29.4810, Review: Syntax: Sheehan, Bailey (2017)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-4810. Tue Dec 04 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.4810, Review: Syntax: Sheehan, Bailey (2017)

Moderator: linguist at linguistlist.org (Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté)
Homepage: https://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 11:44:50
From: Ferid Chekili [feridchekililg at yahoo.fr]
Subject: Order and structure in syntax II

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36405637


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/29/29-276.html

EDITOR: Michelle  Sheehan
EDITOR: Laura R. Bailey
TITLE: Order and structure in syntax II
SUBTITLE: Subjecthood and argument structure
SERIES TITLE: Open Generative Syntax
PUBLISHER: Language Science Press
YEAR: 2017

REVIEWER: Ferid Chekili, University of Bahrain

SUMMARY

The edited collection (Laura R. Bailey, Michelle Sheehan (ed.). Order and
structure in syntax II Subjecthood and argument structure), the second volume
in a set of two volumes, deals with argument structure with special reference
to subjecthood. As pointed out by the editors, in their introduction, “[I]n
all these papers, the influence of the work of Anders Holmberg can be
observed, from the typology of null subject languages and the status of
expletives, locative and generic subjects to the syntax of ditransitives and
the status of V2” (ix).

The book contains two parts preceded by a short introduction by the editors
('Introduction: Order and Structure in Syntax') in which they briefly provide
a description of the contents of the book and draw out “important threads and
questions which they raise” (vii). Part I includes 10 papers (divided among 10
chapters); Part II, seven squibs (organized in seven chapters). Three indexes
(name, language and subject) complete the volume.

PART I

Chapter 1 ('On the softness of parameters: an experiment on Faroese' by H.
Thráinsson) is an evaluation of Holmberg and Platzack's (H and P) (1995)
account of a number of syntactic differences between Insular Scandinavian
(Isc) and Mainland Scandinavian (Msc) in terms of different settings of a
single parameter. The main purpose of this evaluation is to see whether a
strict formulation of parameter setting can be maintained or whether a
'softer' formulation is preferable. In order to test for these parametric
predictions T reports on the results of a study of syntactic variation in
Faroese, known as FarDiaSyn. The use of Faroese is justified by its inter- and
intra-speaker variation which makes it an “ideal testing ground” (5) as it is
“undergoing changes that seem to crucially involve [Holmberg and Platzack's
Agr-parameter]” (7). Justification for the use of FarDiaSyn comes from the
fact that it offers the possibility of testing the parametric predictions
statistically. The results of the study, due to the amount of intra-speaker
variation, do not conform with “the standard concept of strictly binary
parameters” (6). More specifically, it is shown that contra H and P's
suggestion, a single binary parameter is unable to account for the acquisition
of oblique subjects, stylistic fronting, null expletives and the transitive
expletive construction. In fact, even though the judgments of speakers of the
constructions correlate to some extent, in spite of the variation, H and P's
strict formulation of binary parameters cannot be maintained and it is argued
that Yang's (2002, 2010) variationist approach can better account for the
facts.

In Chapter 2 ('The role of locatives in (partial) pro-drop languages'), A.
Alexiadou and J. Carvalho compare two partial pro drop languages, namely,
Finnish (F) and Brazilian Portuguese (BP) with respect to the presence vs.
absence of a generic pronoun in null impersonals. They argue that Holmberg's
(2005) analysis that a covert pronoun (implicit agent) is present in F cannot
be extended to BP, which raises the question of what is it that “ensures the
impersonal reading of the BP examples?” (49). The distribution of the locative
elements is claimed to be responsible for this reading: a comparison is
conducted of locative elements in null impersonals as used in the two partial
pro drop languages, which suggests that the latter, beside other shared
characteristics, also share a similar behaviour with respect to locatives.
However, the comparison also demonstrates the existence of differences caused
by differences in the properties of T, which are argued to determine the role
played by locatives in different languages: in F, the only function of
locatives is to satisfy the extended projection principle (EPP) -hence no
argumental status, while in BP, “locatives are only licensed if T is specified
for either generic or definite 3rd person” (42)--hence they can be both
argumental and expletive-like. These differences are claimed to suggest that,
in spite of many similarities, partial pro drop languages do not behave in a
uniform manner. Finally, the behaviour of a full pro drop language--Greek--is
briefly discussed, showing that locatives in that language are not expletives;
hence Greek does not use locatives to satisfy the EPP. Rather, they are
referential/deictic elements: this is a result of the fact, they claim, that
full pro drop languages satisfy the EPP through V-raising (Alexiadou and
Anagnostopoulou, 1998), while locatives are associated with the CP domain.

Chapter 3 ('Expletives and speaker-related meaning'. C. Greco- L. Haegeman- T.
Phan) investigates a set of pronominal forms in the pro drop languages
Finnish, Dominican Spanish, Vietnamese, (and the non-pro drop West Flemish),
that have apparently developed into expletives, an unexpected development in
pro drop languages. Finnish demonstrates that it is possible for a pro drop
language to use expletives to satisfy formal requirements such as the EPP.
Dominican Spanish illustrates a class of expletive-like elements that seem “to
have acquired a discourse-related meaning” (89). So do Vietnamese nó and West
Flemish tet. The authors conclude that the data discussed here demonstrates
that, unlike the prototypical expletives which have lost referential meaning
and acquired a purely formal function, there are some elements which, although
they have also lost their referential meaning, seem nevertheless, to have
acquired other discourse-related meaning.

Chapter 4 ('Places'. T. Taraldsen) investigates constructions in Norwegian
where a locative PP occurs as the subject of a copula. T argues that these PPs
are derived subjects originating inside the complement of the copula which is
a relative clause having as its head noun an element meaning 'place'. T sets
out to answer three fundamental questions raised by the reviewed data and
concludes that “the PP subject in (1-2) [(1) I Tromsø er et bra sted å bo/ (2)
I Tromsø er et sted det er morsomt å arbeide] must be a derived subject moved
out of the relative clause” (103) by means of “the head-raising analysis of
relatives advocated by Vergnaud (1974) and Kayne (1994)” (107). This analysis
is contingent on a novel view about the interaction between A-movement and A'
movement, which the author concedes is in need of much elaboration (113).

In Chapter 5 ('Flexibility in symmetry: an implicational relation in Bantu
double object constructions'), J. Van der Wal uses some new data from double
object constructions in the Bantu languages that reveal some asymmetry. It is
shown that 'partial asymmetry' is due to variation between different types of
ditransitive predicates. The data leads him to formulate an implicational
pattern: “if a language is symmetrical for causatives, it is also symmetrical
for applicatives, and if it is symmetrical for applicatives, it is also
symmetrical for lexical ditransitive predicates” (143). The reason which is
argued is that symmetry is caused by the flexibility of functional heads: in
other words, functional heads may Case-license an argument in either their
complement or their specifier. He adds that the argument which is licensed is
the one which is the least topical of the two. The other argument is licensed
and agrees with v or T “which explains object marking and passivization of the
most topical argument” (143). Finally, a parameter hierarchy is proposed to
account for the implicational relationship between the predicate types.

In Chapter 6 ('Defective intervention effects in two Greek varieties and their
implications for Ø-incorporation as Agree'), E. Anagnostopoulou, contra
Holmberg's (2010a) claim that agreement constructions in pro drop
configurations are always analysed as Ø-feature valuation under agree, argues
that Ø-feature valuation should instead be analysed as the result of movement.
He uses an argument based on intervention effects: he shows that in Icelandic
and Dutch monoclausal constructions involving agreement between the verb and a
subject DP, “when agreement is the result of downward agree, an intervener
does not block agree between T/v and the subject. By contrast, constructions
in which the subject moves to spec, TP are subject to intervention effects in
both languages” (154). He then identifies two types of intervention effects in
two 'consistent' null subject languages, namely, Standard Greek and Northern
Greek, and shows that these dialects always demonstrate weak and strong
intervention effects “regardless of whether the subject is overt or covert,
and regardless of the preverbal/postverbal position of the subject when this
is overt” (154). This leads him to the conclusion that the relevant
constructions (Holmberg's Ø-incorporation) display movement.

Verner Egerland in Chapter 7 ('First person readings of man: on semantic and
pragmatic restrictions on an impersonal pronoun'), discusses Cinque's (1988)
observation regarding the Italian impersonal pronoun Si and Kratzer's (1997)
observation regarding the German impersonal man, both of which are taken to
include the speaker. More specifically, he investigates the question “whether
the speaker-inclusion effects [in the two observations] have a common
underlying source” (180) or whether they are different. He argues that such a
unified approach is untenable. Instead, he claims that Cinque's observation
requires a theory that explains the restrictions on impersonal readings. These
are shown to be restricted by the temporal and aspectual specification of the
clause, as well as by aspects related to focus and contrastiveness. These
restrictions explain why some languages can acquire certain readings and not
others, which shows that in spite of their superficial similarity, the two
observations are “fundamentally different in nature” (193).

In Chapter 8 ('Who are we- and who is I? about person and self'). H. Armann
SigurꝽsson deals with the first person pronouns ‘we’ and ‘I’ in relation to
the Event/Speech Participant Split (ESPS). In order to account for how ‘we’ is
able to link the speaker and the speech participants ({Ɵ}) and thereby to mend
the ESPS, he proposes that person values are computed in Syntax. More
specifically, using evidence from self-talk (Holmberg, 2010b), he argues that
an abstract person feature (Pn) “ can be independently computed for each
phrase” (197). Similarly, he suggests that a positive setting of (+Pn) is
responsible for both the secondary self interpretation and the human bias of
plural pronouns. He concludes with an excursion into the nature of syntax and
UG, suggesting, in view of the fact that the speaker-hearer categories and the
person categories are not unrelated to meaning, that natural language syntax
must be a broader system (than assumed in narrow syntax).

In Chapter 9 ('New roles for Gender: evidence from Arabic, Semitic, Berber and
Romance'), A. Fassi Fehri investigates gender (Gen). Using a Minimalist
Distributed Morphology model, FF argues – contra previous assumptions relating
Gen to sex/animacy, and on the basis of the rich semantic diversity of Gen in
Standard Arabic and Moroccan Arabic- that Gen is distributed in the nP/DP
architecture, the CP structure and even a higher Speech Act structure. Thus a
“multi-layered integrated account of Gender” (250) is proposed which is
claimed to have “relevant and broad consequences for both the typology and the
theory of Gender” (250).

Chapter 10 ('Puzzling parasynthetic compounds in Norwegian' by J. Bondi
Johannessen) uses data from a large corpus (a dictionary and a web corpus) and
investigates several aspects related to parasynthetic compounds in Norwegian.
In particular, she rejects the claims made in the literature as to the
marginal status and non-compositionality of these compounds. Similarly,
although her data is able to confirm the semantic relationship of inalienable
possession, it rejects the claim that the relationship is only restricted to
body parts of humans and animals. Finally, she argues that only a syntactic
theory which accepts the idea that “lexical items have categorial features”
(272) will be able to deal with parasynthetic compounds.

PART II

Chapter 11 ('On a “make-believe” argument for Case theory'. J. David
Bobaljik). In this squib, B revisits Chomsky's (On Binding 1980) explanation
in terms of Case theory -specifically the adjacency condition- for the
distribution of ditransitive exceptional case marking (ECM) verbs. Using data
from Icelandic which shows that “there is no intervention (or adjacency)
effect on structural accusative case assignment in that language” (278),
despite the fact that the absence of ditransitive ECM verbs is attested in
Icelandic, he argues that this explanation in terms of adjacency is not
correct. Finally, he proposes an alternative account (based on, for instance,
Pesetsky, 1995) in which he speculates that this gap may be a result of the
generalization that “a single underived predicate may take no more than three
obligatory arguments” (279).

In Chapter 12 ('Semantic characteristics of recursive compounds'), M. Mukai,
using Phase Theory (Chomsky, 2008; Marantz, 1997) proposes a structure for
both right-branching ([mail [delivery service]]) and left-branching
([chocolate chip] cookie]) recursive compounds in different languages. The
differences between the two types of compounds are analyzed in terms of a
difference between elements with categorical features and elements without.

Chapter 13 ('Expletive passives in Scandinavian – with and without objects'.
E. Engdahl). Here, Engdahl uses a corpus study of expletive passives in order
to evaluate Holmberg's (2002) account -in terms of parameters- of variation
with regard to participle agreement, expletives and word order in periphrastic
passives. It is argued that the Scandinavian languages do not behave in a
uniform way with respect to Holmberg's parameter settings. Finally, in Danish
and Swedish, negation seems to be related to one particular order, suggesting
the existence of a correlation between the availability of NEG and the order
direct object – participle.

In Chapter 14 ('The null subject parameter meets the Polish impersonal -NO/-TO
construction'), M. Krzek, contra Holmberg (2005), presents evidence that null
generic inclusive subjects may be found in consistent null subject languages
(NSL) in the -NO/-TO construction. In this, she agrees with Fassi Fehri (2009)
but disagrees with him that this is the case only in the passive voice, as she
argues that this kind of subject is also found in the active voice. In
addition, she claims that Fassi Fehri's passive construction shares a number
of properties with the -NO/-TO construction (Polish) and thus may be
reanalyzed as active. She concludes that “the observation that null generic
subjects can be found in consistent NSL suggests that a more fine-grained
typology of null subjects is needed” (309).

Chapter 15 ('Ellipsis in Arabic fragment answers'. A. Algryani). In this
squib, A uses Arabic fragment answers to confirm the existence of syntactic
structure in fragmentary utterances. Using evidence from case, preposition
stranding and island effects, he shows that in Arabic, fragmentary answers can
be analyzed as “TP ellipsis derived by focus movement of the remnant to a left
peripheral position followed by deletion of the TP constituting the background
information” (319).

In Chapter 16 ('Anaphoric object drop in Chinese'), P. Chi-Wai Lee revisits
Huang's (1982) claim that a “dropped object is bound by a topic which must be
definite” (329). The problem with this claim is that “the dropped object in
Chinese can have an indefinite interpretation, even though a topic must be
definite” (329). In order to solve the problem, L introduces a distinction
between specific and non-specific object drop, and uses Holmberg's (2005) and
Roberts and Holmberg's (2010) analysis of pro drop in terms of unvalued
determiner feature ([uD]). This [uD], it is argued, can be valued by either an
antecedent with a referential index (DiN] or a referential variable [DxN].

In Chapter 17 ('Icelandic as a partial null subject language: evidence from
fake indexicals'), Susi Wurmbrand uses the behaviour of fake indexicals to
support Holmberg's proposal (e.g. 2005) of Icelandic as a partial null subject
language. She shows that Holmberg's proposal makes interesting predictions
about the distribution of fake indexicals in Icelandic and German.

EVALUATION

The papers have been written by accomplished linguists specializing in their
respective areas of study and are aimed, owing to their advanced nature, at a
knowledgeable audience.

In my opinion, the main contribution of this volume is in further clarifying
the concept of argument structure, specifically, subjecthood, across
typologically (un)related languages.

Another strong point of the collection, is the way the various papers are
linked together. The chapters share common threads –some of which have been
pointed out by the editors in their introduction–which contribute to making
the volume a coherent whole. These common threads include:

On top of the papers' focus on argument  structure and subjecthood, most
papers, with a few exceptions (chapters 7 and 10) use some aspect of
Holmberg's research which they either attempt to confirm or disconfirm.

Most papers deal with typological questions using a number of related or
unrelated languages.

Many of the papers link narrow syntax to discourse aspects (information
structure/ speech act concepts).

Another significant and helpful feature of the collection is the inclusion of
three indexes at the end of the book, namely, a subject index, a language
index and an author index.

Some of the weaker points of the collection include the following:

Very often, the reader is left with a feeling of incompleteness, with no
definitive
answers one way or the other, which of course, may be legitimate, but becomes
noticeable when it occurs very frequently, as it implies that so much remains
unresolved,  that a lot of empirical and theoretical work is required to fill
the gaps. Some such cases may find corroboration in the literature; others are
left open: an example of the first case can be found in chapter 3 where some
of the observations described as tentative by the authors may find positive
confirmation in work by Chekili (2004) and Halila (1992). Discussing the
conclusions in Gupton & Lowman (2014) whereby Dominican Spanish ello can be
associated with interpretive content - speaker-related meaning- the authors
write that “further work is needed to substantiate their analysis” (76).
Further work may come from research in Chekili and Halila with respect to what
they consider to be an expletive in Tunisian Arabic, a consistent null subject
language, namely, ‘famma’. (1a-b) suggest that famma does involve a
speaker-related meaning:

    (1) a. waaHid dkhal
            someone entered

          b. famma waaHid dkhal
            (there) someone entered: implying somewhere where the speaker is 

Examples of the second case include:

-Chapter 1, section 5.2, does not give a definitive answer as to which is
preferable, rule or parameter? Binary parameters or soft parameters?

-Similarly, as is evident in the conclusion to chapter 4 (113), the analysis
suggested by the author is contingent on a novel view about the interaction of
A-movement and A'-movement which the author admits is “in need of much
elaboration”.

-In chapter 8, the author suggests that natural language syntax must be a
broader system than usually assumed in narrow syntax. However, he leaves open
the question of what this broader system might look like.

-In chapter 9, the aims of the paper are said to provide “a more integrative
description of the gender polysemy than the 'orthodox' sex/animate view can
allow for” (222). However, later (249), we are told that “[p]roviding such a
global and integrative model of gender is far beyond the scope of this work”.

-In chapter 14, discussing Fassi Fehri's (2009) claim that, in consistent null
subject languages, null generic inclusive subjects are only found in the
passive voice, the author says that Arabic passive may be reanalysed as
active, but does not say how: “It may be then that this Arabic construction
should be reanalysed as active. Space limitations, however, do not allow for a
more in-depth analysis of this issue” (312).

   2. Some of the findings/papers lack originality. For instance: 

-In chapter 5, the analysis of double object constructions is reminiscent of
traditional analyses in terms of information structure. The author suggests
that the symmetrical behaviour of objects is “determined by the relative
topicality of the two arguments” (136). A similar idea is found in
informational approaches to the use of alternative dative syntax (Halliday,
1970; Hawkins, 1994 among others).

-Chapter 15 is a replication study applying Merchant’s (2004) analysis of
fragment answers to Arabic.

  3. The discussion, at times, is in need of more elaboration and
clarification; for instance:

-The discussion of ‘places’ in chapter 4, with respect to whether Norwegian
Sted (place) may be preceded by a preposition, concludes that this may be
explained by giving two different interpretations to Sted: either a space (no
preposition required) or a thing (requiring a preposition). If this is
correct, then it would mean that 'place' in English, denotes 'thing' whereas
in French, 'space'. This raises the question why this should be so:

   (2) a. He lives *(in) a crowded place
         b. Il habite un endroit surpeuple

  4. Various types of mistakes:

-Incorrect numbering of sentences: p.105: last 3 lines. p.286, 1st para., 2nd
l.: (5) should read (3). p.307, bottom: (2) and (3) instead of (1) and (2).
p.312, end of 1st para.: in (12) and (13).

-Mismatch between some examples and their derivation: pp.107-108: examples
(30) and (37) and derivations (38) and (39).

-Typos and other language problems: p.20, last line. p.21, 2nd para., 1st l.
p.61, conclusion 3rd l: “do not overlap”. p.135, 3rd l: “crosslinguistically
typically”. p.225, 1st para.: “controllers”. p.227, property 4: “week”. p.231,
(24) does not display Fem. Sing. Agreement but dual. p.235, last l: “...in
addition to is”. p.236, 3rd para.: “since its contributes”. p.236, 5.1:
“Diminuitive”. p.312, footnote 5, 3rd sentence: Sentence structure.

Notwithstanding these shortcomings which do not weigh against the merits of
the collection, the aims set out in the introduction have largely been met:
the volume has fulfilled its aim of further explaining and clarifying the
concept of argument structure and subjecthood by providing new data from
various related and unrelated languages.

REFERENCES

Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: Word
order,  
    V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16.
491–539.

Chekili, F. 2004. The position of the postverbal subject and agreement
asymmetries in Arabic. Phin 27/2004:35.

Chomsky, Noam. 1980. On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 1–46.

Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Roberto Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria L.
Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Essays in honor
of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 33–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cinque, G. 1988. On Si constructions and the theory of Arb. Linguistic Inquiry
19. 521-581. 

Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 2009. Arabic silent pronouns, person and voice.
Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 1. 1–38.

Gupton, Timothy & Sarah Lowman. 2014. An F projection in Cibeño Dominican
Spanish. In Jennifer Amaro, Gillian Lord, Ana de Prada Pérez & Jessi Aaron
(eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 338–348.
Sommerville, MA.

Halila, H. 1992. Subject specificity effects in Tunisian Arabic. Unpublished
Ph.D dissertation, USC.

Halliday, M.A.K. 1970. Language structure and language function. In New
Horizons in Linguistics. John Lyons (ed.), 140-165. Harmondsworth, Middlesex:
Penguin.

Hawkins, J. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge
University Press.

Holmberg, Anders. 2002. Expletives and agreement in Scandinavian passives.
Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4. 85–128.

Holmberg, Anders. 2005. Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish.
Linguistic Inquiry 36(4). 533–564.

Holmberg, Anders. 2010a. Null subject parameters. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders
Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Parametric variation: Null
subjects in minimalist theory, 88–124. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Holmberg, Anders. 2010b. How to refer to yourself when talking to yourself.
Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 16. 57–65.

Holmberg, Anders & Christer Platzack. 1995. The role of inflection in
Scandinavian syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Huang, C. T. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. MIT
PhD thesis.

Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kratzer, A. 1997. German impersonal pronouns and logophoricity.
http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WViZTE1M/Impersonal%20Pronouns%20&%20Logop
horicity.pdf. Paper presented at Sinn undBedeutung. Berlin 1997, and Generic
pronouns and logophoricity, Sao Paolo 2000.

Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis
in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers
in Linguistics 4(2). 201–225.

Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27.
661–738.

Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge,
MA:The MIT Press.

Roberts, Ian & Anders Holmberg. 2010. Introduction: Parameters in minimalist
theory. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan
(eds.), Parametric Variation. Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, 1–57.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vergnaud, J.-R. 1974. French relative clauses. Cambridge, Mass. Doctoral
dissertation.

Yang, Charles. 2002. Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Yang, Charles. 2010. Three factors in language variation. Lingua 120.
1160–1177.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Ferid Chekili is Professor of English and Linguistics, currently employed by
the University of Bahrain. His research interests include syntactic theory,
the syntax/information structure interface and generative second language
acquisition.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:

              The IU Foundation Crowd Funding site:
       https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list

               The LINGUIST List FundDrive Page:
            https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-29-4810	
----------------------------------------------------------