Towards a Computational Theory of Definite Anaphora Comprehension in English Discourse

This report investigates the process of focussing as a description and explanation of the comprehension of certain anaphoric expressions in English discourse. The investigation centers on the interpretation of definite anaphora, that is, on the personal pronouns, and noun phrases used with a definite article the, this or that. Focussing is formalized as a process in which a speaker centers attention on a particular aspect of the discourse. An algorithmic description specifies what the speaker can focus on and how the speaker may change the focus of the discourse as the discourse unfolds. The algorithm allows for a simple focussing mechanism to be constructed: and element in focus, an ordered collection of alternate foci, and a stack of old foci. The data structure for the element in focus is a representation which encodes a limted set of associations between it and other elements from teh discourse as well as from general knowledge.

Whose News? Copyright and the Dissemination of News on the Internet

International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, Volume 17, Issue 2 July 2003 , pages 163 - 174 RAE2008

Constructing Enemies: 'Islamic Terrorism' in Political and Academic Discourse

Jackson, Richard, (2007) 'Constructing Enemies: 'Islamic Terrorism' in Political and Academic Discourse', Government and Opposition, 42(3) pp.394-426 RAE2008

Autor filmowy według przepisów prawa w systemach droit d`auteur i copyright. Zarys problematyki

The aim of the article is to outline the key issues surrounding legal notions of film authorship. For scholars interested in studying the process of production it is extremely important to analyze the status and scope of power of its participants as well as their position in the hierarchy – one of the main sources of priveleges is the fact of being recognized by the law as the author of the work produced. The article depicts the benefits of such situation, but its main aim is to descibe the legal rules of granting the status of the author. Outlined are the issues emerged from the two radically different legal system – european droit d`auteur tradition and american copyright. The first one honours the artists while the other focuses mostly on providing the certainty of the economics, so the actual authors of the work are not that important. The paper points to the fact that – especially in the case of american copyright – the actual (determined by law) situation of a creator may differ significantly from the character of their contribution to the process of producing a film. Analysis of the rules and principles of the law is essential to the understanding of the structural determinants of film production and deserves no less attention than social, political and economic factors.

A discourse delivered on Thanksgiving Day, Dec. 7, 1837 : in the Unitarian Church, Keene, N.H.

The print copy of this sermon is held by Pitts Theology Library. The Pitts Theology Library's digital copy was produced as part of the ATLA/ATS Cooperative Digital Resources Initiative (CDRI), funded by the Luce Foundation. Electronic reproduction. Atlanta, Georgia : Pitts Theology Library, Emory University, 2003. (Thanksgiving Day Sermons, ATLA Cooperative Digital Resources Initiative, CDRI). Joint CDRI project by: Andover-Harvard Library (Harvard Divinity School), Pitts Theology Library (Emory University), and Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries.

True Greatness: A Discourse on the character of Rev. Wilbur Fisk

Memorial discourse

The universal mission of the church of Christ : a discourse / delivered at Hanley, Staffordshire, August 4, 1884, being the Fernley lecture of 1884, by Benjamin Hellier.

http://www.archive.org/details/universalmission00helluoft

The Union Mission hymnal, with which is incorporated "Hymns for Heart and Life" / edited by Fredk. C. Spurr ; the harmonies of the non-copyright pieces revised by Henry C. Banister.

http://www.archive.org/details/theunionmissiony00spuruoft

Complying with the NIH Public Access Policy - Copyright Considerations and Options

On January 11, 2008, the National Institutes of Health ('NIH') adopted a revised Public Access Policy for peer-reviewed journal articles reporting research supported in whole or in part by NIH funds. Under the revised policy, the grantee shall ensure that a copy of the author's final manuscript, including any revisions made during the peer review process, be electronically submitted to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central ('PMC') archive and that the person submitting the manuscript will designate a time not later than 12 months after publication at which NIH may make the full text of the manuscript publicly accessible in PMC. NIH adopted this policy to implement a new statutory requirement under which: The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law. This White Paper is written primarily for policymaking staff in universities and other institutional recipients of NIH support responsible for ensuring compliance with the Public Access Policy. The January 11, 2008, Public Access Policy imposes two new compliance mandates. First, the grantee must ensure proper manuscript submission. The version of the article to be submitted is the final version over which the author has control, which must include all revisions made after peer review. The statutory command directs that the manuscript be submitted to PMC 'upon acceptance for publication.' That is, the author's final manuscript should be submitted to PMC at the same time that it is sent to the publisher for final formatting and copy editing. Proper submission is a two-stage process. The electronic manuscript must first be submitted through a process that requires input of additional information concerning the article, the author(s), and the nature of NIH support for the research reported. NIH then formats the manuscript into a uniform, XML-based format used for PMC versions of articles. In the second stage of the submission process, NIH sends a notice to the Principal Investigator requesting that the PMC-formatted version be reviewed and approved. Only after such approval has grantee's manuscript submission obligation been satisfied. Second, the grantee also has a distinct obligation to grant NIH copyright permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible through PMC not later than 12 months after the date of publication. This obligation is connected to manuscript submission because the author, or the person submitting the manuscript on the author's behalf, must have the necessary rights under copyright at the time of submission to give NIH the copyright permission it requires. This White Paper explains and analyzes only the scope of the grantee's copyright-related obligations under the revised Public Access Policy and suggests six options for compliance with that aspect of the grantee's obligation. Time is of the essence for NIH grantees. As a practical matter, the grantee should have a compliance process in place no later than April 7, 2008. More specifically, the new Public Access Policy applies to any article accepted for publication on or after April 7, 2008 if the article arose under (1) an NIH Grant or Cooperative Agreement active in Fiscal Year 2008, (2) direct funding from an NIH Contract signed after April 7, 2008, (3) direct funding from the NIH Intramural Program, or (4) from an NIH employee. In addition, effective May 25, 2008, anyone submitting an application, proposal or progress report to the NIH must include the PMC reference number when citing articles arising from their NIH funded research. (This includes applications submitted to the NIH for the May 25, 2008 and subsequent due dates.) Conceptually, the compliance challenge that the Public Access Policy poses for grantees is easily described. The grantee must depend to some extent upon the author(s) to take the necessary actions to ensure that the grantee is in compliance with the Public Access Policy because the electronic manuscripts and the copyrights in those manuscripts are initially under the control of the author(s). As a result, any compliance option will require an explicit understanding between the author(s) and the grantee about how the manuscript and the copyright in the manuscript are managed. It is useful to conceptually keep separate the grantee's manuscript submission obligation from its copyright permission obligation because the compliance personnel concerned with manuscript management may differ from those responsible for overseeing the author's copyright management. With respect to copyright management, the grantee has the following six options: (1) rely on authors to manage copyright but also to request or to require that these authors take responsibility for amending publication agreements that call for transfer of too many rights to enable the author to grant NIH permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible ('the Public Access License'); (2) take a more active role in assisting authors in negotiating the scope of any copyright transfer to a publisher by (a) providing advice to authors concerning their negotiations or (b) by acting as the author's agent in such negotiations; (3) enter into a side agreement with NIH-funded authors that grants a non-exclusive copyright license to the grantee sufficient to grant NIH the Public Access License; (4) enter into a side agreement with NIH-funded authors that grants a non-exclusive copyright license to the grantee sufficient to grant NIH the Public Access License and also grants a license to the grantee to make certain uses of the article, including posting a copy in the grantee's publicly accessible digital archive or repository and authorizing the article to be used in connection with teaching by university faculty; (5) negotiate a more systematic and comprehensive agreement with the biomedical publishers to ensure either that the publisher has a binding obligation to submit the manuscript and to grant NIH permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible or that the author retains sufficient rights to do so; or (6) instruct NIH-funded authors to submit manuscripts only to journals with binding deposit agreements with NIH or to journals whose copyright agreements permit authors to retain sufficient rights to authorize NIH to make manuscripts publicly accessible.

Living long-term with acquired brain injury in Ireland: towards a counter discourse

Irish literature on Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) is very scant and is mainly deficits and/or needs based. The focus is generally on how to manage the short term needs of the younger population with ABI. The starting position of my thesis is that people living long-term with ABI are important participants in developing knowledge about this social phenomenon, living with ABI while accepting that their brain injury does not determine them. Six mature adults with ABI and their six significant others participated in this longitudinal study. Using a narrative approach in interviews, over twenty months, five repeat individual interviews with each of the twelve participants was held. From this I gained an understanding of their lived experiences, their life-world and their experiences of our local public ABI/disability services, systems and discourse. Along with this new empirical data, theoretical developments from occupational therapy, occupational science, sociology, and disability studies were also used within a meta-narrative informed by critical theory and critical realism to develop a synthesis of this study. Social analysis of their narratives co-constructed with me, allowed me generate nuanced insights into tendencies and social processes that impacted and continues to impact on their everyday-everynight living. I discuss in some depth here, the relational attitudinal, structural, occupational and environmental supports, barriers or discrimination that they face(d) in their search for social participation and community inclusion. Personal recognition of the disabled participants by their family, friends and/or local community, was generally enhanced after much suffering, social supports, slow recovery, and with some form of meaningful occupational engagement. This engagement was generally linked with pre-injury interests or habits, while Time itself became both a major aid and a need. The present local ABI discourse seldom includes advocacy and inclusion in everyday/every night local events, yet most participants sought both peer-support or collective recognition, and social/community inclusion to help develop their own counter-discourse to the dominant ABI discourse. This thesis aims to give a broad social explanation on aspects of their social becoming, 'self-sameness' and social participation, and the status of the disabled participants wanting to live 'the slow life'. Tensions and dialectical issues involved in moving from the category of a person in coma, to person with a disability, to being a citizen should not demote the need for special services. While individualized short-term neuro-rehabilitation is necessary, it is not sufficient. Along with the participants, this researcher asks that community health and/or social care planners and service-providers rethink how ABI is understood and represented, and how people with ABI are included in their local communities

Not thinking straight? A critical discourse analysis of the 2006 Irish High Court ruling in Zappone and Gilligan v. Revenue Commissioners and Attorney General

The recognition and protection of constitutional rights is a fundamental precept. In Ireland, the right to marry is provided for in the equality provisions of Article 40 of the Irish Constitution (1937). However, lesbians and gay men are denied the right to marry in Ireland. The ‘last word’ on this issue came into being in the High Court in 2006, when Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan sought, but failed, to have their Canadian marriage recognised in Ireland. My thesis centres on this constitutional court ruling. So as to contextualise the pursuit of marriage equality in Ireland, I provide details of the Irish trajectory vis-à-vis relationship and family recognition for same-sex couples. In Chapter One, I discuss the methodological orientation of my research, which derives from a critical perspective. Chapter Two denotes my theorisation of the principle of equality and the concept of difference. In Chapter Three, I discuss the history of the institution of marriage in the West with its legislative underpinning. Marriage also has a constitutional underpinning in Ireland, which derives from Article 41 of our Constitution. In Chapter Four, I discuss ways in which marriage and family were conceptualised in Ireland, by looking at historical controversies surrounding the legalisation of contraception and divorce. Chapter Five denotes a Critical Discourse Analysis of the High Court ruling in Zappone and Gilligan. In Chapter Six, I critique text from three genres of discourse, i.e. ‘Letters to the Editor’ regarding same-sex marriage in Ireland, communication from legislators vis-à-vis the 2004 legislative impediment to same-sex marriage in Ireland, and parliamentary debates surrounding the 2010 enactment of civil partnership legislation in Ireland. I conclude my research by reflecting on my methodological and theoretical considerations with a view to answering my research questions. Author’s Update: Following the outcome of the 2015 constitutional referendum vis-à-vis Article 41, marriage equality has been realised in Ireland.