34.1786, Review: General Linguistics: Huang, Lin, Chen (eds.) (2022)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-34-1786. Mon Jun 05 2023. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 34.1786, Review: General Linguistics: Huang, Lin, Chen (eds.) (2022)

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar, Francis Tyers (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Lauren Perkins
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Steven Franks, Everett Green, Joshua Sims, Daniel Swanson, Matthew Fort, Maria Lucero Guillen Puon, Zackary Leech, Lynzie Coburn
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

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

Editor for this issue: Maria Lucero Guillen Puon <luceroguillen at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: 28-Feb-2023
From: Geoffrey Sampson [sampson at cantab.net]
Subject: The Cambridge Handbook of Chinese Linguistics


Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/33.2699

EDITOR: Chu-Ren Huang
EDITOR: Yen-Hwei Lin
EDITOR: I-Hsuan Chen
AUTHOR: Yu-Yin Hsu
TITLE: The Cambridge Handbook of Chinese Linguistics
PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press
YEAR: 2022

REVIEWER: Geoffrey Sampson

SUMMARY

This book contains thirty chapters on aspects of the linguistics of
Chinese, by a total of 44 authors or co-authors.  All but five of
these, to judge from their names, are Chinese (or in one case Korean),
and most of the contributors with Western names are affiliated with
East Asian universities.  Three editors work at the Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, the other at Michigan State.

Very unusually for a book of this kind, there is no introduction,
explaining what the editors aimed to achieve in putting the book
together.  Chapter 1 launches straight into a study of phonological
awareness among Chinese and how it is affected by differing approaches
to initial literacy teaching in different parts of the
Chinese-speaking world.  I shall not list all thirty chapter titles,
but the chapters are grouped into four Parts:  1, “Writing
System/Neuro-cognitive Processing of Chinese” (two chapters); 2,
“Morpho-lexical issues in Chinese” (eight chapters); 3,
“Phonetic-phonological issues in Chinese” (eight chapters); 4,
“Syntax–semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse Issues” (twelve
chapters).  Another unusual feature of the book is that the lead
editor, Chu-Ren Huang, is listed as co-author of as many as eight of
the thirty chapters, including at least one from each part.

(There is an issue about Chinese authors’ names.  I take it that
readers ought to know which of an author’s names is his or her
surname, but probably do not need to know e.g. that Qingqing Zhao, one
of the contributors here, happens to share the same surname as Yuen
Ren Chao, who introduced Western linguistics to China in the early
twentieth century.  So this review will always give Chinese names in
the English order, surname last, irrespective of how they appear in an
author’s English-language publications, but will use whatever
romanization is used in those publications.)

Lacking a statement by the editors themselves about how they planned
this book, I expected that it would be addressed to a target
readership of people who were familiar with general linguistics
without necessarily knowing much or anything about the Chinese
language, or who perhaps had some knowledge of Chinese but wanted to
discover what are seen as interesting research questions about this
language.  I supposed that it would include material introducing
matters such as the historical origin and development of Chinese, its
relationships with other languages in its family and contacts with
geographically adjacent languages, its structure at phonological and
grammatical levels, sociolinguistic considerations, and so forth.  In
other words I imagined the book would turn out to be a rival to the
Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics, edited by William Wang and
Chaofen Sun (2015), which I reviewed in Linguist List issue 26.4510.
That turned out to be wrong.  The book under review is considerably
narrower but also deeper than that.

It is narrower in the sense that the range of topics covered is
limited almost exclusively to the internal structure of the
present-day language (and to Standard Chinese, i.e., to the variety of
the Mandarin dialect which has been selected as the language to be
promoted China-wide).  Something is said about one specialized aspect
of language history in a chapter about a syntactic issue with an
inherently historical dimension, but there is no broader survey of the
history of the language – there is no mention of its membership in a
language-family, for instance.  A chapter about sentence-final
particles has interesting material on sex differences in the use of
these particles, but there is no wider discussion of the social
setting of the language.  And the book is deeper than I expected
before reading it, in the sense that the chapters are not addressed to
readers who are not already knowledgeable about the special subjects
they discuss.  Chapter 2, for instance, is about the use of
neuroimaging techniques such as electroencephalography to investigate
how Chinese is processed in the brain; its opening paragraph announces
that it “will review a series of neurolinguistics studies that took
N400, an event-related potentials (ERPs) component to index the
semantic processing, to investigate how the brain processes meaning
conveyed by [various aspects of the Chinese language].”  A reader who
does not already know what an “ERPs component” is will find no
explanation here.  Readers need background knowledge even in chapters
dealing with less obviously technical topics than neuroimaging.  P.
76, in a chapter about the vocabulary of Chinese, discusses the
Menzerath–Altmann Law, without telling us what it says – I had not
heard of it.  I understood the point on p. 84 about why Waseda
University in Japan is called Sōdai for short only because I know how
Japanese script works – a reader ignorant of Japanese would be
stumped.

The book is essentially a collection of research articles intended to
be read by other researchers in their respective areas, of a kind that
might more commonly be found in specialized journals rather than
gathered into a book.  Linguistic data are introduced and discussed
for the contribution they make to theoretical controversies, rather
than for their own sake.

One striking feature of the contents list is that successive chapters
have sometimes been set up to provide thesis–antithesis tension.  So
we find Chapter 19, “SVO as the Canonical Word Order in Modern
Chinese”, followed by Chapter 20, “SOV as the Canonical Word Order in
Modern Chinese”, and Chapter 22, “The Case for Case in Chinese”,
followed by Chapter 23, “The Case without Case in Chinese”.  These
antitheses are not always signalled so obviously by the chapter
titles.  For instance, several chapters are about wordhood in Chinese.
To explain:  the psychologically salient units from which Chinese
utterances are assembled are what in Chinese are called zì, which
coincide with what linguists call morphemes, are pronounced as single
syllables, and are written as single graphs or “characters” of Chinese
script.  (I ignore some marginal special cases for which the equation
morpheme = syllable = graph does not hold.)  In the Classical Chinese
of the first millennium B.C. (a modified form of which continued to be
the standard written language of China until only a hundred years
ago), there was little temptation to recognize any intermediate units
between zì and complete utterances or sentences.  But in the
vocabulary of the modern language, monosyllabic words have largely
been replaced by two-syllable compounds (though the separate morphemes
within these remain entirely recognizable, and the compounds are not
grouped together as units in Chinese script); hence many linguists see
modern Chinese as containing units corresponding to European “words”,
distinct from morphemes, while others see “words” as an imposition of
Western categories on a non-European language, pointing out that zì
are often linked more loosely and variably in a wordlike Chinese
compound than is the case for dictionary words of European languages.
Chapters 3 and 4 essentially argue that “Chinese has words” and
“Chinese doesn’t have words” respectively, though their titles are
less straightforwardly opposed.

(Several places in the book compare Chinese with Vietnamese, which –
although it originated from a separate language-family – has been so
massively influenced by Chinese over a long period that it can be
counted today as virtually another Chinese dialect; the overwhelming
bulk of entries in a Vietnamese dictionary are Chinese loans.  I would
have been interested to see what the contributors here who argue that
Western-style polymorphemic words are psychologically natural for
Chinese-speakers make of recent orthographic developments in
Vietnamese.  In the French colonial period, the Vietnamese abandoned
Chinese script for alphabetic writing, and they used hyphens to link
morphemes into Western-style words.  But since the end of Western
influence on Vietnam in the 1970s, the hyphens have been given up, and
morphemes are the only units reflected in written Vietnamese today, as
they are in Chinese script.  As I understand it, this change in
Vietnamese usage occurred spontaneously, whereas pinyin romanization
with its orthographic norms – including writing compounds as single
words – has been promulgated in China by government decree.  It is not
clear why polymorphemic words should be more psychologically natural
for one language than for the other.)

Because the chapters deal with many different specialized topics and
assume prior knowledge, probably no one linguist would be competent to
assess all of them adequately.  At any rate, I ought to admit that I
am not.  I was lost when it came to the chapters on syntactic theory.
Some of these use grammatical symbols such as “CP” and “DP”, which
mean “Complementizer Phrase” and “Determiner Phrase” but were
unfamiliar to me, and appear to assume familiarity with Chomsky (1995)
– I had lost interest in generative theories of syntax well before
that date.  Others focus on a controversy between Generative Semantics
and Lexicalism, which I do vaguely remember from my youth; but I hope
my inability to follow the ins and outs of that is forgivable, because
Randy Harris’s “The Linguistics Wars” (2021) suggests that the
controversy is dead now (and I notice that these chapters seem to cite
many publications from the 1970s and 1980s and few recent items).

One can only guess how the editors briefed their contributors.  I
wondered whether they were encouraged to focus on similarities rather
than differences between Chinese and European languages.  As more
Chinese academics began to come to grips with Western linguistics at a
period when generative linguists were emphasizing concepts such as
Universal Grammar, it was noticeable that some of them saw their task
as being to develop descriptions of the Chinese language which made it
look as much as possible like just another European language.  And
there are many places in this book where differences between Chinese
and European languages seem to be downplayed.  The absence of the
historical dimension is one of these, because the relationship of
modern Chinese to its recorded history, one of the longest of any
language in the world, is a distinctive feature of Chinese today.  The
modern language is continuous with its history in a way that is
scarcely possible for languages written alphabetically, where
sound-change will tend to make a language opaque to non-experts after
only a thousand years or so.  Because Chinese script is not based on
the language’s sound system, and because Chinese is an isolating
language without inflexional grammar, an ordinary educated Chinese
person can read plenty of passages written almost three thousand years
ago without difficulty (though encountering plenty of other passages
which are puzzling), and many phrases and sentences from the Classical
language remain alive within modern Chinese.

Again, when chapters about “wordhood” here argue that modern Mandarin
has a strongly disyllabic tendency, they seem to treat the issue as
merely a matter of statistics (James Myers points out, p. 50, that
Chinese translation equivalents for English words are more commonly
two zì than one, but this could simply be because the number N of
distinct zì is limited and N-squared is much larger than N), or, like
Chu-Ren Huang et al. on p. 80, they list types of Chinese compound
words which have close parallels in European languages.  But when
people talk about the modern Chinese trend to disyllabicity, it seems
to me that they are usually thinking primarily about kinds of compound
words which are rare or absent in European languages:  e.g., the very
frequent synonym-compounds, such as Mandarin péngyǒu ‘friend’ from
péng and yǒu, which in Classical Chinese were separate words each
meaning ‘friend’; or reduplications, e.g. jiějiě from jiě, ‘elder
sister’; or words like lǎohǔ ‘tiger’, etymologically ‘old-tiger’,
where lǎo adds nothing to the meaning of hǔ, but serves to produce a
disyllable.  None of these types appear in the list on p. 80.

On p. 136 Dingxu Shi and Chu-Ren Huang mention that Mandarin has a few
zì which might be seen as inflexional affixes, but these “are not the
typical inflectional affixes marking gender, number, or tense.”
“Typical” here seems to mean characteristic of European languages.
Gender, number, and tense are not grammatical categories applying
anywhere in Mandarin (except that nouns and pronouns for human beings
can be marked as plural), and I am not sure that all three categories
could be described as typical of the languages of the world in
general.

In one case languages are assimilated the other way round:  English is
made to look more like Chinese.  On p. 363 San Duanmu discusses
whether the /l/ of English ‘villa’ should be analysed as part of the
first syllable or the second.  This is a false opposition:  the /l/ is
ambisyllabic, what Charles Hockett called an “interlude consonant”,
belonging as much to one syllable as to the other.  But that relates
to a large phonological difference between Chinese and European
languages:  in the latter, ambisyllabic consonants are frequent, but
in Chinese a consonant is always clearly assignable either to the end
of one syllable or to the beginning of another.

EVALUATION

There is good stuff in this collection, particularly – but not only –
in the phonetics/phonology section.  Karl David Neergard and Chu-Ren
Huang’s Chapter 12 presents data on relationships between the density
of the phonological neighbourhood of a zì (how many other zì are just
one phoneme or phonetic feature away from it) and alternative theories
about syllable segmentation.  There are several chapters on the
phonetics and phonology of tone sandhi patterns in various Chinese
dialects (that is, the ways in which the physical realization of a
lexical tone is affected by the tone of an adjacent zì); I found Jie
Zhang’s Chapter 14 particularly impressive.  And an outstanding
Chapter 18 by Caicai Zhang and William Wang uses behavioural and
neural data on tone perception to shed new light on the general topic
of speech perception.  (Incidentally, several discussions of tone
sandhi here state that Mandarin tone 3 before another tone 3 becomes
identical to tone 2.  But there is a long research tradition showing
that the respective tones are similar but not identical – see e.g.
Kratochvil 1984, Tian et al. 2022, and publications cited there.)

Unfortunately, other chapters are by no means written to a comparable
standard.

Some contributors make statements which seem incompatible with obvious
facts.  On p. 366, San Duanmu ascribes to the distinguished
phonetician John Wells the view that in English “it is hard to find
minimal pairs in which there is a contrast between unstressed /ǝ/ and
/ɪ/.  Therefore, he proposes that truly unstressed vowels can all be
transcribed as /ǝ/.”  This looks incredible, since in reality there
are abundant minimal pairs (sapper~sappy, cola~coley, etc.); so I
checked with Wells, who assures me that Duanmu has misrepresented his
position.  Discussing the appearance in recent Mandarin of loans from
English containing un-Chinese sounds, e.g. ‘TV’ (Mandarin has no /v/),
Jun-Ren Lee and Chu-Ren Huang (pp. 9–10) suggest that one might be
tempted to infer that “there is no such rule systems as phonology of a
language L, nor phonological integrity.  Languages have significant
freedom in phonological innovation”, but this view must be rejected
because it is “contrary to all existing linguistic theories”.  Yet
this kind of phonological innovation is perfectly common when
languages are in contact:  think of the un-English sounds in loans
from French such as ‘garage’ with [ʒ] or ‘restaurant’ with a nasal
vowel.  If “existing linguistic theories” really say that such things
cannot happen, then too bad for linguistic theories, surely?

A number of contributors belong to the school of linguists who see the
subject as having emerged ex nihilo with Noam Chomsky’s early
writings, and they represent ideas as novel which are far from so in
reality.  Chu-Ren Huang et al. begin Chapter 4 by writing “though
there have been debates on how to define a word in Chinese” (they cite
only publications co-authored by Huang in 2007 and 2012), “there has
never been any challenge to the theoretical position that words are
the basic lexical unit and the basic unit for grammatical operation.”
What about Chih-wei Lu (1960), and other chapters in the book in which
that piece appeared, or Yuen Ren Chao (1968: 136ff.)?  Chao and Lu
were two of the leading exponents of Western linguistics applied to
Chinese in the mid-twentieth century.  Paul Kratochvíl (1968: 187)
called wordhood “the key problem of MSC [Modern Standard Chinese]
grammar”.

On p. 230 Yen-Hwei Lin accounts for various phonological alternations
in Chinese dialects as caused by a general principle of preserving
phonemic contrasts:  “Contrast preservation has been formalized in
theoretical studies”, and there is “a body of research supporting a
systemic approach to contrast preservation” (Lin cites various
21st-century publications, though without saying whether any of them
discuss the Chinese language); “the relevant theoretical constraints
aim to preserve distinctiveness of sound inventories … and maintain
contrasts in the underlying representation of words.”  Linguists since
Jules Gilliéron (1918) and André Martinet (1955) have often suggested
that contrast preservation is a constraint on historical sound change.
Yet the history of Chinese phonology, and particularly of Mandarin
phonology, has been one of repeated massive losses of
high-functional-load contrasts.  (See e.g. Sampson 2015.)  Perhaps Lin
sees some way of reconciling that history with the theories cited, but
in this book the apparent contradiction is not mentioned.

In some cases, contributors are reckless about details, while writing
about topics where detail is everything.  Feng-hsi Liu’s Chapter 19
argues against the claim put forward by a number of linguists that
Chinese has been shifting over recorded history from SVO towards SOV
as its basic word order.  To study this, Liu needs to analyse sentence
structures in the Classical as well as the modern language.  The first
two Classical examples she quotes (p. 411) are extracts from the
5th-century-B.C. “Great Learning” (Dà Xué), one of the “Four Books”
which are the foundation texts of Confucianism.  Liu quotes the
examples in order to illustrate how the word yú 於had different
meanings in context, a point which is relevant at that stage of her
exposition.  Each passage is shown in Chinese script, in romanization,
in word-for-word English glosses (as throughout the book, the glosses
are for some reason separated by underline characters rather than
simple spaces), and in English translation, with the word in question
printed bold.  However, in the first example, the gloss line omits any
gloss for yú.  And a reader who tries to understand what has gone
wrong by matching up successive glosses with successive romanized
syllables or Chinese graphs will be foiled by the glosses for the two
words following yú being linked by hyphen rather than underline,
‘high-good’, as if they were a single gloss for one Chinese word.  (I
would suggest the gloss ‘utmost’ rather than ‘high’ for zhì 至.)  A
minor additional problem with this example is that the word before yú
is romanized as ‘zm’ rather than zhǐ.  Then with Liu’s second example
things get worse.  In the line of Chinese script there are two
instances of a particle zhě 者, which Classical Chinese uses to mark
the end of a topic in a topic–comment structure; and the English
translation has no wording corresponding to the words between the two
instances of zhě, though these include the word yú, which is the
reason for giving the example.  The Chinese looks odd – Classical
Chinese topic–comment structures normally contain only one topic; so I
checked with my copy of the Great Learning and found that the first
zhě is a spurious insertion.  The original has only the second zhě,
and all the wording before it should have been translated as the
(sole) topic.  Again it is impossible to match up the English glosses
with the Chinese words – no gloss is given for the second word, which
is a genitive particle, or for the zhě which shouldn’t be there, and
there are further cases of hyphens in place of underlines.

But on top of all that, it is quite unclear what difference Liu thinks
she has found between the meanings of yú in the two cases.  In both
examples, English “at” would do very well as a gloss for yú, and Liu
says nothing to suggest otherwise.

The chief responsibility for problems like those above must lie with
the respective authors, though one might have hoped that the editors
would have caught some of them.  But the best of us can make simple
typing mistakes, and another issue with the book is that much of it
appears never to have been proofread.  Some chapters by careful
authors are free of misprints, but in most chapters they are abundant.
Perhaps one could not expect Cambridge’s in-house editors to be
capable of proofing a book like this, though in my experience it is
routine for university presses to commission outside experts for such
tasks.  But in any case there are plenty of errors that could easily
be spotted by a monoglot English-speaker, and in some cases an
English-speaker would have been best placed to spot them.  It may be
unreasonable to expect a Chinese linguist who knows that ‘revolution’
is the noun from ‘revolve’ to realize that “The people of this country
frequently revolve” is a poor translation for a sentence meaning that
they have a lot of revolutions (p. 175) – but an English-speaking
proof-reader could have queried it, whether or not the proof-reader
could read the Chinese.

The caption to a photograph on p. 652 explains that it shows a
geological map of ‘Los Angekes’, and Los Angekes is faithfully
reproduced in the List of Figures in the prelims.  Presumably the
author read through his work before submitting it; one of the editors
must have prepared the List of Figures from the captions in the
individual chapter MSS; and a C.U.P. copy-editor has to have been
involved, if only to decide matters such as type style.  Yet evidently
not one of these people was fazed by ‘Angekes’.  (If the wrong letter
had been almost anything other than K, I might have supposed that the
reference was to some smaller place whose name happened to be similar
to Los Angeles; but Spanish does not use the letter K.)

When it comes to passages dealing with Chinese examples, careless
errors are innumerable.  Again and again, in chapter after chapter, a
word appearing in a line of Chinese script will be missing from the
line of romanized Chinese below, or vice versa; or the words in lines
of Chinese script, romanization, and English will fail to match.  In a
passage about noun classifiers on p. 118, the phrase 三部电话, “three
telephones”, is romanized as ‘san_ju_dianhua’, with ‘ju’ in bold
because it is the point of the example; but 部is pronounced ‘bù’, not
‘ju’.  P. 124 has an example romanized ‘Zhangsan_reng-le_yanhe’, with
‘yanhe’ corresponding to Chinese 烟盒, and Englished as “Zhangsan threw
the inkpot”.  But yānhé 烟盒means ‘cigarette case’.  In that instance
the inconsistency does not affect the point being made (either
cigarette case or inkpot would do for throwing, though the latter
doubtless gives a more satisfying effect).  But pp. 181–2 give four
example sentences for which native speakers were asked to make
acceptability judgements.  The example judged worse than the others by
some informants is said to mean “You may eat fruits and vegetables
raw”, and in Chinese script it contains 可以 kěyǐ ‘may’, but in place of
that verb the romanization line gives ‘jingchang’ and the gloss line
gives ‘often’.  The word 經常 jīngcháng could be translated ‘often’ or
‘regularly’, but without knowing whether the informants were judging
the “may eat” version of the example or the “regularly eat” version we
cannot tell what to make of their responses.

A particularly frequent error in the Chinese examples is confusion
between -n and  -ng, which are the only two consonants that can end a
Mandarin syllable.  I noticed ‘min’ for ‘ming’ 名 and ‘ming’ for ‘min’
民, p. 78; ‘shen’ for ‘sheng’ 生, p. 82; ‘jiang’ for ‘jian’ 見, p. 140;
‘man’ for ‘mang’ 芒, p. 143.  I know that some Chinese speakers are apt
to confuse these sounds, but the Standard Chinese pronunciations are
not in doubt.

It is difficult to take seriously the abstruse (and often confusingly
expressed) theorizing which dominates many of these chapters, when the
treatment of basic data is so slapdash.  The overall impression given
by this book is that the editors asked academics of very different
levels of competence and scholarly standards whether they had anything
that might do as a contribution, and when the MSS came in the editors
added chapter numbers and shipped them off to Cambridge to be turned
into a printed book, with minimal or no quality control.  The minority
of valuable contributions resemble a party of respectable
out-of-towners looking for dinner who have wandered by mistake into a
dive.


REFERENCES

Chao, Yuen Ren (1968).  A Grammar of Spoken Chinese.  University of
California Press.

Chomsky, A. N. (1995).  The Minimalist Program.  MIT Press.

Gilliéron, J. (1918).  Généalogie des mots qui designent l’abeille
d’après l’ALF.  Champion (Paris).

Harris, R. A. (2021).  The Linguistics Wars: Chomsky, Lakoff, and the
battle over deep structure (2nd edition).  Oxford University Press.

Kratochvíl, P. (1968).  The Chinese Language Today.  Hutchinson.

Kratochvil, P. (1984).  “Phonetic tone sandhi in Beijing dialect stage
speech”.  Cahiers de linguistique – Asie orientale 13.135–74.

Lu, Chih-wei (1960).  “The status of the word in Chinese linguistics”.
In P. Ratschnevsky, ed., Beiträge zum Problem des Wortes im
Chinesischen.  Akademie-Verlag (Berlin).

Martinet, A. (1955).  Economie des changements phonétiques.  Francke
(Bern).

Sampson, G.R. (2015).  “Article for discussion:  A Chinese
phonological enigma”, and “Reply to the comments”.  Journal of Chinese
Linguistics 43.679–91 and 740–53.

Tian, Zuoyu, et al. (2022).  “Mandarin tone sandhi realization:
evidence from large speech corpora”.  In Proceedings of Interspeech
2022, 18–22 Sep 2022, Incheon, pp. 5273–7.

Wang, William S.-Y. and Chaofen Sun, eds (2015).  The Oxford Handbook
of Chinese Linguistics.  Oxford University Press.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Geoffrey Sampson graduated in Chinese Studies from Cambridge
University, and his academic career was spent partly in Linguistics
and partly in Informatics, with intervals in industrial research.
After retiring as professor emeritus from Sussex University in 2009,
he spent several years as Research Fellow at the University of South
Africa. He has published contributions to most areas of Linguistics,
as well as to other subjects. His latest books are ''Voices from Early
China'' (2020), and ''God Proofs'' (2022).



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

Please consider donating to the Linguist List https://give.myiu.org/iu-bloomington/I320011968.html


LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

American Dialect Society/Duke University Press http://dukeupress.edu

Bloomsbury Publishing (formerly The Continuum International Publishing Group) http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Brill http://www.brill.com

Cambridge Scholars Publishing http://www.cambridgescholars.com/

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

De Gruyter Mouton https://cloud.newsletter.degruyter.com/mouton

Dictionary Society of North America http://dictionarysociety.com/

Edinburgh University Press www.edinburghuniversitypress.com

Equinox Publishing Ltd http://www.equinoxpub.com/

European Language Resources Association (ELRA) http://www.elra.info

Georgetown University Press http://www.press.georgetown.edu

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Lincom GmbH https://lincom-shop.eu/

Linguistic Association of Finland http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/sky/

MIT Press http://mitpress.mit.edu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/

Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT) http://www.lotpublications.nl/

Oxford University Press http://www.oup.com/us

SIL International Publications http://www.sil.org/resources/publications

Springer Nature http://www.springer.com

Wiley http://www.wiley.com


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-34-1786
----------------------------------------------------------