1887
Volume 33, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper tackles the topic of Latin influence on Italo-Romance syntax by addressing the question how to combine the analysis of structural data with socio-historical reflections. It views the genre and discourse tradition of a given medieval text as governing the extent to which Latin is used as a model in this text. The paper proposes a methodology which incorporates consideration of the historical, cultural, and sociolinguistic context of language change, focusing on evidence from the development of present participles in Italo-Romance. The main conclusion is that, rather than talking about the general influence of Latin syntax on Italian, we should be examining the influence of particular Latin models on the syntax of different texts written in Italo-Romance varieties in a given historical period.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00021.gre
2020-03-30
2020-05-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Amenta, Luisa
    2003Perifrasi aspettuali in greco e in latino. Origini e grammaticalizzazioni. Milano: Franco Angeli.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnavielle, Teddy
    1997Le morphème -ant: Unité et diversité. Étude historique et théorique. Louvain: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2003 “Le participe, les formes en -ant: positions et propositions.” Langages149: 37–54. 10.3406/lgge.2003.2431
    https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.2003.2431 [Google Scholar]
  5. Banniard, Michel
    2013 “The transition from Latin to the romance languages.” InThe Cambridge history of the Romance languages. Volume 2. Contexts, ed. byMartin Maiden, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway, 57–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CHO9781139019996.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781139019996.003 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baldi, Philip, and Cuzzolin, Pierluigi
    2015 “Uniformitarian principle: Dalle scienze naturali alla linguistica storica.” InModelli epistemologici, metodologie della ricerca e qualità del dato, ed. byPiera Molinelli, and Ignazio Putzu, 37–49. Milano: Franco Angeli.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Barbato, Marcello
    2014 “Romanica cantabrigiensia.” Medioevo Romanzo38: 415–426.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bergs, Alexander
    2012 “The uniformitarian principle and the risk of anachronisms in language and social history.” InThe Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics, ed. byJuan Manuel Hernández-Campoy, and Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre, 80–98. Malden MA: Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118257227.ch5
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118257227.ch5 [Google Scholar]
  9. Blatt, Franz
    1957 “Latin influence on european syntax.” Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague11: 33–69. 10.1080/01050206.1957.10420495
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01050206.1957.10420495 [Google Scholar]
  10. Blázquez, Carolina
    2011 “La traducción de los participios de presente concertados en el Evangelio según San Mateo del códice BNM 9556 (s. XV). Estudio contrastivo con el códice i.i.6 (s. XIII).” InId est, loquendi peritia. Aportaciones a la Lingüística Diacrónica de los Jóvenes Investigadores de Historiografía e Historia de la Lengua Española, ed. byElena Carmona Yanes, and Santiago del Rey Quesada, 141–145. Sevilla: Departamento de Lengua Española, Lingüística y Teoría de la Literatura. Facultad de Filología. Universidad de Sevilla (institucional.us.es/idestloquendi/).
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bolkestein, Anna Machtelt
    1976 “A.c.i.- and ut-clauses with verba dicendi in Latin.” Glotta54: 263–291.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Burgassi, Cosimo, and Elisa Guadagnini
    2014 “Prima dell’«indole». Latinismi latenti dell’italiano.” Studi di lessicografia italiana31: 5–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Calboli, Gualtiero
    2009 “Latin syntax and Greek.” InNew Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Vol. 1, ed. byPhilip Baldi, and Pierluigi Cuzzolin, 65–193. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Campbell, Lyle
    1993 “On proposed universals of grammatical borrowing.” InHistorical linguistics 1989: Papers from the 9th international conference on historical linguistics, ed. byHenk Aertsen, and Robert J. Jeffers, 91–109. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.106.08cam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.106.08cam [Google Scholar]
  15. Castillo Lluch, Monica, and Marta López Izquierdo
    (eds) 2010Modelos latinos en la Castilla medieval. Madrid/Frankfurt: Iberoamericana/Vervuert. 10.31819/9783964563224
    https://doi.org/10.31819/9783964563224 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cerullo, Speranza
    2017 “La traduzione della legenda aurea.” InTradurre dal latino nel medioevo italiano, ed. byLino Leonardi, and Speranza Cerullo, 69–119. Firenze: Edizioni del Galluzzo.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Coseriu, Eugenio
    1983 “Linguistic change does not exist.” Linguistica nuova ed antica1: 51–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Cuzzolin, Pierluigi
    2013 “Some remarks on quia as a subordinator after verbs of saying and thinking.” Journal of Latin Linguistics12: 51–69. 10.1515/joll‑2013‑0004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2013-0004 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2014 “Grecismi sintattici antichi e grecismi sintattici tardi: Osservazioni per un riesame anche terminologico”. InLatin Vulgaire-Latin Tardif X. Actes du Xe Colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif. Bergamo 5–9 septembre 2012, Tome I, ed. byPiera Molinelli, Pierluigi Cuzzolin, and Chiara Fedriani, 247–262. Bergamo: Bergamo University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2016 “Considerazioni sulla paraipotassi in italiano.” InRelazioni linguistiche Strutture, rapporti, genealogie, ed. byMartin Becker, and Ludwig Fesenmeier, 71–88. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Cuzzolin, Pierluigi, and Piera Molinelli
    2013 “Contatto linguistico e tipologie di mutamento.” InLe lingue del Mediterraneo antico. Culture, mutamenti, contatti, ed. byMarco Mancini, and Luca Lorenzetti, 97–123. Roma: Carocci.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Dardano, Maurizio
    1963 “Sintassi dell’infinito nei Libri della famiglia di L. B. Alberti.” Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Lettere, Storia e Filosofia32: 83–135.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. del Rey Quesada, Santiago
    2016a “Ocho tipos de lengua, cara a cara: Las traducciones de la epístola ovidiana de Dido a Eneas en la Edad Media y el Siglo de Oro.” InEl español a través del tiempo. Estudios ofrecidos a Rafael Cano Aguilar, ed. byAraceli López Serena, Antonio Narbona Jiménez, and Santiago del Rey Quesada, 415–439. Sevilla: Editorial Universidad de Sevilla.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2016b “Interferencia latín-romance en Alfonso X: La traducción como pretexto de la elaboración sintáctica.” La crónica44: 75–109. 10.1353/cor.2016.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1353/cor.2016.0004 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2017 “(Anti-)Latinate syntax in Renaissance dialogue.” Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie133: 673–708. 10.1515/zrp‑2017‑0034
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zrp-2017-0034 [Google Scholar]
  26. De Roberto, Elisa
    2010Le relative con antecedente in italiano antico. Roma: Aracne.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2012Le costruzioni assolute nella storia dell’italiano. Casoria (NA): Loffredo.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2013 “Usi concorrenziali di infinito e gerundio in italiano antico.” InActas del XXVI Congreso Internacional de Lingüística y de Filología Románicas, ed. byEmili Casanova Herrero, and Cesáreo. Calvo Rigual, 125–136. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110299915.125
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110299915.125 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2017 “Sintassi e volgarizzamenti.” InTradurre dal latino nel medioevo italiano, ed. byLino Leonardi, and Speranza Cerullo, 227–293. Firenze: Edizioni del Galluzzo.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Drinka, Bridget
    2017Language contact in Europe. The Periphrastic perfect through history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139027694
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139027694 [Google Scholar]
  31. Egerland, Verner
    2010 “Frasi subordinate al participio.” InGrammatica dell’italiano antico. Volume II, ed. byGiampaolo Salvi, and Lorenzo Renzi, 881–901. Bologna: Il Mulino.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Fernández Lagunilla, Marina
    1999 “Las construcciones de gerundio.” InGramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Vol. 2. Las construcciones sintácticas fundamentales. Relaciones temporales, aspectuales y modales, ed. byIgnacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 3443–3503. Madrid: Espasa.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Fernández Murga, Félix
    1979 “El participio presente en italiano y en español.” InAtti del XIV Congresso Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Romanza. Vol. 3, ed. byAlberto Varvaro, 353–372. Napoli/Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Macchiaroli/Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Folena, Gianfranco
    1991Volgarizzare e tradurre. Torino: Einaudi.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Gadet, Françoise
    1992 “Variation et hétérogénéité.” Langages108: 5–15. 10.3406/lgge.1992.1647
    https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.1992.1647 [Google Scholar]
  36. García Turza, Claudio
    2013 “La influencia de la Biblia y sus traducciones en la historia de la lengua española.” Estudios bíblicos71: 433–482.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Godard, Danièle
    1992 “Le programme labovien et la variation syntaxique.” Langages108: 51–65. 10.3406/lgge.1992.1650
    https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.1992.1650 [Google Scholar]
  38. Greco, Paolo
    2013 “Latin Accusativus cum Participio: syntactic description, evidential values, and diachronic development.” Journal of Latin Linguistics12: 173–198. 10.1515/joll‑2013‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2013-0010 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2016 “Il participio presente dipendente da verbi di percezione diretta nel medioevo latino (e romanzo).” Aemilianense4: 367–401.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2018 “Linguistica e sociolinguistica nell’analisi delle carte notarili di Cava de’ Tirreni (IX secolo). Qualche considerazione metodologica.” InStrutture e dinamismi della variazione e del cambiamento linguistico, ed. byPaolo Greco, Cesarina Vecchia and Rosanna Sornicola, 169–180. Napoli: Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Guadagnini, Elisa
    2016 “Lessicografia, filologia e «corpora» digitali: Qualche considerazione dalla parte dell’OVI.” Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie132: 755–792. 10.1515/zrp‑2016‑0050
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zrp-2016-0050 [Google Scholar]
  42. Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva
    2005Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511614132
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614132 [Google Scholar]
  43. Herczeg, Giulio
    1972Saggi linguistici e stilistici. Firenze: Olschki.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Henrichsen, Arne-Johan
    1967 “Quelques remarques sur l’emploi des formes verbales en -ant en français modern.” Revue Romane2: 97–107.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Jakobson, Roman
    1962 “Sur la théorie des affinités phonologique entre les langues.” In Id., Selected Writings. I. Phonological Studies, 234–246. The Hague: Mouton [1st ed. 1938, in: Actes du IVème Congrés International des Linguistes].
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Kabatek, Johannes
    2005 “Tradiciones discursivas y cambio lingüístico.” Lexis29: 151–177.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. ed. 2008Sintaxis histórica del español y cambio lingüístico: Nuevas perspectivas desde las Tradiciones Discursivas. Frankfurt am Main/Madrid: Vervuert-Iberoamericana.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2013 “Koinés and scriptae.” InThe Cambridge History of the Romance Languages. Volume 2. Contexts, ed. byMartin Maiden, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway, 143–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CHO9781139019996.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781139019996.006 [Google Scholar]
  49. Kabatek, Johannes, Paul Obrist, and Valentina Vincis
    2010 “Clause linkage techniques as a symptom of discourse traditions: Methodological issues and evidence from romance languages.” InSyntactic Variation and Genre, ed. byHeidrun Dorgeloh, and Anja Wanner, 247–275. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226485.2.247
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226485.2.247 [Google Scholar]
  50. Kahane, Henry
    1986 “A typology of the prestige language.” Language62: 495–508. 10.1353/lan.1986.0048
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1986.0048 [Google Scholar]
  51. Kahane, Henry and Kahane, Renée
    1979 “Decline and survival of western prestige languages.” Language55: 183–198. 10.2307/412522
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412522 [Google Scholar]
  52. Karlsen, Espen
    2001The accusativus cum infinitivo and quod clauses in the revelaciones of St. Bridget of Sweden. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Koch, Peter
    1997 “Diskurstraditionen. Zu ihrem sprachtheoretischen Status und ihrer Dynamik.” InGattungen mittelalterlicher Schriftlichkeit, ed. byBarbara Frank, Thomas Haye, and Doris Tophinke, 43–79. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Lagomarsini, Claudio
    2018Virgilio. Æneis. Volgarizzamento senese trecentesco di Ciampolo di Meo Ugurgieri. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Lass, Roger
    1997Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620928
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620928 [Google Scholar]
  56. Leonardi, Lino, and Speranza Cerullo
    eds. 2017Tradurre dal latino nel medioevo italiano. Firenze: Edizioni del Galluzzo.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Loveday, Leo. J.
    1996Language contact in Japan. A sociolinguistic history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Maiden, Martin, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway
    eds. 2011The Cambridge history of the romance languages. Volume 1. Structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. eds. 2013The Cambridge history of the romance languages. Volume 2. Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CHO9781139019996
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781139019996 [Google Scholar]
  60. Mastrantonio, Davide
    2017Latinismi sintattici nella prosa del Duecento. Roma: Aracne.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Meilán García, A. J.
    1991 “El comportamiento del “participio de presente” en el castellano medieval y renacentista.” Revista de Filología. Universidad de La Laguna10: 281–297.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Muysken, Pieter
    2010 “Scenarios for language contact.” InThe Handbook of Language Contact, ed. byRaymond Hickey, 265–281. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444318159.ch13
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318159.ch13 [Google Scholar]
  63. 2013 “Language contact outcomes as the result of bilingual optimization strategies.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition16: 709–730. 10.1017/S1366728912000727
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000727 [Google Scholar]
  64. Oesterreicher, Wulf
    1997 “Zur Fundierung von Diskurstraditionen.” InGattungen mittelalterlicher Schriftlichkeit, ed. byBarbara Frank, Thomas Haye, and Doris Tophinke, 19–41. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 2004 “Textos entre inmediatez y distancia comunicativas: El problema de lo hablado escrito en el Siglo de Oro.” InHistoria de la lengua española, ed. byRafael Cano, 729–770. Barcelona: Ariel.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Pinkster, Harm
    1990Latin syntax and semantics. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Pons Rodríguez, Lola
    2008 “Las construcciones imitativas del accusativus cum infinitivo. Modelos latinos y consecuencias romances.” Revista de Historia de la Lengua Española3: 119–148.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Pountain, Christopher
    1998 “Learnèd syntax and the romance languages: The ‘accusative and infinitive’ construction with declarative verbs in Castilian.” Transactions of the Philological Society96: 159–201. 10.1111/1467‑968X.00026
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.00026 [Google Scholar]
  69. 2011 “Latin and the structure of written romance.” InThe Cambridge History of the Romance Languages. Volume 1. Structures, ed. byMartin Maiden, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway, 606–659. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Putzu, Ignazio
    2015 “Il principio di uniformità: Aspetti epistemologici e di storia della linguistica.” InModelli epistemologici, metodologie della ricerca e qualità del dato, ed. byPiera Molinelli, and Ignazio Putzu, 13–36. Milano: Franco Angeli.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Raible, W.
    1996 “Relatinisierungtendenzen.” InLexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik. II.1, Latein und Romanisch: Historisch-vergleichende Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, ed. byGünter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin, and Chirstian Schmitt, 120–134. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Ramat, Paolo and Federica Da Milano
    2011 “Differenti usi di gerundi e forme affini nelle lingue romanze.” Vox Romanica70: 1–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Romaine, Suzanne
    1981 “On the problem of syntactic variation: A reply to Beatriz Lavandera and William Labov.” Working Papers in Sociolinguistics82: 1–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 1982Socio-historical linguistics. its status and methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511720130
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511720130 [Google Scholar]
  75. 1984 “On the problem of syntactic variation and pragmatic meaning in sociolinguistic theory.” Folia Linguistica18: 409–439. 10.1515/flin.1984.18.3‑4.409
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1984.18.3-4.409 [Google Scholar]
  76. Sala, Marius
    2013 “Contact and borrowing.” InThe Cambridge history of the romance languages. Volume 2. Contexts, ed. byMartin Maiden, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway, 187–236. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CHO9781139019996.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781139019996.007 [Google Scholar]
  77. Sanchis Calvo, Maria Carmen
    2004 “La traducción de las construcciones de participio de presente concertado en la Biblia I.i.8 (Libros de Rut, Jueces y Reyes I, II y III).” Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis Lingüístics9: 189–198.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Sarré, Nguissaly
    2000 “Morphologie des formes en -ant en moyen français.” L’Information Grammaticale86: 40–52. 10.3406/igram.2000.2757
    https://doi.org/10.3406/igram.2000.2757 [Google Scholar]
  79. Segre, Cesare
    1963Lingua, stile e società. Milano: Feltrinelli.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Selig, Maria, Barbara Frank, and Jörg Hartmann
    eds. 1993Le passage à l’écrit des langues romanes. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Škerlj, Stanko
    1926Syntaxe du participe présent et du gérondif en vieil italien. Avec une research-article sur l’emploi du participe présent et de l’ablatif du gérondif en latin. Paris: Champion.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Sornicola, Rosanna
    1989 “Per una sociolinguistica interna al testo.” InParlare in città. Studi di sociolinguistica urbana, ed. byGabriella Klein, 29–37. Galatina: Congedo.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 1995 “Mutamenti di prospettiva culturale nelle lingue europee moderne: L’influenza del latino sulla sintassi.” InKulturwandel im Spiegel des Sprachwandels, ed. byKarl-Egon Lönne, 41–58. Tübingen / Basel: Francke.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 2011 “Romance linguistics and historical linguistics. Reflections on synchrony and diachrony.” InThe Cambridge History of the Romance Languages. Volume 1. Structures, ed. byMartin Maiden, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway, 1–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 2012Bilinguismo e diglossia dei territori bizantini e longobardi del mezzogiorno. Le testimonianze dei documenti del IX e X secolo. Napoli: Accademia Pontaniana.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Thomason, Sarah Grey, and Terrence Kaufman
    1988Language contact, Creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley/Los Angeles/Boston: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Timofeeva, Olga
    2010Non-finite constructions in old English. With special reference to syntactic borrowing from Latin. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Valente, Simona
    2013La subordinazione gerundiva e participiale in testi siciliani del XIV secolo. Napoli: Liguori.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Varvaro, Alberto
    2013 “Latin and the making of the romance languages.” InThe Cambridge History of the Romance Languages. Volume 2. Contexts, ed. byMartin Maiden, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway, 6–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CHO9781139019996.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781139019996.002 [Google Scholar]
  90. Weinreich, Uriel
    1953Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Wright, Roger
    2013a “Periodization.” InThe Cambridge History of the Romance Languages. Volume 2. Contexts, ed. byMartin Maiden, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway, 107–124. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CHO9781139019996.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781139019996.004 [Google Scholar]
  92. 2013b “Evidence and sources.” InThe Cambridge history of the Romance languages. Volume 2. Contexts, ed. byMartin Maiden, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway, 125–142. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CHO9781139019996.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781139019996.005 [Google Scholar]
  93. Zaggia, Massimo
    2009Ovidio. Heroides. Volgarizzamento fiorentino trecentesco di Filippo Ceffi. I. Introduzione, testo secondo l’autografo e glossario. Firenze: Sismel.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00021.gre
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00021.gre
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