句法学第五章约束理论翻译
约束理论_精品文档
约束理论1. 简介约束理论是一种用于描述行为决策和行为变化的理论，特别是在面临不同约束条件时人们的行为。
它涉及到个体、群体、组织以及社会层面的行为和决策，并通过对约束条件的理解来解释为什么人们行为会在不同的情境下产生不同的变化。
在实践中，约束理论可以应用于各种领域，如经济学、社会学、心理学和管理学等。
2. 约束的类型约束可以分为两种类型：内部约束和外部约束。
2.1 内部约束内部约束是指个体内部的心理因素和信念，它们对个体的行为产生影响。
例如，个体的价值观、信仰体系、态度和自我概念都属于内部约束的范畴。
内部约束可以影响个体的决策过程、行为选择和行为目标。
2.2 外部约束外部约束是指来自环境、组织和社会的外部因素，对个体行为产生影响。
这些外部因素可以包括法律、规章制度、经济条件、社会期望和文化习俗等。
外部约束可以影响个体的选择范围、行为方式和行为动机。
3. 约束的作用约束理论认为，约束可以对个体的行为产生多重作用。
3.1 行为引导约束可以引导和影响个体的行为。
比如，法律和规章制度可以规范个体的行为，促使其遵守社会规范和道德准则。
3.2 行为限制约束也可以限制个体的行为。
当个体面临多种约束条件时，它们可能会感到受限，选择范围减少，从而影响其行为选择。
3.3 行为变化个体在不同的约束条件下会产生行为的变化。
例如，当个体面临经济约束时，他们可能会更加谨慎地消费。
当个体面临社会约束时，他们可能会更加关注他人的评价，并进行自我调整。
4. 约束与自由的平衡约束理论认为，约束和自由不是完全相互排斥的，而是需要平衡的。
适当的约束可以保护个体免受不合理行为的伤害，并维持社会秩序和稳定。
然而，过度的约束可能会限制个体的创造力和自主性，影响其个人发展和社会进步。
5. 应用案例5.1 经济领域约束理论在经济领域的应用非常广泛。
例如，对于消费者行为研究，可以考虑个体面临的经济约束以及其对消费决策的影响。
另外，在企业决策中，也可以利用约束理论来理解组织内外部约束对企业行为和策略选择的影响。
精品约束理论教程
TOC教程第一篇 TOC概述1. TOC 释义TOC是英文Theory of Constraint的首字母缩写，中文译作"约束理论"。
简单来讲，TOC就是关于进行改进和如何最好地实施这些改进的一套管理理念和管理原则，可以帮助企业识别出在实现目标的过程中存在着哪些制约因素──TOC称之为"约束"，并进一步指出如何实施必要的改进来一一消除这些约束，从而更有效地实现企业目标。
此过程如图1－1所示。
图1－1TOC是关于识别和消除"约束"的管理理念和管理原则TOC由三部分组成，结构如图1－2所示：图1－2TOC的组成结构图①一套解决约束的流程。
用来逻辑地、系统地回答以下为任何企业改进过程所必然提出的三个问题：改进什么？（Whattochange?）、改成什么样子？（Whattochangeto?）以及怎样使改进得以实现？（Howtocausethechange?）②一套日常管理工具。
可用来大大提高管理效能，例如：如何有效沟通、如何双赢地解决冲突、如何团队协作、如何进行权利分配等。
这些日常管理的顺利开展，是成功解决约束的必备条件和基础性工作。
鉴于这方面的内容在其他管理理论中也多有涉及，本文则不再过多展开论述，而把重点放在TOC理论不同于其他理论的方面。
③把TOC应用到具体领域的具有创新性的实证方案。
这些领域涉及生产、分销、营销和销售、项目管理和企业方向的设定等等。
2.TOC的形成历史和发展现状约束理论根植于OPT（原指最优生产时刻表：Optimized Production Timetables,后指最优生产技术：Optimized Production Technology）。
OPT是Goldratt博士和其他三个以色列籍合作者创立的，他们在1979年下半年把它带到美国，成立了CreativeOutput公司。
接下去的七年中，OPT有关软件得到发展，同时OPT管理理念和规则（如"鼓－缓冲器－绳子"的计划、控制系统）成熟起来。
约束理论
约束理论如果没有约束，系统的产出将是无限的。
现实当中任何系统都不能无限地产出，所以，任何系统都存在着一个或者多个约束。
而任何的企业和组织均可视为系统，因此，要想提高企业和组织的产出，必须尽可能打破各种约束。
任何系统都可以想象成由一连串的环构成，环环相扣，整个系统的强度就取决于其中最弱的一环。
相同的道理，我们也可以将企业视为一条链条，其中的每一个部门都是链条的一环。
如果企业想要达成预期的目标，必须从最弱的环节——瓶颈或约束的环节——大力改进，才可能得到显著的成效。
换句话说，哪个环节约束着企业达成目标，就应该从克服这个约束环节来进行改革。
以色列物理学家Eliyahu M. Goldratt博士创立了一种基于―约束‖的管理理论，命名为约束理论(Theory of Constraints)，简称TOC。
1984年，Goldratt博士出版了第一本以小说体写成的TOC专著《目标》，描述了一位厂长应用约束理论使工厂在短时间内转亏为盈的故事。
因为书中描述的问题在很多企业普遍存在，一时间，该书在全球畅销，销售200多万册，TOC从此非常流行。
约束理论在美国企业界得到很多应用，在20世纪90年代逐渐形成完善的管理体系。
美国生产及库存管理协会(American Product and Inventory Control Society, APICS)非常关注TOC，称其为―约束管理(Constraint Management)‖，并专门成立了约束管理研究小组。
该小组认为：TOC是一套管理理念与管理工具的结合，他把企业在实现其目标的过程中现存的或潜伏的制约因素称为―约束‖，通过逐个识别和消除这些约束，使得企业的改进方向和改进策略明确化，从而达到帮助企业更有效地实现其目标的目的。
关于TOC的这组报道，已经准备了好长时间，但编者一直有所顾忌，因为想要以通俗生动的文字、在比较简短的篇幅中把TOC讲透，实在太难。
但无论如何，我们的很多读者如经理人、企业家、管理理论研究员，都需要了解TOC，所以，我们还是有必要推出这组报道。
约束理论
第五步：返回第一步
识别一个约束后，企业要调整一系列政策 经过一轮循环后，可能产生新的瓶颈 回到步骤一，改善新的瓶颈 不要让人的惰性成为新的瓶颈
企业的目标：
现在和将来都赚钱 To Make Money Now and in the Future
所有的活动服从于目标
企业的运作是一个整体系统，部门的目标必须服 从企业的整体目标
在设定企业目标以后，应该对企业的一切活动和 行为准则进行重新审视，即重新评价这些活动或 准则在多大程度上促进或者妨碍了这一目标的实 现
企业的所有活动都应该围绕企业的目标进行，与 企业目标无关的活动应尽量减少或禁止
企业的财务指标—评价企业是否赚钱
净利润（Net Profit，简称NP） 投资收益率（Return on Investment，简称
D
7
时间 50
120
缓冲
根据到期日下达生产50个的工作令
根据到期日和时间缓冲、第三步后产能仍不满足， 考虑增加产能，如增加设备、安排外协加 工等
一般人常将第二步与第四步等同起来，但 在提高之前先开发是非常重要的
一般情况下第二、三步可以满足需求，不 要轻易增加投资
第三步：服从
这是比较困难的一个步骤，因为必须调整 企业政策，文化，考核指标，……
非约束资源的安排服从于约束资源的需要 利用率和效率不是非约束资源的考核指标 这一步常常被忽略，因而丢掉了TOC的主
要效益
第三步：服从（续）
原料 4
80
原料
1
60
5
75
2
3
80
70
需求:
8 每周50个
95
约束理论的核心观念是任何一个现实的系统至少 存在一个约束，比如制造资源
约束理论ToCV1.0
蓝大叔 · 知其然
Uncle Blues Know-how
目标
焦点 饥饿
过重
解决方法 吃
不吃
要健康
需求 不饿
不超重
想要 吃
不得不来回震荡......
不吃
蓝大叔 · 知其然
Uncle Blues Know-how
蓝大叔 · 知其然
Uncle Blues Know-how
约束理论
Theory of Constraints
《蓝大叔知其然》之 006
By: Blues Knowhow Date : 2020-03-24
蓝大叔 · 知其然
Uncle Blues Know-how
释义
Discription
商业组织是一个复杂网络（人、 设备、方法、材料和管理）
目的是帮助企业持续地达成目标 核心内容是企业要聚焦在几个影响业绩的“限制”上，这样的限
制不会多但至少有一个；如果一个都没有，则说明这个企业没有 目标
蓝大叔 · 知其然
Uncle Blues Know-how
5.Repeat 如约束被破 坏，返回步 骤1，但不允 许惯性导致
系统约束
4.Elevate 评估各种备 选方案，提 升系统约束
辩证的
震荡 两难
消除 超越
教导的
蓝大叔 · 知其然
Uncle Blues Know-how
目标
成功要素
成功要素
必要条件 必要条件 必要条件
1. IO地图
3. 云Cloud
目标
现在需求
约束理论及其解释力
约束理论及其解释力作者：肖镧来源：《老区建设》2010年第18期[提要]约束理论是组成乔姆斯基管约论的一个子系统，其任务是处理名词词组之间的照应关系。
本文从其三大原则及句法理论出发，以英语汉语中的部分照应现象为例，探讨约束理论的解释力。
[关键词]约束理论；照应关系；解释力[作者简介]肖镧(1979～)，女，江西财经大学外国语学院讲师。
(江西南昌330013)约束理论(BT)是组成乔姆斯基管约论(u G)的一个子系统。
管约论的形成标志着转换生成语法的研究重心已从规则系统转移到原则系统，是转换生成语法在历史上的重大转折。
自该理论建立以来，中外学者进行了介绍或评价。
国内已有学者把该理论与汉语语法研究结合起来，对该理论对汉语的解释力作了有益的探讨。
约束理论的任务是处理名词词组之间的照应关系。
名词词组包括：(a)照应词；(b)代名词；(c)指称词。
该理论规定：(a)照应词在辖域内受约束；(b)代名词在辖域内是自由的；(c)指称词在任何时候都是自由的。
管约论(GB Theory)是乔姆斯基转换生成语法管辖与约束理论(The Theory of Govern-ment and Binding)的简称。
它由七个子系统构成，其中的约束理论用来处理名词词组之间的照应关系。
不同的照应关系通过加下标表达出来(下标可以是任意选择的一个数字或字母)。
乔姆斯基把名词词组分为三类：(i)照应词(anaphors)，包括反身代词、相互代词；(ii)代名词(pronominals)，如he，her等；(iii)指称词(R2ex2pressions)，如Jane，the man等。
在此基础上，乔姆斯基提出了三条约束原则：(A)照应词在辖域内受约束(bound)；(B)代名词在辖域内是自由的(free)；(c)指称词在任何时候都是自由的。
Chomsky借用逻辑术语“约束”表示照应关系。
“受约束”是指“受论元(argument)约束”，即被一个在论元位置(主语、宾语等的位置)上的成分所统制(c2command)，而且与其共指。
句法学第五章约束理论翻译
第五章约束理论学习目标读完第五章后，应该掌握以下的理念和技能：1.识别和区分指称语，代词和照应语。
2.理解先行词和照应语。
3.区分约束与同标。
4.明确并将约束理论应用于树形结构。
5.将A 、B、C三原则用于树形结构。
6.明确约束领域。
0.简介我们暂且不看句法学，先看一些和英语名词词组意思相关的一些事实。
一些名词词组从它们所处的语境和篇章中得到意义。
例如，在句1）中Felicia这个词从它所在句子的情景语境中获得意义：1）Felicia wrote a fine paper on Zapotec.（Felicia曾写过一篇与萨巴特克语言相关的好文章。
）如果在现实世界中听见这句话，你可以从说话者那里知晓谁是Felicia，有一个人叫这个名字，并且被牵涉进这个说话语境当中。
尽管你不知道她是否写了和萨巴特克相关的文章，但从这个句子你可以得出Felicia在现实世界中写过一些文章，并且这些文章是有关萨巴特克的。
这预示了世界上有这样的文章，并且这一文章是与萨巴特克语言相关的好文章的代名词。
“一篇与萨巴特克语言相关的好文章”和“Felicia”都从现实世界中的那些指称事物获得应有之意。
这种名词词组就叫做指称语(或者R-expression).2）指称语：从现实世界中所指事物中获得意义的名词词组。
多数名词词组是指称语。
但这并不意味着所有名词词组都是指称语。
如下句中“herself”这个词组：3）Heidi bopped herself on the head with a zucchini.（Heidi 用西葫芦在自己脑袋上轻轻敲了一下。
）在这个句子中Heidi是个指称词并从语境中获得意义，而herself必须回指Heidi，它不会指Arthur,，Miriam，或者Andrea。
只有从前面一个词中才能获得意义（在Heidi这个例子中）。
像这种词组，必须从该句中另一个名词词组中获得意义的名词词组叫做‘回指词’（anaphor）（像我们在第一章看到的那样）。
约束理论及其应用课件
OPT的一些重要概念(续)
• OPT理论对于“瓶颈”的定义描述为：对于系统中的n件 资源：X1、X2、……Xn，实际产出能力、系统外部需
求量分别为C1～Cn、MR1～MRn。某些资源之间存在互
– MRPII是按预先制定的提前期，用无限能力计划法 编制作业计划。但当生产提前期与实际情况出入较 大时，所得的作业计划就脱离实际难以实施
– OPT先安排瓶颈工序上加工的关键件的生产进度计 划，以瓶颈工序为基准，把瓶颈工序之前、之间、 之后的工序分别按拉动、工艺顺序、推动的方式排 定，并进行优化，接下来编制非关键件的作业计划
• OPT实施的关键是制定计划后的落实、工作绩效的考评
– 在落实计划过程中，传统的许多做法是有害的，如传统的成本 会计的考核体系
– OPT的考核体系对瓶颈与非瓶颈是分别对待的，认为对非瓶颈 的考核不应以生产量为依据，而应以它生产的有效的产品量来 考核
OPT的计划与控制─DBR系统
• OPT的计划与控制步骤 • “鼓”、“缓冲器”和“绳子”
OPT的计划与控制步骤
• OPT认为，一个企业的计划与控制的目 标就是寻求顾客需求与企业能力的最佳 配合，一旦一个被控制的工序(即瓶颈)建 立了一个动态的平衡，其余的工序应相 继地与这一被控制的工序同步。OPT的 计划与控制是通过DBR系统实现的。即“ 鼓(Drum)”、“缓冲器(Buffer)”和“绳子 (Rope)”系统
加工批量则是从资源类型的角度来考虑的 – 同一种工件在瓶颈资源和非瓶颈资源上加工时可以
采用不同的加工批量，在不同的工序间传送时可以 采用不同的转运批量，其大小根据实际需要动态决 定 – 以上两条是涉及物流的
约束理论
OPT 有9 条基本原则，这些原则在约束理论中得 应用。它们是：
♦ 1。重要的是平衡物流，不是平衡能力； ♦ 2。非瓶颈资源的利用率是由系统的其它约束条件决定的，而不是由其本 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
♦ ♦ ♦
身能力决定的； 3。让一项资源充分开动运转起来同使该项资源带来效益不是同一一个涵 义； 4。瓶颈资源损失一小时相当于整个系统损失一小时，而且是无法补救的； 5 5。想方设法在非瓶颈资源上节约下一小时以提高生产率只是一种幻想， 非瓶颈资源不应满负荷工作； 6。产量和库存量是由瓶颈资源决定的；为保证瓶颈资源负荷饱满并保证 企业的产出，在瓶颈工序和总装配线前应有供缓冲用的物料储备。瓶颈工 序前可用拉式作业，其后可用推式作业。 7。传送批量可以不等于甚至多数情况是不应等于加工批量； 8。批量是根据实际情况动态变化的，而不是固定不变的；加工批量应当 是一个变数； 9。只有同时考虑到系统所有的约束条件后才能决定加工件计划进度的优 先级。提前期只是排进度的结果。
约束管理
杨连军 2004年3月30日
约束管理课程
什么是TOC?
♦ TOC是Theory of Constraints的简称，中文
译为“约束理论”。美国生产及库存管 理 协 会 (APICS) 又 称 它 为 约 束 管 理 (Constraint Management)。
约束管理课程
TOC是怎么发展出来？
约束管理课程
TOC理论的内容是什么？
♦ TOC认为，任何系统至少存在着一个约束，否则它就
可能有无限的产出。因此要提高一个系统 (任何企业或 组织均可视为一个系统)的产出，必须要打破系统的约 束。任何系统可以想像成由一连串的环所构成，环与 环相扣，这个系统的强度就取决于其最弱的一环，而 不是其最强的一环。相同的道理，我们也可以将我们 的企业或机构视为一条链条，每一个部门是这个链条 其中的一环。如果我们想达成预期的目标，我们必须 从最弱的一环，也就是从瓶颈(或约束)的一环下手，才 可得到显著的改善。换句话说，如果这个约束决定一 个企业或组织达成目标的速率，我们必须从克服该约 束着手，才可以更快速的步伐在短时间内显著地提高 系统的产出。
约束理论简介(1)
约束理论简介(1)TOC(Theory of Constraints)约束理论简介约束理论（TheoryofConstraints，简称TOC）是戈德拉特博士（Dr.EliyahuM.Goldratt）在他的优化生产技术（OptimizedProductionTechnology，简称OPT）的基础上发展起来的。
戈德拉特最初开发的OPT软件用了有限能力排程、车间控制和决策支持，由一家叫CreativeOutput公司经销。
由于戈德拉特把重点从经销软件转移到强调管理哲理和培训教育上，他被迫离开了这家公司。
因此，当前存在早期以OPT命名的商品软件和戈德拉特博士进一步发展的OPT哲理或TOC，不要混淆。
OPT有9条基本原则，这些原则在约束理论中得应用。
它们是：1.重要的是平衡物流，不是平衡能力；2.非瓶颈资源的利用率是由系统的其它约束条件决定的，而不是由其本身能力决定的；3.让一项资源充分开动运转起来同使该项资源带来效益不是同一一个涵义；4.瓶颈资源损失一小时相当于整个系统损失一小时，而且是无法补救的；5.想方设法在非瓶颈资源上节约下一小时以提高生产率只是一种幻想，非瓶颈资源不应满负荷工作；6.产量和库存量是由瓶颈资源决定的；为保证瓶颈资源负荷饱满并保证企业的产出，在瓶颈工序和总装配线前应有供缓冲用的物料储备。
瓶颈工序前可用拉式作业，其后可用推式作业。
7.传送批量可以不等于甚至多数情况是不应等于加工批量；8.批量是根据实际情况动态变化的，而不是固定不变的；加工批量应当是一个变数；9.只有同时考虑到系统所有的约束条件后才能决定加工件计划进度的优先级。
提前期只是排进度的结果。
TOC是在OPT的基础上发展起来的，它是一种在能力管理和现场作业管理方面的哲理，把重点放在瓶颈工序上，保证瓶颈工序不发生停工待料．提高瓶颈工作中心的利用率，从而得到最大的有效产出。
根据不同的产品结构类型、工艺流程和物料流动的总体请况，设定管理的控制点。
第五、六章句法学(Syntax)课件
•1.The traditional approach
Categories （范畴） Category refers to a group of linguistic items which fulfill the same or similar functions in a particular language such as a sentence, a noun phrase or a verb.
They can substitute for each other without violating syntactic rules, because they share the same syntactic features.
2.2 Immediate constituent analysis
Examples
• E.g.: The smiles. • man • boy • He went there . • yesterday • last week • after he finished the exam • All these words are said to be in a paradigmatic relation.
The coordinate rule
ቤተ መጻሕፍቲ ባይዱ
2. The structural approach
The structural approach to the analysis of language was started by the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure in the beginning of the 20th century. In a sense, all the linguistic theories after him are structural in that they all regard linguistic units as interrelated with each other in a structure, not as isolated bits.
约束理论.doc
约束理论（Theory of Constraints, TOC）是以色列物理学家、企业管理顾问戈德拉特博士(Dr．Eliyahu M．Goldratt)在他开创的优化生产技术(Optimized Production Technology，OPT)基础上发展起来的管理哲理，该理论提出了在制造业经营生产活动中定义和消除制约因素的一些规范化方法，以支持连续改进(Continuous Improvement)。
同时TOC也是对MRPⅡ和JIT 在观念和方法上的发展。
戈德拉特创立约束理论的目的是想找出各种条件下生产的内在规律，寻求一种分析经营生产问题的科学逻辑思维方式和解决问题的有效方法。
可用一句话来表达TOC，即找出妨碍实现系统目标的约束条件，并对它进行消除的系统改善方法。
TOC强调必须把企业看成是一个系统，从整体效益出发来考虑和处理问题，TOC的基本要点如下：1．企业是一个系统，其目标应当十分明确，那就是在当前和今后为企业获得更多的利润2．一切妨碍企业实现整体目标的因素都是约束按照意大利经济学家帕拉图的原理，对系统有重大影响的往往是少数几个约束，为数不多，但至少有一个。
约束有各种类型，不仅有物质型的，如市场、物料、能力、资金等，而且还有非物质型的，如后勤及质量保证体系、企业文化和管理体制、规章制度、员工行为规范和工作态度等等o，以上这些，也可称为策略性约束。
3．为了衡量实现目标的业绩和效果，TOC打破传统的会计成本概念，提出了三项主要衡量指标，即有效产出、库存和运行费用TOC认为只能从企业的整体来评价改进的效果，而不能只看局部。
库存投资和运行费用虽然可以降低，但是不能降到零以下，只有有效产出才有可能不断增长(见下表)。
4．鼓-缓冲-绳法(Drum-Buffer-Rope Approach，DBR法)和缓冲管理法(Buffer Management)TOC把主生产计划(MPS)比喻成"鼓"，根据瓶颈资源和能力约束资源(Capac卸Constraint Resources，CCR)的可用能力来确定企业的最大物流量，作为约束全局的"鼓点"，鼓点相当于指挥生产的节拍；在所有瓶颈和总装工序前要保留物料储备缓冲，以保证充分利用瓶颈资源，实现最大的有效产出。
约束理论及其解释力
域 内受 约 束 ； ｂ 约 束 第 二 原 则 （ ｉｄｎ ｒ ｃｐｅ ） 代 名 词 在 管 辖语 ． ＢｎｉｇＰ ｎｉｌ Ｂ ： ｉ
域 内是 自 由的 （ 即不 受 约 束 ）；
异 同关 系 及 相 关 条 件 限 制 的 理 论 概 括 ， 现 代 生 成 语 法 学 的 是
一
折。 自该 理 论 建 立 以 来 ， 中外 学 者 进 行 了介 绍 或 评 价 。 内 已 国 有 学 者 把 该 理 论 与 汉 语 语 法 研 究 结 合 起 来 ， 该 理 论 对 汉 语 对
约 束 理 论 （Ｔ 是 组 成 乔 姆 斯 基 管 约 论 （ ） Ｂ） ｕ Ｇ 的一 个 子 系 统 。 约论 的形 成 标 志着 转 换 生 成 语 法 的研 究 重 心 已从 规 则 管
系 统 转 移 到 原 则 系 统 ，是 转 换 生 成 语 法 在 历 史 上 的 重 大 转
的解 释 力 作 了 有 益 的 探 讨 。
约 束 理 论 的 任 务 是 处 理 名 词 词 组 之 间 的 照 应 关 系 。名 词 词 组 包 括 ：（ ） ａ 照应 词 ；ｂ 代 名 词 ；ｅ 指称 词 。 该理 论规 定 ： （） （） （）照 应词 在 辖 域 内受 约 束 ；（ ）代 名 词 在 辖 域 内 是 自由 的 ； ａ ｂ （） ｃ 指称 词 在 任 何 时 候 都 是 自由 的 。管 约 论 （ ＢＴ ｅｒ） 乔 Ｇ ｈｏｙ 是 姆 斯 基 转 换 生 成 语 法 管 辖 与 约 束 理论 （｝ ｅｒ ｏ ｏｅ ｒｌ Ｔ ｏ ｆ ｖｒ ｒｅｈ ｙ Ｇ ｎ ｍ ｎ ａｄＢｎ ｉｇ 的简 称 。它 由 七 个 子 系 统 构 成 ， 中 的约 束 ｅｔ ｎ ｉｄ ） ｎ 其
约束理论
什么是约束理论（Theory of Constraints，TOC）？约束理论（Theory of Constraints，TOC）的基本理念是：限制系统实现企业目标的因素并不是系统的全部资源，而仅仅是其中某些被称之为―瓶颈‖的个别资源。
约束理论认为，系统中的每一件事都不是孤立存在的，一个组织的行为由于自身或外界的作用而发生变化，尽管有许多相互关联的原因，但总存在一个最关键的因素。
找出制约系统的关键因素加以解决，起到事半功倍的作用。
管理的艺术就在于发现并转化这些瓶颈，或使它们发挥最大效能。
约束理论就是一种帮助找出和改进瓶颈，使系统（企业）效能最大化的管理哲理，是事半功倍的管理哲理。
约束理论TOC是由以色列的物理学家和企业管理大师高德拉特博士（Dr. Eliyahu M. Goldratt）创造的。
由于采用了常识的通俗的逻辑推理，更易于接受，TOC成为企业进步非常突出和有效的工具。
现在，TOC已经成为一种改进任何系统——商务、工业、个人或环境，的有效方法。
2 约束理论来自于OPT约束理论的前身是OPT（最优生产技术：Optimized Production Technology）。
OPT是Goldratt和其他三个以色列合作者创立的，他们在1979年下半年把它带到美国，成立了Creative/Output公司。
OPT的主要概念是：（1）识别约束识别企业的真正约束（瓶颈）所在是控制物流的关键。
一般来说，当需求超过能力时，排队最长的机器就是―瓶颈‖。
（2）瓶颈约束整个系统的出产计划产品出产计划（Master Schedule）的建立，应该使受瓶颈约束的物流达到最优。
一般按有限能力，用顺排方法对关键资源排序。
为了充分利用瓶颈的能力，在瓶颈上可采用扩大批量的方法，以减少调整准备时间，提高瓶颈资源的有效工作时间。
（3）―缓冲器‖的管理。
其目的是防止系统内外的随机波动造成瓶颈出现等待任务的情况。
一般要设置一定的―库存缓冲‖或―时间缓冲（Time Buffer）‖。
经典英语短文带翻译：约束
经典英语短文带翻译：约束Discipline is easier than it sounds. Discipline isnothing more than choosing, with intention and positive purpose, while considering all the consequences of makingthat choice.约束并非如听起来那般困难。
约束无非就是做选择,它是一种带有目的性和积极性,同时还要考虑到各种后果的选择行为。
Discipline is a matter of controlling yourself. That person is you. When you focus on the consequences of each action you take, on the short term and long term consequences, discipline comes easily and naturally. By choosing your actions, you can choose your actions. By choosing your actions, you can choose the life you create for yourself.约束其实是自我控制,而控制的对象就是你自己。
当你注重自己的行为带来的后果时,无论这些后果是长期的还是短期的,约束都会自不过然地形成。
选择你的行为,你就能选择结果。
选择你的行为,你就能选择创造什么样的生活。
Discipline is not a punishment1 or a burden when you choose it for yourself. Discipline is one of life’s greatest opportunities. Choose in each moment to exercise the control that you already have. Live and act with discipline, andcreate a life of true fulfillment.自我约束并不是一种惩罚或负担,它是生活中的机遇之一。
管辖约束理论(语言学)
Government Binding TheoryRobert N. St. ClairUniversity of LouisvilleIntroductionThere were a series of major developments leading to the rise of Government and Binding Theory. In the atavistic version of syntactic theory which was published as Syntactic Structures (1957), Chomsky argued for syntax as the basis for correlating the linguistic meanings (the semantic component) with linguistic forms (the phonological component). At that time, syntax consisted of three kinds of rules: (1) The phrase structure rules ordered the parts of a sentence into linguistic categories and provided the lexical forms for nouns, verbs, prepositions, and adjectives; (2) the transformational rules operated on deep structures and reordered the phrase structural forms; and (3) morphophonemic rules merely changed lexical forms where necessary ( e.g. go + past = went). The phrase structure Rules created the deep structures of sentences. The transformational rules operated on these deep structures to produce the surface structures of the language. These transformational rules were ordered.By 1965, the model was greatly expanded and revised. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax by Chomsky included a detailed account of the semantic component (projections rules, global insertion rules, selectional restrictions, rules for the interpretation of subcategorization, and semantic distinguishers). The most innovative work on the semantic component was done prior to this time as evidenced in the publication of An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions (1964) by Jerrold Katz and Paul Postal. This was enhanced further by the co-authored work on The Structure of Language (1964) by Jerrold Katz and Jerrold Fodor. The phonological component was also greatly enhanced the inclusion of underlying phonemic forms, ordered rules, and phonetic outputs. The most definitive work on the phonological component can be found in The Sound Patterns of English (Chomsky and Halle, 1968). This publication provided the theoretical framework for a universal theory of phonology (distinctive feature theory, the principle of stress rules, the phonological cycle, phonological constraints, etc.).The aforementioned model became known as The Standard Theory. By 1972 more revisions in the model took place and this led to a renaming of the revised standard theory. It became known as The Extended Standard Theory. There were several reasons for these revisions. What was referred to as the Semantic Representation of a sentence was no longer seen as a single, uniform structure. The syntactic component interacted with the semantic component of the language many times during the processing of syntactic structures. Before the application of transformational rules, for example, the deep structure went to the semantic component where it was interpreted in terms of its functional structures. At this time, the semantic component provided information on the interpretation of the various semantic roles used in the sentence such as agent, patient, goal, experiencer, etc. This deep structure continues to be processed syntactically as it goes through the various cycles of transformational rules. This information is again turned over to the semantic component for further interpretation. This time the semantic component provides information on modal structures such as the scope of negation, and the interpretation of quantifiers in thelanguage. Another kind of semantic information developed at this stage includes the establishment of a table of coreferences in the sentence being analyzed.These rules, it should be noted, could not be processed at the deep structure level and the process had to be delayed until certain modifications and rule applications had taken place within the transformational component of the language. Finally, at the surface structure level, the output of the final transformational cycle is sent to the semantic component for further processing. This time the semantic representation is analyzed for focus, presuppositions, topicalization. The presupposition of a declarative sentence has to do with what the speaker assumes the hearer knows. Focus, on the other hand, has to do with what the speaker assumes that the hearer does not know. Focus is symbolized in the following sentences by means of bold-faced capitalized words. Such words have extra heavy stress.Ray Jackendoff has been instrumental in the development of the Extended Standard Theory. The arguments for the current revisions are stated in Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar (1972).One of the concerns that he voiced during these revisions was the need for autonomous syntax. He proposed that transformations should be applied without having to mention semantic information such as referentiality within a table of coreference, the use of index markers, etc. This could be done, he argued, by changing the kind of information allowed in the deep structure in the Standard Theory. Consider, for example, the rules of reflexivization, pronominalization, and Equi-NP deletion. In each of these cases, full lexical forms are assumed to exist at the deep structure level. In reflexivization, John saw John is transformed into John saw himself. This requires semantic information on coreferentiality. In the case of pronominalization, coreferentiality is also needed to transform Mary wonders if Mary will be happy into Mary wonders if she will be happy. In the case ofEqui-NP Deletion, coreferentiality is also need to transform Mary expects Mary to win into Mary expects to win. One could avoid these references to the semantic component, Jackendoff argued, if pronouns and dummy subjects (gaps) already exist at the deep structure level. This introduction of abstract elements and empty categories into the deep structure of sentences marked an important turning point in linguistic theory. It led to the emergence of GB Theory. Nevertheless, before turning to this major revision based on the premise of autonomous syntax, it is important to review the representation of the model of the Extended Standard Theory. This is the model of grammar without autonomous syntax.The development of Government and Binding Theory as a modular model really began in 1977 when Chomsky and Lasnik proposed some major revisions in the Extended Standard Theory. In this article on "Filters and Control" (Linguistic Inquiry 8.3), they questioned the necessity of phrase structure rules in the context of lexical subcategorizational rules in the lexicon which provided similar information. They also addressed the question of transformational rules with regard to stylistic rules versus meaning changing rules. The issues addressed in this early article were further addressed by Noam Chomsky in his writings on Lectures on Government and Binding (1981) and Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding (1982). He became less concerned with regard to the base generability in transformational grammar and more concerned with Structure-Preserving Constraints on language. The revisions led to a modular model of transformational grammar.Since the concepts of Deep Structure and Surface Structure were substantially revised by the inclusion of abstract elements, trace elements, and empty categories, they were given a new nomenclature, d-structure and s-structure respectively. These are related to each other by means of movement rules. S-structures were further developed into Phonetic Forms or Logical Forms. What is called phonetic form involves more than mere acoustic and articulatory information. It included semantic properties, andlow-level transformational rules (such as stylistic rules), deletion rules, contraction rules and phonological rules. The Logical Form Component deals with the meaning of sentences.The distinction between PF and LF components was necessary because they represented very different aspects and concerns within grammatical theory. The LF component deals with semantic information.Concerns about Binding Conditions are dealt with in the LF Component because they involve semantic issues (referential dependencies, coreferences, etc.). Similarly, quantifier raising dealt with semantic issues within the context of the LF Component. This component began by representing information in terms of standardlogic, but was modified to incorporate constituent command, trace theory, and other linguistic issues.The differences between a d-structure and an s-structure captures what changes have taken place once a movement rule has applied. But GB Theory involves a lot more than merely revising the deep structure of a grammar. In includes many new features:Consider how the surface structure sentence " Did John invite Mary?" was dealt with in the extended theory of syntax.In the GB Theory, movement rules are severely restricted. One can only move elements to unfilled (empty) or to certain designated categories . The sentence is now represented as an inflectional phrase (IP).One of the movement rules takes the INFL form (past) and moves it into only open and empty category of Complement. In the event that the INFL is not moved, Do is deleted by means of a Do Drop Rule. Within this model, there are three kinds of movement rules. One that moves NPs (maximal projections), another that moves Heads of Phrases, and a third that moves Wh-constructions.Another major change that took place in the transition from the Extended Standard Theory to GB Theory has to do with the shift from rules to representations. In the earlier models of transformational grammar, one accounted for grammatical changes by means of syntactic rules.Such a rule had to be language specific. Only English, for example, insert be+en before the main verb and insert by before the agentive noun phrase. If transformational rules are to be universal, they cannot also be language specific. Hence, the system has to be changed. What is needed, Chomsky argued, is a theory that relies on conditions on these representations. These conditions operate at all levels and employ general rules such as:This change became known as the Principles and Parameters Approach. Later, it came to be called Government and Binding Theory. This shift from rules to conditions on representations avoided language specific rules. It also strengthened the concept of the language acquisition device (LAD) in psycholinguistics. In the earlier model, a child was given a toolbox and was asked to construct a grammar for himself. He has some idea of what a grammar should look like, but he has no idea about universal principles govern all grammars. This could happen only if he were provided with a set of principles which defined the parameters and the conditions operating on syntactic representations. This is exactly what GB Theory attempts to do. This is why the shift from rules to conditions on representations had to take place. It provides a child with the principles and the conditions on natural languages and allows him to set the parameters in that language such as SOV or VSO word order, etc. CATEGORIES AND PHRASE STRUCTURES The Standard Theory of Syntax contained a base component. In this base were two subcomponents, one that generated the context-free Phrase Structure Rules for the deep structures of the language and the other which globally inserted lexical items into the final string of the deep structure of the sentence. The problem with this model is that it also generated many PS rule combinations which do not occur in language. What was needed was a PS component that avoided this problem. This led to a re-examination of PS rules and several things were discovered. One of them is that the labels for these categoriesare based on the traditional notion of the parts of speech. Outside of this tradition, they lacked cogent reasons for their nomenclature and their existence. The revision of this information became known as Structure Dependent Constructions, and X-Bar Theory. Another discovery which came out of this re-examination is that the head of a phrase turns out to be an important linguistic concept. This led to a closer look at endocentric and exocentric constructions. The revisions in this case were known as the Head Parameter, Head and Maximal Projections, The Hierarchical Organization Phrases, and X-Bar Theory. In every phrase, there is always an obligatory element. This element is called the head of the category. The head of a Noun Phrase is the Noun. The head of a Verb Phrase is the Verb. The head of an Adjectival Phrase is the Adjective. The head of a Prepositional Phrase is the Preposition. From this awareness, they noted a similarity among all phrases, viz. X (N, V, A, P) is the head of XP (NP, VP, AP,PP).This concept become known as X-Bar Theory where X stands for the head of XP (phrase). The more interesting questions to emerge have to do with the head of a sentence and the head of a complement phrase. The rationale for the head of a sentential phrase is the inflectional marker, INFL. The inflectional marker includes much more than mere tense markers. It also had to do with agreement features, etc. Given the analogy of X is the head of XP, one must reinterpret INFL as the head of the sentence or IP. As for the head of the complement phrase, it is obviously, the complement. Hence, C is the head of CP.This focus on the head and its projections became known as the core grammar. This means that any other elements added to these phrases are adjuncts (add-ons).It should be obvious from the aforementioned examples that what has been normally called temporal adverbs are now treated as adjuncts to phrases. They are no longer considered to be peripheral part of the sentence and does not belong to the core grammar.Some of the terminology and insights used in X-Bar Theory are related to similar research done in the area of morphology. Linguists have always studied how words are put together to form morphological units or compounds. These compounds function as though they were single words: blackmail, skyscraper, bathroom, bookshelf, football, in-crowd, etc. Two combinations of words within compounds have drawn the most attention and commentary in linguistic analysis. One of these has to do with constructions in which one of the elements is a headword (endocentric) and the other element acts a modifier of that headword. Such a combination is known as an endocentric construction. Bookshelf, for example, is an endocentric construction because "books" modify the headword "shelf". Such compounds are easy to detect because the combined elements function to define a subclass of one of the nouns in the construction. A bookshelf is a shelf for books. Similarly, a nosebleed is a kind of bleeding from the nose. The other kind of construction which morphologists are found of discussing is constructions with contrast with endocentric compounds. These are called exocentric constructions and they are defined negatively because the combined elements do not share a headword and modifier relationship. Scapegoat, for example, is not a kind of a goat. It is a kind of a person. Hence, this is an exocentric construction. What is interesting to GB Theory about this investigation of morphological constructions is the fact that endocentric constructions have many interesting parallels with X-Bar phrases. The headword functions as the head of the compound noun just as the noun functions as the head of a noun phrase. The conclusion that one draws from this information is that allXP constructions are endocentric. This discovery has been stated in even strong terms: there are no exocentric constructions among XPs. It is not enough to note that a phrase consists of a head and a modifying element. It is important to also consider how these relationships are structured. When all of the categories within a phrase are strung out in a linear pattern, this is called a flat structure.In a flat structure, all of the elements are connected by means of sister adjunction. They all belong to the same category (NP). There is abundant evidence that phrases are structured hierarchically. This evidence comes from the study of pro-forms. This is when a category is replaced by another form (pro-noun, pro-verb, pro-sentence, etc.). What is actually taking place with pro-form substitution is that some hierarchical structure is replaced by another form, a pro-form. These substitutions operate on structures. They are structure-based. These structure occur in layers. They are layered structures.XPs consist of a head element within a phrasal construction. The head is a lexical category and the phrasal component is called a projection.Since these projects may occur in layers, one speaks of the top most layer as the maximal projection of a phrase. NP is the maximal projection of N. VP is the maximal projection of V. There are intermediate projections, however, that must be accounted for in describing the structure of phrases. These are called X-Bar projections.One would naturally ask how many levels or layers of structure can occur from the maximal projection of a phrase to its head. In GB Theory, there are only two such projections allowed - the maximal projection (XP) and the intermediate projection (X-Bar). It should be noted that in addition to a head element and its projection, there is another element within a phrase. The element is known as the specifier (SPEC). A similar element can be found at the CP level and it is known as the complement C. Both specifiers and complements are not syntactic categories. In this regard they differ from X-Double Bar (XP), X-Bar, and X categories. These elements are empty categories. They function as locations for parts of the structure of a phrase that may be filled in by actual syntactic categories in the process of the application of a movement rule. Both Spec and C occur at the second level along with X-Bar categories.Given this awareness of endocentric constructions, one can now visualize how an XP structure is represented.C-COMMAND AND GOVERNMENTWhen linguists began to really study how pronouns function in language, they quickly learned that where a noun phrase occurs within a phrase structure tree will determine whether or not it is pronominalized. The first one t note this was Edward Klima at MIT who was then working on the scope of negation in English. Klima went to teach at the University of San Diego. At that same campus, Ronald Langacker became interested in this phenomenon and wrote an article "On Pronominalization and the Chain of command." This research was published in a book of readings by David Reibel and Sanford Schane (Modern Studies in English, 1969). Langacker explored the parameters of the rule of pronominalization by studying it in the sentence conjunction, verb phrase conjunction, noun phrase conjunction, and in embedded sentences. His parameters of the application of this rule were called the chain of command. Later, Chomsky would make some revisions and call it Constituent Command, or C-Command.Langacker found that if a noun phrase occurred in a matrix sentenceand it was identical to the noun phrase in an embedded sentence, the matrix NP would be able to command and pronominalize the embed NP. NP's in lower sentences, on the other hand, could never pronominalize identical noun phrases in higher sentences.Ralph in the matrix sentence commands the pronoun in the embedded sentence. Notice that the matrix sentence is also located on the left and prior to the embedded sentence. Language found that another kind of relationship needed to be made explicit and he call this precedence. Hence, he concluded from the study of the data he was working with that if a noun phrase occurs in a lower sentence,, but it precedes another identical noun phrase in the matrix sentence, it will pronominalize the NP on the right. What this means, in essence, is that the order of the elements in pronominalization is significant.Pronominalization occurs if an identical NP precedes another NP (the precedence relationship). It also occurs if an identical NP is higher in the phrase marker (command relationship). As Langacker investigated this phenomenon, he noted that something else besides precedence and command to account for some anomalies that he encountered among more deeply embedded sentences. He realized that pronominalization did not work in the more deeply embedded phrase markers.There is some kind of barrier between the identical NPs and their pronominalized forms. It is not enough to merely state that one of them commands another or that one of them precedes another. The chain of command has to be more direct. Langacker turned to the concept of dominance to explain the aforementioned sentences. He noted that an identical NP must directly dominate its pronoun. If some kind of barrier prevents the dominance from being direct, pronominalization will not take place. Chomsky was to take this concept of barriers and use it as one of the basic conditions within his Government and Binding Theory (cf. Barrier by Chomsky, 1986). Klima used the term "in construction with" to explain the scope of negation. Given two constituents A and B, B is said to be in construction with A if node C that directly dominates A also dominates B.Negation is in construction with the subject NP (John). Negation is is not in construction with the object NP (Mary) since the node (VP) that directly dominates the object NP (Mary) does not also dominate Negation. Obviously, the relationships between "in construction with" and "chain of command" (dominance, command and precedence) are similar. However, these are not equivalent concepts with regard to constituent structure. The framework that Langacker developed included more information and could explain much more with regard to dominance than the model proposed by Klima. Langacker's concept could explain both negation and pronominalization, Klima's could only account for the scope of negation.Consider what happens when these sentences are embedded. The result of what quantifiers surfaces depends on whether or not the negation marker is located in the matrix or in the embedded sentence.The negation marker changes the quantifier (someone) into anyone. In this case, the negation marker directly dominates the quantifier. Now, consider what happens when the negation marker does not directly dominate the quantifier.Since the negation marker is in the matrix sentence, it does not directly dominate the quantifier in the embedded sentence. Hence, someone remains unaffected by the scope of negation. What makes the scope of negation interesting is that it forces one to recognize the concept of grammatical barrier that limit the scope of certain transformational rules. Notice that barriers can be found when one is dealing with infinitival complements. The question that one may ask is whether or not other grammatical constructions are also within the scope of negation? This can be ascertained by looking at the following examples of that-clauses and relative clauses.Another form of syntactic corroboration for this placement of negation in the phrase marker comes from the transformation known as Pseudo-Cleft: What X did was Y. Hence, the following examples of pseudo-clefting corroborate the fact that negation controls the modal in once sentence and the verb phrase in the other.Finally, further evidence comes from the negation contraction transformation. This rule only operates on negative forms that modify a modal.Just when one is happy to learn that the chain of command can explain the phenomenon of pronominalization and the scope of negation, it turns out that these principles of control can also explain wh-formation within the context where wh+some forms the question word "what.":The WH Marker commands the quantifier "some." Consequentlywh+some becomes what. This marker controls elements in the embedded sentence. It does not control other elements in the matrix sentence. Hence, it could not produce the following sentences because some reason and some man are not within the control of the wh-marker.Once one is aware of the fact that there is a chain of command within a phrase marker, the next concern for linguists had to do with why some rules were blocked by barriers which also isolated certain portions of the phrase marker into islands. Not all constructions worked the same way. Infinitival complements and that-clauses wereopen to the scope of negation. Relative clauses were not open to the scope of negation. Barriers, the Complex NP Constraint of Ross, protected some examples of wh-formation. In other cases, the barriers did not protect wh-formation. What this mean is that syntactic research had a new set of problems to solve. It would not be until the rise of Government Binding Theory that most of these problems could be satisfactorily deal with. When these issues are dealt within in GB Theory, however, they are referred to within a very different context and with a different vocabulary. Dominating nodes, for example, will be called "mother nodes." Dominated nodes will be called "daughter nodes." The relationships of command, precedence and dominance are all treated as examples of C-Command (Constituent Command).C-COMMAND, M-COMMAND AND GOVERNMENTChomsky has noted that a phrase marker is essentially a graph in which the nodes (the sets of points) are connected by branches (solid lines). The labels used in the nodes may be maximal projections(X-Double-Bar), intermediate projections (X-Bar), or final projections, i.e., non-terminal nodes (NP, M, V, P, and other category labels). Within the revised model, some of these nodes may be empty (e). Also within the revised model, when elements are moved, they leave back a trace element (t). Another distinction made in Government Binding Theory has to do with the nature of dominance and precedence.The S node occurs higher on the phrase marker tree and it dominates all other nodes. The VP nodes dominates the V node and its terminal node (stay). One node immediately dominates another node if it is the next higher node in the phrase marker tree that is connected by a solid line. Hence, the S node immediately dominates NP, M, and VP nodes. The S node dominates the PP node, but it does not immediately dominate that node. Another relationship that merits comment with regard to the phrase marker tree is that of precedence. On node precedes another if it is located on the left of the other node. Hence, the M nodes precede VP, V, PP, NP, N (hence, the terminal nodes stay at home). The M node immediately precedes the VP and the V nodes (the terminal node (stay). What is important about these relationships of dominance and precedence is that Chomsky used them to define the terms of exhaustive dominance of constituents and immediate constituents.CONSTITUTENTS (CHOMSKY)Nodes form a constituent if and only if (iff) they are a set of nodes that are exhaustively dominated by a common node. In the aforementioned example, NP, M, and VP all branch out of the same single common node (S). Therefore, S exhaustively dominates NP, M, and VP. Therefore, in general terms one could say that X is a constituent of Y iff X is dominated by Y. Similarly, on notes that X is an immediate constituent of Y iff X is immediately dominated by Y.The mother node A dominates nodes B, C, D, E, and F. The mother node A immediately dominates the nodes B and C. The sister nodes D, E, and F are immediately dominated by the daughter node C. Mothers [A] dominate their daughters [B C] and nieces [D E F]. Mothers [A], however, can only immediately dominate their own daughters [B C]. Daughters [C] have their own children [D E F] and immediately dominate them. Nieces [D E F] are not exhaustively dominated by the mother node [A], but they [D E F ] are exhaustively dominated by the daughter node [C].Chomsky was asked many times why he did not use the traditional notion of dividing a sentence into a subject and a predicate. He was asked this question again when confronted with Fillmore's Case Grammar. His reply was that such relationships have to do with grammatical functions and not grammatical forms. Further, these functions can be readily ascertained by looking at the dominance and precedence relationships within a phrase marker.The subject of a sentence is the NP which is immediately dominated by S. The object of a sentence is the leftmost NP immediately dominated by VP. If two NPs occur to the left of the VP, the first is the direct object and the second is the Indirect object. The object of a。
约束理论：实现目标的有效路径
约束理论：实现目标的有效路径约束理论是一种管理和决策方法，旨在帮助组织和个人在实现目标时找到最有效的路径。
该理论将目标设定为最终结果，并将其实现过程视为一系列的约束条件。
通过识别和管理这些约束条件，可以实现目标的最佳路径。
约束的类型约束可以分为以下几种类型：1. 物理约束物理约束是指影响目标实现过程的物理因素，如设备限制、资源不足等。
例如，如果一个组织想要增加生产产量，但由于设备限制而无法实现，那么设备就是一个物理约束。
2. 技术约束技术约束是指在实现目标时需要使用的特定技术或工艺。
这些约束可能涉及到特定的工具、软件、硬件等。
例如，如果一个组织想要改善其数据分析能力，但缺乏必要的数据分析技术和工具，那么技术就是一个约束。
3. 人力约束人力约束是指人力资源对实现目标的影响。
这包括工作人员的数量、技能水平、时间限制等。
例如，如果一个项目需要在一个紧迫的时间表内完成，但团队成员数量不足，那么人力资源就是一个约束。
4. 金融约束金融约束是指与资金相关的约束条件。
这可能包括预算限制、资金不足等。
例如，一个组织想要扩大生意，但由于资金不足而无法实现，那么金融约束就存在。
制定有效的路径为了制定实现目标的有效路径，可以按照以下步骤进行：1.识别约束：首先需要明确目标，并分析可能影响目标实现的约束条件。
这可以通过对组织、项目或个人现状的评估来实现。
2.优先级排序：对于识别出的约束条件，需要进行优先级排序。
根据约束的重要性和紧迫程度，确定哪些约束需要首先解决。
3.制定行动计划：对于排在优先级前列的约束条件，制定相应的行动计划。
这可以包括采取措施来解决约束、提供额外资源、培训人员等。
4.执行和监控：执行确定的行动计划，并及时监控进展情况。
确保所采取的措施确实有效，并随时调整计划以适应变化的情况。
5.反馈和评估：定期进行反馈和评估，评估所采取的行动计划是否取得了预期的效果。
根据评估结果，进行必要的调整和改进。
例子为了更好地理解约束理论的应用，以下是一个例子：假设一个公司想要提高产品质量。
约束理论简介
约束理论简介约束理论〔TheoryofConstraints，简称TOC〕是戈德拉特博士〔Dr.EliyahuM.Goldratt〕在他的优化出产技术〔OptimizedProductionTechnology，简称OPT〕的根底上开展起来的。
戈德拉特最初开发的OPT软件用了有限能力排程、车间控制和决策撑持，由一家叫CreativeOutput公司经销。
由于戈德拉特把重点从经销软件转移到强调办理哲理和培训教育上，他被迫离开了这家公司。
因此，当前存在早期以OPT定名的商品软件和戈德拉特博士进一步开展的OPT哲理或TOC，不要混淆。
OPT有9条底子原那么，这些原那么在约束理论中得应用。
它们是：1.重要的是平衡物流，不是平衡能力；2.非瓶颈资源的操纵率是由系统的其它约束条件决定的，而不是由其本身能力决定的；3.让一项资源充实开动运转起来同使该项资源带来效益不是同一一个涵义；4.瓶颈资源损掉一小时相当于整个系统损掉一小时，而且是无法补救的；5.想方设法在非瓶颈资源上节约下一小时以提高出产率只是一种梦想，非瓶颈资源不该满负荷工作；6.产量和库存量是由瓶颈资源决定的；为包管瓶颈资源负荷饱满并包管企业的产出，在瓶颈工序和总装配线前应有供缓冲用的物料储藏。
瓶颈工序前可用拉式作业，其后可用推式作业。
7.传送批量可以不等于甚至大都情况是不该等于加工批量；8.批量是按照实际情况动态变化的，而不是固定不变的；加工批量应当是一个变数；9.只有同时考虑到系统所有的约束条件后才能决定加工件方案进度的优先级。
提前期只是排进度的成果。
TOC是在OPT的根底上开展起来的，它是一种在能力办理和现场作业办理方面的哲理，把重点放在瓶颈工序上，包管瓶颈工序不发生停工待料．提高瓶颈工作中心的操纵率，从而得到最大的有效产出。
按照不同的产物布局类型、工艺流程和物料流动的总体请况，设定办理的控制点。
约束是多方面的，有市场、物料、能力、工作流程、资金、办理体制，员工行为等，此中，市场、物料和能力是主要的约束。
约束理论：潜能释放的纽带
约束理论：潜能释放的纽带引言约束理论是一种心理学理论，旨在解释人类行为和决策中的约束因素。
它认为，人们的行为受到内部和外部的约束，并通过解除这些约束来释放潜能和实现个人目标。
本文将介绍约束理论的基本概念和应用，以及如何利用该理论来提升个人和组织的绩效。
基本概念内部约束内部约束是指个人内在的心理因素，例如信念、态度、价值观和自我认同等。
这些因素影响了个人对于行为选择的偏好和决策的制约。
例如，一个人可能因为对自己的能力缺乏信心而放弃追求自己的梦想，这是一种内部约束的体现。
外部约束外部约束是指来自外部环境和他人的压力、期望和规范等因素。
这些因素可以限制个人行为和选择的范围。
例如，一个人可能因为社会对于特定行为的禁止而抑制自己的欲望，这是一种外部约束的影响。
约束解除约束解除是指解除内部和外部约束，从而释放个人的潜能和实现个人目标。
当个人能够排除心理障碍、克服外部压力，并发挥自己的能力和优势时，他们就能够实现更好的绩效和满足感。
应用和效益约束理论可以应用于个人、组织和团队的发展和绩效提升中。
以下是一些应用和效益的例子：个人效益•提高自我意识：通过了解自己的内部约束，个人可以意识到在决策和行为中受到的限制，并寻找解决方案。
•改变心理框架：个人可以通过重新评估和调整自己的价值观和信念来解除内部约束，并开放新的可能性。
•增强自信心：通过培养自信心和积极心态，个人可以克服内部约束，并挖掘自己的潜能。
•制定明确目标：个人可以通过设定明确的目标来激发动力和行动，从而解除外部约束。
组织效益•提高员工满意度和效能：组织可以通过了解员工的内部约束和外部约束，为员工提供适当的支持和资源，帮助他们实现潜能和目标。
•促进创新和变革：组织可以通过减少内部和外部约束，激发员工的创造力和创新能力，推动组织的变革和发展。
•建立积极文化：组织可以通过鼓励员工解除约束，倡导积极心态和个人发展，建立积极的工作环境和文化。
团队效益•提升团队合作：团队成员可以通过了解彼此的内部约束和外部约束，建立互信和理解，更好地合作和协作。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
句法学第五章约束理论翻译第五章约束理论学习目标读完第五章后，应该掌握以下的理念和技能：1.识别和区分指称语，代词和照应语。
2.理解先行词和照应语。
3.区分约束与同标。
4.明确并将约束理论应用于树形结构。
5.将A 、B、C三原则用于树形结构。
6.明确约束领域。
0.简介我们暂且不看句法学，先看一些和英语名词词组意思相关的一些事实。
一些名词词组从它们所处的语境和篇章中得到意义。
例如，在句1）中Felicia这个词从它所在句子的情景语境中获得意义：1）Felicia wrote a fine paper on Zapotec.（Felicia曾写过一篇与萨巴特克语言相关的好文章。
）如果在现实世界中听见这句话，你可以从说话者那里知晓谁是Felicia，有一个人叫这个名字，并且被牵涉进这个说话语境当中。
尽管你不知道她是否写了和萨巴特克相关的文章，但从这个句子你可以得出Felicia在现实世界中写过一些文章，并且这些文章是有关萨巴特克的。
这预示了世界上有这样的文章，并且这一文章是与萨巴特克语言相关的好文章的代名词。
“一篇与萨巴特克语言相关的好文章”和“Felicia”都从现实世界中的那些指称事物获得应有之意。
这种名词词组就叫做指称语(或者R-expression).2）指称语：从现实世界中所指事物中获得意义的名词词组。
多数名词词组是指称语。
但这并不意味着所有名词词组都是指称语。
如下句中“herself”这个词组：3）Heidi bopped herself on the head with a zucchini.（Heidi 用西葫芦在自己脑袋上轻轻敲了一下。
）在这个句子中Heidi是个指称词并从语境中获得意义，而herself必须回指Heidi，它不会指Arthur,，Miriam，或者Andrea。
只有从前面一个词中才能获得意义（在Heidi这个例子中）。
像这种词组，必须从该句中另一个名词词组中获得意义的名词词组叫做‘回指词’（anaphor）（像我们在第一章看到的那样）。
4）回指词：一个必须从该句中另一个名词词组中获得意义的名词词组叫作回指词。
有代表性的回指词有himself，herself，themselves，myself，yourself，ourselves，yourselves，以及each other等。
回指词种类事实上有（至少）两种回指词。
一种是反身代词（reflexive pronouns），如: himself，herself 或者themselves。
另外一种叫做相互词（reciprocals），包括如each other这类的词。
为了简单起见，虽然在反身代词与相互词分布中之中存在小小的分歧，我们还是将相互词看做一种简单的分类。
还有另一种名词词组。
它们可以有选择地从句中另一个词组中获得意义，或者有选择地从其他（包括语境或者语篇中之前的句子）地方获得意义。
这类名词组就叫做代词。
如句子（5）：5）Art said that he played basketball.（Art 说他打篮球。
）在该句中，单词‘he’可以指Art（即该句可以理解为：Art说Art打篮球），或者‘he’也可以指其他人（即该句可以理解为：Art 说Norm 打篮球）。
典型的代词包括：he，she，it，I，you，me，we，they，us，him，her，them，his，her，your，my，our，their，和one。
句（6）中给出代词的定义：代词（pronoun）：2）6）代词：一个名词组可以（或者不需要）从该句中的另一个单词获取意义。
上一章我们用结构关系给一些句法位置下了定义，结果证明不同语义类型的名词组只能出现在句子中的某些位置。
回指词，指称语以及代词只能在句子中的特定位置出现。
例如一个回指词可能不会出现在句子中的主语位置：7*）Herself bopped Heidi on the head with a zucchini.这些句法规则限制不同名词词组在句中出现的位置称作约束理论。
约束理论会提到我们上一章学到的结构关系，因此学习本章后你就会明白句法学家对结构关系如此重视的原因所在了。
1.同标词与先行词我们先讨论先行词的分布。
首先我们需要一些术语来支撑现实。
一个名词词组可以赋予句中的另一个呢名词意义称为先行词：8）先行词：一个能赋予句中其他名词词组意义的名词词组。
如，句（9）中回指词herself就是指代‘Heidi’，因此Heidi就叫做‘先行词’。
9）Heidi bopped herself on the head with a zucchini.↓↑antecedent anaphor我们运用一种特殊机制来使两个名词词组指同一个主体，并且，每个词组下会用字母表示。
两个名词词组下面的标示字母是否相同取决于它们是否指代同一个主体。
通常（习惯上）我们会用下标i，j，k表示，以此类推。
这些用字母表示的下标就称作指称对象（index，indexes）。
10）a) [Colin]i gave [Andrea]j [a basketball]k.b) [Art]i said that [he]j played [basketball]k in [the dark]l.c) [Art]i said that [he]i played [basketball]k in [the dark]l.d) [Heidi]i bopped [herself]i on [the head]j with [a zucchini]k.在（10a）中所有的名词词组代指不同的主体，所以它们的下标都不同。
（10b）中也是如此。
如果没有下标，句子就会有歧义；‘he’既可以指‘Art’也可以指其他人。
但是如果加上在下标的话，我们就会将这些名词组区分开。
句(10b) 中，只有当he指的不是Art而是其他人时整个句子才有意义，也就是说代词he与Art是不同的指称对象。
相反，在句(10c)中，指称对象he和Art则指代的是同一个对象。
在该句中，Art是代词he的先行词，因此它们属同一个指称对象。
最后，句(10d)中，回指词herself又反过来指的是Heidi，因此它们两个也属于同一个指称对象。
两个名词组指代同一个指数的现象叫做同标（coindexed）。
名词组之间同标的现象叫做同指（corefer），即指代客观世界同一个对象。
11）同标（coindexed）：两个名词词组有同一个指数对象就是同标。
在（10c）中，Art与he属于同标；（10b）中Art与he就不属于同标。
2.约束事实上，同标、同指以及先行词都是三个很笼统的概念，一个名词组不管在句中处于什么样的结构位置，上述概念都是成立的。
然而事实证明，先行词与代词或者回指词的关系必须是处于特定的结构关系。
在（12）中是三个句子进行对比：12) a) Heidi i bopped herself i on the head with a zucchini.b) [Heidi i’s mother]j bopped herself j on the head with a zucchini.c) *[Heidi i’s mother]j bopped herself i on the head with a zucchini.12b）与（12c）句中的指数对象我们得特别观察一下。
这些句子表明尽管单词herself可以指代主语Heidi’s mother，但是但是它不能指代词组中嵌入的词组，如Heidi。
同样也适用于句（13）。
13) a) [The mother of Heidi i]j bopped herself j on the head with a zucchini.b) *[The mother of Heidi i]j bopped herself i on the head with a zucchini.快速看一下符号注释句法学家会将那些相似但是指代不同指称对象的句子进行简化。
两个相似的指称对象会用斜杠（/）表示，而区分一个语法错误的句子会用(*) 表示。
那么，（13）中的两个句子就可以用下面的表示方法来呈现：13’) [The mother of Heidi i]j bopped herself j/*i on the head with a zucchini.也就是说在该句中，如果herself是j的指示对象（或者与[The mother of Heidi i]j 同指），这个句子就是合乎语法的；但是，如果herself是i的指示对象（或者与[Heidi]i同指），这个句子就是不合乎语法的。
从下图（14a 和b），为（12a和b）的树形图中我们可以看到，在结构位置上限制名词组Heidi的位置被取代后，我们就会发现有很大不同。
在(14a)中，圈中名词词组统制统制herself的词组，但是在（14b）中完全不是这样。
由此可以看出回指词与先行词之间的核心关系--统制关系。
所以我们不能用简单的同标关系来表示回指词与先行词之间的关系，而应该用一个更加具体的概念来表示，这就是约束：15）约束（binds）：当且仅当A统制B并且A和B同标时，A约束B。
约束是一种特殊的同标，只有其中一个名词词组统制另一名词词组时，才会有约束。
但是要注意的是约束不是由同标组成。
必须是同标和统制同时满足才会有约束。
现在我们就可以对以下不合乎语法的句子做出概括，其中(16a) (=7) ，(16b) (=12c)：16) a ) (=7) *Herself i bopped Heidi i on the head with a zucchini.b ) (=12c) *[Heidi i’s mother]j bopped herself i on the head with a zucchini.这两个句子都不是回指词约束关系，即它们不是名词组之间的统制关系而是同标关系。
这种原则就是约束理论的A原则，它决定回指词的分布关系：17)（初级）约束A原则：回指词必须被约束。
但是要牢记约束意味着名词词组必须要和统制它的名词词组同标。
在(14b)的树形图中，我们可以看到回指词herself与名词组Heidi是同标关系，但是它们不属于约束关系，因为名词组Heidi与另外一个名词组herself不是统制关系。
下图（18）反映的句(16a) (=7)也是如此。
尽管两个名词词组同标，但是并没有形成约束关系，先行词没有统制回指词，所以没能形成约束关系。
有人可能会说因为回指词约束先行词，因此Heidi 约束herself。
但是请注意，这并不是约束的定义所指。
约束并不是对称关系，约束者（或先行词）必须同时统制被约束者（回指词或代词），但是相反则不行。