<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P05-2006">
  <Title>Automatic Discovery of Intentions in Text and its Application to Question Answering</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="31" end_page="32" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
2 Syntax and Semantics of Intention
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"/>
    <Section position="1" start_page="31" end_page="31" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
2.1 Syntactic patterns
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> Because, in all the cases that we encountered, intentions were conveyed by phrases, we took a closer look at how intentions can be expressed in the written text. For our investigations, we chose the Sem1Due to space limitations, we couldn't include detailed examples. Please see the cited articles for examples.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> Cor text collection (Miller et al., 1993), a subset of the Brown corpus manually tagged with WordNet senses (37,176 sentences in 352 newspaper articles).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> After manually classifying the first 2,700 sentences from SemCor into sentences that contain or not intentions, only 46 examples were identified. The syntactic patterns listed in Table 1 cover 95.65% of them. Because the first pattern comprises more than half of the studied examples, our algorithm focuses on detecting intentions encoded by a0a2a1a4a3 to a0a5a1a7a6 . We note that this pattern is ambiguous and may convey other semantics. For instance, Mary began to play with the dog, He told her to meet you are encoded by our pattern, but do not express intentions.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3">  for the school campaign goal/purpose is to VB his goal is to leave the country 4 (8.69) ADJ to VB eager to end a pitching slump 2 (4.34)</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="2" start_page="31" end_page="32" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
2.2 Semantics of intentions
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> From the semantic point of view, an intention may be very specific, it may contain a future time or a location (John intends to meet Mary today), but every intention must specify a future action. Hence, we propose the following representation for the INTENTION semantic relation: INT(a15 a3a17a16a19a18a20a3a21a16 a15 a6 ) where  a3 is the event denoting the intention, a18 a3 denotes the person that has the intention and a15 a6 is the intended action or event. If the intention is more specific then we will identify instances of other semantic re-</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> The semantics of the INTENTION relation allows the derivation of inference rules which show that INTENTION dominates other semantic relations such as PURPOSE, ENTAIL, or ISA. For example, if a person  with the following set of implications4:</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> The first three implications formalize the above inference rules. If John intends to start his car to go to the park, then John intends to go to the park.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> Similarly, if John intends to buy a car, then we can say that he intends to pay for it. The sentences John intends to go to the park. He's starting his car right now express John's intention to go to the park (a15 a6 ).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> The purpose of starting the car (a15 a52 ) is to go to the park. We cannot say that John intends to start his car. This is just an intentional action done to achieve his objective. The fifth rule tries to eliminate the effects (a15 a52 ) of an intention (a15 a6 ) from being considered as intentions or objectives. If John intends to swim in the pool (a15 a6 ) even if he knows that he is going to catch a cold (a15 a52 ) because the water is too cold, we cannot say that John intends to catch a cold.5 The traditional relational properties (reflexivity, symmetry, or transitivity) do not hold for the INTENTION semantic relation.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>