Reportative evidential markers are – in contrast to other evidential markers – compatible with distancing interpretations, in which the speaker denies the truth of what is being reported. This exceptional behaviour of reportatives is termed ‘reportative exceptionality’ (AnderBois 2014). In this paper, which addresses French, Dutch and German reportative markers, we argue that they differ with respect to the frequency with which such distancing interpretations actually arise. The French reportative conditionnel most frequently occurs with distancing interpretations, whereas German sollen hardly occurs with this function. Dutch zou takes up an intermediate position. It is claimed that the higher compatibility of the conditionnel with distancing interpretations can be accounted for by a number of factors: its general preference for contexts in which other perspectives than the speaker’s are highly salient; the fact that it has past tense morphology; and its general semantic make-up in which the marking of hypotheticality is a key function.
{"title":"Frequency differences in reportative exceptionality and how to account for them","authors":"Tanja Mortelmans","doi":"10.1075/sl.23014.mor","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23014.mor","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Reportative evidential markers are – in contrast to other evidential markers – compatible with distancing\u0000 interpretations, in which the speaker denies the truth of what is being reported. This exceptional behaviour of reportatives is\u0000 termed ‘reportative exceptionality’ (AnderBois 2014). In this paper, which addresses\u0000 French, Dutch and German reportative markers, we argue that they differ with respect to the frequency with which such distancing\u0000 interpretations actually arise. The French reportative conditionnel most frequently occurs with distancing\u0000 interpretations, whereas German sollen hardly occurs with this function. Dutch zou takes up an\u0000 intermediate position. It is claimed that the higher compatibility of the conditionnel with distancing\u0000 interpretations can be accounted for by a number of factors: its general preference for contexts in which other perspectives than\u0000 the speaker’s are highly salient; the fact that it has past tense morphology; and its general semantic make-up in which the\u0000 marking of hypotheticality is a key function.","PeriodicalId":46377,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140489052","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}
A number of works have explored expletive negation in clause-linkage constructions. Most of them have shown that this type of negative marker can be omitted from the adverbial clause without affecting the interpretation holding between clauses. The study shows, based on the analysis of natural discourse data, that expletive negation has developed an intriguing discourse function in three types of ‘until’ constructions in Huasteca Nahuatl: ‘not…until’ constructions, scalar additive ‘until’ constructions, and beginning-to-end constructions. When the negative marker amo appears in the ‘until’ clause, the proposition should be characterized as expressing surprise. When it is absent from the ‘until’ clause, the proposition does not express surprise. This function of the expletive negative marker amo does not appear in elicited sentences, but only in spontaneous speech. It is proposed that Huasteca Nahuatl developed expletive negation in ‘not…until’ constructions due to contact with Spanish. However, the development of expletive negation in scalar additive ‘until’ constructions and beginning-to-end constructions is an internally motivated development in Huasteca Nahuatl that cannot be attributed to Spanish.
许多研究都探讨了分句连接结构中的祈使句否定。其中大多数研究表明，这类否定标记可以从副词分句中省略，而不影响分句之间的解释。本研究通过对自然话语数据的分析表明，在瓦斯特卡纳瓦特尔语的三类 "直到 "结构中，消耗性否定具有耐人寻味的话语功能："不是......直到 "结构、标量加法 "直到 "结构和从头至尾结构。当否定标记 amo 出现在 "直到 "分句中时，命题应被定性为表示惊讶。如果 "直到 "分句中没有否定词 amo，命题就不表示惊奇。否定语气标记 amo 的这一功能不出现在诱导句中，而只出现在自发语中。有人认为，由于与西班牙语的接触，瓦斯特卡纳瓦特尔语在 "不是......直到 "结构中发展出了语气否定。然而，在标量相加的 "直到 "结构和从头至尾结构中发展出消耗性否定是瓦斯特卡纳瓦特尔语的内部发展，不能归因于西班牙语。
{"title":"‘Until’ constructions and expletive negation in Huasteca Nahuatl","authors":"Jesús Olguín Martínez","doi":"10.1075/sl.22064.olg","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.22064.olg","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 A number of works have explored expletive negation in clause-linkage constructions. Most of them have shown that\u0000 this type of negative marker can be omitted from the adverbial clause without affecting the interpretation holding between\u0000 clauses. The study shows, based on the analysis of natural discourse data, that expletive negation has developed an intriguing\u0000 discourse function in three types of ‘until’ constructions in Huasteca Nahuatl: ‘not…until’ constructions, scalar additive ‘until’\u0000 constructions, and beginning-to-end constructions. When the negative marker amo appears in the ‘until’ clause,\u0000 the proposition should be characterized as expressing surprise. When it is absent from the ‘until’ clause, the proposition does\u0000 not express surprise. This function of the expletive negative marker amo does not appear in elicited sentences,\u0000 but only in spontaneous speech. It is proposed that Huasteca Nahuatl developed expletive negation in ‘not…until’ constructions due\u0000 to contact with Spanish. However, the development of expletive negation in scalar additive ‘until’ constructions and\u0000 beginning-to-end constructions is an internally motivated development in Huasteca Nahuatl that cannot be attributed to\u0000 Spanish.","PeriodicalId":46377,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139450961","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}
This article argues that the widespread view that the diachronic processes of grammaticalization and of subjectification go hand in hand, and that highly subjectivized meanings typically correlate with highly grammaticalized forms, should be revised. The point is made on the basis of the case of the diachrony of the Dutch modal verbs. Corpus data show that four of these verbs recently got involved in a process of collective re-autonomization, while the two other modals in the language do not. This correlates with differences in the semantic development of the verbs: the four re-autonomizing verbs do, but the two outliers do not show a regular process of (inter)subjectification. The paper unravels through which mechanisms the grammatical and the semantic developments may correlate, hence why highly subjectivized meanings do not necessarily like a grammatical status.
{"title":"On the link between grammaticalization and subjectification","authors":"Jan Nuyts","doi":"10.1075/sl.23008.nuy","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23008.nuy","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article argues that the widespread view that the diachronic processes of grammaticalization and of\u0000 subjectification go hand in hand, and that highly subjectivized meanings typically correlate with highly grammaticalized forms,\u0000 should be revised. The point is made on the basis of the case of the diachrony of the Dutch modal verbs. Corpus data show that\u0000 four of these verbs recently got involved in a process of collective re-autonomization, while the two other modals in the language\u0000 do not. This correlates with differences in the semantic development of the verbs: the four re-autonomizing verbs do, but the two\u0000 outliers do not show a regular process of (inter)subjectification. The paper unravels through which mechanisms the grammatical and\u0000 the semantic developments may correlate, hence why highly subjectivized meanings do not necessarily like a grammatical status.","PeriodicalId":46377,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138586301","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}
This article argues that the evidential system of Khams Tibetan, a cluster of Tibetic languages spoken in the south-eastern Tibetosphere, should be considered a verb paradigm. We propose a paradigm with six evidential categories (egophoric, statemental, visual sensory, nonvisual sensory, sensory inferential, and logical inferential) for all the verb classes. We focus on two varieties – rGyalthang and Lhagang – and examine how these evidential categories are encoded with distinct morphemes. We then discuss the main evidential forms of the copulative and existential verbs available in Khams Tibetan varieties as a whole, as well as their morphological relationship. Our analyses lead us to argue against a differential treatment of evidentiality depending on verb categories. The article concludes that describing the evidential paradigm may be the first essential task in writing a grammar of a Tibetic language.
{"title":"The paradigmaticity of evidentials in the Tibetic languages of Khams","authors":"Dawa Drolma, Hiroyuki Suzuki","doi":"10.1075/sl.23006.dro","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23006.dro","url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that the evidential system of Khams Tibetan, a cluster of Tibetic languages spoken in the south-eastern Tibetosphere, should be considered a verb paradigm. We propose a paradigm with six evidential categories (egophoric, statemental, visual sensory, nonvisual sensory, sensory inferential, and logical inferential) for all the verb classes. We focus on two varieties – rGyalthang and Lhagang – and examine how these evidential categories are encoded with distinct morphemes. We then discuss the main evidential forms of the copulative and existential verbs available in Khams Tibetan varieties as a whole, as well as their morphological relationship. Our analyses lead us to argue against a differential treatment of evidentiality depending on verb categories. The article concludes that describing the evidential paradigm may be the first essential task in writing a grammar of a Tibetic language.","PeriodicalId":46377,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139220324","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}
This paper seeks to answer three questions: (1) What is the difference between grammatical and lexical indications of information source? (2) What qualifies an element for grammaticalization as an evidential? (3) How can we identify grammatical evidentials and instances of evidential grammaticalization? The answers proposed are as follows: (1) The difference between grammatical and lexical indications of information source is a difference between indications conventionalized as discourse secondary and indications conventionalized as potentially discourse primary. (2) A candidate for grammaticalization as an evidential must (i) have propositional scope, (ii) belong in the conceptual domain of information source, (iii) be frequent enough to pass the threshold for conventionalization, and (iv) be discourse secondary, but not by convention. (3) Grammatical evidentials and instances of evidential grammaticalization can be identified based on focusablity, addressability and modifiability.
{"title":"Evidentiality, discourse prominence and grammaticalization","authors":"Kasper Boye","doi":"10.1075/sl.23001.boy","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23001.boy","url":null,"abstract":"This paper seeks to answer three questions: (1) What is the difference between grammatical and lexical indications of information source? (2) What qualifies an element for grammaticalization as an evidential? (3) How can we identify grammatical evidentials and instances of evidential grammaticalization? The answers proposed are as follows: (1) The difference between grammatical and lexical indications of information source is a difference between indications conventionalized as discourse secondary and indications conventionalized as potentially discourse primary. (2) A candidate for grammaticalization as an evidential must (i) have propositional scope, (ii) belong in the conceptual domain of information source, (iii) be frequent enough to pass the threshold for conventionalization, and (iv) be discourse secondary, but not by convention. (3) Grammatical evidentials and instances of evidential grammaticalization can be identified based on focusablity, addressability and modifiability.","PeriodicalId":46377,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139251351","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}
We focus on the grammatical expression of four major groups of meanings related to knowledge: I. Evidentiality: grammatical expression of information source; II. Egophoricity: grammatical expression of access to knowledge; III. Mirativity: grammatical expression of expectation of knowledge; and IV. Epistemic modality: grammatical expression of attitude to knowledge. The four groups of categories interact. Some develop overtones of the others. Epistemic-directed evidentials have additional meanings typical of epistemic modalities, while egophoricity-directed evidentials combine some reference to access to knowledge by speaker and addressee. Over the past thirty years, new evidential choices have evolved among the Tariana – whose language has five evidential terms in an egophoricity-directed system – to reflect new ways of acquiring information, including radio, television, phone, and internet. Evidentials stand apart from other means of knowledge-related categories as tokens of language ecology corroborated by their sensitivity to the changing social environment.
{"title":"Speaking about knowledge","authors":"A. Aikhenvald","doi":"10.1075/sl.23004.aik","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23004.aik","url":null,"abstract":"We focus on the grammatical expression of four major groups of meanings related to knowledge: I. Evidentiality: grammatical expression of information source; II. Egophoricity: grammatical expression of access to knowledge; III. Mirativity: grammatical expression of expectation of knowledge; and IV. Epistemic modality: grammatical expression of attitude to knowledge. The four groups of categories interact. Some develop overtones of the others. Epistemic-directed evidentials have additional meanings typical of epistemic modalities, while egophoricity-directed evidentials combine some reference to access to knowledge by speaker and addressee. Over the past thirty years, new evidential choices have evolved among the Tariana – whose language has five evidential terms in an egophoricity-directed system – to reflect new ways of acquiring information, including radio, television, phone, and internet. Evidentials stand apart from other means of knowledge-related categories as tokens of language ecology corroborated by their sensitivity to the changing social environment.","PeriodicalId":46377,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139262930","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 In Beserman, a new converb grammaticalizes from the possessive locative form of the locative noun in (o)ń-ńig . We show that the constructions with the converb have a clausal structure, while the constructions with the locative noun are mostly noun phrases, even if they include an indication of the agent and patient of the situation encoded by the locative noun. Semantically, the two types of constructions are also different. In the converb constructions the situations encoded by the main and the embedded clause must overlap, while with locative nouns this is not necessarily the case. The temporal reference of locative nouns is habitual/iterative, while converbs often have episodic (non-habitual) interpretation. The original locative noun denotes a reference to a fixed location where the situation usually takes place. In the constructions with the converb this meaning is bleached and generalized as an action which takes place in any possible location.
{"title":"A new converb originating from the locative noun in Beserman","authors":"Maria Usacheva, Natalia Serdobolskaya","doi":"10.1075/sl.22049.ser","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.22049.ser","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In Beserman, a new converb grammaticalizes from the possessive locative form of the locative noun in (o)ń-ńig . We show that the constructions with the converb have a clausal structure, while the constructions with the locative noun are mostly noun phrases, even if they include an indication of the agent and patient of the situation encoded by the locative noun. Semantically, the two types of constructions are also different. In the converb constructions the situations encoded by the main and the embedded clause must overlap, while with locative nouns this is not necessarily the case. The temporal reference of locative nouns is habitual/iterative, while converbs often have episodic (non-habitual) interpretation. The original locative noun denotes a reference to a fixed location where the situation usually takes place. In the constructions with the converb this meaning is bleached and generalized as an action which takes place in any possible location.","PeriodicalId":46377,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135475044","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 article investigates the forms and functions of adjectival intensification in West Germanic. With corpus data from different discourse types, we challenge claims that German tends to use synthetic means and Dutch is between German and English but more like English in its preference for analytic ones. Our results show that all three languages, and Afrikaans too, favor analytic intensifiers but also that only English employs synthetic ones to a lesser extent. The other languages are found to use synthetic forms more especially in literature. The study also offers corpus-based support for an earlier hypothesis that both English and German prefer amplifying to downtoning adjectives. We show that this tendency exists more pronouncedly in Afrikaans and Dutch too and that English speech stands out with more functionally ambiguous intensifiers. The article also explores possible explanations for its findings in (dis)similarities in word formation, discourse types’ linguistic potential and politeness
{"title":"Adjectival intensification in West German","authors":"Daniel Van Olmen","doi":"10.1075/sl.23016.van","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23016.van","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article investigates the forms and functions of adjectival intensification in West Germanic. With corpus data from different discourse types, we challenge claims that German tends to use synthetic means and Dutch is between German and English but more like English in its preference for analytic ones. Our results show that all three languages, and Afrikaans too, favor analytic intensifiers but also that only English employs synthetic ones to a lesser extent. The other languages are found to use synthetic forms more especially in literature. The study also offers corpus-based support for an earlier hypothesis that both English and German prefer amplifying to downtoning adjectives. We show that this tendency exists more pronouncedly in Afrikaans and Dutch too and that English speech stands out with more functionally ambiguous intensifiers. The article also explores possible explanations for its findings in (dis)similarities in word formation, discourse types’ linguistic potential and politeness","PeriodicalId":46377,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135869714","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 In Mabaan, a Western Nilotic language, there is a binary inflectional voice contrast in the morphology of verbs. In addition to a morphologically unmarked basic voice, there is a fully productive applicative voice, which is morphologically marked. This applicative voice may be called circumstantial in order to distinguish it from another applicative voice, which is derivational, namely benefactive. The circumstantial voice turns an adjunct into an object, making an intransitive verb transitive and a transitive verb ditransitive. In a main clause, however, a transitive verb needs to be detransitivized via antipassive derivation in order for an adjunct to become object through the circumstantial voice. In some types of subordinate clauses, by contrast, any verb can get the circumstantial voice, whatever its transitivity, derivational status and meaning. This voice is obligatory in relative clauses when the relativized constituent is an adjunct and in some types of adverbial clauses.
{"title":"A binary inflectional voice contrast in Mabaan (Western Nilotic)","authors":"Torben Andersen","doi":"10.1075/sl.22023.and","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.22023.and","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In Mabaan, a Western Nilotic language, there is a binary inflectional voice contrast in the morphology of verbs. In addition to a morphologically unmarked basic voice, there is a fully productive applicative voice, which is morphologically marked. This applicative voice may be called circumstantial in order to distinguish it from another applicative voice, which is derivational, namely benefactive. The circumstantial voice turns an adjunct into an object, making an intransitive verb transitive and a transitive verb ditransitive. In a main clause, however, a transitive verb needs to be detransitivized via antipassive derivation in order for an adjunct to become object through the circumstantial voice. In some types of subordinate clauses, by contrast, any verb can get the circumstantial voice, whatever its transitivity, derivational status and meaning. This voice is obligatory in relative clauses when the relativized constituent is an adjunct and in some types of adverbial clauses.","PeriodicalId":46377,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135738690","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}
Mandarin has a low rate of overtly expressed arguments in all syntactic functions without agreement marking on the verb. It has been claimed that Mandarin exhibits higher rates of zero arguments than other languages. Most previous work has compared Mandarin with English, while comparison with other languages remains a desideratum. This study compares Mandarin with seven languages (Cypriot Greek, English, Northern Kurdish, Sanzhi, Teop, Tondano, Vera’a) taken from Multi-CAST (Haig & Schnell 2019). Results suggest that while Mandarin exhibits more zero arguments than pronouns, this is not unique, with e.g. Cypriot Greek having a higher rate of zero arguments. In addition, a relatively stable rate of lexical expressions can be found across languages, relativising Mandarin’s unique position with regard to referential choice even further.
{"title":"Comparing zero and referential choice in eight languages with a focus on Mandarin Chinese","authors":"Maria Vollmer","doi":"10.1075/sl.21072.vol","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.21072.vol","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Mandarin has a low rate of overtly expressed arguments in all syntactic functions without agreement marking on the verb. It has been claimed that Mandarin exhibits higher rates of zero arguments than other languages. Most previous work has compared Mandarin with English, while comparison with other languages remains a desideratum. This study compares Mandarin with seven languages (Cypriot Greek, English, Northern Kurdish, Sanzhi, Teop, Tondano, Vera’a) taken from Multi-CAST (Haig & Schnell 2019). Results suggest that while Mandarin exhibits more zero arguments than pronouns, this is not unique, with e.g. Cypriot Greek having a higher rate of zero arguments. In addition, a relatively stable rate of lexical expressions can be found across languages, relativising Mandarin’s unique position with regard to referential choice even further.","PeriodicalId":46377,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78134122","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：