<div dir="ltr"><div>Just some thoughts in response to Andrew:</div><div><br></div>Restatement and Summary can indeed serve to increase or secure comprehension (esp. if Restatement involves a reformulation), but they are more flexible than that. First of all, they will often simply direct the attention (esp. for Restatements that are or contain literal repetitions) and thus influence memory or recall. In argumentation, Restatement or Summary<span class="sew9x5zphap6hmt"></span><span class="sewxgtpoqk2d6du"></span> may add emphasis and thus support the persuasive force. In some genres, summaries are required (e.g. the lead [=summary] not only catches the attention, but also identifies an article as a news article as opposed to a background article or commentary), and some rhetorical schemes may require a kind of coda, where a final element would be a restatement of the initial claim or theme or indeed a summary marking closure. As those functions are hard to identify with any certainty, the definition in terms of length and identity of content (leaving the particular rhetorical function(s) unspecified in the relation choice), does seem preferable. <div><div><div><br></div><div>It is true that Restatement and Summary are somewhat uncomfortable members of the Presentational group, as they are defined in terms of a relation between states of affair (i.e. identity) and relative length ('bulk') of the elements and not in terms of a speech-act relation (i.e. the illocutionary force of one element wrt another). But they clearly do not belong in the Subject Matter class, as they do not assert relations in the world<span class="sew9x5zphap6hmt"></span><span class="sewxgtpoqk2d6du"></span> the discourse refers to (a caused/followed/.. b etc.), but hold between the discourse elements themselves (textual relations). </div><div>This is actually something that I find more disturbing for the Background relation, as it can take two quite different forms: (i) giving some kind of definition (clearly presentational, relating to an expression in the discourse) and (ii) adding background information (where it becomes hard to distinguish from Elaboration unless it is strictly identificational as in "This is the stuff you also find in xx").<br></div></div></div><div><br></div><div>Gisela</div><div><br></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 Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 2:39 AM, 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 style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space">
<div id="m_288508294444366852bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;color:rgba(0,0,0,1.0);margin:0px;line-height:auto">
<p class="MsoNormal">Preparation, Restatement, and Summary are late additions to the list of Presentational relations. Restatement and Summary were originally designated as Subject Matter relations, and Preparation was not originally included at all. I can
see how Preparation belongs there. Its intended effect is that the reader will be more ready, interested, or oriented for reading the nucleus. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Restatement and Summary, however, are no so clear. Restatement, as defined (<a href="http://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/definitions.html" target="_blank">http://www.sfu.ca/rst/<wbr>01intro/definitions.html</a> and elsewhere), states that the reader will recognize
that the satellite is a restatement of the nucleus. That sounds a bit like saying that the intent of the Restatement relation is that the reader will recognize that the restatement is a restatement. I don’t understand what inclination in the reader that
applies to. Summary is similarly defined. The effect of Summary is that the reader will recognize that the summary is a summary. Or am I just not reading these definitions correctly? </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I can imagine making the case that the intended effects of Restatement and Summary are to increase reader comprehension, similar the Background relation. But that’s not what the good book says... </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Any thoughts?</p><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<p class="MsoNormal"> Andrew<u></u><u></u></p>
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
<div id="m_288508294444366852bloop_sign_1518485753814741248" class="m_288508294444366852bloop_sign">
<div style="font-family:helvetica,arial;font-size:13px">-- <br>
<b>Andrew Potter, PhD</b></div>
<div><font face="helvetica, arial">Assistant Professor</font></div>
<div style="font-family:helvetica,arial;font-size:13px">Computer Science and Information Systems</div>
<div style="font-family:helvetica,arial;font-size:13px">University of North Alabama</div>
<div style="font-family:helvetica,arial;font-size:13px"><br>
</div>
</div>
</font></span></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>