1887
Volume 1, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2665-9336
  • E-ISSN: 2665-9344
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper examines the mechanisms of semantic change in the creation of ten Cantonese slang words. It demonstrates with synchronic evidence that metaphorization, metonymization and (inter)subjectification are three principal driving forces behind the shift in meaning. It is argued that Traugott and Dasher’s (2002) Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change (IITSC), initially proposed for and widely used in the context of grammaticalization, is equally useful for the study of neologisms – in this case, the relatively recent slang expressions in Cantonese. These monosyllabic lexemes are shown to have followed the same unidirectional pathway of semantic change – that is, the shift from non-subjective meaning to encoded (inter)subjective meaning – outlined in their model of semantic change.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/alal.20020.won
2020-12-11
2021-06-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aaron, Jessi Elana , & Cacoullos, Rena Torres
    (2005) Quantitative measures of subjectification: A variationist study of Spanish salir(se) . Cognitive Linguistics, 16(4), 607–633. doi:  10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.607
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.607 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ah Foot
    Ah Foot (2008) A dictionary of internet trendy expressions 2008. Pi Publication Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Au Yeung, Ben
    (2008) Cantonese and its very own grammar. Ming Cheong Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barcelona, Antonio
    (2000) On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for metaphor. In Antonio Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp.31–57). Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110894677
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894677 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bisang, Walter
    (2015) Problems with primary vs secondary grammaticalization: The case of East and mainland Southeast Asia languages. Language Sciences, 47(Part B), 132–147. doi:  10.1016/j.langsci.2014.05.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  6. Breivik, Leiv Egil , & Martínez-Insua, Ana
    (2008) Grammaticalization, subjectification and non-concord in English existential sentences. English Studies, 89(3), 351–362. doi:  10.1080/00138380802011321
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00138380802011321 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brems, Lieselotte , Ghesquière, Lobke , & Van de Velde, Freek
    (Eds.) (2014) Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in grammar and discourse. John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/bct.65
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.65 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bybee, Joan , Perkins, Revere , & Pagliuca, William
    (1994) The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chan, Ka-chun
    (2009, December10). A lesson on trendy expressions: The case of sim2 . Ming Pao Daily.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Choi, Lan
    (2008) King of trendy expressions. Pi Publication Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chor, Winnie
    (2013) From ‘direction’ to ‘positive evaluation’: On the grammaticalization, subjectification and intersubjectification of faan1 ‘return’ in Cantonese. Language and Linguistics, 14(1), 91–134.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Chu, Fun
    (2008) The lessons of trendy expressions. Hong Kong: Wan Li Book Co. Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Davidse, Kristin , & Heyvaert, Liesbet
    (2007) On the middle voice: An interpersonal analysis of the English middle. Linguistics, 45(1), 37–83. doi:  10.1515/LING.2007.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2007.002 [Google Scholar]
  14. Davidse, Kristin , Vandelanotte, Lieven , & Cuyckens, Huber
    (Eds.) (2010) Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110226102
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102 [Google Scholar]
  15. Derrig, Sandra
    (1978) Metaphor in the colour lexicon. In Donka Farkas , Wesley Jacobsen , & Karol Todrys (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on the lexicon (pp.85–96). Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Diewald, Gabriele
    (2011) Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics, 49(2), 365–390. doi:  10.1515/ling.2011.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.011 [Google Scholar]
  17. Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline , Degand, Liesbeth , Fagard, Benjamin , & Mortier, Liesbeth
    (2011) Historical and comparative perspectives on subjectification: A corpus-based analysis of Dutch and French causal connectives. Linguistics, 49(2), 445–478. doi:  10.1515/ling.2011.014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.014 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fagard, Benjamin , & Degand, Liesbeth
    (2010) Cause and subjectivity: A comparative study of French and Italian. Lingvisticæ Investigationes, 33(2), 179–193. doi:  10.1075/li.33.2.03fag
    https://doi.org/10.1075/li.33.2.03fag [Google Scholar]
  19. Fan, Ying
    (2000) A classification of Chinese culture. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 7(2), 3–10. doi:  10.1108/13527600010797057
    https://doi.org/10.1108/13527600010797057 [Google Scholar]
  20. Geeraerts, Dirk
    (1997) Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ghesquière, Lobke , & Van de Velde, Freek
    (2011) A corpus-based account of the development of English such and Dutch zulk: Identification, intensification and (inter)subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(4), 765–797. doi:  10.1515/cogl.2011.028
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.028 [Google Scholar]
  22. Ghesquière, Lobke
    (2014) The directionality of (inter)subjectification in the English noun phrase: Pathways of change. Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110338751
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110338751 [Google Scholar]
  23. Goossens, Louis
    (1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340. doi:  10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323 [Google Scholar]
  24. (1995) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in figurative expressions for linguistic action. In Louis Goossens , Paul Pauwels , Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn , Anne-Marie Simon Vandenbergen , & Johan Vanparys (Eds.), By word of mouth: Metaphor, metonymy and linguistic action in a cognitive context (pp.159–174). John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/pbns.33
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.33 [Google Scholar]
  25. Grady, Joseph
    (1997) Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.
  26. Grice, Paul
    (1989) Logic and conversation. In Paul Grice (Ed.), Studies in the way of words (pp.22–40). Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Grondelaers, Stefan , Speelman, Dirk , & Geeraerts, Dirk
    (2007) Lexical variation and change. In Dirk Geeraerts , & Hubert Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.988–1011). Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Heine, Bernd , & Kuteva, Tania
    (2002) World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511613463
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613463 [Google Scholar]
  29. Heine, Bernd , Claudi, Ulrike , & Hünnemeyer, Friederike
    (1991) Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Heine, Bernd
    (1993) Auxiliaries: Cognitive force and grammaticalization. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Ho, Man-yee
    (2005) Trendy expressions in Hong Kong Cantonese: Morphological, semantic and pragmatic analyses (MA thesis). The University of Hong Kong. 10.5353/th_b3160102
    https://doi.org/10.5353/th_b3160102
  32. Hopper, Paul , & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    (2003) Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  33. Horie, Kaoru
    (2007) Subjectification and intersubjectification in Japanese: A comparative typological perspective. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 8(2), 311–323. doi:  10.1075/jhp.8.2.08hor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.8.2.08hor [Google Scholar]
  34. Horn, Laurence
    (1984) Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Deborah Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: linguistic applications (pp.11–42). Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Hutton, Christopher , & Bolton, Kingsley
    (2005) A dictionary of Cantonese slang: The language of Hong Kong movies, street gangs and city life. University of Hawaii Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Johnson, Mark
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Joseph, Brian , & Janda, Richard
    (2003) The handbook of historical linguistics. Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470756393
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kövecses, Zoltán
    (1991) Happiness: A definitional effort. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 6(1), 29–46. doi:  10.1207/s15327868ms0601_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0601_2 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2000) Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Lakoff, George , & Johnson, Mark
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. (1998) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenges to western thought. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Lakoff, George , & Turner, Mark
    (1989) More than cool Reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Lakoff, George , Espenson, Jane , & Schwartz, Alan
    (1991) Master metaphor list (second draft copy). Cognitive Linguistics Group, University of California Berkeley. Retrieved fromaraw.mede.uic.edu/~alansz/metaphor/METAPHORLIST.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Lakoff, George
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  46. (1990) The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas?Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74. doi:  10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39 [Google Scholar]
  47. (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.202–251). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2002) Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think?University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471006.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471006.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  49. Langacker, Ronald
    (1985) Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In John Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp.109–150). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.6.07lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.07lan [Google Scholar]
  50. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. 1): Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. (1990) Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 5–38. doi:  10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  52. (1995) Raising and transparency. Language, 71(1), 1–62. doi:  10.2307/415962
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415962 [Google Scholar]
  53. (1999) Losing control: Grammaticalization, subjectificaiton, and transparency. In Andreas Blank , & Peter Koch (Eds.), Historical semantics and cognition (pp.147–175). Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110804195
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804195 [Google Scholar]
  54. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  55. Levinson, Stephen
    (2000) Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalised conversational implicature. MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  56. Linguistic Society of Hong Kong
    Linguistic Society of Hong Kong (1997) Jyut6 Ping3 [Cantonese Romanization Scheme]. Linguistic Society of Hong Kong.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. López-Couso, María José
    (2010) Subjectification and intersubjectification. In Andreas H. Jucker , & Irma Taavitsainen (Eds.), Historical pragmatics (pp.127–164). De Gruyter Mouton. doi:  10.1515/9783110214284
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214284 [Google Scholar]
  58. Loureiro-Porto, Lucía
    (2012) On the relationship between subjectification, grammaticalization and constructions: Evidence from the history of English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 13(2), 232–258. doi:  10.1075/jhp.13.2.03lou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.13.2.03lou [Google Scholar]
  59. Luke, Kang-kwong , & Lau, Chaak-ming
    (2008) On loanword truncation in Cantonese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 17(4), 347–362. doi:  10.1007/s10831‑008‑9032‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-008-9032-x [Google Scholar]
  60. Lyons, John
    (1982) Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum?In Robert Jarvella , & Wolfgang Klein (Eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (pp.101–124). Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. McGlone, Matthew
    (2006) What is the explanatory value of a conceptual metaphor?Language & Communication, 27(2), 109–126. doi:  10.1016/j.langcom.2006.02.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2006.02.016 [Google Scholar]
  62. Narrog, Heiko , & Heine, Bernd
    (Eds.) (2011) The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  63. Oxford English Dictionary
    Oxford English Dictionary . (n.d.). Oxford University Press.
  64. Park, Chongwon
    (2010) (Inter)subjectification of Korean honorifics. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 11(1), 122–147. doi:  10.1075/jhp.11.1.05par
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.11.1.05par [Google Scholar]
  65. Radden, Günter
    (2000) How metonymic are metaphors?In Antonio Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp.93–108). Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110894677
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894677 [Google Scholar]
  66. Reddy, Michael
    (1979) The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Andrew Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.284–310). Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Rhee, Seongha
    (2012) Context-induced interpretation and (inter)subjectification: The case of grammaticalization of sentence-final particles. Language Sciences, 34(3), 284–300. doi:  10.1016/j.langsci.2011.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  68. Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie , & Willems, Dominique
    (2011) Crosslinguistic data as evidence in the grammaticalization debate: The case of discourse markers. Linguistics, 49(2), 333–346. doi:  10.1515/ling.2011.010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.010 [Google Scholar]
  69. So, Real-Real
    (2008) Picture cards of trendy expressions in Hong Kong Cantonese. Kubrick.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. (2009) Flash cards of trendy expressions in Hong Kong Cantonese (Vol.2). Kubrick.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Suzuki, Ryoko
    (2007) (Inter)subjectification in the quotative tte in Japanese conversation: Local change, utterance-ness and verb-ness. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 8(2), 207–237. doi:  10.1075/jhp.8.2.04suz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.8.2.04suz [Google Scholar]
  72. Sweetser, Eve
    (1990) From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  73. Tang, Sze-Wing
    (2009) Word formation of Hong Kong trendy expressions. Chinese Language Research, 28(2), 11–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs , & Dasher, Richard
    (2002) Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511486500
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486500 [Google Scholar]
  75. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs , & Heine, Bernd
    (Eds.) (1991) Approaches to grammaticalization (Vols.1–2). John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.19.1 doi: 10.1075/tsl.19.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1 [Google Scholar]
  76. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs , & König, Ekkehard
    (1991) The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott , & Bernd Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (Vol. 1): Theoretical and methodological issues (pp.189–218). Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.19.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1 [Google Scholar]
  77. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    (1989) On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65(1), 31–55. doi:  10.2307/414841
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414841 [Google Scholar]
  78. (1995) Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Dieter Stein , & Susan Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives (pp.31–54). Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511554469
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469 [Google Scholar]
  79. (1997) Subjectification and the development of epistemic meaning: The case of promise and threaten . In Toril Swan , & Olaf Jansen Westvik (Eds.), Modality in Germanic languages (pp.185–210). Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110889932
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110889932 [Google Scholar]
  80. (1999) The rhetoric of counter-expectation in semantic change: A study in subjectification. In Andreas Blank , & Peter Koch (Eds.), Historical semantics and cognition (pp.177–196). Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110804195
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804195 [Google Scholar]
  81. (2003) Constructions in grammaticalization. In Brian Joseph , & Richard Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp.624–647). Blackwell. doi:  10.1002/9780470756393
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393 [Google Scholar]
  82. (2007a) (Inter)subjectification and unidirectionality. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 8(2), 295–309. doi:  10.1075/jhp.8.2.07clo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.8.2.07clo [Google Scholar]
  83. (2007b) The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(4), 523–557. doi:  10.1515/COG.2007.027
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.027 [Google Scholar]
  84. (2010) (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Kristin Davidse , Lieven Vandelanotte , & Hubert Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp.29–71). Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110226102
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102 [Google Scholar]
  85. (2012) Pragmatics and language change. In Keith Allan , & Kasia M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp.249–266). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139022453.030
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.030 [Google Scholar]
  86. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.323 [Google Scholar]
  87. Van Linden, An
    (2010) From premodal to modal meaning: Adjectival pathways in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(3), 537–571. doi:  10.1515/COGL.2010.018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2010.018 [Google Scholar]
  88. Vesterinen, Rainer
    (2010) The relation between iconicity and subjectification in Portuguese complementation: Complements of perception and causation verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(3), 573–600. doi:  10.1515/COGL.2010.019
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2010.019 [Google Scholar]
  89. Visconti, Jacqueline
    (2013) Facets of subjectification. Language Sciences, 36(1), 7–17. doi:  10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.016 [Google Scholar]
  90. Warren, Beatrice
    (1999) Aspects of referential metonymy. In Klaus-Uwe Panther , & Günter Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.121–138). John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/hcp.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4 [Google Scholar]
  91. Xing, Janet Zhiqun
    (2006) Mechanisms of semantic change in Chinese. Studies in Language30(3), 461–483. doi:  10.1075/sl.30.3.01xin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.30.3.01xin [Google Scholar]
  92. Yaguchi, Michiko
    (2010) The historical development of the phrase there’s: An analysis of the Oxford English Dictionary data. English Studies, 91(2), 205–224. doi:  10.1080/00138380903355007
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00138380903355007 [Google Scholar]
  93. Zhang, weiwei , Geeraerts, Dirk , & Speelman, Dirk
    (2015) Cross-linguistic variation in metonymies for person: A Chinese-English contrastive study. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(1), 220–256. doi:  10.1075/rcl.13.1.09zha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.1.09zha [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/alal.20020.won
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/alal.20020.won
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error