FWIW I think the paper's argumentation is extremely weak to begin with. Like in section 4.1, it opens by expressing a sound position of skepticism: > there are

FWIW I think the paper's argumentation is extremely weak to begin with. Like in section 4.1, it opens by expressing a sound position of skepticism: > there are significant questions on whether these traces have any valid semantic import to the end user. Which it contradicts in the very next paragraph, taking a stance that there are no valid semantics present in the trace: > the false idea that derivational traces are semantically meaningful It's really not a high quality paper worth taking seriously. And that's before we get into the complete and total breakdown of objective analysis. It rejects distributional semantics as a theory, while also explicitly stating the results that have been produced under its auspices are "undeniable". Never elaborated on, and at no point in the paper am I given the impression the authors are even aware of the problem with this. It's just more unempirical slop that wants its pound of flesh without putting the work in. Frankly, whoever let this through peer review should be ashamed of themselves.