Explore the vast range of titles available.

This article accounts for the traditionally-labelled Level 1/Level 2 affix distinction in English by combining the predictions of floating segmental structure (e.g. Rubach 1996) and cyclic spell-out by phase (Chomsky 1999; Marantz 2007). It offers insight not only into the different phonological patterns these affixes trigger, but importantly, explains when the same affix will trigger distinct phonological patterns (when an affix behaves sometimes as Level 1 and sometimes as Level 2). It is argued that Level 1 affixes are distinguished by an initial floating vowel in their underlying representations, and that if we combine this with the proposal that affixes that merge directly to roots are interpreted in the same phonological cycle as these roots then we can remove the reference to diacritic notions such as Level 1 and Level 2 from the grammar. This then allows for a fully modular account of English affix classes, where the phonological derivation refers solely to phonological representations.

The Romance Inter-Views are short, multiple Q&A pairs that address key issues, definitions and ideas regarding Romance linguistics or general linguistics from a Romance viewpoint. Prominent exponents of different approaches to the study of Romance linguistics are asked to answer some general questions. The answers are then assembled so that readers can get a comparative picture of what’s going on in the field. This is the third Inter-view. The first Inter-view, on Syntax, can be found here. The second Inter-view, on Cartography, can be found here.

The Romance Inter-Views are short, multiple Q&A pairs that address key issues, definitions and ideas regarding Romance linguistics or general linguistics from a Romance viewpoint. Prominent exponents of different approaches to the study of Romance linguistics are asked to answer some general questions. The answers are then assembled so that readers can get a comparative picture of what’s going on in the field. This is the third Inter-view. The first Inter-view, on Syntax, can be found here. The second Inter-view, on Cartography, can be found here.

Articular cartilage is an avascular tissue that requires therapeutic intervention methods. This work answers the following: determine transducer operation to optimize the bioeffects; calculate the magnitude of pressure exerted on chondrocytes at an injury site; and confirm the theoretical findings by an animal model.Earlier work has shown that cellular response to US is maximized at the resonance frequency of the cells. Resonance frequencies were calculated for chondrocytes in various layers. The latter configuration closest resembles in vivo conditions and the resonance occurred at 3.8±0.3 MHz. The 3D model of US propagation in a rabbit knee was constructed from MRIs to produce anatomically correct domains. US attenuates in cartilage and 3D results showed that pressure is maximized at an injury site when the transducer is placed in line with the site. Transducer positions that cause US waves to traverse cartilage before reaching the injury site must be avoided. The 3D model is time-consuming, and impractical for routine clinical usage. The average pressure delivered is lower in pulsed low-intensity US compared to cLIUS.A 1D model, which captured all the key results of the 3D model, was used to calculate the temperature rise due to US dissipation – the cLIUS protocol produces negligible increases in temperature. US attenuation can be overcome if the injury site lies in the near-field of the transducer, where constructive interference tends to not only cancel attenuation but delivers pressures higher than the transducer value – confirmed by both 3D and 1D models.Rabbit studies confirmed that cLIUS treatment significantly improved healing of damaged cartilages, and defect sites filled, in contrast to fibrous filling in untreated defects. Finally, a model that involves three intracellular pathways was used to investigate mechanochemical response of a mesenchymal stem cell (MSC). Results showed that MSCs could be prompted towards the condensation step by mechanical stimulation at the resonance frequencies without any exogeneous chemical prompting, and the key proteins formed much earlier than in in vitro experiments.

In Pennsylvania, Act 82 of 2012 introduced the Educator Effectiveness system and its foundational belief that student achievement is the result of teachers’ high quality instruction and principals’ high quality school leadership. With the heightened expectations of principal and teacher accountability for student achievement, principals positively impact student achievement through the day-to-day work of teachers. Principals intentionally design and communicate formative feedback so that teachers learn and grow. This study explored the current practices and beliefs of principals who provide formative feedback to teachers. Principals and assistant principals were surveyed to gather evidence of their self-reported use of effective formative feedback qualities. They were asked to rank order research-based highly effective formative feedback qualities in order of perceived value in leading to teacher learning. Next, seven principals were interviewed regarding the methods they use to provide formative feedback to teachers. The principals were chosen to be interviewed because they reported similar feedback beliefs and practices as those reported in the literature on formative feedback. This study found that principals and assistant principals value different qualities than the ones they use in their daily feedback practices. Additionally, principals and assistant principals believe that certain feedback qualities have an impact on teachers’ practices that are different from those supported in the literature as being effective and are also different from those that they use in their own feedback messages to teachers. Principals who report beliefs that reflect the research on formative feedback are better able to defend and explain their feedback practices. When principals intentionally incorporate highly effective formative feedback qualities in their feedback messages to teachers, they contribute to the professional learning of teachers. They also learn and grow themselves, sustaining a professional learning culture.

This thesis offers evidence that phases (Chomsky 1995) induce word-internal cycles of morphological and phonological interpretation. Phases proposed in the syntactic literature are shown to have effects word-internally, therefore supporting a representational theory of morpho-phonology (e.g. Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1994)). It is argued that phases exist at the nP, aP, vP, νP, DP, and CP syntactic levels. These phases are shown to have differing behaviour with regards to the domain which is sent to PF upon merger of the phase head. DP, CP, and νP are argued to be complement spellout phases following Nissenbaum (2000). nP, aP, and vP, however, offer evidence that the head of a phase is interpreted at PF with its complement. A possible motivation for this difference in interpretation domain is discussed. It is in derivations where syntactic material spans one (or more) of these boundaries that cyclic domains may be found within words at PF. Phonological and morpho-syntactic patterns induced by word-internal phases are investigated. Main stress patterns in Cupeño, Turkish, and Ojibwa are analysed. Turkish and Cupeño seemingly irregular main stress patterns are argued to be regular at the phase level. Main stress is assigned in these languages at the interpretation of the first phase. In other words, main stress is cyclic and immovable in these languages. Ojibwa main stress assignment is then shown to be insensitive to word-internal phase boundaries. Word internal phases are present in Ojibwa, as demonstrated by hiatus resolution strategies and footing patterns in the language (Piggott & Newell 2007). Main stress is assigned to the word, regardless of its internal cyclic domains—it is post-syntactic. These two patterns are argued to be the only possibilities for main stress assignment. Some morpho-syntactic paradoxes are then investigated. It is argued that word internal phases, in combination with late adjunction (Lebeaux 1988), are responsible for bracketing paradoxes, the dichotomous (phrase/word) nature of particle verbs, and semantically vacuous double affixation. Languages discussed in this section are English, German, Breton, and Yiddish. It is concluded that structural paradoxes arise only when an adjunct is late adjoined into a previously interpreted morpho-syntactic structure. None of the data presented here arise solely in the phonological, morphological, or syntactic component of language. The effects of syntactic phases on morpho-phonology argue for the necessity of an integrated approach to linguistic investigation.

This paper has as its central concern the proposition in Marantz (1987) that Bracketing Paradoxes (BP) have deep implications for the (in)correctness of certain proposals within the domain of generative phonology. Where it differs from Marantz’ account, and from every previous account of BPs is in the absence of an appeal to ad-hoc tools to eliminate the paradoxical derivations. It is argued herein that a theory in which phonological representations are limited to linear strings (no Prosodic Hierarchy), and where phonological operations must be triggered via phonological means (no Level-specific morphological diacritics) that Bracketing Paradoxes cease to exist. The necessary conclusion arising from this analysis is that problematic derivations like BPs signal important flaws in our theoretical proposals.

This paper aims to demonstrate that a morpho-phonological pattern that has been central to the development of morpho-syntactic theories has been misanalysed. The pattern in question is the existence of two classes of affixes in English; Level 1 affixes, which are included in the phonological domain of the base to which they attach, and Level 2 affixes, which are external to the phonological domain to which they attach. Since SPE, generative grammarians have taken it as given that the distinction between Level 1 and Level 2 affixes is lexical. That is, the class-membership of a given affix is a feature that not only must be memorized, but is also a morphological diacritic. This diacritic is necessary iff there is no other relevant distinction between the two groups of affixes. It is the goal here to demonstrate that there is, in fact, another distinction between these affixes, and that this difference is the true source of the division of affixes into the Level 1 and Level 2 classes. The pertinent distinction has nothing to do with morpho-lexical classification, but is instead purely phonological. The first segment of Level 1 affixes is a floating vowel, while no Level 2 affixes begin with a floating vowel.