<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;" dir="ltr">
<p></p>
<div>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;">Very interesting!<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>Here are some further thoughts.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;">Much depends on the use to which we wish to put an RST analysis.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>Although the distinction between presentational and subject matter relations is not without limitations, to the extent that it can be made, it can be useful.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>Presentational relations are relations whose intended effect is to increase some inclination in the reader.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>As such, an instance of a presentational relation provides us with information about
<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>the writer’s expectation of the reader’s view of the status of the nucleus.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>That is, from the writer’s perspective, some inclination in the reader requires increasing.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>For the analyst, this may not always be readily discernible. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>But in many cases it seems rather clear.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>
For example, there are in the Discourse Relations Reference Corpus clear examples of Antithesis, Concession, Enablement, Motivation, and so on.
<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In these relations there is a dependency between the nucleus and the satellite.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>That is, the nucleus depends on the satellite for its acceptability.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>This is important, if the use to which we wish to put an RST analysis involves the study of argument or logic.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>It may not be significant for other purposes.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;">Restatement and Summary, as defined in RST, do not indicate an increase in some inclination in the reader.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>As defined, the intention of these relations is that the reader recognizes that the satellite is a restatement of the nucleus.
<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Or, viewed as textual relations, they serve the goal of clarity.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>But looking at examples, such as those in MT87, it appears the writer very much wants to increase some inclination in the reader.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>In the "Well Groomed Car" example of restatement,</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;">1. A WELL-GROOMED CAR REFLECTS ITS OWNER</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;">2. The car you drive says a lot about you.
</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;">Where 2 is the satellite of 1, the writer seeks emphasize the importance of keeping the car clean, and thereby convince the readers to avail themselves of the car cleaning service.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>This seems to go beyond serving the goal of clarity or serving to help organize the text for the reader.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>The intent is persuasion.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>OK, that is just one example.
<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>But if more extensive review supports this understanding, then it seems that restatement and summary may well be presentational, but if so, their definitions are in need of revision.
<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>And perhaps non-presentational instances of Restatement should be coded as Multinuclear Restatement?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;">Actually, I am finding these thoughts a little discomfiting, realizing that I have taken a different stance on these matters in a paper now in review, where I have claimed that for
these relations, because the satellite and nucleus say the same thing, they are logically equivalent.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>That still seems true, and at least it is consistent with the standard RST definitions.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>But I’ll need to investigate this further.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;">In one of my former careers (I’ve had a few), as a librarian, among the issues I experienced daily many involved the frailties of any classification system.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>Neither nature nor language seem to have much sympathy for our efforts to ontologize the world.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>Is there any reason why a relation could not serve multiple functions?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>As you say, Eduard, what seems simple at first just gets more complex.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>Andrew</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"></span><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"></span><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"></span><br>
</p>
</div>
<p></p>
<div id="Signature">
<div dir="ltr" id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif,"EmojiFont","Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji",NotoColorEmoji,"Segoe UI Symbol","Android Emoji",EmojiSymbols;">
<p>---<br>
<strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>Andrew Potter, PhD</strong></p>
<p>Assistant Professor<strong><br>
</strong></p>
<p>Computer Science and Information Systems</p>
<p>University of North Alabama<br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Redeker, Gisela <g.redeker@rug.nl><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 31, 2017 4:49:48 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Potter, Andrew Nelson<br>
<b>Cc:</b> RSTLIST@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Rstlist] Restatement and Summary</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<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>
</div>
</body>
</html>