1887
Volume 43, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0378-4169
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9927
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:
Zoom in
Zoomout

A constraint-based approach to linguistic interfaces, Page 1 of 1

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/li.00038.bil-1.gif

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/li.00038.bil
2020-10-16
2020-11-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abeillé, A.
    2003 A Lexicon-and Construction-Based Approach to Coordinations. InS. Müller, Ed., Proceedings of the HPSG’03 Conference, 5–25. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2005 Les syntagmes conjoints et leurs fonctions syntaxiques. Langages, 160, 42–66. 10.3917/lang.160.0042
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.160.0042 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2007Les grammaires d’unification. Paris: Lavoisier.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Abeillé, A. & Godard, D.
    1994The Complementation of French Auxiliaries. InR. Aranovich, W. Byrne, S. Preuss & M. Senturia, Eds., Proceedings of the Thirteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 1997 The Syntax of French Negative Adverbs. InP. Hirschbuhler & F. Marineau, Eds., Negation and Polarity: Syntax and Semantics, 1–17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.155.02abe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.155.02abe [Google Scholar]
  6. Abeillé, A., Godard, D. & Sag, I. A.
    1998 Two Kinds of Composition in French Complex Predicates. InE. Hinrichs, A. Kathol & T. Nakazawa, Eds, Complex Predicates in Nonderivational Syntax, 1–41. San Diego: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Abeillé, A. & Godard, D.
    2001 Varieties of ESSE in Romance languages. InD. Flickinger & A. Kathol, Eds., The Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 2–22. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2002 The Syntactic Structure of French Auxiliaries. Language, 78(3), 404–452. 10.1353/lan.2002.0145
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2002.0145 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2003 Les prédicats complexes dans les langues romanes. InD. Godard, Ed., Les langues romanes. Problèmes de la phrase simple, 125–184. Paris: CNRS Editions.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Abeillé, A., Borsley, R. & Espinal, M.-T.
    2006 The syntax of Comparative Correlatives in French and Spanish. InS. Müller, Ed., Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 6–26. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Abeillé, A., Godard, D. & Sabio, F.
    2008 Two types of NP preposing in French. InS. Müller, Ed., The Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 306–324. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Abeillé, A., Bîlbîie, G. & Mouret, F.
    2014 A Romance perspective on gapping constructions. InH. Boas & F. Gonzálvez-García, Eds., Romance perspectives on Construction Grammar, 227–267. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Abeillé, A., Chrysmann, B. & Shiraishi, A.
    2016 Syntactic Mismatch in French Peripheral Ellipsis. InC. Piñón, Ed., Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics11, 1–30. Paris: CSSP.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Abeillé, A. & Borsley, B.
    2020 The basic properties and elements of HPSG. InS. Müller, A. Abeillé, R. Borsley & J.-P. Koenig, Eds., Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The handbook. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Abeillé, A., Hemforth, B., Winckel, E. & Gibson, E.
    2020 Extraction from subjects: Differences in acceptability depend on the discourse function of the construction. Cognition. 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104293
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104293 [Google Scholar]
  16. An, Aixiu & Abeillé, A.
    2019 Number agreement in French binomials. InC. Piñón, Ed., Empirical Issues in Syntax and semantics12, 31–60. Paris: CSSP.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Balari, S. & Dini, L.
    1997Romance in HPSG. CSLI Lecture Notes, number 75. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bîlbîie, G.
    2008 A Syntactic Account of Romanian Correlative Coordination from a Romance Perspective. InS. Müller, Ed., Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 25–45. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2017Grammaire des constructions elliptiques: Une étude comparative des phrases sans verbe en roumain et en français. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Bîlbîie, G. & Laurens, F.
    2009 A Construction-based Analysis of Verbless Relative Adjuncts in French and Romanian. InS. Müller, Ed., Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 5–25. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Bouma, G., Malouf, R. & Sag, I. A.
    2001 Satisfying Constraints on Extraction and Adjunction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19(1), 1–65. 10.1023/A:1006473306778
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006473306778 [Google Scholar]
  22. Bresnan, J. & Mchombo, S.
    1995 The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13, 181–254. 10.1007/BF00992782
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992782 [Google Scholar]
  23. Bresnan, J., Asudeh, A., Toivonen, I. & Wechsler, S.
    2015Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford, UK / Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9781119105664
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119105664 [Google Scholar]
  24. Castroviejo, E., Fernádez-Soriano, O. & Pérez-Jiménez, I.
    2017 Introduction. Boundaries, phases and interfaces. InO. Fernádez-Soriano, E. Castroviejo & I. Pérez-Jiménez, Eds., Boundaries, Phases and Interfaces, 2–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.239.01cas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.239.01cas [Google Scholar]
  25. Chomsky, N.
    1957Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783112316009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112316009 [Google Scholar]
  26. 1995The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Copestake, A., Flickinger, D., Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A.
    2005 Minimal Recursion Semantics: An Introduction. Research on Language and Computation, 3(4), 281–332. 10.1007/s11168‑006‑6327‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-006-6327-9 [Google Scholar]
  28. Cooper, R.
    1975 Montague’s Semantic Theory and Transformational Grammar. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
  29. Crysmann, B.
    1999Licensing Proclisis in European Portuguese. InF. Corblin, J.-M. Marandin & C. Dobrovie-Sorin, Eds., Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics. Selected papers from the Colloque de Syntaxe et de Sémantique de Paris (CSSP 1997), 255–276. The Hague: Thesus.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2002 Constraint-Based Coanalysis: Portuguese Cliticisation and Morphology-Syntax Interaction in HPSG. Saarbrücken Dissertations in Computational Linguistics and Language Technology, number 15. Saarbrücken: Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz and Universität des Saarlandes.
  31. 2020 Morphology. InS. Müller, A. Abeillé, R. Borsley & J.-P. Koenig, Eds., Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The handbook. Chapter 21. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Culicover, P.
    1999Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases, Syntactic Theory, and Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. De Kuthy, K.
    2002Discontinuous NPs in German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. de Swart, H. & Sag, I. A.
    2002 Negation and Negative Concord in Romance. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(4), 373–417. 10.1023/A:1020823106639
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020823106639 [Google Scholar]
  35. Engdahl, E. & Vallduví, E.
    1996Information Packaging in HPSG. InC. Grover & E. Vallduví, Eds., Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science, Vol. 12: Studies in HPSG, 1–32. Scotland: Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Fischer, S.
    2010Word-Order Change as a Source of Grammaticalisation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.157
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.157 [Google Scholar]
  37. Fischer, S. & Gabriel, C.
    2016 Grammatical interfaces in Romance languages: An introduction. InS. Fischer & C. Gabriel, Eds., Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance, 1–20. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110311860‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110311860-003 [Google Scholar]
  38. Folli, R., Sevdali, C. & Truswell, R.
    2015 Introduction. InR. Folli, C. Sevdali & R. Truswell, Eds., Syntax and its Limits, 1–15. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Gibson, E. & Fedorenko, E.
    2013 The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language and Cognition Processes, 28, 88–124. 10.1080/01690965.2010.515080
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.515080 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ginzburg, J. & Sag, I. A.
    2000Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning and use of English interrogatives, vol.123. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Godard, D. & Marandin, J.-M.
    2006 Reinforcing Negation: the Case of Italian. InS. Müller, Ed., The Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 174–194. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Green, G.
    2011 Modelling Grammar Growth: Universal Grammar without Innate Principles of Parameters. InR. Borsley & K. Börjars, Eds., Non-Transformational Syntax: Formal and Explicit Models of Grammar, 378–403. Oxford, UK / Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9781444395037.ch11
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444395037.ch11 [Google Scholar]
  43. Grohmann, K.
    2007a Deriving dynamic interfaces. Linguistic Analysis, 33, 3–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 2007b Spelling out dynamic interfaces. Linguistic Analysis, 33, 197–208.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 2009 Phases and Interfaces. InK. Grohmann, Ed., InterPhases. Phase-Theoretic Investigations of Linguistic Interfaces, 1–22. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Ionescu, E.
    2004Understanding Romanian Negation. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Iordăchioaia, G.
    2010 Negative Concord with Negative Quantifiers: A Polyadic Quantifier Approach to Romanian Negative Concord. PhD Dissertation, University of Tübingen.
  48. Iordăchioaia, G. & Richter, F.
    2009 Negative Concord in Romanian as Polyadic Quantification. InS. Müller, Ed., Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 150–170. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 2015 Negative Concord with Polyadic Quantifiers. The Case of Romanian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 33(2), 607–658. 10.1007/s11049‑014‑9261‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9261-9 [Google Scholar]
  50. Kaplan, R. M. & Zaenen, A.
    1989 Long-distance Dependencies, Constituent Structure and Functional Uncertainty. InM. Baltin & A. Kroch, Eds., Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, 17–42. Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Kathol, A., Przepiórkowski, A. & J. Tseng
    2011 Advanced Topics in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. InR. Borsley & K. Börjars, Eds., Non-Transformational Syntax: Formal and Explicit Models of Grammar, 54–111. Oxford, UK / Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9781444395037.ch2
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444395037.ch2 [Google Scholar]
  52. Keenan, E. & Comrie, B.
    1977 Noun Phrase Acceptability and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 63–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Kim, J.-B. & Sag, I. A.
    2002 Negation without Verb-Movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20, 339–412. 10.1023/A:1015045225019
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015045225019 [Google Scholar]
  54. Kiss, T. & Alexiadou, A.
    2015 Syntax – The State of a Controversial Art. InT. Kiss & A. Alexiadou, Eds., Syntax – Theory and Analysis. An International Handbook, vol.1, 1–14. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Kuhn, Jonas
    1996 An Underspecified HPSG Representation for Information Structure. InJ. Tsuji, Ed., Proceedings of Coling-96. 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING96), 670–675. Copenhagen: Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Kuhn, J.
    2007 Interfaces in Constraint-Based Theories of Grammar. InG. Ramchand & C. Reiss, Eds., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, 613–650. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Lascarides, A. & Copestake, A.
    1999 Default Representation in Constraint-Based Frameworks. Computational Linguistics, 25(1), 55–105.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Meurers, W. D.
    2001 On Expressing Lexical Generalizations in HPSG. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 24(2), 161–217. 10.1080/033258601753358605
    https://doi.org/10.1080/033258601753358605 [Google Scholar]
  59. Miller, P. & Sag, I. A.
    1997 French Clitic Movement without Clitics or Movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15(3), 573–639. 10.1023/A:1005815413834
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005815413834 [Google Scholar]
  60. Monachesi, P.
    1997Decomposing Italian Clitics. InS. Balari & L. Dini, Eds., Romance in HPSG, 305–357. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 1998aItalian Restructuring Verbs: A Lexical Analysis. InE. Hinrichs, A. Kathol & T. Nakazawa, Eds, Complex predicates in Nonderivational Syntax, 313–368. San Diego: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 1998b The morphosyntax of Romanian cliticization. InP. Coppen, H. Van Halteren & L. Tennissen, Eds., Proceedings of Computational Linguistics in The Netherlands 1997, 99–118. Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 1999aA lexical approach to Italian cliticization. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 1999b On certain properties of Romanian auxiliary (and modal) verbs. InG. Bouma, E. Hinrichs, G.-J. Kruijff & R. Oehrle, Eds., Constraints and Resources in Natural Language Syntax and Semantics, 99–115. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 2000 Clitic placement in the Romanian verbal complex. InB. Gerlach & J. Grijzenhout, Eds., Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, 255–293. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 2005The verbal complex in Romance: a case study in grammatical interfaces. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274758.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274758.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  67. Mouret, F.
    2005 La syntaxe des coordinations correlatives du français. Langages, 160, 67–93. 10.3917/lang.160.0067
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.160.0067 [Google Scholar]
  68. 2006 A Phrase Structure Approach to Argument Cluster Coordination. InS. Müller, Ed., The Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 247–267. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 2007 Grammaire des constructions coordonnées. Coordinations simples et coordinations à redoublement en français contemporain. PhD Dissertation, Université Paris7.
  70. Müller, S.
    2015 HPSG – A Synopsis. InT. Kiss & A. Alexiadou, Eds., Syntax – Theory and Analysis. An International Handbook, vol.2, 937–973. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 2018Grammatical theory. From transformational grammar to constraint-based approaches. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Müller, S. & Machicao y Priemer, A.
    2019 Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. InA. Kertész, E. Moravcsik & C. Rákosi, Eds., Current Approaches to Syntax. A Comparative Handbook, 317–359. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110540253‑012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110540253-012 [Google Scholar]
  73. Müller, S., Abeillé, A., Borsley, R. & Koenig, J.-P.
    Eds. 2020Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The handbook. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Mycock, L.
    2015 Syntax and its interfaces: an overview. InT. Kiss & A. Alexiadou, Eds., Syntax – Theory and Analysis. An International Handbook, vol.1, 24–69. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Norcliffe, E.
    2007Constructing Spanish Complex Predicates. InS. Müller, Ed, The Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 194–213. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Pollard, C.
    1996 On head non-movement. InH. Bunt & A. van Horck, Eds., Discontinuous Constituency, 279–305. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110873467.279
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110873467.279 [Google Scholar]
  77. Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A.
    1987Information-Based Syntax and Semantics. CSLI Lecture Notes, No. 13. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 1994Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Prince, A. & Smolensky, P.
    2004Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford, UK / Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9780470759400
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470759400 [Google Scholar]
  80. Przepiórkowski, A.
    1999 Negative Polarity Questions and Italian Negative Concord. InV. Kordoni, Ed., Tübingen Studies in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 353–400. Arbeitsberichte des SFB 340, number 132. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Pullum, G.
    1977 Word Order Universals and Grammatical Relations. InP. Cole & J. Sadock, Eds., Grammatical Relations, 249–277. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368866_011
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368866_011 [Google Scholar]
  82. Pullum, G. & Scholz, B.
    2001 On the distinction between model-theoretic and generative-enumerative syntactic frameworks. InP. de Groote, G. Morill & C. Retoré, Eds., Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics: 4th International Conference, 17–43. Berlin: Springer Verlag. 10.1007/3‑540‑48199‑0_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48199-0_2 [Google Scholar]
  83. Ramchand, G. & Reiss, C.
    2007 Introduction. InG. Ramchand & C. Reiss, Eds., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, 1–13. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199247455.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199247455.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  84. Richter, F. & M. Sailer
    1999 A lexicalist collocation analysis of sentential negation and negative concord in French. InV. Kordoni, Ed., Tübingen Studies in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 231–300. Arbeitsberichte des SFB 340, number 132. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Richter, F. & Sailer, M.
    2004 Basic Concepts of Lexical Resource Semantics. InA. Beckmann & N. Preining, Eds., ESSLLI 2003 – Course Material I, volume 5 of Collegium Logicum, 87–143. Vienna: Kurt Gödel Society Wien.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Sag, I. A.
    1997 English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics, 33(2), 431–483. 10.1017/S002222679700652X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222679700652X [Google Scholar]
  87. 2012Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An Informal Synopsis. InH. Boas & I. A. Sag, Eds., Sign-based Construction Grammar, 69–202. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Sag, I. A. & Wasow, T.
    2011 Performance-Compatible Competence Grammar. InR. Borsley & K. Börjars, Eds., Non-Transformational Syntax: Formal and Explicit Models of Grammar, 359–377. Oxford, UK / Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9781444395037.ch10
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444395037.ch10 [Google Scholar]
  89. Sag, I. A., Wasow, T. & Bender, E.
    2003Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Shieber, S.
    1986An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Shiraishi, A., Abeillé, A. & Hemforth, B.
    2019 Verbal mismatch in Right-Node Raising. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 4(1), 114. 1–26. 10.5334/gjgl.843
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.843 [Google Scholar]
  92. Sorace, A.
    2011 Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 1–33. 10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor [Google Scholar]
  93. Tanenhaus, M., Spivey-Knowlton, M., Eberhard, K. & Sedivy, J.
    1996 Using Eye Movements to Study Spoken Language Comprehension: Evidence for Visually Mediated Incremental Interpretation. InT. Inui & J. McClelland, Eds., Attention and Performance XVI: Information Integration in Perception and Communication, 457–478. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. van Riemsdijk, H.
    1984 Introductory remarks. InW. de Geest & Y. Putseys, Eds., Sentential Complementation, 1–9. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 10.1515/9783110882698‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110882698-002 [Google Scholar]
  95. Villavicencio, A., Sadler, L. & Arnold, D.
    2005 An HPSG Account of Closest Conjunct Agreement in NP Coordination in Portuguese. InS. Müller, Ed., The Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 427–447. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/li.00038.bil
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/li.00038.bil
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Introduction
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