Re: Theory: Rhetorical markup

I think that RST and DRT operate at a lower level that Jorn
intends.  My recollection is that these theories are concerned
with understanding how nearby sentences contribute to the
local intention of the speaker/writer.  They cover things like
example and counter-example, generalization and context;
and offer some help at detecting topic changes - particularly
through the use of a palette of conjunctions.

On the other hand, Shankian stuff seems almost too abstract.

I think Jorn is right, that there is a large missing middle ground
between the high-level goals and motivations of a writer and
the low level devices used within a segment of discourse.

-- Craig


"Carl Burke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jorn Barger wrote:
> ...
> > This is the level of granularity that English teachers
> > love best, but it's one that NLP never seems to discuss at
> > all, afaik...?
>
> I think Rhetorical Structure Theory addresses some of this,
> but it might not be at the level you want to see. I'm not very
> familiar with the details of it myself, but I know there are
> a number of NLP researchers who use it in some form.
>
> Segmented Discourse Representation Theory has a different take
> on it, and is more interested in formal logic representations
> of discourse than the rhetorical structure.
>
> --
> Carl Burke
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]