Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 1395–1437 | Cite as

Non-canonical objects as event kind-classifying elements

  • Niina Ning Zhang
Article

Abstract

Non-canonical objects in Mandarin Chinese denote instrument, time, manner, and so on, instead of theme. The predicates that contain such objects show properties of unergative predicates. The paper thus claims that the syntactic position of such objects is the complement of a verb in the unergative use. The semantic function of such objects parallels that of classificatory adjectives in the nominal domain, and that of pseudo-incorporated nominals in the verbal domain. Such objects denote properties, and restrict, rather than saturate, predicates. Non-canonical objects are thus identified as event kind-classifying elements. Four properties of such objects motivate this analysis. They are never in the form of a pronoun, and never admit comparison; their hosting predicate encodes a subclass of an event kind, and the event is subject to an institutionalization constraint. Such objects are thus not arguments or adverbials. The paper further claims that since these properties are also found in cognate objects and weak definites in English, these two types of nominals are also event kind-classifying elements. These different types of nominal event kind-classifying elements are all complements of their associated verbs.

Keywords

Non-canonical object Kind-classifying element Unergative Classificatory adjective Incorporation Weak definite Cognate object 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Daniel Hole for important feedback on the first version of this paper, the members of the NLLT editorial team and three anonymous reviewers for helpful advice, as well as Jo-Wang Lin, Hsuan-Hsiang Wang, Greg Carlson, Paolo Acquaviva, Antonio Fábregas, Marie-Claude Paris, Vithong Nguyen, Trang Phan, Liching Livy Chiu, Adam Zheng, Ljudmila Geist, the participants of my 2016 classes, the audiences of my talks at National Taiwan University in October 2016, and the International Conference on Asian Linguistics, Nguyen Tat Thanh University, Ho Chi Minh City, in December 2016, for providing references, discussing examples and some other issues of the paper, and James Myers for helping with my English. All remaining errors are mine. This research has been supported by CCU grant No. 105-00907-01.

References

  1. Aguilar-Guevara, Ana. 2014. Weak definites: Semantics, lexicon and pragmatics. PhD diss., Utrecht University. Google Scholar
  2. Aguilar-Guevara, Ana, and Joost Zwarts. 2011. Weak definites and reference to kinds. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20:179–196. Google Scholar
  3. Alexiadou, Artemis. 2014. The problem with internally caused change-of-state verbs. Linguistics 52(4): 879–909. Google Scholar
  4. Alexiadou, Artemis, and Florian Schäfer. 2006. Instrument subjects are agents or causers. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 25, eds. Donald Baumer, David Montero, and Michael Scanlon, 40–48. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Google Scholar
  5. Alexiadou, Artemis, and Melita Stavrou. 2011. Ethnic adjectives as pseudo-adjectives: A case study on syntax–morphology interaction and the structure of DP. Studia Linguistica 65(2): 117–146. Google Scholar
  6. Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Florian Schäfer. 2015. External arguments in transitivity alternations: A layering approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  7. Baker, Mark C. 2014. Pseudo noun incorporation as covert noun incorporation: Linearization and crosslinguistic variation. Language and Linguistics 15(1): 5–46. Google Scholar
  8. Bally, Charles. 1932. Linguistique française et linguistique générale [4th edn. 1965]. Berne: Francke. Google Scholar
  9. Barrie, Michael, and Yen-Hui Audrey Li. 2015a. Analysis vs. synthesis: Objects. In Chinese syntax in a cross-linguistic perspective, eds. Yen-Hui Audrey Li, Andrew Simpson, and Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai, 179–206, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  10. Barrie, Michael, and Yen-Hui Audrey Li. 2015b. The semantics of (pseudo) incorporation and case. In The syntax and semantics of pseudo-incorporation, eds. Olga Borik and Berit Gehrke, 159–188. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar
  11. Bauer, Laurie. 1978. The grammar of nominal compounding with special reference to Danish, English and French. Odense: Odense University Press. Google Scholar
  12. Beard, Robert. 1991. Decompositional composition: The semantics of scope ambiguities and ‘bracketing paradoxes.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9(2): 195–229. Google Scholar
  13. Bittner, Maria. 1987. On the semantics of Greenlandic antipassive and related constructions. International Journal of American Linguistics 53(2): 194–231. Google Scholar
  14. Bolinger, Dwight. 1967. Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication. Lingua 18: 1–34. Google Scholar
  15. Borer, Hagit. 2005. The normal course of events. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  16. Borer, Hagit. 2013. Taking form. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  17. Borik, Olga, and Berit Gehrke. 2015. An introduction to the syntax and semantics of pseudo-incorporation. In The syntax and semantics of pseudo-incorporation, eds. Olga Borik and Berit Gehrke, 1–43. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar
  18. Bošković, Željk. 2017. On clitic doubling and argument ellipsis. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 34, eds. Aaron Kaplan et al., 97–106. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Google Scholar
  19. Bosque, Ignacio, and Carme Picallo. 1996. Postnominal adjectives in Spanish DPs. Journal of Linguistics 32(2): 349–385. Google Scholar
  20. Carlson, Greg. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Published 1980. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  21. Carlson, Greg. 2003. Weak indefinites. In From NP to DP, ed. Martine Coene and Yves D’hulst, 195–210. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  22. Carlson, Greg. 2006. The meaningful bounds of incorporation. In Non-definiteness and plurality, eds. Svetlana Vogeleer and Liliane Tasmowski, 35–50. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  23. Carlson, Greg, and Rachel Sussman. 2005. Seemingly indefinite definites. In Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives, eds. Stephan Kepser and Marga Reis, 71–85. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  24. Chen, Ping. 1988. Lun Xiandai Hanyu shijian xitong de sanyuan jiegou [On the tripartite structure of the temporal system in modern Chinese]. Zhongguo Yuwen 207: 401–422. Google Scholar
  25. Cheng, Lisa Lai Shen. 1997. On the typology of wh-questions. Abingdon: Taylor and Francis. Google Scholar
  26. Chomsky, Noam. 1962. A transformational approach to syntax. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
  27. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  28. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. London: Greenwood. Google Scholar
  29. Chung, Sandra, and William A. Ladusaw. 2004. Restriction and saturation. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  30. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  31. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. The syntax of adjectives: A comparative study. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  32. Creissels, Denis. 2014. Functive phrases in typological and diachronic perspective. Studies in Language 38(3): 605–647. Google Scholar
  33. Dayal, Veneeta. 2004. Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(4): 393–450. Google Scholar
  34. Dayal, Veneeta. 2011. Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29(1): 123–167. Google Scholar
  35. Dayal, Veneeta. 2015. Incorporation: Morpho-syntactic vs. semantic considerations. In The syntax and semantics of pseudo-incorporation, eds. Olga Borik and Gehrke Berit, 47–87. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar
  36. de Swart, Henriëtte, and Joost Zwarts. 2009. Less form–more meaning: Why bare singular nouns are special. Lingua 119(2): 280–295. Google Scholar
  37. den Dikken, Marcel. 2015. Raising the subject of the ‘object-of’ relation. In 50 years later: Reflections on Chomsky’s aspects, eds. Ángel J. Gallego and Dennis Ott, 85–98. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  38. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen, Tonia Bleam, and M. Teresa Espinal. 2006. Bare nouns, number and types of incorporation. In Non-definiteness and plurality, eds. Svetlana Vogeleer and Liliane Tasmovski, 51–81. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  39. Downing, Pamela. 1977. On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language 4: 810–842. Google Scholar
  40. Dowty, David R. 1989. On the semantic content of the notion ‘thematic role’. In Properties, types and meaning, eds. Barbara Partee, Gennaro Chierchia, and Raymond Turner, 69–129. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar
  41. Fábregas, Antonio. 2007. The internal syntactic structure of relational adjectives. Probus 19(1): 1–36. Google Scholar
  42. Farkas, Donka, and Henriëtte De Swart. 2003. The semantics of incorporation. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  43. Folli, Raffaella, and Heidi Harley. 2005. Flavors of v: Consuming results in Italian and English. In Aspectual inquiries, eds. Roumyana Slabakova and Paula Kempchinsky 95–120. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  44. Gehrke, Berit. 2015. Adjectival participles, event kind modification and pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33(3): 897–938. Google Scholar
  45. Gehrke, Berit, and Louise McNally. 2015. Distributional modification: The case of frequency adjectives. Language 91(4): 837–870. Google Scholar
  46. Gerdts, Donna B. 1998. Incorporation. In The handbook of morphology, eds. Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky, 84–100. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  47. Grimshaw, Jane. 1993. Semantic structure and semantic content in lexical representation. Ms., Rutgers University. Google Scholar
  48. Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, eds. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 53–109. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  49. Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1998. The basic elements of argument structure. In Papers from the UPenn/MIT roundtable on argument structure and aspect, ed. Heidi Harley. Vol. 32 of MIT working papers in linguistics, 73–118. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  50. Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel Jay Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  51. Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel Jay Keyser. 2005. Aspect and the syntax of argument structure. In The syntax of aspect: Deriving thematic and aspectual interpretation, eds. Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Tova Rapoport, 11–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  52. Haspelmath, Martin. 2015. Transitivity prominence. In Valency classes in the world’s languages 1, eds. Andrej L. Malchukov and Bernard Comrie, 131–148. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  53. Hawkins, John A. 1986. A comparative typology of English and German: Unifying the contrasts. Austin: University of Texas Press. Google Scholar
  54. Her, One-Soon. 2009. Apparent subject-object inversion in Chinese. Linguistics 47(5): 1143–1181. Google Scholar
  55. Huang, Cheng-Teh James, Yen-hui Audrey Li, and Yafei Li. 2009. The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  56. Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  57. Kratzer, Angelika. 2005. Building resultatives. In Event arguments: Foundations and applications, eds. Claudia Maienborn and Angelika Wöllstein, 177–212. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  58. Krifka, Manfred, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Gregory N. Carlson, Alice ter Meulen, Gennaro Chierchia, and Godehard Link. 1995. Introduction to genericity. The generic book, eds. Gregory Carlson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier, 1–124. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  59. Kuno, Susumu, and Ken-ochi Takami. 2004. Functional constraints in grammar: On the unergative-unaccusative distinction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  60. Ladusaw, William A. 1994. Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 4, eds. Mandy Harvey and Lynn Santelmann. 220–229. Ithaca: Cornell University. Google Scholar
  61. Landman, Meredith, and Marcin Morzycki. 2003. Event-kinds and manner modification. In Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL) 31, eds. Nancy Mae Antrim, Grant Goodall, Martha Schulte-Nafeh, and Vida Samiian, 136–147. Fresno: California State University. Google Scholar
  62. Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  63. Levi, Judith N. 1974. On the alleged idiosyncrasy of nonpredicate NPs. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 10: 402–415. Google Scholar
  64. Li, Yen-Hui Audrey. 1990. Order and constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  65. Li, Yen-Hui Audrey. 2014. Thematic hierarchy and derivational economy. Language and Linguistics 15(3): 295–339. Google Scholar
  66. Li, Jinxi, and Shiru Liu. 1978. Lun xiandai Hanyu zhong de liangci [On classifiers in Modern Chinese]. Beijing: Commercial Press. Google Scholar
  67. Lin, Jo-Wang. 2008. Event decomposition and the syntax and semantics of Chinese durative phrases. In Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation series: Language, context and cognition, eds. Johannes Dölling and Tatjana Heyde-Zybatow, 31–54. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  68. Lin, T.-H. Jonah. 2001. Light verb syntax and the theory of phrase structure. PhD diss., University of California, Irvine. Google Scholar
  69. Liu, Feng-his. 2016. Syntactic sources of adjectives in Mandarin Chinese. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 37(1): 38–55. Google Scholar
  70. Lohndahl, Terje. 2014. Phrase structure and argument structure: A case study of the syntax-semantics interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  71. Lu, Jianming. 2004. ‘Jushi yufa’ lilun yu Hanyu yanjiu [The construction grammar and study of Chinese]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese Language] 2004(5): 412–416. Google Scholar
  72. Luo, Anyuan. 1990. Xiandai Xiangxi Miaoyu Yufa [A grammar of modern Miao in the western Hunan province]. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Xueyuan Press. Google Scholar
  73. Ma, Qingzhu. 1992. Hanyu dongci he dongci jiegou [The Chinese verbs and verbal constructions]. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press. Google Scholar
  74. Marchis, Mihaela Moreno. 2010. Relational adjectives at the syntax/morphology interface in Romanian and Spanish. PhD diss., Universität Stuttgart. Google Scholar
  75. Marchis, Mihaela Moreno. 2015. Relational adjectives at interfaces. Studia Linguistica 69(3): 304–332. Google Scholar
  76. Massam, Diane. 1990. Cognate objects as thematic objects. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 35(2): 161–190. Google Scholar
  77. Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19(1): 153–197. Google Scholar
  78. McNally, Louise, and Gemma Boleda. 2004. Relational adjectives as properties of kinds. In Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics 5, eds. Olivier Bonami and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr, 179–196. Paris: CSSP. Google Scholar
  79. Merlan, Francesca. 1976. Noun incorporation and discourse reference in modern Nahuatl. International Journal of American Linguistics 42(3): 177–191. Google Scholar
  80. Meyer, Ralf. 1993. Compound comprehension in isolation and in context. The contribution of conceptual and discourse knowledge to the comprehension of German novel noun-noun compounds. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar
  81. Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60(4): 847–894. Google Scholar
  82. Mittwoch, Anita. 2005. Unspecified arguments in episodic and habitual sentences. The syntax of aspect. eds. Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Tova Rapoport, 237–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  83. Moens, Marc, and Mark Steedman. 1988. Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics 14(2): 15–28. Google Scholar
  84. Muro, Allesio. 2009. Noun incorporation: A new theoretical perspective. PhD diss., Universitá degli Studi di Padova. Google Scholar
  85. Partee, Barbara. 2008. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Formal semantics: The essential readings, eds. Paul Portner and Barbara Partee, 357–381. Malden: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  86. Paul, Waltraud. 2002. Sentence-internal topics in Mandarin Chinese: The case of object preposing. Language and Linguistics 3(4): 695–714. Google Scholar
  87. Postal, Paul M. 1969. On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. In Modern studies in English: Readings in transformational grammar, eds. David A. Reibel and Sanford A. Schane, 201–224. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
  88. Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The syntax of event structure. Cognition 41: 47–81. Google Scholar
  89. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Google Scholar
  90. Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  91. Ramchand, Gillian. 2014. Event structure and verbal decomposition. Ms. University of Tromsø/CASTL. Google Scholar
  92. Rijkhoff, Jan. 2008. Descriptive and discourse-referential modifiers in a layered model of the noun phrase. Linguistics 46(4): 789–829. Google Scholar
  93. Ritter, Elizabeth, and Sara Thomas Rosen. 1998. Delimiting events in syntax. In The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, eds. Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder, 135–164. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  94. Rosen, Sara Thomas. 1999. The syntactic representation of linguistic events. Glot International 4(2): 3–11. Google Scholar
  95. Sailer, Manfred. 2010. The family of English cognate object constructions, In Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) 17, ed. Stefan Müller, 191–211. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  96. Schwarz, Florian. 2014. How weak and how definite are weak definites? In Weak referentiality, eds. Ana Aguilar Guevara, Bert Le Bruyn, and Joost Zwarts, 213–235. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  97. Skorik, Petr. 1961. Grammatika čukockogo jazyka, I [The grammar of Chukchi, 1]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk. (In Russian). Google Scholar
  98. Spencer, Andrew. 1995. Incorporation in Chukchi. Language 71(3): 439–489. Google Scholar
  99. Stvan, Laurel Smith. 2009. Semantic incorporation as an account for some bare singular count noun uses in English. Lingua 119(2): 314–333. Google Scholar
  100. Sun, Tianqi. 2011. Xiandai Hanyu binyu xuanze wenti yanjiu shuping [A review of research on object selection in Mandarin Chinese]. Hanyu Xuexi 2011(3): 71–81. Google Scholar
  101. Sun, Tianqi, and Yafei Li. 2010. Hanyu fei hexin lunyuan yunzhun jiegou chutan [Licensing non-core arguments in Chinese]. Zhongguo Yuwen 2010(1): 21–33. Google Scholar
  102. Sun, Tianqi, and Haihua Pan. 2012. Ye tan Hanyu bujiwudongci dai “binyu” xianxiang: jialun xinxi jiegou dui Hanyu yuxu de yingxiang [On the phenomenon of intransitive verbs taking objects: The influence of information structure on word order in Mandarin]. Dangdai Yuyanxue 14(4): 331–342. Google Scholar
  103. Sybesma, Rint. 1999. The Mandarin VP. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  104. Taylor, John R. 1996. Possessives in English: An exploration in cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  105. Tenny, Carol Lee. 1987. Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. PhD diss., Cambridge: MIT. Google Scholar
  106. Travis, Lisa. 2005. Agents and causes in Malagasy and Tagalog. In The syntax of aspect: Deriving thematic and aspectual interpretation, eds. Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Tova R. Rapoport, 174–189. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  107. Travis, Lisa. 2010. Inner aspect. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  108. Uriagereka, Juan. 2000. Rhyme and reason: An introduction to minimalist syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  109. van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2010. The syntax of ellipsis: Evidence from Dutch dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  110. van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions. Palo Alto: CSLI. Google Scholar
  111. van Hout, Angeliek. 2004. Unaccusativity as telicity checking. In The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface, eds. Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Martin Everaert, 60–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  112. Vendler, Zeno. 1968. Adjectives and nominalization. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar
  113. von Prince, Kilu. 2012. Predication and information structure in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 21(4): 329–366. Google Scholar
  114. von Stechow, Arnim. 1996. The different readings of wieder ‘again’: A structural account. Journal of Semantics 13: 87–138. Google Scholar
  115. Wang, Changsong, and Wei Chin. 2016. Jufa-yinxi jiekou shiyuxia de rongnaju yanjiu [A study on flip-flop sentences in Chinese from the syntax-phonology interface]. Yuyan Jiaoxue yu Yanjiu [Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies] 182(6): 48–58. Google Scholar
  116. Warren, Beatrice. 1984a. Classifying adjectives. Lund: University of Gothenburg. Google Scholar
  117. Warren, Beatrice. 1984b. The functions of modifiers of nouns. Quaderni di Semantica 5: 111–122. Google Scholar
  118. Zamparelli, Roberto. 1995. Layers in the determiner phrase. PhD diss., University of Rochester. Google Scholar
  119. Zhang, Niina Ning. 2007. The syntax of English comitative constructions. Folia Linguistica 41(1/2): 135–169. Google Scholar
  120. Zhang, Niina Ning. 2015a. The morphological expression of plurality and pluractionality in Mandarin. Lingua 165: 1–27. Google Scholar
  121. Zhang, Niina Ning. 2015b. Nominal-internal phrasal movement in Mandarin Chinese. The Linguistic Review 32(2): 375–425. Google Scholar
  122. Zhang, Niina Ning. 2017. Unifying two general licensors of completive adverbials in syntax. Linguistics 55(2): 371–411. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of LinguisticsNational Chung Cheng UniversityChia-YiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations