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

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

Ingredient composition and nutrient content of experimental diets (on an air dry basis).

1<p>Probiotic treatment was provided by the addition of ∼10¹⁰ spores/day of <i>Bacillus pumilus</i> WIT 588 to the non-medicated treatment.</p>2<p>Lactofeed 70 contains 70% lactose, 11.5% protein, 0.5% oil, 7.5% ash, and 0.5% fiber (Volac, Cambridge, UK).</p>3<p>Provided the following per kg of complete starter diet: Cu, 155 mg; Fe, 90 mg; Mn, 47 mg; Zn, 120 mg; I, 0.6 mg; Se, 0.3 mg; vitamin A, 6000 IU; vitamin D3, 1000 IU; vitamin E, 100 IU; vitamin K, 4 mg; vitamin B12, 15 µg; vitamin B1, 2 mg; vitamin B6, 3 mg; riboflavin, 2 mg; nicotinic acid, 12 mg; pantothenic acid, 10 mg and choline chloride, 250 mg.</p>4<p>Natuphos 5000 (BASF SE, Lampertheim, Germany).</p>5<p>Phase 1 and 2 medicated diets contained 200 mg apramycin per kg provided from Apralan G200, (Elanco Animal Health, Eli Lilly & Co., Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK).</p>6<p>Phase 1 and 2 medicated diets contained 2500 mg of elemental zinc per kg provided from supplemental zinc oxide (Zincotec; Provimi Ltd., NuTec Mill, Eastern Avenue, Lichfield, Staffordshire, UK) and nutritional zinc included in the vitamin and mineral premix.</p>7<p>Calculated values.</p

Effect of feeding non-medicated, medicated or <i>B. pumilus</i> treatments for 22 days on post-weaning pig growth performance.¹^,²

1<p>Mean values with their standard errors, <i>n</i> = 16 for non-medicated and medicated treatments, <i>n</i> = 15 for <i>B. pumilus</i> treatment.</p>2<p>Within each row, values with different superscripts are different at (^a,b) <i>P</i><0.05.</p>3<p>BW  =  body weight.</p>4<p>ADFI  =  average daily feed intake.</p>5<p>ADG  =  average daily gain.</p>6<p>FCR  =  feed conversion ratio (ADFI/ADG).</p