<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P99-1064">
  <Title>Computational Lexical Semantics, Incrementality, and the So-called Punctuality of Events</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="503" end_page="503" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
Conclusion
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> It has been demonstrated in this paper that the so-called punctuality of achievements should be reduced to the notion of atomicity. Formal means to calculate it within an NLP system have been discussed; see White (1994) for a computational implementation of related interest, in a similar spirit. The machinery exposed above can be used to predict whether an event should be considered as an accomplishment (non-atomic event; possesses subevents) or an achievement (atomic event; lacks any subevent).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The above developments revealed that (non-)atomicity is at least partly amenable to a compositional semantic procedure, and does not fall altogether under the scope of pragmatics. It has been shown to be directly related to incrementality in many cases, though not in all cases. In order to construe incremental non-atomic events, I proposed to encode m-incrementality vs. i-incrementality in the lexicon, before discussing the accessibility of the internal structure of delimiting argument NPs ; I suggested a solution to the problems raised by the polysemous internal structure of certain nouns. Finally, a tentative result-state based account of non-incremental non-atomic events has been proposed. I even claimed that it can explain all types of non-atomicity and even incrementality in a unified way, and therefore might surpass all the existing accounts of event structure.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>