[Rstlist] Preparation, Restatement, and Summary

Wed Feb 14 00:56:41 UTC 2018

Further thoughts…
It does seem clear these relations do not belong in the Subject Matter class.  It would appear that part of the problem is that the stated definitions leave them with a poor fit for the Presentational class.  The definitions assigned to Restatement and Summary as Presentational relations are identical to their earlier definitions as Subject Matter relations.  they’ve simply been moved from one table to the other.  We could adjust their definitions to more closely align with that of the Background relation, but as you point out, they are applied in diverse ways, not all of which are presentational.  Of concern to me is that there are two sides to this: the judgement of the RST analyst in deciding when to use these relations, and another in determining how to interpret these analyses.
Another thing to consider is that if Restatement is Presentational, what does that tell us about multinuclear Restatement?  Again, as with the mono-nuclear relations, the issue of bulk is deemed relevant (a re-expression by the linked items), but if it can also serve to increase or secure comprehension, then there is the possibility that it too should be considered Presentational.  That seems kind of interesting.
  Andrew

On February 13, 2018 at 4:47:09 PM, Redeker, Gisela (g.redeker at rug.nl<mailto:g.redeker at rug.nl>) wrote:

Just some thoughts in response to Andrew:

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 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.

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 the discourse refers to (a caused/followed/.. b etc.), but hold between the discourse elements themselves (textual relations).
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").

Gisela

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 Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 2:39 AM, Potter, Andrew Nelson <apotter1 at una.edu<mailto:apotter1 at una.edu>> wrote:
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.
Restatement and Summary, however, are no so clear.  Restatement, as defined (http://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/definitions.html 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?
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...
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

_______________________________________________
Rstlist mailing list
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/20180214/b8860639/attachment.htm>