1887
Volume 40, Issue 4
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In syntactic change, it remains an open issue whether word orders are more conservative or innovative in subordinate clauses compared with main clauses. Using 47 dependency-annotated corpora and Bayesian phylogenetic inference, we explore the evolution of S/V, V/O, and S/O orders across main and subordinate clauses in Indo-European. Our results reveal similar rates of change across clause types, with no evidence for any inherent conservatism of subordinate or main clauses. Our models also support evolutionary biases towards SV, VO, and SO orders, consistent with theories of dependency length minimization that favor verb-medial orders and with theories of a subject preference that favor SO orders. Finally, our results show that while the word order in the proto-language cannot be estimated with any reasonable degree of certainty, the early history of the family was dominated by a moderate preference for SVO orders, with substantial uncertainty between VO and OV orders in both main and subordinate clauses.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dia.20035.jin
2023-08-17
2024-06-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baath, Rasmus
    2014 Bayesian First Aid: A package that implements Bayesian alternatives to the classical *.test functions in R. InUseR! 2014 – the International R User Conference, 861. https://www.sumsar.net/papers/baath_user14_abstract.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bean, Marian C.
    1983The development of word order patterns in Old English. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bickel, Balthasar, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, Kamal K. Choudhary, Matthias Schlesewsky & Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky
    2015 The neurophysiology of language processing shapes the evolution of grammar: Evidence from case marking. PLoS ONE10(8). e0132819. 10.1371/journal.pone.0132819
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132819 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bollback, Jonathan P.
    2006 SIMMAP: Stochastic character mapping of discrete traits on phylogenies. BMC Bioinformatics7(1). 88. 10.1186/1471‑2105‑7‑88
    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-7-88 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bouckaert, Remco, Philippe Lemey, Michael Dunn, Simon J. Greenhill, Alexander V. Alekseyenko, Alexei J. Drummond, Russell D. Gray, Marc A. Suchard & Quentin D. Atkinson
    2012 Mapping the origins and expansion of the Indo-European language family. Science337(6097). 957–960. 10.1126/science.1219669
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1219669 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, Joan
    2002 Main clauses are innovative, subordinate clauses are conservative: Consequences for the nature of constructions. InJoan Bybee, Michael Noonan & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson, 1–17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/z.110.02byb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.110.02byb [Google Scholar]
  7. Cathcart, Chundra Aroor
    2018 Modeling linguistic evolution: A look under the hood. Linguistics Vanguard4(1). 20170043. 10.1515/lingvan‑2017‑0043
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0043 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chang, Will, Chundra Cathcart, David Hall & Andrew Garrett
    2015 Ancestry-constrained phylogenetic analysis supports the Indo-European steppe hypothesis. Language91(1). 194–244. 10.1353/lan.2015.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0005 [Google Scholar]
  9. Comrie, Bernard
    1981Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cysouw, Michael
    2011 Understanding transition probabilities. Linguistic Typology151. 415–431. 10.1515/lity.2011.028
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2011.028 [Google Scholar]
  11. Danckaert, Lieven
    2017 The loss of Latin OV: Steps towards an analysis. InEnoch Aboh, Eric Haeberli, Genoveva Puskas & Manuela Schonenberger (eds.), Elements of comparative syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501504037‑015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504037-015 [Google Scholar]
  12. DeLancey, Scott
    1981 An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language571. 626–657. 10.2307/414343
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414343 [Google Scholar]
  13. Demiral, Şükrü, Matthias Schlesewsky & Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky
    2008 On the universality of language comprehension strategies: Evidence from Turkish. Cognition1061. 484–500. 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.01.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.01.008 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dryer, Matthew S.
    1989 Large linguistic areas and language sampling. Studies in Language13(2). 257–292. 10.1075/sl.13.2.03dry
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.13.2.03dry [Google Scholar]
  15. 1997 On the six-way word order typology. Studies in Language21(1). 69–103. 10.1075/sl.21.1.04dry
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.21.1.04dry [Google Scholar]
  16. 2013a On the six-way word order typology, again. Studies in Language37(2). 267–301. 10.1075/sl.37.2.02dry
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.2.02dry [Google Scholar]
  17. 2013b Order of Subject, Object and Verb. InMatthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. wals.info/
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dunn, Michael, Simon J. Greenhill, Stephen C. Levinson & Russell D. Gray
    2011 Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature473(7345). 79–82. 10.1038/nature09923
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09923 [Google Scholar]
  19. Felsenstein, Joseph
    1973 Maximum likelihood and minimum-steps methods for estimating evolutionary trees from data on discrete characters. Systematic Zoology22(3). 240–249. 10.2307/2412304
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2412304 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ferrer i Cancho, Ramon
    2017 The placement of the head that maximizes predictability. An information theoretic approach. Glottometrics (39). 38–71. hdl.handle.net/2117/108830
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Friedrich, Paul
    1975Proto-Indo-European syntax: The order of meaningful elements. Butte: Montana College of Mineral Sciences.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Fuß, Eric
    2018 The OV/VO alternation in early German: Diagnostics for basic word order. InGisella Ferraresi Agnes Jäger & Helmut Weiß (eds.), Clause structure and word order in the history of German. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Futrell, Richard, Tina Hickey, Aldrin Lee, Eunice Lim, Elena Luchkina & Edward Gibson
    2015 Cross-linguistic gestures reflect typological universals: A subject-initial, verb-final bias in speakers of diverse languages. Cognition1361. 215–221. 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.022
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.022 [Google Scholar]
  24. Futrell, Richard, Kyle Mahowald & Edward Gibson
    2015 Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112(33). 10336–10341. 10.1073/pnas.1502134112
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502134112 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gell-Mann, Murray & Merritt Ruhlen
    2011 The origin and evolution of word order. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108(42). 17290–17295. 10.1073/pnas.1113716108
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1113716108 [Google Scholar]
  26. Givón, Talmy
    1979On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 1983 Topic continuity and word order pragmatics in Ute. InTalmy Givón (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse. A quantitative cross-language study, 141–214. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/tsl.3.04giv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3.04giv [Google Scholar]
  28. Goldin-Meadow, Susan, Wing Chee So, Asli Özyürek & Carolyn Mylander
    2008 The natural order of events: How speakers of different languages represent events nonverbally. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences105(27). 9163–9168. 10.1073/pnas.0710060105
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0710060105 [Google Scholar]
  29. Greenberg, Joseph H.
    1963 Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. InJoseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language, 58–60. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Greenhill, Simon J., Chieh-Hsi Wu, Xia Hua, Michael Dunn, Stephen C. Levinson & Russell D. Gray
    2017 Evolutionary dynamics of language systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114(42). E8822–E8829. 10.1073/pnas.1700388114
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1700388114 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gundel, Jeanette Marie
    1975The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory. Harwood Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Haupt, Friederike S., Matthias Schlesewsky, Dietmar Roehm, Angela D. Friederici & Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky
    2008 The status of subject-object reanalyses in the language comprehension architecture. Journal of Memory and Language59(1). 54–96. 10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hawkins, John A.
    1983Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2014Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hemon, Roparz
    1975A historical morphology and syntax of Breton. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hock, Hans H.
    2013 Proto-Indo-European verb-finality: Reconstruction, typology, validation. Journal of Historical Linguistics3(1). 49–76. 10.1075/jhl.3.1.04hoc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.3.1.04hoc [Google Scholar]
  37. Hock, Hans Henrich
    1986Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110871975
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871975 [Google Scholar]
  38. 1991Principles of historical linguistics (2nd edn.). Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219135
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219135 [Google Scholar]
  39. Hoffman, Matthew D. & Andrew Gelman
    2014 The No-U-Turn sampler: Adaptively setting path lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. Journal of Machine Learning Research15(1). 1593–1623. 10.5555/2627435.2638586
    https://doi.org/10.5555/2627435.2638586 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hoffmann, Konstantin, Remco Bouckaert, Simon J. Greenhill & Denise Kühnert
    2021 Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of linguistic data using BEAST. Journal of Language Evolution6(2). 119–135. 10.1093/jole/lzab005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzab005 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hooper, Joan B. & Sandra A. Thompson
    1973 On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry4(4). 465–497. www.jstor.org/stable/4177789
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Hudson, Richard A.
    1984Word grammar. Blackwell Oxford.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Huelsenbeck, John P., Rasmus Nielsen & Jonathan P. Bollback
    2003 Stochastic mapping of morphological characters. Systematic Biology52(2). 131–158. 10.1080/10635150390192780
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150390192780 [Google Scholar]
  44. Hyman, Larry
    1975 On the change from SOV to SVO: Evidence from Niger-Congo. InCharles N. Li (ed.), Word order and word order change, 267–305. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Jenny, Mathias
    2020 Verb-initial structures in Austroasiatic languages. InMathias Jenny, Paul Sidwell & Mark J. Alves (eds.), Austroasiatic syntax in areal and diachronic perspective, 21–45. Boston: Brill. 10.1163/9789004425606_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004425606_003 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kauhanen, Henri & George Walkden
    2018 Deriving the constant rate effect. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory36(2). 483–521. 10.1007/s11049‑017‑9380‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9380-1 [Google Scholar]
  47. Kemmerer, David
    2014 Word classes in the brain: Implications of linguistic typology for cognitive neuroscience. Cortex581. 27–51. 10.1016/j.cortex.2014.05.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  48. Krebs, Julia, Evie Malaia, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Dietmar Roehm
    2018 Subject preference emerges as cross-modal strategy for linguistic processing. Brain Research16911. 105–117. 10.1016/j.brainres.2018.03.029
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2018.03.029 [Google Scholar]
  49. Kroch, Anthony S.
    1989 Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change1(3). 199–244. 10.1017/S0954394500000168
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000168 [Google Scholar]
  50. 2001 Syntactic change. InMark R. Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756416.ch22
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756416.ch22 [Google Scholar]
  51. Lambrecht, Knud
    2000 When subjects behave like objects: A markedness analysis of sentence focus constructions across languages. Studies in Language241. 611–682. 10.1075/sl.24.3.06lam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.24.3.06lam [Google Scholar]
  52. Lee, Wei-Wei & Mathias Jenny
    2022 Syntactic change in Palaungic – Exploring the origins of an atypical Austroasiatic relative construction. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area45(1). 23–75. 10.1075/ltba.21004.lee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.21004.lee [Google Scholar]
  53. Lehmann, Winfred P.
    1992Historical linguistics: An introduction. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 1974Proto-Indo-European syntax. Austin & London: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Li, Charles N.
    1980Mechanisms of syntactic change. University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Lightfoot, David
    1982The language lottery: Toward a biology of grammars. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 1989 The child’s trigger experience: Degree-0 learnability. Behavioral and Brain Sciences12(2). 321–334. 10.1017/S0140525X00048883
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00048883 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2006How new languages emerge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511616204
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616204 [Google Scholar]
  59. Liu, Haitao
    2008 Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. Journal of Cognitive Science9(2). 159–191. 10.17791/jcs.2008.9.2.159
    https://doi.org/10.17791/jcs.2008.9.2.159 [Google Scholar]
  60. 2009Dependency grammar from theory to practice. Beijing: Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. MacLeish, Andrew
    1969The Middle English subject-verb cluster. Mouton: The Hague. 10.1515/9783112415924
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112415924 [Google Scholar]
  62. Maddison, Wayne P., Peter E. Midford & Sarah P. Otto
    2007 Estimating a binary character’s effect on speciation and extinction. Systematic Biology56(5). 701–710. 10.1080/10635150701607033
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150701607033 [Google Scholar]
  63. Maslova, Elena
    2000 A dynamic approach to the verification of distributional universals. Linguistic Typology4(3). 307–333. 10.1515/lity.2000.4.3.307
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2000.4.3.307 [Google Scholar]
  64. Maurits, Luke & Thomas L. Griffiths
    2014 Tracing the roots of syntax with Bayesian phylogenetics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111(37). 13576–13581. 10.1073/pnas.1319042111
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319042111 [Google Scholar]
  65. McDonough, Colleen, Lulu Song, Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, Roberta Michnick Golinkoff & Robert Lannon
    2011 An image is worth a thousand words: Why nouns tend to dominate verbs in early word learning. Developmental Science14(2). 181–189. 10.1111/j.1467‑7687.2010.00968.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00968.x [Google Scholar]
  66. Mel'čuk, Igor
    1988Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. Albany: State University Press of New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Miller, D. Gary
    1975 Indo-European: VSO, SOV, SVO or all three. Lingua371. 31–52. 10.1016/0024‑3841(75)90003‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(75)90003-0 [Google Scholar]
  68. Molnár, Valéria & Jorunn Hetland
    2001 Informationsstruktur und Reliefgebung. InMartin Haspelmath, Ekkehard Konig, Wulf Oesterreicher, and Wolfgang Raible (ed.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, vol.2:2, 617–633. De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Napoli, Donna Jo & Rachel Sutton-Spence
    2014 Order of the major constituents in sign languages: Implications for all language. Frontiers in Psychology51. 376. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00376
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00376 [Google Scholar]
  70. Pintzuk, Susan & Ann Taylor
    2008 The loss of OV order in the history of English. InAns van Kemenade & Los Bettelou (eds.), The handbook of the history of English, 249–278. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470757048.ch11
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757048.ch11 [Google Scholar]
  71. Revell, Liam J.
    2012 phytools: An R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods in Ecology and Evolution3(2). 217–223. 10.1111/j.2041‑210X.2011.00169.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00169.x [Google Scholar]
  72. Riesberg, Sonja, Kurt Malcher & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann
    2019 How universal is agent-first? Evidence from symmetrical voice languages. Language95(3). 523–561. 10.1353/lan.2019.0055
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2019.0055 [Google Scholar]
  73. Ross, John R.
    1973 The penthouse principle and the order of constituents. InClaudia Corum, T Cedric Smith-Stark & Ann Weiser (eds.), You take the high node and I’ll take the low node, 397–422. Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Salaberri, Iker
    2018On the relationship between clause type and syntactic change: A corpus-based cross-linguistic study. Abstract presented at the51st Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea. Tallinn.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Sasse, Hans-Jurgen
    2006 Theticity. InGiuliano Bernini & Marcia L. Schwartz (eds.), Pragmatic organization of discourse in the languages of Europe, 255–308. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110892222.255
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892222.255 [Google Scholar]
  76. Sauppe, Sebastian
    2017 Symmetrical and asymmetrical voice systems and processing load: Pupillometric evidence from sentence production in Tagalog and German. Language93(2). 288–313. 10.1353/lan.2017.0015
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0015 [Google Scholar]
  77. Statisticat & LLC
    Statisticat & LLC 2021LaplacesDemon: Complete Environment for Bayesian Inference. R package version 16.1.6. www.bayesian-inference.com/software
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Stockwell, Robert & Donka Minkova
    1991 Subordination and word order change in the history of English. InDieter Kastovsky (ed.), Historical English syntax, 367–408. Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110863314.367
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110863314.367 [Google Scholar]
  79. Stone, Gerald
    1993 Sorbian. InBernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic languages, 593–685. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Temperley, David
    2007 Minimization of dependency length in written English. Cognition105(2). 300–333. 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.09.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.09.011 [Google Scholar]
  81. Temperley, David & Daniel Gildea
    2017 Minimizing syntactic dependency lengths: Typological/cognitive universal?Annual Review of Linguistics4(1). 1–15. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑011817‑045617
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045617 [Google Scholar]
  82. Tomlin, R. S.
    1986Basic word order: Functional principles. Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Trips, Carola
    2002From OV to VO in Early Middle English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/la.60
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.60 [Google Scholar]
  84. Vennemann, Theo
    1974 Topics, subjects, and word order: from SXV to SVX via TVX. InJohn Anderson & Charles Jones (eds.), Historical linguistics, 339–76. Amsterdam: North Holland.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 1975 An explanation of drift. InCharles N. Li (ed.), Word order and word order change, 267–305. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Wang, Luming, Mathias Schlesewsky, Balthasar Bickel & Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky
    2010The influence of topicality on Chinese word order processing. Abstract presented at the23rd Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Wang, Luming, Matthias Schlesewsky, Balthasar Bickel & Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky
    2009 Exploring the nature of the ‘subject’-preference: Evidence from the online comprehension of simple sentences in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Cognitive Processes241. 1180–1226. 10.1080/01690960802159937
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802159937 [Google Scholar]
  88. Widmer, Manuel, Sandra Auderset, Johanna Nichols, Paul Widmer & Balthasar Bickel
    2017 NP recursion over time: Evidence from Indo-European. Language93(4). 799–826. 10.1353/lan.2017.0058
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0058 [Google Scholar]
  89. Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, Taras Zakharko, Lennart Bierkandt, Fernando Zuniga & Balthasar Bickel
    2016 Decomposing hierarchical alignment: Co-arguments as conditions on alignment and the limits of referential hierarchies as explanations in verb agreement. Linguistics541. 531–561. 10.1515/ling‑2016‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2016-0011 [Google Scholar]
  90. Yang, Charles D.
    2000 Internal and external forces in language change. Language Variation and Change12(3). 231–250. 10.1017/S0954394500123014
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500123014 [Google Scholar]
  91. Zeman, Daniel
    2021Universal Dependencies 2.9. LINDAT/CLARIN digital library at the Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University. hdl.handle.net/11234/1-3105
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Zhou, Kevin & Claire Bowern
    2015 Quantifying uncertainty in the phylogenetics of Australian numeral systems. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences2821. 20151278. 10.1098/rspb.2015.1278
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1278 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/dia.20035.jin
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.20035.jin
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