a summary of Mann and Thompson's RST relations
Jim Davis
begun October 1999

From: 
Mann, Mattheissen and Thompson
Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis
USC ISI Research Report 89-242, Nov 1989

Rhetorical Structure Theory:
A Theory of Text Organization
William C. Mann and Sandra A. Thompson
ISI/RS-87-190
June 1987

Cn: constraint on Nucleus
Cs: constraint on Satellite
Cc: constraint on combination
E:  intended effect
L:  locus of effect

R reader, W writer
N, S nucleus, satellite

<<cc>> the situation in CC.  For many of these the effect is just that R
understand or recognize whatever is in CC

----


Evidence
 Cn: reader does not (sufficiently) believe N
 Cs: reader believes S
 Cc: belief in S increases belief in N
 E: belief in N increased
 L: N

Concesssion
 Cn: W supports S
 Cs: W does not deny S
 Cc: W acknowledges potential or apparemt incompatibility between N and S.
     W believes N and S are in fact compatible
     understanding the compatibility increases R's regard for N
 E:  increase R's regard for N
 L:  N and S


Elaboration
 Cn:
 Cs:
 Cc: S presents additional detail about the situation or some element of 
     subject matter presented in or inferentially accessible from N.
 E:  R recognizes <cc>  R identifies the subject matter for which detail is
     presented.
 L: ns 

examples: set/member, abstract/instance, whole/part, process/step,
object/attribute, generalization/specific


Motivation
 Cn: presents action A where R is actor
 Cs:
 Cc: comprehending S increases R motivation to do A
 E:  R's desire to do A increased.
 L:  n 

Condition
 Cn:
 Cs:
 Cc:
 E:
 L:  

 ?? maybe S is the circumstance under which N may occur ??
 ?? but then what's circumstance ??

Evaluation
 Cn:
 Cs:
 Cc:
 E:
 L:  

Justify
 Cn:
 Cs:
 Cc:
 E: increase acceptance of W's right to present N
 L:  

Circumstance
 Cn: 
 Cs: S presents a situation not unrealized
 Cc: S sets a framework in the subject matter within which R is
     intended to interpret N
 E:  R recognize <<cc>>
 L: ns

 Example (p 14)
   N: Cleaning agents on the surface of the ECtype coating actually
      remove build-up from the head
   S: while lubricating it at the same time

 [I don't see how the example works.]


Background
 Cn: R can't understand N without S
 Cs: (R understands S)
 Cc: S increases ability of R to understand N
 E:  R's ability to comprehend N increases
 L:  N


Otherwise
 Cn:
 Cs:
 Cc: S is prevented by N
 E:
 L:  

Restatement 
 Cn:
 Cs:
 Cc: S restates N.  S and N of comparable bulk
 E: R recognizes S as a restatement of N
 L:  ns


Anti-thesis (subtype of Contrast)
 Cn:
 Cs:
 Cc:
 E:
 L:  

 ? S is the opposite of N

Solutionhood
 Cn:
 Cs: presents a problem
 Cc: N is a (partial) solution to S
 E: R recognizes that N is a (partial) solution to S
 L: ns 

The scope of "problem" includes questions, requests, conditions that
carry negative values.

Enablement - S enables R to do N
 Cn:
 Cs:
 Cc:
 E:
 L:  

[Volitional     ][Cause]   S causes N
[Non-Volitional ][Result]  S is result of N

Purpose
 Cn: presents an activity
 Cs: presents an unrealized situation
 Cc: S is realized through N
 E: R recognizes <<cc>>
 L:  ns

Interpretation - S relates N to some framework
 Cn:
 Cs:
 Cc:
 E:
 L:  

Summary -S restates N, size s less than N
 Cn:
 Cs:
 Cc:
 E:
 L:  

Means
 Cn: presents an action
 Cs: none
 Cc: situation in S tends to make possible or likely the situation in N
 E:  R recognizes <<cc>>
 L:  N and S

Note: this is not found in the short list on p 18

--- multinuclear

Sequence
 Cc: a succession relation
 E: R recognizes <<cc>>


Contrast
 Cc: no more than two.  the situations are the same in many respects, differing in at least one, compared with respect to those differences
 E: R recognizes <<cc>>


Joint
 None.

---------- some notes on RST by JRD

Mann and Thompson 1987

RST...scope is written monologue.  units are typically clauses

an RST analysis is a functional analysis of the intended effect of a text
on the reader.

relations among clauses

a relation is 
 constraint on N
 constraint on S
 constraint on combination of N and S
 intended effect

schema - patterns of span and relation
 S N (e.g. circumstance)
 N N constrast
 N N+ joint
 S S N a --motivation--> b <--enablement-- c
 N N+ (+ ordering) sequence


There are conventional canonical orderings, but not required by theory.

some relations are causally related to the domain (cause) others to the
presentation itself (justify).

if you can't find a  nucleus, no RST is possible.

you can often delete the S and retain coherence, but deleting N makes
incoherent.

Grosz and Sidner consider attention, but RST does not.