The Performance Grammar Correspondence Hypothesis (PGCH) was put forward by John Hawkins (2004) as an explanation for why grammatical patterns and the frequencies of those patterns cross-linguistically are the way they are.
In essence, it says that linguistic constructions which are easier to process are more likely to be grammaticalised. Conversely, those which are harder to process are less likely to be grammaticalised. Furthermore, processing ease is hypothesised to underlie our preferences for certain constructions over others (where there is competition between constructions) in usage. Linguistic performance thus shapes the grammar.
Hawkins suggests that there are three principles behind the hypothesis. Simplifying horrifically:
Minimise Domains: this basically means make the distance between elements which go together syntactically and semantically as small as possible, e.g. if an adjective goes with a particular noun, put them as close together as possible.
Minimise Forms: this basically means make those elements mentioned above as small and as meaningful as possible, e.g. consider spoken English “I’mma be there” where “I am going to be there” has very much had its form minimised.
Maximise Online Processing: this basically means arrange those elements in such a way that a listener will be able to process the structure of what you’re saying in the most efficient way possible. This involves making structures easier to recognise but also avoiding potential misinterpretations of structure, e.g. “I looked the number up” – consider where you place the “up” as the object gets longer. “I looked the number of my friend who just moved in next door up” vs. “I looked up the number of my friend who just moved in next door”. If the object is going to be very long, it is better to put “up” straight after the verb so that the verb (and its idiomatic meaning) can be recognised sooner. When the object isn’t so long, as in “I looked the number up,” efficiency isn’t greatly affected.
Note that language users flout these principles all the time, e.g. for stylistic effect, and are not consciously aware of them.
Using these three principles, Hawkins’ theory makes some very strong and interesting predictions about the types of patterns found in the languages of the world, and about which patterns are more likely or unlikely to be found.
Reference
Hawkins, J. (2004). Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Solar power is the third most used renewable energy source and its popularity is growing.
Determining the efficacy of organic solar cell mixtures is a time-consuming and tired practice, relying on post-manufacturing analysis to find the most effective combination of materials.
Now, an international group of researchers – from North Carolina State University in the US and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology – have developed a new quantitative approach that can identify effective mixtures quickly and before the cell goes through production.
Development of a thin-film solar cell.Image: science photo/Shutterstock
By using the solubility limit of a system as a parameter, the group looked to find the processing temperature providing the optimum performance and largest processing window for the system, said Harald Ade, co-corresponding author and Professor of Physics at NC State.
‘Forces between molecules within a solar cell’s layers govern how much they will mix – if they are very interactive they will mix but if they are repulsive they won’t,’ he said. ‘Efficient solar cells are a delicate balance. If the domains mix too much or too little, the charges can’t separate or be harvested effectively.’
‘We know that attraction and repulsion depend on temperature, much like sugar dissolving in coffee – the saturation, or maximum mixing of the sugar with the coffee, improves as the temperature increases. We figured out the saturation level of the ‘sugar in the coffee’ as a function of temperature,’ he said.
Solar cells have come a long way, but inexpensive, thin film solar cells are still far behind more expensive, crystalline solar cells in efficiency. Now, a team of researchers suggests that using two thin films of different materials may be the way to go to create affordable, thin film cells with about 34% efficiency.
“Ten years ago I knew very little about solar cells, but it became clear to me they were very important,” said Akhlesh Lakhtakia, Evan Pugh University Professor and Charles Godfrey Binder Professor of Engineering Science and Mechanics, Penn State.
Investigating the field, he found that researchers approached solar cells from two sides, the optical side — looking on how the sun’s light is collected — and the electrical side — looking at how the collected sunlight is converted into electricity. Optical researchers strive to optimize light capture, while electrical researchers strive to optimize conversion to electricity, both sides simplifying the other.
“I decided to create a model in which both electrical and optical aspects will be treated equally,” said Lakhtakia. “We needed to increase actual efficiency, because if the efficiency of a cell is less than 30% it isn’t going to make a difference.” The researchers report their results in a recent issue of Applied Physics Letters.
Today, it is widely accepted that the large Auger coefficient is the main cause for the large (~50%) efficiency droop in traditional hexagonal-phase InGaAlN LEDs. Yet, this explanation is inadequate to account for the low efficiency droop in gallium arsenide- and gallium phosphide-based LEDs, as those have similar Auger coefficients.
InIEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, Can Bayram, Jean-Pierre Leburton and Yi-Chia Tsai at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign show that the coexistence of strong internal polarization and large carrier effective mass accounts for ~51% of the efficiency droop under high current densities in hexagonal-phase green InGaAlN LEDs (h-LEDs) compared to cubic-phase InGaAlN green LEDs (c-LEDs).
This came from a publication celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Denver Public Library back in 1989. I asked via Twitter (sadly already knowing the answer) if they still got to roller skate in the closed stacks.
Then I started thinking about how awesome a Literary/Librarian Roller Derby team would be. Some suggested names:
Pain Austin
Hurt Vonnegut
Fyodor Destroyevsky
Vladimir Knock-your-block-off (not my best)
J. D. Slaughtinger
Assault Whitman
Horror Luis Borges
Given the number of roller derbying librarians I’ve met, I get the feeling that roller derby needs to be folded into the standard stereotype of librarians.
Pictured is an advanced wireless power module assembly that simplifies the integration of more silicon carbide chips into a given module. This type of packaging solution will increase efficiency, while delivering more power for a variety of high performance machines such as medical imaging scanners and hybrid electric cars. Photo by Chris New.
I’ve got a new productivity technique I’m trying out! You just take these telephone cord bracelets and label keychains, add one task to each, put them on, and you can only take them off when you’re done the task! Bonus serotonin from putting the completed ones in a container and watching it fill as you accomplish more! . I’ve done it for a couple days now and I really like it. It keeps your to-do list right in front of you and keeps you on task. . Let me know if you have tried this before or are going to try it now! Thanks to @megturney for the idea . . . . .
Improve Your Daily Workflow By Focusing on Simplification
Improve Your Daily Workflow By Focusing on Simplification
For all driven professionals, the desire to try and be as effective and productive as possible is a very powerful thing, and it is responsible for spurring a lot of innovation and professional momentum in the world at large.
Nonetheless, one area where people frequently go wrong – and this is particularly the case for new and highly ambitious entrepreneurs – is by striving to do too much at once…
Price: [price_with_discount] [ad_1] Perhaps you know of this drug but are hesitant to take the step, afraid of addiction, side effects, real or supposed effects … The list of reasons that creates obstacles between you and the cialis is long! Do you probably have factors that negatively affect your sexual performance? (Diseases, malformations, emotional, social, environmental)?Would you like to be…
On Friday I had to be in Buffalo for a conference. Because I couldn’t miss work on Thursday, I took an early morning Friday flight: 6am from JFK, landing in Buffalo at 7:18am. But on Saturday I didn’t have to be back at a certain time, so I booked the Amtrak Empire service, leaving Buffalo at 7:34am and getting back to NYC at 3:45pm. Sounds awful, right? Here’s why it wasn’t, and why the train part of this trip was better than the plane part:
Free wireless on the train The ability to get up and move around whenever I felt like it The empty seat next to me The electrical outlet next to me, below the large, clear windows The wide, comfy seatbelt-less seats I only had to get to the station 5 minutes before the train left I didn’t have to wait in a check-in line, get out my ID, wait in a security line, take off my shoes, or get patted down I was deposited by the train in the middle of the city, not way out in Queens or Newark I was able to look out the window, and learn about the changing landscape between the cities If a baby started screaming, I could get up and change seats When we were paused in Oneida, the lady in front of me pointed out a river snake and a muskrat in the pond we were next to.
I could go on, but I’m about to do some work, watch a crappy movie, and then stretch out and take a nice nap.
Now, obviously, planes are awesome, and necessary. Can’t get to Cairo from here on a train (yet). Trains have less flexibility, and if it’s a long trip the time it takes starts to become an issue, blah blah blah. Nevertheless, for short trips I’ll stick with trains, not the “commuter flights.” Give me a slightly longer (although not much, when you factor in all the airport nonsense), comfortable train trip upstate any day.
Without a planned economy, there is no way to ensure full employment.
Capitalism consistently operates under capacity. This means empty facilitates, full of productive machinery, while those who could operate it are unemployed.
That’s not an accident.
Competition for jobs drives wages down. If 1000 people are willing and able to fill one post, the employer can choose the cheapest from a large pool of workers, all undercutting the cost of each other’s labour to secure the job.
If there are only a handful of people to do a job, wages cannot be forced down as far.
Near-full employment would leave employers with a very small pool of potential workers, forcing wages to increase or stay the same.
The market drives unemployment, demanding the longest possible hours from the cheapest available labourers.
