I'm not sure if this is important yet, but it's interesting, none the less. I guess, since the written component is a rather vital aspect to the thesis, this seems like something that could be useful. I am also trying to see how I can apply this idea to photography and the structure within which I present my images. Be wary - it's pretty dry.
a.
RST: Rhetorical Structure TheoryRhetorical structure theory (RST), developed mainly by William Mann and Sandra Thompson, is presented in a number of papers. This description draws for the most part on the account in Mann and Thompson, which is the most comprehensive.
The central constructs in RST are rhetorical relations. Text coherence is attributed principally to the presence of these relations.
Rhetorical relations are defined functionally, in terms of the effect the writer intends to achieve by presenting two text spans side by side.Firstly, RST relations do in fact make some reference to the propositional content of spans, as well as to the intentions of the writer in putting them forward. For instance, the MOTIVATION relation specifies that one of the spans 'presents' an action to be performed by the reader; the SEQUENCE relation specifies that a succession relationship must exist between the related spans. RST relations are in fact defined using five fields--only one of these explicitly represents the effect of the relation; the others represent the various different constraints that must be satisfied in order to achieve this effect, and these are specified using a mixture of propositional and intentional language.
Secondly, Mann and Thompson go out of their way to rule out a connection between the set of relations and the linguistic devices used to signal them. This goes beyond the claim that the relations in a text need not be signaled--they further suggest that
“some types of rhetorical relations have no corresponding conjunctive signals” Mann and Thompson [], p45
RST's definition [of nucleus-satellite] is functional, based on the idea that a writer has more important and less important goals when she sets out to create a text.A third novel feature of RST is its concept of nuclearity. As well as representing the relationship between two text spans,
rhetorical relations also convey information about which span is more central to the writer's purposes. The nucleus is the more central span, and the satellite is the less central one.
Mann and Thompson contend that the majority of text is structured using nucleus-satellite relations; although some relations--termed multinuclear--do not exhibit it. (There are two multinuclear relations: SEQUENCE and CONTRAST.) RST provides a set of around 23 rhetorical relations (fig. 5).
fig.5 - Mann and Thompson's RelationsThe top-level distinction in this taxonomy is between SUBJECT-MATTER and PRESENTATIONAL relations.
SUBJECT-MATTER relations have as their effect that the reader recognise the relation in question; while PRESENTATIONAL relations have as their effect to increase some inclination in the reader. Thus SEQUENCE is a SUBJECT-MATTER relation (its effect is that the reader recognise that the two related spans present events occurring in sequence) and MOTIVATION is PRESENTATIONAL (its effect is to increase the reader's motivation to perform the action presented in the nucleus span).
RST has a strong structural account of text. It begins with an independent definition of 'text span'--for Mann and Thompson, the size of the atomic units of text analysis is arbitrary, but they should have independent functional integrity. The clause is selected as the minimal unit of organisation; thus text spans are clauses, or larger units composed of clauses. … relations must hold between non-overlapping text spans. (An exception to this rule is made for non-restrictive relative clauses: relations are permitted to hold between a matrix clause and a subordinate clause.)
In RST, relations are not mapped directly onto texts; they are fitted onto structures called schema applications, and these in turn are fitted to text. Schema applications are derived from simpler structures called schemas (fig.6).
fig.6 – The Types of Schema in RST[this is the part that sort of gets a bit convoluted - a.]In this diagram, horizontal lines depict text spans, the labelled lines depict relations between spans, nuclei are picked out by the vertical lines (they are diagonal for multinuclear relations), and all other spans are satellites. From these structures, schema applications are formed, by rearranging the spans in any order and by duplicating spans any number of times. (For the schemas with satellites, only the satellite spans can be duplicated.) Relations are then fitted to the schema applications thus formed--relations which take a nucleus and a satellite are fitted to the single or dual relation schema applications, and the specialised CONTRAST and SEQUENCE relations are fitted to the individual schemas (b) and (e) respectively. The `joint' schema is for linking pieces of text, which are not linked by any RST relations, and is essentially used for representing lists.
A rhetorical structure tree is a hierarchical system of schema applications. A schema application links a number of consecutive spans, and creates a complex span which can in turn be linked by a higher level schema application. This enables tree structures to be built--
it is a central claim of RST that the structure of every coherent discourse can be described by a single rhetorical structure tree, whose top schema application creates a span encompassing the whole discourse.Examples of relations from Computational LinguisticsAntithesis: Writer compares two contrasting options, and indicates positive regard for one of them.
S: Rather than winning them with arms,
N: we'd win them with our example.
Concession: The writer acknowledges a potential or apparent incompatibility between the propositions presented in the nucleus and the satellite; the writer recognizes the propositions as compatible; the writer wants the reader to have positive regard for (believe, do) the proposition contained in the nucleus.
N: Although Dioxin is toxic to certain animals,
S: evidence is lacking that it has any serious long-term effect on human beings.
Condition: The satellite presents a situation, which is necessary for the nucleus to obtain.
S: If you slowly pour the powder into the fluid,
N: the mixture will be very thick.
Elaboration: The satellite presents additional detail about some element of the nucleus, for instance: members of a set, parts of a whole, instances of a generalization, attributes of an object, steps in a process.
N: Karen is so photogenic.
S: Her smile is perfect.
Evidence: Satellite presents evidence that nucleus is true; reader believes satellite and writer wants reader to believe nucleus.
N: They're having a party next door.
S: I couldn't find a parking space.
Justification: Satellite justifies the writer's inclusion of the nucleus.
S: You look hungry.
N: There's some food in the fridge.
Motivation: Satellite presents information, which should make the reader want to perform the action in the nucleus.
N: Take Bufferin.
S: The buffering component prevents excess stomach acid.
These next three are all front doors/stoops, but I am trying to present them separately based on format as well as all together.
This looked like it had potential initially (repetition/windows etc),
I took out the church because the form of the windows was so different than the others, but I don't think I'm convinced yet.
Fences.... meh.
This I like. It is a great example of what putting photos into a series can do for each individual image. The framing isn't the greatest, the tips of the roofs are cropped, there is probably too much foreground in some of them... but together, there is a dialogue between them and they all find their own place in the series.
I think, perhaps, these three work best together.
My cyclops house finds a group...
