conclusion relation

Thu Aug 21 10:42:32 UTC 2008

Hi Juliano and all,

I agree with Ed (and the other respondents) that there are multiple
relations 
identifiable in this fragment (maybe not exactly the ones he describes, but 
something along the lines of the metafunctions semantic - interpersonal - 
textual seems very plausible).

What I miss, though, is more co- and context. Why is the speaker/writer 
presenting this conclusion? If s/he wants to *argue* B ("thus this guy
doesn't 
need theory or math"), it would be an EVIDENCE relation (as Igor suggested),

if it is e.g. an *explanation* of why the guy gets by without having studied
/
without applying (?) any theory, I'd analyze B as the nucleus of a CAUSE 
relation (paraphrase: "therefore ...", "that's why"), and if it's a
description, 
it could also be the satellite of a RESULT relation (paraphrase: "so ...")
or even
an INTERPRETATION (if he consideration of theory is outside the main focus 
of the text and more of an aside), though the surface cue ("então") might
not 
jive well with that analysis (don't know how flexible "então" is).

Where I differ from Ed, then, is the consequence drawn from the fact that
text 
segments often or always have (more or less obvious) multiple relations. He
argues that RST should not conflate these components. While I agree that
they 
should be recognized and modelled as separate components, I do feel that the

conflation in describing the functional structure of a text is a strength of
RST, 
not a flaw. It allows the analyst to describe the interplay of levels in the

achievement of the writer's purposes. In my experience, focusing on the
writer's 
purposes almost always brings out one of the concurrent relations between 
segments as the most salient one given those purposes. Of course there are 
cases of parallel analyses, but they are as often ambiguities within a 
metafunction than across.

Regards,
Gisela

Gisela Redeker
Professor of Communication Studies 
Center for Language and Cognition Groningen 
Faculty of Arts, University of Groningen 
P.O.Box 716, NL-9700 AS Groningen 
tel.: +31-50-3635973 / fax: +31-50-3636855
g.redeker at rug.nl   http://www.let.rug.nl/~redeker 

-----Original Message-----
From: RST Discussion List [mailto:rstlist at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG] On
Behalf Of Juliano Desiderato Antonio
Sent: donderdag 21 augustus 2008 5:50
To: RSTLIST at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: [RST-LIST] conclusion relation

Hi all of you again and thank you for the discussion. 
In my analysis, the ".. THEN he doesn't need the theory, .. he doesn't need
maths." portion is the nucleus and it is a conclusion that the speaker came
to after analysing the fact that ".. the guy puts integrals wherever he
wants, .. and does whatever he wants the way he wants,". In other words,
what I think is that the satellite leads the speaker to a conclusion, which
is expressed in the nucleus.
On the other hand, I think that CAUSE/ RESULT relations are used when one
event causes another or one event is a result of another.
Do you think that such a distinction be helpful?
Juliano

-----Original Message-----
From: RST Discussion List [mailto:rstlist at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG] On
Behalf Of Eduard Hovy
Sent: donderdag 21 augustus 2008 2:37
To: RSTLIST at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: [RST-LIST] conclusion relation

Hi all,

Juliano, would you agree if one argued that there are three relations 
operating in parallel here between A and B?

A: [[the guy puts integrals wherever he wants,]
      [and does whatever he wants the way he wants,]]
B: [[he doesn't need the theory,]
      [he doesn't need maths.]]

1. reasoned conclusion by the author -- an interpersonal relation:
       "A so/therefore I conclude B"
2. result of state or process in the world -- a semantic relation:
       "B, and as a result A "
3. presentational sequence of the text -- an organizing relation:
       "A then B"
       (also, equivalently, "B then A")

Early RST tended to mix up the various 'dimensions' in which these 
relations are organized, and so obscured the fact that clauses are 
often related in multiple ways at once.  The problem is made worse by 
the fact that English (and probably also Brazilian Portuguese) uses 
the same words for different relations as well.  Your example is a 
nice way of illustrating the need to keep the dimensions apart.

Regards,
E

At 3:28 PM -0700 8/20/08, Maite Taboada wrote:
>Thanks for the interesting example. I'm wondering why a result 
>relation is not appropriate here. Is it because you think the "he 
>doesn't need the theory" part is the nucleus? If so, why not cause 
>either?
>- Maite
>
>Juliano Desiderato Antonio wrote:
>>In Brazilian Portuguese, words like "então" (then) and "logo" (so) are
used
>>to signal a relation of conclusion, as in the following example:
>>
>>..  o cara pega e bota a integral onde ele quer,
>>.. e faz tudo que ele quer do jeito que ele quer, .. então não 
>>precisa de teoria,
>>.. num precisa de matemática,
>>
>>.. the guy puts integrals wherever he wants,
>>.. and does whatever he wants the way he wants,
>>.. THEN he doesn't need the theory,
>>.. he doesn't need maths.
>>
>>Actually, it has been very difficult to find a RST relation for cases like
>>this. So, I have been thinking of creating a new relation like
"conclusion".
>>I'd like to hear from you about that.

-- 
Eduard Hovy
email: hovy at isi.edu            USC Information Sciences Institute
tel: 310-448-8731            4676 Admiralty Way
fax: 310-823-6714            Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
http://www.isi.edu/natural-language/nlp-at-isi.html
Juliano Desiderato Antonio wrote:
> Hi.
> In Brazilian Portuguese, words like "então" (then) and "logo" (so) are
used
> to signal a relation of conclusion, as in the following example:
>
> ..  o cara pega e bota a integral onde ele quer,
> .. e faz tudo que ele quer do jeito que ele quer, 
> .. então não precisa de teoria,
> .. num precisa de matemática,
>
> .. the guy puts integrals wherever he wants,
> .. and does whatever he wants the way he wants,
> .. THEN he doesn't need the theory,
> .. he doesn't need maths.
>
> Actually, it has been very difficult to find a RST relation for cases like
> this. So, I have been thinking of creating a new relation like
"conclusion".
> I'd like to hear from you about that.
> Yours,
> Juliano
>   

-- 
Maite Taboada
Associate Professor
Department of Linguistics	
Simon Fraser University	
8888 University Dr.		
Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6, Canada			

Tel 778-782-5585 - Fax 778-782-5659
mtaboada at sfu.ca   - http//www.sfu.ca/~mtaboada 

-- 
Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo sistema de antivírus e
 acredita-se estar livre de perigo.