Common use of Span Theory Clause in Contracts

Span Theory. ‌ A crucial element that permits the characterization of φ-Correspondence as heterogenous relations and that distinguishes φ-Correspondence from ABC is the φ-head. Headed constituents are pervasive in linguistics. The concept of head is applied to syllable structure (▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2006, ▇▇▇▇▇ 2002), element theory (▇▇▇▇ et al. 1985; and others), stress/tone interaction (▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ 2002), and autosegmental assimilation (Halle & Vergnaud 1990, Jurgec 2011), as well as being a central concept in the theory of stress (Prince & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1993/2004) and in syntax (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1965). ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2004) is a theory of headed agreement that together with ABC most resembles φ-Correspondence. Span theory is very similar to φ-Correspondence in that the harmonizing feature of these domains is determined by a head, which is freely assigned to some elements by GEN. Nevertheless, two important differences concern the definition of the elements in the agreement relation and the mechanisms that govern the distribution of the heads in the output. Following Hansson (2001/2010), Span Theory can be subcategorized as a “strict locality” theory of assimilation (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1995, ▇▇▇▇▇ 1999). Strict locality theories are defined by two characteristics: a linear span that defines the domain of harmony and the spreading of the harmonizing features to all the segments in the span. Spans consist of a contiguous segmental string, but in surface correspondence, there is no such strict requirement. Segments in the same domain may be separated by other segments, which can even belong to other correspondence relations (e.g., if there are multiple harmonies). Strict locality has in fact been criticized because all segments between the trigger and the target of assimilation must be permeated by the spreading feature (Hansson 2001/2010: 20–23, 210–221).5 Another property of span theory is that all segments in a span are pronounced with the feature value of the head. In contrast, in φ-Correspondence, harmony is only favored by the fact that there are constraints that favor feature identity and that there is a faithfulness constraint that protects the featural content of the head. The head, per se, does not impose any restriction on its domain, it just favors it (more closely resembling ▇’▇▇▇▇▇ 2007). The other important difference between Span Theory and φ-Correspondence concerns the constraints that determine the head selection. φ-head constraints follow the template of classic positional and alignment constraints. Span theory uses specific constraint schemas.

Span Theory. ‌ A crucial element that permits the characterization of φ-Correspondence as heterogenous relations and that distinguishes φ-Correspondence from ABC is the φ-head. Headed constituents are pervasive in linguistics. The concept of head is applied to syllable structure (▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2006, ▇▇▇▇▇ 2002), element theory (▇▇▇▇ et al. 1985; and others), stress/tone interaction (▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ 2002), and autosegmental assimilation (Halle & Vergnaud 1990, Jurgec 2011), as well as being a central concept in the theory of stress (Prince & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1993/2004) and in syntax (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1965). ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2004) is a theory of headed agreement that together with ABC most resembles φ-Correspondence. Span theory is very similar to φ-Correspondence in that the harmonizing feature of these domains is determined by a head, which is freely assigned to some elements by GEN. Nevertheless, two important differences concern the definition of the elements in the agreement relation and the mechanisms that govern the distribution of the heads in the output. Following Hansson (2001/2010), Span Theory can be subcategorized as a “strict locality” theory of assimilation (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1995, ▇▇▇▇▇ 1999). Strict locality theories are defined by two characteristics: a linear span that defines the domain of harmony and the spreading of the harmonizing features to all the segments in the span. Spans consist of a contiguous segmental string, but in surface correspondence, there is no such strict requirement. Segments in the same domain may be separated by other segments, which can even belong to other correspondence relations (e.g., if there are multiple harmonies). Strict locality has in fact been criticized because all segments between the trigger and the target of assimilation must be permeated by the spreading feature (Hansson 2001/2010: 20–23, 210–221).5 5 Locality is a well-known issue in autosegmental theories, where it has been circumvented using a variety of strategies (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇ 1995, Jurgec 2011, among others). Another property of span theory is that all segments in a span are pronounced with the feature value of the head. In contrast, in φ-Correspondence, harmony is only favored by the fact that there are constraints that favor feature identity and that there is a faithfulness constraint that protects the featural content of the head. The head, per se, does not impose any restriction on its domain, it just favors it (more closely resembling ▇’▇▇▇▇▇ 2007). The other important difference between Span Theory and φ-Correspondence concerns the constraints that determine the head selection. φ-head constraints follow the template of classic positional and alignment constraints. Span theory uses specific constraint schemas.

Span Theory. ‌ A crucial element that permits the characterization of φ-Correspondence as heterogenous relations and that distinguishes φ-Correspondence from ABC is the φ-head. Headed constituents are pervasive in linguistics. The concept of head is applied to syllable structure (▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2006, ▇▇▇▇▇ 2002), element theory (▇▇▇▇ et al. 1985; and others), stress/tone interaction (▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ 2002), and autosegmental assimilation (Halle & Vergnaud 1990, Jurgec 2011), as well as being a central concept in the theory of stress (Prince & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1993/2004) and in syntax (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1965). ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2004) is a theory of headed agreement that together with ABC most resembles φ-Correspondence. Span theory is very similar to φ-Correspondence in that the harmonizing feature of these domains is determined by a head, which is freely assigned to some elements by GEN. Nevertheless, two important differences concern the definition of the elements in the agreement relation and the mechanisms that govern the distribution of the heads in the output. Following Hansson (2001/2010), Span Theory can be subcategorized as a “strict locality” theory of assimilation (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1995, ▇▇▇▇▇ 1999). Strict locality theories are defined by two characteristics: a linear span that defines the domain of harmony and the spreading of the harmonizing features to all the segments in the span. Spans consist of a contiguous segmental string, but in surface correspondence, there is no such strict requirement. Segments in the same domain may be separated by other segments, which can even belong to other correspondence relations (e.g., if there are multiple harmonies). Strict locality has in fact been criticized because all segments between the trigger and the target of assimilation must be permeated by the spreading feature (Hansson 2001/2010: 20–23, 210–221).5 Another property of span theory is that all segments in a span are pronounced with the feature value of the head. In contrast, in φ-Correspondence, harmony is only favored by the fact that there are constraints that favor feature identity and that there is a faithfulness constraint that protects the featural content of the head. The head, per se, does not impose any restriction on its domain, it just favors it (more closely resembling ▇’▇▇▇▇▇ 2007). The other important difference between Span Theory and φ-Correspondence concerns the constraints that determine the head selection. φ-head constraints follow the template of classic positional and alignment constraints. Span theory uses specific constraint schemas.