Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Word Order in Turkish

Part of the book series: Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory ((SNLT,volume 97))

  • 401 Accesses

Abstract

The articles in this volume investigate various aspects of the word order phenomena in Turkish, a head final, left-branching, ‘free’ word order language. Linearization patterns exhibited by languages have been at the core of both descriptive and generative research for more than five decades of typological and theoretical linguistics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Please see Arslan-Kechriotis (2006) for an argument in favor of DP in Turkish.

References

  • Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1998. Parameterizing AGR: Word order, V-movement and EPP checking. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16 (3): 491–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arslan-Kechriotis, Z. Ceyda. 2006. Determiner phrase and case in Turkish: A minimalist account. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aydemir, Y. 2004. Are Turkish preverbal bare nouns syntactic arguments? Linguistic Inquiry 35: 465–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aydıner, Pola. 2006. The properties of the postverbal area with flat intonation in spoken Turkish. Paper presented at the Thirteenth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Uppsala University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banguoğlu, Tahsin. 1974. Türkçenin Grameri. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayer, Josef, and Jaklin Kornfilt. 1994. Against scrambling as an instance of Move-alpha. In Studies on scrambling, ed. Norbert Corver, 17–60. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailyn, John Frederick. 2001. On scrambling: A response to Bošković and Takahashi. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 635–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailyn, John Frederick. 2003. A (purely) derivational approach to Russian scrambling. In Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 11: The Amherst meeting, ed. Wayles Browne, Ji-yung Kim, Barbara Partee, and R. Rothstein, 41–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beghelli, Filippo, and Tim Stowell. 1997. Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. In Ways of scope taking, ed. Anna Szabolcsi, 71–107. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bošković, Željko. 2007. On the locality and motivation of move and agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry. 38 (4): 589–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bošković, Željko and Daiko Takahashi. 1997. Scrambling and last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 347–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. QR obeys superiority: Frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 233–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozşahin, Cem. 2012. Combinatory linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cevat, Ahmet. 1931. Yeni bir gramer metodu hakkında layıha. Istanbul: Devlet Matbaası.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, NL: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1990. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Minimalist essays in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, vol. 45, ed. M. Kenstowicz, 1–52. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Hoop, Helen. 2003. Scrambling in Dutch: Optionality and optimality. In Word order and scrambling, ed. Simin Karimi, 201–216. Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, Müşerref. 1986. Definiteness and referentiality in Turkish verbal sentences. In Studies in Turkish linguistics, ed. D.I. Slobin and Karl Zimmer, 147–163. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. In Linguistic inquiry monographs, vol. 20. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dik, Simon. 1978. Functional grammar. North-Holland Linguistic Series, vol. 37. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dik, Simon. 1989. The theory of functional grammar. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ediskun, Haydar. 2017. Yeni Türk Dilbilgisi. İstanbul: Remzi Kitapevi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enç, Mürüvvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ergin, Muharrem. 1975. Türk Dil Bilgisi. Istanbul: Boğaziçi Yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erguvanlı, Eser. 1984. The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erkü, Feride. 1982. Topic, comment and word order in Turkish. Minnesota Papers in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language 8: 30–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erkü, Feride. 1983. Discourse pragmatics and word order in Turkish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erteshik-Shir, Nomi. 1986. Wh-questions and focus. Linguistics and Philosophy 9 (2): 117–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Danny, and David Pesetsky. 2005. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. In Theoretical linguistics: Object Shift, vol. 31, no. 1–2, ed. Katalin É. Kiss, 1–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukui, Naoki. 1993. Parameters and optionality. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 399–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gencan, Nejat. 2007. Dilbilgisi. İstanbul: Tekağaç Eylül Kitap ve Yayınevi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Göksel, Aslı. 1998. Linearity, focus and the postverbal position in Turkish. In The Mainz meeting proceedings of the seventh international conference on Turkish linguistics, Wiesbaden, ed. Lars Johanson, 85–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Göksel, Aslı. 2011. A phonosyntactic template for Turkish: Base generating free word order. In Morphology and syntax multidimensional, Berlin, ed. Andreas Nolda and Oliver Teuber, 45–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Göksel, Aslı. 2013. Flexible word order and anchors of the clause. SOAS working papers in linguistics 16:3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Göksel, Aslı, and A. Sumru Özsoy. 2000. Is there a focus position in Turkish? In Studies on Turkish and Turkic languages: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on Turkish linguistics, Wiesbaden, ed. Aslı Göksel and Celia Kerslake, 219–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Göksel, Aslı, and Sumru Özsoy. 2003. dA as a focus/topic associated clitic in Turkish. In Special edition on focus in Turkish, ed. Sumru Özsoy and Aslı Göksel, ed. 1143–1167. Lingua.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gracanin-Yüksek, Martina, and Selçuk İşsever. 2011. Movement of bare objects in Turkish.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, Joseph. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grewendorff, Günther, and Joachim Sabel. 1999. Scrambling in German and Japanese: Adjunction versus multiple specifiers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17: 1–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Güneş, Güliz. 2013a. Limits of prosody in Turkish. In Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2013/1, Updates in Turkish Phonology, Istanbul, ed. Eser Taylan, 133–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Güneş, Güliz. 2013b. On the role of prosodic constituency in Turkish. In The proceedings of workshop on Altaic formal linguistics, vol. 8, ed. Umut Özge. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Güneş, Güliz. 2015. Deriving prosodic structures. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gürer, Aslı. 2015. Semantic, prosodic, and syntactic marking of information structural units in Turkish. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Boğaziçi University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale, Kenneth. 1983. Warlpiri and the frammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1 (1): 5–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, Michael. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Part II. Journal of Linguistics 3: 199–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herburger, E. 2000. What Counts; Focus and Quantification. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • İşsever, Selçuk. 2003. Information structure in Turkish: The word order–prosody interface. Lingua 113: 1025–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • İşsever, Selçuk. 2006a. On the NSR and focus projection in Turkish. In Advances in Turkish linguistics: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Turkish linguistics, ed. Semiramis Yağcıoğlu and Ayşen Cem Değer, 421–435. İzmir.

    Google Scholar 

  • İşsever, Selçuk. 2006b. Türkçede takısız nesne adöbekleri ve çalkalama. Dil Dergisi 131: 42–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • İşsever, Selçuk. 2008. Nesne kaydırımı ve Türkçe. In XXI. Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri, ed. Yeşim Aksan and Mustafa Aksan, pp. 98–107. Mersin: Mersin University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, Jay. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jimenez-Fernandez, Angel, and Selçuk İşsever. 2012. Deriving A/A′-effects in topic fronting: Intervention of focus and binding. In Current issues in generative linguistics, ed. J. Błaszczak, B. Rozwadowska, and W. Witkowski Wrocław. Poland: Center for General and Comparative Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Julien, Marit. 2002. Syntactic heads and word formation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jun, Youngchul, and Junghee Hwang. 2017. Korean as an information structure prominent language. Paper presented at International Conference in Korean Linguistics, Helsinki.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabak, Barış, and Irene Vogel. 2001. The phonological word and stress assignment in Turkish. Phonology 18: 315–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karimi, Simin. 2003. On object positions, specificity and scrambling in Persian. In Word order and scrambling, ed. S. Karimi, 22–44. Oxford/Berlin: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelepir, M. 2001. Topics in Turkish syntax: Clausal structure and scope. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT Press, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennelly, Sarah. 1996. Turkish subordination: [“CP,+Tense,+Case]. In Modern studies in Turkish linguistics; Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Turkish linguistics, ed. A. Konrot. Eskişehir: Anadolu University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kılıçaslan, Yılmaz. 2006. A situation theoretic approach to case marking semantics in Turkish. Lingua, Elsevier, 116: 112–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, Tracy Holloway. 1995. Configuring topic and focus in Russian. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiss, Katalin É. 1994. Scrambling as the base-generation of random complement order. In Movement and non-movement approaches to free word-order phenomena, Series in Generative Grammar, vol. 41, ed. Norbert Corver and Henk van Riemsdijk, 221–256. De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiss, É.Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74 (2): 245–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiss, É. Katalin. 2003. Argument scrambling, operator movement, topic movement in Hungarian. In Word order and scrambling, ed. S. Karimi, 22–44. Oxford/Berlin: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ko, Heejeong. 2005. Syntactic edges and linearization. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1988. Turkish as a configurational language.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1998. On rightward movement in Turkish. In The Mainz meeting proceedings of the seventh international conference on Turkish linguistics, Wiesbaden, ed. Lars Wyner, 107–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2003. Scrambling, subscrambling, and case in Turkish. In Word order and scrambling, ed. Simin Karimi, 125–155. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2005. Asymmetries between pre-verbal and post-verbal scrambling in Turkish. In The free word order phenomenon, its syntactic sources and diversity, ed. Joachim Sabel and Mamoru Saito, 163–179. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, Manfred. 1991. A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. In Semantics and linguistic theory I: Proceedings of the first semantics and linguistic theory conference. Cornell Working papers in linguistics, ed. S. Moore and Z. Wyner, 127–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kural, Murat. 1994. Properties of scrambling in Turkish. UCLA, ms.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kural, Murat. 1997. Postverbal constituents in Turkish and the linear correspondence axiom. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 498–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, Geoffrey. 1967. Turkish grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Subject and topic, ed. Charles N. Li, 457–489. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, Anoop Kumar. 1990. The A/A′ distinction and movement theory. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, Robert. 1985. Logical form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1997. Against optional scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2003. A-Movement Scrambling and Options without Optionality. In Word order and scrambling, ed. Simin Karimi, 177–200. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2005. Unifying agreement and agreement-less languages. In Proceedings of WAFL2, MIT working papers in linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why agree? Why move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse-configurational languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, Gereon. 1994. A-bar syntax: A study in movement types. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakipoğlu, M. 2009. The semantics of the Turkish accusative marked definites and the relation between prosodic structure and information structure. Lingua 119: 1253–1280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neeleman, Ad. 1994a. Scrambling as a D-structure phenomenon. In Movement and non-movement approaches to free word-order phenomena, Series in Generative Grammar, vol. 41, ed. Norbert Corver and Henk van Riemsdijk, 387–430. De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neeleman, Ad. 1994b. Scrambling as a D-structure phenomenon. In Studies on scrambling. Movement and non-movement approaches to free-word-order phenomena, ed. Norvin Corver and Henk van Riemsdijk, 387–429. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overfelt, Jason. 2015. Rightward movement: A study in locality. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özge, Umut. 2003. A tune-based account of Turkish information structure. MA thesis, Middle East Technical University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özge, Umut, and Cem Bozşahin. 2010. Intonation in the grammar of Turkish. Lingua 120: 132–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özsoy, A. Sumru. 1987. Null subject parameter and Turkish. In Studies on Modern Turkish, eds. H. Boeschoten and L. Th. Verhoeven, 82–91. Tilburg: Tilburg University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özsoy, A. Sumru. 2003. Topic, focus, multiple specifiers, multiple spell-out. Paper presented at the Mediterranean Syntax Meeting, University of the Aegean, Rhodes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özsoy, A. Sumru. 2009. Turkish as a (non)-wh-in.situ language. In Turcological Letters to Bernt Brendemoen, ed. Éva Ágnes Csató, Gunvald Ims, Joakim Parslow, Finn Thiesen, and Emel Türker, 221–232. Oslo: Novus Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özsoy, A. Sumru. 2015. Linearization in Turkish and minimality in binding. In Ankara Papers in Turkish and Turkic Linguistics, eds. Deniz Zeyrek, Çiğdem Sağın Şimşek, Ufuk Ataş, and Jochen Rehbein, 163–188. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Öztürk, Balkız. 2001. Turkish as a non-pro-drop language. In The verb in Turkish, ed. Eser Erguvanlı Taylan, 239–259. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Öztürk, Balkız. 2005. Case, referentiality, and phrase structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Öztürk, Balkız. 2009. Incorporating agents. Lingua 119: 334–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pica, Pierre. 1987. On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 17, ed. J. Mcdonough and B. Plunkett, 484–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, Norvin. 2003. Featural cyclicity and the ordering of multiple specifiers. In Working minimalism, ed. Samuel David Epstein and Norbert Hornstein, 127–158. Cambridge, MA/London: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery, In Elements of grammar, ed. L. Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1 (1): 75–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, John. 1967. Variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saito, Mamoru. 1989. Scrambling as semantically vacuous Aʹ′-movement. In Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, ed. M.R. Baltin and A.S. Kroch, 182–200. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saito, Mamoru. 2003. A derivational approach to the interpretation of scrambling chains. Lingua 113 (4–6): 451–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1996. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. J.A. Goldsmith, 550–569. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sezer, Engin. 1996. Türkçede sözdizimsel kısıtlamalar. In IX. Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri, 236–263. Bolu: Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shim, Jae-Young. 2015. The contrast-dependent CI-calculation of topic and focus in Korean transitive constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sohn, Ho-min. 1980. Theme-prominence in Korean. Korean Linguistics 2: 2–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Şener, Serkan. 2007. Multiple wh‐questions in Turkish: An investigation of in situness. M.R. Mondonedo and S. Herdan (eds.) University of Connecticut Working Papers in Linguistics Vol.14, Department of Linguistics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, pp. 131– 170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Şener, Serkan. 2010. (Non‐)Peripheral matters in Turkish syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steedman, Mark. 2000. The syntactic process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steedman, Mark. 2012. Taking scope. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Temürcü, Ceyhan. 2005. The interaction of syntax and discourse in word order variability: Data from Turkish. In Dilbilim ve Uygulamaları, ed. Güray König, I. Özyildirim, D. Aydm, and A. Altan, 123–159. Istanbul: Multilingual.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tura, Sabahat Sansa. 1986. Definiteness and referentiality in Turkish nonverbal sentences. In Studies in Turkish linguistics, ed. D.I. Slobin and Karl Zimmer, 147–163. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uygun, D. 2006. Scrambling bare nominal objects in Turkish. Paper presented at ICTL 13. Uppsala University.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Riemsdyk, Henk. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Urk, Coppe. 2015. Eliminating A/A′-Positions. Paper presented at Cambridge University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webelhuth, Gert. 1988. A universal theory of fronting. In Scandinavian conference of linguistics, 285–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yükseker, Hitay. 2005. Right-hand topic. In Current research in Turkish linguistics, ed. Kamile İmer and Gürkan Doğan, 77–84. Gazimağosa: Eastern Mediterranean University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey

    A. Sumru Özsoy

Authors
  1. A. Sumru Özsoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Sumru Özsoy .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, Bebek, Istanbul, Turkey

    A. Sumru Özsoy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Özsoy, A.S. (2019). Introduction. In: Özsoy, A. (eds) Word Order in Turkish. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 97. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11385-8_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11385-8_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-11384-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-11385-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation