text:
Boards of Cooperative Educational Services

The Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES //) is a program of shared educational services provided to school districts by the New York State Legislature.

History
BOCES owes its origin to a state legislative enactment authorizing the formation of intermediate school districts. Passed in 1948, the act was aimed at enabling small rural school districts to combine their resources to provide services that otherwise would have been uneconomical, inefficient, or unavailable.

BOCES was to be the temporary means by which careful transitions could be made to an intermediate district framework. Though its purposes were similar to those of the proposed intermediate districts, BOCES was conceived and written into the Education Law in its own separate sections (1950 and 1951). Simpler in structure and less autonomous than projected intermediate districts, the BOCES proved itself worthy of being both means and end. Not one intermediate district was ever formed, and cooperative boards proliferated rapidly, especially during the mid-1950s, reaching 82 by 1958.

In 1972 the Intermediate School District Act was repealed. Laws pertaining to BOCES, however, have remained on the books. Thus BOCES has developed from a special-purpose, interim agency into a formally recognized middle or intermediate unit in New York State's public education system. There are currently 37 BOCES incorporating all but 9 of the 697 school districts in New York State.

Moreover, other states have moved toward regional educational configurations like BOCES. At least 30 state legislatures have mandated or passed legislation, as educational service agencies study the idea.

Membership
The total area under supervision of a district superintendent is called a supervisory district.

BOCES membership is not available to the so-called Big Five city school districts: New York City, Buffalo, Rochester, Yonkers, and Syracuse.

Once a district has joined a BOCES, it cannot withdraw and is obligated to pay its annual share of administrative, rental, or facilities expenses. BOCES services are, however, optional. They may be purchased or not purchased as the district's Board of Education (BOE) sees fit. The decision to purchase or not purchase BOCES services is made each school year by district BOEs.

Operations
BOCES services are created when two or more school districts decide they have similar needs that can be met by a shared program. BOCES helps school districts save money by providing opportunities to pool resources and share costs.

Sharing is an economical way for districts to provide programs and services that they might not be able to afford otherwise. It is often more efficient and less costly to operate one central service than it is to have separate programs in each school district. BOCES services are often customized offering districts the flexibility to meet their individual needs.

BOCES is governed just as local districts are governed by a Board of Education, which is made up of representatives from component districts. Board members are responsible for curricular, financial, and other policy decisions, just as they are at the local level.

Members are elected by component school board members. BOCES board members do not need to be local school board members, but they must be eligible voters in component school districts of that BOCES.

Election to BOCES boards occurs at an annual BOCES meeting, which by law is held in April.

The duties and powers of BOCES boards, as specified in 1950 of the Education Law of the State of New York, include the following:
 * Appointment of a district superintendent, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Education;
 * Provision of cooperative educational services—with the commissioner's approval and on a contract basis—to component school districts;
 * Needs assessment and long-range planning for cooperative educational services in the supervisory district;
 * Employment of teachers and other support personnel to carry out BOCES programs;
 * Preparation of an adjustable budget for the supervisory district program and its administration;
 * Administration of payments for and costs of provided educational services;
 * Borrowing of money in anticipation of revenue due;
 * Entering into contracts with a variety of public agencies as well as non-public schools in order to arrange or provide services under specified conditions;
 * Renting, purchasing, or selling of property or facilities under specified conditions;
 * Making reports to the commissioner of education as required.

District Superintendent
A BOCES board appoints its own chief executive officer, contingent upon approval of the commissioner of education. As a BOCES executive, the district superintendent serves local districts and is responsible to the board of education representing the component districts of the BOCES.

The district superintendent also serves as a representative of the commissioner of education, providing educational leadership to local school districts in matters of law, policy, and practice.

Based on these responsibilities, the district superintendent has at least three important roles:

 * Educational change agent
 * Regional planner and coordinator
 * Field representative for the New York State Education Department, a consultative capacity designed to improve two-way communication between state and local levels

Structure and procedures for providing services
The facilities, professional personnel, and services of a BOCES are available to every local school district within the district superintendent's supervisory district. Because the BOCES board must develop its offerings to fulfill local demands and needs, levels of accountability and flexibility are maintained.

Under New York State Education Law, a BOCES must furnish any educational service that is requested by two or more component districts and approved by the commissioner of education according to need and practicality in a regional context.

By January of each year, the Boards of Education in component school districts specify their potential service needs for the following school year. These needs, developed by the BOCES into annual operating plans, are submitted to the New York State Education Department and the commissioner of education for approval. BOCES boards then notify component districts of the approved services, asking for a firm commitment to participate by May 1 of each year.

The BOCES and the component districts then enter into formal contracts. Specified in each contract are the number and types of services to be furnished by the BOCES, the number of people to be served, and the amount to be paid to the BOCES.

Signed by the BOCES and component board presidents, and then approved by the commissioner, these contracts are effective for one year, after which they may be renewed, changed, or canceled at the component districts' option. Because districts' needs change every year, decisions about BOCES services may also change every year. If the district doesn't need a BOCES service, it doesn't request it and it doesn't pay for it.

Districts may also authorize multi-year service requests from BOCES.

Reasons for participation
Because BOCES services are shared by two or more school districts, they often cost much less than if districts provided the services on their own. Districts pool their resources and share the savings.

In addition, New York State gives a financial incentive to participate in shared services by offering school districts state aid for BOCES services. Here is how BOCES state aid works:

 * Each district's Board of Education selects BOCES services for the current year.
 * The following school year, a portion of the cost of BOCES services is returned to the district as BOCES aid.
 * The amount returned is based on a formula that takes into account the districts' financial resources.
 * Money not spent on a cooperative service is returned to the district at the end of each fiscal year by the BOCES.

Funding
A BOCES has no taxing authority. Instead, the sources of BOCES funds are primarily taxes levied by its component districts, state aid, and a relatively small amount of federal aid.

These funds support an administrative budget (covering administrative salaries, equipment, and services) and a program budget (covering other BOCES programs and services which districts select from the Service Directory, an annual listing of available services). In addition, BOCES may receive and manage funding from outside sources (e.g., state and federal) to cover special projects.

The component district's share of BOCES administrative, lease and capital costs are based either on the Resident Weighted Average Daily Attendance (RWADA) or on real property valuation.

Program costs are proportional to the amount of use each component district requires.

Through BOCES state aid, component districts receive financial support for their participation in BOCES. The cost charged to a component district for its BOCES participation serves as the basis for the district's BOCES state aid.

Programs
The programs and services offered by each BOCES may vary somewhat, and are developed based on the needs of a given BOCES' local school districts.

A large percentage of BOCES programs and services are instructional; that is to say, they serve students with classroom programs and services. Examples of instructional programs are vocational-technical programs for high school students, physical, speech and occupational therapy for students with disabilities, and literacy programs for adults.

Often support staff are broken into on-site, related, or itinerant staff positions. Related personnel often support the program and are housed at the on-site location while Itinerant staff provide services to component districts on an individual or case-by-case basis.

The remaining programs are called support services. They are not classroom programs, support services still relate to the education of students, and because they help school districts save money. This frees up resources to better serve students directly. Examples of support services are staff development, central bus maintenance, central business offices, and Regional Information Centers.

An example of programs that BOCES might offer are Academics Support, Auto Body Repair, Auto Technology, Aviation, Aviation Mechanical Technician, Building Maintenance, Business Computer Technology, Carpentry, Computer Repair and Networking, Cosmetology, Criminal Justice, Culinary Arts, Early Childhood Education, Electrical Wiring Technology, Forestry & Conservation, Gas/Diesel Mechanics, Life Skills, Medical Careers, New Vision Health, New Visions: Law & Government, Nursing Assistant, Practical Nursing, Small Animal Care, Welding, and Visual Communications.


text:
Distributed morphology

In generative linguistics, Distributed Morphology is a theoretical framework introduced in 1993 by Morris Halle and Alec Marantz. The central claim of Distributed Morphology is that there is no divide between the construction of words and sentences. The syntax is the single generative engine that forms sound-meaning correspondences, both complex phrases and complex words. This approach challenges the traditional notion of the Lexicon as the unit where derived words are formed and idiosyncratic word-meaning correspondences are stored. In Distributed Morphology there is no unified Lexicon as in earlier generative treatments of word-formation. Rather, the functions that other theories ascribe to the Lexicon are distributed among other components of the grammar.

Overview of Distributed Morphology
The basic principle of Distributed Morphology is that there is a single generative engine for the formation of both complex words and complex phrases: there is no division between syntax and morphology and there is no Lexicon in the sense it has in traditional generative grammar. Distributed Morphology rejects the notion of a lexicon in the way it had been used. Any operation that would occur in the 'lexicon' according to lexicalist approaches is considered too vague in Distributed Morphology, which instead distributes these operations over various steps and lists. The term Distributed Morphology is used because the morphology of an utterance is the product of operations distributed over more than one step, with content from more than one list. In contrast to lexicalist models of morphosyntax, Distributed Morphology posits three components in building an utterance:
 * 1) The Formative List provides the input for syntax.
 * 2) The Exponent List (the list of Vocabulary Items) is consulted to provide the utterance with post-syntactic phonological content.
 * 3) Syntactic operations (such as Merge, Move or Agree in the Minimalist framework) apply to formatives.

There are three relevant lists in Distributed Morphology: the Formative List, the Exponent List (Vocabulary Items), and the Encyclopedia. Items from these lists enter the derivation at different stages.

Formative list: category-neutral roots
The formative list, sometimes called the lexicon (this term will be avoided here) in Distributed Morphology includes all the bundles of semantic and sometimes syntactic features that can enter the syntactic computation. These are interpretable or uninterpretable features (such as [+/- animate], [+/- count], etc.) which are manipulated in syntax through syntactic operations. These bundles of features do not have any phonological content; phonological content is assigned to them only at spell-out, that is after all syntactic operations are over. The Formative List in Distributed Morphology differs, thus, from the Lexicon in traditional generative grammar, which includes the lexical items (such as words and morphemes) in a language.

As its name would suggest, the Formative List contains what are known as formatives, or roots. In Distributed Morphology, roots are proposed to be category-neutral and undergo categorization by functional elements. Roots have no grammatical categories in and of themselves, and merely represent the bundle of semantic features to be exponed. The notation for roots in Distributed Morphology generally uses a square root symbol, with an arbitrary number or with the orthographic representation of the root. For example, love, without a grammatical category, could be expressed as √362 or as √LOVE.

Researchers adopting the Distributed Morphology approach agree that roots must be categorized by functional elements. There are multiple ways that this can be done. The following lists four possible routes. As of 2020, there is no consensus on which approach most accurately describes the structural configuration of root categorization.
 * 1) Roots are merged as complements to the functional elements that categorize them.
 * 2) Roots are merged as modifiers to the functional elements that categorize them.
 * 3) Some roots are merged as modifiers and others as complements to the function elements that categorize them.
 * 4) Roots are inserted post-syntactically and do not merge with complements or modifiers.

Exponent list: vocabulary items
Vocabulary items associate phonological content with arrays of underspecified syntactic and/or semantic features – the features listed in the Lexicon – and they are the closest notion to the traditional morpheme known from generative grammar. Postsyntactic Morphology posits that this operation takes place after the syntax itself has occurred.

Vocabulary items are also known as the Exponent List. In Distributed Morphology, after the syntax of a given utterance is complete, the Exponent List must be consulted to provide phonological content. This is known as 'exponing' an item. In other words, a vocabulary item is a relation between a phonological string (which could also be zero or null) and the context in which this string may be inserted. Vocabulary items compete for insertion to syntactic nodes at spell-out, i.e. after syntactic operations are complete. The following is an example of a vocabulary item in Distributed Morphology:

An affix in Russian can be exponed as follows:

/n/ <-->  [___, +participant +speaker, plural] The phonological string on the left side is available for insertion to a node with the features described on the right side.

Roots, i.e. formatives from the Formative List, are exponed based on their features. For example, the first-person singular pronominal paradigm in English is exponed as follows:

[+1 +sing +nom +prn] ←→ /aj/ [+1 +sing +prn] ←→ /mi/

The use of /mi/ does not seem infelicitous in a nominative context at first glance. If /mi/ acquired nominative case in the syntax, it would seem appropriate to use it. However, /aj/ is specified for the feature [+nom], and therefore must block the use of /mi/ in a nominative context. This is known as the Maximal Subset Condition or the Elsewhere Principle: if two items have a similar set of features, the one that is more specific will win. Illustrated in logical notation:

f(E1) ⊂ f(T), f(E2) ⊂ f(T), and f(E1) ⊂ f(E2) → f(E2) wins.

In this case, both /mi/ and /aj/ have a subset of features f(T), but /aj/ has the maximal subset.

Encyclopedia
The Encyclopedia associates syntactic units with special, non-compositional aspects of meaning. This list specifies interpretive operations that realize in a semantic sense the terminal nodes of a complete syntactic derivation. For example, adjectives compárable and cómparable are thought to represent two different structures. First one, has a composition meaning of ‘being able to compare’ – root combines with a categorizer V- and the two combine with the suffix –able. The second one has an idiomatic meaning of ‘equal’ taken directly from the Encyclopedia – here root combines directly with the suffix –able.

Derivation
The Y-model of Minimalism, as well as the syntactic operations postulated in Minimalism, are preserved in Distributed Morphology. The derivation of a phrase/word proceeds as follows:

 * 1) A subset of the Lexicon, i.e. some combination of interpretable and uninterpretable features, and category-neutral lexical roots (e.g. √CAT) enter the computation. These features specify structural relations, which are satisfied via the operation of syntactic operations, such as Merge, Move or Agree. For example, if node A has a [+ plural] feature, while node B has no value assigned to the feature [plural], then node B could become [+plural] if it is in the right configuration with node A for Agree to apply. The category-neutral roots combine with a categorizer e.g., N-, A-, V- and turn into a respective category noun, adjective or verb. Once all relations specified by the features present in the numeration are satisfied, the syntactic derivation is complete; there is a configuration of terminal nodes, with different combinations of features and their values, and roots but without phonological content assigned to these nodes. At spell-out, the traditional division to logical form (LF) and phonetic form (PF) of the Y-model takes place.
 * 2) 	At LF, the Encyclopedia is responsible for the semantic interpretation of the terminal nodes. Any non-compositional and idiosyncratic meaning associated with the bundles of features and lexical roots present at the end of the syntactic computation is assigned at this stage.
 * 3) 	After syntactic operations are complete, certain morphological operations (see below) apply before any assignment of phonological content to the terminal nodes.
 * 4) 	Once these morphological operations are complete, phonological content is finally assigned to the terminal nodes, through competition of vocabulary items for insertion. How does competition work? Each terminal node contains a bundle of features and all vocabulary items compete for insertion into the terminal nodes. The vocabulary item that wins the competition and is inserted in a certain terminal node is the item that is most highly specified for that node. For example, if at the end of the derivation there is a terminal node with the features [+past, + plural, +3rd person] and the lexical root √PLAY, then the phonological content that will be assigned to the node will be the one corresponding to "played" because the most highly specified vocabulary item for this node is the item /d/  <-->  [___, +past, plural, 3rd person]. It is important to note that this vocabulary item does not exactly match the features of the terminal node; however, it wins the competition because in English it is the most highly specified vocabulary item for the specific values of features present in the node. Competition for insertion is governed by the Subset Principle, the following version of which is from Halle (1997):
 * The phonological exponent of a Vocabulary Item is inserted into a morpheme in the terminal string if the item matches all or a subset of the grammatical features specified in the terminal morpheme. Insertion does not take place if the Vocabulary item contains features not present in the morpheme. Where several Vocabulary items meet the conditions for insertion, the item matching the greatest number of features specified in the terminal morpheme must be chosen.

Morphological operations
Distributed Morphology recognizes a number of morphology-specific operations that occur post-syntactically. There is no consensus about the order of application of these morphological operations with respect to vocabulary insertion, and it is generally believed that certain operations apply before vocabulary insertion, while others apply to the vocabulary items themselves. For example, Embick and Noyer (2001) argue that Lowering applies before Vocabulary insertion, while Local Dislocation applies afterwards.

Apart from the operations described above, some researchers (Embick 1997 among others) have suggested that there are morphemes that represent purely formal features and are inserted post-syntactically but before spell-out: these morphemes are called "dissociated morphemes".

Morphological merger
Morphological Merger is generalized as follows in Marantz 1988: 261:

Morphological Merger:

At any level of syntactic analysis (d-structure, s-structure, phonological structure), a relation between X and Y may be replaced by (expressed by) the affixation of the lexical head of X to the lexical head of Y.

Two syntactic nodes can undergo Morphological Merger subject to morphophonological well-formedness conditions.

Many-to-one mapping between syntax and morphology: feature fusion
Two nodes that have undergone Morphological Merger or that have been adjoined through syntactic head movement can undergo Fusion, yielding one single node for Vocabulary insertion. Many-to-one relation where two syntactic terminals are realized as a single exponent (portmanteau).

An example can be found in Swahili, which has separate exponents for subject agreement (e.g., 1st plural tu-) and negation (ha-):

tu- ta- pend-a kiswahili

we- will- love Swahili

ha- tu- ta- pend-a kiswahili

NEG- we- will- love Swahili

However, 1st person singular exponent ni- and negation ha- undergo fusion and realized as si-:

 * ha- ni- ta pend-a kiswahili

NEG- I- will- love Swahili

si- ta- pend-a Kiswahili

NEG.I- will- love Swaihili

An alternative analysis of si- exponent says that there is no fusion but rather context sensitive allomorphy:

si- Ø ta- pend-a Kiswahili

NEG- I- will- love Swaihili

Fission
Fission refers to the splitting of one terminal node into two distinct terminal nodes prior to Vocabulary Insertion. Some of the most well-known cases of fission involve the imperfect conjugations of Semitic, in which agreement morphology is split into a prefixal and suffixal part, as investigated in the work of Noyer (1992). Fission may also occur where insertion of a Vocabulary item discharges the intrinsic features of the Vocabulary item from the terminal node, leaving others features available for possible insertion; if fission applies, then other Vocabulary items can be inserted to discharge the remaining features. When Fission occurs, the order of morphemes is influenced by the featural complexity of Vocabulary items.

Feature impoverishment
Impoverishment (a term introduced into the theory in Bonet 1991) refers to a change in the feature content on a terminal node prior to Vocabulary Insertion, resulting in a less marked feature content.
 * Feature deletion: This is accomplished by deleting a feature or by changing it from a marked to an unmarked value (e.g. [+plural] to [-plural]). Impoverishment accounts for cases in which spell-out of a terminal node by a featurally specific Vocabulary Item is blocked by a less specific Vocabulary Item.
 * Feature obliteration: Impoverishment can target an entire terminal node (rather than just one of its features), in which case it is referred to as 'obliteration'. This results in the complete absence of the morpheme from the structure of the word.

Lowering
Lowering is sensitive to syntactic headedness and operates on abstract feature bundles, after syntactic movement but prior to vocabulary insertion. Lowering takes place when a head X lowers to the head of its complement, Y. For example, T in English (e.g. +past) lowers to be realized on the head of its complement V, as in "John [TP tT [vP play-ed piano]]." An adjoined adverb will not block this syntactic movement, since it is sensitive to syntactic headedness rather than linear adjacency: "John skillfully play-ed piano." On the other hand, a Merged Negation head will block this movement and trigger 'do insertion':" John did not play piano" (Embick & Noyer 2001:564).

Local dislocation
String-adjacent Vocabulary items may undergo Local Dislocation, in which the two items form a unit, with reversed linear order. Embick and Noyer (2001) suggest that linearization takes place at Vocabulary Insertion. At this point it is possible to reorder linearly adjacent vocabulary items. This reordering must respect the relationship between the constituents, however. In a linearization [X [Z*Y]], X can undergo Local Dislocation to give the linearization: Z°Z+X]*Y, since Z is still left-adjacent to Y though Z is now an internally complex head (Embick & Noyer 2001:563). The relationship between X and Z has been properly converted through Local Dislocation. Since the relationships between the constituents have been respected or properly converted, the derivation is well-formed. Local Dislocation applies after Vocabulary insertion to reorder two linearly adjacent elements, such as the comparative feature and an adjective in John is smarter than Mary., which contrasts with John is more intelligent than Mary.; in this case the movement makes reference to the phonological features of the moved items, moving -er after an adjective of one syllable, while leaving more in a position dominating the adjective (Embick & Noyer 2001:564).

Morpheme order
In Distributed Morphology, the linear order of morphemes is determined by their hierarchical position in the syntactic structure, as well as by certain post-syntactic operations. Head movement is the main syntactic operation determining morpheme order, while Morphological Merger (or Merger under Adjacency) is the main post-syntactic operation targeting affix order. Other post-syntactic operations that might affect morpheme order are Lowering and Local Dislocation (see previous section for details on these operations).

Head movement
Head movement is subject to the Head Movement Constraint, according to which when a head moves, it cannot skip an intervening head. Left adjunction and the Head Movement Constraint ensure that the Mirror Principle holds. The syntactic mechanism responsible for the effects of the Mirror Principle is head movement: heads raise and left-adjoin to higher heads. The general principle behind morpheme order is the Mirror Principle (first formulated by Baker 1985), according to which the linear order of morphemes is the mirror image of the hierarchy of syntactic projections. For example, in a plural noun like cat-s, the plural morpheme is higher in the hierarchy than the noun: [NumP -s[NP cat]]. The Mirror Principle dictates that the linear order of the plural morpheme with respect to the noun should be the mirror image of their hierarchy, namely the attested cat-s. Research subsequent to Baker (1985) has shown that there are some apparent violations to the Mirror Principle and that there are more operations involved in the determination of the final linear order of morphemes. Firstly, the left adjunction requirement of head movement has been relaxed, as right adjunction has been shown to be possible (Harley 2010 among others). Therefore, different heads can have a specification for right vs. left adjunction. We could imagine, for example, that there is a language in which head movement of the noun to the Number head is specified for right adjunction, rather than left adjunction which is the case in English. In that language, the predicted order of the noun and plural morpheme would then be s-cat. Notice, however, that right vs. left adjunction determines whether an affix will be realized as a prefix or a suffix: its closeness to the root will still reflect hierarchical order. Let's look at a hypothetical example to make this clear. Assuming that Tense is merged higher than Aspect, there are four possible orders for the tense and aspect morphemes with respect to the verb stem, once we allow for variation between left and right adjunction in head movement.

 * 1) Verb – Aspect – Tense
 * 2) Tense – Verb – Aspect
 * 3) Aspect-Verb-Tense
 * 4) Tense-Aspect-Verb

Crucially, though, the following two orders are predicted to be impossible.

 * 1) Aspect-Tense- Verb
 * 2) Verb – Tense – Aspect

These orders are the orders in which the tense morpheme is closer to the root than the aspect morpheme. Since Aspect is merged before Tense and morpheme order still reflects hierarchical order, such a configuration is predicted to be impossible.

Finally, certain post-syntactic operations can affect morpheme order. The best studied one is Morphological Merger or Merger Under Adjacency. This operation merges two adjacent terminal nodes into one morphological word. In other words, it allows for two heads which are adjacent to merge into one word without syntactic head movement – the operation is post-syntactic. This operation is doing the work of, say, affix lowering of the past tense morpheme in English in early generative syntax. For the operation to apply, what is crucial is that the morphemes to be merged are linearly adjacent.

Allomorphy
A core idea in deriving allomorphy in Distributed Morphology is underspecification. Verbal agreement in the present tense in English takes the form /-s/ in the 3rd person singular (‘ex. John eats bologna’), and /Ø/ in all other cases (‘I eat bologna;’ ‘They eat bologna’). The phonological exponents of the feature bundle terminal nodes in the syntactic tree are listed in the Exponent List. We can capture the fact that /-s/ has a much smaller distribution than /Ø/ using the following entries in the Exponent List:

 * 1) [3sg, present] ↔ /-s/
 * 2) [present] ↔ /Ø/

/-s/ will be inserted whenever its full featural specification is met. In all other cases in the present tense however, such as [2sg, present] or [1sg, present], /Ø/ will be inserted. This is a use of underspecification, the idea that there is a ‘default’ morpheme that is inserted in the general case, and more specific morphemes that are inserted in more specific cases, when their featural specifications are met. In the above example, /Ø/ is underspecified in the sense that it is not specified for person. Underspecification relies on the ‘Maximal Subset Condition.’

The Maximal Subset Condition states firstly that, for a given exponent E to be inserted into some feature bundle T, the featural specification on E must be a subset of the features on T. In this way, /-s/ is not a possible exponent for a feature bundle [2sg, present]. However, /Ø/ is a possible exponent for the feature bundle [3sg, present]. To ensure that /-s/ is chosen over /Ø/ for the bundle [3sg, present], the Maximal Subset Condition states secondly that, between two exponents E and F which both contain a subset of the features in a feature bundle T, the exponent that contains the maximal subset of the features in T will be selected.

Featural specification derives allomorphy in featural paradigms. Allomorphy in which different phonological exponents of the same feature bundle are idiosyncratically realized depending on the morphological or phonological environment is captured through contextual specification. An example of such allomorphy is the English plural marker. The typical English plural marker is /-z/, as in bulls. However, the plural of child is children, and the plural of cactus is cacti. Since the choice of the plural morpheme exponent is not related to features, but rather simply to the root it attaches to, the roots must be listed in the contextual specification:
 * 1) [-sg] ↔ /-z/
 * 2) [-sg] ↔ /-ren/ / _ {child}
 * 3) [-sg] ↔ /-i/ / _ {cact}

If the contextual specification of some item is met, it is inserted. Otherwise, insert the item that has no contextual specification. This is an example of the ‘elsewhere condition’. Note that the Maximal Subset Condition stated above is a formal instantiation of the elsewhere condition.

Contextual specification is also used to account for phonologically conditioned suppletive allomorphy, using phonological contexts. Thus, the singular indefinite marker in English can be stated as follows (we could also underspecify one of the allomorphs to express a default morpheme):

 * 1) [-def, +sg] ↔ an / _V
 * 2) [-def, +sg] ↔ a / _C

A prediction about suppletive allomorphy in Distributed Allomorphy is that, assuming exponents are inserted in a bottom-up fashion of the syntactic tree, it should always be ‘inward-looking.’ This means that contextual allomorphy can only involve the selection of an allomorph based on something lower in the tree. That is, the contextual environments must always involve items lower in the tree.

Morphologically conditioned allomorphy may involve suppletion (as in go-Ø/wen-t) or readjustment rules that apply in the context of certain Vocabulary items (as in buy-Ø/bough-t). Suppletion and readjustment rules apply to a terminal node and its associated Vocabulary item – unlike affixation, which combines this terminal node with a separate terminal node that has its own distinct (though potentially null) Vocabulary item. Suppletion arises from the competition of Vocabulary items for insertion into a terminal node. Competition involving root Vocabulary items is a topic of ongoing research, however. Early work in Distributed Morphology suggests that a single, abstract lexical root appears in the syntax; in this view, roots do not compete for insertion into root nodes, but exist in free variation, constrained only by semantic and pragmatic well-formedness. Subsequent research has suggested that the distribution of root Vocabulary items can be grammatically restricted (Embick 2000, Pfau 2000, Marantz 2013); this means that roots may be featurally restricted and thus subject to competition. The issue of whether root alternations such as buy-Ø/bough-t are better handled by suppletion or readjustment rules remains a topic of debate (Embick & Marantz 2008, Siddiqi 2009, Bonet & Harbour 2012).

The term suppletion refers to allomorphy of an open-class lexical item. For a large-scale study of suppletion in the context of comparative and superlative adjectival morphology within the general framework of Distributed Morphology, see Bobaljik (2012).

Containment hypothesis
The containment hypothesis is a theory under the framework of Distributed Morphology advanced by Bobaljik (2012) to account for the restrictions on the patterns of suppletion seen in language. It states:"'The representation of the superlative properly contains that of the comparative (in all languages that have a morphological superlative).'"Bobaljik argues that if a language has a superlative form, it must build off the comparative form. In other words, the superlative form and the bare adjective cannot be built off the same root to the exclusion of the comparative (a so-called *ABA pattern), because the comparative is necessarily contained within the superlative form. Thus, languages allow: The exclusion of the *ABA pattern means that there should theoretically exist no language with a pattern analogous to *good – better – goodest. AAB patterns (in which the superlative is suppletive but the comparative builds off the bare adjective) are theoretically possible as well but happen to be rare in the world's languages. Under the model of Distributed Morphology, the structure of a superlative would be [SPRL [CMPR [ADJ Adjective ] Comparative ] Superlative ]. Thus, the exponent of the comparative morpheme attaches to the bare adjective and the exponent of the superlative morpheme attaches to the comparative form (or replaces it in the suppletive cases). The following rules may be posited for Czech as an example: Rule 2 above states that the root BAD is suppleted in the environment of a comparative. By extension, the superlative form attaches the prefix nej- to horši and not to špatn- as the comparative is the only structure it can see. For Latin, in which both the comparative and the superlative are suppleted, the following rules may be posited: As an *ABA pattern would require the adjective to directly combine with the superlative node, it is theoretically impossible because of the intervening comparative node and is also unattested in the world's languages. Nevins (2015) supports the structure by arguing that the semantics of the superlative is dependent on that of the comparative. The comparative definition is contained within the superlative one and thus, the superlative must obligatorily subsume it in its structure.
 * 1) AAA: All three forms to be built off the same adjectival root
 * 2) ABB: The comparative and superlative are suppletive and thus built off a different root from that of the bare adjective
 * 3) ABC: The bare adjective, comparative, and superlative are all built off different roots
 * 1) √BAD → špatn-
 * 2) √BAD → hor- / ___ CMPR
 * 3) CMPR → -ší
 * 4) SPRL → nej-
 * 1) √GOOD → bon-
 * 2) √GOOD → mel- / ___ CMPR
 * 3) √GOOD → opt- / ___ SPRL
 * 4) CMPR → -ior
 * 5) SPRL → -imus
 * 1) Comparative: Y is more ADJ than X
 * 2) Superlative: For all X, Y is more ADJ than X

Morphological paradigms
In Distributed Morphology morphological paradigms are seen as epiphenomena. Irregular forms or gaps associated with paradigms are explained via competition for vocabulary insertion.

Meaning in Distributed Morphology
In Distributed Morphology there are two different types of meaning: the meaning associated with the bundles of features of the Lexicon and the idiosyncratic meaning listed in the Encyclopedia. It is believed that encyclopedic meaning is associated with lexical roots, rather than with complete phrases.

Allosemy
Allosemy – the phenomenon in which a single morpheme can have multiple semantic realizations – is handled the same way allomorphy is handled in DM: through contextual specification and the Elsewhere Condition. The Encyclopedic List contains the semantic meaning and context for each entry in the list. When a single morpheme is realized with multiple possible meanings, it has multiple entries in the Encyclopedic List. Thus, we can derive multiple possible meanings of ‘look’ with the following entries:  (note:   √  indicates square root, CAPS LOCK indicates semantic concept)

 * 1) √ look ←→ PHYSICAL APPEARANCE / [__]V Adj
 * 2) √ look ←→ NOTABLE GLANCE / [__]N
 * 3) √ look ←→ CONSULT A SOURCE / [ __ up]V
 * 4) √ look ←→ λ x, λ y, y looks at x / elsewhere

The contextual specifications for √ look will ensure that it has the appropriate interpretation given the context. The contextual specifications can only include various pieces of information, such as the word class of the item, the word class of a sister node, or even the specific morpheme of the sister node. However, it cannot contain any information about a non-sister node (although there will be some complications when a word intervenes between a word and the relevant sister node ex. “look the book up.”). And, just as in the Exponent List, an item in the Encyclopedic List can be specified as being inserted ‘elsewhere:’ in all contexts where the contextual specification of all other entries for that morpheme are not met. Besides expressing the notion of a ‘default’ semantic meaning of a given morpheme, having the elsewhere condition as an explicit contextual specification also allows for the expression of morphemes that do not have a default semantic meaning. For many English speakers, ‘cahoot’ only has an interpretation when preceded by ‘in’ (ex. John was in cahoots with the Russians.) The entry for ‘cahoot’ might have the following entry for such a context:

To express the fact that this is the only context where cahoot has a meaning, we simply posit that there is no entry for cahoot with the elsewhere condition for its contextual specification. Thus, by allowing for the omission of the elsewhere specification, we can express the fact that certain morphemes require a specific context for interpretation. We can use contextual specification to model other aspects of idiomatic meaning, namely, the fact that idiomatic meaning often does not hold across different syntactic configurations. The expression the shit hit the fan loses its idiomatic meaning if passivized: #the fan was hit by the shit. We can express this fact by specifying voice on the contextual specification for the verb:
 * 1) √ cahoot ←→ CONSPIRACY / [ in [ ___ -sg ] ]

 * 1) √ hit ←→BECOME AN EXTREME SITUATION / [voiceactive [ ____ fan]]

Finally, just as in allomorphy, the Maximal Subset Principle will play a part if the contextual specification for one alloseme is a subset of another alloseme. While the following entries for eat, meant to express two possible meanings for the phrase eat up (ex. John ate up the story vs. John ate up all his food), are not necessarily the exact specifications, they illustrate a hypothetical use of the Maximal Subset Condition:

The FINISH THE FOOD entry for √ eat will be inserted whenever eat up is followed by any food object. However, when eat up is followed by a non-food object, both entries’ contextual specifications will be met. However, the ENJOY entry is inserted, because more conditions in its contextual specification are met. Thus, the Maximal Subset Condition will choose the alloseme whose contextual specification is most completely satisfied, when there is competition among Encyclopedic List entries.
 * 1) √ eat ←→ ENJOY / [ ____ up] [non-food object]
 * 2) √ eat ←→ FINISH THE FOOD / [ ____ up]

Crosslinguistic variation
Since the model of Distributed Morphology consists of three lists (Formative List, Exponent List, Encyclopedia), we expect crosslinguistic variation to be located in all three of them. The feature bundles and their structure might be different from language to language (Formative List), which could affect both syntactic and post-syntactic operations. Vocabulary Items (Exponent List) can also be different crosslinguistically. Finally, the interpretation of roots (Encyclopedia) is also expected to show variation.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Distributed morphology


text:
Leo Hernández

Leonardo Jesús Hernández (born November 6, 1959), commonly known as Leo Hernandez (er-NAN-dez), is a Venezuelan former Major League Baseball third baseman and right-handed batter who played for the Baltimore Orioles (1982–83, 1985) and New York Yankees (1986). He is currently the hitting coach for DSL Mets1.

A native of Santa Lucía, Miranda State, Venezuela, Hernández was signed as an amateur free agent by the Los Angeles Dodgers in 1978. He hit .298 with 25 home runs and 91 runs batted in (RBI) with the San Antonio Missions in 1981. After batting .313 in 18 games with the Albuquerque Dukes to begin the 1982 season, he was traded from the Dodgers to the Orioles for José Morales on April 28, 1982. He made his debut with Baltimore on September 19, 1982. He was sent from the Orioles to the Yankees on December 16, 1985 to complete a transaction from five days prior on December 11 when Gary Roenicke was traded to New York for Rex Hudler and Rich Bordi.

In four-season career, Hernández hit .226 with seven home runs and 30 RBI in 85 games.

Hernandez was named as the hitting coach for the DSL Mets 1 of the New York Mets organization for the 2018 season.

title: Leo Hernández


text:
Sunflower (The Beach Boys album)

Sunflower is the 16th studio album by the American rock band the Beach Boys, released on August 31, 1970 on Reprise Records, their first for the label. It received favorable reviews, but sold poorly, reaching number 151 on the US record charts during a four-week stay and becoming the lowest-charting Beach Boys album to that point. "Add Some Music to Your Day" was the only single that charted in the US, peaking at number 64. In the UK, the album peaked at number 29.

Working titles for the album included Reverberation, Add Some Music, and The Fading Rock Group Revival. The recording sessions began in January 1969, and, after a year-long search for a new record contract, completed in July 1970. In contrast to 20/20, the record featured a strong group presence with significant writing contributions from all band members. About four dozen songs were written for the album, and the label rejected numerous revisions of its track listing before the band presented enough formidable material deemed satisfactory for release. It includes "This Whole World", one of Brian Wilson's most complex songs, "Forever", regarded as among Dennis Wilson's finest, and "Cool, Cool Water", a song that originated from the band's Smile sessions.

Fans generally consider Sunflower to be among the Beach Boys' finest post-Pet Sounds albums. It has appeared in several critics' and listeners' polls for the best albums of all time, including Rolling Stone's 2003 list of the "500 Greatest Albums of All Time". The track "All I Wanna Do" was later cited as one of the earliest examples of dream pop and chillwave. Many Sunflower outtakes and leftover songs later appeared on subsequent Beach Boys releases, including the follow-up Surf's Up (1971) and the compilation Feel Flows (2021).

January – May 1969
The Beach Boys were at their lowest popularity in the late 1960s, and their cultural standing was especially worsened by their public image, which remained incongruous with the "heavier" music of their peers. Released by Capitol Records in February 1969, the band's newest album 20/20 sold better than their previous, Friends (1968). However, they remained encumbered by an enormous debt that had been partly the result of two disastrous tours in 1968. Recording sessions for their next album began in January 1969 and were produced by the Beach Boys collectively and by Brian Wilson and Carl Wilson, Bruce Johnston, Al Jardine, and Dennis Wilson individually. Throughout the year, they recorded about four dozen studio tracks, with working titles for the new album including Reverberation, Sun Flower, and Add Some Music.

On April 12, the Beach Boys filed suit against Capitol for unpaid royalties and production duties in the amount of $2 million (equivalent to $ in ). In a press statement for this news, they also announced that they would be reviving their Brother Records imprint. On April 16, Capitol A&R director Karl Engemaan drafted a letter to band manager Nick Grillo indicating that the group and label were still interested in renewing their contract. Engemaan asked the group to be ready to deliver the new album (then known under the working titles The Fading Rock Group Revival or Reverberation) by May 1. Only seven of the ten tracks were completed by the deadline, and so the album was not delivered.

In 1969, Brian was increasingly known for his reclusiveness and eccentric behavior, which affected his reputation within the music industry. Grillo struggled to find another major label interested in signing the group, as he remembered, "Brian was notorious at that point" and label executives found the band too risky to sign. Since the Beach Boys' remained highly popular in the UK, Grillo attempted to secure a foreign, worldwide contract with a European company. During the first half of 1969, the Beach Boys continued to tour and increasingly engaged in benefit concerts held at hospitals and penitentiaries.

May – October 1969
On May 27, three days before the group embarked on a four-week tour of the UK and Europe, Brian told the music press that the group's funds were depleted to the point that they were considering filing for bankruptcy at the end of the year, which Disc & Music Echo called "stunning news" and a "tremendous shock on the American pop scene". In response, Grillo told reporters that Brian's comments were untrue and that he was "just putting you on". Brian said he hoped that the success of a forthcoming single, "Break Away", would mend the band's financial issues. He wrote the song with his father and ex-band manager Murry Wilson. It was released on June 16 with the B-side "Celebrate the News", a Dennis song, and peaked at number 63 in the US and number 6 in the UK. During that summer, Brian focused his attention on launching the Radiant Radish, a health food store in West Hollywood.

From May 30 to June 30, the Beach Boys toured with Paul Revere & the Raiders and Joe Hicks. Their Capitol contract expired on June 30 with one more album still due, after which the label deleted the Beach Boys' catalog from print, effectively cutting off their royalty flow. Studio recording resumed sporadically from July to October amid numerous promotional appearances.

The Beach Boys expected that, since they were considered a "legendary band" by this point, many other labels would approach them with contractual offers, but few did. Throughout June, the group met with the Berlin-based company Deutsche Grammophon, who were keen to sign the band, but Brian's remarks in the press ultimately thwarted the contract negotiations. Polydor, Deutsche's American affiliate, also refused to sign the group because the company did not like the band's music or the members personally. CBS and MGM also rejected the band.

In August, the Manson Family committed the Tate–LaBianca murders. According to Jon Parks, the band's tour manager, it was widely suspected in the Hollywood community that Charles Manson was responsible for the murders, and it had been known that Manson had been involved with the Beach Boys, causing the band to be viewed as pariahs for a time. That same month, Carl, Dennis, Mike Love, and Jardine sought a permanent replacement for Johnston. They approached Carl's brother-in-law Billy Hinsche, who declined the offer to focus on his college studies. In late 1969 (either reported as occurring in August or November), Murry Wilson sold the Sea of Tunes publishing company (including the rights to the majority of Brian's songs) to A&M Records' publishing division for $700,000 ($ in ).

November 1969 – July 1970
According to music historian Keith Badman, a breakthrough with Warner Bros. Records inspired "an immense sense of optimism" and a "remarkable amount of new material" recorded in November 1969. He stated that the group, "including a temporarily rejuvenated Brian", prepared material with "as many songwriting collaborators as possible" as they regarded "the forthcoming album as a make-or-break disc." On November 18, Warner executive Mo Ostin agreed to sign the band to their subsidiary Reprise Records. This deal was brokered by Van Dyke Parks, a former collaborator of Brian's who was then employed as a multimedia executive at Warner Music Group. The contract dealt by Reprise stipulated Brian's proactive involvement with the band in all albums. Another part of the deal was to revive Brother Records.

Shortly before signing with Reprise, the group accumulated enough material for a new album, now titled Sun Flower, and assembled a provisional 14-song acetate for the label. This collection was rejected. Warner Bros. executive Dave Berson remembered: "It seemed like an amazing thing to do, to say to the Beach Boys, 'This is not the kind of an album we want to pay for.' Contractually, we didn't have any right to reject albums." The project was then renamed Add Some Music with the subheading An Album Offering from the Beach Boys.

From November 25 to December 7, the band embarked on their seventh and final annual Thanksgiving tour of the US. Badman called it "a dismal farewell" to the decade, "with audience members struggling to reach even a couple of hundred at some shows", forcing most of the dates to be cancelled. In November, the Manson family were apprehended by police for the Tate–LaBianca murders, and the family's former connections with Dennis and the Beach Boys became the subject of media attention.

In February 1970, the band submitted a version of Add Some Music, but were once again rejected. The company felt that the proposed LP was not strong enough, although they decided to issue two of its tracks as a single, and asked the band to write and record a new batch of songs. From February to June, the group worked on overdubbing and rerecording some of their new material. Another revision was rejected in late May. The album's last two songs were finished in July: "Cool, Cool Water" and "It's About Time". After a July 21 overdubbing session for "Cool, Cool Water" with synthesizer player Bernie Krause, the third and final master of Sunflower was delivered to Warner.

"Slip On Through"
"Slip On Through" was written and sung by Dennis. Brian recalled, "It was a really dynamic song. Dennis, I was very proud of, because he really rocked and rolled on that one. Dennis did really interesting energetic things on that."

"This Whole World"
"This Whole World" was written by Brian, who said it was "inspired by my love of the world, how I love people, and how people should be free." Carl sings lead vocals while Brian sings in the background; their voices were double-tracked, as was common practice for many of their recordings. Brian's wife Marilyn and her sister Diane Rovell also contributed backing vocals. Brian later produced a version of the song for their group American Spring on the 1972 album Spring. As a solo artist, he returned to the song again for the album I Just Wasn't Made for These Times (1995).

"Add Some Music to Your Day"
"Add Some Music to Your Day" is a song with lyrics that are a celebration of music and its ubiquitous presence in daily life. It was written by Brian, Mike Love, and their friend Joe Knott, who was not a professional songwriter. Biographer Peter Ames Carlin wrote that the song was a "pop-folk tune" that "seemed like a perfect statement of purpose to lead off the band's second decade, given the tune's shared, round-robin style lead vocal, full background harmonies, and a plainspoken lyric".

"Got to Know the Woman"
"Got to Know the Woman" is an R&B song by Dennis that featured backing vocals from female session singers. White noted it was "one of the few Beach Boys songs that could honestly be called funky, its tinkly Dixieland piano a perfect foil for the coarse frivolity of the verses, which contain a boorish come-on to the object of one's lowest bump-and-grind fantasies.

"Deirdre"

"Deirdre" was credited to Bruce Johnston and Brian. Although Johnston has said that Brian only offered minor lyrical contributions and that he gave him a 50% share in the song as a favor, music historians Andrew G. Doe and John Tobler wrote in 2004 that the song had been "developed from a musical theme first used in 'We're Together Again,'" a 1968 composition credited to Brian Wilson and singer Ron Wilson (no relation). The song was named after the sister of one of Johnston's ex-girlfriends and was described by White as "a stroll-tempo devotional to an idealized, red-haired goddess; its stippled use of flutes plus the spacey filtering and compression techniques in the vocal mixes giving the track a celestial grandeur." In 1994, the song was sampled in the video game EarthBound.

"It's About Time"
"It's About Time" is an autobiographical rock song about the pitfalls of stardom and fame. It was primarily written by Dennis and outside writer Bob Burchman (a close friend of Dennis's second wife, Barbara), with co-writers Carl and Jardine adding various refinements during the recording process. Jardine said: "'It's About Time'" was Carl, Dennis and I [sic]. That's a good one. I like that production. That was mostly Dennis, and I just helped with the lyrics. Dennis and Carl did the track." White describes the song as a "commentary on rock indulgence and self-redemption, it was also a wishful scenario regarding both Brian and Dennis Wilson's sporadic personal troubles."

"Tears in the Morning"
"Tears in the Morning", written by Johnston, is a melodramatic song with strings, horns, and accordions. He performed the song during the group's live performances without accompaniment from his bandmates. A Disc & Echo writer reviewed of a concert in December 1970, "I must admit, it went down a storm, as the song benefited from the simple piano-voice presentation. But if you'd seen the expressions and heard the mutterings of the others in the group as they were ordered off-stage, it looked decidedly as though Bruce could find himself in the doghouse!"

"All I Wanna Do"
"All I Wanna Do" is a reverb-heavy B. Wilson–Love song that was originally attempted during the sessions for Friends. Retrospective commentators note the song as one of the earliest examples of chillwave, a microgenre that emerged in the 2000s. Discussing the song in 1995, Brian expressed: "That was one of those songs that had a nice chord pattern, but I think it was a boring song, and I thought it wasn't done right. I thought it should have been softer, with boxed guitars."

"Forever"
"Forever" was written by Dennis and his friend Gregg Jakobson. Brian praised the song as "the most harmonically beautiful thing I've ever heard. It's a rock and roll prayer." Love wrote that it "was Dennis's most acclaimed ballad, as it captured the raw emotion and bluesy sensibility that he brought to his vocals."

"Our Sweet Love"
"Our Sweet Love" is a reworking of a Friends outtake, "Our New Home". Brian commented: "I wrote that for Carl. After I wrote it I said, 'Hey, he could sing this good' so I gave it to Carl." According to Jardine, Brian refused to complete the song: "'Our Sweet Love' was one we finished with Brian. He just didn't want to finish it. So we kind of helped. We became completers of ideas."

"At My Window"
"At My Window" is a song by Brian and Jardine about the birds in Brian's backyard. It evolved from a rendition of "Raspberry, Strawberries", a Wilt Holt composition that was recorded by the Kingston Trio. The lyrics were written by Jardine. He commented: "That was probably one of my first efforts at involving the other guys. ... I have this dim recollection of writing it and Bruce singing it and Brian trying to speak French in it. It had a nice tone to it. We had an accordion player come in and play some beautiful things on it."

"Cool, Cool Water"
"Cool, Cool Water" evolved from the Smile track "Love to Say Dada" and was initially attempted during the 1967 sessions for Smiley Smile and Wild Honey. Lenny Waronker, then an A&R executive at Warner Music Group, heard the unfinished tape, and convinced Wilson to finish the track for Sunflower. Waronker was so impressed with the song's inspired simplicity, that he noted, "If I ever get the opportunity to produce Brian, I'd encourage him to do something that combined the vividness of 'Good Vibrations' with the non-commercial gentleness of 'Cool, Cool Water.'" Wilson later said: "In 'Cool, Cool Water' there's a chant I wish we hadn't used. It fits all right, but there's just something I don't think is quite right with it."

Leftover
Around three dozen songs were left off Sunflower. Each member of the band, including Brian, wrote numerous songs for the album. Brian alone had about a full-length album's worth of material that he had written by himself or with collaborators. Among these, "Where Is She?" is a Brian song that, according to band archivist Alan Boyd, resembles the Beatles' "She's Leaving Home". He said: "It's one of those times that the band's engineer Steve Desper recalls Brian simply getting an idea and he built this song from the ground up." "Take a Load Off Your Feet (Pete)", written by Brian and Jardine with schoolfriend Gary Winfrey, was included on the band's next album Surf's Up (1971). "Loop de Loop", written by Brian, Carl, and Jardine, was the latter's rearrangement of "Sail Plane Song", a 20/20 Brian/Carl outtake. In 1998, Jardine completed the song for the Endless Harmony Soundtrack. That compilation also included "Soulful Old Man Sunshine", a collaboration between Brian, Rick Henn (former leader of the Sunrays) and veteran arranger/producer Don Ralke.

"Lady" was written by Dennis and featured a string arrangement by keyboardist Daryl Dragon. The song was later considered for Surf's Up but passed for inclusion. Instead, in December 1970, Wilson released it as the B-side of the "Sound of Free" single, credited to "Dennis Wilson & Rumbo". "Good Time" was a collaboration between Brian and Jardine. In 1972, American Spring recorded versions of "Lady" (with the new title "Fallin' in Love") and "Good Time", the latter with new vocals overdubbed onto the Beach Boys' original backing track, for their album Spring. In 1977, the original Sunflower version of "Good Time" was placed on The Beach Boys Love You. In 1981, "San Miguel", a collaboration between Dennis and Gregg Jakobson, was released for the compilation Ten Years of Harmony. Jardine's "Susie Cincinnati" was released as the B-side of the "Add Some Music to Your Day" single and as a track on the 1976 album 15 Big Ones.

"I Just Got My Pay" contains a reworked melody from the 1964 outtake "All Dressed Up for School". "I'm Going Your Way" is a Dennis song about picking up hitchhikers and the sexual intercourse that might follow. "Carnival" (aka "Over the Waves") is a wordless vocal rendition of the standard "When You Are in Love (It's the Loveliest Night of the Year)". Also recorded was "When Girls Get Together" (released on the 1980 album Keepin' the Summer Alive), "Games Two Can Play" (released on the 1993 box set Good Vibrations: Thirty Years of the Beach Boys), "Back Home" (a version different from the one released on 15 Big Ones), a rehearsal of the Wild Honey song "Let the Wind Blow" (a song that was added to the band's setlists in this era), a solo piano demo of "Til I Die" with no vocals (later completed for Surf's Up), and a keyboard-only version of the Beatles' "You Never Give Me Your Money".

Packaging
The picture of the band on the front sleeve, featuring all six group members, was taken on the golf course at Dean Martin's Hidden Valley Ranch near Thousand Oaks in Ventura County, California. His son Ricci Martin, a friend of the band, took the photograph, also featuring Brian's daughter Wendy, Al's first son Matthew, Mike's children Hayleigh and Christian, and Carl's son Jonah. The inner gatefold spread on the original vinyl LP featured a series of photographs taken by designer/photographer Ed Thrasher at the Warner Bros. studio backlot.

Release
On February 23, 1970, "Add Some Music to Your Day" (B-side "Susie Cincinnati") was issued as lead single. Reprise was so excited about the record that they convinced retailers to carry more copies of it than that of any other artist on their roster ever. This made it the fastest-selling 45rpm record in the label's history. In March, Love was hospitalized after a three-week fast in which he ate only water, fruit juice, and yogurt – per the teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Brian replaced Love on the road during this period. He remembered: "When Mike Love was sick, I went with the group up to Seattle and Vancouver and the Northwest for some appearances. I was scared for a few minutes in the first show—it had been a while since I was in front of so many people. But after it started to cook I really got with it. It was the best three days of my life, I guess."

In April, "Add Some Music to Your Day" peaked at number 64 in the US during a five-week stay. DJs generally refused to play the song on the radio. According to band promoter Fred Vail, WFIL program director Jay Cook refused to play the song even after "telling me how great the Beach Boys are and how great Brian is." On April 17, the regular touring band, with Love, embarked on their first major tour of the year: a four-week trek of New Zealand and Australia. Supporting musicians for this tour included bassist Ed Carter and keyboardist Daryl Dragon. Murry Wilson also accompanied the group for this tour. Australian magazine Go Set reported that the band's next album was titled Cool Water and that Emerald Films would be creating a color film documentary of the tour, produced by the BBC's Steve Turner.

None of the album's other singles charted in the US or UK. Due to the poor response to the lead single, Warner suggested that the band refrain from calling the new album Add Some Music. In late June, Brian told Melody Maker that he was thinking about composing the soundtrack to an Andy Warhol film about a "gay surfer". On June 29, the second single "Slip On Through" (B-side "This Whole World") was issued in the US. Love wrote in his 2016 memoir that "Warner/Reprise was adrift on how to position Sunflower" and that the band had "thought about shortening [our] name to 'Beach' but concluded that was even worse."

On August 31, 1970, Sunflower was released in the US by Brother/Reprise. At the time, Brian told Rolling Stone: "I think we threw away at least one good song on [Sunflower]. Overall the record is good but it doesn't please me as much as I wish. ... But all in all, with some good airplay, the record should do very well." The album became the Beach Boys' worst-selling to date, reaching number 151 on US record charts during a four-week stay. Its failure was attributed partly to the fact that FM rock radio DJs considered the songs too conventional for their playlists. Biographer David Leaf wrote that the sales numbers were greatly disappointing for the Beach Boys, and that Brian was especially affected: "That, on top of the old, unhealed scars, was a hurt he didn't really begin to get over until 1976."

In the UK, Sunflower was released in November 1970, on Stateside Records, and peaked at number 29. A British trade magazine reported: "The album has been out less than one week, and it already is indicated to be their most popular recording in history, according to EMI Records." However, the album continued to sell poorly. Two more US singles, "Tears in the Morning" (B-side "It's About Time") and "Cool, Cool Water" (B-side "Forever"), followed on October 21, 1970, and March 1971, respectively. The former was released in November 1970 as their only UK single.

Contemporary reviews
Despite its poor sales, Sunflower received considerable critical acclaim in the US and the UK. In his review for Rolling Stone, Jim Miller called it "without doubt the best Beach Boys album in recent memory, a stylistically coherent tour de force", but mused: "It makes one wonder though whether anyone still listens to their music, or could give a shit about it." Following Miller's review, several other American magazines published favorable assessments, but as Badman writes, "The damage done by their non-appearance at [the] Monterey [Pop Festival] in 1967 seem[ed] irreversible among rock's opinion-formers."

The Village Voice's Robert Christgau said that as a coming-of-age record from the Beach Boys, Sunflower is "far more satisfying, I suspect, than Smile ever would have been". He added that the "same medium-honest sensibility" and Southern California ethos of their 1960s music remains, "only now they sing about broken marriages and the pleasure of life. Still a lot of fun too." In the English music press, the album was favorably compared by many critics to the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

Retrospective assessments and legacy
Fans generally regard Sunflower as the Beach Boys' finest post-Pet Sounds album. Pitchfork's Hefner Macauley deemed Sunflower "perhaps the strongest album they released post-Pet Sounds", while Chris Holmes of Popdose declared that "it stands as the definitive post-Pet Sounds Beach Boys album". Paste's Brian Chidester wrote that the album "was, in many respects, their Abbey Road—a lush production that signaled an end to the 1960s, the decade that gave them creative flight." Music theorist Daniel Harrison referred to Sunflower as the end of an experimental songwriting and production epoch for the group, one that had begun with 1967's Smiley Smile.

In his 2016 memoir, Love acknowledged that Sunflower was "damn good ... I also know that we have fans who cherish that album like none other." Wilson biographer Christian Matijas-Mecca stated that the album was the band's best effort since Pet Sounds and said that it "demonstrated, more than any other Beach Boys album before or since, that the six members could work democratically and deliver songs of real depth." Writing in The Beach Boys and the California Myth (1978), David Leaf summarized the work as "the first album that could come close to Pet Sounds on a production level, partly the result of studio engineer Steve Desper's fine work. The Beach Boys' harmonies were present in a way they hadn't been since Summer Days... and it was probably the truest group effort ever in that it was a showcase for all the individuals in the band." Peter Ames Carlin summarized:

"Despite the fact that they were emerging from the darkest years of their commercial and personal lives, the group had produced a collection of songs that projected their utopian fantasies into a modern, adult context. The band's individual voices were more distinct than ever, but the rainbow of personalities still folded together into a sound that was sweet, surprisingly sexy, and, as ever, musically inventive."

Sunflower was voted number 380 in Rolling Stone's "500 Greatest Albums of All Time" (2003), number 66 in The Guardian's "100 Best Albums Ever" (1997), and number 449 in Colin Larkin's All Time Top 1000 Albums (2000). In his review of the album's 2000 remaster, Keith Phipps from The A.V. Club said that Sunflower "features one of The Beach Boys' most coherent and lovely selections of music", with the best songs penned by Brian. The A.V. Club's Noel Murray wrote that the album could be interpreted as the band's response to "the wave of 'sunshine pop' and 'bubblegum' acts that had emerged over the previous couple of years, showing that no one could write and record slick, melodic, harmony-drenched songs quite like The Beach Boys."

Among the band members, Bruce Johnston later named Sunflower his favorite Beach Boys album. In the 1970s, he considered it to be the last true Beach Boys album because it was the last to feature Brian's input and active involvement. He nonetheless regretted the inclusion of his two songs, saying that "Tears in the Morning" was "too pop" and that "I wish I hadn't recorded ['Deirdre'] with the group." Conversely, Brian said that "Deirdre" was "one of my very favorites" and that "Tears in the Morning" was "lovely". For the album's 2000 liner notes, it was written that he "attributes the staying power of Sunflower ... to the 'spiritual love' of the music".

Original release
Note
 * The international version of the LP had "Cottonfields" as the first track on side one.
 * "Slip On Through" and "Got to Know the Woman" were originally credited to Dennis Wilson alone. Following a consultation with Wilson's estate and publishing, credits to Gregg Jakobson were officially added in 2021.
 * "It's About Time" was not originally co-credited to Carl Wilson. His credit was similarly added in 2021.

Reverberation
Midway through the recording of Sunflower, the band assembled an album for Capitol with some tracks that were later placed on Sunflower. It had the working title of Reverberation. Although a master tape (dated June 19, 1970) of songs was put together, this album was never released. Instead, they fulfilled their contract with the May 1970 album Live in London. All of the following tracks have seen an official release in later years.

Feel Flows
In 2021, expanded editions of Sunflower and Surf's Up were packaged within Feel Flows, a box set that includes session highlights, outtakes, and alternate mixes drawn from the two albums.

Personnel
Sourced from Craig Slowinski.

The Beach Boys
 * Al Jardine – second tenor/baritone vocals, guitar, finger snaps
 * Bruce Johnston – second tenor/first tenor vocals, bass, Rocksichord, piano, finger snaps
 * Mike Love – bass vocals; finger snaps
 * Brian Wilson – first tenor vocals, piano, Rocksichord, toy piano, organ, Moog synthesizer, finger snaps
 * Carl Wilson – second tenor vocals, electric guitar, acoustic guitar, Chamberlin, bass, Rocksichord, electric sitar, clavinet, finger snaps, additional percussion
 * Dennis Wilson – baritone/bass vocals, piano, guitar, drums, bongos, finger snaps, cowbell (uncertain credit), tambourine

Touring musicians
 * Ed Carter – guitar
 * Daryl Dragon – organ, vibraphone, tack piano, electric harpsichord, tubular bells, chimes, bass
 * Dennis Dragon – drums, congas, cowbells, timbales

Guest
 * Carnie Wilson – background voice on “At My Window”

Additional session musicians

 * Julia Tillman – backing vocals
 * Carolyn Willis – backing vocals
 * Edna Wright – backing vocals
 * David Cohen – guitar
 * Jerry Cole – guitar
 * Al Casey – guitar
 * Ronald Benson – guitar, mandolin
 * Mike Anthony – electric guitar
 * James Burton – acoustic guitar
 * Jack Conrad – guitar, bass
 * Ray Pohlman – six-string bass, bass
 * Joe Osborn – bass
 * Jimmy Bond – double bass, electric bass
 * Lyle Ritz – bass
 * Mort Klanfer – bass
 * Larry Knechtel – piano
 * Mike Melvoin – piano
 * Gene Estes – drums, chimes, glockenspiel, shaker
 * John Guerin – drums
 * Earl Palmer – drums
 * Hal Blaine – drums
 * Frank Capp – tambourine, tympani
 * Stan Levey – bass drum, cowbell
 * John Audino – trumpet
 * Tony Terran – trumpet
 * Carl Fortina – French concertina
 * Igor Horoshevsky – cello
 * Orville “Red” Rhodes – pedal steel guitar
 * Paul Beaver – Moog synthesizer
 * Jay Migliori – flute
 * David Sherr – flute
 * Bernard Krause – Moog synthesizer
 * Anatol Kaminsky – violin
 * Sam Freed – violin
 * Marvin Limonick – violin
 * David Frisina – violin
 * George Kast – violin
 * Nathan Kaproff – violin
 * Alexander Murray – violin
 * Dorothy Wade – violin
 * Spiro Stamos – violin
 * Roy Tanabe – violin
 * Shari Zippert – violin
 * Jay Rosen – violin
 * Virginia Majewski – viola
 * Robert Ostrowsky – viola
 * Alvin Dinkin – viola
 * Allan Harstian – viola
 * Edgar Lustgarten – cello
 * Abe Luboff – arco double bass

Technical and production staff
 * Stephen Desper – chief engineer and mixer, Moog synthesizer, wave effects, additional vocals (uncertain credit)
 * Bill Lazarus – additional engineer (“Got to Know the Woman”)
 * Doc Siegel – additional engineer (“Deirdre”, “All I Wanna Do”, “Forever”)
 * Jim Lockert – additional engineer (“Cool, Cool Water”)
 * Bill Halverson – additional engineer (“Cool, Cool Water”)
 * Ricci Martin – cover photo
 * Ed Thrasher – original art direction, innerspread photography

title: Sunflower (The Beach Boys album)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derogate

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Derogate.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

 * DicDef & Copyvio. Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:42, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete for same reasons. --bodnotbod 16:33, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the copyvio, but it should be in Wiktionary at most. Delete it or move it. Sid 17:01, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Move to Wiktionary. Alcarillo 19:55, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Treaty of Lambeth

The Treaty of Lambeth of 1217, also known as the Treaty of Kingston to distinguish it from the Treaty of Lambeth of 1212, was a peace treaty signed by Louis of France in September 1217 ending the campaign known as the First Barons' War to uphold the claim by Louis to the throne of England. When the campaign had begun, baronial enemies of the unpopular English king John had flocked to the French banner, but after John's death in 1216, and his replacement by a regent, William Marshal, on behalf of John's young son and successor, Henry III, many had switched sides. Subsequent defeats at Lincoln in May 1217 and at Dover and Sandwich in August 1217 forced Louis to negotiate.

Information on the treaties is based on three early documents but none of these is known to have been based on an original manuscript. It is known that negotiations were spread over several locations, opening on 6 September 1217 at Staines, because the royal court was nearby at Chertsey or possibly on 5 September on an island of the Thames near Kingston. Various dates for treaties are given by the sources including:
 * a treaty signed by Louis and Henry's regents on 11 September at Lambeth Palace (the archbishop of Canterbury's London house),
 * a Treaty of Kingston on 12 September,
 * papal ratification from the papal legate, who was encamped near Kingston on the 13 September and who issued his terms on 22 September at Merton.
 * a Treaty of Lambeth signed on 20 September ratifying the Kingston treaty.

Whatever documents were actually signed during September, Louis left England for the last time from Dover on 28 September. The principal provisions of the treaties were an amnesty for English rebels. It was also acknowledged that the French had failed to take possession of the entire Channel Islands and so possession of the individual islands was restored to the king of England. Louis undertook not to attack England again and agreed he had never been the legitimate king of England, in exchange for 10,000 marks. Scottish troops under Alexander II also withdrew.

There is no known surviving copy of the treaties.

title: Treaty of Lambeth


text:
Fred Manrique

Fred Eloy Manrique Reyes [man-RE-kay] (born November 5, 1961) is a former Major League Baseball second baseman who played for the Toronto Blue Jays (1981, 1984), Montreal Expos (1985), St. Louis Cardinals (1986), Chicago White Sox (1987–89), Texas Rangers (1989), Minnesota Twins (1990) and Oakland Athletics (1991). He batted and threw right-handed.

A native of Bolívar State, Venezuela, and the youngest of 10 children, the well-traveled Manrique was a solid second baseman with a good range and a strong throwing arm that allowed him to play deep and steal hits. He also was an above-average shortstop. When he debuted in the Major Leagues in 1981 as a 19-year-old, he was the youngest player in the Major Leagues.

In a nine-year career, Manrique was a .254 hitter with 20 home runs and 151 RBI in 498 games.

title: Fred Manrique