satisfiability of (f FEATURE) =/= VALUE in coordination?

[Adam Przepiorkowski]

Dear All,

It's probably a newcomer's question – apologies if so.

Imagine a coordination of two phrases, accusative and genitive (LFG
literature knows such examples from Russian).  Assume – as usual – that
CASE is a distributive feature.  What is the satisfiability of the
following trivial statement for such a coordinate phrase f?


(f CASE) =/= ACC


Two answers:

1. SATISFIED because 1) it's the same thing as "NOT ((f CASE) =c ACC)",
   and 2) "(f CASE) =c ACC" is not satisfied (it is not satisfied for
   one of the conjuncts),

2. NOT SATISFIED because "(f CASE) =/= ACC" is not satisfied for one of
   the conjuncts.

XLE seems to favour the latter answer, but – given how negation is
defined in LFG (e.g., Dalrymple 2001, pp. 111–112) – we would expect the
former.

It seems that we are essentially asking about the relative scope of
negation and distribution.

All best,

Adam Przepiórkowski
Agnieszka Patejuk

-- 
Adam Przepiórkowski                          ˈadam ˌpʃɛpjurˈkɔfskʲi
http://clip.ipipan.waw.pl/ ____ Computational Linguistics in Poland
http://jlm.ipipan.waw.pl/ ___________ Journal of Language Modelling
http://zil.ipipan.waw.pl/ ____________ Linguistic Engineering Group
http://nkjp.pl/ _________________________ National Corpus of Polish