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

[John.Maxwell at PARC.COM]

Hi Adam,

(f CASE) ~= ACC is NOT SATISFIED in this case.  In effect, the
distribution gets wide-scope relative to the negation.  This seems to fit
the linguistic facts better than giving the negation wide scope.

Cheers,

John

On 10/16/12 9:14 AM, "Adam Przepiorkowski" <adamp at IPIPAN.WAW.PL> wrote:

>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