The discuss about human resource management of small and medium construction enterprises_百度文库
两大类热门资源免费畅读
续费一年阅读会员，立省24元！
The discuss about human resource management of small and medium construction enterprises
上传于|0|0|暂无简介
阅读已结束，如果下载本文需要使用1下载券
想免费下载本文？
定制HR最喜欢的简历
下载文档到电脑，查找使用更方便
还剩1页未读，继续阅读
定制HR最喜欢的简历
你可能喜欢(220.177.198.53)
Example of HTML Menu
Sundar S. Binil*Asst Professor, (SG)-Civil Engineering Department, Saveetha School of Engineering, Saveetha University, Chennai, IndiaOnline published on 26 May, 2016.Construction Sectoris very essential and an integral part of infrastructure development which gives tremendous boost to our country's economy. The construction industry hasregistered enormousgrowth worldwide in recent years. Safety plays vital role in the construction sectors which are widely used in the above sector. This project discuss about safety culture and safety climate. Safety Culture is the enduring value and priority placed on workers and public safety by everyone in every group at every level of an organization. Safety climate is a theoretical term used by safety and personnel professionals to describe the sum of employee perceptions regarding overall safety within the workplace.. The methodology is briefly explained which includes various steps such as review of literature, data collection, SPSS software study, result analysis and developing model for Safety Culture. A questionnaire is prepared based on many criteria such as accidents, safety in emergency period, safety information, workplace hazards, workplace risks, workplace health & safety, welfare and time regulations and finally about review. The Questionnaire prepared is circulated tomany construction companies. Data are primarilycollected to provideinformation regarding a specific topic. The purpose of data collection is to obtain information to keep on record, to make decisions about important issues, or to pass information on to others. SPSS softwarestudy is done. SPSS is a software package used for statistical analysis. Here descriptive statistics which includes Cross tabulation, Frequencies, Explore and Descriptive Ratio Statistics are done using the SPSS software and results are obtained. The results for the analysis are graphically represented in pie charts and bar charts for various criteria classified in questionnaire. The final conclusion is arrived based on the results and the model of safety culture for construction industries in Chennai has been developedsafety culture, safety climate, SPSS, descriptive statistics.
268,436,576 visitor(s) since 30th May, 2005.
All rights reserved. Site designed and maintained by .
Note: Please use Internet Explorer (6.0 or above). Some functionalities may not work in other browsers.This service is more advanced with JavaScript available, learn more at http://activatejavascript.org
All there is to know about the alls-constructionMichael T. PutnamMarjo van KoppenOriginal PaperDOI:
10.-011-9044-1Putnam, M.T. & van Koppen, M. J Comp German Linguistics (. doi:10.-011-9044-1
This paper pursues a minimalist analysis of the s-inflection that appears as an enclitic on the all in certain dialects of Midwestern American E a construction called the alls-construction by Putnam & van Koppen . Following Putnam & van Koppen, we demonstrate that the inter-clausal aspects of the alls-construction can be accounted for via Probe-Goal (Agree) relations similar in many respects to the generative treatment of C(omplementizer)-agreement in West Germanic languages and dialects. Regarding the intra-clausal dimension of this construction, based on the discussion of Den Dikken et al. , we demonstrate that the alls-construction is most accurately described as a Type-A specificational pseudocleft. The analysis of the alls-construction developed here unites both the inter- and intra-clausal aspects of this construction in a parsimonious way.Agree Probe-Goal relations Pseudoclefts C(omplementizer)-agreement Midwestern American English (MAE) CP-layer Ackema, P., and A. Neeleman. 2005. Beyond morphology, Interface conditions on word formations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Akmajian, A. 1979. Aspects of the grammar of focus in English. New York: Garland.Bennis, H., and L. Haegeman. 1984. On the status of agreement and relative clauses in West Flemish. In Sentential complementation. Proceedings of the international conference held at UFSAL, ed. W. de Geest and Y. Putseys. Dordrecht: Foris.Bernstein, J. et al. 2008. One form for different features: Micro-syntactic variation in English. Paper/Handout. Linguistic Society of America.Bobaljik, J.D. 1995. Morphosyntax: the syntax of verbal inflection. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Bobaljik, J.D. 2001. ‘Agreement domains’. Handout of a talk given at Console X, Leiden, 7–9 December, 2001.Bobaljik, J.D., and H. Thráinsson. 1998. Two heads aren’t always better than one. Syntax 1(1): 37–71.Bo?kovi?, ?. 2007. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 589–64.Carstens, V. 2002. Rethinking complementizer agreement: Agree with a case-checked Goal. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3): 393–412.Carter, M. 1992. LinguistList 3.131. All’s I know.
(accessed August 26, 2008).Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. R. Martin et al. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Chomsky, N. 2002. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers 22.Collins, P. 1991. Pseudo-cleft and cleft constructions: A thematic and informational interpretation. Linguistics 29: 481–519.Corbett, G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Craenenbroeck, J. van & M. van Koppen. 2002. The locality of agreement and the CP-domain. Handout, GLOW 2002, Amsterdam.den Dikken, M., A. Meinunger, and C. Wilder. 2000. Pseudoclefts and ellipsis. Studia Linguistica 54: 41–89.Fortuny, J. 2008. The emergence of order in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Grohmann, K. 2000. Prolific peripheries: a radical view from the left. Ann Arbor: ProQuest UMI.Grohmann, K. 2003. Prolific domains: on the anti-locality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Haegeman, L. 1992. Theory and description in generative syntax, a case study in West Flemish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Haider, H. 1988. Matching projections. In Constituent structure: papers from the 1987 GLOW conference, ed. A. Cardinaletti, G. Cinque, and G. Giusti, 101–122. Dordrecht: Foris.Herrmann, T. 2003. Relative clauses in dialects of English: a typological approach. Ph.D. dissertation, Albert-Ludwigs-Universit?t, Freiburg.Higgins F.R. 1979. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. Garland Press.Hoekstra, E. & C. Smits. 1999. Everything you always wanted to know about complementizer agreement. In: Proceedings of WECOL 19.Kayne, R. 1995. The Antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Koppen, M. van. 2005. One probe-two goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden.Law, P. 1991. Verb-movement, expletive replacement, and head government. The Linguistic Review 8: 253–285.Mustanoja, T. 1960. A middle English syntax. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki XXIII. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Pesetsky, D., and E. Torrego. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Ken Hale: a life in language, ed. M. Kenstowicz, 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Polinsky, M., and E. Potsdam. 2001. Long distance agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19(3): 583–646.Putnam, M., and M. van Koppen. 2009. C-agreement or something close to it: the alls-construction. In Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax, ed. A. Alexiadou, J. Hankamer, T. McFadden, J. Nuger, and F. Sch?fer, 41–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. L.Haegeman (ed). Elements of Grammar. Kluwer. 281-337.Rizzi, L. 1999. On the Position "Int(errogative)" in the Left Periphery of the Clause. Manuscript, University of Sienna.Roussou, A. 2002. C, T, and subject: That-t phenomena revisited. Lingua 112: 13–52.Teaman, B. 1992. LinguistList Re: 3.131. All’s I know.
(accessed August 26, 2008).Thompson, S., and A. Mulac. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Approaches to grammaticalization, ed. E. Traugott and B. Heine, 313–339. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Williams, E. 1983. Syntactic and semantic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 6: 423–446.Zwart, J-W. 1993. Dutch syntax: A minimalist approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.Zwart, J.-W. 1997. A minimalist approach to the syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Michael T. Putnam1Marjo van Koppen21.Department of Germanic & Slavic, Languages & LiteraturesThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA2.Department of Dutch Language & CultureUtrecht University-Uil-OTSUtrechtNetherlands
We use cookies to improve your experience with our site.