Relations that are seldom or never signaled

[Manfred Stede]

Ali wrote:
>levels: the idea of multiple levels is a very large and expensive piece
of
>theoretical machinery, and we should be very sure we actually need it.
In
>the above example, for instance, I really don't feel it's necessary. I
>think we can imagine a rich definition of the relation of justification

>that nets in both the idea of logical consequence and the idea of
>`sufficient comprehension' that's at the heart of the BACKGROUND
relation.
>Of course, one example isn't going to prove the case. But I think that
>the debate we've been having on the relationship between connectives
and
>coherence relations leads naturally into the debate about the need for
>multiple levels. Which is another can of worms, but one worth opening!

[head of a worm]
Doesn't the discussion on the hard-to-distinguish JUSTIFICATION and
BACKGROUND indeed provide some evidence for >1 level? CRST says that
JUSTIFICATION: S increases readiness to accept W's right to present N
BACKGROUND: S increases ability to comprehend N
and it seems that these two are not unlikely to co-occur: when the
reader is inclined to accept writer's right to say N on the grounds of
S, then S may very well be said to ease comprehension of N.  A
constructed example:
"Yesterday I was almost run over by a car. And even now I'm still
frightened by any motor sound."
As soon as I have to decide on either JUST or BACK, I miss the other
aspect. Which doesn't right away prove the necessity for assuming
multiple levels -- but if the same distinction can be pinned down to
show up with other relation pairs...
[can, opened]

cheers,
Manfred