<div dir="ltr"><div><blockquote type="cite" style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:13px"><div>On Aug 31, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Potter, Andrew Nelson <<a href="mailto:apotter1@una.edu" target="_blank">apotter1@una.edu</a>> wrote:</div><div><div class="gmail-m_-8436933507183283216WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px"><div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">On the RST Web site, the Restatement and Summary relations are identified as Presentational relations. In earlier Mann and Thompson (1988), they are identified as Subject Matter Relations. Having given this some thought, I can see how a case could be made for this, i.e. that the reader’s ability to comprehend the nucleus is increased. But I have some concerns about that interpretation. I wonder if anyone recalls previous discussion of this, and if so, what the upshot may have been.</div></div></div></blockquote></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:13px">A few thoughts:</span></div><ol><li style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:13px">The distinction between Subject Matter and Presentational relations is problematic in various respects (for a brief discussion see Van der Vliet & Redeker 2014); the status of the textual relations Summary and Restatement is just one of those problems. Another problematic case is the classification of Background as Presentational, although it would not seem to fit the definition of this category in MT87 (p.18), which stipulates that the satellite must "increase some inclination of the reader.”</li><li style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:13px">The classification of Summary and Restatement as Subject Matter relations (deviating from MT87/88) dates back (at least) to Bill Mann’s RST website. The version of 7th Jan 2000 of that website was the basis for the extMT relation definitions in the RSTTool and is still available at <a href="http://www.wagsoft.com/RSTTool/RSTDefs.htm" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.wagsoft.com/RSTTool<wbr>/RSTDefs.htm</a></li><li style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:13px">In Abelen, Redeker & Thompson (1993) the textual relations Summary and Restatement were found to pattern with ideational (subject matter) relations and not with interpersonal (presentational) relations in a comparison of US American and Dutch fund-raising letters, where the Dutch letters were found to focus on information content, while the US letters are openly persuasive.</li><li style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:13px">I wonder if there are any other studies available that may add corpus-based evidence relevant to this question. A decision on purely theoretical/conceptual grounds seems unattainable given the rather vague definitions of the categories "Subject Matter" and "Presentational". Maybe Summary and Restatement should be kept separate as textual relations, classifying the RST relations in the three-way distinction of Ideational, Interpersonal, and Textual that was developed and elaborately researched in Systemic Functional Grammar?</li></ol><div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:13px;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;line-height:normal">Best regards,</div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:13px;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;line-height:normal">Gisela</div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:13px;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;line-height:normal"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:13px;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;line-height:normal"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:13px;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;line-height:normal"><b>References</b></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:13px;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;line-height:normal"><div class="gmail-page" title="Page 1"><div class="gmail-layoutArea"><div class="gmail-column"><p>Abelen, Eric, Gisela Redeker & Sandra A. Thompson. 1993. The rhetorical structure of US-American and Dutch fund-raising letters. Text 13(3). 323-350.</p></div></div></div></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:13px;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;line-height:normal"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt">Van der Vliet, N., & Redeker, G. (2014). Explicit and implicit coherence relations in Dutch texts. In H. Gruber & G. Redeker (eds.) <i>The pragmatics of discourse coherence: Theory and Applications</i> (pp. 23-52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.</p></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Gisela Redeker<div>Professor of Communication</div><div>University of Groningen</div><div><a href="mailto:g.redeker@rug.nl" target="_blank">g.redeker@rug.nl</a></div><div><a href="http://www.let.rug.nl/redeker" target="_blank">www.let.rug.nl/redeker</a></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Potter, Andrew Nelson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:apotter1@una.edu" target="_blank">apotter1@una.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="m_518868550268998097WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">On the RST Web site, the Restatement and Summary relations are identified as Presentational relations. In earlier Mann and Thompson (1988), they are identified as Subject Matter Relations. Having given this some thought, I can see how
a case could be made for this, i.e. that the reader’s ability to comprehend the nucleus is increased. But I have some concerns about that interpretation. I wonder if anyone recalls previous discussion of this, and if so, what the upshot may have been.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks for any thoughts!<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Andrew<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Andrew Potter, PhD<u></u><u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Assistant Professor<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Computer Science and Information Systems<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">University of North Alabama<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Rstlist mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Rstlist@listserv.linguistlist.org">Rstlist@listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org</a><br>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/rstlist" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/rstlist</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>