Proceedings of EACL '99 
Result Stages and the Lexicon : 
The Proper Treatment of Event Structure 
Patrick Caudal 
TALANA, UFR de Linguistique, Universit~ Paris 7 
2, place Jussieu 
75251 Paris Cedex 05, FRANCE 
caudal @linguist.jussieu.fr 
Abstract 
I will argue in this paper that the standard 
notions of affectedness, change-of-state and 
result state are too coarse-grained, and will 
revise and enrich substantially their content, 
increasing their role in a compositional aspect 
construal procedure. I will claim in particular 
that a proper theory of event structure requires 
that enriched result states should be lexically 
represented, and will base on them a 
computational treatment of event structure 
within a feature-structure-based lexicon. 
Introduction 
Event structure is traditionally accounted for using 
two sets of notions : change-of-state / affectedness 
and incrementality. I will examine both in this paper, 
determining their respective limitations, before 
proposing an alternative approach and the formal 
specifications for a computational implementation. 
1 From affectedness to result states: 
how can we account for event structure .9 
1.1 Affectedness, change-of-state and 
telicity 
Telic events are generally viewed as an opposition 
between a previously holding state and a new one, 
called a result state (e.g. dead(y) for x kills y). They 
trigger a change-of-state (COS, henceforth), result 
states (RSs, henceforth) being entailments of CoSs. 
Moens and Steedman (1988), Smith (1991), 
Pustejovsky (1995), and others argue that it is a 
defining property of telic events. They should 
therefore include an 'undergoer' argument, whose 
CoS determines the telicity of the event (i.e., it acts as 
a measuring-out argument). Tenny (1987) thus 
claims that telic events require such an argument, 
which she calls an affected argument. Consider for 
instance John reviewed the paper: as the event 
reaches its culimation, the affected argument 
undergoes a CoS (from --,reviewed(paper) to 
reviewed(paper)), producing a RS. To put it short, the 
standard theory of event structure says that telicity 
implies affectedness (and conversely), and that 
affectedness implies a CoS/RS (and conversely), 
associating tightly all those notions. 
Unfortunately, not all measuring-out arguments are 
affected arguments : 
( 1 ) Two men carried Hirsch on the deck. 
Jackendoff (1996:309) observed that (implicit) paths 
such as on the deck in (1) are not affected arguments, 
so that the telicity of such motion events cannot be 
explained using affectedness, ruling out a unified 
affectedness-based account of telicityL It follows 
from this objection that the standard theory should be 
at least amended. Jackendoff's solution is a general 
mapping function from measuring-out arguments 
(seen as paths) to events. It is related to 
incrementality, which I am discussing below. 
1.2 Result states and incrementality 
Event-object mapping functions, as proposed in 
Krifka (1992) and Dowty (1991), are another key 
approach to the treatment of event structure. Dowty 
(1991) calls an incremental theme any argument 
I Yet motion verbs could be attributed an affected 
argument, i.e., their agents, so thatJackendoff's point 
against affectedness does not seem to be decisive. 
233 
Proceedings of EACL '99 
capable of measuring-out an event. For instance, the 
drinking event in (2) can be measured along the 
quantity of beer contained in the glass through 
functions mapping the latter onto the former. 
(2) John drank a glass of beer. 
The glass of beer in (2) undergoes an incremental 
CoS, and is therefore an incremental theme. Path- 
objects (cf. Mary walked the Appalachian trail ; 
Tenny 1994), can be treated as some special kind of 
incremental themes, and Jackendoff's solution could 
thus be reformulated using incrementality 2. 
Let us turn now to the treatment of so-called 
achievement verbs (cf. Vendler 1957). Most authors 
do not grant them incremental themes. Dowty (1991), 
for instance, argues that incremental themes must be 
able to undergo an incremental CoS : 
(3a) ??The horse finished crossing the line. 
(OK in slow motion) 
(3b) The horses finished crossing the line. 
(3a) shows indeed that cross the line lacks proper 
subevents, and that no incremental CoS occurs. But 
Dowty never considered examples such as (3b), 
which receive an incremental reading (albeit of a 
different kind, since the subevents construed in (3) 
involve individual parts of a set of objects rather than 
non-individual parts of an individual object, as in 
(2)). Therefore, I will conclude that the kind of 
affected arguments which achievement verbs possess 
can also be regarded as incremental themes. It seems 
at this point that all kinds of telic events can be 
analysed in terms of incrementality. However, I will 
show in the following section that this is not the case. 
Generally speaking, relying on incrementality alone 
would mean relegating CoSs and RSs to the 
backstage of aspect construal 3 : in order to account 
for telicity without affectedness, one should deny a 
central role to CoSs, and regard telicity primarily as a 
matter of measure. I will propose an alternative 
solution in the following sections preserving the 
centrality of CoS, yet departing from the standard 
2 See Jackendoff (I 996) for some syntactic provisos. 
3 At least in the case of path-movement verbs, cf. (1). 
approach to affectedness and CoS, and justified by 
data falling outside the scope of incrementality. 
2. A richer conception of result states 
for a proper treatment of event structure 
2.1 RSs with and without change-of-state 
I will argue here that different types of affectedness 
and RSs (e.g., entailing a CoS for telic events, and 
not entailing a CoS for atelic ones) should be 
distinguished, going against the predominant 
position. Few authors mention the possibility for 
atelic events to receive RSs, or do it incidentally 
(e.g., Parsons 1990). But consider the following data : 
(4) Loom Mona has been very sick. t 
(5) Mona has already sailed. 
(4) and (5) denote a present state-of-affairs (Mona's 
poor looks in (4) / sailing expertise in (5)) following a 
past fact - yet no CoS is involved. Let us now turn to 
verbs of gradual CoS : 
(6) Mona cooked this chicken in/for two hours. 
(7) Mona has only slightly I not too much cooked 
her chicken. 
(8) ??John has only slightly / not too much drunk 
his glass of beer. 
(6) can be read as telic or atelic, and although its 
internal argument is undergoing a CoS, it is not an 
incremental CoS, since the whole of the chicken is 
gradually affected (and no__!t its subparts ; compare 
(2)). It seems rather that the progression of the 
cooking event depends on the internal structure of the 
associated RS : the event develops as the chicken is 
more and more cooked (see Ramchand (1997) for a 
similar analysis4). The types of RSs and affectedness 
involved differ clearly from those of the incremental 
telic events considered so far. Such RSs as that of 
4 Jackendoff (1996) also proposes RSs as paths for such 
events. But the impact on event structure of the difference 
between the scalar CoS in (6) and the incremental one in 
(2) cannot be motivated in such works, since it is related to 
a difference in the associated RSs. The incrementality 
approach misses this point, so that RS-based paths are 
rather ad hoc devices. 
234 
Proceedings of EACL '99 
cook are scalar, i.e., can vary in terms of degrees (see 
(7)), so that a 'final' degree may or may not be 
reached. Contrariwise, incremental events are not 
endowed with scalar RSs / affectedness (cf. (8)) : one 
does not drink something 'to a certain degree / 
intensity'. It appears now that a proper treatment of 
event structure requires a richer conception of RSs, 
CoSs and affectedness, and cannot be exclusively 
based on incrementality. 
.Legend : x°y : x overlaps with y ; x<y : x precedes y ; x<*y 
: ordered part-of relationship between events ; 
(9) drink ( e, x, y) 
drink_IStage (e,,x,y) drink RStage (e2,y) 
i 
drink_P_RS (e3, y) drink_S_RS (e4, y) 
:F, e3 < e 4 A e 3 e 1 --*Y ex <* e 2 
I assume that events canonically break down into at 
least two stages: RStages and Inner Stages (noted 
IStages), the latter describing an events' development 
- e.g., the drinking process assumed to precede the 
end of a drinking event. 
Briefly, telic events will receive a binary RStage (cf 
(10)) consisting of a primary RS and a secondary RS, 
the former being related to the development of the 
event (cf. John has been drinking beer) and the latter 
to its culmination (i.e., to the state of affairs arising 
from the event's final completion ; cf. John has drunk 
a beer). Moreover, the secondary RS should be the 
complementary of the primary RS, so as to cause a 
definite CoS 5. The diagrams (9) and (10) indicate that 
the primary RSs of drink and run overlap with their 
respective IStages, and that the Secondary RS of 
drink abuts with both its primary RS and IStage. 
Moreover, the sortal opposition between primary and 
secondary RSs should be viewed as a transition 
function. I assume here that transition functions (i.e., 
functions allowing for CoSs) require such binary 
sortal domains, in the spirit of Pustejovsky 
(lbrthcoming). Some kind of causal relationship is 
5 Path-object verbs as in (1) can also be analysed in terms 
of RStages. I will not discuss here the treatment of this and 
many other event types for want of space. 
2.2 RStages as sets of sorted RSs 
To formulate an alternative treatment of event 
structure accounting for the data presented above, I 
will introduce result stages (RStages henceforth), 
consisting of one or several RSs. I am moreover 
assuming here that semantic features and categories 
are treated within a multi-sortal logic, possessing a 
hierarchy of sorts organized as an inheritance-based 
lattice structure (see White 1994). 
: x left overlaps with y 
...... : overlap relationship between events 
(lO) ru:(e,x) 
I 
run ZStage (e x, x) 
I I 
run RSt:age (e 2, x) 
:F, el * e 2 
also assumed to hold between IStages and RStages in 
the case of telic events. 
Telic scalar verbs like cook will receive binary 
RStages with scalar primary RSs. Scalar RSs will be 
defined through scalar sortal domains, so as to 
account for the behaviour of those verbs. I will not 
study here their atelic readings for want of space to 
do so. Finally, since atelic events do not entail a CoS, 
I will assign them unary RStages, devoid of primary 
RSs, so that no opposition between two RSs (and 
therefore no CoS) arises - see (10). 
3. Encoding RStages in the lexicon 
I will now propose the formal specifications for a 
lexical computational implementation of the above 
treatment. Each verb will be assigned a sorted 
RStage, sorts being used as well-formedness 
conditions. I am proposing in figure 1 a lexical entry 
for drink within the Generative Lexicon framework 
(cf. Pustejovsky (1995)). It can be adapted to any 
type of feature-structure-based computational 
lexicon, though. Note that the m-inc and i-inc 
functions are homomorphi¢ aspectual roles relating 
events to the individual vs. material subparts of 
objects (see Caudal (1999) for further details). 
235 
Proceedings of EACL '99 
Figure 1. Lexical representation of drink within the Generative Lexicon framework 
"-Drink 
ARGSTR = 
EVENTSTR = 
QUALIA = 
--ARGI = 
ARG2 = 
RESTR = 
I-Stage = 
R-Stage = 
I FORMAL = 
ONSTITUTIVE = 
GENTIVE = 
x : animate_ind ^ i-inc(x,e I) 
y : beverage ^ m-inc(y, ea) 
<* 
e x : ~ drinking_act(el,x,y) 
e 2 : ~ Binary--m-inc--RStage(e2,Y) 
~ ^ Delimited(e2) I 
z-stage / R-Stage describe the Inner and Result 
Stages. The Delimited sort indicates delimited 
events, while the Binary_m-inc_RStage sort bears 
the transition function (i.e., the binary sortal domain) 
attached to drink, thus allowing it to be read as an 
incremental telic event ; cf. (9). 
Conclusion 
The treatment proposed here receives indirect support 
from recent developments in the syntax-semantics 
interface underlining the importance of affectedness 
and CoS in argument structure and aspect construal ; 
cf. Ramchand (1998). Yet the novelty of this 
approach to event structure should be stressed w.r.t. 
the standard notions prevailing in the (even recent) 
literature, while it does not belittle the role of the 
usual apparatus about IStages, telicity and event- 
object mapping functions. It rather pairs them with 
RStages. Finally, the present account offers a more 
unified and explanatory treatment of event structure 
than those essentially based on incrementality, since 
they have to rely on RS-based paths to explain the 
telicity of scalar verbs and resultative constructions. 
To my knowledge, and although it has not been 
exposed here in detail, the RStage-based approach to 
event structure can be extended to all event types. 
References 
Caudal, P. 1999. Computational Lexical Semantics, 
Incrementality and the So-Called Punctuality of 
Events. Proceedings of the 37 'h Annual Meeting, 
University of Maryland, June. Association for 
Computational Linguistics. 
Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and 
Argument Selection. Languages, 67(3). 
Jackendoff, R. 1996. The Proper Treatment of 
Measuring Out, Telicity and Perhaps Event 
Quantification in English. Natural Language and 
Linguistic Theory, 14. 
Krifka, M. 1992. Thematic Relations as Links 
between Nominal Reference and Temporal 
Constitution. In I. Sag and A. Szabolsci, editors, 
Lexical Matters. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. 
Moens, M. and M. Steedman. 1988. Temporal 
Ontology and Temporal Reference, Computational 
Linguistics, 14(2). 
Parsons, T. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English - 
A Study in Subatomic Semantics. MIT Press, 
Cambridge, MA. 
Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. MIT 
Press, Cambridge, MA. 
Pustejovsky, J. (forthcoming). Decomposition and 
Type Construction. Ms., Brandeis University, MA. 
Ramchand, G. 1997. Aspect and Predication. 
Clarendon Press, Oxford. 
Ramchand, G. 1998. Deconstructing the lexicon. In 
M. Butt and W. Geuder, editors, The Projection of 
Arguments. CSLI, Stanford, CA. 
Smith, C. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Kluwer, 
Dordrecht. 
Tenny, C. 1987. Grammaticalizing Aspect and 
Affectedness. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of 
Linguistics, MIT, Cambridge, MA. 
Tenny, C. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax- 
Semantics Interface. Kluwer, Dordrecht. 
Vendler, Z. 1957. Verbs and Time. The Philosophical 
Review, 66. 
White, M. 1994. A Computational Approach to 
Aspectual Composition. Ph.D. dissertation, 
Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, 
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphi a . 
236 
