANOVA. No primeiro experimento, os pronomes lexicais foram lidos mais rapidamente do que os names repetidos, em consonância corn a Teoria da Centralização e com a Hipótese da Carga Informacional. No segundo experimento, a co-referenda foi estabelecida rnais facilrnente pelos hiperônimos do que pelos hipônimos, ratificando o principio de otimização entre custo de processarnento e função discursiva, defendido por Almor (1990, 1999, 2000), enquanto a Penalidade do Nome-Repetido, constatada pioneiramente por Gordon et. al. (1993, 1995), limita-se a dicotornia pronornes lexicais vs. nomes repetidos. A proeminência sintática também foi questionada no estudo de Chambers e Smith (1999) em Inglês e de Leitão (2005) em Português Brasileiro, mas o terceiro e último experirnento comprovou sua atuação independente do tipo de anáfora, apesar de não descartar a influência do paralelismo estrutural.