...him:

Although we only introduced informally the cooperative, indebted, beneficiary and burdensome predicates, other works like [13] have related similar notions to classifications coming from psychology.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...so:

This reason to act works as an obligation on the part of the hearer to perform the act. For a description of the role of obligations in dialog, see [17].

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...pen?)

Preliminary questions preceding an explicit request are the first turns of the presequences phenomenon [12].

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...act.

[1] introduced the communicative intention operator, Cint, to model the notion of communication [10]: Cint(x,y,p) $\equiv$ Int(x, Sh(y,x, (p $\wedge$ Cint(x,y,p)))).
In the formula, Sh is the modal operator of mutual belief:
Sh(x,y,q) $\equiv$ Bel(x, (q $\wedge$ Sh(y,x,q))).
The belief operator Bel is a modal operator respecting axioms K and D and the property of positive and negative introspection (KD45); the goal and the intention operators (Goal, Int) respect the K and D axioms of modal logic; we leave Int as a primitive operator since its axiomatization is not central to the purposes of this paper.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...rule:

In the paper, all the variables not explicitly quantified are intended to be universally quantified.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...s.

Note that all the predicates of the formula are included in the hearer's beliefs, so the evaluation of who is beneficiary of the action and whether the action is burdensome or not depends on the hearer himself.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.