Skip to main content
Log in

The adjective in Taiwanese Mandarin: degree, measurement and roots

  • Published:
Journal of East Asian Linguistics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study shows how what has been originally ascribed to the ‘lexicon’ is ‘distributed’ among different components of syntax and how degrees are compositionally introduced across categories by investigating the syntax and semantics of the Taiwanese Mandarin X hěn dà construction. In this construction, degrees are compositionally introduced by the literally vacuous adjective ‘DA’, which contributes a structure-preserving map from entities, events or states to their measures along various dimensions (Wellwood in Linguist Philos 38(1):67–101, 2015). Syntactically, the constituent hěn dà ‘HEN DA’ functions to be predicated of the root of the X component at the root-level, and the root later must move into the corresponding light head position to be categorically defined.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Expressions like xīshēng hěn dà ‘sacrifice very big’ in (i) had already existed in Taiwanese Mandarin before the advertising slogan shā hěn dà ‘kill very big’ appeared.

    (i)

    Wèi-le

    yán

    hăo

    jiăosè,

    zhèng

    mēi

    xīshēng

    hěn

    dà.

     

    for-ASP

    play

    well

    role

    beautiful

    girl

    sacrifice

    very

    big

     

    ‘The beautiful girl sacrifices a lot to play the role well.’

    So, the advertising slogan shā hěn dà ‘kill very big’ might not be a newly created expression but one derived from expressions like xīshēng hěn dà ‘sacrifice very big’. Whether the slogan shā hěn dà ‘kill very big’ is a newly created expression is an issue beyond the scope of this study and will be left for future research.

    Abbreviations used in this paper include: ASP: aspect marker, CL: classifier, DE: marker for modifying phrases, and SFP: sentence final particle.

  2. Liu (2012: 62) claims that adjectives describing the configuration of an object cannot occur as the X component of the X hěn dà expression. This claim, however, is challenged by examples like (4c).

  3. The adjective ‘very’, as Huang et al. (2014: 294–296) point out, can also modify an action-denoting verbal noun which has a transitive verb counterpart in a morphologically identical form (Chao 1968; Zhu 1982).

    (i)

    Zhè

    chéngguŏ

    dùi

    tāmen

    de

    gōngzuò

    yóu

    hěn

    (de)

    bāngzhù.

     

    this

    one

    outcome

    to

    they

    DE

    work

    have

    very

    big

    DE

    help

     

    ‘This result would help their work a lot.’

    (ii)

    gúwŭ

    ‘encouragement, to encourage’

     

    zhīchí

    ‘support, to support’

     

    qĭfā

    ‘inspiration, to inspire’

  4. The X hěn dà expression that takes a verb as the X component further allows the marker ‘DE’ to occur between the verb and the hěn dà component, as shown below.

    (i)

    Dŭshèng

    Zhōu

    Xīng-Chí

    zhè

    wán

    tài

    le,

    yíng

    ì

     

    god-of-gamblers

    Zhou

    Xing-Chi

    this

    also

    play

    DE

    too

    big

    SFP

    one

    bet

    win

    one

     

    qiān

    wàn.

                
     

    thousand

    ten-thousand

                
     

    ‘How heavily the god of gamblers Zhou Xing-Chi gambles! He won ten million dollars in one bet.’

    (ii)

    Zhōngguó

    kěnéng

    shū

    gèng

    dà,

    yīnwèi

    zhōngguó

    cóng

    měiguó

      
     

    China

    possible

    lose

    DE

    even-more

    big

    because

    China

    from

    USA

      
     

    jìnkŏu

    de,

    shăo

    shì

    shēngchăn

    zhìzào

    de

    jīběn

    yuánjiàn

    huò

    bùkěhuòquē

     

    import

    DE

    not

    few

    is

    produce

    make

    DE

    basic

    raw-material

    or

    necessary

     

    de

    ruántĭ.

              
     

    DE

    software

              
     

    ‘China might lose even more because most of her imports from the USA are the basic raw materials and indispensable software.’

  5. As one anonymous reviewer notes, the sequence hěn dà ‘HEN DA’ seems to be quite similar to the sequence hěn duō ‘HEN many/much’ found in cases like (i), where the sequence hěn duō ‘HEN many/much’ also functions as a reference to a high degree reading related to the property denoted by the word preceding it (henceforth, the X hěn duō construction).

    (i)

    Zhāngsān

    qián

    hěn

    duō.

     

    Zhangsan

    money

    HEN

    much

     

    ‘Zhangsan has a lot of money.’

    The X hěn duō construction, however, differs from the X hěn dà construction in the following aspects (Lin 2014; Liu 2018b). First, if the X component is a gradable adjective, the X hěn duō construction like that in (ii) conveys a meaning of explicit comparison, and the sequence hěn duō ‘HEN many/much’ functions to refer to the differential between the target of comparison and the standard of comparison. However, this is not the case for the X hěn dà construction.

    (ii)

    Zhāngsān

    gāo

    gèng/hěn

    duō.

     

    Zhangsan

    tall

    even-more/HEN

    much

     

    ‘Zhangsan is even much/much taller (than someone).’

    Second, the X hěn duō construction cannot take a verb, either gradable or non-gradable, as the X component if the hěn duō ‘HEN many/much’ sequence functions to refer to a high degree reading related to the X component, as (iii) shows.

    (iii)

    *Zhāngsān

    xĭhuān/zhuàn

    gèng/hěn

    duō.

     

    Zhangsan

    like/earn

    even-more/HEN

    much

    However, the same is not true of the X hěn dà construction. So, the scope of this study will not include the X hěn duō construction.

  6. Liu (2012: 59), assuming the framework of construction grammar, simply claims that the X hěn dà is a ‘construction’ without providing any evidence and without going into the details of the syntax and semantics of the X hěn dà construction or considering any of the questions raised by the X hěn dà construction. So, no specific comments on Liu (2012) are given in the rest of this paper.

  7. Wellwood (2015: 75) uses Hilbert’s є operator to represent the silent indefinite determiner which combines with beer.

  8. Although there are some differences between Wellwood (2013, 2015) in the semantic interpretation of much, these differences do not have any significant impact on her theory of comparatives.

  9. In (34a), there exists a possessive relation between xiězhēn nyŭxīng ‘poster girl’ and zhuāng ‘makeup’. So, in (34cvi–vii), I use the term ‘Hold’ to specify this possessive relation.

  10. As Harley (2009: 134) argues, roots carry the encyclopedic semantic information which distinguishes a type of event that necessarily entails an internal argument from one that does not; therefore, argument selection is a feature of roots.

  11. As suggested by Harley (2009: 137–138) as well as Levinson (2010: 156), a root can merge with something other than its arguments. For example, quick-acting in (ia) is one in which the root √ACT is modified by the adjective quick, as (ib) shows.

    (i)

    a.

    quick-acting baking powder (It acts quick(ly))

     

    b.

    [aP [a [ [a [√QUICKquick]-[a ∅]] [√ACTact]]-[a -ing]] [√P [√ACTact][aP [a]

      

    [√QUICKquick]]]]

  12. I assume the unstressed degree adverb hěn ‘HEN’ in the X hěn dà construction is the overt positive morpheme, and a positive form like hěn gāo ‘HEN tall’ has semantics in (ib) (Kennedy 2007: 17).

    (i)

    a.

    ⟦[Deg hěn]⟧ = λgλx.g(x) ≥ s(g)

     

    b.

    ⟦[DegP hěn gāo]⟧ = λx.gāo(x) ≥ s(gāo)

    That is, in (ib), the context-sensitive function s chooses a standard of comparison in such a way as to ensure that the objects of which the positive form is true ‘stand out’ in the context of utterance, relative to the measurement encoded by the adjective gāo ‘tall’.

  13. The term ‘Theta’ represents the thematic role that the individual x carries.

  14. The light verb head v functions to introduce the agent role for the event denoted by the verb, and the light adjective head a functions to introduce the experiencer or theme role for the state denoted by the adjective.

  15. This proposal does not exclude the possibility that the variable μ might be treated as one with type <e, d> and α is an element with type <e> (i.e., an entity) because the adjectival predicate hěn dà ‘HEN DA’, as (i) shows, can directly take an entity-denoting nominal as a subject.

    (i)

    Yŏu

    yī-zhŏng

    yòuhuò

    hěn

    da.

     

    have

    one-CL

    temptation

    HEN

    DA

     

    ‘There is a kind of temptation and, as for the degree of allurement, it allures people a lot.’

    Hence, as (ii) shows, example (i) is true only when there is an entity x and x is temptation, the A(μ)-measure of which is greater than or equal to that of the contextually determined standard of comparison chosen by the context-sensitive function s; if A(μ) is the degree of allurement, the sentence is interpretable.

    (ii)

    x[yòuhuò(x) & A(μ)(x) ≥ s(A(μ))]

     

    A(μ) is the degree of allurement

    So, I assume that there is only one ‘DA’.

  16. An accomplishment verb cannot occur as the X component of the X hěn dà construction, which can also be explained by the assumption that, in the X hěn dà construction, only measure functions that apply to non-trivially structured domains are allowed and the mapping must be monotonic (Schwarzschild 2002, 2006). As Vendler (1967) and Dowty (1979) argue, activity and stative verbs can be considered homogeneous but a singularly-interpreted telic verb (e.g., an accomplishment verb) cannot. So, a singularly-interpreted telic verb cannot occur as the X component of the X hěn dà construction, as the ungrammaticality of (i) attests.

    (i)

    *Fúwùshēng

    bēizi

    dăpò

    hěn

    dà.

     

    waiter

    cup

    hit-broken

    HEN

    DA

    This assumption also explains why a semelfactive verb (e.g., ‘cough’) can occur in an X hěn dà construction if a context with a derived multiple-event consisting of repeated semelfactive events is available, as (ii) shows.

    (ii)

    Jiàng

    xiěyā

    yàowú

    guòmĭn,

    ōujīsàng

    hěn

    dà.

     

    decrease

    blood-pressure

    drug

    allergy

    elder

    cough

    HEN

    DA

     

    ‘The elder coughs a lot because s/he is allergic to the drug that helps decrease blood pressure.’

  17. In (69cviii), the capital E with the type of <v, t > represents a set of events. For ease of exposition, I use ‘money’ to replace the variable y.

  18. As one anonymous reviewer notes, it would be very useful to see how the degree argument of a gradable adjective or verb is introduced when the X hěn dà construction is not involved. For example, what would my compositional analysis of a simple sentence like (i) look like?

    (i)

    Zhāngsān

    hěn

    gāo.

     

    Zhangsan

    very

    tall

     

    ‘Zhangsan is very tall.’

    I suggest two alternative responses to this question. One is to adopt Bresnan’s (1973) idea that there exists a rule like (ii), which applies after the rule that produces more (Wellwood 2014; 2015).

    (ii)

    much → ∅/_A

    The other is to put aside the issue of English much and simply assume that, in Taiwanese Mandarin, the adjective ‘DA’ only compositionally introduces degrees for non-gradable expressions. According to the first option, in English what is underlyingly as much intelligent, for example, surfaces as as intelligent. Following the same reasoning, in Taiwanese Mandarin, a sentence with an adjectival predicate like (i) should contain the adjective ‘DA’, as (iii) shows, and this adjective is deleted later.

    (iii)

    Zhāngsān

    hěn

    gāo.

     

    Zhangsan

    very

    DA

    tall

    This option is supported by the evidence in (iva-b), in which the compound adjectives have the adjective ‘DA’ as their second component.

    (iv)

    a.

    Zhè-ke

    shù

    hěn

    gāodà.

      

    this-CL

    tree

    very

    tall-DA

      

    ‘This tree is very tall.’

     

    b.

    Shùgàn

    fēicháng

    cūdà.

     
      

    trunk

    extremely

    thick-DA

     
      

    ‘The trunk is extremely thick.’

     

    So, (iva) has a syntactic structure like (va), based on which the semantic composition of (va) can be demonstrated by (vb).

    (v)

    a.

    [S Zhè-ke shù [DegP [Deg’ [Deg hěn][aP [a [aa] [√P [ [ √GĀO][A dà]]]]]]]]

     

    b.

    i.

    ⟦[A dà]⟧A = λα.A(μ)(α)

      

    ii.

    ⟦[ √GĀO]⟧ = λη.√GĀO(η)

      

    iii.

    ⟦[ √GĀOdà] ⟧A = λη.√GĀO(η) & A(μ)(η)

      

    iv.

    ⟦[aP gāodà]⟧A = λxλs.Theme(s)(x) & gāo(s) & A(μ)(s)

      

    v.

    ⟦[Deg hěn]⟧ = λgλα.g(α) ≥ s(g)

      

    vi.

    ⟦[DegP hěn gāodà]⟧A = λxλs.Theme(s)(x) & gāo(s) & A(μ)(s) ≥ s(A(μ))

      

    vii.

    ⟦S⟧A = λs.Theme(s)(zks) & gāo(s) & A(μ)(s) ≥ s(A(μ))

      

    viii.

     

    = T iff ∃s[Theme(s)(zks) & gāo(s) & A(μ)(s) ≥ s(A(μ))]

        

    A(μ) is the height of trees.

    As for the second option, we could say that a gradable adjective like gāo ‘tall’ does not need the adjective ‘DA’ to introduce degrees for it because it is gradable. So, a sentence with an adjectival predicate like (i), which has a syntactic structure as in (via) and a semantic interpretation like (vibiv).

    (vi)

    a.

    [S Zhāngsān [DegP [[Deg hěn] [AP gāo]]]].

     

    b.

    i.

    ⟦[AP gāo]⟧ = λdλx.gāo(x) ≥ d

      

    ii.

    ⟦[Deg hěn]⟧ = λgλx.g(x) ≥ s(g)

      

    iii.

    ⟦[DegP hěn gāo]⟧ = λx.gāo(x) ≥ s(gāo)

      

    iv.

    ⟦[S Zhāngsān hěn gāo]⟧ = gāo(zs) ≥ s(gāo)

    At this point, I leave it open as to which of these two alternatives prevails.

References

  • Arad, Maya. 2003. Locality Constraints on the Interpretation of Roots: The Case of Hebrew Denominal Verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21(4): 737–778.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arad, Maya. 2005. Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morphosyntax. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention Effects Follow from Focus Interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14(1): 1–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, Joan. 1973. Syntax of the Comparative Clause Construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4(3): 275–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chao, Yen-Ren. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, Max J. 1977. The Semantics of Degree. In Montague Grammar, ed. Barbara Partee, 261–292. New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Embick, David. 1997. Voice and the Interfaces of Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Hackl, Martin. 2000. Comparative Determiners. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • Hale, Ken, and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1993. On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. In The View from Building 20, eds. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In The View from Building 20, eds. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Harley, Heidi. 2009. Compounding in Distributed Morphology. In Oxford Handbook of Compounding, eds. Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer, 129–144. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harley, Heidi, and Rolf Noyer. 1998. Licensing in the Non-lexicalist Lexicon: Nominalizations, Vocabulary Items and the Encyclopedia. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32, Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on Argument Structure and Aspect, ed. Heidi Harley, 175–200. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

  • Harley, Heidi, and Rolf Noyer. 2003. Distributed Morphology. In The Second GLOT International State-of-the-Article Book. The Latest in Linguistics, eds. Lisa Cheng and Rint Sybesma, 463–496. Berlin: De Gruyter.

  • Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • Huang, Shi-Zhe, Jing Jin, and Ding-Xu Shi. 2014. Adjectives and Adjective Phrases. In A Reference Grammar of Chinese, eds. Chu-Ren Huang and Ding-Xu Shi, 276–296. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Cheng-Teh James, Yen-Hui Audrey Li, and Yafei Li. 2009. The Syntax of Chinese. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Jin-Wen, and Hong-Rui Lin. 2011. Liúxíng yŭ ‘shā hěn dà’ de fùhéhuà [The compounding of the slogan shā hěn dà]. Zhongyang Renwen Xuebao [Zhongyang Journal of Humanity Studies] 48: 163–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, Christopher. 2007. Vagueness and Grammar: The Semantics of Relative and Absolute Gradable Adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(1): 1–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, Christopher, and Louise McNally. 2010. Color, Context, and Compositionality. Synthese 174(1): 79–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, Paul. 2006. Adverbs in A-not-A Questions in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15(2): 97–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, Lisa. 2010. Arguments for Pseudo-Resultative Predicates. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28(1): 135–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Jo-Wang. 2014. The Adjective of Quantity duomany/much’ and Differential Comparatives in Mandarin Chinese. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1(2): 163–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Hsiu-Ying. 2012. Yŭyán de chuàngxīn yŭ yìngyòng: Táiwān guóyŭ ‘X hěn dà’ jiégòu yánjiù [The creativity and application of languages: The X hěn dà construction in Taiwanese Mandarin]. Xiàndài Yŭwén (Yŭyán Yánjiù) [Modern Chinese] 2012(4): 58–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Chen-Sheng Luther. 2018a. Projecting Adjectives in Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 27(1): 67–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Chen-Sheng Luther. 2018b. A Comparative with Two Standards of Comparison. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics 5(2): 195–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, Alec. 1997. No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2): 201–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, Barbara. 1989. Many Quantifiers. In ESCOL 89: Proceedings of the Eastern State Conference on Linguistics, eds. Joyce Powers and Kenneth de Jong, 383–402.

  • Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rett, Jessica. 2018. The semantics of many, much, few, and little. Language and Linguist Compass. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romero, Maribel. 1998. Focus and Reconstruction Effects in wh-Phrases. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Schwarzschild, Roger. 2002. The Grammar of Measurement. In Proceedings of SALT 12, ed. Brendan Jackson, 225–245. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzschild, Roger. 2006. The Role of Dimensions in the Syntax of Noun Phrase. Syntax 9(1): 67–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solt, Stephanie. 2015. Q-Adjectives and the Semantics of Quantity. Journal of Semantics 32(2): 221–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, Stanley Smith. 1957. On the Psychophysical Law. Psychological Review 64(3): 153–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sybesma, Rint. 1999. The Mandarin VP. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, Arnim. 1984. Comparing Semantic Theories of Comparison. Journal of Semantics 3(1): 1–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellwood, Alexis. 2013. Grading Attitudes. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellwood, Alexis. 2014. Measuring Predicates. Doctoral dissertation, College Park, MD: University of Maryland.

  • Wellwood, Alexis. 2015. On the Semantics of Comparison Across Categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 38(1): 67–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellwood, Alexis. 2018. Structure Preservation in Comparatives. In Proceedings of SALT 28, eds. Sireemas Maspong, Brynhildur Stefánsdóttir, Katherine Blake, and Forrest Davis, 78–99. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellwood, Alexis, Valentine Hacquard, and Roumyana Pancheva. 2012. Measuring and Comparing Individuals and Events. Journal of Semantics 29(2): 207–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Dexi. 1980. Xiàndài Hànyŭ Yúfă Yánjiù [Studies on Syntax of Modern Chinese]. Běijīng: Shāngwù Yìnshūguăn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Dexi. 1982. Yúfă Jiăngyì [Lectures on Chinese Syntax]. Běijīng: Shāngwù Yìnshūguăn.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Parts of the earlier versions of this paper have been presented at the International Workshop on Degrees and Grammar: An East Asian Perspective held by Nanjing University in March 2019 and the 27th Annual Conference of International Association of Chinese Linguistics held by Kobe City University of Foreign Studies in May 2019. I am grateful for the feedback from the audiences there, especially Chao-Ting Chou, Dun Deng, Michael Erlewine, Thomas Grano, Jie Guo, Christopher Kennedy, Andrew Koontz-Garboden, Xuping Li, Jo-Wang Lin, Qiongpeng Luo, Louise McNally, Osamu Sawada, Beibei Xu, Linmin Zhang and Niina Zhang. I would also like to express my deep gratitude to Yi-Hsun Chen and Hsiu-Chen Liao for their timely and helpful consultation on the semantic part of this paper as well as Jim Huang and Ting-Chi Wei for their suggestions. My deep gratitude also goes to the two respectable anonymous reviewers, from whom I have learned a lot, and their rigorous but constructive comments as well as inspiring suggestions have brought the paper into a more readable state than it otherwise would have been. Added to these, I gratefully acknowledge the research Grant MOST 107-2410-H-009-020 from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. Needless to say, any errors or inconsistencies that have persisted are, of course, my responsibility.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chen-Sheng Luther Liu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, CS.L. The adjective in Taiwanese Mandarin: degree, measurement and roots. J East Asian Linguist 29, 119–157 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-020-09206-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-020-09206-8

Keywords

Navigation