<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C92-1043">
  <Title>ACTION RELATIONS IN RATIONALE CLAUSES AND MEANS CLAUSES*</Title>
  <Section position="9" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
6 Conclusion
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In this paper, we analyzed utterances with rationalc clauses and means clauses, presented their logical form, and defined interpretation rules for these two constructions that make use of independently motivated action relations. These rules make it possible to draw appropriate inferences about the actions described in these utterances, thereby accounting for thc similarities and differences between rationale clauses and means clauses. The algebraic properties of tile ac tion relations were shown to reflect the properties of the utterances that realize them. We also showed how to distinguish thc constrnctions to which thesc rules apply.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> This analysis fills an important gap in the natural language interpretation literature. Surprisingly little research has examined multi-action utterances such as those with means classes and rationale claases.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> There is a large body of linguistics research on purpose clauses, but it focuses on syntactic aspects of the construction and issues of control (e.g., \[2, 12\]). In the computational linguistics literature, Huettner et al's work on the generation of adjunct clauses \[11\] and Di Eugenio's analysis of instructions \[7, 19\] iloth examine purpose constructions, but from different perspectives than that of this paper \[5\].</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> This research is being extended ill two main directlons. One is to examine future tense utterances and other types of utterances about unrealized actions.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Another is to cast the interpretation rules in a genera\[ processing model that takes into account the mental states of the agents involved. Beliefs and intentions arc necessary for the treatment of unrealized actions, ms well as for capturing other aspects of rationale clauses and means clauses. In particular, utterances with rationale clauses, but not necessarily those with means clauses, communicate the speaker's beliefs about the performing agent's intention to perform the actions described in the utterance. Finally, mental states arc indispensable in any interpretation model that purports to account for inferences that arc drawn on the basis of utterances, initial progress in these two areas is reported in tile companion paper \[5\].</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>