Lucia M Tovena

Pluractionality and the unity of the event

This paper exposes shortcomings of an analysis to singleevent plural verbs (Cusic's event-internal pluractionals) based on temporal discontinuity. It shows how to ground discontinuity on the participant used to measure out the event, by forcing breaches in the property of Mapping-to-SubObject that its theta role should have. This provides an explanation for why phases cannot be described by the same predicate applying to the whole event, which in turn exposes differences with respect to semelfactive verbs and the minimal units they are made of.

Introduction

The Italian sentence in (1a) describes the eating of one apple by Luisa that differs from the event described by (1b) because it takes place on and off. Culmination is an implicature in both sentences. [START_REF] Cusic | Verbal plurality and aspect[END_REF] a. Luisa ha mangiucchiato la mela 'L. ate the apple' b. Luisa ha mangiato la mela 'L. ate the apple'

Mangiucchiare is an event-internal pluractional verb [START_REF] Newman | The classification of Chadic within Afroasiatic[END_REF][1] [START_REF] Tovena | Issues in the formation of verbs by evaluative suffixation[END_REF], and the multiplicity of subevents it describes, aka 'phases' [START_REF] Cusic | Verbal plurality and aspect[END_REF], does not impact on the singularity of the event or of its participants. On the contrary, event-external pluractional verbs denote pluralities of units higher up in Cusic's hierarchy, namely 'events' or 'occasions'. Lasersohn's [START_REF] Lasersohn | Plurality, conjunction and events[END_REF] definition in (2) concerns the latter. Sources of multiplicity are subsequent times, distinct places or participants, which can be seen as the key in a form of distribution where the event predicate would be the share. Such a key is provided in (2) by a non-overlap condition and a function f that is a temporal or spatio-temporal trace, or a thematic role. Lasersohn adds the constraints P=V unless X is a plurality of phases, and n ≥2 on cardinality, that relies on pragmatic contextual information for fixing the value of n.

(2) V-PA(X) ⇔ ∀ e e' ∈ X[P(e)& ¬f(e) • f(e')] & card(X) ≥ n PA=pluractional affix, f is a temporal/spatio-temporal trace function or a thematic role assigned by V Cases like (1a) are not covered by [START_REF] Dowty | Word meaning and Montague grammar[END_REF] precisely because multiplicity has an event-internal source, cf. [START_REF] Tovena | Nibbling is not many bitings in French and Italian: A morphosemantic analysis of internal plurality[END_REF] for criticisms. Recently, two proposals have been put forth for this and similar cases. One seeks to identify phases via their temporal trace [START_REF] Tatevosov | Pluractionality vs. discontinuity[END_REF], the other via their local participants [12; 13; 15]. This paper discusses shortcomings in grounding phases on time and shows how to ground them on the participant that is used to measure out the event. This provides an explanation for why phases cannot be described by the same predicate applying to the event and how they differ from minimal units of an event.

Event-internal plurality

Tatevosov has argued that the morpheme -kala-in Chuvash (Altaic, Turkic) introduces a form of verb plurality arising from discontinuity of subevents in a single event. 1 This morpheme is analysed as a degree modifier that lowers below standard a contextually determined gradable property of an event predicate.

(

) ||-kala-|| = λPλe∃d[F c (P)(e)=d ∧ d < standard(F c )(C)] 3
F c =variable over degree functions specifying the degree of a gradable property of an event, P=type of event, C=comparison class Continuity is the property discussed, and F c in ( 3) is assigned the function F continuity as a value. The standard of comparison for the scale of continuity is the maximal degree, because this is an upper closed scale. A function τ C , called covering time, is defined as a temporal trace function that can return the duration of an event even if it is discontinuous, because it returns the total minimal interval of duration by identifying the initial and final moments of the event. Any subinterval of the covering time of a maximally continuous event is the temporal trace of a subpart of such an event. The covering time of an event with a degree of continuity less than maximal has at least a gap in it, i.e. a subinterval which is the temporal trace of no subevent of e, cf. ( 4). Crucially, the definition of continuity relies on the possibility for τ C (e) of identifying the initial and final moments of e. This is quite a standard assumption if one has a continuous event to start with, cf. [START_REF] Krifka | The origins of telicity[END_REF], and gaps are subsequently added to its trace, whereas the reverse order of action is problematic, i.e. identifying the event by taking away gaps in an interval, as discussed below. Assuming a VP modifier status for -kala-, instead of V modifier, gets around the problem of carving out a subevent e ′ in an event e with gaps as in [START_REF] Jurafsky | Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive[END_REF]. But no evidence nor explicit motivation for the VP level of modification are provided. The data show that -kala-combines with the verb stem before perfective affixes and verb inflection, which is common for aspectual affixes.

Another way of characterising single events with an internal form of multiplicity has been explored by Tovena, in single and joint work, w.r.t. a class of Italian and French verbs derived by suffixation, e.g. It. mordicchiare (nibble), tagliuzzare (cut into small pieces). Plurality, she argues, arises from distributing over the cells of a cover applied to a participant. The levels of the event e and of the plurality of phases e ′ are specified separately in (5), the plurality is given an explicit status at event level through groupification, and the equation e=↑e ′ links levels in the representation. From this, we can work out that the suffix -icchi contributes a constraint like in (6) on the internal structure of the event.

( Two operations are exploited to bring about the distribution effect within one event: i) at least one participant is fragmented via a mass role M R [START_REF] Landman | Events and plurality[END_REF], and ii) this role is related to a predicate of phases that denotes in a plural domain, but it is the event predicate that is the basic one and that assigns roles to the participants. 2 Tovena shows that the verb does not make phases accessible at discourse referent level so they cannot be counted, the cardinality of the plurality cannot be compared even when left unspecified, and there are thematic restrictions that do not apply to pluralities of other levels. The proposal in (5) generalizes by considering property scales measuring an abstract dimension instead of physical entities, e.g. the vol-ume of a physical entity, as well as paths and scales associated to the event because of implicit arguments. In the canonical case, the unfolding of the event is measured by adjacent isomorphic transitions of the theme along a scale related to the event by Krifka's [START_REF] Krifka | The origins of telicity[END_REF] Movement Relation. Whereas, in event-internal pluractional verbs, the correlation between a dynamic predicate and a form of gradability is disrupted. Fragmenting means to cancel the homomorphism between the mereological structures of (one or more) scales and the event.

Both proposals are about single events that exhibit a form of plurality and describe a situation as non canonical. They share the view that the source of multiplicity is to be sought somewhere in the unfolding of the event, and differ in the conception of plurality invoked.

Grounding phases

Grounding phases on time raises several problems. First and foremost, total absence of discontinuity-i.e. strict continuity-is generally not enforced in canonical events described by unmodified predicates and cannot be taken as a discriminating criterion. Let's call disc-V the class of verbs describing discontinuous events. The type of subevents that distinguish events of the disc-V type from canonical ones are no trivial gaps where the applicability of the predicate to the interval is suspended, but constitutive parts of the event type under definition. They are not a zooming-in effect. Let's call them lulls. Since they are a required component, the trace function applied to the event must return an interval that contains them too, otherwise the event is not of the disc-V type. This is the interval Tatevosov called covering time and that corresponds to the minimal convex interval that has the temporal trace of the V type event as subinterval.

Once we acknowledge that lulls are definitional for disc-V type of events, strictly speaking, there is no temporal discontinuity anymore, hence no source of multiplicity. In this respect, the characterisation of -kala-in Chuvas as VP modifier is instrumental, because it allows one to have what looks like a single discontinuous event that instantiates e in (4) but is not directly defined as an event in itself. Yet, τ C is assumed to correctly identify its initial and final moments, and it is the original property of event that is used to vouch for the composition of all the relevant discontinuous subevents into one event. But why invoking a property that needed to be modified precisely because it was not able to adequately characterise the event under examination? The general question is whether and how can we properly define/identify subevents other than by using temporal intervals, which by themselves do not define event properties.

Furthermore, what said for the event applies to subevents. Either, subevents are of the disc-V type and thus contain lulls, which means that disc-V events cannot be made of just two disc-V subevents, because these subevents themselves must contain lulls. 3 We have a sorites paradox of the heap type here. Or, being two continuous subevents as Tatevosov assumes, they cannot be of disc-V type. They actually are of the V type. But this is a way to stipulate that all V-type subevents cannot cluster somewhere within the temporal trace of a disc-V event. Moreover, lulls cannot last too long lest the connectedness of the event is jeopardised. Something should be said about what prevents discontinuity from disrupting the event in (1a) into a collection of distinct events of eating (parts of) the same apple.

Let us look at (1a) with the insight that taking out lulls from the temporal trace of a disc-V event gives us the trace of a V-type event in its canonical realisation, and explore the alternative possibility of grounding discontinuity on a measure of increment. If events of the disc-V type must have discontinuous subevents, i.e. phases, this means that there must be some subevent(s) in which no part of the apple is in a θ relation with the event and the event's temporal progression is not suspended. As said above, events described by event-internal pluractional verbs are perceived as noncanonical instantiations of an event type. Instead of using the problematic notion of continuity, the notion of non-canonical event can be defined as the case of an event exhibiting localised losses of mapping-to-subobjects (MSO [START_REF] Krifka | The origins of telicity[END_REF]) for a θ role whose corresponding θ ′ , which would be assigned by V to the same entity if the event where realised (or described as realised) in its canonical form, does have MSO. This localised effect is characterised by saying that a disc-V event must contain subevents that are V eventsin all of which θ satisfies MSO-and subevents that are not, and therefore are lulls. Generalising, i) the θ assigned by the pluractional-V verb to the object is the closure of θ ′ under sum formation of the object, where θ ′ is the role assigned by simplex V to the object, and ii) θ ′ has MSO and MO (mapping-to-object), while θ has not. The mapping must be extended to include measures used in the definition of event incrementality. Discontinuity comes out from a modification of a property of a θ role instead of using a temporal definition. The multiplicity of phases perceived in the event is anchored in the parts of an entity/value relevant to the conceptualisation of the event and not in its temporal interval. The non-canonical event is characterised as a predictable modification of the semantic characterisation of the canonical form. This modified semantic characterisation matches the understanding that we are dealing with a class of verbs that have morphologically derived forms. The approach defended in this paper provides explicit motivation for the disequation P =V for event-internal pluralities that Lasersohn had to stipulate. As we have seen, the nature of the event, i.e. its being non-canonical in a way that allows the expression of a local form of plurality, does not lend itself to a recursive definition, and phases cannot be described by the predicate that describes the event. This impossibility may be seen to lurk behind Tatevosov's requirement that subevents be continuous. Next, the issue of the duration of lulls, but not of their presence, boils down to the general, albeit non-trivial, issue of defining continuity for an event.

The complexity of the issue of where the pluractional marker does its modification highlights the fact that, as we just said, the event property used for describing the pluractional event cannot be the same as that used to describe phases, but also that the modification of the verb has consequences at various levels. On the one hand, properties of the theta roles assigned by the verb naturally belong to the content of the verb, and altering them is tantamount to modifying the ingredients of the aspectual characterisation of the verb, the so-called lexical or inner aspect. On the other hand, aspectual consequences spread in the whole VP up to sentential level. A change in the nature of the event description is the most salient output of the use of a pluractional form. We can add two language specific pieces of data from Italian and French to this discussion against an analysis of event-internal pluractional markers as VP modifiers. These languages use evaluative suffixes to form pluractional verbs of the eventinternal type. 4 First, evaluative suffixes can form denominal pluractional verbs, beside deverbal ones, see [START_REF] Lasersohn | Plurality, conjunction and events[END_REF]. Hence the impact of the suffix must be assessed also below VP level.

(7) a. Italian: sorseggiare (sip)← sorso N (sip) b. French: pointiller (dot)← point N (dot)

Second, the suffix can affect the conjugation of the verb in deverbal cases, as discussed in [START_REF] Tovena | Issues in the formation of verbs by evaluative suffixation[END_REF]. Simplex verb forms may belong to any class of conjugation, whereas the derived pluractional forms all belong to the first class, e.g. 3rd conjugation tossire (cough) > 1st conjugation tossicchiare.

Evaluative suffixes bring about the same effect of normalisation on nouns.

All modified nouns belong to the broadest inflection class, independently of the class of the base, e.g. poeta (poet) vs. poetino.

On phases and minimal units

In a plurality, phases are parts described all by the same predicate and endowed with some form of atomicity, that makes it possible for us to appreciate their multiplicity but does not warrant their identification. Thus, they cannot be counted, e.g. a claim of victory like Luisa ha mordicchiato più di Daniele (Luisa nibbled more than Daniele) cannot be foiled by replying No, perché lui è più veloce (no, because he is faster) with the intention of saying that he gave more little bites in the same time span. It is far from clear that a minimal cardinality can be defined unambiguously for these verbs, pace Tatevosov and Lasersohn. Again, the situation hints at a sorites paradox, where the beginning of a sorites series does not coincide with the beginning of a series. There may be a cut-off separating nibbling from biting when going in this direction-as one may concede that an event of two little bites is still a nibbling, yet an event with one is certainly not. There isn't necessarily a cut-off when going the other way. The issue is more complex than just having two series with non-coinciding beginnings. It involves the status of the units. A plurality of phases described by an event predicate P is homogeneous because phases are not identifiable, but P is not properly cumulative for reasons we have seen. First, not just any set of phases is an instance of a P event, in particular the singleton set is not. Second, given what we said on subevents in section 3, only subevents understood as bigger than single phases can be properly called subevents of the same event type P and be added in a series. Third, lulls are subintervals on which we do not want to define subevents. In sum, it appears that cumulativity, and divisivity for that matter, are properties of events and are standardly tested by working with subevents that can qualify as events, not with phases. Event-internal pluractionals are reminiscent of semelfactives, e.g. jump, cough, in their iterated/activity reading, but should be kept separate. Pluractional verbs may be derived from semelfactive bases, but they no longer have a semel use, cf It. tossire-tossicchiare (cough). In order to expose the differences, let's first recall some claims about semelfactives. Semelfactives are dynamic, as they can occur in the imperative form, and atelic instantaneous, as they combine with punctual adverbs, according to Smith [START_REF] Smith | The parameter of aspect[END_REF], and their peculiarity is the absence of change. In the light of the discussion in section 2, this means that the realisation of the event does not modify the preconditions, and iteration without gaps is possible as a consequence. As for the activity reading specifically, Rothstein [START_REF] Rothstein | Structuring events[END_REF] points out that semelfactives are event predicates that denote extended events, as they combine with duration adverbs, take progressive form and are said to induce the imperfective paradox. As for the single event reading, Rothstein, who takes semel verbs to be telic interval predicates related to homonymous activity predicates, is keen to recall that Smith herself acknowledges that semelfactive are events conceptualised as instantaneous though they take time to reach a completion in reality. Thus, semelfactives denote events that have internal structure-as opposed to achievements, which are analysed as near-instantaneous changes from ¬φ to φ. For Rothstein, the occurrence in the progressive and the imperfective paradox is linguistic evidence for such a structure. Taking scores, we can observe that the combination of being instantaneous and allowing seamless sequences makes the activity reading of semelfactives look like a plurality of phases.

The possibility of spatio-temporally locating events in the semel reading or units of events in their activity reading, makes these events and units different from phases and clearly sets apart semelfactives from pluractional verbs.

Events denoted in semel uses may be complex, but so do phases. The series of movements that must occur as part of an event denoted by a semelfactive, in Rothstein terms, are constitutive of its internal structure. It is a single instantiation of this structure that Rothstein takes as paralleling the minimal parts of an activity in Dowty's [START_REF] Dowty | Word meaning and Montague grammar[END_REF] terms, i.e. the smallest events in P that count as events of P. The difference with ordinary activities, I suggest, is in the non-arbitrary way of dividing minimal events/units that is peculiar to semelfactives. We can see activities as characterised by cycles of parts, but in general their cycles do not have specific first/prominent elements, whereas in semelfactives they do. Rothstein assumes that activities denote in a domain where minimal events are not in an atomic set but in a singular set, whereas, in the semelfactive use of a predicate, a natural atomic function picks out the atomic set. The difference is that a singular set contains minimal singular but overlapping entities, and this, in Rothstein's words, means that two minimal events of walking may overlaps but two minimal events of jumping will not. The point is delicate and we do not need to take a stand on it. For our concerns, it suffices to assume that the minimal event in a singular set may have structure inside, but that no part in it qualifies as the beginning or the apex of the cycle, contrary to the minimal event in an atomic set. The recursion of the distinguished part signals the completion of a cycle, what precedes or follows it qualifies as part of the cycle. I won't try to define what counts as a full cycle. What matters is that the prominent part may act as the identifier for the whole event, as usual with achievements, and be relevant to count units/cycles that are viewed as events. Since the whole cycle is short, one-cycle events may be conceptualised as instantaneous.

In short, first, the identifying capacity of a minimal unit is an artefact in an activity and cannot be used to count events. It is the series that we count, leaving aside the important but independent issue of its continuity. Second, the combination of having well defined minimal units, which are perceived and characterised as such by a language, and having output conditions that meet input conditions, which amounts to what has been dubbed as absence of change in the literature, are the ingredients for the double behaviour of semelfactives. Minimal units are events. Semelfactive predicates denote single events in the semel use, and sums of events in the activity use. Minimal events can be added one at the time and yield an incremental process. Third, by contrast, event-internal pluractionals share the second ingredient at phase level, but crucially differ with respect to the first. Phases may still be viewed as cycles containing a prominent part that makes it possible to see a multitude, but are not individually mapped onto events in the hierarchy of Cusic, hence cannot be counted. They do not partake in the same event type as the grouped plurality they form.

Conclusion

Phases of a discontinuous internally plural event appear as a result of altering a θ relation of a canonical event description in a way that reduces cohesion. More specifically, at least one theta role lacks a property that is found in the description taken as canonical. The loss of MSO has to do with multiplication, hence it is coupled by a loss of MO. The same pattern of modification can be used to create new verbs from nominal bases. Phases are viewed as the reflect of the application of the predicate to the parts of the participant demoted to a sum that works as the distributive key. This gives them a form of atomicity sufficient for event-internal plurality. But the modification makes the recursive application of the event property impossible, and phases do not qualify as minimal units of the event they are part of. Therefore, semelfactives and event-internal pluractional verbs are two different types of predicates.

( 4 )

 4 F continuity (P)(e)<1→ ∀e[P(e)→ ∃t[t< τ C (e)∧¬∃e'[e'<e∧t = τ (e')]]]

  ) ||mordicchiare||=λxλyλe[(mordicchiare(e)&Ag(e, y) & Pat(e, x))⇔ ∃e ′ ( * morderePhase(e ′ ) & e=↑e ′ & *Ag(e ′ , y) & M Pat(e ′ , x))] (6) a. ||mordere||(bite)=λxλyλe[mordere(e)&Ag(e, y) & Pat(e, x)] b. ||-icchi||=λO[λxλyλe[(O(x)(y)(e)) ⇔ ∃e ′ ( * VPhase(e ′ ) & e=↑ e ′ & *Ag(e ′ , y) & M Pat(e ′ , x))]]

Tatevosov rejects the label 'pluractionality' for the case of plurality he describes. However, the objection he raises concerning the singularity of the participants in the event, applies to event-external pluractionality, and on the contrary, supports a characterisation as event-internal plurality. Another objection he raises is that -kala-does not produce the full spectrum of readings typically associated with pluractionality. Note that having a partial spectrum is rather the standard case for a (pluractional) affix, and that the readings produced by -kala-mentioned in the paper are typical forms of diminutive event-internal plurality. It is not clear how well his approach generalises to cases where more than one dimension is affected at the same time, quite a common situation in event-internal plurality.

The parts of the participant work as the distributive key, whose plurality becomes visible only within the event, via the mass role M R. This role uses a cover necessarily weaker than the cover that has the atom as its unique cell.

Recall Lasersohn's cardinality constraint n ≥2 endorsed by Tatevosov.

This word-formation option is available in other Romance languages, although with varying degrees of productivity. Evaluative morphology typically belongs to the nominal domain, but has a variety of uses[START_REF] Jurafsky | Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive[END_REF].


Lucia M Tovena
email: tovena@linguist.jussieu.fr

Accomplishments: their Telos and their Structure *

This paper explores the relevance of a goal directed characterisation of the internal structure of accomplishments. The notion of 'plan' enables us to talk about the homogeneity and the continuity of the activity phase at a sufficiently abstract level, and about non-homogeneity when one consider the structure of instances of accomplishments in global terms, i.e. including culminations. Evidence is provided for this intensional characterisation that enriches a definition the aspectual class based on temporal conditions.

Introduction

In this paper we examine arguments for appealing to event-centred criteria in characterising accomplishments and more generally in identifying subevents. Initial motivation for our inquiry came from facets of the interpretation of sentence (1) highlighted by two situations in which it is appropriate.

(1)

Max repaired the radio in one hour. a. Max took to pieces only half of the device, worked on that half and put it all back into one functioning unit in an hour. b. Max fiddled around with the device for 15 minutes, sat still for 15 minutes and then worked with his hands actively on the device for 30 more minutes and succeeded.

In the situation described in (1a) the theme is not incrementally fully affected, and in the situation described in (1b) action is not visible throughout the hour.

The first issue has been raised by [START_REF] Rothstein | Structuring events[END_REF] and presented as a problem for the analysis of the telicity of accomplishments based on the notion of incremental theme proposed by [START_REF] Krifka | The origins of telicity[END_REF]. The second point, in our opinion, raises a problem for Rothstein's analysis based on temporal schemata, in which the notion of incremental activity is characterised by a chain structure. In this paper, we look at existing analyses in a perspective that gives prominence to Tovena the goal oriented internal structure of accomplishments in their intensional definition. We point out how the distinction between conceptual intensional events and real extensional ones is fruitful for discussing the relation between the parts within an accomplishment, not just between partial and completed events, as done w.r.t. progressivised accomplishments. The notion of 'plan' -a term referring to the conceptualisation of an event driven by a goal -enables us to talk about the homogeneity and the continuity of the activity phase of accomplishments at a sufficiently abstract level, and about their non-homogeneity when one consider the structure of instances of these events in global terms, i.e. including the culmination. In section 2, we provide a quick review of key notions on the aspectual class of accomplishments established by Vendler in his classic contribution. In section 3, Krifka's and Rothstein's analyses are summarised and the issues raised by example (1) are further discussed, then in section 4 we present a goal directed view of accomplishments and the proposal by [START_REF] Van Lambalgen | The proper treatment of events[END_REF]. Empirical traces of plans and interaction between plans and temporal information are discussed in section 5.

2 Accomplishments in Vendler's Classification Vendler (1967) has defined four classes that help us to classify the English verbs according to the most common time schemata they imply. They are states, activities, achievements, and accomplishments. Duration and homogeneity are two crucial properties in his classification. Duration is taken to explain the compatibility of accomplishments and activities with the progressive, which involve periods of time. In this, they contrast with states and achievements, which involve time instants. Homogeneity is exploited for distinguishing accomplishments from activities: "Any part of the process is of the same nature as the whole"(Vendler 1967: p.101) only for the latter class, cf. their different behaviour when combining with temporal adverbials of the form in # time/ for # time. Activities go on in time in a homogeneous way. If Max ran for an hour, then it is true that he ran at any time during that hour. On the contrary, accomplishments are not homogeneous. If Max built a sand castle in an hour, then it is not true that he built one at any time during that hour. Grounding aspectual distinctions exclusively on temporal properties of moments and intervals of time is not satisfactory, as Vendler himself noted. The non-homogeneity of accomplishments follows from their characterising property, i.e. their proceeding "toward a terminus which is logically necessary to their being what they are" (Vendler 1967: p.101). As a consequence, their temporal structure is organised into ordered parts, none of which includes this terminus, apart from the very last one. This view naturally meshes with our conceptualisation of the event as made up of parts that are causally related at some level. In short, order and a local form of homogeneity are the ingredients of Vendler's notion of incrementality. Incrementality is relevant for accomplishments and activities, as it goes together with duration, which sets achievements aside, and with a form of change, which sets states aside.We turn to it next. [START_REF] Krifka | The origins of telicity[END_REF] characterises telicity (2) as the property of an event predicate X that if it applies to an event e, then it does not apply to a part of e that begins or ends at a different time. Thus, all parts of e that fall under X are initial (INI) and final (FIN) parts of e.

Telicity and Incrementality of Accomplishments

Incrementality via a Homomorphism between Part Structures

( 2)

∀X⊆U E [TEL E (X)↔ ∀e,e'∈U E [X(e)∧X(e')∧e'≤ E e→INI E (e',e)∧FIN E (e',e))]]
Quantised predicates, as opposed to cumulative ones, fall in the group of telic event predicates. If an entity is in the denotation of a quantised predicate, it does not have proper parts that also are in the denotation of the predicate. Quantisation and cumulativity are relevant also for nominal predicates. The transfer of properties from arguments to the event is regulated by conditions on the thematic roles of the participants. They are mappings from the structure of the object to that of the event and vice versa.

(3) mapping to subevents (MSE) For all x, y in the domain of entities P and all e in the domain of events E, MSE(θ ) iff θ (x, e) ∧ y

< P x → ∃e ′ [e ′ < E e ∧ θ (y, e ′ )]
(4) mapping to subobjects (MSO) For all x in the domain of entities P and all e, e ′ in the domain of events E, MSO(θ ) iff θ (x, e) ∧ e ′ < E e → ∃y[y

< P x ∧ θ (y, e ′ )]
Strict incrementality is a property of theta roles and is defined by the joint effect of MSE, MSO, a constraint that requires subevents that correspond to subobjects to be unique, a constraint that requires parts of an object to be participants in unique subevents, and by excluding situations where both object and event are atomic. The net result is that the extent of the incremental accomplishment described in ( 5) is determined by the extent of the theme and the eating of the last part of the apple marks the culmination of the eating event.

(5) Max ate the apple.

As the event grows temporally in (5), the part of the path related to the event via a theta role also grows [START_REF] Krifka | The origins of telicity[END_REF]. The path determines the incremental structure of the event. However, one can truthfully utter sentence (1) to describe situation (1a) where the theme is not incrementally fully affected, and telicity would have to come from a quantised theme without MSE property.

(1) Max repaired the radio in one hour. a. Max took to pieces only half of the device, worked on that half and put it all back into one functioning unit in an hour.

Krifka is aware that the extent of the theme is too narrow a domain for the homomorphism characterising the accomplishment, and has proposed to use property scales measuring an abstract dimension rather than physical entities, and considered specific pragmatic requirements.1 Krifka's proposal might be modified by using very abstract property scales to measure events, not objects, but this results in a departure from the appealing initial intuitions behind the mappings between theme and event, that are the essence of his proposal.

Incrementality as Accumulating

Quantities of a Process [START_REF] Rothstein | Structuring events[END_REF] has claimed that the generalisation developed by Krifka does not suffice to cover the reading (1a) where the theme is only partially involved.

In her analysis, an accomplishment is an activity paired with a BECOME event, which is a change of state that 'accompanies' it.2 It has an incremental structure built with stages3 (Rothstein 2004: 38), and its crucial role is to measure the accomplishment's progression. The activity part is related to the developmental structure of the BECOME event via an incremental relation INCR4 that fixes the order of the parts. In other words, an accomplishment is an incremental process defined to be isomorphic to a chain lattice that encodes two essential bits of information, namely incrementality and culmination. The incremental component is represented via the chain structure and is defined w.r.t. an order provided by pragmatics and associated to the activity part of the event. The upper bound of the chain is said to coincide with the culmination that is to be assigned to the activity part to build the whole accomplishment. The template for accomplishments is as in ( 6).

( The radio lying untouched is a problem for Krifka's proposal.5 Max's being idle is one for Rothstein's because it does not fit in her chain structure of homogeneous stages. One can truthfully utter (1) to describe situation (1b) where action is not visible throughout the hour, and the theme is not directly affected at times like in (1a).

(1) Max repaired the radio in one hour. b. Max fiddled around with the device for 15 minutes, sat still for 15 minutes and then worked with his hands actively on the device for 30 more minutes and succeeded.

Rothstein's positing an incremental process amounts to grounding on the event and on pragmatics the incrementality that Krifka grounds on the theme, but when the activity part is not locally homogeneous, incrementality cannot be grounded on it. Landman's notion of stage is the counterpart of Dowty's activities downward closure postulate on intervals, as both characterise activities and capture a local form of homogeneity in accomplishments.

The Structure of Complex Events

4.1 The Link between the Parts Both Krifka's and Rothstein's analyses pursue previous work. Krifka's proposal develops [START_REF] Dowty | Word meaning and montague grammar[END_REF], who models accomplishments and their telicity in thematic terms. For Dowty, the attainment of a certain result state is caused by the culmination of a process under the impetus of an agent. The operator CAUSE he uses in the logical structure, helps him coding the difference between achievements and accomplishments thematically, in terms of causation and not in terms of temporal properties of the event. In his view, "accomplishments are partly defined by the changes of state with which they terminate" (Dowty 1979: vii). In Dowty's proposal, causality is expressed as a relation between propositions rather than subevents, and is based on Lewis's theory of causal dependence according to whom a counterfactual dependence among events is a counterfactual dependence among the corresponding propositions. 6 According to Krifka, the culmination of the event is introduced indirectly in the characterization of the event by identifying it thanks to the quantization of the theme. Rothstein's proposal is reminiscent of Vendler's aspectual classification based on the temporal properties of the predicates. As seen above, for Vendler two components are related, i.e. an accomplishment is a process terminated by a finishing point expressed in the predicate, and the telicity that characterises this type of predicates is brought about by a change corresponding to the transition to a resulting state. But he adds that "Somehow this climax casts its shadow backward, giving a new colour to all that went before" (Vendler 1967: 102). In a way, the whole event is named after the last link in a causal chain. Rothstein explicitly rejects any causal link between process and resulting state. She leaves to pragmatic the task of saying something about the nature of this link, but uses a sum of events to enforce temporal contiguity. In her proposal, the increment in the event is computed w.r.t. a 'natural and inherent order' of the parts of the event determined by real-world knowledge and represented by the order in the chain structure of the BECOME event.

In Krifka's and Rothstein's analyses, the processive part and the culmination are not directly linked, they just belong to the same unit. The unity of the event is constructed either all in the theme or all in the temporal structure. There 6 As a potential exception to his proposal, Dowty mentions the class 'creation of a performance object', exemplified by produce a play, perform a sonata. Dowty notes that 'the state of having reached the end of the performance of a sonata does in a sense define the successful completion of perform a sonata' (Dowty 1979: p.186), but adds that this is little enlightening (in contrast with the crucial role of the coming into existence of a letter in the truth conditions of write a letter).

is a form of identity that boils down to structural similarity. In the following, we explore a way to capture the link in the spirit of Vendler's quotation above. The unity of accomplishments is grounded in their being events described as goal driven. The notion of plan is not meant to place conditions directly on what the process leading to the culmination consists of, rather it provides an intensional definition that associates constraints on what can be going on at intermediary stages with constraints on what the global view on the situation has to be.

Goal Oriented Actions and Plans

Suppose that Max is thinking about the problem during the 15 minutes of pause sitting still in (1b). One may suggest that some repairing activity goes on all the same. We still seem to have a problem in Rothstein's approach, because the incremental structure is defined in a way that can be read as a constraint imposing homogeneity in a local form, via Landman's notion of stage, while barring it in a general form, since the telos must be excluded. Stages have been devised by Landman to deal with the progressive, where coidentification of (sub)events is possible because the model provides the set of possible extensions. But (1b) highlights the difficulty in getting at an intensional characterisation of the aspectual class by looking at the extensional parts.

Continuity w.r.t. a goal is the second aspect of accomplishments to which example (1) draws our attention. The continuity suggested by taking 'sitting still' to mean 'progress in the repairing by thinking about the problem' is a feature accomplishments share with activities. The change that marks the culmination of an accomplishment is due to a force that drives the elements of the whole structure continuously. The goal is an ingredient of the representation of the event, but it is not a temporal relation on its parts. It is what enables us to make sense of the complex internal structure of the event, since it reconciles the activity part, which in itself needs not be strictly homogeneous -no divisive lexical predicate is applied to it -but is seen as incremental, with an entity being created, be it an abstract one like the state of a functioning radio or a performed sonata, or less so abstract like a house. Lexical aspect classes identify types of situations, which can then be described with linguistic expressions. Plans are goal driven conceptualisations of eventualities and the expression of a plan relies on the fact that 'Aktionsart' choices are ways to encode an event type while simultaneously possibly indicating related preceding and/or subsequent event types. Rothstein's incremental process and isomorphic chain lattice amount to the unfolding of the plan and could be made to correspond to the traversal of an abstract path in Krifka's terms.

We are interested in plans to which we can refer with verbs and the constituents they form. Plans lexicalised by predicates can be viewed as intensional Tovena characterisations of streamlined sequences of subevents. In intensional semantics in the style of Lewis, expressions are represented by arbitrary functions of (worlds and other) indices to sets of objects. [START_REF] Moschovakis | Sense and denotation as algorithm and value[END_REF] has explored an alternative view that may be more promising from the cognitive point of view, according to which the intension of an expression is the algorithm that computes its extension. An algorithm is a semantic object, a form of knowledge representation that shows one how to use a set of operations she already knows to compute a result.

A plan allows us to enforce the presence of some structure within the event and may express a cause relation, but not necessarily one that is found in the physical reality. We draw inspiration from the work of van Lambalgen & Hamm (2005: 36), who say "Planning means setting a goal and computing a sequence of actions which provably suffice to attain the goal." In this framework, a correct plan is like an abstract procedure according to which a goal is surely achieved in every world in which the premises are met. We would add that it is perceived as standardized at this abstract level. 7The plan is part of the description conveyed by the verb and is not the making of a sentient agent, therefore it should be kept separate from contingent epistemic considerations. It embodies the intensional property of telic situations and (complex) activities. The fact that an agent may have partial knowledge of the world and the presence of contingent facts become relevant in the realisation/implementation of a plan. Partial knowledge opens the possibility of there being unexpected events that may affect the realisation of a plan, because they may change properties in the context. Van Lambalgen and Hamm's definition relates to the notion of minimal model, where the events that happen are all and only those required to happen by the axioms of the system. This rests on the idea that all changes must be due to a cause, and a property persists unless an event causes its change. Normality is envisaged in terms of consequences of a set of premises. In this way, it is possible to keep distinct the plan, which is defined exclusively with respect to the goal, from its actualisation, which is determined also by other states of affairs arising or falling back and which can alter the compatibility of a world with the minimal model. In using a predicate, the speaker commits herself to the validity of the intensional characterisation w.r.t. her knowledge state. The commitment w.r.t. the actualisation is mediated by temporal information, and progressivised accomplishments illustrate one of the several nonmonotonic phenomena in natural language, cf. section 5.3.

Causes and Plans

We follow [START_REF] Van Lambalgen | The proper treatment of events[END_REF] in seeing causation as a notion pertaining to the physics of events, but relevant to humans in structuring a cognitive plan from which (the description of) an event originates. Van Lambalgen and Hamm implement Moschovakis idea of meaning as algorithm in an event calculus in order to represent the semantics of verbs. They primarily use fluents, which are time-dependent properties as well as partial changing objects, and time-independent event types, which can initiate and terminate fluents. 8They characterise expressions in aspectual classes via an eventuality structure that is a quadruple like in (7). Each element may be left empty or be filled with an object of the appropriate category, i.e. e for an event and f for a fluent. All the four elements are necessarily instantiated in eventualities representing verbs in the accomplishment class.

(7)

An eventuality is a structure ( f 1 , f 2 , e, f 3 ), where f 1 =cause: represents an activity, something that exherts a force; f 2 =theme: represents a parametrised object or state, which is driven by the force f 1 ; e=culmination: is the culminating event, representing the canonical goal; f 3 =result state: represents the state of having achieved the goal.

Eventuality structures are used to build scenarios, which are a conjunction of statements that state the specific causal relationship holding in a given situation. An elaborate internal structure is specified for each entry, and variation from person to person is allowed to a certain extent. These statements are expressed in their event calculus, which contains a truth-predicate stating that a fluent f holds true at a time point t, and four primitive predicates that are determined by axioms or definitions. 9 This apparatus is sufficient for the first of two different notions of cause van Lambalgen and Hamm use in defining the internal structure of scenarios associated with lexical entries. This notion is concerned with instantaneous change, e.g. a collision. The other notion is concerned with change induced by ongoing action or due to a force that exherts its influence continuously and culminates in the result state, e.g. filling a bucket or pushing a cart. Continuous change is concerned with incremental processes and is modelled using two other primitive predicates of the calculus, devised for changing Tovena partial objects. Trajectory states that if a fluent holds from time point t to t + d, then at t + d another fluent starts to hold. This predicate establishes the causal link and allows us to represent e.g. a force whose influence changes the degree of completion of a house in a building event, with no need to assume a full house in some possible world. Release states that the law of inertia10 is suspended so that a force can have an impact on a fluent. This predicate allows a modification of the stages of an object without specification of concomitant occurrences of events causing the changes, hence it captures the intuition that e.g. there aren't separate actions that initiate and terminate the fluents height(x) for various values of x in an event of filling a bucket. Together, they enable us to represent the situation in (1) both if the functioning property is viewed as acquired gradually or all at once at the end.

In accomplishments, the force is the tension toward the goal and this gives conceptual unity and homogeneity to a potentially disparate set of subevents. In particular, the identification of the goal is what enables us to apply the same description, e.g. 'build a house', to different sets of subevents, cf. the different building processes followed in different cultures. The increment needs not correspond to fluents representing physical properties of a theme, as illustrated by example (1). Differences are all the more evident in the case of nonconventionalised accomplishments. The different streamlined sets of subevents correspond to different programs that implement Moschovakis's abstract algorithm corresponding to Frege's sense or intension, and to our plan, which they all share. Such sets or programs compute/determine the denotation of the term, Frege's referent, and justify its belonging to a specific coherent class.

Plan's Empirical Traces and Other Considerations

The Plan's Continuity: Gaps, Lulls and Superevents

As pointed out above, sentence (1) can be used to describe situation (1b) where action might not be visible throughout the time interval. We have proposed that the change that marks the culmination of an accomplishment is presented as due to a force that exherts its influence continuously. The plan encodes the continuity of the tension towards the goal of repairing the radio, and is unaffected by Max's sitting and thinking. His searching the space of causes of faulting functioning is part of the progression towards the goal.

This view of plans as encoding a tension towards the goal extends to activities, where the goal is the actualisation of the activity itself. In this sense, activities can be viewed as culminating at each minimal subinterval. In our view, this tension is at the root of the homogeneity [START_REF] Landman | On the differences between the tense-perspectiveaspect systems of English and Dutch[END_REF] is after in his discussion of lulls in a Vienna waltz, during which a person is 'dancing' also when standing still, at particular points in the sequence of steps. Landman identifies two axes that we interpret as follows. There is an incremental axis of progression for the event, along which the plan of the waltzing is mapped, and which is projected onto a segmental axis for time along which the actualisation is plotted. Landman insists that progression on the incremental axis is possible as long as we are willing to say that the same event is continuing. We link such willingness to the adherence to the plan. Specifications on the intention of the agent may be added. In his example, dancing a Vienna waltz is a complex activity socially defined according to a plan. The dancers must stand still at given times, but the temporal trace of the event contains no gaps because of this, because all subevents of the object under description in the incremental axis are parts that can be added along the segmental axis.

Gaps usually come from other events, and correspond to subintervals whose length should not be added to the duration of a given event. But negligible interruptions cannot be told apart from non negligible interruptions merely in temporal terms, because they may or may not be seen to belong to the incremental axis, as illustrated by the phenomenon of event-internal pluractionality (Tovena 2010). The plan needs to be taken into consideration. Consider first an accomplishment. Sentence (8a) is not understood to say that Luisa never ever stopped in her eating the apple, e.g. to scratch her nose. Sentence (8b) also does not bar negligible interruptions, yet it presents the eating as being discontinuous in a way (8a) is not. The same modification is possible in activities, cf. (9). The goal oriented view tells us how to sort subevents into parts that belong to a bigger event, and gaps that do not. The verb in (8b) helps one to make precise that the event contained lulls that come under the same event description, hence cannot be neglected in computing the duration although the 'rule' that gaps are not taken into account applies as usual. In a mangiucchiare-event, the eating is 'purposefully' disrupted w.r.t. its canonical unfolding, in the sense that these idle times are presented as relevant for the standard communicative goal for which that type of sentence can be used. The suffix on the verb in (8b) overtly marks that the plan has been modified with respect to its canonical form. Going back to situation (1a) once more, we see that the continuity of the plan is preserved even in case there are some false starts or failed attempts, in the sense of wrong diagnosis of the problem, which is not the case for the incremental process the way is defined by Rothstein. A goal oriented view of accomplishments makes it possible to see the analogy between false starts and the case of events that have parts that do not directly affect a portion of the theme, e.g. putting up or taking down the scaffolding in an event of building a house, which (Rothstein 2004: 9) considers to be a serious problem for Krifka's theory incrementality.

Up to here, what said was useful for 'plain' and progressivised accomplishments alike. Example (10) shows an interesting discrepancy w.r.t. identifying superevents. The issue was discussed by [START_REF] Ogihara | The semantics of the progressive and the perfect in English[END_REF], who talks of the need of seeing a (coherent) unit for the agent when an amalgamation of some atomic events counts as collective event.

(10) Max ate/ #was eating three rolls.

Ogihara refers to the agent's intention, which is external to our notion of plan. However, the simple past presents iteration of atoms and unique superevent as equivalent interpretive options, while the latter is the one required for the progressive and not directly supported by a plan. This observation boosts the idea of algorithm as a piece of descriptive knowledge with a classificatory role more than as a way to compute uses and get extensions. van Lambalgen and Hamm's treatment seems to ascribe equal felicity to the options in (10).

Agency and Accomplishments

Prototypical accomplishments can be combined felicitously with manner adverbs, cf. ( 11). The modification can be seen as introducing an additional condition which is the availability of an agent. Yet, the notion of plan is not inherently associated with that of a (volitional) agent. The data in this section show that this is the typical case but it is not the expression of a constraint.

(11) Louise intentionally crossed the street.

Accomplishments with inanimate subjects, seem not to naturally occur as the complement of finir (finish), which is a typical test for telicity, cf. (12). 11,12 (12) a. #Les vagues ont fini de creuser un trou dans le rocher. (French) 'The waves finished digging a hole in the rock.' b. Les vagues ont creusé un trou dans le rocher.

'The waves digged a hole in the rock.'

The problem could be due to finir and its requirement for a volitional agent subject, rather than to telicity. However, first, that (12a) remains odd even if we add a volitional agent (13 The contrast between (12a) and ( 14), and the marginality of ( 15), are explained away in terms of whether it is possible to add to the implementation of a plan a constraint defining an action terminating the process which is not specified only contextually. The vagueness of creuser un trou does not seem to interfere with the need for picking a time at which the result state of a hole being there holds (12b), but it does interfere when such a time should mark the completion of the digging (15). In other words, we may not be sure of when exactly the predicate starts to hold, but we feel confident enough to judge when the time is inside the interval at which the sentence is taken to express a true proposition. When the identification of such an exact time is relevant, as in (12a) and ( 15), the vagueness of the predicate affects the felicity of the sentence. Recall also Dowty's observation that the conventional implicature of finish should include the 'definability' of the property describing the whole event in terms of the properties of its steps. Typically, the characteristics of a perspective taken on a situation are the intentional state of the agent, but they can also be the characteristics of the physical layout of the relevant actors in the situation, cf. ( 16).

(16)

The tomatoes finished ripening.

Tomatoes do not 'plan' to ripen, but it is in the nature of fruit to do so, and the scenario would contain actions that are natural events with no specified agent.

Tovena

Culmination is determined by a given value in the dimension along which the progression is recorded. The terminating point is the onset of the state denoted by the adjective from which the deadjectival verb is derived, cf. [START_REF] Kearns | Telic senses of deadjectival verbs[END_REF].

Plans and Temporal Information

The notion of normality mentioned above, envisaged in terms of consequences of a set of premises and axioms, is relevant for the expression of a plan via the assertion of a proposition expressed by a sentence containing given lexical expressions. Hence, the speaker commits herself to the feasibility of the plan in the actual world at speech time with respect to reference time. Normality concerns the applicability of a plan. Actualisation usually requires normality up to completion. When speech time precedes the final time of the eventuality under discussion, a second form of normality checking is possible and concerns the actualisation of the plan. Here is where unexpected events enter the scene and nonmonotonicity is relevant. A first case to mention is due to the progressive aspect and is known as the 'imperfective paradox'. Although PROG ϕ entails ϕ for atelic predicates, such as run -e.g. ( 17a) entails (17b) -this entailment seems not to hold for telic predicates, such as build a hut in (18), in which an event's anticipated culmination is at issue.

(17) a. Max was running. b. Max ran.

(18) a. Max was building a hut. b. Max built a hut.

In possible worlds modal-style analyses (cf. [START_REF] Dowty | Word meaning and montague grammar[END_REF][START_REF] Landman | The progressive[END_REF]), progressive creates an intensional context, and it is enough for completion to take place in worlds in the set of inertia worlds or in the closest world to which it is reasonable to move. Instead, we suggest that by assuming that plans come with sets of conditions that must be met when the scenario starts, the speaker commits herself to the feasibility of the plan in the actual world at utterance time w.r.t. reference time, not to its completion. The point of interruption past which one would move counterfactually can only be brought about by unexpected events, which are external to the commitment. Truth conditions for sentences with progressive forms must include compatibility between the world at reference time and the conditions on the model imposed by the predicate, but no commitment is taken on the full realisation, i.e. on the stability of the model. The counterfactual move is not required in a nonmonotonic approach [START_REF] Hamm | Event calculus, nominalisation, and the progressive[END_REF].

Futurate sentences contain verbs in present tense form and convey that a futureoriented eventuality is planned (19). They are another relevant configuration.

Here speech time precedes the initial time of the eventuality.

(19) Exams begin next week.

Futurates assert the existence of a plan providing for the actualisation of an eventuality according to [START_REF] Copley | The plan's the thing: Deconstructing futurate meanings[END_REF]. Our notions of plan differ, and we think that the commitment is not so strong, although it is heavier than in the case of choosing a progressivised accomplishment predicate. The plans behind accomplishments are not concerned with positioning goals in time. The futurate reading looks as if the speaker commits herself to the fact that the premisses are satisfied at utterance time w.r.t. reference time concerning an event that is to be started in the future. She minimally commits herself to not foreseeing events that could interfere with the applicability of the plan, throughout the interval up to the beginning of the actualisation, temporally suspending nonmonotonicity.

  ha mangiato la mela. (Italian) 'L. ate the apple.' b. Luisa ha mangiucchiato la mela. 'L. ate the apple on and off.' (9) a. Luisa ha dormito tutto il giorno. 'L. slept the whole day.' Tovena b. Luisa ha dormicchiato tutto il giorno. 'L. dozed (fitfully) the whole day.'

  6) λ yλ e∃e 1 ,e 2 [e= s (e 1 ⊔e 2 ) ∧ ACTIVITY <X> (e 1 ) ∧ Ag(e 1 )=x ∧ Th(e 1 )=y

∧ BECOME <Y > (e 2 ) ∧Arg(e 2 )=Th(e 1 ) ∧ INCR(e 1 ,e 2 , C(e 2 ))]

(Rothstein 2004: p.108)

  ). Second, inanimate subjects are not completely ruled out, if the unfolding of the event follows a program (14). Furthermore, the telicity of the predicate in (12b) is not so well established although it passes the test with in # time, see (15) where tout works as an egressive marker.

	(13)	#Max a fini de creuser un trou dans le rocher.
		'M finished digging a hole in the rock.'
	(14)	La machine a fini de laver le linge.
		'The washing machine finished washing (the linen).'
	(15)

#Max/#Les vagues ont creusé tout un trou dans le rocher. 'M/The waves digged up a hole in the rock.'

E.g. the eating in (5) is taken to be completed before the disappearance of the whole apple because the core is disregarded. However, this type of pragmatic requirement concerns the identification of the borders of the object, not its progressive coverage.

[START_REF] Dowty | Word meaning and montague grammar[END_REF] BECOME operator applied to Φ yields formulae true at non-minimal intervals s.t. ¬Φ is true at the initial bound and Φ at the final one. Rothstein's BECOME events characterise the incremental part of change events 'from ϕ to φ , where ϕ is a state which entails ¬φ '(Rothstein 2004: p.155) and φ is the state lexically specified by the accomplishment predicate. It is not clear how ϕ can be characterised other than as the stative antonym of φ by stipulation.

Rothstein's proposal uses the notion of stage from[START_REF] Landman | The progressive[END_REF], which is an event e that 'develops into' e ′ and shares with it relevant properties of the event description, i.e. not just any part of e ′ qualifies as a stage. For the purpose of accomplishments, a stage is a subevent e of the process part that can be described by the same property that would be used to describe the process part. The notion of stage helps[START_REF] Landman | The progressive[END_REF] to ground the notion of normality, needed in his modal analysis of the progressive, in the properties of the event descriptions. In this way he gets around the problem noted in the literature that if a plan is associated with an agent, it cannot be used for establishing truth conditions when there is no agent planner, e.g. with inanimate subjects.

INCR(e 1 ,e 2 , C(e 2 )) in (6) reads as e 1 is incrementally related to e 2 w.r.t. the chain C(e 2 ).

It might be one for Rothstein too, because the BECOME event is constrained to be a change of state 'which happens to the theme'(Rothstein 2004: p.108). The situation is not entirely clear, because either the BECOME event simply provides a temporal constraint and ensures the transition from ¬P to P, in which case it could be disconnected from the theme; Or it defines a change in the theme that should be incrementally regular, because of the chain structure.

The algorithmic process for a plan is far from standardized, as van Lambalgen (p.c.) points out. When people agree on what the goal state is, variation could arise when defining what causes this goal state, so as to perform the appropriate sequence of actions to get at it.

The entity event represents actions with or without being initiated by an agent. A fluent is the transformation of first-order formulae into terms. Events happen and fluents hold, so that they can be arguments for the truth-predicate.

They concern: i) a fluent that is true initially in the discourse considered and not interrupted or terminated; ii) an event type e that happens at time point t (thus becoming an event token); iii) an event that initiates a fluent or iv) terminates it.

Expressible as 'normally, nothing changes', this law takes care of the properties that do not change as the result of an action, cf. the Frame Problem identified in artificial intelligence.

Thanks to Brenda Laca for the observation and the example.

The complement of finir must be introduced by de for the telicity test to work. When it is introduced by par we get the inchoative reading, which is fine for the corresponding form of (12a).

Tovena

Tovena, Lucia M. 2010. Pluractionality and the unity of the event. In Maria

Aloni & Katrin Schulz (eds.), Amsterdam colloquium 2009, 465-473. Heidelberg: Springer. Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell.


Delphine Tribout

Stefan Müller

How many conversions from verb to noun are there in French?

In this paper, I discuss verb to noun conversion in French. The properties of the input verb and the output noun are presented and a formal representation is proposed using the SBCG framework. The use of such a formalism based on constraints and multiple inheritance highlights the difficulties in defining what exactly is a conversion rule. I propose that the different properties of the input verb and the output noun can be thought of as different dimensions of classification, which characterize the verb>noun conversion rule.

Introduction 1.A definition of conversion

Conversion is a lexeme formation process characterized by two main properties. On the one hand the base lexeme and the derived lexeme are phonologically identical, as the examples in (1) show. In English, GLUE as a verb is identical to GLUE as a noun. As for French, the verb COLLER is identical to the noun COLLE, the inflectional marks being not taken into account.

(1) engl. (A) GLUE > (TO) GLUE (TO) WALK > (A) WALK fr. COLLE > COLLE(R) MARCHE(R) > MARCHE Thus, conversion is very different from affixation processes like those presented in (2), which always add some phonological material to the base lexeme in order to form the derived lexeme. In HOSPITALIZE and PRESENTATION the added material is a suffix, whereas in UNTIE the added material is a prefix.

(2) HOSPITAL > HOSPITALIZE PRESENT > PRESENTATION (TO) TIE > UNTIE On the other hand, the two lexemes involved in a conversion necessarily are from two different parts of speech. This can be seen in the examples (1) where GLUE or COLLE are nouns whereas (TO) GLUE or COLLER are verbs and (TO) WALK or MARCHER are verbs whereas (A) WALK or MARCHE are nouns. Once again this is very different from affixation, which can form a lexeme within the same part of speech, like un-prefixation in English which forms a verb out of a verb.

Both noun to verb conversion and verb to noun conversion are very productive processes in French. In this paper I will only focus on verb to noun conversion.

Conversion within Sign-Based Construction Grammar

In the lexeme-based theory of morphology adopted here (see [START_REF] Matthews | Inflectional morphology[END_REF], [START_REF] Aronoff | Morphology by Itself[END_REF]), the basic unit of morphology is the lexeme, which is defined as a multidimensional object having at least a form, a meaning and a syntactic category. Since the lexeme has properties of different kind, a feature structure based formalism, like Sign-Based Construction Grammar framework (henceforth SBCG, [START_REF] Sag | Sign-Based Construction Grammar: an informal synopsis[END_REF]), seems to be an appropriate means to formally represent the lexemes and the lexemes formation rules. SBCG is a feature structure formalism based on attribute-value structure, and is a constraints based declarative model.

In this model, the constructions are organized in a hierarchy of types, which is presented in Figure 1. The lexical-cxt type and the phrasal-cxt are two sub-types of construction. The lexical-cxt type further has three sub-types: derivational-cxt (deriv-cxt), inflectional-cxt (infl-cxt) and post-inflectional-cxt (pinfl-cxt). Each sub-type of the hierarchy inherits the properties of its super-type and has its specific ones. These properties are defined as features structures associated to each type. For instance, to the deriv-cxt type is associated the contrainst in (3), which stipulates that the derived lexeme (identified as mother -MTR feature), has a non empty list of lexical signs as bases (identified as daughters -DTRS feature).

construct h h h h h h h h h h h h h lex-cxt h h h h h h h h h h

h h h phr-cxt deriv-cxt infl-cxt pinfl-cxt
(3) deriv-cxt

: MTR lexeme DTRS nelist(lex-sign)
In order to account for conversion, I propose to distinguish two sub-types of deriv-cxt: an affixation-cxt type and a conversion-cxt type, as sketched in Figure 2. The conversion-cxt type can be further divided into different sub-types of conversion, such as v2n-conv-cxt to account for verb to noun conversion, or n2v-conv-cxt to account for noun to verb conversion. Since I will only focus on the verb to noun conversion, I leave the hierarchy unfinished. Thus, conversion (conv-cxt) can be defined by the constraint (4). deriv-cxt q q q q q q q w w w w w w w afx-cxt conv-cxt q q q q q q q w w w w w w w v2n-conv-cxt . . . FIGURE 2: Sub-types of deriv-cxt and conv-cxt

(4) conv-cxt:                 MTR      PHON <φ> SYN CAT Y SEM FRAMES L 1 ⊕ . . .      DTRS      PHON <φ> SYN CAT X SEM FRAMES L 1                     
This constraint says i) that on phonological level the two lexemes are identical (PHON features),

ii) that the two lexemes have different categories (CAT features), and iii) that the derived lexeme's meaning includes that of the base lexeme (SEM features).

Having defined conversion in this way, verb to noun conversion is thus only characterized by the constraint in (5) which says that the derived lexeme is a noun and the base lexeme is a verb. The other properties of the verb to noun conversion, like those regarding the phonological features, follow from the inheritance of the conv-cxt type.

(5)

v2n-conv-cxt:

    MTR SYN | CAT noun DTRS SYN | CAT verb    
2 Stem spaces for verbs and nouns

Presentation

Based on the notion of morphome from [START_REF] Aronoff | Morphology by Itself[END_REF], [START_REF] Bonami | Suppletion and dependency in inflectional morphology[END_REF] propose that each French verb has a list of indexed morphomic stems, organised in stem space. The verbal stem space worked out by [START_REF] Bonami | Suppletion and dependency in inflectional morphology[END_REF] [START_REF] Bonami | Construire le paradigme d'un adjectif[END_REF] propose that adjectives have a stem space too. This stem space is presented in Table 2. Stem 1 is used to inflect the masculine form (joli, petit, grand, fin), while stem 2 is used to inflect the feminine form (jolie, petite, grande, fine) and to derive lexemes (e.g. joliment 'prettily', petitesse 'smallness', grandeur 'greatness', finesse 'thinness').

As for nouns, based on the adjectival stem space worked out by [START_REF] Bonami | Construire le paradigme d'un adjectif[END_REF], [START_REF] Plénat | Le thème L de l'adjectif et du nom[END_REF] proposes the stem space presented in Table 3. Stem 1 is used to form the singular (fleur, dent, plomb, bouton), while stem 2 is used to derive lexemes (e.g. fleuriste 'florist', dentiste 'dentist', plombier 'plumber', boutonnière 'buttonhole').

# JOLI PETIT GRAND FIN 1 Zoli p@ti gKã fẼ 2 Zoli p@tit gKãd fin

Consequences for lexeme-formation rules

The postulation of stem spaces has consequences on lexeme-formation rules. Indeed, since lexemes have a stem space, morphological rules must take a whole stem space as input and build a whole stem space as output. For instance, as pointed out by [START_REF] Bonami | Deriving inflectional irregularity[END_REF], the -aire suffixation forms stem 2 of the adjective by suffixing /EK/ to the noun stem 1, and -eur/-euse suffixation forms stem 1 of the adjective by suffixing /oeK/ to the verb stem 1, and stem 2 of the adjective by suffixing /øz/ to the verb stem 1. The constraints proposed by [START_REF] Bonami | Deriving inflectional irregularity[END_REF] to account for these two lexeme-formation rules are presented below in ( 6) and ( 7).

(6)

-aire-adj-lxm:

           MTR    STEMS SLOT-2 1 ⊕EK SYN CAT adj    DTRS    STEMS SLOT-1 1 SYN CAT noun               (7)
-eur/-euse-adj-lxm:

             MTR      STEMS SLOT-1 1 ⊕oeK SLOT-2 1 ⊕øz SYN CAT adj      DTRS    STEMS SLOT-1 1 SYN CAT verb                
As for conversion, the consequence is a new definition of the process. Instead of the identity between the PHON features of the two lexemes, as stated in constraint (4), conversion is now characterized by the identity between one stem of the base lexeme and one stem of the derived lexeme, as presented in the constraint (8). ( 8)

conv-cxt :                   MTR       STEMS SLOT-n 1 SYN CAT Y SEM FRAMES L 1 ⊕ . . .       DTRS       STEMS SLOT-m 1 SYN CAT X SEM FRAMES L 1                        

Postulating an additional verb stem : stem 0

The new definition of conversion presented in ( 8) still encounters a problem with second conjugation verbs. Indeed, with second conjugation verbs the form of the noun is never identical to that of the verb, nor to any of the verbal stems, because the verbs systematicaly present an ending /i/ or /is/ which is absent from the noun, as can be seen in Table 4. For conjugation, [START_REF] Bonami | Supplétion et classes flexionnelles dans la conjugaison du français[END_REF] have argued that there is no strong argument in favor of inflectional classes in French. So that the ending /i/-/is/ of the second conjugation verbs (e.g. (je) finis '(I) finish', (nous) finissons '(we) finish') must not be analyzed as part of the inflectional marks and can be considered as part of the stems. However, in derivation 2 nd conjugation verbs behave differently from other verbs, since they always have an additionnal /i/ or /is/. I thus propose to add a new stem to the verbal stem space worked out by Bonami and Boyé : stem 0. This additional stem is only used for derivation, and is identical to stem 3 minus the final /i/ for 2 nd conjugation verbs, whereas it is identical to stem 3 for all other verbs.

Noun
With that stem 0, one stem of the converted verb is identical to one stem of the base noun, as shown in Table 5. So that the definition in (8) still holds. Thus, stem 0 allows us to account for every noun>verb conversion, whatever conjugation group the derived verb belongs to. Moreover, besides conversion, this stem 0 is relevant for all derivational rules involving a second conjugation verb, such as adjective to verb conversion (e.g. ROUGE 'red' > ROUGIR 'turn red') or deadjectival en-prefixation (e.g. RICHE 'rich' > ENRICHIR 'enrich').

Noun

Properties of verb>noun conversion

Verb stem selection

Most of the time stem 0 is the base of the derived noun, like the examples in Table 6. Bonami, Boyé and [START_REF] Bonami | L'allomorphie radicale et la relation flexion-construction[END_REF] have shown that a thirteenth stem is needed in the verbal stem space to account for derived lexemes in -ion, -if and -eur/-rice such as CORRÉLATION 'correlation' derived from CORRÉLER '(to) correlate', FORMATEUR 'formative' derived from FORMER '(to) form', or ALTERNATIF 'alternative' derived from ALTERNER '(to) alternate'. This stem is hidden to inflection rules and is only used in derivation. By default it is identical to stem 11 ⊕ /t/. Table 7 presents some examples of lexemes derived from stem 13 of their base verb.

Verb

Verb

Stem As for the data in (9) I consider them as verb to noun conversion too. Only, those nouns are based on stem 12 of the verb (past participle stem). There are two main reasons for considering them as conversion : first, no affix is added so that they cannot be analyzed as suffixed nouns ; second, the noun is always identical to the past participle stem of the verb, whatever its conjugation is, as shown in As we have seen, different stems of one verb can serve as the base of a converted noun. In the main case the input stem is stem 0. But, as the examples in Table (8) andTable (9) show, stem 13 and stem 12 can be the input of conversion too. It seems that there are 3 sub-cases of verb to noun conversion, depending on which verbal stem is selected as input. The v2n-conv-cxt can thus be divided into three sub-types : stem-0-conv, stem-12-conv and stem-13-conv, as illustrated in the Figure 3. conv-cxt q q q q q q q w w w w w w w

v2n-conv-cxt h h h h h h h h h h h h h

. . . stem-0-conv stem-12-conv stem-13-conv

FIGURE 3: Hierarchy of verb>noun conversion

To each sub-type of verb>noun conversion is also associated the constraints (10)-( 12). ( 10) 10) says that the noun stem 2 is identical to the verb stem 0 and accounts for nouns like MARCHE, SAUT, BOND. . . ( 11) says that the noun stem 2 is identical to the verb stem 12 which accounts for nouns such as ARRIVÉE, DÉ-COUVERTE, VENUE. . . And (12) says that the noun stem 2 is identical to the verb stem 13 and accounts for nouns like RÉSULTAT, DÉFENSE, CONCEPT. . .

stem-0-conv:     MTR STEMS | SLOT-2 1 DTRS STEMS | SLOT-0 1     (11) stem-12-conv:     MTR STEMS | SLOT-2 1 DTRS STEMS | SLOT-12 1     (12) stem-13-conv:     MTR STEMS | SLOT-2 1 DTRS STEMS | SLOT-13 1     Constraint (

Noun meaning

On the output side, the converted nouns can have a wide range of meanings. They can denote the same event as the base verb like those in (13a), the result of the process denoted by the verb as in (13b), the patient of the process (13c), the agent of the process (13d), a location related to the process (13c) or an instrument helping to realize the process (13f). ( 13 The different meanings a noun may have are independent from the verb stem it is derived from. Event nouns can be derived from the three possible input stems as shown in (13a). Result nouns can be derived from stem 0 (AMAS) as well as from stem 12 (RELEVÉ) or stem 13 (CRACHAT). Patient nouns can be derived from the three verbal stems too, but are much less common than event and result nouns. Location nouns can derive from the three verbal stems, but only two of them derive from stem 13. Instrument meaning is restricted to nouns derived from stem 0. As for agent nouns, they are very few : about ten agent nouns derive from stem 0 like GUIDE, and only two from stem 13 : RENÉGAT and SYNDICAT.

Those six semantic types of converted nouns can be seen as six sub-types of verb>noun conversion, so that the hierarchy of v2n-conv-cxt can be represented in the Figure 4.

v2n-conv-cxt

ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee e q q q q q q q s s s To each semantic sub-type can be associated a constraint like for example, the constraint in ( 14) for the event nouns, or the constraint (15) for patient nouns1 . For the process sub-type, the constraint in ( 14) only says that the semantics of the noun is identical to the semantics of the verb. As for the patient type, the constraint in (15) stipulates that the semantics of the noun includes the semantics of the verb, and that the noun refers to the patient of the process denoted by verb.

(

) 14
process-N:

        MTR SEM 1 DTRS   SEM 1    INDEX s FRAMES SIT s               (15) patient-N:                   MTR   SEM   INDEX j FRAMES 1      DTRS           SEM          INDEX s FRAMES 1      agent-pat-fr AGENT i PAT j SIT s                                          

Noun gender

As for the gender, converted nouns can be either masculines or feminines. There are no constraints with respect to the semantic type of the noun, as shown in Table 10. Nor are there any constraints with respect to the selected stem of the verb, although some combinations are lacking. Masculine and feminine nouns can be seen as 2 sub-types of converted nouns as illustrated in Figure 5. To these sub-type are associated the constraints ( 16) and ( 17). The constraint in ( 16) only says that the derived noun is masculine, while the constraint in (17) says that the derived noun is feminine. ( 16)

Masculine nouns

masc-conv-N:        MTR   SYN CAT noun GENDER masc   DTRS SYN | CAT verb       
v2n-conv-cxt q q q q q q q w w w w w w w masc-conv-N fem-conv-N FIGURE 5: Sub-types of verb>noun conversions according to noun gender ( 17)

fem-conv-N:        MTR   SYN CAT noun GENDER fem   DTRS SYN | CAT verb       

Defining the verb>noun conversion rule

To account for those properties of the base verb and the derived noun, the conversion rule must specify the verbal stem taken as input, the meaning of the derived noun as well as its gender. It has been shown that on the verb stem level the v2n-conv-cxt type can be further divided into three sub-types : stem-0-conv, stem-12-conv and stem-13-conv. On the semantic level v2n-conv-cxt type can be divided into six sub-types : process-N, result-N, patient-N, agent-N, location-N and instrument-N. And, on the noun gender level, v2n-conv-cxt type can be divided into masc-conv-N and fem-conv-N. Thus, there are three different hierarchies of v2n-conv-cxt according to the property we want to focus on, as illustrated in Figure 6.

v2n-conv-cxt q q q q q q q w w w w w w w v2n-conv-cxt q q q q q q q v2n-conv-cxt h h h h h h h h h h h h h q q q q q q q P P P P P P P P P P P P st-0 st-12 st-13 fem-N masc-N process-N res-N agent-N patient-N loc-N instr-N FIGURE 6: Problematic hierarchies of v2n-conv-cxt

In order to solve this conflict between different hierarchies, the three discussed properties of verb>noun conversion can be thought of as three different dimensions of classification, as illustrated in Figure 7. Each converted noun inherits a property of these three dimensions of classification by means of multiple inheritance.

v2n-conv-cxt ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee e VERB STEM q q q q q q q w w w w w w w NOUN GENDER q q q q q q q NOUN MEANING h h h h h h h h h h h h h q q q q q q q w w w w w w w st-0 st-12 st-13 masc fem process result agent patient loc instr

FIGURE 7: v2n-conv-cxt's dimensions of classification
The inheritance of one property from each of the three dimensions of classification leads to 36 possible distinct cases. However it is worth noting that only 27 distinct combinations between a verb stem, a gender and a meaning are observed. This is still a wide range of possibilities, even if some combinations are less common than others. It thus seems that verb to noun conversion is unable to make any prediction about the output. The 27 observed combinations are presented in Figure 8, wich is hardly readable. This figure raises the question of the exact definition of the conversion rule, leading to the question of the number of verb to noun conversions in French. Is there only one verb to noun conversion rule identified by the top node of the tree in Figure 8 and the contraint in (5)? In that case the output of the rule is unpredictable. Or are there 27 distinct and highly specific rules accounting for the different observed cases? Or else, 3 conversion rules depending on the input verb stem, or 6 rules depending on the derived meaning? It seems that what speakers must know about verb>noun conversion when using it are the three dimensions of classification presented in Figure 7. Indeed, even though nine of them were not observed, there is no reason to think that some combinations are impossible.

Conclusion

The different properties of verb>noun conversion have been presented and it has been shown that these properties can be thought of as different dimensions of classification. The verb>noun conversion rule can thus be characterized in terms of these dimensions of classification. The question that arises now is wether these dimensions of classification are peculiar to verb>noun conversion.

As already pointed out in [START_REF] Bonami | L'allomorphie radicale et la relation flexion-construction[END_REF], different deverbal lexemeformation rules use different verb stem as input such as stem 1, stem 3 or stem 13. As for noun meaning, -ion, -age, -ment. . . suffixations in French, which form a noun out of a verb, produce the same semantic types of nouns as verb>noun conversion. Moreover, those deverbal nouns can be masculine or feminine depending v2n-conv-cxt VERB STEM q q q q q q q w w w w w w w NOUN GENDER q q q q q q q NOUN MEANING h h h h h h h h h h h h h q q q q q q q w w w w w w w st-0 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w

Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G

p process h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h

h h h g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r

es h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h

h h h j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö agent l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j pat q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

} } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } loc z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø

FIGURE 1 :

 1 FIGURE 1: Hierarchy of constructions in SBCG, taken from[START_REF] Sag | Sign-Based Construction Grammar: an informal synopsis[END_REF]

  Noun>verb conversion using stem 0

TABLE 2

 2

	: Stem space of JOLI 'pretty', PETIT 'small' GRAND
	'great' and FIN 'thin'
	# FLEUR DENT PLOMB BOUTON
	1 floeK dã	plÕ	butÕ
	2 floeK dãt	plÕb	butOn

TABLE 3 :

 3 Stem space of FLEUR 'flower', DENT 'tooth' PLOMB'lead' and BOUTON 'button'

TABLE 4 :

 4 Examples of noun>verb conversion with 1 st and 2 nd (below the double line) conjugation verbs

	Verb

TABLE 7 :

 7 Examples of lexemes derived from stem 13[START_REF] Kerleroux | On a subclass of non-affixed deverbal nouns in French[END_REF] has shown that this stem 13 can be selected by verb>noun conversion too, like in the case of the examples in Table8.

		Verb			Noun
	Lexeme		Stem 0 Stem 13 Lexeme	Stem 2
					CONCEPT	kÕsEpt
	DÉFENDRE	'(to) defend'	defã	defãs	DÉFENSE	defãs
	FORMER	'(to) form'	fOKm	fOKmat

CORRÉLER '(to) correlate' koKEl koKelat CORRÉLAT koKelat CONCEVOIR '(to) conceive' kÕswa kÕsEpt FORMAT fOKmat POSTULER '(to) postulate' postyl postylat POSTULAT postylat TABLE 8: Verb>noun conversions selecting stem 13

Table 9 .

 9 In this particular case it might be difficult to tell whether the nouns are derived from the past participle word-form or stem. But the meaning of those nouns is a

	(9) ARRIVER	'(to) arrive' > ARRIVÉE	'arrival'
	DÉCOUVRIR	'(to) discover' > DÉCOUVERTE 'discovery'
	SORTIR	'(to) go out' > SORTIE	'exit'
	VENIR	'(to) come' > VENUE	'coming'

TABLE 9 :

 9 Verb>noun conversions selecting stem 12 good argument in favor of the stem base, since those nouns do not show any piece of the meaning of the inflected past participle word-form. Indeed, the meaning of ARRIVÉE is not 'something which has arrived' but it is 'the action of arriving' or 'the location where one arrives', nor is the meaning of VENUE 'something which has come' but it is 'the action of coming'.

TABLE 10 :

 10 Noun gender according to the selected verb stem and the noun meaning

  The 27 observed combinations between a verb stem, a noun gender and a noun meaning on the suffixation rule. It thus seems that the dimensions of classification proposed for verb>noun conversion are not peculiar to this derivational process, and should be shared by other nouns forming deverbal rules. How to represent this in the SBCG framework is still in question.

				Ø Ø	instr
	SAUT MARCHE AMAS ENTAILLE GUIDE MARMOTTE	RABAT	AFFICHE DÉBARRAS DÉCHARGE RÉVEIL RALLONGE
	DÉFILÉ ARRIVÉE RELEVÉ	EMPREINTE MISE ENTRÉE DÉBOUCHÉ
	ASSASSINAT DÉFENSE	RÉPONSE CRACHAT RENÉGAT POSTULAT	PROMESSE ACCÈS
	FIGURE 8:

Constraints associated to the other semantic sub-types are presented in(Tribout,

2010)

e e e e w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w st-13