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

Assessment of the antioxidant and antibacterial activities of different olive processing wastewaters

<div><p>Olive processing wastewaters (OPW), namely olive mill wastewater (OMW) and table-olive wastewaters (TOW) were evaluated for their antibacterial activity against five Gram-positive and two Gram-negative bacteria using the standard disc diffusion and thin layer chromatography (TLC)-bioautography assays. Disc diffusion screening and bioautography of OMW were compared to the phenolic extracts of table-olive brines. Positive activity against <i>S</i>. <i>aureus</i> was demonstrated. The optimization of chromatographic separation revealed that hexane/acetone in the ratio of 4:6 was the most effective for phenolic compounds separation. A HPLC-MS analysis was performed showing that only two compounds, hydroxytyrosol and tyrosol, were the predominant phenolic compounds in all OPW. The phenolic extract of OMW generated by a semi-modern process showed the highest free radical-scavenging activity (DPPH assay) compared to the other phenolic extracts. It is apparent from the present study that OPW are a rich source of antioxidants suitable for use in food, cosmetic or pharmaceutical applications.</p></div

Effect of concentration of OMW and TOW phenolic extracts on their antibacterial activity against <i>S</i>. <i>aureus</i> using the disc diffusion assay.

<p>Effect of concentration of OMW and TOW phenolic extracts on their antibacterial activity against <i>S</i>. <i>aureus</i> using the disc diffusion assay.</p

Physicochemical characterization of olive mill wastewater and table-olive brine samples.

<p>Physicochemical characterization of olive mill wastewater and table-olive brine samples.</p

HPLC chromatograms of OMW phenolic extracts.

<p>1. Hydroxytyrosol, 2. 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid, 3. Tyrosol. 4. Protocatechuic acid derivative, 5. Caffeic acid. 6. <i>p</i>-coumaric acid. 7. Ferulic acid derivative, 8. Ferulic acid, 9. Luteolin derivative, 10. Oleuropein. Peaks 1, 3, 6, 8 and 10 were identified by use of standards. The remaining peaks were tentatively identified by comparison with literature data. (OMW1: olive mill wastewater from semi-modern process, OMW2: olive mill wastewater from modern process, GTOW: green table-olive brine, PTOW: purple table-olive brine and BTOW: black table-olive brine).</p

Total phenolic content, phenolic constituents and antioxidant activity (IC₅₀) of different olive processing wastewaters samples.

<p>The values in the brackets are the proportions to the total phenolic content, TPC.</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

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

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