Choosing Short: An Explanation of the Similarities and Dissimilarities in the Distribution Patterns of Binding and Covaluation

Covaluation is the generalization of coreference introduced by Tanya Reinhart. Covaluation distributes in patterns that are very similar yet not entirely identical to those of binding. On a widespread view, covaluation and binding distribute similarly because binding is defined in terms of covaluation. Yet on Reinhart's view, binding and covaluation are not related that way: binding pertains to syntax, covaluation does not. Naturally, the widespread view can easily explain the similarities between binding and covaluation, whereas Reinhart can easily explain the dissimilarities. Reciprocally, the widespread view finds it harder to explain the dissimilarities, whereas Reinhart finds it harder to explain the similarities. Reinhart and others have proposed more than one explanation of the similarities, but as I argue, these explanations do not work. Hence although I adopt Reinhart's view, I propose a new explanation of the similarities and dissimilarities between binding and covaluation: While Reinhart has invoked semantic structure only to explain dissimilarities, I do so to explain both similarities and dissimilarities at once. Finally, I examine in light of this approach the topics of language acquisition, only-constructions, the identity predicate, the Partee/Bach/Higginbotham problem, the Dahl puzzle and its recent versions by Roelofsen

Detection of endogenous maize and porcine gene fragments and transgene fragments in blood and faeces of sows fed non-Bt control or Bt maize-based diets during gestation and lactation¹.

1<p>Number of samples out of 12 that tested positive for the gene fragment of interest. One sample was tested per sow (n  = 12 sows/treatment).</p>2<p>Not assessed.</p

Effects of feeding Bt MON 810 maize to nulliparous sows during gestation and lactation on haematological parameters of sows¹.

1<p>Sows were fed either a non-Bt control or a Bt maize-based diet (n = 12/treatment).</p>2<p>Lambda used for Box Cox transformation of data to ensure normal distribution. Means and 95% confidence limits for data which were normalised using the Box Cox transformation were back transformed and are presented on the original scale.</p>3<p>95% CI –95% confidence interval (the interval that contains the true population mean in 95% of cases).</p>4<p>WBC – white blood cells.</p

Composition of diets fed to sows during gestation and lactation (fresh weight basis, %).

1<p>Premix provided per kg of complete diet: Cu, 15 mg; Fe, 70 mg; Mn, 62 mg; Zn, 80 mg, I, 0.6 mg; Se, 0.2 mg; retinyl acetate, 3.44 mg; cholecalciferol, 25 μg; DL-alpha-tocopheryl acetate, 100 mg; vitamin K, 2 mg; vitamin B_12, 15 μg; riboflavin, 5 mg; nicotinic acid, 12 mg; pantothenic acid, 10 mg; choline chloride, 500 mg; vitamin B_1, 2 mg; and vitamin B_6, 3 mg.</p>2<p>Calculated values.</p

Detection of endogenous maize and porcine gene fragments and transgene fragments in blood and organs of offspring from sows fed non-Bt control or Bt maize-based diets during gestation and lactation^1,2.

1<p>Samples were collected at birth from the 4^th live born piglet from each litter.</p>2<p>Number of samples out of 12 that tested positive for the gene fragment of interest. One sample was tested per piglet (n = 12 piglets/treatment).</p

Effects of feeding Bt MON 810 maize to nulliparous sows during gestation and lactation on peripheral blood immune cell populations^1,2.

1<p>Sows were fed either a non-Bt control or a Bt maize-based diet (n  = 12/treatment).</p>2<p>Values are given as percentages of the total peripheral blood mononuclear cell population for all parameters, except the CD4⁺ CD8⁺ and CD4⁺CD8⁺ lymphocytes which are given as percentages of the CD3⁺ lymphocytes.</p>3<p>SEM – standard error of the mean.</p>4<p>WBC – white blood cells.</p

Effects of feeding Bt MON810 maize to nulliparous sows during gestation and lactation on offspring haematological parameters at birth¹.

1<p>Sows were fed either a non-Bt control or a Bt maize-based diet and blood samples were collected at birth from the 4^th live born piglet from each litter (n = 12/treatment).</p>2<p>Value of lambda used for Box Cox transformation of data to ensure normal distribution. Means and 95% confidence limits for data which were normalised using the Box Cox transformation were back transformed and are presented on the original scale.</p>3<p>95% CI –95% confidence interval (the interval that contains the true population mean in 95% of cases).</p>4<p>WBC – white blood cells.</p

Effect of feeding a non-medicated, medicated or <i>B. pumilus</i> treatment for 22 days post-weaning on pH of and short chain fatty acid concentrations (mM/g) in ileal and cecal digesta of pigs.¹^,²

1<p>Mean values with their standard errors, <i>n</i> = 10.</p>2<p>Within each row, values with different superscripts are different at (^a,b) <i>P</i><0.05.</p

Effect of feeding a non-medicated, medicated or <i>B. pumilus</i> treatment for 22 days post-weaning on small intestinal histology of pigs.¹^,²^,³

1<p>Mean values with their standard errors, <i>n</i> = 10.</p>2<p>Ten villi and 10 crypts were measured on five fields of view for each pig and the means were utilized for statistical analysis.</p>3<p>Within each row, values with different superscripts are different at (^a,b) <i>P</i><0.05.</p

Effect of feeding a non-medicated, medicated or <i>B. pumilus</i> treatment for 22 days post-weaning on ileal and cecal bacterial counts (log₁₀ CFU/g) of pigs and ileal and cecal counts of the administered <i>B. pumilus</i> strain.¹^,²^,³

1<p>Mean values with their standard errors, <i>n</i> = 10.</p>2<p>Bacterial counts are presented as log₁₀ CFU/g⁻¹ wet weight.</p>3<p>Within each row, values with different superscripts are different at (^a,b) <i>P</i><0.05.</p>4<p>Non-detectable (the limit of detection was 100 CFU/g i.e. log₁₀ 2.0 CFU/g).</p