gum:rst
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision | |||
|
gum:rst [2022/01/03 17:13] amir |
gum:rst [2022/01/03 18:45] (current) amir rename relation hierarchy |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
| * **Exception: | * **Exception: | ||
| - | * [The harbor master **paid for**]< | + | * [The harbor master **paid for**]< |
| Elliptical coordinate VPs are segmented (roughly corresponding to gapping constructions or Right-Node-Raising, | Elliptical coordinate VPs are segmented (roughly corresponding to gapping constructions or Right-Node-Raising, | ||
| Line 121: | Line 121: | ||
| * [Smith (2000) has shown this convincingly] | * [Smith (2000) has shown this convincingly] | ||
| - | * [This has been shown convincingly] [(Smith 2000)]< | + | * [This has been shown convincingly] [(Smith 2000)]< |
| Note that parenthetical dates in article citations are not EDUs, but parenthetical dates describing dated events, birth years, etc. are EDUs: | Note that parenthetical dates in article citations are not EDUs, but parenthetical dates describing dated events, birth years, etc. are EDUs: | ||
| Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
| * [I got the best ones:] [banana and cherry flavors]< | * [I got the best ones:] [banana and cherry flavors]< | ||
| - | * [Examples: | + | * [Examples: |
| Line 176: | Line 176: | ||
| In clauses with 'every time' or 'by the time', we segment not at the relative clause boundary, but before the ' | In clauses with 'every time' or 'by the time', we segment not at the relative clause boundary, but before the ' | ||
| - | * [Every time you do it]< | + | * [Every time you do it]< |
| - | * [By the time you were done]< | + | * [By the time you were done]< |
| In other words, we do not segment [...time] [you...] and we do segment before 'every time', 'by the time', etc., which is treated the same as ' | In other words, we do not segment [...time] [you...] and we do segment before 'every time', 'by the time', etc., which is treated the same as ' | ||
| Line 185: | Line 185: | ||
| == as soon as == | == as soon as == | ||
| - | The complex conjunction 'as soon as' is taken to introduce a single temporal EDU (usually **circumstance**), | + | The complex conjunction 'as soon as' is taken to introduce a single temporal EDU (usually **context-circumstance**), |
| - | * [They left] [as soon as they had finished eating]< | + | * [They left] [as soon as they had finished eating]< |
| == Leading ' | == Leading ' | ||
| Line 193: | Line 193: | ||
| Initial conjunctions before a subordinator are segmented, and **same-unit** is used to join them to their predicate: | Initial conjunctions before a subordinator are segmented, and **same-unit** is used to join them to their predicate: | ||
| - | * [and]< | + | * [and]< |
| Note that in this example, the ' | Note that in this example, the ' | ||
| Line 199: | Line 199: | ||
| == Fillers 'I mean', 'you know' and ' | == Fillers 'I mean', 'you know' and ' | ||
| - | These are treated as phatic | + | These are treated as phatic |
| - | * [See, | + | * [See, |
| - | * [But]< | + | * [But]< |
| Line 227: | Line 227: | ||
| Typically enough + to are segmented: | Typically enough + to are segmented: | ||
| - | * [Do it enough] [to make it come off]< | + | * [Do it enough] [to make it come off]< |
| - | * [Yell loud enough] [to make it audible next door]< | + | * [Yell loud enough] [to make it audible next door]< |
| - | The ' | + | The ' |
| + | |||
| + | * [They had a fast enough car] [to outrun the police]< | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the last case, outrunning the police is a purpose of the car, but not necessarily a purpose of the entire clause about having the car. | ||
| == Feel like == | == Feel like == | ||
| Line 311: | Line 315: | ||
| * There should be a single top level span or multinuclear node spanning the entire text, i.e. with a unit index 1-N, where N is the length of the document in EDUs. | * There should be a single top level span or multinuclear node spanning the entire text, i.e. with a unit index 1-N, where N is the length of the document in EDUs. | ||
| - | * If several different topics are discussed which form encapsulated ' | + | * If several different topics are discussed which form encapsulated ' |
| * Some typical scenarios of how ' | * Some typical scenarios of how ' | ||
| - | * The series of questions & answers (QAs) in an interview. If no specific rhetorical progression is found between multiple QAs, then each pair may form its own island and these are connected by a **joint** (and not by the more explicitly coordinated **list** relation). Items outside the QA sequence may join the tree at a higher level (e.g. headings as preparation-organization for the entire interview, or an introductory paragraphs giving background about the speakers). | + | * The series of questions & answers (QAs) in an interview. If no specific rhetorical progression is found between multiple QAs, then each pair may form its own island and these are connected by a **joint-other** (and not by the more explicitly coordinated **joint-list** relation). Items outside the QA sequence may join the tree at a higher level (e.g. headings as preparation-organization for the entire interview, or an introductory paragraphs giving background about the speakers). |
| * Note that although the questions in an interview appear in sequence, they are **not** labeled as a sequence either, unless the answers themselves form a chronological succession (answer 1: "first I did X", answer 2: "later we decided to do Y"). Generally the collection of answers simply forms a joint. The figure below gives an example of this structure. | * Note that although the questions in an interview appear in sequence, they are **not** labeled as a sequence either, unless the answers themselves form a chronological succession (answer 1: "first I did X", answer 2: "later we decided to do Y"). Generally the collection of answers simply forms a joint. The figure below gives an example of this structure. | ||
| {{: | {{: | ||
| - | * The subsections of a travel guide can form islands that should be joined by a **joint**. Typically sections like ‘getting there’ and ‘understand’ are autonomous and are analyzed internally, then joined at the top with the rest of the article, though the main heading may precede the entire joint and modify it (see below). | + | * The subsections of a travel guide can form islands that should be joined by a **joint-other**. Typically sections like ‘getting there’ and ‘understand’ are autonomous and are analyzed internally, then joined at the top with the rest of the article, though the main heading may precede the entire joint and modify it (see below). |
| - | * Lists of ingredients, | + | * Lists of ingredients, |
| - | * In how-to guides, the subsections (preparations, | + | * In how-to guides, the subsections (preparations, |
| - | * The main progression of biographies often forms a **sequence** (e.g. Early Life section followed by Career) | + | * The main progression of biographies often forms a **joint-sequence** (e.g. Early Life section followed by Career) |
| - | * Sections in an academic paper at the same level often form islands joined by **joint** (notice that they are not equivalent or parallel, and therefore not a **list**). If there is an abstract, often the **joint** of main sections can be seen as an elaboration on the abstract block. | + | * Sections in an academic paper at the same level often form islands joined by **joint-other** (notice that they are not equivalent or parallel, and therefore not a **joint-list**). If there is an abstract, often the **joint-other** of main sections can be seen as an elaboration on the abstract block. |
| === Avoiding chains === | === Avoiding chains === | ||
| Line 345: | Line 349: | ||
| === Handling questions === | === Handling questions === | ||
| - | * Questions are typically seen as satellites to their respective answers and are linked using the **solutionhood** relation. | + | * Questions are typically seen as satellites to their respective answers and are linked using the **topic-solutionhood** relation. |
| - | * When connecting individual sections or QA pairs to the main **joint** of an article, a span should be used above the entire QA/section subtree to make it clear that the entire subtree is a member of the joint. Do not link just the main segment to the joint directly if there are other segments in the subtree. | + | * When connecting individual sections or QA pairs to the main **joint-other** of an article, a span should be used above the entire QA/section subtree to make it clear that the entire subtree is a member of the joint. Do not link just the main segment to the joint directly if there are other segments in the subtree. |
| Line 354: | Line 358: | ||
| Fillers like 'you know' or 'I mean' receive their own EDUs based on the clause to predicate mapping in RST, but they are generally close to empty in content, and are always satellites. When used before a main predicate (including medially inside Same-Unit), they are seen as preparations: | Fillers like 'you know' or 'I mean' receive their own EDUs based on the clause to predicate mapping in RST, but they are generally close to empty in content, and are always satellites. When used before a main predicate (including medially inside Same-Unit), they are seen as preparations: | ||
| - | * [I mean, | + | * [I mean, |
| - | When used as postmodifiers, | + | When used as postmodifiers, |
| - | * [There was no other option,] [you know.]< | + | * [There was no other option,] [you know.]< |
| If the filler has the form of a question, but is not soliciting an answer, it is still phatic, but otherwise it can also be a genuine question, in which case "you know" can be an attribution: | If the filler has the form of a question, but is not soliciting an answer, it is still phatic, but otherwise it can also be a genuine question, in which case "you know" can be an attribution: | ||
| - | * [There was no other option,] [you know? | + | * [There was no other option,] [you know? |
| - | * ([There was no other option,] < | + | * ([There was no other option,] < |
| If there are multiple identical fillers, they may form restatements or joints as appropriate, | If there are multiple identical fillers, they may form restatements or joints as appropriate, | ||
| * [I mean, | * [I mean, | ||
| - | * [I mean, | + | * [I mean, |
| - | Note that we use **joint** and not **list** for multiple fillers, since their content is not additive (as a test, consider that you cannot insert a coordinating conjunction such as "??I mean and you know ..."). | + | Note that we use **joint-other** and not **joint-list** for multiple fillers, since their content is not additive (as a test, consider that you cannot insert a coordinating conjunction such as "??I mean and you know ..."). |
| Line 378: | Line 382: | ||
| * The repaired unit is sufficiently realized to carry out the same function as its repair. In these cases use **restatement-repetition**: | * The repaired unit is sufficiently realized to carry out the same function as its repair. In these cases use **restatement-repetition**: | ||
| - | * The repaired unit is deficient, in which case it is seen as a **preparation-phatic** for what was finally said: [I wanted to-]< | + | * The repaired unit is deficient, in which case it is seen as a **organization-phatic** for what was finally said: [I wanted to-]< |
| === Building a hierarchy === | === Building a hierarchy === | ||
| Line 387: | Line 391: | ||
| {{: | {{: | ||
| - | * In cases of two equal satellites to the same nucleus with the same function, a **joint**, **list** or **restatement** multinuc can be used as appropriate. This is the preferred structure if both satellites are seen to provide a similar or closely related contribution. For example, the structure on the left is preferred to the structure on the right below, because both satellites give the same elaborating information, | + | * In cases of two equal satellites to the same nucleus with the same function, a **joint-other**, **joint-list** or **restatement-repetition** multinuc can be used as appropriate. This is the preferred structure if both satellites are seen to provide a similar or closely related contribution. For example, the structure on the left is preferred to the structure on the right below, because both satellites give the same elaborating information, |
| {{: | {{: | ||
| Line 400: | Line 404: | ||
| ==== Headings, dates, images and captions ==== | ==== Headings, dates, images and captions ==== | ||
| - | * Headings are typically seen as a **preparation-organization** for the following group of segments comprising the section under the heading. This is especially true if the heading does not contain information not covered again in the section. The ‘preparation’ should target an added span covering the entire section, and not just the head segment of the section. (see image below) | + | * Headings are typically seen as a **organization-heading** for the following group of segments comprising the section under the heading. This is especially true if the heading does not contain information not covered again in the section. The ‘organization’ should target an added span covering the entire section, and not just the head segment of the section. (see image below) |
| * In some cases, the heading contains the main gist of a (usually short) section, and the section itself may be seen as an **elaboration-additional** of the heading. | * In some cases, the heading contains the main gist of a (usually short) section, and the section itself may be seen as an **elaboration-additional** of the heading. | ||
| - | * Images themselves do not form RST segments, however when their captions are part of the text, the entire effect of the image and caption may be taken into consideration. Most often (or when in doubt), an image and its heading will provide **background** for the subsequent text, but under some circumstances a caption and the related image may provide **evidence** or serve as an **elaboration-additional**, | + | * Images themselves do not form RST segments, however when their captions are part of the text, the entire effect of the image and caption may be taken into consideration. Most often (or when in doubt), an image and its heading will provide **context-background** for the subsequent text, but under some circumstances a caption and the related image may provide **explanation-evidence** or serve as an **elaboration-additional**, |
| - | * The words ' | + | * The words ' |
| {{: | {{: | ||
| - | * If there is a heading ‘preparation-organization’ followed by a ‘background’ image and caption at the beginning of a section, typically the caption (standing in for the image as well) is seen as giving background to the entire section, and the heading is a preparation for the group of segments containing both the section and the background caption. | + | * If there is a heading ‘organization-heading’ followed by a ‘context-background’ image and caption at the beginning of a section, typically the caption (standing in for the image as well) is seen as giving background to the entire section, and the heading is a preparation for the group of segments containing both the section and the background caption. |
| * If there is a secondary caption or a caption-internal segment giving attribution, | * If there is a secondary caption or a caption-internal segment giving attribution, | ||
| - | (e.g. [image of a magician] < | + | (e.g. [image of a magician] < |
| {{: | {{: | ||
| - | * If there is a segment detailing the date (e.g. for a news item or interview), and the date applies to the entire text, it may be seen as a ‘circumstance’ to the entire text. If the date is qualifying a more specific sub-part of the document it may be attached accordingly, | + | * If there is a segment detailing the date (e.g. for a news item or interview), and the date applies to the entire text, it may be seen as a ‘context-circumstance’ to the entire text. If the date is qualifying a more specific sub-part of the document it may be attached accordingly, |
| - | * If a main heading is reiterated in the text, this is not generally seen as a ‘restatement’, | + | * If a main heading is reiterated in the text, this is not generally seen as a ‘restatement’, |
| {{: | {{: | ||
| Line 420: | Line 424: | ||
| ==== Author e-mail addresses and contact details ==== | ==== Author e-mail addresses and contact details ==== | ||
| - | In academic articles, the paper is often preceded by contact details for the authors, such as affiliations and e-mail addresses. These can be seen as ‘**attribution**’ information to the entire article, and usually attach to the top level node unifying all subsequent nodes. | + | In academic articles, the paper is often preceded by contact details for the authors, such as affiliations and e-mail addresses. These can be seen as ‘**attribution-positive**’ information to the entire article, and usually attach to the top level node unifying all subsequent nodes. |
| - | * If multiple addresses have separate segments, they can be joined via ‘**list**’. | + | * If multiple addresses have separate segments, they can be joined via ‘**joint-list**’. |
| - | * The title of the article, which usually precedes the addresses, is generally attached using the ‘**preparation-organization**’ function as usual, pointing to a higher span above the article and addresses (see the image below). | + | * The title of the article, which usually precedes the addresses, is generally attached using the ‘**organization-preparation**’ function as usual, pointing to a higher span above the article and addresses (see the image below). |
| {{: | {{: | ||
| Line 436: | Line 440: | ||
| When used with past tense predicates, ' | When used with past tense predicates, ' | ||
| - | * [They lived on the island] [until the great hurricane came]< | + | * [They lived on the island] [until the great hurricane came]< |
| - | But with non-past tense, it often marks **condition**, | + | But with non-past tense, it often marks **contingency-condition**, |
| * [freeze it] [until you need it] | * [freeze it] [until you need it] | ||
| Line 451: | Line 455: | ||
| Unless is generally seen as signaling a negative conditional: | Unless is generally seen as signaling a negative conditional: | ||
| - | * [do it] [unless they object]< | + | * [do it] [unless they object]< |
| This is similar to: | This is similar to: | ||
| - | * [do it] [if they don't object]< | + | * [do it] [if they don't object]< |
| == Instead == | == Instead == | ||
| - | Instead is often indicative of **antithesis**, | + | Instead is often indicative of **adversative-antithesis**, |
| - | * [Don't go alone, | + | * [Don't go alone, |
| - | * [**Instead** of going alone, | + | * [**Instead** of going alone, |
| == Rather (than) == | == Rather (than) == | ||
| - | **Rather** or **rather than** work very similarly to ' | + | **Rather** or **rather than** work very similarly to ' |
| == Depending == | == Depending == | ||
| Line 472: | Line 476: | ||
| **Depending** clauses are often interpreted as conditionals: | **Depending** clauses are often interpreted as conditionals: | ||
| - | * [Depending on the weather]< | + | * [Depending on the weather]< |
| This construction is conditional, | This construction is conditional, | ||
| Line 482: | Line 486: | ||
| * [He was caught by the Central Intelligence Agency] [(CIA)]< | * [He was caught by the Central Intelligence Agency] [(CIA)]< | ||
| - | However if the acronym in parentheses appears first, it is interpreted as **background**, | + | However if the acronym in parentheses appears first, it is interpreted as **context-background**, |
| - | * [We used the]< | + | * [We used the]< |
| - | Translations can be analyzed in the same way; if they have a language specified before a colon, that is segmented based on EDU segmentation guidelines, and can be considered | + | Translations can be analyzed in the same way; if they have a language specified before a colon, that is segmented based on EDU segmentation guidelines, and can be considered |
| - | * [She was born in Gdansk] [(German: | + | * [She was born in Gdansk] [(German: |
| * [She was born in Gdansk] [(In German, Danzig)]< | * [She was born in Gdansk] [(In German, Danzig)]< | ||
| Line 495: | Line 499: | ||
| When considering two similar relations between sentences without an explicit connective like ' | When considering two similar relations between sentences without an explicit connective like ' | ||
| - | * ' | + | * ' |
| - | * 'the reason I say this...' | + | * 'the reason I say this...' |
| - | * 'what you need to know about this...' | + | * 'what you need to know about this...' |
| - | * 'proof of this is...' - can indicate **evidence** | + | * 'proof of this is...' - can indicate **explanation-evidence** |
| - | * ' | + | * ' |
| Some examples: | Some examples: | ||
| - | * " [ IE's market share has dropped to 56%.] [Mozilla' | + | * " [ IE's market share has dropped to 56%.] [Mozilla' |
| - | * If this were **justify**, | + | * If this were **explanation-justify**, we could say "the reason I say this is that Mozilla... " |
| - | * If it were **background**, | + | * If it were **context-background**, |
| - | * " [York is a fairly small city -] [four days is enough to see the major sights] " - in this example, we can add "proof of this is..." between the two units, and the relation is **evidence** | + | * " [York is a fairly small city -] [four days is enough to see the major sights] " - in this example, we can add "proof of this is..." between the two units, and the relation is **explanation-evidence** |
| - | * If it were **cause** we could say "the city is small because four days is enough..." | + | * If it were **causal-cause** we could say "the city is small because four days is enough..." |
| - | * It if were **background**, | + | * It if were **context-background**, |
| === Specific constructions === | === Specific constructions === | ||
| Line 516: | Line 520: | ||
| Comparative correlatives are interpreted as conditional constructions: | Comparative correlatives are interpreted as conditional constructions: | ||
| - | * [The more you know about your audience]< | + | * [The more you know about your audience]< |
| == Academic citations and references == | == Academic citations and references == | ||
| Line 522: | Line 526: | ||
| References forming an EDU (i.e. non-syntactically integrated, see segmentation guidelines) typically function as evidence: | References forming an EDU (i.e. non-syntactically integrated, see segmentation guidelines) typically function as evidence: | ||
| - | * [This has been shown in a previous study] [ [20] ]< | + | * [This has been shown in a previous study] [ [20] ]< |
| == Measurement conversions == | == Measurement conversions == | ||
| Line 553: | Line 557: | ||
| == Parenthetical dates == | == Parenthetical dates == | ||
| - | Date EDUs in parentheses can be **circumstance** if they specify the date when something happened: | + | Date EDUs in parentheses can be **context-circumstance** if they specify the date when something happened: |
| - | * [The siege led to the starvation of the city] [(CE 410)]< | + | * [The siege led to the starvation of the city] [(CE 410)]< |
| But if the date provides more information about an entity, such as years of life in a biography, it is an elaboration: | But if the date provides more information about an entity, such as years of life in a biography, it is an elaboration: | ||
gum/rst.txt · Last modified: 2022/01/03 18:45 by amir
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution 4.0 International
