So far, processing studies on grammatical norm violations (GNVs) in Dutch (i.e., als ‘as’ in comparatives) have mainly focused on general differences between GNVs and their grammatical and ungrammatical counterparts. The present study is the first to also systematically investigate between-participant and between-construction variation in the processing of GNVs, using a self-paced reading task. Age and educational level were investigated as potential sources of between-participant variation, and between-construction variation was assessed by including three GNVs that vary in the amount of prescriptive attention they receive in society. Results indeed showed that the processing of GNVs was influenced by the age and educational level of participants. Moreover, different results were obtained for different norm violations. Based on these results, we conclude that it is very important to take into account differences between participants and constructions when studying the processing of GNVs.
{"title":"Variation in the processing of grammatical norm violations","authors":"Floris Cos, Ferdy Hubers","doi":"10.1075/avt.00059.cos","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00059.cos","url":null,"abstract":"So far, processing studies on grammatical norm violations (GNVs) in Dutch (i.e., als ‘as’ in comparatives) have mainly focused on general differences between GNVs and their grammatical and ungrammatical counterparts. The present study is the first to also systematically investigate between-participant and between-construction variation in the processing of GNVs, using a self-paced reading task. Age and educational level were investigated as potential sources of between-participant variation, and between-construction variation was assessed by including three GNVs that vary in the amount of prescriptive attention they receive in society. Results indeed showed that the processing of GNVs was influenced by the age and educational level of participants. Moreover, different results were obtained for different norm violations. Based on these results, we conclude that it is very important to take into account differences between participants and constructions when studying the processing of GNVs.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59342991","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
P. Kurz, Coleen Gonner, Monika Magdalena Bartnicka, Hannah N. M. De Mulder
In French, the noun apple (la pomme) is grammatically feminine, in German (der Apfel) it is masculine. Does this entail that French speakers perceive apples to be feminine whereas German speakers attribute masculine characteristics to them? Various studies suggest that grammatical gender does indeed influence object perception (Haertlé 2017; Boroditsky & Schmidt 2000), although findings are not always replicated (Bender et al. 2011). The current study investigates this phenomenon for Polish, an understudied language in this domain, and German, a language for which contradictory results have been obtained. We investigated whether Polish (N = 21) and German (N = 27) speakers follow the grammatical gender of an object when providing a first name for it (e.g., James or Maya). Results suggest that while Polish speakers provided names that were in accordance with the object’s grammatical gender, German speakers did not. Cross-linguistic differences between these two languages (regarding noun transparency) may explain these findings.
{"title":"A table named James or a table named Maya?","authors":"P. Kurz, Coleen Gonner, Monika Magdalena Bartnicka, Hannah N. M. De Mulder","doi":"10.1075/avt.00066.kur","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00066.kur","url":null,"abstract":"In French, the noun apple (la pomme) is grammatically feminine, in German (der Apfel) it is masculine. Does this entail that French speakers perceive apples to be feminine whereas German speakers attribute masculine characteristics to them? Various studies suggest that grammatical gender does indeed influence object perception (Haertlé 2017; Boroditsky & Schmidt 2000), although findings are not always replicated (Bender et al. 2011). The current study investigates this phenomenon for Polish, an understudied language in this domain, and German, a language for which contradictory results have been obtained. We investigated whether Polish (N = 21) and German (N = 27) speakers follow the grammatical gender of an object when providing a first name for it (e.g., James or Maya). Results suggest that while Polish speakers provided names that were in accordance with the object’s grammatical gender, German speakers did not. Cross-linguistic differences between these two languages (regarding noun transparency) may explain these findings.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59343196","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
M. Suijkerbuijk, S. Leufkens, Marten van der Meulen
While kinship relations in Dutch are usually introduced by a possessive determiner, Twitter users have recently observed to use a definite article in that position. To learn more about the characteristics of this construction, we performed an exploratory investigation of the definite article possession construction with Dutch kinship terms on Twitter. We analysed 100 tweets for 24 kinship terms each, and annotated for the type of pre-nominal modifier used. Results show that the phenomenon is far from peripheral, as 13.2% of all selected tweets featured a definite article. The construction was most frequent with descending and horizontal relationship terms, and with improper kin terms (i.e., terms with a non-kin meaning at least as prominent as kinship use; Dahl & Koptsjevkaja-Tamm 2001: 202). These findings were explained by pointing to redundancy and the comical effect of distancing the construction creates.
{"title":"De dochter doet een powernap","authors":"M. Suijkerbuijk, S. Leufkens, Marten van der Meulen","doi":"10.1075/avt.00069.suij","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00069.suij","url":null,"abstract":"While kinship relations in Dutch are usually introduced by a possessive determiner, Twitter users have recently observed to use a definite article in that position. To learn more about the characteristics of this construction, we performed an exploratory investigation of the definite article possession construction with Dutch kinship terms on Twitter. We analysed 100 tweets for 24 kinship terms each, and annotated for the type of pre-nominal modifier used. Results show that the phenomenon is far from peripheral, as 13.2% of all selected tweets featured a definite article. The construction was most frequent with descending and horizontal relationship terms, and with improper kin terms (i.e., terms with a non-kin meaning at least as prominent as kinship use; Dahl & Koptsjevkaja-Tamm 2001: 202). These findings were explained by pointing to redundancy and the comical effect of distancing the construction creates.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59343433","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this article we conduct a pragmatic analysis of the Dutch utterance-final particle hoor (lit. ‘hear’). Apparently, hoor has contradictory uses. It expresses politeness (involvement, togetherness), but it can also contribute to the face-threatening force of an utterance. We argue that there is a core meaning that all uses share, which is that by adding hoor, speakers claim a proposition at issue to be part of the common ground. This core meaning will be shown to account for hoor’s key characteristics. Hoor expresses involvement and is often attached to speech acts that are intrinsically polite, such as apologizing and giving compliments. Also, while hoor never occurs in interrogative sentences, it can be used with a certain type of directive speech acts, namely those that are in the interest of the hearer or are presented as having shared interests.
{"title":"Tegen niemand zeggen hoor!","authors":"Helen de Hoop, G. Mulder","doi":"10.1075/avt.00063.hoo","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00063.hoo","url":null,"abstract":"In this article we conduct a pragmatic analysis of the Dutch utterance-final particle hoor (lit. ‘hear’). Apparently, hoor has contradictory uses. It expresses politeness (involvement, togetherness), but it can also contribute to the face-threatening force of an utterance. We argue that there is a core meaning that all uses share, which is that by adding hoor, speakers claim a proposition at issue to be part of the common ground. This core meaning will be shown to account for hoor’s key characteristics. Hoor expresses involvement and is often attached to speech acts that are intrinsically polite, such as apologizing and giving compliments. Also, while hoor never occurs in interrogative sentences, it can be used with a certain type of directive speech acts, namely those that are in the interest of the hearer or are presented as having shared interests.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"105 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59342882","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Maria den Hartog, Marjolein van Hoften, G. Schoenmakers
In Netherlandish Dutch, Belgian Dutch, German, French, and Spanish, speakers have a choice between formal (V) and informal (T) pronouns of address. We present a quantitative study of how V and T are used on recruitment pages of multinational companies. Our corpus-based method is inspired by studies on pronouns of address in Netherlandish and Belgian Dutch by Vismans (2007) and Waterlot (2014). Unlike these earlier studies, we provide a comparison of the same companies recruiting in different countries, thereby strengthening the comparison of V- and T-forms between languages. We find a preference for T in recruitment ads in Belgian Dutch, Netherlandish Dutch and Spanish, while we find a preference for V in French. There seems to be no clear preference for either V or T in German, which may reflect that address preferences in German are changing or ambiguous.
{"title":"Pronouns of address in recruitment advertisements from multinational companies","authors":"Maria den Hartog, Marjolein van Hoften, G. Schoenmakers","doi":"10.1075/avt.00060.har","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00060.har","url":null,"abstract":"In Netherlandish Dutch, Belgian Dutch, German, French, and Spanish, speakers have a choice between formal (V) and informal (T) pronouns of address. We present a quantitative study of how V and T are used on recruitment pages of multinational companies. Our corpus-based method is inspired by studies on pronouns of address in Netherlandish and Belgian Dutch by Vismans (2007) and Waterlot (2014). Unlike these earlier studies, we provide a comparison of the same companies recruiting in different countries, thereby strengthening the comparison of V- and T-forms between languages. We find a preference for T in recruitment ads in Belgian Dutch, Netherlandish Dutch and Spanish, while we find a preference for V in French. There seems to be no clear preference for either V or T in German, which may reflect that address preferences in German are changing or ambiguous.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59343248","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Syntactic decomposition theories of argument structure take predicates to be syntactically complex, consisting of a root and one or more functional heads. Traditionally, these functional heads have been used as potential attachment sites for adverbs, such as the repetitive adverb again, giving rise to the repetitive/restitutive ambiguity. In this paper, I question the assumption that these functional heads provide sublexi-cal attachment sites based on theoretical and empirical objections. Taking both the scope of the adverb and effects of focus into account, I present a supralexical approach to the ambiguity. Discussing novel data of two Dutch repetitive adverbs as well as a repetitive verbal prefix, I argue that again has a default restitutive reading that becomes repetitive if the adverb scopes over the object or if focus is placed on the adverb. This research has implications for syntactic decomposition approaches to argument structure.
{"title":"Toward a supralexical analysis of the repetitive/restitutive ambiguity","authors":"Marjolein Wietske Talsma","doi":"10.1075/avt.00070.tal","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00070.tal","url":null,"abstract":"Syntactic decomposition theories of argument structure take predicates to be syntactically complex, consisting of a root and one or more functional heads. Traditionally, these functional heads have been used as potential attachment sites for adverbs, such as the repetitive adverb again, giving rise to the repetitive/restitutive ambiguity. In this paper, I question the assumption that these functional heads provide sublexi-cal attachment sites based on theoretical and empirical objections. Taking both the scope of the adverb and effects of focus into account, I present a supralexical approach to the ambiguity. Discussing novel data of two Dutch repetitive adverbs as well as a repetitive verbal prefix, I argue that again has a default restitutive reading that becomes repetitive if the adverb scopes over the object or if focus is placed on the adverb. This research has implications for syntactic decomposition approaches to argument structure.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59343482","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Conditional clauses in Dutch can be accompanied by focus particles, as in zelfs als ‘even if’ and alleen als ‘only if’. The literature focuses on these additive and restrictive particles, because they may influence the truth-conditional meaning of the sentence, which is uncommon for particles. Most of these studies are not based on empirical language data, or draw largely from formal written texts in English. This study investigates which focus particles occur in Dutch conditionals, and to which extent their uses are associated with spoken and written modes and with formal and informal registers. It is shown that restrictive and additive particles are most frequent in formal written texts, and that a third type of particle exists, which adds iterative meaning to the conditional, as in telkens als ‘evertime if [when]’. The results show this type of particles to be associated with informal spoken texts.
荷兰语中的条件从句可以和焦点粒子一起出现，比如在zelfs als中是“even if”，在alleen als中是“only if”。文献主要关注这些加性和限制性的小品，因为它们可能会影响句子的真条件意义，而这在小品中并不常见。这些研究大多不是基于经验语言数据，或者主要来自正式的英语书面文本。本研究调查了荷兰语条件句中出现了哪些焦点助词，以及它们的使用在多大程度上与口语和书面模式以及正式和非正式语域相关联。研究表明，在正式的书面文本中，限制性和加性助词最为常见，而第三种助词也存在，它为条件句增加了迭代意义，如telkens也为“evertime if [when]”。结果表明，这种类型的粒子与非正式的口语文本有关。
{"title":"Addition, restriction, iteration","authors":"A. Reuneker","doi":"10.1075/avt.00067.reu","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00067.reu","url":null,"abstract":"Conditional clauses in Dutch can be accompanied by focus particles, as in zelfs als ‘even if’ and alleen als ‘only if’. The literature focuses on these additive and restrictive particles, because they may influence the truth-conditional meaning of the sentence, which is uncommon for particles. Most of these studies are not based on empirical language data, or draw largely from formal written texts in English. This study investigates which focus particles occur in Dutch conditionals, and to which extent their uses are associated with spoken and written modes and with formal and informal registers. It is shown that restrictive and additive particles are most frequent in formal written texts, and that a third type of particle exists, which adds iterative meaning to the conditional, as in telkens als ‘evertime if [when]’. The results show this type of particles to be associated with informal spoken texts.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59343375","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There are three ways of deriving verbs in Dutch: through zero marking, through suffix-ation, and through prefixation. We focus on prefixed deadjectival verbs, contrasting two views. According to the first view, prefixed verbs are left-headed: the prefix is responsible for the change in category, i.e. [V ver [A breed]]. The second view holds that prefixed verbs are right-headed, and involve a zero verbalizing suffix, i.e., [V ver [V [A breed] ∅]]. We argue in this paper for a mixed, nanosyntactic, approach. We adopt Ramchand’s (2008) decomposition of the verb and argue that the prefix spells out part of the verbal structure and the verbal root spells out another part.
荷兰语中的动词有三种派生方式:零标记、后缀和前缀。我们将重点讨论带前缀的死态动词，对比两种观点。根据第一种观点，带前缀的动词是左旋的:前缀负责类别的变化，即[V ver [A breed]]。第二种观点认为，带前缀的动词是右向的，并且包含一个零动词后缀，即[V ver [V [a breed]∅]]。在本文中，我们主张采用一种混合的纳米语法方法。我们采用Ramchand(2008)对动词的分解，认为前缀拼出一部分动词结构，而词根拼出另一部分。
{"title":"A nanosyntactic approach to Dutch deadjectival verbs","authors":"G. V. Wyngaerd, K. Clercq, Pavel Caha","doi":"10.1075/avt.00072.wyn","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00072.wyn","url":null,"abstract":"There are three ways of deriving verbs in Dutch: through zero marking, through suffix-ation, and through prefixation. We focus on prefixed deadjectival verbs, contrasting two views. According to the first view, prefixed verbs are left-headed: the prefix is responsible for the change in category, i.e. [V ver [A breed]]. The second view holds that prefixed verbs are right-headed, and involve a zero verbalizing suffix, i.e., [V ver [V [A breed] ∅]]. We argue in this paper for a mixed, nanosyntactic, approach. We adopt Ramchand’s (2008) decomposition of the verb and argue that the prefix spells out part of the verbal structure and the verbal root spells out another part.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59343800","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Slurs are pejorative terms for groups of people, relating to for example their nationality, their sexual orientation, etc. While there is a lot of discussion about slurs, they are typically characterized in relation to a neutral noun. In this article we will explore this distinction between neutral and offensive group labels. By means of a small experiment, we show that slurs are indeed considered to be more hurtful than their corresponding ‘neutral’ nouns, but that at least some of these nouns themselves are experienced as more hurtful than adjective noun combinations. We suggest that the results are in line with analyses in which the degree to which a term is considered to be hurtful is based on its inherent (i.e. conventionalized) properties, as well as the context in which it is used. We suggest that such analyses could be extended to nouns, such that terms can be neutral or non-neutral to various degrees.
{"title":"The hurtfulness of slurs, nouns and adjectives as group labels","authors":"L. Hogeweg, Monique Neuleman","doi":"10.1075/avt.00062.hog","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00062.hog","url":null,"abstract":"Slurs are pejorative terms for groups of people, relating to for example their nationality, their sexual orientation, etc. While there is a lot of discussion about slurs, they are typically characterized in relation to a neutral noun. In this article we will explore this distinction between neutral and offensive group labels. By means of a small experiment, we show that slurs are indeed considered to be more hurtful than their corresponding ‘neutral’ nouns, but that at least some of these nouns themselves are experienced as more hurtful than adjective noun combinations. We suggest that the results are in line with analyses in which the degree to which a term is considered to be hurtful is based on its inherent (i.e. conventionalized) properties, as well as the context in which it is used. We suggest that such analyses could be extended to nouns, such that terms can be neutral or non-neutral to various degrees.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59343313","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper presents a novel syntactic analysis of the much-debated Dutch aanhet-construction, e.g. Pieter is aan het opruimen ‘lit. Peter is on the cleanup: Peter is cleaning up’. We show that the construction’s syntactic behavior varies with the matrix verb: progressive zijn ‘be’ versus ingressive gaan ‘go’ and slaan ‘hit’. Based on this variation, we argue that there are two aanhet-projections occupying different synchronic positions on a functional-to-lexical cline.
本文对荷兰语中颇有争议的“Pieter is aan”和“het opruimen’lit”等“aanet”结构进行了新颖的句法分析。彼得在打扫卫生:彼得在打扫卫生。我们发现这种结构的句法行为随着矩阵动词的变化而变化:进行式zijn ' be '与进行式gaan ' go '和slan ' hit '。基于这一差异，我们认为在功能-词汇渐变过程中，有两个词性投射占据了不同的共时位置。
{"title":"The syntax of progressive and ingressive aanhet-constructions in Dutch","authors":"Maarten Bogaards, R. Boogaart, S. Barbiers","doi":"10.1075/avt.00058.bog","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00058.bog","url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents a novel syntactic analysis of the much-debated Dutch aanhet-construction, e.g. Pieter is aan het opruimen ‘lit. Peter is on the cleanup: Peter is cleaning up’. We show that the construction’s syntactic behavior varies with the matrix verb: progressive zijn ‘be’ versus ingressive gaan ‘go’ and slaan ‘hit’. Based on this variation, we argue that there are two aanhet-projections occupying different synchronic positions on a functional-to-lexical cline.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59342979","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：