Skip to main content

Questions And Intentions

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Text, Speech and Language Technology ((TLTB,volume 32))

Before a question can be answered by an advanced Question Answering (QA) system, it must be understood at several different levels. First, the complexity of the question needs to be identified based on a combination of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic knowledge. Second, since questions are rarely asked in isolation, the question context needs to be determined for better understanding its request. Third, it is difficult to separate the question intentions from the question formulation, therefore plausible implications need to be coerced from each question. Fourth, mechanisms that either accept or reject the implied intentions are needed. All these different processes impact on the question understanding and implicitly on the accuracy of the returned answers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

7. References

  • ACE, “Entity Detection and Tracking” - Phase 1; EDT and Metonymy Annotation Guidelines, Version 2.5,2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collin, F. Baker, Charles, J. Fillmore, and John, B. Lowe, “The Berkeley FrameNet Project” in Proceedings of COLING/ACL ‘98:86-90, Montreal, Canada, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cosmin, Bejan, Alessandro Moschitti, Paul Morarescu, Gabriel Nicolae and Sanda Harabagiu, “Semantic parsing based on FrameNet”. In Proceedings of Senseval-3: The Third International Workshop on the Evaluation of Systems for the Semantic Analysis of Text, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel M. Bikel, Richard Schwartz and Ralph M. Weischedel, “An Algorithm that Learns What’s in a Name”, Machine Learning Journal 34, pp. 211-231, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jean Carletta, “Assessing agreement on classification tasks: The kappa statistic”. Computational Linguistics, 22(2): 249-254, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahibsingh, A. Dudani. “The Distance-Weighted k-Nearest-Neighbor Rule”. In IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-6(4): 325-327, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiane Fellbaum, editor, “WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database”, MIT Press, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donghui Feng and Eduard Hovy, “Handling Biographical Questions with Implicature”. In Proceedings of Human Language Technology Conference and Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (HLT/EMNLP-2005), pages 596-603, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elena Filatova and John Prager, “Tell Me What You Do And I’ll Tell You What You Are: Learning Occupation-Related Activities for Biographies”. In the Proceedings of HLT/EMNLP 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel Gildea and Daniel Jurafsky, “Automatic Labeling of Semantic Roles” in Computa-tional Linguistics, 28(3): 245-288, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel Gildea and Martha Palmer, “The Necessity of Parsing for Predicate Argument Recognition” in Proceedings of the 40th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2002): 239-246, Philadelphia, PA, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roxana Girju, Adriana Badulescu and Dan Moldovan, “Learning Semantic Constraints for the Automatic Discovery of Part-Whole Relations”. In Proceedings of HLT-NAACL 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, H. Grice, “Logic and conversation”, in Cole P. and J.L. Morgan (ed.) Academic Press N.Y. editors, Syntax and Semantics Vol. 3: Speech Acts, pages 41-58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbara Grosz and Candance Sidner, “Attention, Intentions and the Structure of Discourse” , Computational Linguistics, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanda Harabagiu, Andrew Hickl, John Lehmann, and Dan Moldovan, “Experiments with Interactive Question-Answering”. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’05), 205-214, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanda Harabagiu, “Incremental Topic Representations”, in Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2004), Geneva, Switzerland, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanda Harabagiu, Steven Maiorano, Alessandro Moschitti and Cosmin Bejan, “Intentions, Implicatures and Processing of Complex Questions”, In Proceedings of HLT-NAACL 2004 Workshop on Pragmatics of Question Answering, Boston, Massachusetts 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanda Harabagiu, Dan Moldovan, Christine Clark, Mitchell Bowden, John Williams and Jeremy Bensley, “Answer Mining by Combining Extraction Techniques with Abductive Reasoning”. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Text Retrieval Conference (TREC 2003), 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanda Harabagiu, Dan Moldovan, Marius Pasca, Rada Mihalcea, Mihai Surdeanu, Razvan Bunsecu, Roxana Girju, Vasile Rus, and Paul Morarescu, “The Role of Lexico-Semantic Feedback in Open-Domain Textual Question-Answering”. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL ‘01), 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanda Harabagiu, Marius Pasca and Steven Maiorano, “Experiments with Open-Domain Textual Question Answering” in Proceedings of COLING-2000, Saarbruken Germany, pages 292-298, August 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanda Harabagiu, George Miller and Dan Moldovan, “WordNet 2 - A Morphologically and Semantically Enhanced Resource,” in Proceedings of SIGLEX-99, pages 1-8, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marti Hearst, “TextTiling: Segmenting text into multi-paragraph subtopic passages”. In Computational Linguistics, 23: 33-64, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marti Hearst, “Multi-Paragraph Segmentation of Expository Text”. In Proceedings of the 32nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 9-16, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Joachims, “Making large-Scale SVM Learning Practical”. In B. Scholkopf, C. Burges and A. Smola (ed.), MIT-Press., Advances in Kernel Methods - Support Vector Learning, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Megumi Kameyama, “Recognizing Referential Links: An Information Extraction Perspective”. In Workshop of Operational Factors in Practical, Robust Anaphora Resolution for Unrestricted Texts, (ACL-97/EACL-97), pages 46 -53, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauri Karttunen, “Implicative Verbs”. Language 47, 340-58, 1971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boris Katz, Matthew Bilotti, Sue Felshin, Aaron Fernandes, Wesley Hildebrandt, Roni Katzir, Jimmy Lin, Daniel Loreto, Gregory Marton, Federico Mora, Ozlem Uzuner, “Answering multiple questions on a topic from heterogeneous resources”. In NIST Special Publication SP 500-261: The Thirteenth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC 2004), 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul Kingsbury, Martha Palmer, and Mitch Marcus, “Adding Semantic Annotation to the Penn TreeBank” in Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference (HLT 2002):252-256, San Diego, California, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jon Kleinberg, “Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment”. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 668-677, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • John Lafferty, Fernando Pereira, and Andrew McCallum, “Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data”. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML’01), 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maria Lapata and Alex Lascarides, “A Probabilistic Account of Logical Metonymy”, Computational Linguistics 29:2, 263-317, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beth Levin, “English Verb Classes and Alternations a Preliminary Investigation”. University of Chicago Press, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephen, C. Levinson, “Pragmatics”. Cambridge University Press, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin-Yew Lin and Eduard Hovy, “The Automated Acquisition of Topic Signatures for Text Summarization”, in Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2000), Saarbrücken, Germany, July 31- August 4, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekang Lin and Patrick Pantel, “Discovery of Inference Rules for Question Answering”, Natural Language Engineering, 7(4): 343-360, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Lytinen and N. Tomuro. “The Use of Question Types to Match Questions in FAQFinder”. In Papers from the 2002 AAAI Spring Symposium on Mining Answers from Texts and Knowledge Bases, pages 46 -53, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chris Manning and Hinrich Schütze, “Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing”, MIT Press. Cambridge, MA, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gideon S. Mann, David Yarowsky, “Multi-Field Information Extraction and Cross-Document Fusion”, In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL ‘05), 483-490, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katja Markert and Malvina Nissim, “Metonymy resolution as a classification task”. In Proceedings of the 2002 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 204-213, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrew McCallum.“Mallet: A machine learning for language toolkit”. www.cs.umass.edu/∼mccallum/mallet, 2002.

  • A. Meyers, R. Reeves, C. Macleod, R. Szekely, V. Zielinska, B. Young and R. Grishman, “The NomBank Project: An Interim Report”. In Proceedings of HLT-NAACL 2004 Workshop: Frontiers in Corpus Annotation, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dan Moldovan, Marius Pasca, Sanda Harabagiu, and Mihai Surdeanu, “Performance issues and error analysis in an open-domain question answering system”. In ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), Vol. 21, Nr. 2, 133-154, 2003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul Morarescu and Sanda Harabagiu, “NameNet: a Self-Improving Resource for Name Classification”. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2004), 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alessandro Moschitti and Cosmin Adrian Bejan, “A Semantic Kernel for Predicate Argument Classification”, In Proceedings of CoNLL-2004, Boston, Massachusetts 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srini Narayanan and Sanda Harabagiu. “Question Answering Based on Semantic Structures”. In Proceedings of the 20th COLING Conference, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marius Pasca and Sanda Harabagiu, “High Performance Question/Answering”. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR-2001), September 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dragomir, R. Radev, John Prager, and Valerie Samn, “Ranking potential answers to natural language questions” in Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, pages 150-157, Seattle, WA, May 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deepak Ravichandran and Eduard Hovy, “Learning Surface Text Patterns for a Question Answering System”, in Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Associations for Computational Linguistics (ACL-2002), pages 41-47, July 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Sekine, K. Sudo, and C. Nobata, “Extended named entity hierarchy”. In Proceedings of LREC 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohini Srihari and Wei Li, “A Question Answering System Supported by Information Extraction” in Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, pages 166-172, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • David Stallard, “Two kinds of metonymies” in Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL-93, pages 87-94, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mihai Surdeanu, Sanda Harabagiu, John Williams, and Paul Aarseth, “Using Predicate-Argument Structures for Information Extraction”. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’03), 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnie Webber, Arvind Joshi, Mathew Stone and Alistair Knott, “Anaphora and Discourse Structure”, Computational Linguistics, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig Wittgenstein, “Philosophical Investigations”, Oxford University Press, London, England, 1953.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jinxi Xu, Ana Licuanan and Ralph Weischedel, “TREC2003 QA at BBN: Answering Definitional Questions”. In NIST Special Publication 500-255: The Twelfth Text Retrieval Conference (TREC 2003), 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roman Yangarber, “Counter-Training in Discovery of Semantic Patterns”. In Proceedings of the 41th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 343 -350, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roman Yangarber, Ralph Grishman, Pasi Tapanainen, and Silja Huttunen, “Automatic Acquisition of Domain Knowledge for Information Extraction”. In Proceedings of the 18th COLING Conference, pages 940-946, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Harabagiu, S.M. (2008). Questions And Intentions. In: Strzalkowski, T., Harabagiu, S.M. (eds) Advances in Open Domain Question Answering. Text, Speech and Language Technology, vol 32. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4746-6_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics