<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P92-1050">
  <Title>THE EXPRESSION OF LOCAL RHETORICAL RELATIONS IN INSTRUCTIONAL TEXT*</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="318" end_page="318" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
IDENTIFYING
ALTERNATIONS
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> I identified alternations by studying the linguistic forms taken on by various rhetorical relations in a corpus of instructional text. The corpus, currently around 1700 words of procedural text from two cordless telephone manuals, was large enough to expose consistent patterns of instructional writing.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> I plan to expand the corpus, but at this point, the extent to which my observations are valid for other types of instructions is unclear.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> To manage this corpus, a text database system was developed which employs three interconnected tables: the clause table, which represents all the relevant information concerning each clause (tense, aspect, etc.), the argument table, which represents all the relevant information concerning each argument to each clause (subjects, objects, etc.), and the rhetorical relation table, which represents all the rhetorical relations between text spans using Mann and Thompson's formalism. I used this tool to retrieve all the clauses and phrases in the corpus that encode a particular local rhetorical relation. I then hypothesized functional reasons for alternations in form and tested them with the data. I considered a hypothesis successful if it correctly predicted the form of a high percentage of the examples in the corpus and was based on a functional distinction that could be derived from the generation environment 2.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> I have analyzed a number of local rhetorical relations and have identified regularities in their expression. We will now look at some representative examples of these alternations which illustrate the various contextual factors that affect the form of expression of rhetorical relations. A full analysis of these examples and a presentation of the statistical evidence for each result can be found in Vander Linden (1992a).</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="4" start_page="318" end_page="318" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
PURPOSES
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> One important factor in the choice of form is the availability of the lexicogrammatical tools from which to build the various forms. The purpose relation, for example, is expressed whenever possible as a &amp;quot;for&amp;quot; prepositional phrase with a nominalization as the complement. This can only be done, however, if a nominalization exists for the action being expressed. Consider the following examples from the corpus: (2a) Follow the steps in the illustration below, for desk installation. (code) (2b) End the second call, and tap FLASH to return to the first call (code) (2e) The OFF position is primarily used for charging the batteries. (code) Example (2a) is a typical purpose clause stated as a &amp;quot;for&amp;quot; prepositional phrase. Example (2b) would have been expressed as a prepositional phrase had a nominalization for &amp;quot;return&amp;quot; been available. Because of this lexicogrammatical gap in English, a &amp;quot;to&amp;quot; infinitive form is used. There are reasons that a nominalization will not be used even if it exists, one of which is shown in (2e).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Here, the action is not the only action required to accomplish the purpose, so an &amp;quot;-ing&amp;quot; gerund is used. This preference for the use of less prominent grammatical forms (in this case, phrases rather 2In the process of hypothesis generation, I have frequently made informal psycholinguistic tests such as judging how &amp;quot;natural&amp;quot; alternate forms seem in the context in which a particular form was used, and have gone so far as to document this process in more complete discussions of this work (Vander Linden et al., 1992a), but these tests do not constitute the basis of my criteria for a successful hypothesis.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> than clauses) marks the purposes as less important than the actions themselves and is common in instructions and elsewhere (Cumming, 1991).</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="318" end_page="318" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
PRECONDITIONS
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Another issue that affects form is the textual context. Preconditions, for example, change form depending upon whether or not the action the pre-condition refers to has been previously discussed.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Consider the following examples: (3a) When you hear dial tone, dial the number on the Dialpad \[4\]. (code) (3b) When the 7010 is installed and the battery has charged for twelve hours, move the OFF/STBY/TALK \[8\] switch to STBY. (code) Preconditions typically are expressed as in (3a), in present tense as material actions. If, however, they are repeat mentions of actions prescribed earlier in the text, as is the case in (3b), they are expressed in present tense as conditions that exist upon completion of the action. I call this the terminating condition form. In this case, the use of this form marks the fact that the readers don't have to redo the action.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="6" start_page="318" end_page="318" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
RESULTS
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Obviously, the content of process being described affects the form of expression. Consider the following examples: (4a) When the 7010 is installed and the battery has charged for twelve hours, move the OFF/STBY/TALK \[8\] switch to STBY. The 7010 is now ready to use. (code) (4b) 3. Place the handset in the base. The</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="7" start_page="318" end_page="318" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
BATTERY CHARGE INDICATOR will light.
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> (exc) Here, the agent that performs the action determines, in part, the form of the expression. In (4a), the action is being performed by the reader which leads to the use of a present tense, relational clause. In (4b), on the other hand, the action is performed by the device itself which leads to the use of a future tense, action clause. This use of future tense reflects the fact that the action is something that the reader isn't expected to perform.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="8" start_page="318" end_page="319" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
CLAUSE COMBINING
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> User modeling factors affect the expression of instructions, including the way clauses are combined. In the following examples we see actions being combined and ordered in different ways: (5a) Remove the handset from the base and lay it on its side. (exc)  (5b) Listen for dial tone, then make your next call (code) (5c) Return the OFF/STBY/TALK switch to  STBY after your call. (code) Two sequential actions are typically expressed as separate clauses conjoined with &amp;quot;and&amp;quot; as in (5a), or, if they could possibly be performed simultaneously, with &amp;quot;then&amp;quot; as in (5b). If, on the other hand, one of the actions is considered obvious to the reader, it will be rhetorically demoted as in (5c), that is stated in precondition form as a phrase following the next action. The manual writer, in this example, is emphasizing the actions peculiar to the cordless phone and paying relatively little attention to the general skills involved in using a standard telephone, of which making a call is one.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>