30 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2017
    1. James Bay hydro-electric project
      The James Bay hydroelectric project proposed to construct watersheds along the eastern shores of the Hudson Bay from James Bay to Ungava Bay in Canada. This distance is approximately 750 miles. It would alter nineteen waterways and create 27 reservoirs (Linton, 1991). The first phase of construction, called La Grande River phase, was planned to generate more than ten megawatts, which is the equivalent of roughly ten nuclear power plants. This portion of the project would require large impoundment reservoirs, comparable to the size of the state of Connecticut. The James Bay hydroelectric project was the first “mega-scale hydroelectric project to be built in the sub-Arctic.” The project was proposed in the early 1970s, at a time when “physical and social environmental effects were not taken into significant consideration” (Hornig, 2000). Due to its timing and lack of environmental assessment and research, the James Bay hydroelectric project was compared to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline proposals of Arctic Gas and Foothills within the Berger Inquiry. At the time, during the 1970s, there were few people who actively opposed the construction of the James Bay hydroelectric plant. They included the Cree inhabitants of the area and some environmental activists. However, during the 1980s, after the completion of the La Grande River phase, opposition became more frequent and more apparent as concerns about environmental impacts became more well-known. 
      

      References

      Hornig, J. F. (2000). Review: Social and Environmental Impacts of teh James Bay Hydroelectric Project. Natural Resources & Environment, 121.

      Linton, J. I. (1991). Guest Editorial: The James Bay Hydroelectric Project -- Issue of the Century. Arctic, iii-iv.

  2. Apr 2017
    1. North West Company

      The North West Company (NWC) was founded in 1779 in Montreal, Canada by a group of men from Scotland (The North West Company). The company was created in competition with the already established Hudson Bay Company (HBC). Both companies were fur traders, but the NWC had swift, lightweight boats that allowed them to travel faster than the HBC and the NWC became the leading fur trading company. The success of the NWC relied on merchant partners, agents, voyageurs, and aboriginal trappers. In 1821, NWC and HBC combined resources and became The Hudson’s Bay Company (The Company), with a total of 173 fur trading posts. This merger allowed Britain to retain control over the western provinces of Canada. In 1881, The Company moved toward agriculture and land and transportation development. In 1935, radiotelephone technology became available and The Company received increasing demand from a larger service region. This led to a period of technological advancement. In 1943, Northern Canada was open and many migrated to the area in search of wealth and opportunity. The Company opened community based retail stores in an effort to increase profit and namesake. As advertisements became abundant, the demand for retail stores increased. In 1953, The Company began trading Inuit art at its regional trading posts, which introduced a new art form. In 1987, the Northern trading posts, entitled the Northern Stores Division, were purchased and renamed The North West Company. A complete timeline of the history of the North West Company can be found below.

      "History, About Us, The North West Company." The North West Company. Accessed April 06, 2017. Description

  3. Nov 2016
  4. Aug 2015
    1. is
    2. form
    3. second

      'second oldest' - well, actually it's the oldest because it's just traditional school grammar, as in 19th-century Reed and Kellogg diagramming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_diagram). Tesniere's main contribution was to unify the analysis by taking the verb as root, instead of treating the top verb and its subject as equals. See attached notes from Percival (1999).

    4. would have to be

      Why? I don't see why this is more of a problem for DG than for PSG.

    5. fronting should betreated by special mechanisms

      Precisely as suggested in Word Grammar. As I say, there's not only one version of DG!

    6. So, in addition to the dependency structure thatis described in Dependency Syntax, one needs other levels. One level is the level ofsemantics and another one is linearization

      I think everyone in DG would agree that syntax and semantics are separate.

    7. This is indeed true: Dependency Grammar is well-suited for teaching grammar in introductory classes
    8. there is no reading in which the adjunct scopes over each event individually

      How about this ?: Robin's goal was to take the same time to do A, B and C; and at last she did it: she did A, did B and did C in exactly 30 seconds each.

    9. for
    10. a phrase structure componen

      Not really 'phrase structure' because the larger unit need not be a phrase.

    11. looks rather strange

      Precisely - and that's probably why T didn't adopt your analysis!

    12. An alternative to such a special treatment

      But Tesniere was happy with junction as a special relation, so why are you revising his theory?

    13. Groß & Osborne(2009: 80) use the concepts ofchain(calledcatenain later work (Osborne, Putnam & Groß2012))

      I think it's misleading to present Gross and Osborne's analysis, as it's neither typical nor particularly successful. Nobody else distinguishes heads and governors in that way, and G&O don't show how 'head' translates into linearization. Nor do they explain how their principle excludes examples such as "great with difficulty", where "with" qualifies as the head of "great difficulty". And their 'g' notation implies the underlying dependency even though their diagram doesn't show it. In contrast, there are well-developed analyses in other theories, including my own Word Grammar analysis which I've published in several places, including a whole chapter of discussion in Hudson 1990, which you mention in your footnote 13.

    14. By assigning pronouns the category N such a disjunctive specification is avoided

      This (fn 9) is standard Word Grammar, e.g. Hudson 1990:167, Hudson 2007:190.

    15. Dependency grammar does not focus on linearization aspects.

      This is like saying that dependency grammar doesn't focus on word classes. No 'dependency grammar' discusses nothing but dependencies, just as no PS-based grammar discusses nothing but part-whole relations. A 'dependency grammar' is one that uses dependencies, and the fact is, as you've already said, that different dependency grammars make different assumptions e.g. on linearization. Since everyone agrees that linearization is important, it's just a question of how to handle it, so it must be part of any dependency grammar, whether implicit or explicit. E.g. in Word Grammar (2015) linearization is handled by 'landmark' relations which are separate from dependency relations.

      What you can say is that dependency structure, as such, is independent of linearization. Just as with the ID/LP split in GPSG.

    16. assume that sub-jects depend on auxiliaries

      And Hudson 1990 etc

    17. it is assumed

      You're suddenly assuming a very particular version of DG. DG is just a tradition, not a theory; it's no more unified than PS-based theories. As soon as you discuss details such as passives, you have to say which version you're discussing. The analysis in Fig 11.7 is very different from the one in Word Grammar.

    18. use glue seman-tics

      But every dependency-based theory includes a separate semantic structure which dependencies are mapped onto. It's quite easy, especially since the asymmetry of dependency is motivated by meaning, but as you say, the mapping is sensitive to word order.

    19. his basically reintroduces the con-cept of constituency into the framework

      Not really. Projectivity doesn't invoke a separate phrase node, so the dependent and head aren't part of a larger node, as required by constituency.

    20. we do not need to use arrows

      You do need them if you recognise mutual dependency!

    21. rather than part of speech information

      Strictly speaking, the part of speech information is included as well, though sometimes it's omitted just to simplify diagrams. This diagramming system is only used in Word Grammark, I think.

    22. English

      You should also mention Karlsson's ependency-based Constraint Grammar which as fully functioning parsers for several languages. It's described at ttp://beta.visl.sdu.dk/constraint_grammar.html and the languages and parsers are listed here: http://beta.visl.sdu.dk/constraint_grammar_languages.html . This online system has also been used in school teaching.

    23. Hudson(1989)

      Hudson 1989 certainly doesn't deserve a mention - it was just a mickey-mouse parser with a tiny vocabulary.

    24. (?)

      Lafferty, John D., Daniel D. Sleator, and Dennis Grinberg. “A Robust Parsing Algorithm for Link Grammars,” 1995. Sleator, Daniel D., and David Temperley. “Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Parsing Technologies.” In Parsing English with a Link Grammar, 277–92. Tilburg, 1993

    25. dead
    26. towards
    27. Richard Hudson

      Hudson followed Anderson: Anderson, John. The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localistic Theory. . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971.