text:
Summary and Keywords
Blocking can be defined as the non-occurrence of some linguistic form, whose existence could be expected on general grounds, due to the existence of a rival form. *Oxes, for example, is blocked by oxen, *stealer by thief. Although blocking is closely associated with morphology, in reality the competing "forms" can not only be morphemes or words, but can also be syntactic units. In German, for example, the compound Rotwein 'red wine' blocks the phrasal unit *roter Wein (in the relevant sense), just as the phrasal unit rote Rübe 'beetroot; lit. red beet' blocks the compound *Rotrübe. In these examples, one crucial factor determining blocking is synonymy; speakers apparently have a deep-rooted presumption against synonyms. Whether homonymy can also lead to a similar avoidance strategy, is still controversial. But even if homonymy blocking exists, it certainly is much less systematic than synonymy blocking.
In all the examples mentioned above, it is a word stored in the mental lexicon that blocks a rival formation. However, besides such cases of lexical blocking, one can observe blocking among productive patterns. Dutch has three suffixes for deriving agent nouns from verbal bases, -er, -der, and -aar. Of these three suffixes, the first one is the default choice, while -der and -aar are chosen in very specific phonological environments: as Geert Booij describes in The Morphology of Dutch (2002), "the suffix -aar occurs after stems ending in a coronal sonorant consonant preceded by schwa, and -der occurs after stems ending in /r/" (p. 122). Contrary to lexical blocking, the effect of this kind of pattern blocking does not depend on words stored in the mental lexicon and their token frequency but on abstract features (in the case at hand, phonological features).
Blocking was first recognized by the Indian grammarian Pāṇini in the 5th or 4th century bc, when he stated that of two competing rules, the more restricted one had precedence. In the 1960s, this insight was revived by generative grammarians under the name "Elsewhere Principle," which is still used in several grammatical theories (Distributed Morphology and Paradigm Function Morphology, among others). Alternatively, other theories, which go back to the German linguist Hermann Paul, have tackled the phenomenon on the basis of the mental lexicon. The great advantage of this latter approach is that it can account, in a natural way, for the crucial role played by frequency. Frequency is also crucial in the most promising theory, so-called statistical pre-emption, of how blocking can be learned.
Keywords: blocking, pre-emption, suppletion, competition, Elsewhere Condition, Pāṇini's principle, synonymy, homonymy
1. Historical and Terminological Issues
The English term blocking was launched in Aronoff (1976), where it was defined as "the non-occurrence of one form due to the simple existence of another" (p. 43). In the context of Aronoff's book, the concept of blocking explained the complementary distribution of abstract nouns such as those of the second and third columns under (1):
The oddness of *gloriosity or *furiosity was attributed to their being blocked by the synonymous existing words glory and fury. The fact that gloriousness and furiousness do not share the same fate was said to be due to the unlimited productivity of the suffix -ness. This unlimited productivity was believed to entail that derivatives with this suffix need not be entered into the permanent lexicon, since "[t]he most productive classes never have to be listed" (p. 45). Aronoff conceived of the lexicon as "arranged according to stems," with "a slot for each canonical meaning" capable of housing only one item (p. 45). If a complex word wanted to lodge itself in one of these slots of the permanent lexicon, but the slot was already occupied by another host, the newcomer was turned away.
The above treatment was the first, though only partially successful, attempt in modern linguistics to provide an account of the phenomenon in the framework of an explicit theory of the lexicon, but it was by no means the first time that the phenomenon itself had been subjected to scrutiny by scholars. The Indian grammarian Pāṇini (5th or 4th century bc) is generally credited as the first one to treat the phenomenon of blocking. In his description of Sanskrit, he followed a principle according to which, of two rules applicable to the same item, the more specific one had precedence, a principle first formulated explicitly by the later grammarian Patañjali (c. 150 bc; Janda & Sandoval, 1984, pp. 2−3). Some linguists call the principle "Pāṇini's principle" in honor of its inventor.
Towards the end of the 19th century, the phenomenon of blocking was given explicit attention by two heavy weights of German linguistics, namely, Hermann Paul and Hermann Osthoff. In his classic article from 1896, Paul articulated the general insight that "the competition between synonymous means of expression is an essential factor in the historical development [sc. of languages]" (p. 19). At a more concrete level, he showed that "the formation of [German action] nouns in -ung was prevented [verhindert] by the existence of simpler formations with the function of an action noun" (p. 27). Cases in point, according to Paul (p. 30), are Lob 'praise', Raub 'theft', Wahl 'choice', Verlust 'loss', Gebrauch 'use', Verbrauch 'consumption'," Verkauf 'sale', or Ankauf 'purchase'. All these nouns can govern a direct object and prevent the coining of a corresponding noun with the productive suffix -ung: das Lob/*die Lobung der Torheit "the praise of foolishness," etc. Paul also correctly stated that "it is not excluded that synonyms may arise and stay in the language side by side for a long time" (p. 34). Last but not least, he observed that such "overabundance" [Überfluss] had repeatedly been put to use for semantic differentiation (p. 35). After Paul's article, many authors treated blocking in his style, at least in the German-speaking countries, but no further theoretical progress was made. The only noteworthy event was the introduction of a new German terminology by Schindler (1972, p. 43), who referred to the phenomenon as Blockierung.
Three years after Paul, in 1899, Osthoff published the foundational essay on what has ever since been called "suppletion" (Suppletivwesen, Suppletivismus; cf. his claim to authorship concerning this terminology on p. 3). In Osthoff (1899), suppletion refers to the filling of one or several slots of a paradigm with a formally unrelated substitute instead of the regularly derived form to be expected on general grounds, as when the comparative slot of good is filled with better instead of *gooder. The relationship between better and the paradigm of good is interpreted as one of "complementing" [Ergänzung] (in fact, Ergänzungswesen is used throughout the paper as a synonym of Suppletivwesen). Osthoff (pp. 4−5) explicitly rejected an interpretation of words such as good as "defective." It is not the case, according to him, that better moves into a slot that good would, in principle, be unable to fill. Rather, he stresses the collaborative nature of the relationship, speaking of "a substitution, a mutual helping out and complementing each other" [eine stellvertretung, ein gegenseitiges sichaushelfen und sichergänzen] (p. 4). In this conception, the paradigm is viewed as a whole, while those who use the blocking terminology focus on the relationship between the two contenders for a slot, treating the blocking word as a sort of squatter hindering the legitimate owner from entering his home. In view of our close reading of Osthoff's seminal work, the critique of the term suppletion, in Levin (1972), does not seem to be entirely justified, at least with respect to Osthoff himself. Levin considered suppletion to be a misleading term if taken in its etymological sense of "filling in a gap," since there is no gap in the first place. However, as we have seen, Osthoff also explicitly rejected the defectivity view. Levin proposed to talk of pre-emption instead, a term that has also gained ground in the literature written in English as a synonym of blocking.
Before we turn to a more thorough discussion of some theoretical issues related to blocking, it may be useful to give a survey of the range of phenomena that have been, or should be, subsumed under this notion.
2. The Range of Phenomena Subsumed Under Blocking
The prototypical cases used for illustrating the phenomenon of blocking are generally drawn from the realm of morphology, both word formation and inflection.
In inflection, the most frequently cited examples are irregular forms such as oxen (blocking *oxes), better (blocking *gooder), or went (blocking *goed). In general, things are presented this way, as blocking of one word form by another. Other scholars instead speak of a blocking effect exerted by stems or affixes on rival stems or affixes. In that case, one would say that the plural suffix -en blocks -es with the base ox, or that the stem bett- blocks good in the context of the comparative suffix -er. In the case of went, the blocking word is probably most naturally considered as simplex, though decomposition into a stem wen- and a suffix -t (cf. buil-t, and similar past-tense forms) is not completely out of the question. In inflection, the blocking effect is often absolute, at least in the case of adult speakers and under normal circumstances. Nevertheless, there are also cases where two or more forms compete for one and the same slot (e.g., dreamed and dreamt) even in the idiolect of one and the same speaker, a phenomenon that is currently discussed under the heading of "overabundance" (Thornton, 2012).
In research on inflection, it is more common to speak of "suppletion" than of "blocking," because the discussion generally revolves around paradigm organization and not around the relationship between an irregular form and the corresponding suppressed regular form. A further difference between the use of the terms blocking and suppletion consists in the fact that only the latter terminology requires the blocking word form, stem, or affix to be formally unrelated to the form that is blocked. If there is no formal relationship at all, as in went/*goed, it is customary to speak of "full suppletion," while in "partial suppletion," there still is some formal overlap, while the divergence is not derivable by a phonological rule. A case in point would be the corresponding participle gone, which conserves some phonological resemblance to go (more obvious to the eye than to the ear, for sure).
Inflectional classes are not normally discussed under the heading of "blocking," but it is not difficult to see the kinship with the English cases adduced above. In Latin, for example, stems referring to males go into the -us/-i class by default (e.g., dominus, -i 'master'; servus, -i 'slave'). A sizeable number of stems, however, like naut- 'sailor', take the ending of the -a/-ae class, which is productive with nouns denoting females, but unproductive with nouns referring to males. The inflectional behavior of each of these latter nouns must therefore be learned individually. We can assume that each noun denoting a male that follows the -a/-ae class blocks the corresponding word in -us/-i. Evidence for such an assumption is provided by occasional defections of males in -a/-ae towards the -us/-i class, if the blocking force withers for some reason, as in Late Latin piratus, -i instead of pirata, -ae (cf., Gardani, 2013, p. 210). The case is entirely parallel to oxen/*oxes, apart from the fact that the class of words affected is much bigger and therefore often referred to in grammars as a "class," while oxen is simply listed as an isolated exception.
In the case just discussed, the set of male bases adopting -a/-ae is lexically governed. In other cases, by contrast, the blocking words belong to an open class definable by means of some common feature. A case in point is constituted by the realization of the second singular indefinite present indicative in Hungarian (Carstairs, 1988, p. 70): -(a)sz is the default ending, but after sibilants and affricates -ol must be used instead. The verb stems that require -ol need not be enumerated individually; even neologisms that happen to end in sibilants or affricates would automatically take -ol instead of -(a)sz. The blocking relationship in cases like this one must therefore be defined not at the level of individual items, but at the more abstract level of patterns (constructions, rules, or whatever terminology is used).
As we have seen in section 1, "Historical and Terminological Issues," Aronoff introduced the term blocking in the context of derivational morphology. The following cases provide an idea of the broad range of phenomena that have been, or should be, subsumed under "blocking" in this area.
Let us start with the German action nouns already mentioned in section 1. As pointed out by Paul, the productive suffix -ung is occasionally blocked by well-entrenched shorter synonyms such as Lob 'praise', etc. The set of blocking words forms a motley collection with no common denominator, neither formal nor semantic. Each of these words blocks its hypothetical rival in -ung on an individual basis. Cases of this kind, where one or a few formations of a productive series are blocked by existing synonyms, are legion. A staple case for English is the absence of the expected agent noun *cooker due to the existence of cook. Note, however, that *cooker is only blocked in sense of "cook," not in the instrumental sense of "appliance for cooking," which is not covered by cook, nor in the more specialized agentive sense "person employed to operate cooking apparatuses in the commercial preparation of food and drink." Since Kiparsky (1983, p. 9), constellations of this kind have been referred to as "partial blocking." In both the German case and the case of cook/*cooker, the blocking word is formed according to a synchronically unproductive pattern of conversion. In other cases, such as thief/*stealer, the blocking word is a suppletive stem, very much like in better/*gooder or went/*goed. However, as the following examples show, the blocking word can also be itself the output of a productive rule.
Miyagawa (1984) argued that the two Japanese causative suffixes -sas and -sase were both fully productive, but that with single verbs lexical blocking by an entrenched rival formation could be observed. In a similar vein, Polish, according to Malicka-Kleparska (1985), has two productive suffixes for forming diminutives from masculine nouns, -ek and -ik (both with allomorphic variants that need not concern us here). In principle, both these suffixes can attach to any masculine noun. The actual distribution, however, is different: while with the majority of bases the two suffixes are indeed used side by side, in some cases one of the two suffixes is so well entrenched that it effectively blocks the rival suffix. Under (2), illustrative examples are displayed for the three distributional classes: the bases under a admit both suffixes, those under b have a preference for -ek, and those under c, for -ik.
łom 'crowbar'
gnat 'bone'
dom 'house'
kwiat 'flower'
tom 'volume'
temat 'theme'
A similar case from English is represented by the rivalry of the adjectival suffixes -ic and -ical. As shown in Lindsay and Aronoff (2013, pp. 141−148), both suffixes have been productive since Middle English, but "[i]n general, most stems clearly favored one suffix over the other" (p. 143). While Olympia, polyphony, and sulphur prefer -ic to the point of exclusivity, mathematics, surgery, and theology have an equally clear predilection for -ical. Overall, -ic is preferred at a ratio of roughly 10 to 1, but -ical has managed to become the favorite suffix in the case of the large group of nouns in -ology. This case therefore combines the Japanese/Polish scenario of competition at the level of individual words formed with productive suffixes and the specialization of one of the suffixes in a niche that can be defined at a more general morphosemantic level (bases in -ology).
Such cases, where one general pattern is curtailed by a more specific one, are quite common in word formation. The case of Dutch agent nouns in -er, -der, and -aar has already been mentioned in the "Summary" at the beginning of this essay. A similar case from English is constituted by the suffixes -ify and -ize, which show a complementary distribution determined by prosodic factors (cf. Plag, 1999, pp. 196−197): -ify requires the preceding syllable to carry main stress (e.g., fálsify, opácify), while -ize needs trochaic or dactylic bases (e.g., rándomize, colónialize). In this English example, the default status of -ize is less obvious than the default status of agentive -er in Dutch. However, a set-subset relation, or at least a partial overlap of the domains is crucial in order to conceive of the competition as a case of blocking.
Up to now, we have seen cases of blocking among word forms in inflection and among lexemes in word formation, either at the level of individual items or at a more general level definable in terms of semantic or formal features. It has often been observed, however, that blocking is not confined to the morphology of a language. The English comparative is normally summoned as witness for this claim. The details of comparative formation in English are quite intricate, and much ink has been spilt recently on this subject (cf. Adams 2012; González-Díaz, 2008; Mondorf, 2009). In the present context, it is sufficient to say that many adjectives reject the comparative suffix -er, for example, trisyllabic adjectives such as curious or extensive. In these cases, the comparative is formed analytically by means of the adverb more: more curious/*curiouser, more extensive/*extensiver, etc. This complementary distribution is often interpreted as a case of blocking exerted on the syntactic pattern with more by the morphological comparatives; that is, blocking here transcends the morphology-syntax boundary. Syntax can also suffer blocking from lexical items which, from an historical perspective, are often amalgamated forms, such as French du and au, which block the regular syntactic sequences de le "of the" and à le "to the." While in this case the blocking is categorical, in other cases the full form and the amalgamated form continue to be used side by side, as in German am and auf dem 'on the'.
In the preceding cases, morphology or the lexicon block syntax. The reverse can also be observed, but only if the syntactic pattern has been co-opted by the lexicon as a naming device. German, for example, uses both phrasal units consisting of adjective + noun and adjective-noun compounds for naming: the concept "red wine" is expressed by the compound Rotwein, the concept "beetroot," by contrast, by the phrase rote Rübe, literally "red beet" (the -e of rote is a feminine ending marking agreement with the feminine noun Rübe). Both the compound and the phrase normally block the alternative form (cf. *roter Wein, *Rotrübe, in the relevant sense). In their study of the rivalry between these formations, Schlücker and Plag (2011, p. 1540) observe: "As syntax normally does not block word formation, the blocking ability of these phrases indicates their lexical status."
The following example shows that blocking can also obtain among syntactic patterns. In Dominican Spanish, two presentational patterns compete with one another, <AdvP haber Obj> (e.g., ha habido ciertos cambios 'there have been certain changes', with 3rd person singular ha) and <AdvP haber Subj> (e.g., han habido ciertos cambios, where han agrees in number with the plural subject cambios). The first pattern is the older one, but the second, more colloquial pattern is increasingly encroaching on its territory. As Claes (2015) has shown, the blocking force of the older pattern is not evenly distributed over the different tenses, but depends on their frequency: "the tenses for which an entrenched instance of the singular variant was posited (i.e., present and preterit) disfavour the use of the pluralized presentational haber construction strongly […]. In contrast, all other types of expressions are more frequently formed with pluralized presentational haber" (p. 19). As one can see, the blocking effect is not located here at the level of the patterns as such, but at the level of specific tensed forms. Furthermore, the effect is not one of all-or-none, but a question of higher or lower probability of occurrence.
Last but not least, blocking can also take place between the lexicon or word formation and patterns of semantic extension. Brdar (2009, pp. 65−72), for example, argues that the metonymic extension of the type "animal" > "meat of the animal" (e.g., I would not eat cat) is blocked in English with the nouns cow, calf, pig, sheep, and deer because of the existence of the well-entrenched special designations beef, veal, pork, mutton, and venison. In all but one of these cases, French, the donor language of the English meat terms, has regular metonymy (boeuf, veau, porc, mouton; venaison 'venison' is flanked by gibier 'game'). In the Germanic languages, compounds of the type German Schaffleisch, literally 'sheep meat', tend to be preferred to metonymic extension, and in Slavic languages the same is true for suffixations in -ina of the type Croatian govedina 'beef'. As the author shows, however, the interplay of the lexicon, word formation, and semantic extension can be quite intricate; the cut-off point between the patterns is somewhat different in each language, and the strength of the blocking force is also subject to variation.
3. Theoretical Issues
3.1. Synonymy vs. Homonymy Blocking
Our preliminary definition of blocking in the introduction as "the non-occurrence of one form due to the simple existence of another" (Aronoff, 1976, p. 43) does not specify what it is exactly that causes the blocking. Two factors have been put forward in the literature, synonymy and homonymy.
All the cases discussed in Section 2, "The Range of Phenomena Subsumed Under Blocking," were cases of synonymy blocking. Suppletion in inflection (e.g., went/*goed) and derivation (e.g., thief/*stealer) as well as the phenomenon of partial blocking leave no doubt about the fact that synonymy is a crucial factor in many cases. It could also be the case that synonymy (or lexicalization, which amounts to the same) plays a role in explaining why the plural mice does not completely block mouses in computer mouses (134,000 hits on Google on October 22, 2015, as opposed to 508,000 for computer mice), and similar cases. At the same time, it is clear that synonymy is not a sufficient condition, as we will see in Section 3.3, "The Relativity of Blocking." Whether it should be considered as a necessary condition depends on the stance one takes with respect to homonymy blocking.
There seems to be a general consensus concerning the existence of a deep presumption of speakers against synonymy. As early as 1897, Michel Bréal elevated it to the status of a "law" ("la loi de répartition," Bréal, 1897, Chapter 2). A question about which less consensus seems to exist is why this presumption against synonymy exits. For Bréal, it was an intuitive feeling of speakers that different words must mean different things. Similarly, for Gauger (1972, p. 34) it was a corollary of the naming function of words. As we have already seen in Section 1, "Historical and Terminological Issues," Aronoff (1976) attributed it to the organization of the lexicon in slots that would allow at most one permanent host. McCawley (1978, p. 246), two years later, resorted to the principle of least effort in order to explain why pink blocks pale red: "pale red can be said to involve more effort than pink." Pink therefore "is to be preferred over pale red unless something demands the extra effort involved in saying the latter." Due to this general rule, pale red, according to McCawley, if used, is interpreted by conversational implicature as referring to a color distinct from pink, closer to red than pink. Kiparsky (1983, p. 16) surmised that his "Avoid Synonymy" principle might turn out to be better viewed "as a language learning device rather than as a formal constraint of grammar." Other authors assume that the presumption against synonymy is somehow part of our genetic endowment as human beings: Clark (1993, p. 91) showed that a "principle of contrast" leading children to assume that "differences in form mark differences in meaning" is already operative early on in language acquisition, while Carstairs-McCarthy (2010, p. 59) attributed deep phylogenetic roots to the presumption against synonymy, which he argues to be shared by apes and even "one dog." In Lindsay and Aronoff's (2013) view of glossogenetic evolution, intolerance of true synonymy is also taken as a given. According to these authors, of two competing synonymous patterns, the less productive one can only survive in the long run if it firmly establishes itself in a clearly defined niche.
A side issue, vaguely related to the question of synonymy, is that of hypercharacterization. Blocking should not only prevent *oxes instead of oxen, but also *oxens, that is, the attachment of a second affix with the same meaning, except, of course, where multiple affixation makes sense (e.g., in anti-anti-aircraft missile). Multiple affixation of this kind, however, is quite frequent in the languages of the world (cf. Gardani, 2015). A notorious case from derivational morphology is German Prinzessin 'princess', coined in the 17th century by attaching the productive feminizing suffix -in to Prinzeß 'princess' (instead of the masculine base Prinz 'prince'), which contained the unproductive feminizing suffix -eß taken over from French (-esse). Why didn't speakers prefer the regular formation Prinzin to Prinzessin? It is possible that Prinzeß had become somewhat opaque as far as its internal structure was concerned, mitigating in that way the pleonastic effect. But overall cases of hypercharacterization are too varied to be amenable to a monocausal explanation.
Much more controversial than synonymy blocking is the existence of blocking by a homonym. It has been argued, for example, that the inexistence of the meaning "to pass the X" for spring and fall, as opposed to summer and winter (e.g., to summer/winter in California vs. *to spring/fall in California), was due to the existence of spring and fall as verbs of movement. The difficulty with such anecdotal evidence is that alternative explanations are available: summer and winter, for example, are typical vacation seasons, but not spring and fall. In support of this latter explanation, one could point to the fact that autumn, though not blocked by a homonymous verb, does not seem to fare much better in the sense "to pass the X" than fall. Large-scale systematic studies of homonymy blocking, unfortunately, are scarce. The most thorough treatment I know of can be found in Plank (1981, pp. 165−173), who could not find any systematic blocking effect in German. Carstairs-McCarthy (2010, p. 212) also concludes that "[t]here seems to be no general cognitively based presumption against homonymy among words, comparable to the presumption against synonymy."
3.2. Lexical Blocking vs. Pattern Blocking
In Aronoff (1976), the term blocking was applied not only to the competition between an established word form or lexeme and a rival word form or lexeme, but also to cases of competition between two (or more) productive patterns: "An affix which is productive with a given morphological class will […] block the attachment of rival affixes to that class" (p. 45). In the discussion of blocking during the 1980s (cf. Plank, 1981, p. 180; Rainer, 1989), however, it soon became apparent that these two kinds of competition should better be kept apart, since they obey partly different conditions, a fact also acknowledged in Aronoff (1994). The two kinds of blocking have received different names in the literature; in the present article, they are called "lexical blocking" and "pattern blocking" respectively.
What are the properties common to both phenomena, and where lie the differences? Both of them crucially involve synonymy and competition. Both of them also involve at least one productive pattern (but cf. Section 3.4, "Actual, Possible, and Potential Words" on the dissonant view of distributed morphologists). The main difference lies in the fact that in one case, the blocking element is a lexical item—word form, lexeme or phrasal unit—stored in the mental lexicon, while in the case of two competing productive patterns, the blocking pattern need only be defined by way of an intensional definition: pattern A takes precedence over pattern B whenever a certain base fits the crucial requirements of A better than those of B. In principle, the differentiation between lexical blocking and pattern blocking is clear-cut. Nevertheless, as the English suffixes -ic and -ical presented in Section 2, "The Range of Phenomena Subsumed Under Blocking" have shown, lexical blocking and pattern blocking are often intimately intertwined.
3.3. The Relativity of Blocking
Blocking is not a question of all or none, neither lexical blocking nor pattern blocking. Rather, the actual blocking force depends on a series of factors that partly differ in lexical blocking and pattern blocking.
Paul (1920, pp. 114−116) provided a psycholinguistic account of lexical blocking as competition between a stored item and an "analogy," a productive pattern. He also established a positive correlation between the token frequency of the blocking item and its blocking force, its resistance to regularization; the more frequent the blocking word, the higher the probability that it will win over the potential rival formed according to a productive pattern (cf. p. 208). In the light of this hypothesis, the fact that regularizations are more common in child language than in the language of adults was interpreted by him as a consequence of their memory traces still being weaker. Paul's hypothesis also nicely accounts for the observation that lexical blocking seems to be stricter in inflection than in word formation, due to the higher token frequency of irregular inflectional forms. Kiparsky (2010, p. 319), however, has pointed out that the tighter paradigmatic organization of inflection, which guarantees strict synonymy, could also explain part of the difference. Another factor, hinted at in Rainer (1989, p. 164), is the degree of productivity of the rival pattern: the blocking force is interpreted "as the result of the antagonism between the pressure exerted by a potential regular word and the resistance offered by the corresponding blocking word, whereby pressure is a function of productivity and resistance a function of frequency." Statistical evidence for this view has been provided by Maslen, Theakston, Lieven, and Tomase (2004), whose dense-corpus study of overgeneralizations in child speech has shown that these cannot be attributed solely to failure of retrieval of low-frequency forms, as Paul had thought, but depend also on the strength of the regular pattern involved.
The blocking force is also highly variable in pattern blocking, as already observed in Section 2 "The Range of Phenomena Subsumed Under Blocking." In some cases, pattern A neatly curtails the domain of pattern B; the Dutch suffixes -der and -aar, which restrict the domain of -er, would be cases in point. At the other end of the scale, we encountered cases of more or less free variation, such as the two Japanese causative suffixes or the two Polish diminutive suffixes, which are said to co-occur freely as long as no lexical blocking is involved. Detailed studies of pattern blocking are still few and far between, which is why it would be premature to make any sweeping statements. Among the factors that may be expected to influence the blocking force one might surmise the neatness of the definition of the boundaries of the blocking pattern to be of central importance. In the Dutch case mentioned above, for example, the stem-final phonemes provide a clear criterion for selecting -der and -aar over -er. Such clear-cut delimitations of the domain of a pattern, however, are rather the exception than the rule in word formation, and even a pattern with a clear-cut domain need not necessarily block a more general rival pattern. In Spanish, for example, the relational suffix -eano is always possible with proper names ending in -e (e.g., Sartre → sartreano), but it does not hinder the attachment of the default suffix -iano (cf. sartriano). The two patterns are in free variation. Very often in word formation the attachment of an affix is conditioned not by one neat criterion but by a series of factors, each of which enhances or diminishes the probability of the affix being selected. As a consequence, the choice of A over B, or B over A, is determined by weighing negative probabilities against positive ones, a situation most adequately handled by some variant of analogical modelling (cf. Schlücker & Plag, 2011).
Whether blocking or free variation obtains between two competing patterns has to be learned from the data and is not deducible from a typology of domains, as proposed in van Marle's (1986) "domain hypothesis." But how can speakers learn to not use a certain pattern despite its semantic fit? The most promising answer to this crucial question seems to be that speakers do so by "statistical pre-emption." According to Goldberg (2011), the strength of statistical pre-emption is determined by the probability with which a certain item occurs in pattern A in a context in which both pattern A and B should be possible in principle, as well as by the absolute frequency with which the item occurs in pattern A. According to the logic of statistical pre-emption, the blocking force of went is extremely high because the average speaker has been exposed to thousands of contexts where both went and *goed would have been semantically adequate, but in fact only went was used. From this evidence speakers can quite safely infer that the speech community must have a deep-rooted presumption against *goed, otherwise they would have come across this form given the large number of favorable contexts. The inference in the case of went is supported not only by the high probability of went as opposed to *goed in the input data, but also by the high absolute frequency of went: the higher the absolute frequency of the blocking item, the higher the reliability of the inference. Due to its probabilistic nature, statistical pre-emption can handle in a natural way what we have called in the section headline the "relativity" of the blocking effect. In that respect, alternative mechanisms, such as the Elsewhere Condition, appear as clearly inferior, since they treat blocking as a question of all or none, while in reality all intermediary stages between categorical blocking and free variation can be observed. What a statistical-pre-emption account of blocking also makes clear is that an adequate theory of the phenomenon must be based on a conception of the lexicon as a repository where all words or patterns that we hear, even regular ones, leave memory traces on the basis of which the frequency-based inferences can operate.
3.4. Actual, Possible, and Potential Words
Lexical blocking is generally presented as competition between an actual and a possible word (word form or lexeme), though even this point does not make unanimity.
Followers of Distributed Morphology, for example, do not consider the blocked word to be a possible, well-formed word, since in their model it is not even generated by the grammar, being discarded at lexical insertion by the Elsewhere Principle (cf. Embick & Marantz, 2008). But this account has serious problems anyway. For one, there is the problem of the relativity of blocking mentioned in Section 3.3, "The Relativity of Blocking." On the other hand, a lexical-insertion account is only able to handle cases of blocking among formations with the same stem. As pointed out by Kiparsky (1983, pp. 13−17) and Rainer (2012), the Elsewhere Principle, which gives precedence to the more specific one of two competing rules, can explain the blocking of -es by -en after ox, or of -er (in the agentive sense) by "zero" after cook, but not that of *goed by went or of *stealer by thief ("blocking by suppletion"), nor that of *gloriosity by glory ("blocking by ancestry").
However, simply to classify blocked words as "possible" words also falls short of the real complexity of the situation. On the one hand, it is true that thoroughly blocked words sometimes surface under special circumstances, for example, in slips of the tongue, when even competent adult speakers may say things like *goed or *stealer. In child language, as is well known, such forms occur quite commonly as long as the legitimate forms are not yet well entrenched. On the other hand, it has been shown that blocked words behave differently from normal possible words (cf. Giegerich, 2001, p. 77; Rainer, 2012). Normal possible words can be used as bases for further derivation or compounding, just like actual words, while blocked words can't. The following example may suffice to make the point. A—mostly young—person studying at a school, college, or university is called a student, an irregular derivative which blocks the regular agentive noun *studier that one might expect. This latter derivative is only used in other senses of the verb study, as in Lipsius was a great studier of the stoical philosophy (see The Free Dictionary). Student is, of course, a possible base for further derivations, such as proto student: "The place was swarming with teenagers, most of whom looked like they were clones of the same skinny jeans-wearing, tattooed proto student." (Kevin Chapman & Richard Bass, Mature: The First Day. Peterborough, U.K.: Kesteven Media, 2014). *Proto studier, by contrast, would be just as odd in this context as *studier itself, although *proto studier cannot be blocked by the occasionalism proto student, which is not part of the general language and hence of the mental lexicon of individual speakers. As we can see, once a word is blocked, further derivation or compounding from this blocked word becomes impossible. It therefore becomes necessary to split the set of possible words into two subsets, ordinary possible words and blocked words, referred to as "potential words" in Rainer (2012). The latter apparently have a distinct status in our mental lexicon, which psycho- and neurolinguists are invited to define more precisely.
3.5. The Locus of Blocking
A last issue that I would like to address is the question of where blocking takes place. It will be convenient to treat lexical blocking and pattern blocking separately.
Pattern blocking is probably best viewed as taking place at the moment of choosing among synonymous patterns for the creation of a new phrase, lexeme, or word form. In this competition, we may surmise, the pattern with the better credentials will win. Among the factors determining the outcome we may mention the number and strength of the features of the base word favoring pattern A over B or vice versa, as well as the memorized formations for each pattern.
The question seems to be more controversial in the case of lexical blocking. As we have already mentioned in Section 3.3, "The Relativity of Blocking," Hermann Paul conceived of lexical blocking as a struggle between a memorized item and a regular formation. This view of lexical blocking as located in the mental lexicon is still widely held and certainly has some good points on its side, first and foremost, that of being able to account for the correlation between the token frequency of the blocking item and the blocking force: only in a conception of the lexicon as a mental lexicon is the notion of token frequency available at all. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the most penetrating contributions have come from psycholinguists, especially in the context of the extensive controversy about English past-tense formation (cf. Ambridge & Lieven 2011, Section 5.4; Pinker, 1999, pp. 130−146 and Chapter 6). Theories of grammar, such as Distributed Morphology, where blocking is located at lexical insertion and only takes into consideration the features of the base and the selectional restrictions of the affix, seem to be at a loss to account for the observed frequency effects, quite apart from their incapacity to explain blocking by suppletion and by ancestry, as mentioned in section 3.4, "Actual, Possible, and Potential Words."
Another question that divides researchers is what it is exactly that blocking prevents. For distributed morphologists, as we have seen in Section 3.4, the blocked word is not even generated by the grammar, and therefore is ungrammatical. The rule itself is blocked. By contrast, in accounts of blocking inspired by Optimality Theory (cf. Kiparsky, 2005), blocking occurs in a grammar-internal selection process after both the blocking item and the blocked one have been generated. In a similar vein, Bauer (1983, p. 88) claimed that "blocking prevents not so much the coining of nonce complex forms as their institutionalization." He seems to have had in mind an essentially sociological perspective on the phenomenon. We can indeed observe that competing formations sometimes live side by side in a speech community for a long time, even in the idiolect of one and the same speaker, before one wins over the other(s), or semantic or stylistic differentiation takes place. Overabundance seems to be particularly pronounced in relatively heterogeneous speech communities, or in communities with little homogenizing pressure from normative institutions such as academies or schools. The number of derivational doublets, for example, was notoriously higher in Old French or Early Modern English word formation than it is in Modern French or Modern English. This sociological approach to the phenomenon, which takes into consideration the speech community as a whole, is by no means at variance with the psycholinguistic viewpoint mentioned above, which tends to concentrate on the idiolect of single speakers, both views being held together by the Saussurean view of language as a social institution.
4. Critical Analysis of Scholarship
As we have seen, phenomena that have been subsumed here under "blocking" have been the object of linguistic reflection since the very beginning of the study of language. Different authors, however, targeted different subsets of the phenomenon and did so under different labels (to the extent that it received an explicit label at all) and from widely different theoretical backgrounds. As far as the object of study is concerned, scholars concentrated either on inflection, word formation, or syntax, sometimes also on both inflection and word formation, but rarely on the whole range of phenomena. This selective attention has led to partly different terminologies in the respective fields: those specializing in inflection normally prefer the label "suppletion," which, however, is not a perfect synonym of "blocking," those concentrating on word formation, "blocking" or "pre-emption," while in syntax the most common label seems to be "competition." However, I hasten to add that the correspondence between sub-domain of grammar and label established in the last sentence is not valid for the whole literature. Nevertheless, students who intend to delve more deeply into the problem should be aware of entering a research area covered by moving sands.
The same heterogeneity may also be observed as far as the theoretical background is concerned. One strand of research, going back to Hermann Paul, has concentrated on lexical blocking and tried to devise a theory of the phenomenon on the basis of the mental lexicon, in which concepts such as "memory trace," "token frequency," or "productivity" play a crucial role. Interesting recent contributions from this perspective have been provided by psycholinguists (e.g., Maslen et al., 2004) and cognitive linguists such as Goldberg (2011), who uses corpus-linguistic methods to test her theory about how blocking (she speaks of "pre-emption") can be learned through inferences based on the token frequency of the relevant items. What makes the mental-lexicon approach so attractive is that it can cope quite straightforwardly with what I have called the "relativity of blocking," that is, its mostly non-categorical nature. Connectionist theories and theories of analogical modeling, which resort to computer simulations, also try to mirror the mental lexicon as closely as possible. By contrast, other accounts of blocking that have been put forward by theoretical linguists operate with more abstract conceptions of the lexicon, as is customary in some quarters of linguistic theorizing. Aronoff (1976), for example, operated with a lexicon organized around stems associated with slots for each canonical meaning that can be regularly derived from that stem. Similar accounts are still in use, at least in studies on inflection—for example in Paradigm Function Morphology. Other conceptions of the lexicon, such as those of Distributed Morphology or Optimality Theory, are still further removed from a mental lexicon. Another dividing line in current accounts of blocking runs between theories that rely on some general principle of synonymy avoidance end those that incorporate the Elsewhere Condition of Pāṇinian descent. It is surprising that this principle still enjoys quite some popularity, although it has been shown repeatedly that it cannot account for several obvious cases of blocking.
As one can see, despite the large body of research that has accumulated, the issue of blocking is still a rewarding avenue of research, located at the center of interesting theoretical questions, but also in need of more large-scale empirical inquiries.
Further Reading
Adams, M. E. (2012). The comparative grammaticality of the English comparative. (Doctoral dissertation). Department of Linguistics, Standford University.Find this resource:
Aronoff, M. (1994). Blocking. In R. E. Asher & J. M. Y. Simpson (Eds.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Vol. 1 (pp. 373–374). Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon.Find this resource:
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (2010). The evolution of morphology. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Embick, D., & Marantz, A. (2008). Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(1), 1–53.Find this resource:
Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical pre-emption. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 93–127.Find this resource:
Kiparsky, P. (2005). Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2004 (pp. 113–135). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Find this resource:
Kiparsky, P. (2010). Dvandvas, blocking, and the associative: The bumpy ride from phrase to word. Language, 86(2), 302–331.Find this resource:
Lindsay, M., & Aronoff, M. (2013). Natural selection in self-organizing morphological systems. In N. Hathout, F. Montermini, & J. Tseng (Eds.), Morphology in Toulouse. Selected Proceedings of Décembrettes 7 (Toulouse, December 2–3, 2010) (pp. 133–153). Munich, Germany: LINCOM Europa.Find this resource:
Maslen, R. J. C., Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., & Tomasello, M. (2004). A dense corpus study of past tense and plural overregularization in English, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(6), 1319–1333.Find this resource:
Rainer, F. (1989). Towards a theory of blocking: The case of Italian and German quality nouns. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1988 (pp. 155–185). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.Find this resource:
Rainer, F. (2012). Morphological metaphysics: Virtual, potential, and actual words. Word Structure, 5(2), 165–182.Find this resource:
Rainer, F. (2014). Blocking. Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics.
Schlücker, B., & Plag, I. (2011). Compound or phrase? Analogy in naming. Lingua, 121, 1539–1551.Find this resource:
Veselinova, L. (2014). Suppletion. Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics.
Adams, M. E. (2012). The comparative grammaticality of the English comparative. (Doctoral dissertation). Department of Linguistics, Standford University.Find this resource:
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. V. M. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:
Aronoff, M. (1994). Blocking. In Asher, R. E., & Simpson, J. M. Y. (Eds.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Vol. 1 (pp. 373–374). Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon.Find this resource:
Bauer, L. (1983). English word-formation. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Booij, Geert (2002). The morphology of Dutch. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Brdar, M. (2009). Metonymy-induced polysemy and the role of suffixation in its resolution in some Slavic languages. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 58–88.Find this resource:
Bréal, M. (1897). Essai de sémantique (science des significations). Paris, France: Hachette.Find this resource:
Carstairs, A. (1988). Some implications of phonologically conditioned suppletion. In G. Booij, & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1988 (pp. 67–94). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.Find this resource:
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (2010). The evolution of morphology. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Claes, J. (2015). Competing constructions: The pluralisation of presentational haber in Dominican Spanish. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 1–30.Find this resource:
Clark, E. V. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Embick, D., & Marantz, A. (2008). Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(1), 1–53.Find this resource:
Gardani, F. (2013). Dynamics of morphological productivity: The evolution of noun classes from Latin to Italian. Boston, MA: Brill.Find this resource:
Gardani, F. (2015). Affix pleonasm. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe. Vol. 1 (pp. 537–550). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter Mouton.Find this resource:
Gauger, H. M. (1972). Zum Problem der Synonyme. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.Find this resource:
Giegerich, H. J. (2001). Synonymy blocking and the elsewhere condition: Lexical morphology and the speaker. Transactions of the Philological Society, 99(1), 65–98.Find this resource:
Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical pre-emption. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 93–127.Find this resource:
González-Díaz, V. (2008). English adjective comparison. A historical perspective. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Find this resource:
Janda, R. D., & Sandoval, M. (1984). "Elsewhere" in morphology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Find this resource:
Kiparsky, P. (1983). Word-formation and the lexicon. In F. Ingemann (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-American Linguistics Conference (pp. 3–22). Lawrence: University of Kansas.Find this resource:
Kiparsky, P. (2005). Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. In G. Booij, & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2004 (pp. 113–135). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Find this resource:
Kiparsky, P. (2010). Dvandvas, blocking, and the associative: The bumpy ride from phrase to word. Language, 86(2), 302–331.Find this resource:
Levin, S. (1972). Non-paradigmatic forms: Suppletion or pre-emption. Foundations of Language, 8(3), 767–811.Find this resource:
Lindsay, M., & Aronoff, M. (2013). Natural selection in self-organizing morphological systems. In N. Hathout, F. Montermini, & J. Tseng (Eds.), Morphology in Toulouse. Selected Proceedings of Décembrettes 7 (Toulouse, December 2–3, 2010) (pp. 133–153). Munich, Germany: LINCOM Europa.Find this resource:
McCawley, James D. (1978). Conversational implicature and the lexicon. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics (pp. 245–259). New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:
Malicka-Kleparska, A. (1985). Parallel derivation and lexicalist morphology: The case of Polish diminutivization. In E. Gussmann (Ed.), Phono-morphology: Studies in the interaction of phonology and morphology (pp. 95–112). Lublin, Poland: Redakcja Wydawnictw Katolickiego Uniwersitetu Lubelskiego.Find this resource:
Marle, Jaap van (1986). The domain hypothesis: The study of rival morphological processes. Linguistics, 24, 601–627.Find this resource:
Maslen, R. J. C., Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., & Tomasello, M. (2004). A dense corpus study of past tense and plural overregularization in English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(6): 1319–1333.Find this resource:
Miyagawa, S. (1984). Blocking and Japanese causatives. Lingua, 64(2–3), 177–207.Find this resource:
Mondorf, B. (2009). More support for more-support. The role of processing constraints on the choice between synthetic and analytic comparative forms. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:
Osthoff, H. (1899). Vom Suppletivwesen der indogermanischen Sprachen. Heidelberg, Germany: Hörning.Find this resource:
Paul, H. (1920). Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 5th ed. Halle, Germany: Niemeyer.Find this resource:
Paul, H. (1896). Ueber die Aufgaben der Wortbildungslehre (pp. 692–713). Munich: Germany: F. Straub.Find this resource:
Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules: The ingredients of language. London, U.K.: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Find this resource:
Plag, I. (1999). Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:
Plank, F. (1981). Morphologische (Ir-)Regularitäten. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.Find this resource:
Rainer, F. (1989). Towards a theory of blocking: The case of Italian and German quality nouns. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1988 (pp. 155–185). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.Find this resource:
Rainer, F. (2012). Morphological metaphysics: Virtual, potential, and actual words. Word Structure, 5(2), 165–182.Find this resource:
Schindler, J. (1972). Wortbildungsregeln. Wiener Linguistische Gazette, 1, 39–52.Find this resource:
Schlücker, B., & Plag, I. (2011). Compound or phrase? Analogy in naming. Lingua, 121, 1539–1551.Find this resource:
Thornton, A. M. (2012). Reduction and maintenance of overabundance: A case study on Italian verb paradigms. Word Structure, 5, 183–207.Find this resource:


text:
Some good news: Agriculture in the South is set to get a boost of legislative gravitas and influence in 2013.
With Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran as new ranking member on the Senate Agriculture Committee and Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor chairing the Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture and Rural Development, "I don't think there's any question that the Mid-South and South will have more influence than they had (in 2012)," said Joe Outlaw, Texas A&M agricultural economist, at the Ag Business Conference at Arkansas State University (ASU) on Feb. 13. "If you watched the hearing and mark-up process for the (farm bill) last year, it was one where a lot of the Southern interests were basically left quite unhappy.
"When they finally conference two bills, I think there will be a lot of changes from what either (of the earlier bills) contain right now."
More coverage of Outlaw here.
Outlaw was joined by David Schweikhardt, professor of Agriculture Economics at Michigan State University, and Tom Erickson, vice president for government and industry affairs for Bunge North America, in a panel/audience discussion regarding the current political landscape in Washington, D.C.
"It is increasingly true that the politics of the farm bill have become very much a part of the politics of Washington and the political life there," said Erickson on the inability of Congress to pass a new farm bill last session. "That's something a lot of organizations failed to see going into this year."
A member of the audience asked the trio about updating the farm bill set-up. "We're still using an antique model farm bill. We have more diversity and more difficulty passing something. I often wonder why we don't have anew idea."
Texas A&M's Agricultural and Food Policy Center, "did about 35 different analyses of different plans that people have come up with," said Outlaw. "This was a farm bill where groups came up with somewhat different proposals. But the fact of the matter is, we only have a certain number of levers to switch if you're going to help people stay in business. Most of them are linked to the land, prices, and yields.
"Initially, the groups went away and did the 'big thinking.' But it always evolves back down to what's available, what data is available. That isn't necessarily right, but that's it was done. There was a lot of new thought" for the new farm bill compared to the 2008 farm bill.
Schweikhardt said many of the old policies that were the most market-distorting are gone. "When students sometimes come to me and want to talk about, 'Gosh, there must be a better way to do X or Y,' we usually have a long talk. 'Well, there are only so many levers you can pull on – usually connected to price and quantity.' So, I'm not sure we'll see a lot of newness there.
"I do think we've got to continue to push on the research side, to continue to work on crop insurance products that work and are actuarially sound. That's where a lot of the focus, if nothing new comes along, will continue to be."
For coverage of Schweikhardt's presentation at the meeting, see here.
Erickson pointed out there was "significant change in 1996 with 'Freedom to Farm.' From there have been evolutionary changes more in the pattern prior to 1996."
There's also the issue, "certainly in the Midwest, that existing program payments are so out of line with market prices," said Schweikhardt. "I don't know that (the region) marshaled their political muscle as much as they might have. On the list farmers are thinking and spending time worrying about, farm programs aren't very high, right now.
"I think Congress, when they went home and hadn't passed the farm bill, might not have gotten the pressure they'd have gotten in past years. That's simply because of where (current crop) prices are."
Coalitions, renewable energy
An audience member brought up renewable fuels and the coalition between nutrition programs and agriculture interests. "If the coalition between food stamp (proponents) and agriculture falls apart, we might not have another farm bill. But I'd argue, taking what was just said about the Midwest, that in this area the prosperity of agriculture isn't related to the farm so much as it is to renewable (energy) – ethanol and biodiesel. If we have a choice between one and the other, I think most people would say we're much better off with the renewable (energy) and let the farm bill go.
"What is the support in (Congress) for ethanol and biodiesel?"
Bert Greenwalt, an ASU agricultural economist who was moderating the panel, replied, "I've heard it mentioned that the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is the biggest subsidy program that the corn industry has relative to the direct- and counter-cyclical programs. And it also has an impact on soybeans."
More on the RFS here.
Outlaw said it is likely, "we'll be having a big push to relook at the Renewable Fuel Standard within a year. Sometime next year, there will be another push.
"While I don't think (the RFS) has a chance of being defeated, I do think there's a chance it will be adjusted. That's especially true if it's put off for long enough. (Iowa Sen. Tom) Harkin has announced he will retire and he's been a big supporter of (the RFS).
"People have gravitated to, 'The farm bill was there and was set so low that it really isn't relevant. But this other thing (the RFS) is helping us a lot.'"
Outlaw also lamented the lack of lawmaker understanding of agriculture. "I do know that some of the partisan issues kept the new farm bill from being passed. That's obvious. But I don't think the average person in the audience knows how few (lawmakers in Congress) understand any of the stuff we do.
"Twenty years ago, when I began doing this, you'd have a meeting (on Capitol Hill) and there would be 20 people – members, not staff – asking intelligent questions."
That has changed in a major way. "I just testified in front of the House," Outlaw continued. "If there was more than three or four that understood what I was talking about, I'd be surprised. And it's their job to know about this. The problem is there's a lot of (lawmakers) who aren't interested in agriculture as much as other issues."
Erickson: "I think there's a measure of truth to that. I come from South Dakota where there's been a lot of depopulation as farms have gotten larger. So, the farm voice isn't as consistent in a lot of places as you might otherwise think.
"Look at the make-up of committees, as well. Even on the House Agriculture Committee this year we talk about how we can see a way to a farm bill. But on the Democratic side of the House Agriculture Committee, of the 21 members only eight were there (in 2012). And most of the people coming on to those committees aren't from traditional agriculture (regions). They are there for the nutrition programs or conservation or something else.
"So, it isn't a surprise that we see a dwindling base of expertise in Congress for a lot of things (agriculture) cares about."
Outlaw also reiterated his belief that the Commodity Title is on its last legs. "I've already gone on record many, many times saying that this is the last farm bill we'd recognize as having a significant (Commodity) Title component.
"After this (farm) bill is passed – and I do think it will pass and direct payments won't be part of it – we'll be mostly crop insurance-oriented."
As for students planning to return to the farm, Outlaw advised to, "look at your relative market prices and figure out what you can make money on. Stop worrying so much about organizing your (operation) to take advantage of government benefits. Once the government kicks in, the safety net will be low."
What about means-testing crop insurance premiums?
"That's coming," said Outlaw. "Whenever the only safety net is crop insurance, then it gets all the spotlight."

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Kluber posts seven solid frames to close spring prep
SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. -- Indians right-hander Corey Kluber looked like he was ready for the start of the regular season.
Kluber was sharp in his final exhibition outing as he helped lead the Indians past the D-backs, 3-2, on Thursday afternoon at Salt River Fields.View Full Game Coverage
SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. -- Indians right-hander Corey Kluber looked like he was ready for the start of the regular season.
Kluber was sharp in his final exhibition outing as he helped lead the Indians past the D-backs, 3-2, on Thursday afternoon at Salt River Fields.View Full Game Coverage
Kluber allowed two runs on five hits over seven innings, with seven strikeouts and one walk.
"It seems like every outing, he goes one more inning deeper," Indians manager Terry Francona said of Kluber. "And that's a normal progression of a good pitcher. He looks really good. He has been throwing the ball really well."
Meanwhile, Arizona's Wade Miley was not as impressive.
Miley allowed three runs on seven hits in 4 2/3 innings. His outing previous to Thursday was a regular-season start against the Dodgers in Sydney, Australia.
"I just wasn't executing pitches," Miley said. "I was leaving fastballs over the middle of the plate, really wasn't getting ahead, so I was leaving them in fastball counts so they were able to sit on things. Just wasn't very good."
The Indians got on the board in the second inning when Matt Carson doubled to right with one out, moved to third on a groundout and then scored when Nyjer Morgan legged out an infield hit.
Elliot Johnson led off the third for the Indians with a single and moved to second when Miley walked Nick Swisher.
Johnson then scored when Jason Kipnis singled up the middle as the Indians went up 2-0.
In the fourth, Morgan was credited with an infield hit when Miley was late covering first base on a grounder hit to first baseman Paul Goldschmidt.
David Murphy then ripped a double to the gap in right-center to score Morgan and give Cleveland a 3-0 advantage.
Rudy Flores and Sean Jamieson drove in runs during Arizona's two-run seventh inning after reliever Josh Collmenter worked 2 1/3 hitless innings.
"It means we've played pretty good baseball, which I love," Francona said of finishing 19-8-2 in Cactus League play. "I don't care who we're putting out there, I'd much rather win."
Up next: The Indians depart Arizona and travel to Southern California on Friday to begin a two-game weekend exhibition series against the Padres on the campus of the University of San Diego. Right-hander Zach McAllister, Cleveland's No. 3 starter, will get the nod in the opener for his final preseason tuneup, beginning at 9:10 p.m. ET. In his last outing, McAllister worked six innings against the Angels, surrendering three runs on six hits. The Indians expect to play all their regulars Friday in a game that can be seen on MLB.TV and heard via Gameday Audio.
Steve Gilbert is a reporter for MLB.com. Read his blog, Inside the D-backs, and follow him on Twitter @SteveGilbertMLB.


text:
NIKE MEN AIR VAPORMAX FLYKNIT CARGO KHAKI KHAKI KHAKI SZ 10 [AT9789-313] ee4aec
By Charlie Gilkey on
40 Comments
Last updated on
"How can I be more productive?"
It's a question that many of us ask ourselves without realizing that the question, as stated, is impossible to answer. Just as I prefer achievable goals, I prefer answerable questions.
Here are 50+ better questions to ask than "how to be more productive." (Tweet this) Some are different ways of saying the same things, but that's a good thing.
- What specific kinds of activities (writing, coding, painting, speaking) would you like to do more of?
- What specific outcomes do you want more of?
- Are you working at the right time for the right projects? (Read this piece on working at the right time.)
- Are you working too long or too short of a time for certain tasks? (Read this piece on work zones.)
- What's the next step that needs to happen to move a key project forward?
- Are you trying to be more effective (i.e., doing the right things) or more efficient (i.e., doing things right)? Note: it makes no sense to get better at doing the wrong things.
- What 1-3 things would you like to have done (today, this week, this month, this quarter, this year)?
- What project, if completed, would likely have the most impact?
- What project, if completed, would bring in more cashflow? (Read more on the 3 goals of any business activity.)
- What could you do to get momentum on your oldest active project?
- Does the project actually need to be done or is it something you committed to in the past?
- Is it a project that's really worth doing or is it another bright, shiny object? (What's the difference?)
- Have you tried working on this project in a different environment?
- Is there someone who can help you with this project or who might enjoy doing pieces of it with you?
- Are you sleeping, eating, and exercising enough?
- What frogs are on your list and which would feel the best to have done? (Frogs are those dreaded tasks we don't want to do; read more about the power of handling frogs here.)
- Are you confusing something's being simple with its being easy?
- What's the most effective thing you can do with two focused hours of creative work?
- What are the specific obstacles keeping you from completing the work you have in front of you?
- Are you beginning your action items with verbs? (Read more on writing effective action lists.)
- What's on the list that you don't care about and that others don't care about that you can stop doing? (Hat tip to Michael Bungay Stanier and Do More Great Work)
- What item on the list feels the least like work?
- Is there a different approach to the work that might make it easier to do?
- Why is each item on the list important and relevant for some significant project you're working on?
- If you're being interrupted, is there something you can do to prevent the interruptions?
- If you're allowing yourself to be distracted, what can you do to minimize the opportunity for distraction?
- Is there something you can do today to prepare yourself for a more productive work session in the future?
- Have you taken a real break?
- Are you using S.M.A.R.T. goals?
- Are you clear on what the priority of the work is?
- Which items have an external and relevant deadline?
- Which item, if undone, would have the biggest ripple effect on the key projects you're working on?
- What's nagging at you and is there any way to actually address it?
- What specific tool, information, support, or motivation do you need to do the work?
- Are you acknowledging that it's time to roll up your sleeves and just get it done?
- What are you wanting to do with the time you gain? Is the juice worth the squeeze?
- Is the project sunk, and if so, what's keeping you from letting it go?
- Have you celebrated what you have done?
- How much is it costing you to not do an item on the list, and are you willing to accept that cost?
- What have you done lately that was fun or play?
- Have you tried planning out what needs to be done? (Our planners help.)
- Would chunking your project down into smaller parts help?
- Do you actually believe that you can complete the projects you've committed to?
- Have you confused No with Not Now?
- Are your eyes forward?
- If you had your way, what would you work on right now?
- What completed project would move you closer to a promotion or the next level in your profession?
- Is there a project that only needs a little bit of your time, energy, and attention before you can hand it off to somebody else?
- What could you get done in the next 30 minutes that would either check an important block or make headway towards doing so?
- Have you grabbed a pen and paper and gotten out of your office for an hour or so to spend some time purposefully thinking rather than mindlessly doing?
- Have you determined what "enough for today" looks like?
- What matters now?
That's 52 that I can think of off the top of my head and I'm sure I'll think of some more.
What questions do you ask yourself that really help you get going?
Nike Air Force 1 Low 90/10 All-Star (2018),


text:
The airport has become a hot spot in the car sharing world. First, FlightCar , a California company that allows departing travelers to rent their personal cars to arriving passengers, launched its service at several airports, including Logan International.
Now, RelayRides, a three-year-old company founded in Cambridge, is getting into the act, recently expanding its service from neighborhoods to airports. Already, its members have listed more than 1,000 cars that can be picked up at 150 airports around the country, including about 30 vehicles at Logan.
"It's a huge opportunity for us to establish ourselves as a new player in the space that hasn't seen a lot of innovation until recently," said Andre Haddad, chief executive of RelayRides, which is now based in San Francisco.
Peer-to-peer car sharing companies such as FlightCar and RelayRides are part of the collaborative consumption movement, connecting people in need of a car for a few days or hours with people who want to make money by renting their cars. People flying into Logan, for instance, can go on the RelayRides website and reserve a car listed at the airport. The owner will bring it to Logan or give the renter instructions on where to find it.
But the sharing economy has yet to be embraced by airport authorities and traditional rental car companies, which pay high fees to operate at airports.
The city of San Francisco is suing FlightCar because the company doesn't have a license to operate at San Francisco International Airport and refuses to pay rental car fees. FlightCar owners say they are not subject to these fees because their operations are not located on airport property.
Similarly, RelayRides does not pay fees to airports where its members drop off cars for renters. RelayRides argues that it is not subject to these requirements because it doesn't rent cars there, but merely facilitates transactions between private parties.
The Massachusetts Port Authority, which runs Logan, requires agreements for all businesses operating at the airport. Without it, "we cannot ascertain if they provide the levels of safety, security, and customer service that we expect from companies that do business at Logan Airport," Massport said in a statement. The agency took a similar position on FlightCar.
Traditional rental car companies are watching the situation closely, too. They are tightly regulated and charged hefty fees by the airports where they operate, and they expect airport authoritiesto hold new competitors to the same standards, said Chris Brown, executive editor of Auto Rental News.
"It's these disruptive business models that are upsetting the apple cart against these traditional business models that are playing by the rules," he said. "The nitty-gritty of the rules has yet to be tested."
Zipcar, the Cambridge company that calls itself a car sharing service, is also expanding to airports, recently launching operations at 13 in conjunction with Avis, which purchased Zipcar earlier this year. Zipcar has a different business model than RelayRides: it owns the cars, rents them by the hour, pays airport fees, and operates under airport rules.
Zipcar has not yet started operations at Logan.
RelayRides says it has tens of thousands of members using its website to rent thousands of vehicles in 1,500 cities, but won't reveal specific figures. Car owners set the price — typically around $9 an hour, or $50 a day, depending on the vehicle — and RelayRides takes a 25 percent cut.
Now that users have the option of listing their cars at the airport, RelayRides is hoping it can take a bigger bite out of the $24 billion US rental car business. Haddad, the RelayRides chief executive, said airports are more lucrative markets because rentals average six days and $300, three times the average RelayRides transaction.
But the issue of airport fees and who pays them is likely to get more complicated and contentious. Some RelayRides members rent multiple cars; one member in Chicago took out a small business loan to create a "micro fleet" of six cars.
Ed Salwin, a software developer in the Washington area, bought a 2010 Toyota Corolla for the sole purpose of renting it out through RelayRides. In fact, it was his request to list the car at Reagan National Airport that led RelayRides to add the airport option to its website.
Salwin, 31, only charges $4 an hour for the Corolla, and makes just a few hundred dollars a year from it after factoring in depreciation, maintenance, and insurance. But Salwin, who has since purchased another car to rent, likes offering a cheaper alternative to traditional rental cars, and hopes he is helping keep cars off the road by giving people an alternative to owning a vehicle.
He said he gets satisfaction from "contributing to a movement that could help shape things for the better," as well as from being an entrepreneur. "It could," he said, "potentially be the start of some kind of business endeavor way down the road."Katie Johnston can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.com. Follow her on Twitter @ktkjohnston.


text:
Visual Arts
Art Curriculum: An Overview
The study of visual arts in the curriculum enables students to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills while nurturing creativity. Studio performances in the disciplines of drawing, painting, sculpture, ceramics, and printmaking provide each student the opportunity to explore new media, tools and techniques and to expand the scope of their imagination. Art appreciation along with a basic knowledge of world cultures, art history and careers in art are taught within the framework of these disciplines.
Introduction to the elements and principles of art enables students to give form to his ideas and feelings and to gain aesthetic awareness and art criticism skills. Artistic experiences are provided to develop the creative potential in each child and to allow for maximum individual differences in expression and growth.


text:
- pigfish2's Activity
Christmas Blog 2014
Merry Christmas everyoneI realise its pretty much a year now since I last blogged and I don't think anyone still reads these anyway but I could not forgo my Christmas tradition of wishing everyone a m...
My top 20 games of 2013 part 2 #10-1
Hi everyoneWelcome to part 2 of my countdown of the 20 best games I played this year. To qualify a game does not have to have been released this year, I simply must have played it for the first time t...
My top 20 games of 2013 part one #20-11
Hi everyoneAs usual at the end of the year it is time to for me to reveal the 20 best games I played this year. To qualify a game does not have to have been released in 2013 but I must have played it ...
Merry Christmas 2013
Hi everyoneSince Gamespot had its big update it has been almost deserted so I'm not sure if anyone is actually going to read my annual Christmas blog but here it is anyway.I got 3 games for Christmas ...
Nintendo to unveil a new Wii U game at this weekends VGX awards
In an unusual step for Nintendo they are joining the likes of Sony, Microsoft and Square Enix and unveiling a new trailer at this years VGX. Not only is it a new trailer but it will be for a new and u...
The new Gamespot
Hi everyone,If you have actually found this blog (I can't find anyone else's), its just a short one.The new Gamespot is as far as I'm concerned very difficult to navigate and poorly designed. For that...


text:
Hp g60-637cl Bios & Master Password Unlock Services
Here is the solution for the HP Bios Password problem, Unlock your Laptop in less than 2
business hours. We Offer HP Bios and Hard drive password, You will receive the Master
password for your laptop in your Email within 5 minutes to 2 Hours
Bios Password for all HP Laptop.
Here are the steps to unlock you HP laptop.
Removing HP Bios Password,
step 1
turn on your HP laptop and a
power on password
box is
displayed with the message ,
Enter Administrator Password
, now press enter 6 times.
Removing HP Bios Password,
step 2
Password Incorrect,
after pressing enter 3 times, and
after pressing enter another 6 times for the
password incorrect,
you will get the 8 numbers code that
can be used to unlock your laptop,
see step 3.
Removing HP Bios Password,
step 3
: you get the message
Enter Unlock Password
nowhttp://novatecdirect.com/. buy the HP password removal service and send us the 5 or 8 numbers and the
laptop model number to
or simply just use the PayPal form below to send the
Numbers in this
picture is for
display purpose
only every laptop
has a different
Enter # Displayed on screen
Enter Laptop model #
BIOS and Hard drive passwords are offered for laptop displaying 8 numbers, we offer Bios
password for the 5 numbers, Also hard drive password support for the 5 numbers.
Attention: Dear Visitors, Only make the payment if your laptop produces 5 or 8 or 10 numbers, if it
does, we can help you, guaranteed, remember to send the full Number as shown, with the laptop
model number to
, thanks! and yes, you will get the password within 5
minutes to 2 busines hours
For all
Laptop that display 5, 8 or 10 numbers, we just need the numbers
displayed, as shown in picture 2, attention: these numbers are displayed after
3 wrong attempts, so just hit enter 6 times and your laptop will display any
numbers, send it to us.
Also hard drive password support for the 5 numbers,
bios and supervisor psw only
unlock hp laptop, hp g60-637cl Master password, hp g60-637cl bios password, hp g60-637cl backdoor password, HP bios password, hp
pavillion bios password
, hp password, hp enter administrator password,
hp power on password, insyde h2o bios hp,
hp g60-637cl hard drive password
Alt Keywords
How to unlock hp g60-637cl laptop, my hp g60-637cl laptop is asking for
password, Enter Administrator Password
Click here if your laptop
display 5 numbers after
entering the wrong
password 3 times.
Also master password for:
HP G60-238CA Notebook PC
HP G60-243CL Notebook PC
HP G60-243DX Notebook PC
HP G60-244DX Notebook PC
HP G60-247CL Notebook PC
HP G60-249CA Notebook PC
HP G60-249WM Notebook PC
HP G60-438NR Notebook PC
HP G60-440US Notebook PC
HP G60-441US Notebook PC
HP G60-442OM Notebook PC
HP G60-443CL Notebook PC
HP G60-443NR Notebook PC
HP G60-445DX Notebook PC
HP G60-447CL Notebook PC
HP G60-453NR Notebook PC
HP G60-458DX Notebook PC
HP G60-471NR Notebook PC
HP G60-501NR Notebook PC
HP G60-506US Notebook PC
HP G60-507DX Notebook PC
HP G60-508US Notebook PC
HP G60-513NR Notebook PC
HP G60-519WM Notebook PC
HP G60-526NR Notebook PC
HP G60-530US Notebook PC
HP G60-531NR Notebook PC
HP G60-533CL Notebook PC
HP G60-535DX Notebook PC
HP G60-536NR Notebook PC
HP G60-549DX Notebook PC
HP G60-552NR Notebook PC
HP G60-553NR Notebook PC
HP G60-630US Notebook PC
HP G60-633NR Notebook PC
HP G60-635DX Notebook PC
HP G60-637CL Notebook PC
HP G60-642NR Notebook PC
HP G60-645NR Notebook PC
HP G60-647NR Notebook PC
HP G60T-200 CTO Notebook PC
HP G60t-500 CTO Notebook PC
HP G60t-600 CTO Notebook PC
We have bios password for:
HP g60-637cl Notebook PC
HP G60-101CA Notebook PC
HP G60-101TU Notebook PC
HP G60-102XX Notebook Pc
HP G60-103XX Notebook PC
HP G60-104CA Notebook PC
HP G60-104XX Notebook PC
HP G60-108CA Notebook PC
HP G60-117US Notebook PC
HP G60-118NR Notebook PC
HP G60-119OM Notebook PC
HP G60-120CA Notebook PC
HP G60-120US Notebook PC
HP G60-121CA Notebook PC
HP G60-121WM Notebook PC
HP G60-123CL Notebook PC
HP G60-125CA Notebook PC
HP G60-125NR Notebook PC
HP G60-126CA Notebook PC
HP G60-127CL Notebook PC
HP G60-127NR Notebook PC
HP G60-128CA Notebook PC
HP G60-129CA Notebook PC
HP G60-146CA Notebook PC
HP G60-201TU Notebook PC
HP G60-202TU Notebook PC
HP G60-203TU Notebook PC
HP G60-208CA Notebook PC
HP G60-219CA Notebook PC
HP G60-225CA Notebook PC
HP G60-228CA Notebook PC
HP G60-230CA Notebook PC
HP G60-230US Notebook PC
HP G60-231WM Notebook PC
HP G60-233CA Notebook PC
HP G60-233NR Notebook PC
HP G60-234CA Notebook PC
HP G60-235CA Notebook PC
HP G60-235DX Notebook PC
HP G60-235WM Notebook PC
HP G60-236US Notebook PC
HP G60-237NR Notebook PC
HP G60-237US Notebook PC
Page related links:
hp master password
unlock hp master password
hp g60-637cl bios password
hp g60-637cl master password
hp g60-637cl backdoor password
hp g60-637cl user password
hp g60-637cl power on password
hp g60-637cl administrator password
windows password
unlock hp 5 number bios password
unlock hp 8 number bios password
hp mini bios password
For Windows
If your HP
Laptop display
5 numbers
The HP master
password for
the G60
provided here
will unlock your
laptop's bios
and hard drive
Every HP
laptop has a
password, if
your laptop
shows 8
numbers, you
will get one
password that
unlocks bios
and hard drive.
How to Set BIOS Passwords on a HP Laptop
If the security of your laptop is important to you there are two levels of protection obtainable by setting passwords on
your hp laptop. One level of password security will protect your documents from intrusion, while the second level will
protect your entire laptop from intruders. But since any password security plan is only as strong as the words
themselves, make sure you don't choose passwords that are based on real-life data that could be uncovered with
good sleuthing, like your birth date, or words that could be easily "guessed" by people who know you.
1 At boot up press F1 or F2 and enter the BIOS program.
2 Navigate to "Security". Set a difficult-to-guess but memorable password to lock the laptop completely. Record this
password somewhere secure, separate from your laptop case.
3 Click "Save and Exit" and reboot the computer. When the computer reboots you'll be asked to enter the BIOS
password before Windows will load to your desktop. There is no way the average person can defeat this BIOS
password, not even by using the well-known "Safe Mode Workaround" available in Windows XP.
4 Click on "Start" and then "Control Panel".
5 Click on the "User Accounts" icon. Enter your preferred User Name (or nickname) and enter a suitable password.
Most people make the mistake of using the same password universally; frustrate intruders by entering a password that
is different from the password you entered for the BIOS.
6 Set the administrative clearance for this account. Since you are the owner of the laptop, give yourself full
"Administrative" powers by checking that box. You, as the administrator, can also limit the powers and access of others
who may use or "visit" your hp laptop: click the "Limited Account" setting to restrict the access of other users. Click
"Save" and exit Control Panel.
7 Click "Start" and then "Restart" to reboot your laptop properly and "set" these changes. When your hp reboots you
will have to enter the BIOS password to load Windows.
8 Enter your personal account password next to open your personal Windows User Account and start using your hp.
9 all done
How To Make your Laptop Stop asking for the password after you finally received the
bios or master password.
Once you received your master password from novatecdirect.com you will be able to type in the password and use your
laptop, but it will continue to ask for the Master password until you disable it,
To disable the password from you laptop you need to do the following steps!
1) look to your keyboard and find the F2 key usually on top of the number 2, now turn on or restart your laptop and
pressing the F2 every 1 second, and the laptop will ask you for the BIOS password again, type it in and press enter,
you will
then go to the BIOS Setup Page.
2) once on the setup page, you will use the right arrow on your keyboard to navigate to the security tab, where it may
say :
Supervisor password is: set
User password is: set
HDD password is: set
3) Now you will use the keyboard arrow to navigate down to the available options and you will press enter, in this step a
will pop up asking you for the current password, this is the BIOS password or hard drive password that you received
from us, so
type it in and press enter again,
now you can leave the box blank and just press enter to set the password as nothing, and as you left the password
option blank
the computer will stop asking for password, do the same to the supervisor password option, hard drive password option
user password option.
4) now navigate to the exit option on your right and choose the option exit saving changes and then pres enter again.
Note: instead of leaving the password in blank to disable it, you could just enter a new password something easier to
remember, and if pressing F2 every little second does not take you to the setup page, try F10, F1, and delete and
insert, some BIOS may look different but they follow a very standard procedure.


text:
Curriculum Guide Brings Texas History to Life
New online media gallery an excellent source for students, teachers, genealogists and media
"History teaches everything, including the future." Alphonse de Lamartine
The San Jacinto Museum of History Association wholeheartedly agrees, and—since its opening in 1939—has dedicated itself to collecting and preserving significant materials relating to the early history and culture of Texas and the region, as well as promoting the appreciation of the role played by Texas in American and world history through exhibits, publications and educational programs.
Educating the public about Texas's unique history is a primary mission of the Museum, and on January 15, 2013, the Museum released its in-depth "Curriculum Guide for Teaching Texas History" to accomplish this goal.
Written by educational consultant Yvonne Jackson Pittman, with contributions from San Jacinto Museum Curator Elizabeth Appleby and Library Director Lisa Struthers, the 400-page guide provides 90 complete lessons and over 40 student activities (including general activities and special extra credit/accelerated learning offerings); more than 500 related images in the associated online Image Gallery; and many special sections that go beyond the TEKS requirements with activities and enrichment materials that highlight some of the museum's diverse collections including chapters on Jesse Jones, the building of the San Jacinto Monument and the Texas Navy. The curriculum guide can be viewed and downloaded here.
The online Image Gallery is sure to be popular with history students of any age or expertise. It contains images of photos, documents, newspaper articles, artifacts and document transcriptions, and can be viewed here.
Although the images were selected to correspond with lesson plans, the Image Gallery will also be an excellent resource for genealogists, the general public, publishers and journalists to identify media that they need for their work and interests. "The concept of the museum's online Image Gallery was developed to make it easy for teachers to present images of relevant artifacts in the classroom using the technology they have available," says Lisa A. Struthers, Library Director for the San Jacinto Museum. "We plan to expand the site to share images of events, of our surroundings in the San Jacinto Battleground State Historic Site, and of interest to historians and genealogists, beginning with the men who fought at the Battle of San Jacinto. It is exciting to see how well the images are displayed."
Created in response to the recently revised Texas Education Agency objectives known as Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS)—the state standards for what students should know and be able to do—the goal of the curriculum guide and Image Gallery is to enhance Texas history courses with primary and secondary documents, and many artifacts from the vast collections of the San Jacinto Museum.
"With severe budget cuts in educational funding for many states across our nation today, there is a real need for non-profit organizations to take an active role in providing relevant, detailed and state-mandated content free of charge to school districts, educators and parents," says Larry Spasic, San Jacinto Museum of History President. "The San Jacinto Museum of History funds, creates and shares in many types of teacher training seminars and in-services. Our newest and most comprehensive Texas history curriculum guide integrates well with our research facilities, exhibits and educational programs, at no charge to teachers or students. We are so proud that our staff and funding sponsors have taken on this project for the children of the State ofTexas."
Funding for the curriculum guide was provided by the Fondren Foundation, LyondellBasell, Meadows Foundation, Houston Endowment Inc., The Gordon A. Cain Foundation, Elkins Foundation, Union Pacific Foundation, BNSF Railway Foundation, San Jacinto Day Foundation, The Dow Chemical Company and H-E-B Tournament of Champions.
Curriculum lessons feature:
- Lesson plans identified with both a subject title and the associated TEKS number;
- Archival documents (from the Image Gallery) linked to appropriate lessons;
- An "Essential Question" to help guide instruction for every lesson;
- "Critical Vocabulary" words vital to in-depth understanding;
- "The Hook" question or strategy to pique interest and prepare for new learning;
- "The Activity" cooperative learning or independent practice activities designed to process new ideas;
- "Be a Star Bonus" for students who need enrichment or additional challenges; and,
- "Strategy Descriptions and Graphic Organizers" section with printable research-based strategies and reoccurring lesson ideas.
"In 2010,Texas revised the objectives that teachers are expected to teach in every social studies course. In addition to new student objectives, a new more rigorous series of end-of-course exams was put into place. However, teachers were not provided new textbooks and resources," Pittman adds. "The San Jacinto Museum curriculum guide is an important project because it provides meaningful primary and secondary sources for teachers and students through an image gallery of beautiful photographs. The searchable image gallery will give teachers artifacts and documents to pique student interest and enhance instruction. The curriculum document also gives teachers more than 40 instructional strategies and 90 complete lessons for Texas History. It has been an exciting endeavor for me and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to fulfill my greatest passion: helping teachers and students." Pittman spent 25 years teaching history and political science in Katy ISD before retiring recently as Secondary Social Studies Curriculum Specialist. She was one of twelve teachers selected nationally to participate in the House Fellows Program where she studied with the Historian of the U.S. House of Representatives.
The new TEKS/STARS requirements forTexas history are divided into 20 sections, only eight of which directly speak toTexas history. These new sections were released to teachers with no new textbooks, teaching materials or teacher training to assist them on their instruction. The San Jacinto Museum guide includes enrichment materials, teaching tips and activities for these units. Teachers that have seen a preview of the curriculum guide say it will be "invaluable" to their ability to instruct students on the content of these new requirements.
"Last year was the first year the revised TEKS/STARS testing took place," says Appleby, the Museum's curator. "Teachers and districts are eager for assistance in providing useful and interesting materials that can help them teach this material more effectively. We are thrilled to offer that assistance."
"With fewer schools able to afford field trips due to budget cuts and higher gas prices, this outreach tool that includes pre- on-site and post-visit materials will help to reinforce in teachers' minds that San Jacinto is still the premiere venue to bring a class to for the study of Texas history," Spasic adds. "We hope to offer teacher training seminars in late spring or early summer."
"In an era of increasing financial restraints placed on educators, the San Jacinto Museum of History's free Curriculum Guide for Teaching Texas History makes for an invaluable resource for all interested in the state's history," says Marcus S. Turner, Department of History, San Jacinto College Central.
Each lesson from the guide is generally designed to be completed within one or two class periods. However, teachers are encouraged to modify lessons to meet the needs of the students in their unique classroom situations, use documents and artifacts interchangeably from lesson to lesson, use "Be a Star" extra credit activities to expand lessons for all learners, or combine multiple lessons into one.
It is critical in the teaching of history to provide students with many opportunities for analysis and evaluation, therefore the curriculum guide uses the "SDA Discussion Strategy for Document Analysis" with the following components:
- Structure of the document i.e. what the students can tell about the document before getting into the detail content. Is it inherently biased (editorials, editorial cartoons)? Who created the document, when and for whom? What do they know about the time when the document was created?
- Details of the document i.e. what the students know without drawing any conclusions. It is very difficult for students not to inference as they look at the details; however, if they draw conclusions too soon, they misinterpret the document.
- Analysis of the document i.e. the students can begin drawing conclusions. What is the subject of the document? What is the main idea of the document? What inferences can they make? Can they trust this document to be accurate?
The curriculum also includes many creative components that will relate to school-age students such as the "Amazing Chase to Revolution" which begins with these instructions to the students: "Your television production team is in charge of planning the next season of The Amazing Chase. This year's television series will be unique in because the race is restricted solely to Texas and is a spinoff series similar to the Amazing Race on CBS. Your crew is to develop the most challenging and unique expedition of Texas to highlight the state's large variety of geographic regions and historical locations. The team that comes up with the best draft for the upcoming season may have the honor of watching your team's plan televised and also get the opportunity to star in three episodes."
"Teachers tell us that some students grumble that there is way too much Texas history, but as they learn more and become a little older, they become more and more proud of what being a Texan means, not only in the nation but in the world," says Spasic, a former educator. "Author John Steinbeck said it best: 'Texas is a state of mind. Texas is an obsession. Above all, Texas is a nation in every sense of the word.'"
More on the San Jacinto Museum of History: The San Jacinto Museum of History Association is a non-profit organization which owns all the artifacts, library and museum items and manages/operates all aspects of the San Jacinto Museum, which is housed in the San Jacinto Monument on the grounds of the San Jacinto Battleground State Historic Site in La Porte, Texas. Attractions and events run by the Museum include the special and permanent museum exhibits; the famous 489-foot elevator ride to the top of the Monument; the digital presentation Texas Forever!! The Battle of San Jacinto; the second annual "San Jacinto Texas Independence Fun Run/Walk" on Saturday, March 9, 2013 on a 5K-certified course on the monument grounds; and the annual daylong San Jacinto Day Festival and Battle Reenactment which will be held on April 20 in 2013.
More than 30,000 students visit the Museum each year on field trips. The San Jacinto Battleground State Historic Site attracts more than 1,500,000 people to the park annually, making it the largest, most visited historic park in Texas.
For more information about the curriculum guide, the San Jacinto Museum of History or the San Jacinto Day Festival and Battle Reenactment, please call 281.479.2421 or visit our website.
Download or print a PDF of this press release here.< Back to News and Events