[Rstlist] Restatement and Summary

Fri Sep 1 15:31:26 UTC 2017

Very interesting!  Here are some further thoughts.

Much depends on the use to which we wish to put an RST analysis.  Although the distinction between presentational and subject matter relations is not without limitations, to the extent that it can be made, it can be useful.  Presentational relations are relations whose intended effect is to increase some inclination in the reader.   As such, an instance of a presentational relation provides us with information about  the writer’s expectation of the reader’s view of the status of the nucleus.  That is, from the writer’s perspective, some inclination in the reader requires increasing.  For the analyst, this may not always be readily discernible.  But in many cases it seems rather clear.  For example, there are in the Discourse Relations Reference Corpus clear examples of Antithesis, Concession, Enablement, Motivation, and so on.  In these relations there is a dependency between the nucleus and the satellite.  That is, the nucleus depends on the satellite for its acceptability.  This is important, if the use to which we wish to put an RST analysis involves the study of argument or logic.  It may not be significant for other purposes.

Restatement and Summary, as defined in RST, do not indicate an increase in some inclination in the reader.  As defined, the intention of these relations is that the reader recognizes that the satellite is a restatement of the nucleus.  Or, viewed as textual relations, they serve the goal of clarity.  But looking at examples, such as those in MT87, it appears the writer very much wants to increase some inclination in the reader.  In the "Well Groomed Car" example of restatement,

1. A WELL-GROOMED CAR REFLECTS ITS OWNER

2. The car you drive says a lot about you.

Where 2 is the satellite of 1, the writer seeks emphasize the importance of keeping the car clean, and thereby convince the readers to avail themselves of the car cleaning service.  This seems to go beyond serving the goal of clarity or serving to help organize the text for the reader.  The intent is persuasion.  OK, that is just one example.  But if more extensive review supports this understanding, then it seems that restatement and summary may well be presentational, but if so, their definitions are in need of revision.  And perhaps non-presentational instances of Restatement should be coded as Multinuclear Restatement?

Actually, I am finding these thoughts a little discomfiting, realizing that I have taken a different stance on these matters in a paper now in review, where I have claimed that for these relations, because the satellite and nucleus say the same thing, they are logically equivalent.  That still seems true, and at least it is consistent with the standard RST definitions.  But I’ll need to investigate this further.

In one of my former careers (I’ve had a few), as a librarian, among the issues I experienced daily many involved the frailties of any classification system.  Neither nature nor language seem to have much sympathy for our efforts to ontologize the world.  Is there any reason why a relation could not serve multiple functions?  As you say, Eduard, what seems simple at first just gets more complex.

  Andrew

---

Andrew Potter, PhD

Assistant Professor

Computer Science and Information Systems

University of North Alabama

________________________________
From: Redeker, Gisela <g.redeker at rug.nl>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 4:49:48 PM
To: Potter, Andrew Nelson
Cc: RSTLIST at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: [Rstlist] Restatement and Summary

On Aug 31, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Potter, Andrew Nelson <apotter1 at una.edu<mailto:apotter1 at una.edu>> wrote:
On the RST Web site, the Restatement and Summary relations are identified as Presentational relations.  In earlier Mann and Thompson (1988), they are identified as Subject Matter Relations.  Having given this some thought, I can see how a case could be made for this, i.e. that the reader’s ability to comprehend the nucleus is increased.  But I have some concerns about that interpretation.  I wonder if anyone recalls previous discussion of this, and if so, what the upshot may have been.

A few thoughts:

  1.  The distinction between Subject Matter and Presentational relations is problematic in various respects (for a brief discussion see Van der Vliet & Redeker 2014); the status of the textual relations Summary and Restatement is just one of those problems. Another problematic case is the classification of Background as Presentational, although it would not seem to fit the definition of this category in MT87 (p.18), which stipulates that the satellite must "increase some inclination of the reader.”
  2.  The classification of Summary and Restatement as Subject Matter relations (deviating from MT87/88) dates back (at least) to Bill Mann’s RST website. The version of 7th Jan 2000 of that website was the basis for the extMT relation definitions in the RSTTool and is still available at  http://www.wagsoft.com/RSTTool/RSTDefs.htm
  3.  In Abelen, Redeker & Thompson (1993) the textual relations Summary and Restatement were found to pattern with ideational (subject matter) relations and not with interpersonal (presentational) relations in a comparison of US American and Dutch fund-raising letters, where the Dutch letters were found to focus on information content, while the US letters are openly persuasive.
  4.  I wonder if there are any other studies available that may add corpus-based evidence relevant to this question. A decision on purely theoretical/conceptual grounds seems unattainable given the rather vague definitions of the categories "Subject Matter" and "Presentational". Maybe Summary and Restatement should be kept separate as textual relations, classifying the RST relations in the three-way distinction of Ideational, Interpersonal, and Textual that was developed and elaborately researched in Systemic Functional Grammar?

Best regards,
Gisela

References

Abelen, Eric, Gisela Redeker & Sandra A. Thompson. 1993. The rhetorical structure of US-American and Dutch fund-raising letters. Text 13(3). 323-350.
Van der Vliet, N., & Redeker, G. (2014). Explicit and implicit coherence relations in Dutch texts. In H. Gruber & G. Redeker (eds.) The pragmatics of discourse coherence: Theory and Applications (pp. 23-52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Gisela Redeker
Professor of Communication
University of Groningen
g.redeker at rug.nl<mailto:g.redeker at rug.nl>
www.let.rug.nl/redeker<http://www.let.rug.nl/redeker>

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Potter, Andrew Nelson <apotter1 at una.edu<mailto:apotter1 at una.edu>> wrote:
On the RST Web site, the Restatement and Summary relations are identified as Presentational relations.  In earlier Mann and Thompson (1988), they are identified as Subject Matter Relations.  Having given this some thought, I can see how a case could be made for this, i.e. that the reader’s ability to comprehend the nucleus is increased.  But I have some concerns about that interpretation.  I wonder if anyone recalls previous discussion of this, and if so, what the upshot may have been.

Thanks for any thoughts!

  Andrew

Andrew Potter, PhD
Assistant Professor
Computer Science and Information Systems
University of North Alabama

_______________________________________________
Rstlist mailing list
Rstlist at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Rstlist at listserv.linguistlist.org>
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/rstlist

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/rstlist/attachments/20170901/1fa9cbfc/attachment.htm>