Span Theory Sample Clauses

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 constra...
View SourceView Similar (3)

Related to Span Theory

  • Theory If an employee lacks the necessary knowledge, skills, or abilities, he or she will be unable to perform effectively.

  • No Consequential or Punitive Damages Neither Party hereto (or any of their respective Affiliates) shall, under any circumstance, be liable to the other Party (or its Affiliates) for any consequential, exemplary, special, indirect, incidental or punitive damages claimed by such other Party under the terms of or due to any breach of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, loss of revenue or income, cost of capital, or loss of business reputation or opportunity.

  • No Consequential Damages Other than the Liquidated Damages heretofore described and the indemnity obligations set forth in Article 18.1, in no event shall any Party be liable under any provision of this Agreement for any losses, damages, costs or expenses for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential, or punitive damages, including but not limited to loss of profit or revenue, loss of the use of equipment, cost of capital, cost of temporary equipment or services, whether based in whole or in part in contract, in tort, including negligence, strict liability, or any other theory of liability; provided, however, that damages for which a Party may be liable to another Party under separate agreement will not be considered to be special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages hereunder.

  • Program Fraud and False or Fraudulent Statements or Related Acts (A) The CONTRACTOR acknowledges that the provisions of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, as amended, 31 U.S.C. § 3801 et seq . and U.S. DOT regulations, "Program Fraud Civil Remedies," 49 C.F.R. Part 31, apply to its actions pertaining to this Project. Upon execution of the underlying contract, the CONTRACTOR certifies or affirms the truthfulness and accuracy of any statement it has made, it makes, it may make, or causes to be made, pertaining to the underlying contract or the FTA assisted project for which this contract work is being performed. In addition to other penalties that may be applicable, the CONTRACTOR further acknowledges that if it makes, or causes to be made, a false, fictitious, or fraudulent claim, statement, submission, or certification, the Federal Government reserves the right to impose the penalties of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 on the CONTRACTOR to the extent the Federal Government deems appropriate. (B) The CONTRACTOR also acknowledges that if it makes, or causes to be made, a false, fictitious, or fraudulent claim, statement, submission, or certification to the Federal Government under a contract connected with a project that is financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance originally awarded by FTA under the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 5307, the Government reserves the right to impose the penalties of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and 49 U.S.C. § 5307, as amended, on the CONTRACTOR, to the extent the Federal Government deems appropriate. (C) The CONTRACTOR agrees to include the above two clauses in each subcontract financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance provided by FTA. It is further agreed that the clauses shall not be modified, except to identify the subcontractor who will be subject to the provisions.

  • Entities that Boycott Israel Contractor represents and warrants that (1) it does not, and shall not for the duration of the Contract, boycott Israel or (2) the verification required by Section 2271.002 of the Texas Government Code does not apply to the Contract. If circumstances relevant to this provision change during the course of the Contract, Contractor shall promptly notify System Agency.