<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style>body{font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px}</style>
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
Eduard,<br>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Maybe the preoccupation with creating an inclination in the reader comes out of traditional rhetoric and its focus on persuasion. The realization that persuasion seems to be aim of much writing seems to be at the basis of M&T’s notion
of positive regard. To quote a familiar passage:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“Writers pursue different sorts of goals with different texts and text spans. Some are intended to persuade, i.e., to create belief. Others are intended to create an attitude of approval or interest. Others are intended to create desire
(specifically, an intention to act.) All are varieties of positive regard. In analyzing any text span and breaking it into parts, we use a single, primary notion of positive regard
<span class="s1"><span style="font-size:7.0pt">-- </span></span>belief, approval, or desire
<span class="s1"><span style="font-size:7.0pt">-- </span></span>chosen on the analyst's perception of the writer's intent” (MT87, p.12).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As for the limitations of taxonomies, I wholeheartedly agree. RST is a lens we can use to examine language, and using it we can see some things clearly that are not readily apparent through other lenses. But those other lenses show us
other things. And the world abounds in duck-rabbits. (I refer to the drawing made famous by Wittgenstein, not the beer :)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Andrew</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<!--EndFragment-->
</body>
</html>