135,339 research outputs found
[Crime Scene Section Form by J. B. Hicks]
No full textCrime Scene Section Form by J. B. Hicks, ordering photographs of ID cards and addresses
Letter from Catherine Hicks & John Hicks to James B. Finley
No full textCatherine and John Hicks have heard that Finley might be coming to Kansas to see his Indian friends, and they are delighted to hear it. Many years have passed since we first met in the wilderness of Sandusky and learned to sing praises to the Redeemer. It would mean a great deal to see Finley before they die. Abstract Number - 855https://digitalcommons.owu.edu/finley-letters/1342/thumbnail.jp
The Hicks-Moorsteen Productivity Index Satisfies the Determinateness Axiom.
No full textThere are two total factor productivity indices available in the literature based on a primal notion of the technology. In a ratio tradition, these are the Malmquist and the HicksMoorsteen productivity indices. In a difference perspective, the Luenberger and Luenberger-Hicks-Moorsteen productivity indicators are based upon a sightly different concept. The purpose of this note is to establish that -in contrast to the Malmquist index- the Hicks-Moorsteen type of productivity index (as well as its difference-based counterpart) is well-defined and satisfies the determinateness property, since the underlying distance functions are always feasible.Malmquist productivity index, Hicks-Moorsteen productivity index, determinateness
Hicks, R B, 3789896
No full textThis record was harvested from a previous catalogue system and will be withdrawn in 2025. Information in this record may be superseded or incomplete. Visit this record in UMA's new catalogue at: https://archives.library.unimelb.edu.au/nodes/view/392149Surname: HICKS. Given Name(s) or Initials: R B. Military Service Number or Last Known Location: 3789896. Missing, Wounded and Prisoner of War Enquiry Card Index Number: SEA-2948.209742
Item: [2016.0049.24442] "Hicks, R B, 3789896
Cora B. Hicks
No full textPortrait of Cora B. Hicks taken at the Carlson photography studio in Aledo, Illinois
Hicks B. Waldron
No full textPortrait of Hicks B. Waldronhttps://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/speccoll-0445-hooks-gallery1/1692/thumbnail.jp
Why the binding theory doesn’t apply at LF
No full textThis article argues that the relegation of the binding theory to the C-I interface (LF) is theoretically undesirable and empirically unwarranted. Recent Minimalist research has sought to eliminate the binding theory from UG by reducing its conditions to narrow-syntactic operations (Hornstein 2000, 2006; Reuland 2001, 2006; Kayne 2002; Zwart 2002, 2006; Hicks 2006). This approach remains controversial since the canonical Minimalist binding theory (Chomsky 1993; Chomsky and Lasnik 1993) views the binding conditions as interpretive rules applying at LF, supported by evidence that Condition A interacts with other interpretive phenomena assumed to be determined at LF (Lebeaux 1998; Fox and Nissenbaum 2004). While the interaction of anaphor binding and scope relations in particular is not disputed, I show that it is attributable to factors outside the binding theory, namely the requirement that variables (including anaphors) must be c-commanded by their binders at LF. Deprived of its strongest empirical argument, the LF binding theory can then be picked apart
Letter from B. N. Hicks to Charles Heifner, March 20, 1929
No full textThe Anti-Saloon League was but one of the organizations active in the nationwide prohibition movement. In 1929, the Washington chapter sponsored bills in the state legislature increasing penalties on the violations of the state's prohibition law. In this letter, written on March 20, 1929, the League's State Superintendent, B. N. Hicks, thanks State Senator Charles Heifner of King County for his support and vote.Caption information source: "House Opposes Jail Terms for Liquor Buyers," The Seattle Daily Times, February 16, 1929, p. 2.1 correspondence; 8.5 x 8.5 in. + 1 envelope; 3.5 x 6.5 in
Cross-Germanic variation in binding condition B
No full textThis paper offers explanations for apparent variation in the effects of Binding Condition B across English, Dutch, Frisian, Norwegian, Danish, and Icelandic. Three very different factors that influence binding possibilities for pronouns across these languages are identified: language-specific morphosyntactic features such as Case and agreement, an independent constraint blocking subject orientation of pronouns, and phonological properties of minimal binding domains. I argue that a binding theory that applies in narrow syntax (rather than at LF, say) is well placed to account for the observed variation, and offer a unified explanation for various hitherto unrelated empirical facts. With an approach that subsumes the effects of Condition B under more general syntactic principles, an appealing view of the variation emerges: the condition itself exhibits quite remarkable consistency across the languages examined, with different pronouns varying in their sensitivity to Condition B effects according to their individual morphosyntactic properties
- …
