Theoretical Background. In the literature of language development, some analyses have been put forward to account for the phenomenon known as object clitic omission (see
Theoretical Background. The effects of demographic faultlines on group processes and performance are often explained using the theories of similarity-attraction, social identity, and social categorization. The similarity-attraction paradigm posits that group members are attracted to similar others (Xxxxx, 1971), such that members who share a demographic characteristic will be likely to form a subgroup on the basis of the mutual similarity. Social categorization theory argues that the categories that people base their identities on (and thus admire in similar others) proscribe their behavior. When social identities are salient, people will strive to enhance themselves by making their in-group appear superior to the out-group (Xxxxxx & Xxxxxx, 1986; Turner, 1987). To accomplish this, members may exhibit pride and loyalty to their in-group and derogatory and prejudiced attitudes and behavior toward the out-group (Xxxxxxx & Xxxxxx, 1989). These processes over time may lead to a breakdown in communication between subgroups (e.g., Lau & Xxxxxxxxx, 2005) and the eventual polarization of the different subgroups from each other (c.f. Lau & Xxxxxxxxx, 1998). We propose that faultline placement (whether the faultline creates a solo-split or coalitional split) determines the degree to which these social psychological mechanisms impact team processes and outcomes. While past research has explored whether processes such as these lead faultlines to be associated with higher levels of conflict (e.g., Xxx & Xxxxxxxxx, 2005; Xx & Xxxxxxxx, 0000; Xxxxxx et al., 2006; Xxxxxxxx et al., 2003), research has yet to investigate how the effects of faultlines might vary depending on the placement of the faultline in the group – whether the faultline divides two subgroups from each other or whether the faultline separates a single member from a larger subgroup. In this chapter, we specifically focus on the group process of conflict as explaining the effects of faultline placement on team and individual performance. Because our study examines team composition, conflict is a particularly relevant construct, as past theory and research has often suggested that these two concepts - team composition and conflict - are closely related (e.g., Xxxx, Xxxxxxxxxx, & Xxxxx, 1999; Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxx, & Xxx, 1999). Additionally, conflict has been found to be a major contributor to the effects of group processes on outcomes such as performance or satisfaction (e.g., Xxxxxx, 1996; Xx Xxxx & Xxxxxxxx, 0000; Xxxx, 1995; 1997...
Theoretical Background. Before turning to my analysis of conjunct-sensitive agreement, which treats FCA and LCA in the same way, I will briefly discuss the theoretical mechanisms which will be used in the analysis. 7I refer the reader to Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxx, and Saksida for a more detailed discussion of the analyses of conjunct- sensitive agreement discussed above. I merely note here the direction of some of their arguments, which also apply to SC. 8It should, however, be noted that, as should become clear during the discussion below, the analysis proposed in this paper adopts some of Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxx, and Xxxxxxx’s theoretical assumptions. 9It is worth noting here that the LCA data also raise a problem for the otherwise rather interesting system developed in Xxxxxx (2005), where a probe, i.e. the head responsible for verbal agreement, can agree only with the whole coordination if the coordinated phrase undergoes movement above the probing head, which is the case in SC LCA examples. However, the participle still agrees with one conjunct in such examples. I will adopt the well-established semantically-based distinction between interpretable and uninterpretable features, where interpretable features are those that receive interpretation in the semantics (Xxxxxxx 1995). I also adopt the valued/unvalued distinction, where feature F of a lexical item X can be lexically valued or not. If unvalued, it has to receive a value during syntactic computation, which is accomplished through the operation Agree, discussed below. Following Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx (2007) (and contra Xxxxxxx 2000, 2001a), I assume that uninterpretable features can be valued or unvalued (see section 6 for conclusive empirical evidence to this effect). I also adopt the standard assumption that uninterpretable features have to be deleted so that they do not enter semantics, where they would induce a Full Interpretation violation (see Xxxxxxx 1995, 2000, 2001a; whether or not such features are phonologically realized is irrelevant, see footnote 19). Furthermore, following Xxxxxxx (2001a) I assume only valued features can be deleted (see also Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx 2007 for relevant discussion). This means that unvalued uninterpretable features need to be valued before deletion. (We can assume that they delete immediately after valuation.) On the other hand, valued uninterpretable features can be simply deleted (see section 6 for evidence to this effect), which I assume happens at the point of transfer to the interfaces, more pre...
Theoretical Background. I will first discuss the relevant theoretical mechanisms. I adopt the well- established distinction between interpretable and uninterpretable features, where the former are features that receive interpretation in the semantics. I also adopt the valued/unvalued distinction, where feature F of a lexical item X can be lexically valued or not. If unvalued, it has to receive a value during syntactic derivation, which is accomplished through the operation Agree. I also adopt the standard assumption that uninterpretable features have to be deleted so that they do not enter semantics, where they would violate Full Interpretation. However, I assume only valued features can be deleted (Xxxxxxx 2001). This means unvalued uninterpretable features need to be valued before deletion (following Xxxxxxxx & Torrego 2007, I assume uninterpretable features can be valued or unvalued). Regarding number and gender, I adopt the following assumptions: the number of the probe, which corresponds to the number of the verb, is uninterpretable and unvalued, while the number of NPs is interpretable and valued. This simply captures the standard assumption that number is interpreted semantically on the noun, not on the verb. Thus, the subject in A student likes it/Students like it is interpreted differently depending on whether it is plural or singular, which is not the case with the verb (see Xxxxxxxx & Torrego 2007 for evidence that the number of nouns, but not verbs, is valued). Regarding gender, the gender of the probing head is also uninterpretable and unvalued, while the gender feature of SC NPs is valued and unintepretable. SC nouns have a grammatical gender: (with a few exceptions; see Bošković 2008) they are assigned gender arbitrarily, gender being a grammatical feature without semantic import. Note, e.g., that the fact that ‘table’ is feminine in French and masculine in SC does not lead to a difference in the interpretation of ‘table’ in these languages. The same holds for three distinct words for ‘car’ in SC (kola, auto, auto- mobil) which have different gender that does not affect their interpreta- tion. Since nouns have a fixed gender specification that does not depend on the syntactic context (kola is always feminine, auto neuter, and auto- mobile masculine), nominal gender feature must be lexically valued. On the other hand, which gender a participle has depends on the noun it agrees with; thus the participle has a different gender in (1a) and (1b). The dependence of parti...
Theoretical Background. This subsection, which is largely adapted from our previous work [106], presents the LA algorithm and its automata-related concepts. ∈ ⊆ S ∈ ∈ ∈ ∈ ∈ ∈ ǁ ǁ ⊆ ǁ ǁ ∈ ǁ ǁ ≥ ⊆ { | ∈ ∈ } { } S≥ Before continuing, we introduce the notations used in the section. For a finite alphabet A, A∗ denotes the set of all finite sequences with members in A. s denotes the empty sequence. For a sequence a A∗, a denotes the length (number of symbols) of a; in particular s = 0. For a finite set of sequences U A∗, U denotes the length of the longest sequence(s) in U . For a, b A∗, ab denotes the concatenation of sequences a and b. an is defined by a0 = s and an = an−1a, n 1. For U, V A∗, UV = ab a U, b V ; Un is defined by U 0 = s and Un = Un−1U, n 1. A[n] = 0≤i≤n Ai denotes the sets of sequences of length less than or equal to n with members in the alphabet A. For a sequence a A∗, b A∗ is said to be a prefix of a if there exists a sequence c A∗ such that a = bc. The set of all prefixes of a is denoted by pref (a); for U A∗, pref (U ) = a∈U pref (a). For a sequence a A∗, b A∗ is said to be a suffix of a if there exists a sequence c A∗ such that a = cb. For a finite set A, card(A) denotes the number of elements in A. Finite automata - general concepts We start by introducing some classic definitions from automata theory. ⊆ × −→ ∈ A deterministic finite automaton (DFA) M is a tuple (A, Q, q0, F, h), where: A is the finite input alphabet; Q is the finite set of states; q0 Q is the initial state; F Q is the set of final states; h is the next-state, h : Q A Q. A DFA is usually described by a state-transition diagram. −→ ∈ ∈ × The next-state function h can be naturally extended to a function h : Q A∗ Q. A state q Q is called reachable if there exists s A∗ such that h(q0, s) = q. M is called reachable if all states of M are reachable. M M Given q ∈ Q, the set Lq is defined by Lq = {s ∈ A∗ | h(q, s) ∈ F }. When q is the initial state of M , the set is called the language accepted by M and the M M simpler notation LM is used. Given Y ⊆ A∗, two states q1, q2 ∈ Q are called Y - equivalent if Lq1 ∩Y = Lq2 ∩Y . Otherwise q1 and q2 are called Y -distinguishable. If Y = A∗ then q1 and q2 are simply called equivalent or distinguishable, respec- tively. Two DFAs are called (Y -)equivalent or (Y -)distinguishable if their initial states are (Y -)equivalent or (Y -)distinguishable, respectively. A DFA M is called reduced if every two distinct states of M are distinguish- able. A DFA M is called mi...
Theoretical Background. A company under its own initiative identifies the need to enter into an alliance, then, identifies the best partner available and finally chooses a contract that is appropriate to achieve formalize the alliance. Instead, Xxxxxx (1993) found that the vast majority of new partnership opportunities were presented to firms through joint strategic allies already obtained. Thus, organizations focused on their existing relationships first searched for possible new partners or searched references to potential allies for allied partners. The formation ofjoint venturestoKogut(1988) consists of three main reasonswhichcan also be usedfor all typesof strategic alliances:
Theoretical Background. In order to understand the competition in the transatlantic air transport market, we need to understand what competition is, and what the variables that are possibly related to competition are. This chapter will outline the theoretical backgrounds of these concepts and provide an answer to the sub-question: “what is competition, and which variables are possibly related to it?” Therefore, firstly, the descriptions of competition and the variables possibly related to it will be given in a general sense. After that, we will put it in the perspective of aviation.
Theoretical Background. The value and innovation chain of genetic resources 16
Theoretical Background. The value and innovation chain of genetic resources In bioprospecting, the genetic resources and infor- mation generated by them move through a value chain. Figure 5 (p. 17) illustrates the flow of information and uses of genetic resources along the value and innovation chains. On the bottom line of the fig- ure are indigenous local communities with their traditional knowledge of medicinal uses and cul- tivation methods, and sovereign states with genetic resources that are collected by research- ers (Knowledge Production Site 1). The knowledge and information collected is transformed by researchers (‘Intermediaries’) in the next higher level, for example through scientific analysis and publication (Knowledge Production Site 2). Value is added to the resource as this information becomes available to other stakeholders (e.g. research and development, commercial users) in an expanded geographic area (from local to glob- al, from a grassroots approach to a highly techno- logical approach). If the process of adding knowl- edge continues, for instance by using chemical analyses, the information increases. This can lead to the production of commercial products (Knowledge Production Site 3).13 Accordingly, academic non-commercial research is an important stakeholder with a dual role in the access to genetic resources: First, it acts as an access point to genetic resources (biological mate- rial) and related traditional knowledge. Second, scientists play a pivotal role as intermediaries between the various stakeholders involved in the
Theoretical Background. The case for a more qualitative focus is best made using Xxxxxx’x respected guide (Xxxxxx, 1987): Argument Skill2e The programme emphasise individual outcomes Work packs 1,2,3 and 4 are focused at individual students undergoing an overseas placement. Other stakeholders, such as enterprises and seen in relation to these individuals. The internal dynamics of the programme are intrinsic to the evaluation Work packs 1,2, 3 and 4 derive the interventions from academic sources and key processes are defined accordingly. It is required that the outcomes of the project facilitate reflection and refinement of the underlying academic principles and their implementation. The evaluation requires detailed analysis of individual cases Work packs 3 and 4 in particular are expected to generate particularly successful and disappointing outcomes. The range of enterprises also suggests a case based, rather than generalist approach. It is necessary to identify critical incidences and factors in both cases There is a focus on diversity Diversity is rampant throughout the project. Many different nationalities of student (nationality being far from a homogeneous category itself) from a diversity of Universities will travel to different countries to undertake a variety of work placements and different enterprises. All of these elements generate the need for a range of qualitative evaluation techniques to accommodate diversity among all three stakeholders. There a need to evaluate details of individual interventions It is possible- even likely –that few students will experience all parts of the skill2e interventions in the same way. The IDI diagnostic test will initially segment students according to their level of preparation, which will generate different experiences for both IDI training and the pre departure training in work pack 2. The cultural mentor support in work packs 3 and 4 have more than one mode of delivery, and work pack 4 may be the most diverse intervention of all. Evaluation techniques must thus be able to follow details of individual interventions in context. The is an emphasis on programme improvements Work packs 1 through to 5 have the intention of anticipating and testing programme improvements There is a need to evaluate quality of inputs rather than quantity It is not enough to note that activities have taken place or not, the programme needs to learn of the impact of cultural mentors, pre departure training and so on. Similarly, the inter cultural reflectio...
