The relationship of discourse structure as modeled in Rhetorical Structure Theory to argumentation is an interesting open question. A barrier to research is that currently there are no corpora of naturally occurring monological texts annotated both with RST and argumentation scheme structures. The main contribution of this paper is to provide insights on the relationship of RST and argumentation scheme structures based upon our analyses of some texts involving practical reasoning.
In this section we present several RST analyses from the RST literature, and provide our analysis of the
PR-related argumentation scheme structure of the same texts. The examples illustrate the key role of the
RST relation of Motivation in PR. According to the definition of Motivation, the satellite (S) is intended to
increase the reader’s desire to perform the action described in the nucleus (N).2 Consider Example I3 [7, p.
76-7]. The RST analysis given in [
5A) Employees 6) who are not sure of who is listed as their beneficiary 5B) should complete new forms 7) since the retirement system and the insurance carrier use the most current form… [Span: 5-7 [Motivation
N: [Condition
S: 6
N: 5a, 5b]Condition S: 7]Motivation ]Span [Span: 1-4 [Enablement
N: 1
S: 2]Enablement [Motivation
N: 1
S: 3]Motivation [Motivation
N: 1 S: 4]Motivation ]Span
Now consider Example II, another example of Motivation in naturally occurring text (a note affixed to a
workplace bulletin board) [7, p. 56]. Figure 2 shows the RST analysis in [
1) The Los Angeles Chamber Ballet (the ballet company I’m dancing with) is giving 4 concerts next week. 2) Tickets are $7.50 … 3) The show is made up of new choreography and should be very entertaining. 4) I’m in 3 pieces.
One could analyze this as two instances of argument from positive consequences, each having the
conclusion, derived as a pragmatic inference from unit 1, that the reader should attend (some of) the
concerts. The premise of one of the arguments, derived by pragmatic inference from unit 3, is that the reader
will enjoy the concerts; and the premise of the other, suggested by unit 4, is that the writer will appreciate
2 It is assumed that the reader has at least basic familiarity with RST [
Next consider Example III, from https://www.sfu.ca/rst, a letter sent by the political advocacy group, California Common Cause. Its analysis, given on the RST website, is shown in Figure 3 in our notation.
1) I don’t believe that endorsing the Nuclear Freeze Initiative is the right step for California Common Cause. 2) Tempting as it may be, 3) we shouldn’t embrace every popular issue that comes along. 4) When we do so, 5) we use precious, limited resources 6) where other players with superior resources are already doing an adequate job. 7) Rather, I think we will be stronger and more effective 8) if we stick to those issues of governmental structure and process, broadly defined, that have formed the core of our agenda for years. 9) Open government, campaign finance reform, and fighting the influence of special interests and big money, these are our kinds of issues. 10) Let’s be clear: 11) I personally favor the initiative and ardently support disarmament negotiations to reduce the risk of war. 12) But I don’t think endorsing a specific nuclear freeze proposal is appropriate for CCC. 13) We should limit our involvement in defense and weaponry to matters of process, such as exposing the weapons industry’s influence on the political process. 14) Therefore, I urge you to vote against a CCC endorsement of the nuclear freeze initiative. [Span: 1-14 [Motivation N: 14 S: [Evidence
N: 1 S: [Antithesis
N: 7-9
S: 2-6]Antithesis ]Evidence ]Motivation [Motivation N: 14 S: [Evidence
N: 1 S: [Justify
N: [Concession
N: [Antithesis
N: 13
S: 12] Antithesis
S: 11]Concession S: 10]Justify]Evidence ]Motivation ]Span [Antithesis
N: [Elaboration
N: [Condition
N: 7
S: 8]Condition
S: 9]Elaboration S: [Evidence
N: [Concession
N: 3
S: 2]Concession S: [Condition
N: [Contrast
N: 5
N: 6]Contrast S: 4]Condition]Evidence]Antithesis
In the RST analysis, unit 14 is the nucleus in two instances of Motivation; and in each instance the satellite
of Motivation is a structure headed by an instance of the relation of Evidence. According to the definition
of Evidence in RST [
Returning to the second instance of Motivation in Fig. 3a, its nucleus is unit 14 and its satellite is headed
by a relation of Evidence whose nucleus is unit 1. However, in this case the satellite of the instance of
Evidence is a structure headed by the RST relation Justify, whose definition states that “R's [the reader’s]
comprehending S increases R's readiness to accept W's [the writer’s] right to present N” [
Unlike the preceding examples of argument from consequences, in Figure 4 we analyze this text using
several other PR-related argumentation schemes: means-end practical reasoning, argument from
consequences to evaluation, and argument from value [
It is clear that there is no simple alignment between the PR and RST structures for Example III. However, the conclusion of PR does map to the nucleus of Motivation, and the selection premise maps to (the nucleus of) the satellite (structure) given to motivate the action. Also, some argumentation in support of unit 1 maps to an instance of Antithesis. The satellite of the Antithesis (unit 4-6) provides negative consequences for evaluating endorsing as not right, and the nucleus (unit 7-9) provides positive consequences for evaluating endorsing as not right. In addition, another instance of Antithesis is used in support of unit 1: unit 12 and unit 13 each provide an argument from value for the premise that endorsing is undesirable (a negative reason as the satellite of Antithesis and a positive reason as the nucleus of Antithesis, respectively).
You should vote against endorsing … (14)
Practical Reasoning Goal: Stronger, more effective (7)
Alternatives: Vote for/against endorsing
Selection premise: Endorsing is not right (1) Arg from consequences to evaluation Endorsing uses up precious resources (4-6)
Arg from consequences to evaluation
Stronger if stick to core (not endorsing) (7-9)
Argument from value
Argument from value Endorsing not appropriate (12)
Should limit work to matters of process (13)
Example IV, from [
Our analysis of the argument, as an instance of means-end practical reasoning, is shown in Figure 6. The claim, a pragmatic inference from unit 2 that the reader should buy/use SYNCOM diskettes, is supported by the goal premise from unit 5, that the reader’s goal is no diskette errors, the circumstances premise [4] that you may be having a certain problem (unit 1), and the means-end premise from unit 3-5 that using SYNCOM diskettes can prevent such errors. The text provides four ways that SYNCOM diskettes can prevent such errors. As shown in Figure 6, each of these can be represented as a causal argument.
In this example, the instance of Motivation aligns with the means-end PR argument as follows: the conclusion (unit 2) is the nucleus of Motivation, and the four satellites of Motivation each contains (embedded in Elaboration) the means-End premise (unit 3-5) of PR. (Note that the four instances of Elaboration each provide an argument from cause to effect in support of unit 3-5.) However, unlike Example III, the instance of Motivation (unit 2-12) occurs as the nucleus of Solutionhood; the satellite of Solutionhood, describing the problem (unit 1), maps to the circumstances premise of PR.
Example IV 1) What if you’re having to clean floppy drive heads too often? 2) Ask for SYNCOM diskettes, with burnished Ectype coating and dust-absorbing jacket liners. 3) As your floppy drive writes or reads, 4) a Syncom diskette is working four ways 5) to keep loose particles and dust from causing soft errors, dropouts. 6) Cleaning agents on the burnished surface of the Ectype coating actually remove build-up from the head, 7) while lubricating at the same time. 8) A carbon additive drains away static electricity 9) before it can attract dust or lint. 10) Strong binders hold the signal-carrying oxides tightly within the coating. 11A) And the non-woven jacket liner, 12) more than just wiping the surface, 11B) provides thousands of tiny pockets to keep what it collects. … [you should] ask for [buy/use] SYNCOM diskettes (2) [Span: 1-15 [Solutionhood: N: [Motivation:
N: 2 S: [Elaboration: N: 3-5] S: 6-7]Elaboration [Elaboration: N: 3-5
S: 8-9]Elaboration [Elaboration: N: 3-5 S: 10]Elaboration [Elaboration: N: 3-5
S: 11-12]Elaboration ]Motivation [Enablement: N: 2
S: 13-15] Enablement S: 1]Solutionhood ]Span
Goal: No diskette errors (5) Circumstances: (1)
Practical Reasoning Means-end: [using] SYNCOM diskettes can prevent errors (3-5) 6-7 8-9 10
11-12 argument from cause to effect (above 4 instances)
To sum up the observations about Examples I-IV, the nucleus of Motivation maps to the top-level claim of a PR argumentation structure. However, as the RST structure becomes more complex the mapping between RST structure and argumentation scheme structure becomes less straightforward. Also, RST relations do not distinguish among the various PR-related argumentation schemes.
In this section, we present three PR analyses from the argumentation literature and provide our analysis
of RST structure. First consider Example V, an excerpt from an editorial on opposing views of Putin and
Obama.7 Our RST analysis of the text is shown in Figure 7. According to the RST relation of Attribution
[
The argument analysis adapted from [
Example V 1a) Mr. Putin said 1b) it was “an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its airforces, 1c) who are valiantly fighting terrorism face-to-face,” 2) conveniently ignoring the fact that Mr. Assad’s main target has always been his domestic opposition, 3) not the Islamic state. 4a) He portrayed 4b) Mr. Assad as a force for stability and said 6a) the only solution 5) [to terrorism] 6b) “is to restore their statehood where it has been destroyed.” [Span: 1-3 [Concession N: [Concession
N: 2
S: 3]Concession S: [Attribution
S: 1a N: [Motivation
N: 1b S: 1c]Motivation]Attribution]Concession]Span [Span: 4-6 [Attribution
S: 4a N: [Motivation
N: [Solutionhood
N: 6a, 6b
S: 5]Solutionhood
S: 4b]Motivation]Attribution]Span
7 “Putin and Obama Have Profound Differences on Syria.” Editorial, The New York Times 28 September 2015.
Copied from [
We should restore Syrian statehood (6b)
Next consider Example VI, an excerpt from the same editorial, on Obama’s response to Putin’s argument
in Example V. Our RST analysis of the text is shown in Figure 9. In the RST analysis, attribution of content
to Obama is explicitly noted as the satellite of Attribution (unit 1a, 2a, and 2d). In Fig. 9a, RST (Volitional)
Result [
Example VI 1a) Mr. Obama correctly argued that 1b) in 2011 Mr. Assad “reacted to peaceful protests by escalating repression and killing that 1c) in turn, created the environment for the current strife,” 1d) which the Islamic State has been able to exploit. 2a) He said 2b) Mr. Assad and his allies “cannot simply pacify the broad majority of a population 2c) who have been brutalized by chemical weapons and indiscriminate bombing,” 2d) and Mr. Obama reiterated 2e) his call for a “managed transition” away from Mr. Assad to a more inclusive government.
Span: 1a-1d [Attribution
N: [Volitional Result
N: [Elaboration
N: 1c
S: 1d]Elaboration
S: 1b]Volitional Result S: 1a]Attribution
Span: 2a-2e [Motivation
N: [Attribution
N: 2e
S: 2d]Attribution S: [Attribution
N: Evidence
N: 2b
S: 2c]Evidence S: 2a]Attribution]Motivation Figure 9a. Our RST analysis of Obama’s argument Figure 9b. RST analysis (continued)
As in Fig. 8, the analysis of the PR argument in [
Lastly consider Example VII, from a speech by Blair [4, p.86], which we have paraphrased and condensed for the sake of brevity. The speech is analyzed in [4, Fig. 3.1-3.2] as deliberation involving practical reasoning and argument from consequences (Figure 11). Note that the Faircloughs’ analysis picks out noncontiguous information to represent various elements, e.g., that the claim can be derived from units 8c, 11, and 12a. In the analyses of PR in [4], the circumstances premise (unit 1-7 in Example VII) describes the context of an agent’s decision. Double-headed arrows indicate attacks (units 9 and 10).
Example VII 1-7) the challenge to Britain of change in the modern world … 8a) Three choices: (first) let change overwhelm us, 8b) (second) resist change, 8c) (third) equip to survive and prosper. 9) First choice leads to “fragmented society.” 10) Second is “futile.” 11) “The only way is to analyze change and meet it.” 12a) “Third way” … neither “intervention of old-left” nor “laissez-faire of new right.” 12b) “I do not mean” … “soggy compromise.” 13) “I mean” there is a role for Government, 14) “but a role for today’s world.” 15a) “Not picking winners … heavy regulation,” 15b) “but about … promoting investment”, “helping small business.” 16a) “To make Britain more competitive, better at generating wealth,” 16b) “but serve needs of whole nation.” 17) “a long-term policy.” Our RST analysis is presented in two parts (Figures 12a and 12b). First note that there is no instance of Motivation, since the recommendation to adopt the “third way” is implicit. In the nucleus of the instance of Solutionhood, three actions (unit 8) are offered as potential solutions to a problem, expressed in the satellite (unit 1-7). As shown in Fig. 12a, an Elaboration of the potential solutions is given using two instances of Antithesis whose nuclei are both unit 11, the favored “third-way” (elaborated by unit 12-16 in one, and by unit 17 in the other). The satellites of the Antithesis instances, representing the disfavored alternatives, are unit 9 and unit 10. Fig. 12b shows a complex structure of Concessions, which do not figure in the argument according to the analysis in [4], but which could be analyzed as rebuttals of potential objections to unit 12a.
Alternatives: let change overwhelm (8a) or resist it (8b)
Claim (8c, 11, 12a): Britain should adopt a “third-way” policy Goal: survive and prosper (8c), be more competitive (16a), generate wealth (16a)
Circumstances: challenge of change (1-7)
Means-Goal: (11)
Values: needs of whole nation (16a), etc.
To sum up some observations about Examples V-VII, first, Solutionhood, not just Motivation, may indicate an instance of practical reasoning. Also, not surprisingly, analyses by argumentation scholars providing a deeper understanding of an argument may require implicit premises. Thus, the mapping from RST to argumentation scheme structure is not straightforward.
Azar [
We have presented concurrent analyses of RST structure and argumentation scheme structure for several examples of PR in naturally occurring monological text as a step towards understanding the relationship between the two models. On the one hand, RST is designed to describe discourse structure for all types of monological text, not just argumentation. On the other hand, since discourse structure determines in part the interpretation of a text, analysis of discourse structure is a necessary component of argumentation analysis. (In fact, for some of the more complicated texts such as Examples III, V, VI, and VII, we found it very helpful to analyze discourse structure in order to understand the arguments.)
We knew of no publicly available, free corpora of naturally occurring monological text annotated with
both RST and the argumentation scheme set of [
Despite these limitations, it is clear that even some very short texts do not have a straightforward mapping between the two models. Since the nucleus of the RST Motivation relation is intended to increase an agent’s motivation to act, it is not surprising that the nucleus could be mapped to the conclusion of a scheme such as argument from consequences or means-end practical reasoning. It is when the satellite of Motivation is itself a complex RST structure describing a long span of text that the mapping is unclear without bringing to bear human intelligence. Some interesting phenomena worthy of further study observed in these long spans of text include 1) that the RST Antithesis relation could be used to provide support, as the satellite of an Evidence relation in Figure 3a, and 2) the role of the RST Elaboration relation in argument from cause to effect shown in Figure 6. In mapping from PR to RST, it was shown that the RST relation of Solutionhood, although used in conjunction with Motivation as shown in Example IV, also could occur without Motivation, as shown in Example VII. This is interesting since Solutionhood is not one of the socalled Presentational relations in RST, like Motivation, i.e., relations that are designed to increase an agent’s disposition – to act, to increase positive regard, etc. In other words, the reader must infer that the purpose of Blair’s speech is to motivate adoption of a certain policy. More generally, the examples of mapping from PR to RST illustrate the challenge of recognizing implicit propositions, which are not part of the RST analysis but which provide key pieces of the argumentation.
While it might be possible for some future argumentation-related applications to exploit RST parsing by restricting the type of text and/or excluding pragmatic inferences from consideration, the strategy does not contribute to a more general computational model of monological argumentation. Such a model must rely on a deeper understanding of text for comprehension and evaluation of argumentation.