User Tools

Site Tools


gum:rst

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

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:** when another EDU intervenes between two parts of a VP coordination, we segment despite shared objects, and merge the segmented units with **same-unit**. This also applies if we have multiple coordinate VPs:   * **Exception:** when another EDU intervenes between two parts of a VP coordination, we segment despite shared objects, and merge the segmented units with **same-unit**. This also applies if we have multiple coordinate VPs:
-    * [The harbor master **paid for**]<sub>same-unit</sub> [(although we knew]<sub>attribution</sub> [he had no money)]<sub>concession</sub> [and **prepared the boat**]<sub>same-unit</sub>+    * [The harbor master **paid for**]<sub>same-unit</sub> [(although we knew]<sub>attribution-positive</sub> [he had no money)]<sub>concession</sub> [and **prepared the boat**]<sub>same-unit</sub>
  
 Elliptical coordinate VPs are segmented (roughly corresponding to gapping constructions or Right-Node-Raising, or cases analyzed as **orphan** in Universal Dependencies): Elliptical coordinate VPs are segmented (roughly corresponding to gapping constructions or Right-Node-Raising, or cases analyzed as **orphan** in Universal Dependencies):
Line 121: Line 121:
  
   * [Smith (2000) has shown this convincingly]   * [Smith (2000) has shown this convincingly]
-  * [This has been shown convincingly] [(Smith 2000)]<sub>evidence</sub>+  * [This has been shown convincingly] [(Smith 2000)]<sub>explanation-evidence</sub>
  
 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]<sub>elaboration-additional</sub>   * [I got the best ones:] [banana and cherry flavors]<sub>elaboration-additional</sub>
-  * [Examples:]<sub>preparation-setup</sub> [olive oil, butter, ghee]+  * [Examples:]<sub>organization-preparation</sub> [olive oil, butter, ghee]
  
  
Line 176: Line 176:
 In clauses with 'every time' or 'by the time', we segment not at the relative clause boundary, but before the 'time' expression: In clauses with 'every time' or 'by the time', we segment not at the relative clause boundary, but before the 'time' expression:
  
-  * [Every time you do it]<sub>condition</sub> [something bad happens] +  * [Every time you do it]<sub>contingency-condition</sub> [something bad happens] 
-  * [By the time you were done]<sub>circumstance</sub> [it was already too late]+  * [By the time you were done]<sub>context-circumstance</sub> [it was already too late]
  
 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 'whenever'/'when', etc. (cf. two instances of by the time/every time in RST-DT). Similarly: 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 'whenever'/'when', etc. (cf. two instances of by the time/every time in RST-DT). Similarly:
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**), similarly to 'when'. It is NOT segmented into [as soon] [as], but left whole:+The complex conjunction 'as soon as' is taken to introduce a single temporal EDU (usually **context-circumstance**), similarly to 'when'. It is NOT segmented into [as soon] [as], but left whole:
  
-  * [They left] [as soon as they had finished eating]<sub>circumstance</sub> +  * [They left] [as soon as they had finished eating]<sub>context-circumstance</sub> 
  
 == Leading 'and' before subordinator == == Leading 'and' before subordinator ==
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]<sub>same-unit</sub> [when the rain stopped]<sub>circumstance</sub> [we continued]<sub>same-unit</sub>+  * [and]<sub>same-unit</sub> [when the rain stopped]<sub>context-circumstance</sub> [we continued]<sub>same-unit</sub>
  
 Note that in this example, the 'and' belongs to the verb 'continued', and the circumstance could be dropped, leaving the 'and' in the main clause: "and [...] we continued". The same can happen with other coordinations and subordinating conjunctions ("but [if ...] then we will...") Note that in this example, the 'and' belongs to the verb 'continued', and the circumstance could be dropped, leaving the 'and' in the main clause: "and [...] we continued". The same can happen with other coordinations and subordinating conjunctions ("but [if ...] then we will...")
Line 199: Line 199:
 == Fillers 'I mean', 'you know' and 'see' == == Fillers 'I mean', 'you know' and 'see' ==
  
-These are treated as phatic preparations (premodifiers) or evaluations (postmodifiers, see below), and therefore do not constitute attribution clauses, but **do** constitute EDUs. As a result, they cause a same-unit split when they occur medially:+These are treated as phatic organization expressions (premodifiers or postmodifiers) or sometimes evaluations (usually postmodifiers, see below), and therefore do not constitute attribution clauses, but **do** constitute EDUs. As a result, they cause a same-unit split when they occur medially:
  
-  * [See,]<sub>preparation-phatic</sub> [they needed to go] +  * [See,]<sub>organization-phatic</sub> [they needed to go] 
-  * [But]<sub>same-unit</sub> [you know,]<sub>preparation-phatic</sub> [that was it.]<sub>same-unit</sub>+  * [But]<sub>same-unit</sub> [you know,]<sub>organization-phatic</sub> [that was it.]<sub>same-unit</sub>
  
  
Line 227: Line 227:
 Typically enough + to are segmented: Typically enough + to are segmented:
  
-  * [Do it enough] [to make it come off]<sub>purpose</sub> +  * [Do it enough] [to make it come off]<sub>purpose-goal</sub> 
-  * [Yell loud enough] [to make it audible next door]<sub>manner</sub>+  * [Yell loud enough] [to make it audible next door]<sub>mode-manner</sub>
  
-The 'to' clause is often labeled **purpose** or **manner**, depending on context.+The 'to' clause is often labeled **purpose-goal** or **mode-manner**, depending on context. An adnominal adjective + enough + infinitive would be **purpose-attribute**: 
 + 
 +  * [They had a fast enough car] [to outrun the police]<sub>purpose-attribute</sub> 
 + 
 +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 'islands' with no relations between them, then by convention these will all be joined at the end of the annotation process using a multinuclear group dominating the islands with the **joint** relation.+  * If several different topics are discussed which form encapsulated 'islands' with no relations between them, then by convention these will all be joined at the end of the annotation process using a multinuclear group dominating the islands with the **joint-other** relation.
  
   * Some typical scenarios of how 'islands' are formed and grouped include:   * Some typical scenarios of how 'islands' are formed and grouped include:
-    * 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.
  
 {{:gum:qa_joint.png?800|}} {{:gum:qa_joint.png?800|}}
  
-    * 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, destinations and other enumerations are instead joined by a **list** relation.+    * Lists of ingredients, destinations and other enumerations are instead joined by a **joint-list** relation.
  
-    * In how-to guides, the subsections (preparations, tips, warnings), or different methods (method 1, method 2…) are often separate and can be analyzed internally, then connected by a **joint** (for different subsections), **list** (for a list of methods with equivalent discourse function), or a **sequence** unifying all chronologically ordered steps in a method, and then a higher **list** unifying the methods. +    * In how-to guides, the subsections (preparations, tips, warnings), or different methods (method 1, method 2…) are often separate and can be analyzed internally, then connected by a **joint-other** (for different subsections), **joint-list** (for a list of methods with equivalent discourse function), or a **joint-sequence** unifying all chronologically ordered steps in a method, and then a higher **joint-list** unifying the methods. 
  
-    * 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,]<sub>preparation-phatic</sub> [I had to do it] (the sense is 'you know' merely leads the hearer to expect some statement)+  * [I mean,]<sub>organization-phatic</sub> [I had to do it] (the sense is 'you know' merely leads the hearer to expect some statement)
  
-When used as postmodifiers, they are still analyzed as phatic, conveying a very weak sense of the speaker assessing the nucleus as being understandable or obvious. Note that this is the only context in which a preparation-type relation can point backwards:+When used as postmodifiers, they are still analyzed as phatic, conveying a very weak sense of the speaker assessing the nucleus as being understandable or obvious. Note that this is the only context in which an organization-type relation can point backwards:
  
-  * [There was no other option,] [you know.]<sub>preparation-phatic</sub>+  * [There was no other option,] [you know.]<sub>organization-phatic</sub>
  
 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?]<sub>preparation-phatic</sub> +  * [There was no other option,] [you know?]<sub>organization-phatic</sub> 
-  * ([There was no other option,] <==attribution [you know right?]) question==> [I know!]+  * ([There was no other option,] <==attribution-positive [you know right?]) topic-question==> [I know!]
  
 If there are multiple identical fillers, they may form restatements or joints as appropriate, and the new multinuc will serve as a preparation etc.: If there are multiple identical fillers, they may form restatements or joints as appropriate, and the new multinuc will serve as a preparation etc.:
  
   * [I mean,]<sub>restatement-repetition</sub> [I mean,]<sub>restatement-repetition</sub> ...   * [I mean,]<sub>restatement-repetition</sub> [I mean,]<sub>restatement-repetition</sub> ...
-  * [I mean,]<sub>joint</sub> [you know,]<sub>joint</sub> ...+  * [I mean,]<sub>joint-other</sub> [you know,]<sub>joint-other</sub> ...
  
-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**: [We went there last Mon-] [we went there Monday last week.]    * The repaired unit is sufficiently realized to carry out the same function as its repair. In these cases use **restatement-repetition**: [We went there last Mon-] [we went there Monday last week.] 
-  * The repaired unit is deficient, in which case it is seen as a **preparation-phatic** for what was finally said: [I wanted to-]<sub>preparation-phatic</sub> [I wanted to thank you]+  * The repaired unit is deficient, in which case it is seen as a **organization-phatic** for what was finally said: [I wanted to-]<sub>organization-phatic</sub> [I wanted to thank you]
  
 === Building a hierarchy === === Building a hierarchy ===
Line 387: Line 391:
 {{:gum:rst_hierarchy.png|}}  {{:gum:rst_hierarchy.png|}} 
  
-  * 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, namely specifying the members of an organization. If the satellites have different functions or give rather different details, then they can be attached directly to the nucleus without forming a multinuc first.+  * 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, namely specifying the members of an organization. If the satellites have different functions or give rather different details, then they can be attached directly to the nucleus without forming a multinuc first.
  
 {{:gum:rst_hierarchy_joint.png|}} {{:gum:rst_hierarchy_joint.png|}}
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**, or in rare cases even other relations. +  * 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**, or in rare cases even other relations. 
-  * The words 'Figure X' or 'Table X' are also annotated as a **preparation-setup** if they form their own segment, or **preparation-organization** if they are graphically set apart:+  * The words 'Figure X' or 'Table X' are also annotated as a **organization-preparation** if they form their own segment, or **organization-heading** if they are graphically set apart:
  
 {{:gum:figure_prep.png?200|}} {{:gum:figure_prep.png?200|}}
  
-  * 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, such as the photographer’s name or the name of a person quoted in a block quote, these may be seen as an ‘attribution’ or the primary caption segment. The word "image:", "photo:" or similar are often preparations for this attribution    * If there is a secondary caption or a caption-internal segment giving attribution, such as the photographer’s name or the name of a person quoted in a block quote, these may be seen as an ‘attribution’ or the primary caption segment. The word "image:", "photo:" or similar are often preparations for this attribution 
-(e.g. [image of a magician] <-attribution-- {[photo:] --preparation-setup-> [Paul Budd]}+(e.g. [image of a magician] <-attribution-positive-- {[photo:] --organization-preparation-> [Paul Budd]}
  
 {{:gum:image_attribution.png?400|}} {{:gum:image_attribution.png?400|}}
  
-  * 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, again using the ‘circumstance’ relation. +  * 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, again using the ‘context-circumstance’ relation. 
-  * If a main heading is reiterated in the text, this is not generally seen as a ‘restatement’, but rather the heading is seen as ‘preparation-organization’ for the section in the interest of consistency.+  * If a main heading is reiterated in the text, this is not generally seen as a ‘restatement’, but rather the heading is seen as ‘organization-preparation’ for the section in the interest of consistency.
  
 {{:gum:head_date.png?500|}} {{:gum:head_date.png?500|}}
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).
  
 {{:gum:emails.png?400|}} {{:gum:emails.png?400|}}
Line 436: Line 440:
 When used with past tense predicates, 'until' is often temporal and therefore **circumstantial**: When used with past tense predicates, 'until' is often temporal and therefore **circumstantial**:
  
-  * [They lived on the island] [until the great hurricane came]<sub>sequence</sub>+  * [They lived on the island] [until the great hurricane came]<sub>joint-sequence</sub>
  
-But with non-past tense, it often marks **condition**, for example:+But with non-past tense, it often marks **contingency-condition**, for example:
  
   * [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]<sub>condition</sub>+  * [do it] [unless they object]<sub>contingency-condition</sub>
  
 This is similar to: This is similar to:
  
-  * [do it] [if they don't object]<sub>condition</sub>+  * [do it] [if they don't object]<sub>contingency-condition</sub>
  
 == Instead == == Instead ==
  
-Instead is often indicative of **antithesis**, but can appear either in the antithesis satellite itself, or in the nucleus:+Instead is often indicative of **adversative-antithesis**, but can appear either in the antithesis satellite itself, or in the nucleus:
  
-  * [Don't go alone,]<sub>antithesis</sub> [bring someone with you **instead**.] +  * [Don't go alone,]<sub>adversative-antithesis</sub> [bring someone with you **instead**.] 
-  * [**Instead** of going alone,]<sub>antithesis</sub> [bring someone with you.]+  * [**Instead** of going alone,]<sub>adversative-antithesis</sub> [bring someone with you.]
  
 == Rather (than) == == Rather (than) ==
  
-**Rather** or **rather than** work very similarly to 'instead', and can also indicate **antithesis** in either the satellite or nucleus.+**Rather** or **rather than** work very similarly to 'instead', and can also indicate **adversative-antithesis** in either the satellite or nucleus.
  
 == Depending == == Depending ==
Line 472: Line 476:
 **Depending** clauses are often interpreted as conditionals: **Depending** clauses are often interpreted as conditionals:
  
-  * [Depending on the weather]<sub>condition</sub> [you may be able to go out]+  * [Depending on the weather]<sub>contingency-condition</sub> [you may be able to go out]
  
 This construction is conditional, as it corresponds roughly to "if the weather is a certain way...". This construction is conditional, as it corresponds roughly to "if the weather is a certain way...".
Line 482: Line 486:
   * [He was caught by the Central Intelligence Agency] [(CIA)]<sub>restatement-partial</sub>   * [He was caught by the Central Intelligence Agency] [(CIA)]<sub>restatement-partial</sub>
  
-However if the acronym in parentheses appears first, it is interpreted as **background**, since a satellite restatement cannot precede the restated content:+However if the acronym in parentheses appears first, it is interpreted as **context-background**, since a satellite restatement cannot precede the restated content:
  
-  * [We used the]<sub>same-unit</sub> [(Light Emitting Diode)]<sub>background</sub> [LED bulbs]<sub>same-unit</sub>  (Note: **background** points left to right here, since the acronym explains what LED means on the right)+  * [We used the]<sub>same-unit</sub> [(Light Emitting Diode)]<sub>context-background</sub> [LED bulbs]<sub>same-unit</sub>  (Note: **context-background** points left to right here, since the acronym explains what LED means on the right)
  
-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 **preparation** (but only if there is a colon). Compare:+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 an **organization-preparation** (but only if there is a colon). Compare:
  
-  * [She was born in Gdansk] [(German:]<sub>preparation-setup</sub> [Danzig)]<sub>restatement-partial</sub>+  * [She was born in Gdansk] [(German:]<sub>organization-preparation</sub> [Danzig)]<sub>restatement-partial</sub>
   * [She was born in Gdansk] [(In German, Danzig)]<sub>restatement-partial</sub>   * [She was born in Gdansk] [(In German, Danzig)]<sub>restatement-partial</sub>
  
Line 495: Line 499:
 When considering two similar relations between sentences without an explicit connective like 'beacuse' or 'if', sometimes inserting a connective or phrase can help to disambiguate. Useful phrases include: When considering two similar relations between sentences without an explicit connective like 'beacuse' or 'if', sometimes inserting a connective or phrase can help to disambiguate. Useful phrases include:
  
-  * 'because' - if you can insert 'because' between clauses, often you have a **cause** or **result** relationship +  * 'because' - if you can insert 'because' between clauses, often you have a causal **cause** or **result** relationship 
-  * 'the reason I say this...' - if you can insert this, it can indicate **justify** +  * 'the reason I say this...' - if you can insert this, it can indicate **explanation-justify** 
-  * 'what you need to know about this...' - can indicate **background** +  * 'what you need to know about this...' - can indicate **context-background** 
-  * 'proof of this is...' - can indicate **evidence** +  * 'proof of this is...' - can indicate **explanation-evidence** 
-  * 'or' and 'alternatively' can indicate **disjunction**+  * 'or' and 'alternatively' can indicate **joint-disjunction**
  
 Some examples: Some examples:
  
-  * " [ IE's market share has dropped to 56%.] [Mozilla's Firefox has been actively increasing its market share] " - in this example, it's easy to insert 'because', and the relationship is **cause**.  +  * " [ IE's market share has dropped to 56%.] [Mozilla's Firefox has been actively increasing its market share] " - in this example, it's easy to insert 'because', and the relationship is **causal-cause**.  
-    * If this were **justify**, we could say "the reason I say this is that Mozilla... " +    * If this were **explanation-justify**, we could say "the reason I say this is that Mozilla... " 
-    * If it were **background**, we could say "what you need to know about this is that Mozilla..." which is also more forced +    * If it were **context-background**, we could say "what you need to know about this is that Mozilla..." which is also more forced 
-  * " [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..." - but actually it is not small because of this fact +    * If it were **causal-cause** we could say "the city is small because four days is enough..." - but actually it is not small because of this fact 
-    * It if were **background**, it would be as natural or more natural to say "York is small. What you need to know about this is that four days are enough..."+    * It if were **context-background**, it would be as natural or more natural to say "York is small. What you need to know about this is that four days are enough..."
  
 === 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]<sub>condition</sub> [the better your jokes will be]+  * [The more you know about your audience]<sub>contingency-condition</sub> [the better your jokes will be]
  
 == 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] ]<sub>evidence</sub>+  * [This has been shown in a previous study] [ [20] ]<sub>explanation-evidence</sub>
  
 == 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)]<sub>circumstance</sub>+  * [The siege led to the starvation of the city] [(CE 410)]<sub>context-circumstance</sub>
  
 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