Abstract This paper experimentally investigates the two generalizations for multiple sluicing (MS) recently presented by Klaus Abels and Veneeta Dayal: first, that wh-remnants must have clausemate correlates in the antecedent utterance and, second, that wh-remnants in MS can have correlates in the antecedent clause that are contained in a strong syntactic island. The fact that MS displays both of these properties is puzzling since island insensitivity under sluicing favors a non-sententialist approach to MS, while the clausemate requirement on MS is most straightforwardly explained by postulating a silent structure at the ellipsis site. Even though the clausemate condition has been reported in several languages, no experimental work has been conducted so far to examine its precise effects on the acceptability of MS constructions. In this paper, I will present the results of a series of experiments in German, English, and Spanish (employing both acceptability judgment tasks and a self-paced reading task), where the factors of clausemateness and islandhood have been examined systematically. The results provide solid cross-linguistic support for Abels and Dayal’s generalizations by showing that multiple sluices originating from islands and non-islands are equally acceptable and do not exhibit online processing differences. Furthermore, the acceptability judgment tasks show a significant degradation in acceptability when the correlates in the antecedent do not stem from the same finite clause, thus violating the clausemate condition. I will interpret these results as supporting a particular strand of sententialist research known as the island evasion approach and, in particular, defend that MS is derived from a non-isomorphic short source sluice.
{"title":"Multiple sluicing and islands: a cross-linguistic experimental investigation of the clausemate condition","authors":"Álvaro Cortés Rodríguez","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2022-2093","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2022-2093","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper experimentally investigates the two generalizations for multiple sluicing (MS) recently presented by Klaus Abels and Veneeta Dayal: first, that wh-remnants must have clausemate correlates in the antecedent utterance and, second, that wh-remnants in MS can have correlates in the antecedent clause that are contained in a strong syntactic island. The fact that MS displays both of these properties is puzzling since island insensitivity under sluicing favors a non-sententialist approach to MS, while the clausemate requirement on MS is most straightforwardly explained by postulating a silent structure at the ellipsis site. Even though the clausemate condition has been reported in several languages, no experimental work has been conducted so far to examine its precise effects on the acceptability of MS constructions. In this paper, I will present the results of a series of experiments in German, English, and Spanish (employing both acceptability judgment tasks and a self-paced reading task), where the factors of clausemateness and islandhood have been examined systematically. The results provide solid cross-linguistic support for Abels and Dayal’s generalizations by showing that multiple sluices originating from islands and non-islands are equally acceptable and do not exhibit online processing differences. Furthermore, the acceptability judgment tasks show a significant degradation in acceptability when the correlates in the antecedent do not stem from the same finite clause, thus violating the clausemate condition. I will interpret these results as supporting a particular strand of sententialist research known as the island evasion approach and, in particular, defend that MS is derived from a non-isomorphic short source sluice.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"425 - 455"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48244650","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Ellipsis is a pervasive phenomenon across the world’s languages, and it is easy to see why: it allows speakers to omit certain parts of their utterances while nonetheless conveying their full meaning, which contributes to making linguistic communication highly efficient. While there is broad consensus that elliptical utterances depend on the context in some way, the nature of this dependency remains controversial. In this paper, I re-evaluate the merits of two classes of ellipsis theories: identity theories, which posit that material can be elided only if it is identical to a linguistic antecedent; and referential theories, which assume that ellipsis is enabled by the same underlying mechanism that governs other forms of discourse reference. I argue that both empirical and theoretical considerations favor referential theories in this comparison, and in doing so I outline new adequacy criteria for linguistic theories aimed at explaining the nature of the linguistic and non-linguistic context and how it interfaces with context-dependent linguistic devices.
{"title":"Explaining ellipsis without identity*","authors":"Till Poppels","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2022-2091","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2022-2091","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Ellipsis is a pervasive phenomenon across the world’s languages, and it is easy to see why: it allows speakers to omit certain parts of their utterances while nonetheless conveying their full meaning, which contributes to making linguistic communication highly efficient. While there is broad consensus that elliptical utterances depend on the context in some way, the nature of this dependency remains controversial. In this paper, I re-evaluate the merits of two classes of ellipsis theories: identity theories, which posit that material can be elided only if it is identical to a linguistic antecedent; and referential theories, which assume that ellipsis is enabled by the same underlying mechanism that governs other forms of discourse reference. I argue that both empirical and theoretical considerations favor referential theories in this comparison, and in doing so I outline new adequacy criteria for linguistic theories aimed at explaining the nature of the linguistic and non-linguistic context and how it interfaces with context-dependent linguistic devices.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"341 - 400"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46601488","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper empirically tests the embedding constraints on gapping in Persian. It has been suggested that gapping differs from other kinds of ellipsis in banning embedding. However, the first counter-examples in the literature come from Persian. Following up on previous experiments on embedded gapping in several languages, we report the results of two acceptability judgment tasks. Our results show that, while embedded gapping is overall acceptable in Persian, speakers’ acceptability judgements also vary depending on the semantic type of the embedding predicate, as well as the presence/absence of the complementizer. Data from Persian highlight that, despite the cross-linguistic variation observed with respect to the acceptability of embedded gapping, a general semantic constraint is at work across languages: non-factive verbs embed more easily than factive ones; inside factive verbs, semi-factive (cognitive) predicates embed more easily than true factive (emotive) ones. Moreover, whereas previous theoretical literature indicates no systematic preference for the absence or the presence of the complementizer in Persian, these new experimental data suggest a preference for complementizer drop. To account for the gradience observed in our experimental data, we propose an approach of gapping based on acceptability rather than grammaticality.
{"title":"An experimental perspective on embedded gapping in Persian","authors":"Gabriela Bîlbîie, Pegah Faghiri","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2022-2097","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2022-2097","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper empirically tests the embedding constraints on gapping in Persian. It has been suggested that gapping differs from other kinds of ellipsis in banning embedding. However, the first counter-examples in the literature come from Persian. Following up on previous experiments on embedded gapping in several languages, we report the results of two acceptability judgment tasks. Our results show that, while embedded gapping is overall acceptable in Persian, speakers’ acceptability judgements also vary depending on the semantic type of the embedding predicate, as well as the presence/absence of the complementizer. Data from Persian highlight that, despite the cross-linguistic variation observed with respect to the acceptability of embedded gapping, a general semantic constraint is at work across languages: non-factive verbs embed more easily than factive ones; inside factive verbs, semi-factive (cognitive) predicates embed more easily than true factive (emotive) ones. Moreover, whereas previous theoretical literature indicates no systematic preference for the absence or the presence of the complementizer in Persian, these new experimental data suggest a preference for complementizer drop. To account for the gradience observed in our experimental data, we propose an approach of gapping based on acceptability rather than grammaticality.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"557 - 586"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41931771","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Hungarian multiple sluicing has been claimed to only be allowed in contexts that set up a pair-list, but not a single-pair reading. This has been taken as evidence that multiple sluicing is derived from multiple wh-fronting questions, which only license pair-list, but not single-pair answers. Providing novel experimental evidence, we show that all three relevant constructions in Hungarian – multiple sluicing, single wh-fronting questions, and multiple wh-fronting questions – in fact pattern alike in their answerhood conditions: both pair-list and single-pair readings are allowed, with a modest preference for single-pair readings. Based on our results, we thus argue that answerhood conditions are not sufficient to determine the source of multiple sluicing.
{"title":"Experimentally testing the interpretation of multiple sluicing and multiple questions in Hungarian","authors":"Eszter Ronai, Laura Stigliano","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2022-2092","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2022-2092","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Hungarian multiple sluicing has been claimed to only be allowed in contexts that set up a pair-list, but not a single-pair reading. This has been taken as evidence that multiple sluicing is derived from multiple wh-fronting questions, which only license pair-list, but not single-pair answers. Providing novel experimental evidence, we show that all three relevant constructions in Hungarian – multiple sluicing, single wh-fronting questions, and multiple wh-fronting questions – in fact pattern alike in their answerhood conditions: both pair-list and single-pair readings are allowed, with a modest preference for single-pair readings. Based on our results, we thus argue that answerhood conditions are not sufficient to determine the source of multiple sluicing.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"401 - 423"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47350049","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Gapping elides a finite verb in the non-initial conjunct of a coordinate structure while VP ellipsis deletes a whole VP after an auxiliary. Unlike these two, pseudogapping elides most of the VP except one remnant. Pseudogapping additionally differs from gapping and VP ellipsis, in that it involves ellipsis of part of a non-finite VP. In this paper we provide a Construction Grammar account of pseudogapping that captures its similarities with as well as differences from other related elliptical constructions like VP ellipsis. Our construction-based analysis, which capitalizes on the inheritance network of constructions to capture broad similarities and unique differences among these constructions, allows us to account for the full range of extant data.
{"title":"Pseudogapping in English: a direct interpretation approach","authors":"Jong-Bok Kim, J. Runner","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2022-2094","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2022-2094","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Gapping elides a finite verb in the non-initial conjunct of a coordinate structure while VP ellipsis deletes a whole VP after an auxiliary. Unlike these two, pseudogapping elides most of the VP except one remnant. Pseudogapping additionally differs from gapping and VP ellipsis, in that it involves ellipsis of part of a non-finite VP. In this paper we provide a Construction Grammar account of pseudogapping that captures its similarities with as well as differences from other related elliptical constructions like VP ellipsis. Our construction-based analysis, which capitalizes on the inheritance network of constructions to capture broad similarities and unique differences among these constructions, allows us to account for the full range of extant data.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"457 - 494"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47406309","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Gapping in embedded environments may occur in two configurations: (i) the whole coordination containing both conjuncts is embedded (= embedded gapping, EG), (ii) the second (i.e. elliptical) clause is embedded within its own conjunct (= single conjunct embedded gapping, SCEG). Languages seem to differ in their restrictions on these two structures: EG in some languages does not allow for a complementizer in the elliptical conjunct, while it does in other languages. SCEG is outright unacceptable in some languages but acceptable in other languages. Overall, languages seem to fall into two groups such that one group allows a complementizer in the elliptical conjunct of EG and generally allows SCEG, whereas the other group allows neither. We present four experiments in Spanish on the acceptability of the complementizer que ‘that’ in the elliptical conjunct in EG. Our results suggest that que in Spanish EG is overall subject to similar restrictions as SCEG gapping: There are different degrees of degradation depending on the (type of) embedding verb without outright unacceptability. While the relevant property has been argued to be factivity for SCEG, we argue that it is not the factivity of the embedding verb as such that drives acceptability, but assertion embedding. We outline a theoretical proposal building on existing accounts of structural ambiguity in gapping, the truncation of complement CPs under some verbs including factives, and the general flexibility of the semantic/pragmatic categories factivity and assertion.
嵌入式环境中的间隙可能发生在两种情况下:(i)包含两个连接词的整个配位被嵌入(=嵌入式间隙，EG); (ii)第二个(即椭圆)子句被嵌入到它自己的连接词中(=单个连接词嵌入间隙，SCEG)。不同语言对这两种结构的限制似乎不同:有些语言的EG不允许在省略连词中使用补语，而另一些语言则允许。SCEG在某些语言中是完全不可接受的，但在其他语言中是可以接受的。总的来说，语言似乎分为两类:一类允许在EG的椭圆连词中使用补语，通常允许SCEG，而另一类则不允许。我们提出了四个实验在西班牙语的补语que ' that '在EG的椭圆连词的可接受性。我们的研究结果表明，西班牙语EG中的que总体上受到与SCEG缺口类似的限制:根据嵌入动词的(类型)有不同程度的退化，但不会完全不可接受。虽然相关属性被认为是SCEG的实体性，但我们认为，驱动可接受性的不是嵌入动词的实体性，而是断言嵌入。我们概述了一个理论建议，建立在现有的缺口结构歧义，一些动词下的补语CPs的截断，包括事实，以及语义/语用范畴的一般灵活性，事实和断言。
{"title":"Complementizer deletion in embedded gapping in Spanish","authors":"Max Bonke, Sophie Repp","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2022-2096","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2022-2096","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Gapping in embedded environments may occur in two configurations: (i) the whole coordination containing both conjuncts is embedded (= embedded gapping, EG), (ii) the second (i.e. elliptical) clause is embedded within its own conjunct (= single conjunct embedded gapping, SCEG). Languages seem to differ in their restrictions on these two structures: EG in some languages does not allow for a complementizer in the elliptical conjunct, while it does in other languages. SCEG is outright unacceptable in some languages but acceptable in other languages. Overall, languages seem to fall into two groups such that one group allows a complementizer in the elliptical conjunct of EG and generally allows SCEG, whereas the other group allows neither. We present four experiments in Spanish on the acceptability of the complementizer que ‘that’ in the elliptical conjunct in EG. Our results suggest that que in Spanish EG is overall subject to similar restrictions as SCEG gapping: There are different degrees of degradation depending on the (type of) embedding verb without outright unacceptability. While the relevant property has been argued to be factivity for SCEG, we argue that it is not the factivity of the embedding verb as such that drives acceptability, but assertion embedding. We outline a theoretical proposal building on existing accounts of structural ambiguity in gapping, the truncation of complement CPs under some verbs including factives, and the general flexibility of the semantic/pragmatic categories factivity and assertion.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"525 - 555"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44611061","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Introduction: Special issue on empirical approaches to elliptical constructions","authors":"Gabriela Bîlbîie","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2022-2090","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2022-2090","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"335 - 340"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44343962","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Neasu (Tibeto-Burman: China) exhibits a prefix that derives new coordinators from existing ones by elaborately changing their subcategorial properties. Prefixed and unprefixed coordinators are distinguished by the complement they take (±verbal, ±CoP) and the possibility of being stacked up at least twice (±stackable). A prefixed coordinator has two of these three features switched from “−” to “+”, when compared with its unprefixed counterpart and thus see its ability to occur as the head of recursive coordination structures increased. The prefix ao- is an operator of recursion.
{"title":"A recursive prefix in Neasu","authors":"M. Gerner","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2022-2086","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2022-2086","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Neasu (Tibeto-Burman: China) exhibits a prefix that derives new coordinators from existing ones by elaborately changing their subcategorial properties. Prefixed and unprefixed coordinators are distinguished by the complement they take (±verbal, ±CoP) and the possibility of being stacked up at least twice (±stackable). A prefixed coordinator has two of these three features switched from “−” to “+”, when compared with its unprefixed counterpart and thus see its ability to occur as the head of recursive coordination structures increased. The prefix ao- is an operator of recursion.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"233 - 255"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45849218","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Adverbs and Functional Heads: a Cross-Linguistic perspective (Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press)—one of the founding works of “Syntactic Cartography”—combines some of the developments in Syntactic Theory from the 1980s and 1990s with insightful contributions from Linguistic Typology. This paper has two interrelated goals. First, it aims to review the fundamental theses of Cinque’s monography of 1999—which are far from controversial among scholars working in Cartography—; at the same time it provides conceptual support to them. Secondly, it aims to explore some methodological tools of Syntactic Cartography presented and discussed by Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, namely the so-called precedence-and-transitivity tests—after a brief discussion on methodology used to recognise the functional categories, namely the criterion by Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press—and the use of the hierarchies as tools to detect intra and interlinguistic variation. With regard to this latter issue, the paper gathers data from Brazilian Portuguese, Canadian English and Colombian Spanish on verb raising. The discussion of the data not only favours Cinque, Guglielmo. 2017. On the status of functional categories (heads and phrases). Language and Linguistics 18(4). 521–576 recent updates of his theoretical approach to the cartography of the clause but also shows how Cartography offers a natural scenario for a methodological approach to both micro and macro-variation.
{"title":"“Adverbs and functional heads” twenty years later: cartographic methodology, verb raising and macro/micro-variation","authors":"Aquiles Tescari Neto","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2022-2088","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2022-2088","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Adverbs and Functional Heads: a Cross-Linguistic perspective (Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press)—one of the founding works of “Syntactic Cartography”—combines some of the developments in Syntactic Theory from the 1980s and 1990s with insightful contributions from Linguistic Typology. This paper has two interrelated goals. First, it aims to review the fundamental theses of Cinque’s monography of 1999—which are far from controversial among scholars working in Cartography—; at the same time it provides conceptual support to them. Secondly, it aims to explore some methodological tools of Syntactic Cartography presented and discussed by Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, namely the so-called precedence-and-transitivity tests—after a brief discussion on methodology used to recognise the functional categories, namely the criterion by Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press—and the use of the hierarchies as tools to detect intra and interlinguistic variation. With regard to this latter issue, the paper gathers data from Brazilian Portuguese, Canadian English and Colombian Spanish on verb raising. The discussion of the data not only favours Cinque, Guglielmo. 2017. On the status of functional categories (heads and phrases). Language and Linguistics 18(4). 521–576 recent updates of his theoretical approach to the cartography of the clause but also shows how Cartography offers a natural scenario for a methodological approach to both micro and macro-variation.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"293 - 331"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44920741","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","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：