In an investigation of structural and semantic/pragmatic focusing, subjects read sentences containing two clauses connected by either "because" or "so". The first clause introduced two individuals; the second contained an anaphor (pronoun or name) that referred to one of the individuals. The two individuals in each sentence filled either Agent and Patient thematic roles (Action sentences), Goal and Source thematic roles (Transfer sentences), or Experiencer and Stimulus thematic roles (State sentences). Predictions were made on the assumption that the focusing of a discourse referent is revised and updated as each new input is encountered. Results for the pronoun conditions, showed that in action sentences, the time taken to read the clause containing the pronoun was facilitated when the pronoun referred to the first mentioned individual. In transfer sentences, reading times for the second clause were facilitated when the pronoun referred to the Goal rather than the Source and also when the pronoun referred to the first rather than the second mentioned individual. In state sentences, reading times were facilitated when the pronoun referred to the Experiencer in sentences containing "so", and
The reading times for clauses continuing pronouns and repeated names were also compared. Previous studies have found that there is a "repeated name penalty" when a repeated name is used instead of a pronoun to refer to the highest ranked entity of the preceding sentence. That is, in comparison to sentences containing pronouns, reading times are slowed for sentence containing repeated names. It is also generally assumed that this highest ranked entity is structurally prominent, either by being the subject of the sentence or the first mentioned entity. However, thematic prominence has not been considered. This study, therefore, pitted structural prominence against thematic prominence in an examination of the repeated name penalty. The results showed that in Action sentences there was a repeated name penalty when the anaphor referred to the Agent of the preceding clause. In Transfer sentences, there was a repeated name penalty when the anaphor referred to first mentioned individual. In State sentences, there was no repeated name penalty. These results suggest that the backward looking center is associated with the Agent rather than the first mentioned or subject entity in the preceding sentence.