This study looks at the variable use of two related forms, namely the reflexive construction (The defendant talked himself into trouble) and the way construction (The actress danced her way to stardom). Despite their differences, the two constructions are often used in ways that can be described as one taking over the other’s expressive functions. Following Mondorf (2011), I assume that the variation results in part from the historical competition between the two, and from the fact that the process of specialization is not yet complete. I present another factor responsible for the overlap, which may keep the specialization from ever being concluded. It involves specific uses of a construction chunked into formulaic phrases (like talk oneself into trouble) which are used reversively (talk oneself out of trouble) against the specifications of the construction they are based on. That is, the kind of variation discussed here is set in motion by the same mechanism observed in novelty motivated through local analogies with specific expressions and low-level instances of a construction.
{"title":"Variation motivated by analogy with fixed chunks","authors":"Konrad Szcześniak","doi":"10.1075/CF.00024.SZC","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/CF.00024.SZC","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This study looks at the variable use of two related forms, namely the reflexive construction (The defendant talked himself into trouble) and the way construction (The actress danced her way to stardom). Despite their differences, the two constructions are often used in ways that can be described as one taking over the other’s expressive functions. Following Mondorf (2011), I assume that the variation results in part from the historical competition between the two, and from the fact that the process of specialization is not yet complete. I present another factor responsible for the overlap, which may keep the specialization from ever being concluded. It involves specific uses of a construction chunked into formulaic phrases (like talk oneself into trouble) which are used reversively (talk oneself out of trouble) against the specifications of the construction they are based on. That is, the kind of variation discussed here is set in motion by the same mechanism observed in novelty motivated through local analogies with specific expressions and low-level instances of a construction.","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44648620","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 investigates the constructional behaviour of three of the most frequent go verbs in Modern Standard Arabic: ḏahaba, maḍā, and rāḥa. These verbs are considered somewhat synonymous according to many classical and modern dictionaries of Arabic. Nevertheless, each verb has a distinctive profile manifested in its constructional behaviour, which explains why these verbs are not easily interchangeable in various contexts of use. In this paper, I will examine the prototypical uses of the three MSA go verbs based on corpus data (extracted from arabicorpus.byu.edu) by highlighting the lexico-syntactic frames they each associate with. This is achieved by annotating a large number of contextualized uses (per verb) for a variety of lexico-syntactic features. The data frame is subsequently probed with the help of Hierarchical Configural Frequency Analysis (von Eye 1990; Gries 2004) as a means of highlighting recurring and significant patterns of variable co-occurrences. The quantitative analysis is followed by a qualitative analysis that further explores the lexico-syntactic frames that pertain to different aspects of a deictic motion event. The results obtained from both the quantitative and qualitative analyses highlight the idiosyncratic constructional properties that characterize the use of each verb in various physical and figurative motion event construals.
{"title":"go constructions in Modern Standard Arabic","authors":"Dana Abdulrahim","doi":"10.1075/CF.00022.ABD","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/CF.00022.ABD","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper investigates the constructional behaviour of three of the most frequent go verbs in Modern\u0000 Standard Arabic: ḏahaba, maḍā, and rāḥa. These verbs are considered somewhat synonymous\u0000 according to many classical and modern dictionaries of Arabic. Nevertheless, each verb has a distinctive profile manifested in its\u0000 constructional behaviour, which explains why these verbs are not easily interchangeable in various contexts of use. In this paper,\u0000 I will examine the prototypical uses of the three MSA go verbs based on corpus data (extracted from arabicorpus.byu.edu) by highlighting the lexico-syntactic frames they each\u0000 associate with. This is achieved by annotating a large number of contextualized uses (per verb) for a variety of lexico-syntactic\u0000 features. The data frame is subsequently probed with the help of Hierarchical Configural Frequency Analysis (von Eye 1990; Gries 2004) as a means of highlighting recurring\u0000 and significant patterns of variable co-occurrences. The quantitative analysis is followed by a qualitative analysis that further\u0000 explores the lexico-syntactic frames that pertain to different aspects of a deictic motion event. The results obtained from both\u0000 the quantitative and qualitative analyses highlight the idiosyncratic constructional properties that characterize the use of each\u0000 verb in various physical and figurative motion event construals.","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47273002","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 every-day language use, two or more structurally unrelated constructions may occasionally give rise to strings that look very similar on the surface. As a result of this superficial resemblance, a subset of instances of one of these constructions may deviate in the probabilistic preference for either of several possible formal variants. This effect is called ‘constructional contamination’, and was introduced in Pijpops & Van de Velde (2016). Constructional contamination bears testimony to the hypothesis that language users do not always execute a full parse of the utterances they interpret, but instead often rely on ‘shallow parsing’ and the storage of large, unanalyzed chunks of language in memory, as proposed in Ferreira, Bailey, & Ferraro (2002), Ferreira & Patson (2007), and Dąbrowska (2014). Pijpops & Van de Velde (2016) investigated a single case study in depth, namely the Dutch partitive genitive. This case study is reviewed, and three new case studies are added, namely the competition between long and bare infinitives, word order variation in verbal clusters, and preterite formation. We find evidence of constructional contamination in all case studies, albeit in varying degrees. This indicates that constructional contamination is not a particularity of the Dutch partitive genitive but appears to be more wide-spread, affecting both morphology and syntax. Furthermore, we distinguish between two forms of constructional contamination, viz. first degree and second degree contamination, with first degree contamination producing greater effects than second degree contamination.
在日常语言使用中，两个或两个以上结构上不相关的结构偶尔会产生表面上看起来非常相似的字符串。由于这种表面上的相似性，这些结构之一的实例的子集可能会偏离几种可能的形式变体中的任何一种的概率偏好。这种影响被称为“建筑污染”，Pijpops&Van de Velde（2016）对此进行了介绍。正如Ferreira、Bailey和Ferraro（2002）、Ferreira和Patson（2007）以及Dãbrowska（2014）所提出的那样，结构污染证明了这样一种假设，即语言使用者并不总是对他们所解释的话语进行完整的解析，而是经常依赖于“浅解析”和在记忆中存储大量未分析的语言块。Pijpops&Van de Velde（2016）深入调查了一个单一的案例研究，即荷兰的部分属格。对这一案例研究进行了回顾，并增加了三个新的案例研究，即长不定式和裸不定式之间的竞争、言语簇中的语序变化和仪式前形成。我们在所有案例研究中都发现了建筑污染的证据，尽管程度不同。这表明结构污染并不是荷兰语部分属格的特殊性，而是更广泛地传播，影响了形态和句法。此外，我们区分了两种形式的建筑污染，即一级污染和二级污染，一级污染比二级污染产生更大的影响。
{"title":"Constructional contamination in morphology and syntax","authors":"Dirk Pijpops, Isabeau De Smet, F. Velde","doi":"10.1075/CF.00021.PIJ","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/CF.00021.PIJ","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In every-day language use, two or more structurally unrelated constructions may occasionally give rise to strings\u0000 that look very similar on the surface. As a result of this superficial resemblance, a subset of instances of one of these\u0000 constructions may deviate in the probabilistic preference for either of several possible formal variants. This effect is called\u0000 ‘constructional contamination’, and was introduced in Pijpops & Van de Velde\u0000 (2016). Constructional contamination bears testimony to the hypothesis that language users do not always execute a full\u0000 parse of the utterances they interpret, but instead often rely on ‘shallow parsing’ and the storage of large, unanalyzed chunks of\u0000 language in memory, as proposed in Ferreira, Bailey, & Ferraro (2002), Ferreira & Patson (2007), and Dąbrowska\u0000 (2014).\u0000 \u0000 Pijpops & Van de Velde (2016) investigated a single case study in\u0000 depth, namely the Dutch partitive genitive. This case study is reviewed, and three new case studies are added, namely the\u0000 competition between long and bare infinitives, word order variation in verbal clusters, and preterite formation. We find evidence\u0000 of constructional contamination in all case studies, albeit in varying degrees. This indicates that constructional contamination\u0000 is not a particularity of the Dutch partitive genitive but appears to be more wide-spread, affecting both morphology and syntax.\u0000 Furthermore, we distinguish between two forms of constructional contamination, viz. first degree and second degree contamination,\u0000 with first degree contamination producing greater effects than second degree contamination.","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42418687","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}
{"title":"Asymmetries, Mismatches and Construction Grammar","authors":"Nikos Koutsoukos, K. Goethem, H. D. Smet","doi":"10.1075/CF.00016.KOU","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/CF.00016.KOU","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47958759","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}
Prior studies suggest that language users perform motoric simulations when construing action sentences and that verbs and constructions each contribute to simulation-based representation (Glenberg & Kaschak 2002; Richardson et al. 2003; Bergen et al. 2007; Bergen & Wheeler 2010). This raises the possibility that motorically grounded verb and construction meanings can interact during sentence understanding. In this experiment, we use the action-sentence compatibility effect methodology to investigate how a verb’s lexical-class membership, constructional context, and constructional bias modulate motor simulation effects. Stimuli represent two classes of transfer verbs and two constructions that encode transfer events, Ditransitive and Oblique Goal (Goldberg 1995). Findings reveal two kinds of verb-construction interactions. First, verbs in their preferred construction generate stronger simulation effects overall than those in their dispreferred construction. Second, verbs that entail change of possession generate strong motor-simulation effects irrespective of constructional context, while those entailing causation of motion exert such effects only when enriched up to change-of-possession verbs in the semantically mismatched Ditransitive context. We conclude that simulation effects are not isolable to either verbs or constructions but instead arise from the interplay of verb and construction meaning.
{"title":"Match, mismatch, and envisioning transfer events","authors":"K. Gould, Laura A. Michaelis","doi":"10.1075/CF.00020.GOU","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/CF.00020.GOU","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Prior studies suggest that language users perform motoric simulations when construing action sentences and that\u0000 verbs and constructions each contribute to simulation-based representation (Glenberg &\u0000 Kaschak 2002; Richardson et al. 2003; Bergen et al. 2007; Bergen & Wheeler 2010). This raises the possibility\u0000 that motorically grounded verb and construction meanings can interact during sentence understanding. In this experiment, we use\u0000 the action-sentence compatibility effect methodology to investigate how a verb’s lexical-class membership, constructional context,\u0000 and constructional bias modulate motor simulation effects. Stimuli represent two classes of transfer verbs and two constructions\u0000 that encode transfer events, Ditransitive and Oblique Goal (Goldberg 1995). Findings\u0000 reveal two kinds of verb-construction interactions. First, verbs in their preferred construction generate stronger simulation\u0000 effects overall than those in their dispreferred construction. Second, verbs that entail change of possession generate strong\u0000 motor-simulation effects irrespective of constructional context, while those entailing causation of motion exert such effects only\u0000 when enriched up to change-of-possession verbs in the semantically mismatched Ditransitive context. We conclude that simulation\u0000 effects are not isolable to either verbs or constructions but instead arise from the interplay of verb and construction\u0000 meaning.","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45044893","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}
The paper deals with the French morphological prefixation pattern [non-N] (non-qualification ‘non-qualification’, non-Italien ‘non-Italian’, and non-ville ‘non-city’). It discusses the form/meaning asymmetry displayed by this pattern and its compositionality. It is shown that the general pattern [non-N] actually corresponds to three distinct subconstructions, i.e. distinct form/meaning pairings. Although pragmatic factors may be seen as presenting a challenge to the compositionality of these constructions, it is argued that [non-N]s must be seen as compositional as long as compositionality is defined not only in terms of truth-conditional semantics, but also of pragmatics.
{"title":"Form/meaning asymmetry in word formation","authors":"E. Dugas","doi":"10.1075/CF.00018.DUG","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/CF.00018.DUG","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The paper deals with the French morphological prefixation pattern [non-N]\u0000 (non-qualification ‘non-qualification’, non-Italien ‘non-Italian’, and\u0000 non-ville ‘non-city’). It discusses the form/meaning asymmetry displayed by this pattern and its\u0000 compositionality. It is shown that the general pattern [non-N] actually corresponds to three distinct\u0000 subconstructions, i.e. distinct form/meaning pairings. Although pragmatic factors may be seen as presenting a challenge to the\u0000 compositionality of these constructions, it is argued that [non-N]s must be seen as compositional as long as\u0000 compositionality is defined not only in terms of truth-conditional semantics, but also of pragmatics.","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43864324","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 article studies the pseudo-coordination [gå ‘go/walk’ och ‘and’ V]. The construction has several meanings and it also has subordination counterparts in Modern Swedish, unlike most Swedish pseudo-coordinations. Our diachronic study shows that [gå och V] cannot readily be reduced to the verbs in isolation and that synchronic lexicocentric perspectives based on syntactic (re)configurations cannot capture the constructional meaning such as the assumed inference of ‘surprise’ or ’unexpectedness’. We argue that a detailed analysis of the historical development makes the picture clearer. In the development of [gå och V], item-based analogy continuously facilitates new verbs in the V slot. At a certain stage, there is a mismatch between the agentivity of the construction and the non-agentivity of events denoted by the second verb. This mismatch is resolved by the override principle that forces non-agentive verbs to be interpreted agentively and promote a more abstract and lexicalized version of the construction. The exemplar-based view to constructions proposed by Bybee (2010, 2013) seems favorable, since frequent exemplars of [gå och V] allow for redundant or marginal features to serve as the model for novel expansions of the construction.
{"title":"Matches and mismatches in Swedish [gå och V] ‘go/walk and V’","authors":"Peter Andersson, Kristian Blensenius","doi":"10.1075/CF.00017.AND","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/CF.00017.AND","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article studies the pseudo-coordination [gå ‘go/walk’ och ‘and’\u0000 V]. The construction has several meanings and it also has subordination counterparts in Modern Swedish,\u0000 unlike most Swedish pseudo-coordinations. Our diachronic study shows that [gå och V] cannot readily be reduced to\u0000 the verbs in isolation and that synchronic lexicocentric perspectives based on syntactic (re)configurations cannot capture the\u0000 constructional meaning such as the assumed inference of ‘surprise’ or ’unexpectedness’. We argue that a detailed analysis of the\u0000 historical development makes the picture clearer.\u0000 In the development of [gå och V], item-based analogy continuously facilitates new verbs in the V\u0000 slot. At a certain stage, there is a mismatch between the agentivity of the construction and the non-agentivity of events denoted\u0000 by the second verb. This mismatch is resolved by the override principle that forces non-agentive verbs to be interpreted\u0000 agentively and promote a more abstract and lexicalized version of the construction. The exemplar-based view to constructions\u0000 proposed by Bybee (2010, 2013) seems\u0000 favorable, since frequent exemplars of [gå och V] allow for redundant or marginal features to serve as the model\u0000 for novel expansions of the construction.","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47794699","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 discusses constructional variation in the domain of contrastive negation in English, using data from the British National Corpus. Contrastive negation refers to constructs with two parts, one negative and the other affirmative, such that the affirmative offers an alternative to the negative in the frame in question (e.g. shaken, not stirred; not once but twice; I don’t like it – I love it). The paper utilises multiple correspondence analysis to explore the degree of synonymy among the various constructional schemas of contrastive negation, finding that different schemas are associated with different semantic, pragmatic and extralinguistic contexts but also that certain schemas do not differ from each other in a significant way.
{"title":"Constructional schemas in variation","authors":"O. Silvennoinen","doi":"10.1075/CF.00009.SIL","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/CF.00009.SIL","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper discusses constructional variation in the domain of contrastive\u0000 negation in English, using data from the British National Corpus. Contrastive\u0000 negation refers to constructs with two parts, one negative and the other\u0000 affirmative, such that the affirmative offers an alternative to the negative in\u0000 the frame in question (e.g. shaken, not stirred; not\u0000 once but twice; I don’t like it – I love it). The\u0000 paper utilises multiple correspondence analysis to explore the degree of\u0000 synonymy among the various constructional schemas of contrastive negation,\u0000 finding that different schemas are associated with different semantic, pragmatic\u0000 and extralinguistic contexts but also that certain schemas do not differ from\u0000 each other in a significant way.","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45734106","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}
Characterizing paraphrases formally has proven to be a challenging task. Hasegawa et al. (2011) pointed out the usefulness of FrameNet for paraphrase research, focusing on paraphrases which are backed by underlying classical linguistic relationships such as synonymy or voice alternations. This article proposes that other frame-to-frame-relations, notably Using, can serve as a source for concept-based paraphrases – that is, paraphrases that are backed by common sense knowledge, as in he called him a hero – he praised him for being a hero. While the predicates in these sentences are not synonymous, we would argue that the sentences are paraphrases – albeit of a kind that involves world knowledge about the relationship between different event classes. In this article, we propose a shallow taxonomy for the frame pairs which instantiate Using, that is motivated by their ability to form concept-based paraphrases. Second, we analyze the subclass of Using instances which supports concept-based paraphrasing, and provide a formalization of some prominent types of side conditions that are necessary to produce felicitous paraphrases.
{"title":"FrameNet’s Using relation as a source of concept-based paraphrases","authors":"Jennifer Sikos, Sebastian Padó","doi":"10.1075/CF.00010.SIK","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/CF.00010.SIK","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Characterizing paraphrases formally has proven to be a challenging task. Hasegawa et al. (2011) pointed out the usefulness of FrameNet for\u0000 paraphrase research, focusing on paraphrases which are backed by underlying classical linguistic relationships such as synonymy or\u0000 voice alternations. This article proposes that other frame-to-frame-relations, notably Using, can serve as a source for\u0000 concept-based paraphrases – that is, paraphrases that are backed by common sense knowledge, as in he called him a\u0000 hero – he praised him for being a hero. While the predicates in these sentences are not synonymous,\u0000 we would argue that the sentences are paraphrases – albeit of a kind that involves world knowledge about the relationship between\u0000 different event classes. In this article, we propose a shallow taxonomy for the frame pairs which\u0000 instantiate Using, that is motivated by their ability to form concept-based paraphrases. Second, we analyze the subclass of Using instances which supports concept-based paraphrasing, and provide a formalization of some prominent types of side\u0000 conditions that are necessary to produce felicitous paraphrases.","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45234310","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：