Pub Date : 2018-01-09DOI: 10.1163/18773109-201810015
D. Walton, M. Koszowy
We show how to solve common problems in identifying arguments from expert opinion, illustrated by five examples selected from The Economist. Our method started by intuitively identifying many appeals to alleged experts in The Economist and comparing them to the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion. This approach led us to (i) extending the existing list of possible faults committed when arguments from expert opinion are performed and (ii) proposing the extension of the list of linguistic cues that would allow analysts to identify arguments from expert opinion. Our ultimate aim is to help argument identification by argument mining connect better with techniques of argument analysis and evaluation.
{"title":"From text to scheme","authors":"D. Walton, M. Koszowy","doi":"10.1163/18773109-201810015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-201810015","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 We show how to solve common problems in identifying arguments from expert opinion, illustrated by five examples selected from The Economist. Our method started by intuitively identifying many appeals to alleged experts in The Economist and comparing them to the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion. This approach led us to (i) extending the existing list of possible faults committed when arguments from expert opinion are performed and (ii) proposing the extension of the list of linguistic cues that would allow analysts to identify arguments from expert opinion. Our ultimate aim is to help argument identification by argument mining connect better with techniques of argument analysis and evaluation.","PeriodicalId":43536,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Pragmatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-201810015","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43891718","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}
Pub Date : 2018-01-09DOI: 10.1163/18773109-201810014
V. Bardzokas
The current paper aims to investigate the distinctions in meaning between two prototypical markers of contrast in Modern Greek, i.e. alla and ma, from a relevance-theoretic viewpoint. At first sight, the two markers seem freely interchangeable across contexts, creating the impression that they basically share the same meaning. However, a more careful exploration of the contextual occurrences of these markers unravels their finely grained distinctions in meaning. This type of exploration requires a detailed categorization of the types of context that license or preclude the application of the markers at hand. In this sense, specific contexts highlight aspects of interpretation that motivate the use of one of the markers but not the other. Specifically, as it turns out, while the use of alla is chiefly associated with contexts of procedural elimination, in standard relevance-theoretic terms, the use of ma is justified in relation to expressing the speaker’s attitude of surprise to a contextual assumption constructed by the hearer, in addition to effecting procedural elimination. In this sense, ma proves to encode a dual constraint on the implicitly communicated content of an utterance, explained univocally in procedural terms.
{"title":"Distinctions in procedural meaning","authors":"V. Bardzokas","doi":"10.1163/18773109-201810014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-201810014","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The current paper aims to investigate the distinctions in meaning between two prototypical markers of contrast in Modern Greek, i.e. alla and ma, from a relevance-theoretic viewpoint. At first sight, the two markers seem freely interchangeable across contexts, creating the impression that they basically share the same meaning. However, a more careful exploration of the contextual occurrences of these markers unravels their finely grained distinctions in meaning. This type of exploration requires a detailed categorization of the types of context that license or preclude the application of the markers at hand. In this sense, specific contexts highlight aspects of interpretation that motivate the use of one of the markers but not the other. Specifically, as it turns out, while the use of alla is chiefly associated with contexts of procedural elimination, in standard relevance-theoretic terms, the use of ma is justified in relation to expressing the speaker’s attitude of surprise to a contextual assumption constructed by the hearer, in addition to effecting procedural elimination. In this sense, ma proves to encode a dual constraint on the implicitly communicated content of an utterance, explained univocally in procedural terms.","PeriodicalId":43536,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Pragmatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-201810014","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41554025","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}
Pub Date : 2018-01-09DOI: 10.1163/18773109-201810013
R. Anderson, I. Lehman
In this paper we set out to consider the place of the English language in globalised communities. The hegemony, which English enjoys, has ramifications for how it is taught, how and why it is learned and how it is used. We argue that there is a need to consider more socio-cultural and individual factors in the learning and use of English as a lingua franca as these factors constitute crucial aids to successful cross-cultural interactions in professional environments. The latest research on lingua franca English (LFE) (Firth & Wagner, 1997; Kramsch, 2002; Larsen-Freeman, 2002; Block, 2003; House, 2003; Canagarajah, 2006a; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Atkinson, Churchill, Nishino & Okada, 2007) confirms our position since it reveals what has always been the experience of multilingual speakers, i.e., “Language learning and use succeed through performance strategies, situational resources, and social negotiations in fluid communicative contexts. Proficiency is therefore practice-based, adaptive, and emergent” (Canagarajah, 2007: 923).
{"title":"Culture-specific and individual affective factors in professional communication","authors":"R. Anderson, I. Lehman","doi":"10.1163/18773109-201810013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-201810013","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In this paper we set out to consider the place of the English language in globalised communities. The hegemony, which English enjoys, has ramifications for how it is taught, how and why it is learned and how it is used. We argue that there is a need to consider more socio-cultural and individual factors in the learning and use of English as a lingua franca as these factors constitute crucial aids to successful cross-cultural interactions in professional environments. The latest research on lingua franca English (LFE) (Firth & Wagner, 1997; Kramsch, 2002; Larsen-Freeman, 2002; Block, 2003; House, 2003; Canagarajah, 2006a; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Atkinson, Churchill, Nishino & Okada, 2007) confirms our position since it reveals what has always been the experience of multilingual speakers, i.e., “Language learning and use succeed through performance strategies, situational resources, and social negotiations in fluid communicative contexts. Proficiency is therefore practice-based, adaptive, and emergent” (Canagarajah, 2007: 923).","PeriodicalId":43536,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Pragmatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-201810013","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47962107","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}
Pub Date : 2018-01-09DOI: 10.1163/18773109-201810012
J. Bowerman
Working within the framework of Relevance Theory, I investigate the nature of referential metonymy (specifically, metonymically-used definite descriptions), aiming to elucidate (i) the pragmatic mechanisms involved in referential metonymy comprehension, and (ii) the contribution of a metonymically-used definite description to the explicitly communicated content of an utterance. I propose that, while the interpretation of referential metonymy is properly inferential in nature, it cannot be explained in terms of ‘meaning modulation’ (narrowing and broadening); rather, the literal meaning of a metonymically-used referring expression remains intact, and is used as evidence of the speaker’s target referent. In addition, I argue that the referential/attributive distinction proposed by Donnellan (1966) for literally-used definite descriptions also applies to metonymically-used definite descriptions. Thus, the contribution of a metonymically-used definite description to explicit utterance content differs according to whether the definite description is used ‘referentially’ or ‘attributively’.
{"title":"What’s really going on with the ham sandwich?","authors":"J. Bowerman","doi":"10.1163/18773109-201810012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-201810012","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Working within the framework of Relevance Theory, I investigate the nature of referential metonymy (specifically, metonymically-used definite descriptions), aiming to elucidate (i) the pragmatic mechanisms involved in referential metonymy comprehension, and (ii) the contribution of a metonymically-used definite description to the explicitly communicated content of an utterance. I propose that, while the interpretation of referential metonymy is properly inferential in nature, it cannot be explained in terms of ‘meaning modulation’ (narrowing and broadening); rather, the literal meaning of a metonymically-used referring expression remains intact, and is used as evidence of the speaker’s target referent. In addition, I argue that the referential/attributive distinction proposed by Donnellan (1966) for literally-used definite descriptions also applies to metonymically-used definite descriptions. Thus, the contribution of a metonymically-used definite description to explicit utterance content differs according to whether the definite description is used ‘referentially’ or ‘attributively’.","PeriodicalId":43536,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Pragmatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-201810012","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46026686","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}
Pub Date : 2018-01-09DOI: 10.1163/18773109-201810011
H. Alatawi
The Default hypothesis on implicature processing suggests that a rapid, automatic mechanism is used to process utterances such as “some of his family are attending the wedding” to infer that “not all of them are attending”, an inference subject to cancellation if additional contextual information is provided (e.g. “actually, they are all attending”). In contrast, the Relevance hypothesis suggests that only context-dependent inferences are computed and this process is cognitively effortful. This article reviews findings on behavioural and neural processing of scalar implicatures to clarify the cognitive effort involved.
{"title":"Empirical evidence on scalar implicature processing at the behavioural and neural levels","authors":"H. Alatawi","doi":"10.1163/18773109-201810011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-201810011","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The Default hypothesis on implicature processing suggests that a rapid, automatic mechanism is used to process utterances such as “some of his family are attending the wedding” to infer that “not all of them are attending”, an inference subject to cancellation if additional contextual information is provided (e.g. “actually, they are all attending”). In contrast, the Relevance hypothesis suggests that only context-dependent inferences are computed and this process is cognitively effortful. This article reviews findings on behavioural and neural processing of scalar implicatures to clarify the cognitive effort involved.","PeriodicalId":43536,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Pragmatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-201810011","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44206540","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}
Pub Date : 2018-01-01DOI: 10.1163/18773109-01001002
Siaw-Fong Chung
The occurrences of kill and killer are often understood as negative; however, evidence suggests that these words also have positive meanings. To many people, the use of kill and killer indicates physical death, but we found other meanings of these words. First, death is the worst possible outcome, but it is not necessarily a consequence of kill and killer. Second, killer, in particular, has a strong positive meaning that is extended from the ‘deadly’ meaning of kill. Third, we found that the figurative use of killer appeared more often in magazines and newspapers, as well as in fiction but with different purposes, when we compared the data from magazines and newspapers with those from different genres. The results obtained by analysing magazine and newspaper corpora in the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) showed the importance of pragmatic interpretation in understanding meanings.
{"title":"The semantic extensions of kill and killer in magazine and newspaper corpora","authors":"Siaw-Fong Chung","doi":"10.1163/18773109-01001002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01001002","url":null,"abstract":"The occurrences of kill and killer are often understood as negative; however, evidence suggests that these words also have positive meanings. To many people, the use of kill and killer indicates physical death, but we found other meanings of these words. First, death is the worst possible outcome, but it is not necessarily a consequence of kill and killer. Second, killer, in particular, has a strong positive meaning that is extended from the ‘deadly’ meaning of kill. Third, we found that the figurative use of killer appeared more often in magazines and newspapers, as well as in fiction but with different purposes, when we compared the data from magazines and newspapers with those from different genres. The results obtained by analysing magazine and newspaper corpora in the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) showed the importance of pragmatic interpretation in understanding meanings.","PeriodicalId":43536,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Pragmatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-01001002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64420456","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}
Pub Date : 2018-01-01DOI: 10.1163/18773109-00901008
M. A. S. Nodoushan
In this paper, I will review Davidson’s paratactic account of indirect reports, the attacks leveled against it, and the support it received. I will then provide data from Persian which seem to support the idea that neither Davidson and his proponents nor his opponents were completely right, and that an adequate theory of indirect reports is doomed to be semantico-pragmatic in nature.
{"title":"Which view of indirect reports do Persian data corroborate","authors":"M. A. S. Nodoushan","doi":"10.1163/18773109-00901008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00901008","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I will review Davidson’s paratactic account of indirect reports, the attacks leveled against it, and the support it received. I will then provide data from Persian which seem to support the idea that neither Davidson and his proponents nor his opponents were completely right, and that an adequate theory of indirect reports is doomed to be semantico-pragmatic in nature.","PeriodicalId":43536,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Pragmatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-00901008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64420835","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}
Pub Date : 2018-01-01DOI: 10.1163/18773109-01001004
Caterina Scianna
{"title":"Research in Clinical Pragmatics, edited by Louise Cummings","authors":"Caterina Scianna","doi":"10.1163/18773109-01001004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01001004","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43536,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Pragmatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-01001004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64420999","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}
Pub Date : 2018-01-01DOI: 10.1163/18773109-01001003
Albin Wagener
Online gaming has been a fascinating field of study for the last ten years, especially in the field of socialization (Kolo & Baur, 2004) or even language use and language learning (Thorne, Black & Sykes, 2009). It has become clear that gamers are able to perform processes of identification in completely new ways in these particular contexts, yet forums linked to specific games become a new source of metapragmatic or metadiscursive utterances. Through their experiences in the game, users make comments, assumptions and draw conclusions in order to ‘do identity’ and separate themselves from Others. The aim of this paper will be to analyse the discourses produced in a corpus of forum discussions linked to “DotA 2”, a popular MOBA (multiplayer online battle arena) game where players from every country of the world gather, which leads to specific forms of discrimination—especially towards Russian gamers. In order to analyse these discursive productions and their semantic and pragmatic impacts, we will use three different approaches in order to triangulate our results: a lexicometric analysis (Garric & Capdevielle-Mougnibas, 2009), the semantic study of argumentative possibilities (Galatanu, 2009) and the mobilization of the proximization model (Cap, 2010), in order to understand the semantic variations and dynamics that are at use when gamers publish discourses about Russian players. In particular, we wish to explore how these precise discourses about Russian players are drawing on pragmatics of common sense (Sarfati, 2011), insofar as they rely on prediscourses (Paveau, 2006) to maintain pragmatic effects which imply cognitive impacts on speakers (Maillat & Oswald, 2009) as well as on the interdiscourses at use (Garric & Longhi, 2013).
{"title":"Russophobia in DotA 2: A critical discursive analysis of online discrimination","authors":"Albin Wagener","doi":"10.1163/18773109-01001003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01001003","url":null,"abstract":"Online gaming has been a fascinating field of study for the last ten years, especially in the field of socialization (Kolo & Baur, 2004) or even language use and language learning (Thorne, Black & Sykes, 2009). It has become clear that gamers are able to perform processes of identification in completely new ways in these particular contexts, yet forums linked to specific games become a new source of metapragmatic or metadiscursive utterances. Through their experiences in the game, users make comments, assumptions and draw conclusions in order to ‘do identity’ and separate themselves from Others. The aim of this paper will be to analyse the discourses produced in a corpus of forum discussions linked to “DotA 2”, a popular MOBA (multiplayer online battle arena) game where players from every country of the world gather, which leads to specific forms of discrimination—especially towards Russian gamers. In order to analyse these discursive productions and their semantic and pragmatic impacts, we will use three different approaches in order to triangulate our results: a lexicometric analysis (Garric & Capdevielle-Mougnibas, 2009), the semantic study of argumentative possibilities (Galatanu, 2009) and the mobilization of the proximization model (Cap, 2010), in order to understand the semantic variations and dynamics that are at use when gamers publish discourses about Russian players. In particular, we wish to explore how these precise discourses about Russian players are drawing on pragmatics of common sense (Sarfati, 2011), insofar as they rely on prediscourses (Paveau, 2006) to maintain pragmatic effects which imply cognitive impacts on speakers (Maillat & Oswald, 2009) as well as on the interdiscourses at use (Garric & Longhi, 2013).","PeriodicalId":43536,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Pragmatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-01001003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64420522","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}
Pub Date : 2018-01-01DOI: 10.1163/18773109-01001005
J. Andor
Jozsef Andor: Thank you very much for accepting my call for an interview. I would like to start it by asking the “father” of modern text linguistics, author of the first, now classic, theoretically orientedmonograph, about the current state of the art. At the timewhenMouton inTheHague published your SomeAspects of Text Grammars, and in the periods immediately following it, text linguistics mainly concentrated on providing a grammar-like description, interpretation of texts, just slightly extending the scope of analysis beyond the frames of the sentence. This was probably due to the intent to provide a new level of linguistic representation, one that was higher in its scope than that of syntax in linguistic theory. Text linguistics as formulated in the 80s of the last century, this way, was basically a part of the systemic description of language. It may be stated, in view of the later developments of the field, that the early period of modern text linguistics concentrated on outlining frameworks to describe what now can be called the connexity, that is, the primarily grammatically relatedbodyof knowledgeof texts, or at bestwhat at the timewas called ‘locally based cohesion’. Therewere a number of models developedwith this scope, but perhaps yours and that of Halliday and Hasan were the most influential ones. As amatter of fact, the earlymodelswere at the timeunable to grasp the textual norms of coherence, the role of world knowledge and what has been called ‘common ground’ by Herbert Clark. How do you see, interpret the process of the development of the discipline from the early stages, frompurely and strictly linguistically based descriptions of texts to the present daymodels of textology,
{"title":"Reflections on discourse and knowledge: An interview with Teun van Dijk","authors":"J. Andor","doi":"10.1163/18773109-01001005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01001005","url":null,"abstract":"Jozsef Andor: Thank you very much for accepting my call for an interview. I would like to start it by asking the “father” of modern text linguistics, author of the first, now classic, theoretically orientedmonograph, about the current state of the art. At the timewhenMouton inTheHague published your SomeAspects of Text Grammars, and in the periods immediately following it, text linguistics mainly concentrated on providing a grammar-like description, interpretation of texts, just slightly extending the scope of analysis beyond the frames of the sentence. This was probably due to the intent to provide a new level of linguistic representation, one that was higher in its scope than that of syntax in linguistic theory. Text linguistics as formulated in the 80s of the last century, this way, was basically a part of the systemic description of language. It may be stated, in view of the later developments of the field, that the early period of modern text linguistics concentrated on outlining frameworks to describe what now can be called the connexity, that is, the primarily grammatically relatedbodyof knowledgeof texts, or at bestwhat at the timewas called ‘locally based cohesion’. Therewere a number of models developedwith this scope, but perhaps yours and that of Halliday and Hasan were the most influential ones. As amatter of fact, the earlymodelswere at the timeunable to grasp the textual norms of coherence, the role of world knowledge and what has been called ‘common ground’ by Herbert Clark. How do you see, interpret the process of the development of the discipline from the early stages, frompurely and strictly linguistically based descriptions of texts to the present daymodels of textology,","PeriodicalId":43536,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Pragmatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-01001005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64421015","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：