<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <title>FDA Collection:</title>
  <link rel="alternate" href="http://hdl.handle.net/2451/31677" />
  <subtitle />
  <id>http://hdl.handle.net/2451/31677</id>
  <updated>2026-04-15T05:19:09Z</updated>
  <dc:date>2026-04-15T05:19:09Z</dc:date>
  <entry>
    <title>The interaction of compositional semantics and event semantics</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="http://hdl.handle.net/2451/34277" />
    <author>
      <name>Champollion, Lucas</name>
    </author>
    <id>http://hdl.handle.net/2451/34277</id>
    <updated>2015-10-01T16:48:28Z</updated>
    <published>2015-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
    <summary type="text">Title: The interaction of compositional semantics and event semantics
Authors: Champollion, Lucas
Abstract: Davidsonian event semantics is often taken to form an unhappy marriage with compositional semantics. For example, it has been claimed to be problematic for semantic accounts of quantification (Beaver and Condoravdi, in: Aloni et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 16th Amsterdam Colloquium, 2007), for classical accounts of negation (Krifka, in: Bartsch et al. (eds.) Semantics and contextual expression, 1989), and for intersective accounts of verbal coordination (Lasersohn, in Plurality, conjunction and events, 1995). This paper shows that none of this is the case, once we abandon the idea that the event variable is bound at sentence level, and assume instead that verbs denote existential quantifiers over events. Quantificational arguments can then be given a semantic account, negation can be treated classically, and coordination can be modeled as intersection. The framework presented here is a natural choice for researchers and fieldworkers who wish to sketch a semantic analysis of a language without being forced to make commitments about the hierarchical order of arguments, the argument-adjunct distinction, the default scope of quantifiers, or the nature of negation and coordination.</summary>
    <dc:date>2015-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Refining stratified reference</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="http://hdl.handle.net/2451/34276" />
    <author>
      <name>Champollion, Lucas</name>
    </author>
    <id>http://hdl.handle.net/2451/34276</id>
    <updated>2015-10-01T16:42:27Z</updated>
    <published>2015-10-01T00:00:00Z</published>
    <summary type="text">Title: Refining stratified reference
Authors: Champollion, Lucas
Abstract: This is a reply to the comments by Corver, Doetjes, Link, Piñón, Schwarzschild, and Syrett on the target article in this volume, 'Stratified reference: The common core of distributivity, aspect, and measurement'. Stratified reference is designed to capture semantic oppositions involving atelicity, plurality and mass reference, extensive measure functions, distributivity, and collectivity. Following suggestions by some of the commentators, stratified reference is refined here in two ways: it is restricted to the parts of the event or individual in question, and its granularity parameter is instantiated with a predicate built around mereological proper parthood and degree ordering.</summary>
    <dc:date>2015-10-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Stratified reference: the common core of distributivity, aspect, and measurement</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="http://hdl.handle.net/2451/34275" />
    <author>
      <name>Champollion, Lucas</name>
    </author>
    <id>http://hdl.handle.net/2451/34275</id>
    <updated>2015-10-01T16:38:31Z</updated>
    <published>2015-10-01T00:00:00Z</published>
    <summary type="text">Title: Stratified reference: the common core of distributivity, aspect, and measurement
Authors: Champollion, Lucas
Abstract: Why can I tell you that I 'ran for five minutes' but not that I *'ran to the store for five minutes'? Why can we talk about 'five pounds of books' but not about *'five pounds of book'? What keeps you from saying *'sixty degrees Celsius of water' when you can say 'sixty inches of water'? And what goes wrong when I complain that *'all the ants in my kitchen are numerous'? The constraints on these constructions involve concepts that are generally studied separately: aspect, plural and mass reference, measurement, distributivity, and collectivity. This paper provides a unified perspective on these domains and gives a single answer to the questions above in the framework of algebraic event semantics.</summary>
    <dc:date>2015-10-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Bidirectional dependency parsing trained on the Turin University Treebank</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="http://hdl.handle.net/2451/31844" />
    <author>
      <name>Champollion, Lucas</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Mannem, Prashanth</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Robaldo, Livio</name>
    </author>
    <id>http://hdl.handle.net/2451/31844</id>
    <updated>2013-07-06T06:04:27Z</updated>
    <published>2007-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
    <summary type="text">Title: Bidirectional dependency parsing trained on the Turin University Treebank
Authors: Champollion, Lucas; Mannem, Prashanth; Robaldo, Livio
Abstract: In this paper, we describe the application of a bidirectional dependency parser trained on the Turin University Treebank.</summary>
    <dc:date>2007-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
</feed>

