35.3401, Review: Semantics, Syntax; General Phraseology: Fendel (2023)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-35-3401. Tue Dec 03 2024. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 35.3401, Review: Semantics, Syntax; General Phraseology: Fendel (2023)

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Justin Fuller
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Steven Franks, Joel Jenkins, Daniel Swanson, Erin Steitz
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Joel Jenkins <joel at linguistlist.org>

================================================================


Date: 03-Dec-2024
From: Victoria Fendel [vbmf2 at cantab.ac.uk]
Subject: Semantics, Syntax; General Phraseology: Fendel (2023)


Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/34.1160

AUTHOR: Igor Mel’čuk
TITLE: General Phraseology
SUBTITLE: Theory and Practice
SERIES TITLE: Lingvisticæ Investigationes Supplementa   36
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2023

REVIEWER: Victoria Fendel

SUMMARY

The book consists of an introduction, eleven chapters, a conclusion,
and extensive appendices on lexical functions. Chapters 2 to 8
consider lexemic phrasemes, Chapter 9 pragmatic phrasemes, Chapter 10
morphemic phrasemes, and Chapter 11 syntactic phrasemes. The book
takes a lexicographic approach (p. 9) and the presentation is embedded
in the Meaning-Text Framework (pp. 4–5).

The introduction informally introduces the reader to lexemic
phrasemes, such as English ‘to pull [Y’s] leg’, including a
quantification of how many phrasemes – as opposed to simplex items –
exist in the lexicon of a language (p. 3 and n. 1). Mel’čuk
hypothesises that phrasemes outnumber simplex items in the magnitude
of 10 to 1. The book adopts the Meaning-to-Text orientation (pp. 4–5),
i.e. the speaker ‘needs special knowledge to produce such expressions’
(p. 5). Finally, the reader is alerted to the ‘disproportionate place
of Russian’. A research review is absent (p. 7).

Chapter 1 briefly recaps the Meaning-Text Framework (p. 11),
exemplifies the pervasiveness of phrasemes by means of two short
English sample passages (pp. 12–16), considers reasons for the
existence of phrasemes in a language (pp. 16–18), and outlines the
substantive and formal requirements of linguistic definitions (pp.
19–21).

Chapter 2 explains the notion of ‘phraseme’. On the paradigmatic axis,
phrasemes impose constraints on the selection of components by the
speaker (pp. 24–25), and the lexemes constituting a phraseme can have
context-bound meanings (p. 26). Phrasemes are complex signs as the
‘signifier includes more than one component’ (p. 29). These complex
signs can be compositional or non-compositional (pp. 29–32).
Compositionality is categorical, because a complex sign AB is
compositional when AB = A ⨁ B (pp. 29 and 32). Compositional phrases
have semantic pivots (e.g. attention in to pay attention, which has
its context-free meaning) which are different from their syntactic
heads, ‘which as a rule, express the communicatively dominant
component’ (pp. 34–35) (e.g. to pay in to pay attention). Phrasemes
are subdivided into lexemic, morphemic, and syntactic phrasemes (p.
38) depending on the nature of their components.

Chapter 3 divides lexemic phrasemes into (i) semantic-lexemic
phrasemes (idioms, collocations) and (ii) conceptual-lexemic phrasemes
(nominemes, clichés) (p. 44), where only for the first type ‘the
transition from a conceptual representation of a real-word situation
to the corresponding semantic representations’ is free (p. 41).
Lexemic phrasemes can contain ‘degenerate lexemes’, i.e. a lexeme
‘used only in a phraseme’ and with ‘properties [that] are not the same
as those of all normal lexemes of the corresponding syntactic class’
(p. 45).

Chapters 4 and 5 discuss the notion of ‘idiom’, a non-compositional
semantic-lexemic phraseme, with Chapter 4 providing the theory and
Chapter 5 exemplifying the theory on three Russian idioms. Idioms are
semantically non-compositional but can be more or less transparent:
‘[T]ransparency is a psychological property of idioms: it depends on
the capacities and knowledge of the Addressee’ (p. 53). Idioms appear
as one node in the deep syntactic structure, which is
cross-linguistically universal (the five deep parts of speech are
noun, verb, adjective, adverb, and clausative) (p. 57), but have a
surface-syntactic subtree (p. 56). An example Mel’čuk provides is
French dommage que which is a clausative in the deep syntactic
structure but a noun plus conjunction in the surface syntactic
structure (p. 90 n. 4). Idioms can have lexemic variables (p. 61)
(e.g. throw in the towel vs throw in the sponge). Idioms fall into
strong, semi-, and weak idioms depending on whether the signified of
idiom AB contains the signifieds of A and/or B (pp. 64–68).  The
lexicographic description illustrates idioms by (i) number one, (ii)
have Y’s back, (iii) cut and dried, (iv) in the world, and (v) all
hell breaks loose (pp. 84–89).

Chapter 6 discusses the notion of ‘collocation’, a compositional
semantic-lexemic phraseme. Collocations consist of a base/collocate,
which is selected freely by the speaker, and a collocation, which is
selected as a function of the base (p. 113). Collocations fall into
(i) semantically motivated and (ii) syntactically motivated ones (pp.
117–118).

Chapter 7 deals with non-compositional conceptual-lexemic phrasemes,
which are called nominemes and are in essence ‘multilexemic proper
name[s]’ (p. 137).

Chapter 8 deals with compositional conceptual-lexemic phrasemes, and
clichés. Clichés fall into four subclasses depending on the
concreteness and specificity of the referent (nickname clichés,
termemes, formulemes, sentencemes) (pp. 142–155). Clichés do not
warrant separate lexical entries: nickname clichés are personal names
and not part of the lexicon, termemes should be listed with their
lexical anchor, formulemes and sentencemes ‘are compositional and all
of their components carry their own inherent meannings’ (p. 157).

Chapter 9 introduces the notion of pragmateme which cuts across the
other types of phrasemes, as pragmatemes are expressions that are
constrained by the situation of use (p. 159). Mel’čuk distinguishes
between ‘normal’ situations of use, i.e. ‘an oral or written monologue
… or dialogue’ and ‘special’ situations of use including ‘written
warnings’, ‘written messages’, ‘telecommunications’, ‘oral signs’, and
‘ritualized social situations’ (p. 162). Pragmatemes are triggered by
special situational settings.

Chapter 10 turns to phrasemes made up of morphemes. Morphemic
phrasemes fall into semantic-morphemic phrasemes and
conceptual-morphemic phrasemes (p. 168). ‘Diachronic and synchronic
derivation and compounding’ are called morphemic collocations (p.
175).

Chapter 11 introduces syntactic phrasemes, which unlike lexemic and
morphemic phrasemes are non-segmental (p. 184). The signifier can
contain ‘a special, meaning-carrying prosody and/or a bound lexemic
variable … and/or any other non-segmental expressive means’ (p. 191).
In order to describe the meaning of syntactic phrasemes, Mel’čuk draws
on fictitious lexemes, which describe the signified of the
non-segmental signifier (pp. 195–199). A list of 30 Russian syntactic
idioms is provided for illustration, four of them with their lexical
entries (pp. 199–205).

The conclusion lists briefly the terminology of the book and then
re-evaluates Becker’s (1975) contentious phrases in light of the
findings of the book (pp. 210–213).

EVALUATION

The book aims to provide a system ‘to store such a huge mass of data
in the lexicon systematically and coherently’ by showing how to
describe each phraseme ‘in all the details (relevant to its use in the
text) according to a fixed, pre-arranged template’ (p. 3). The
lexicographic descriptions follow the framework of the Explanatory
Combinatorial Dictionary (p. 3). The book is successful for lexemic
phrasemes; it is more questionable whether the approach extends well
to morphemic and syntactic expressions and how pragmatemes fit in.

Overall, the book heavily relies on the reader being familiar with
earlier work by Mel’čuk (p. 7). This approach clashes with the intent
of making each chapter as independent as possible (p. 6). Instead of
omitting the research review, a review might have helped the reader.

 In several places throughout, quantifications based on dictionaries
are provided, e.g. the number of signifieds in Mandarin (p. 22) or the
number of idioms in a language (p. 51). While interesting as a thought
experiment, the difficulty with any such quantification is the
reliance on dictionaries, which are descriptive and often focussed on
the standard language, and the assumption of a relatively even
distribution of relevant phrasemes in the entries for each letter. I
note in passing that throughout several English phrasemes cited are
incorrect, e.g. ‘Downing Street 10’ should be ’10 Downing Street’ (p.
138) and ‘do you have time’ should be ‘do you have the time’ (p. 149)
when asking someone for the time rather than whether they are free to
meet up.

The introduction takes the stance that ‘a fine semantic analysis of
phrasemes … is possible only when dealing with the mother tongue’ (p.
6). The concept of a ‘mother tongue’ is highly contentious not only
from the perspective of language and identity but also from the
perspective of perception and cognition. Perhaps, Matras’ (2009:
97–98) concept of a pragmatically dominant language, i.e. a language
that is preferred in a specific context of communication, may be more
appropriate.

Chapter 2 introduces Mel’čuk’s categorical approach to
compositionality (p. 32). However, Chapter 4 subsequently
distinguishes between strong idioms (the signified of idiom AB
contains the signified of neither A nor B), semi-idioms (the signified
of idiom AB contains the signified of either A or B and an additional
semantic component), and weak idioms (the signified of idiom AB
contains the signifieds of A and B and an additional semantic
component) (pp. 64–69). The difficulty of considering compositionality
a categorical notion is discussed further below.

Chapter 5 discusses the Russian čto za idiom (p. 105), which seems to
resemble German colloquial was für, in that it forms a lexical unit in
which für acts as a unilexeme in Mel’čuk’s terms (i.e. it does not
govern the otherwise usual accusative case). For Mel’čuk, za is a
particle ‘which does not appear anywhere outside this expression and
is semantically empty’ (p. 105). If this is the only expression in
which za functions in this way and if prepositions otherwise are never
used as particles and/or adverbs when the complement is deleted, the
analysis may hold. Yet, lexemes that can have prepositional value but
can also be used as adverbs or particles without a complement are not
too uncommon in languages (cf. Luraghi 2003 on Greek).

Chapter 6 discusses the Italian syntactically motivated collocation
tutti e libri (p. 126), for which Cirillo (2009: 160 and 263) from a
generative grammar perspective (Stranding Analysis) interestingly
comes to the same conclusion as Mel’čuk. In both cases, I am wondering
whether the expressions are best dealt with in the lexicon or in the
syntax given that at least one component is a function word. I would
be tempted to accept the Russian idiom more than the syntactically
motivated collocation.

Chapter 8 considers clichés which ‘should not have a separate lexical
entry’ (p. 156) because they do not form lexical units. Given the aim
of the book to provide a template for lexicographic description, this
chapter comes as a surprise. It is a useful chapter in the sense that
it shows what not to include in a lexicon though. (As a minor remark,
I am wondering whether tea in tea rose is really a unilexeme when
assuming the meaning ‘whose scent reminds [of] that of tea’ (p. 147).
Think of Tea Soap, etc.; perhaps a better example would be tea towel
or tea candle in neither of which there is an association with the
scent of tea.)

Chapter 9 introduces the notion of pragmateme: ‘a linguistic
expression [that] … is constrained pragmatically, that is, iff a
special communication situation requires its use’ (p. 160). Naturally
defining what ‘special’ means is complicated. Mel’čuk states that ‘a
normal situation of linguistic communication is either an oral or
written monologue (a narration, a journalistic or technical paper, a
literary text), or a dialogue’ (p. 162). By contrast, written
warnings, written messages, telecommunications, oral signals, and
ritualized social situations, etc. count as ‘special’ (see also p. 155
on break a leg as a ‘sort of magical formula’). This division is
unmotivated.

Perhaps, Biber and Conrad’s (2009) notion of ‘register’ may be useful
for which they offer a range of criteria to check (p. 40) including
the participants, the relations among participants, the channel, the
processing circumstances, the setting, the communicative purposes, and
the topic. However, Biber and Conrad’s approach would be
sociolinguistic. Depending on what is ‘special’, this approach may
identify German colloquial was für as ‘special’. Co-incidentally, in
Biber and Conrad’s framework, Mel’čuk’s pragmateme Dear X (at the
start of letters) (p. 159) would be a genre marker. One could equally
wonder whether a more functional grammar approach would help, e.g. in
the sense of an expression referring to the interpersonal level rather
the morphosyntactic level (cf. Hengeveld 2008; D’Hertefelt &
Verstraete 2014; Kaltenböck 2019). This approach would call dommage
que a pragmateme (cf. p. 90). As the definition of a class of
expressions depends on it, we need a clear definition of ‘special’ and
criteria to reproduce it. This may also clarify the relationship
between clichés with a specific abstract referent (routine formulas,
formulemes) (pp. 148–155) and pragmatemes.

Chapters 10 and 11 apply the lexicographic approach to morphological
and syntactic signifieds. In Chapter 10, I am not clear why
synchronically ‘a morphemic phraseme can only be a phraseologized
complex wordform, that is a phraseologized combination of a stem with
inflectional affixes’ (p. 167). Compounding is productive in many
languages, even ad hoc compounding. Secondly, while discontinuous
morphemic phrasemes are described (p. 171), it is not clear to me how
the framework deals with vowel grade changes and similar morphological
phenomena, e.g. Brief-träg-er ‘letter carrier’ (p. 174). For pairs
such as have/has, Mel’čuk resorts to considering has a strong
megamorph suppletive (p. 174). The comparison between crack-er (p.
169) as a morphemic idiom as opposed to writ-er as a semi-morphemic
idiom with -er being the semantic pivot (p. 172) seems to reflect a
synchronically focussed approach in Chapter 10 which however seems to
work better for more analytic languages. Thirdly, the morphemic
formuleme ‘Ents[c]huldig-ung’ ‘sorry’ is compositional at the
morphological level (cf. Shin 2001), what makes it ‘denote a
particular situation’ (p. 180) is the specific syntax (exclamative)
and the specific situational context (register), a pragmateme in
Mel’čuk’s terms.

Chapter 11, in the context of syntactic phrasemes, brings up the
example politics, schmolitics (p. 198). While the copy operation is
syntactic, the prefix schm- replacing the first consonant of the base
item politics seems morphological rather than syntactic. The very
interesting Russian idiom [X,] xot’ L(INTENS(X)(V)IMPERF,IMPER,2,SG
‘extremely’ (literally: ‘X is so Y that you might even …’) which
allows ‘its lexical filling L(INTENS(X))’ to be ‘relatively free’ such
that speakers can create their own hapax legomena (p. 208), seems to
hinge upon a function word rather than being entirely non-segmental.
For both Chapters 10 and 11, I wonder whether extending a lexical
approach to morphemic and syntactic expressions is possible and
appropriate. I have fewer concerns about syntactic phrasemes, although
the role of function words would need further investigation (cf.
Corver & van Riemsdijk 2001: 1).
A pattern that seems to cut across chapters is support-verb
constructions. Support-verb constructions are combinations of a verb
and a noun that fill the predicate slot of a sentence, such as to pay
a visit in I paid him a visit yesterday. For Mel’čuk, pay would here
be a quasi-unilexeme – ‘a degenerate lexeme … [which] appears only in
a particular collocation (or in a handful of collocations) and has at
least one non-degenerate lexeme in its vocable, that is, it co-exists
in the language with normal lexemes which have the same signifier and
the same syntactics and from which it differs only by its strictly
context-bound signified’ (p. 46) – and visit the semantic pivot (p.
35). Only compositional expressions have semantic pivots (p. 35).

Mel’čuk discusses the idioms ‘to kick the bucket’ and ‘to spill the
beans’ as opposed to the collocations ‘to break X’s heart’ – where the
meaning can be deduced by common metonymy (p. 74) – and ‘to pull
strings’ – with a quasi-unilexeme ‘string’ (p. 75). The two idioms
differ as to whether they contain a semantic component ‘which could be
picked out for passivization, relativization, etc.’ (pp. 73 and 75).
If over time, these operations become permissible, the idiom would
become a collocation (p. 76). However, agentless passivisation is
permissible for the idioms ‘to spill the beans’ (p. 76) and ‘to pull
X’s leg’ (pp. 76–77). In the latter case, Mel’čuk explains this in the
following way for ‘Mary’s leg was pulled’: ‘the fronting and
extraction of MARY are meaningful, this syntactic manipulation of LEG
is by no means a meaningful operation’ (p. 77). Idioms such as ‘to
kick the bucket’ do not allow for nominalisation by means of event
nouns but can only be nominalised by means of a gerund (John’s kicking
the bucket appalled me) (p. 91 n. 14). For Mel’čuk, all support-verb
constructions and their more semantically heavy counterparts,
constructions with realization verbs, fall under collocations, i.e. a
compositional semantic- or conceptual-lexemic phraseme (p. 119). As to
be expected, as pragmatemes cut across categories of phrasemes,
support-verb constructions also appear as pragmatic collocations, e.g.
take aim! (p. 164).

For support-verb constructions in particular, Mel’čuk’s (p. 32)
categorical approach to compositionality is complicated, e.g. he needs
to allow for metonymy (and possibly also other semantic shifts such as
metaphorical extension) in order to classify ‘to break X’s heart’ as a
collocation. Furthermore, ‘to spill the beans’ with its agentless
passive seems to break the rule that idioms do not allow for
operations such as passivisation, relativisation, etc. (see also
Schafroth 2020: 195).

Sheinfux et al. (2019: 42) approach the issue differently by drawing
on the notions of figuration – ‘figuration reflects the degree to
which the idiom can be assigned a literal meaning’ – and transparency
‘transparency (or opacity) relates to how easy it is to recover the
motivation for an idiom’s use’. Mel’čuk (p. 53) dismisses transparency
as a ‘psychological property of idioms’. However, support-verb
constructions hover at the syntax-lexicon interface (Heine 2020: 15;
Croft 2022: 423) such that neither a purely lexical nor a purely
syntactic approach can capture them. They are furthermore
synchronically and diachronically highly variable, which Mel’čuk (p.
76) acknowledges when hypothesising a transition from idiom to
collocation – the other direction is also entirely possible. Sheinfux
et al. (2019: 66) conclude that the larger the corpus the higher the
likelihood that variation will be attested. Mel’čuk (p. 71) considers
such rare variation an artistic deformation of an idiom (wordplay,
puns, jocular, or poetic). The key question is how to decide what is
‘artistic’ and what is a development in progress. It is entirely
possible for a variation to start out as artistic but to become
accepted by the community of language users (e.g. Haugen 1966; Milroy
& Milroy 2012). Mel’čuk’s (p. 119) division between support verbs and
realization verbs in fact reflects the fact that the verbal component
of a support-verb construction (i) can be varied for syntactic,
semantic, and pragmatic reasons (cf. Mel’čuk 2004; Gavriilidou 2004),
(ii) can have varying degrees of semantic weight (cf. Rosén 2020;
Gross 1998), and (iii) can be adjusted in a highly context-specific
way which is not necessarily artistic (e.g. legal texts).

REFERENCES

Becker, Joseph. 1975. The Phrasal Lexicon. Theoretical issue in
natural language processing 1. 60–63.

Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad. 2009. Register, genre, and style
(Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Cirillo, Robert. 2009. The syntax of floating quantifiers: stranding
revisited. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD thesis.

Corver, Norbert & Henk van Riemsdijk. 2001. Semi-lexical categories.
In Norbert Corver & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Semi-lexical
categories: the function of content words and the content of function
words (Studies in Generative Grammar), vol. 41, 1–19. Berlin ; New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Croft, William. 2022. Morphosyntax: constructions of the world’s
languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

D’Hertefelt, Sarah & Jean-Christophe Verstraete. 2014. Independent
complement constructions in Swedish and Danish: Insubordination or
dependency shift? Journal of Pragmatics 60. 89–102.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.002.

Gavriilidou, Zoé. 2004. Verbes supports et intensité en grec moderne.
In Gaston Gross & Sophie de Pontonx (eds.), Verbes supports: nouvel
état des lieux (Lingvisticæ Investigationes), vol. 27.2, 295–308.
Amsterdam ; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Gross, Maurice Gaston. 1998. La fonction sémantique des verbes
supports. Travaux de Linguistique : Revue Internationale de
Linguistique Française 37(1). 25–46.

Haugen, Einar. 1966. Dialect, Language, Nation. American
Anthropologist 68(4). 922–935.
https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1966.68.4.02a00040.

Heine, Antje. 2020. Zwischen Grammatik und Lexikon. Ein
forschungsgeschichtlicher Blick auf Funktionsverbgefüge. In Sabine De
Knop & Manon Hermann (eds.), Funktionsverbgefüge im Fokus, 15–38.
Berlin ; Boston: Mouton De Gruyter.

Hengeveld, Kees. 2008. Functional discourse grammar: a
typologically-based theory of language structure (Oxford Linguistics).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2019. Delimiting the class: A typology of English
insubordination. In Karin Beijering, Gunther Kaltenböck & María
Sansinena (eds.), Insubordination (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and
Monographs), vol. 326, 167–198. Berlin ; Boston: Mouton De Gruyter.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110638288-006.

Luraghi, Silvia. 2003. On the meaning of prepositions and cases: the
expression of semantic roles in ancient Greek (Studies in Language
Companion Series). Vol. 67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language contact (Cambridge Textbooks in
Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mel’čuk, Igor. 2004. Verbes supports sans peine. Lingvisticæ
Investigationes 27(2). 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1075/li.27.2.05mel.

Milroy, James & Lesley Milroy. 2012. Authority in language:
investigating standard English (Routledge Linguistics Classics). 4th
ed. London: Routledge.

Rosén, Hannah. 2020. Composite predicates in the layers of Latin.
Journal of Latin Linguistics 19(2). 231–279.
https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2020-2009.

Schafroth, Elmar. 2020. Überlegungen zu Funktionsverbgefügen aus
sprachvergleichender Sicht. In Sabine De Knop & Manon Hermann (eds.),
Funktionsverbgefügen im FokusÖ Theoretische, didaktische und
kontrastive Perspektiven, 179–210. Berlin ; Boston: Mouton De Gruyter.

Sheinfux, Livnat, Tali Greshler, Nurit Melnik & Shuly Winter. 2019.
Verbal multiword expressions: Idiomaticity and flexibility. In Yannick
Parmentier & Jakub Waszczuk (eds.), Representing and parsing of
multiword expressions (Phraseology and Multiword Expressions), vol. 3,
35–68. Berlin: Language Science Press.

Shin, Soo-Song. 2001. On the event structure of -ung nominals in
German. Linguistics 39(2). 297–319.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

The present reviewer has a background in historical and contact
linguistics. Current research interests lie with periphrastic
structures and communicative strategies in corpus languages. The
present reviewer is currently holding a Leverhulme Early Career
Fellowship at the University of Oxford, which focuses on support-verb
constructions in literary classical Attic.



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

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List to support the student editors:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8

LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Bloomsbury Publishing http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Brill http://www.brill.com

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

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

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

Edinburgh University Press https://edinburghuniversitypress.com

Elsevier Ltd http://www.elsevier.com/linguistics

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

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

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

Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org

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

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

Wiley http://www.wiley.com


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-35-3401
----------------------------------------------------------