Help - Concession

[Le Thanh Huong]

Dear Maite et al.,

Thank you for replying to my email. We've only received a few replies
to this problem and haven’t come up with the final decision yet.
For a temporary solution, we assign “although” to satellite;
“but” to the second (or final) span of a discourse relation. 
We also looked at the RST website, however we couldn’t find the
answer there.
All replies are summarized below:

>From Manfred Stede [stede at ling.uni-potsdam.de]

What you're pointing out is a nice example of the general problem of
throwing together the issues of relation-assignment and
nuclearity-assignment. My present position (no longer exactly the
same as in the Grote/Lenke/Stede 97 concession paper) on the
Contrast/Concession/Antithesis cluster is motivated by our recent
work on argumentative text, so it might not fully apply to other text
types, but here we go anyway:

CONTRAST (multinuclear) in my opinion is pretty rare (and incredibly
difficult to define). "But" puts emphasis on the second conjunct and
usually makes an argument in favor of the second. Thus, "but" doesn't
regularly go with Contrast. A "really neutral" contrast such as
"Bill wears green shirts. Tom wears blue sweaters."
is always on the border to plain LIST, I think.

ANTITHESIS (nucl/sat) contrasts two statements and places more
emphasis/"positive regard" on one of them, usually the second.
Witness the famous examples used e.g. by Michael Elhadad:
"He failed the exam, but he is smart. Let's hire him."
"He is smart, but he failed the exam. Let's fire him."

CONCESSION for MannThompson is nucl/sat and "presentational". The
standard lexical signal is "although". However, I prefer to treat all
the real "presentational" cases as Antitheses:
"Although Margaret Thatcher managed to improve the economy, she
didn't really bring the country forward."
Real-presentational means that the evaluations of the stmts is at
issue, not the content of the stmts.
When "content" is at issue, we're merely describing an unusual
correlation of affairs in the world (as discussed in the
abovementioned 97 paper):
(in Grenoble) "Although it was December, we didn't have any snow."
I'd see these as subect-matter rather than presentational and treat
only these cases as CONCESSION. Moreover, I'd treat the relation as
multinuclear, for the point of the utterance is the _correlation_ of
both events - I don't think that one of the elements deserves more
nuclearity than the other.
==============
>From "Wauter Bosma" <bosmaw at cs.utwente.nl>

The diagram in Fig 6 is incorrect? It seems that it is inconsistent 
with the text. The text explains that "the reader, by recognizing
this compatibility, will view the content of unit 18 with positive
regard." According to the definition of CONCESSION (pg 15),
"recognizing the compatibility between the situations presented in N
and S increases R's positive regard for the situation presented in
N." This suggests that the nucleus in Fig 6 should be unit 18, and
not unit 17 as depicted in the diagram.
==============
>From “Maite Taboada" mtaboada at sfu.ca

I've been looking at the examples you provide and I have to admit I
am puzzled myself. As far as I know, Concession improves positive
regard towards the nucleus. 
But two of the examples you provide, where the apparently positive
item is the satellite, are inconsistent, as you point out. I don't
know why.
=====
We look forward to get more answers about this problem. 
Best, Huong


--- Maite Taboada <mtaboada at sfu.ca> wrote:

> Dear Huong Le-Thanh,
> 
> I was wondering if you had received any answers to your query
> below. The 
> list has been quiet, but maybe you got replies to you directly.
> 
> Anyhow, I wanted to reply to your message, although I don't have a
> good 
> answer. I've been looking at the examples you provide and I have to
> admit I 
> am puzzled myself. As far as I know, Concession improves positive
> regard 
> towards the nucleus. There are also definitions and examples on the
> RST web 
> site:
> 
> http://www.sfu.ca/rst/index.html
> 
> But two of the examples you provide, where the apparently positive
> item is 
> the satellite, are inconsistent, as you point out. I don't know
> why.
> 
> Have you received replies from other people. If you have, or if you
> have 
> figured out already why there is this inconsistency? Would you mind
> posting 
> whatever information you have to the  list?
> 
> Best,
> - Maite
> 
> 
> 
> At 08:17 17/06/2005 -0700, you wrote:
> >Dear list members,
> >Could I get some advice from you in the problem below?
> >We’re generating texts with CONCESSION and trying to assign
> >markers.  Looking back at the M&T articles, I see that they are
> >inconsistent in their assignment.  For example:
> >  “But” is assigned to:
> >Nucleus: example in Fig 4, pg 14 of M&T (‘87a), a concession
> >between 5 and (6-7):
> >5. Every rule has exceptions,
> >6. but the tragic and too-common tableaux of hundreds or even
> >thousands of people snake-lining up for any task with a paycheck
> >illustrates a lack of jobs,
> >7. not laziness.
> >Satellite: example in Fig 4. pg 5 of M&T (’87b):
> >2. Faculty members remain Senate members after retirement,
> >3. But no systemwide Senate committee represents emeriti at the
> >present time.
> >
> >“Although” is assigned to:
> >Nucleus: example in Fig 6, pg 16 of M&T(‘87a):
> >17. Although Jim likes tennis, Chinese food, and travel to exotic
> >locates among his favourite hobbies,
> >18. one can’t help but wonder at the unmentioned interests that
> >help spark Jim’s creativity, leading him to concoct an unending
> >stream of imaginative programs.
> >Satellite: example in Fig 5, pg 15 of M&T(‘87a):
> >2. Although it is toxic to certain animals,
> >3. evidence is lacking that it has any serious long-term effect on
> >human beings.
> >
> >Many thanks,
> >Huong Le-Thanh
> >
> >References:
> >M&T 1987a: Rhetorical Structure Theory: A theory of text
> >organisation, ISI report 87-190.
> >M&T 1987b: Antithesis: A Study in Clause Combining and Discourse
> >Structure. ISI report 87-171, also in Language Topics: Essays in
> >Honour of Michael Halliday
> >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> >http://mail.yahoo.com
> 
> _____
> Maite Taboada
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Linguistics
> Simon Fraser University
> 8888 University Dr.
> Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6, Canada
> 
> Tel: 604-291-5585 - Fax: 604-291-5659
> mtaboada at sfu.ca   -   http://www.sfu.ca/~mtaboada
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com