Volume 12 Issue 2 (2014)
DOI:10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.442
Note: Linguistic Discovery uses Unicode characters
to represent phonetic symbols. Please see Optimizing Display
for requirements to accurately reproduce this page.
Arguments and Adjuncts as Language-Particular Syntactic Categories
and as Comparative ConceptsMartin Haspelmath Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary
Anthropology In this short paper, I point out that there is a discrepancy
between the widespread assumption that “argument” and
“adjunct” should be seen as cross-linguistic categories and the
practice of providing language-particular tests for the distinction.
Language-particular criteria yield language-particular categories, which cannot
be readily compared across languages. I discuss a possible distinguishing
criterion (the pro-verb test) that might work cross-linguistically, though I
also note that it may not be universally applicable. Finally I note that
fortunately, the most important typological differences between languages
concern the coding of participants regardless of their status as arguments or
adjuncts, so that comparative concepts of argument and adjunct may not be so
important for cross-linguistic comparison. 1. The Basic
ClaimThe argument-adjunct distinction is generally regarded as a
very deep property of syntax, and is therefore considered to be part of general
linguistics, not only of the grammars of particular languages. This general
assumption is challenged in this paper, and some consequences are spelled out,
mostly from the perspective of the Leipzig valency patterns project (Hartmann et
al. 2013). The basic observation is that linguists often use language-particular
criteria for distinguishing arguments from adjuncts although the application of
such criteria only provides evidence for language-particular categories
(descriptive categories), not for universal categories. In order to compare arguments and adjuncts cross-linguistically, one
would need separate comparative concepts of arguments and of adjuncts. This does
not seem to have been previously recognized. It is not fully clear, however, how
one would define arguments and adjuncts from a comparative perspective, which
allows only basic concepts that are equally applicable to any language. One
proposal is discussed, and in the end I conclude that the distinction is perhaps
not as important for cross-linguistic studies as it may have seemed. 2. Arguments and Adjuncts as
Syntactic ElementsAt least since Tesnière (1959), the distinction
between two main kinds of non-predicate elements of the clause, arguments and
adjuncts, has been very widely recognized by linguists, even though the
terminology has become stable only relatively recently. The intuitive
distinction is very clear and easy to understand: In Tesnière’s
famous stage metaphor, arguments are the actors which really matter to the
action, and adjuncts are the props in the background. In simple textbook
examples like Kim sings folk songs in the bath (Tallerman 1998: 93-94),
it is very clear which elements are arguments and which are adjuncts. However, when it comes to giving syntactic criteria for argument and
adjunct status, well-known difficulties arise, which were discussed extensively
in the 1970s and later (e.g. Engel 1977, Vater 1978, Somers 1984). One point of view is that the argument/adjunct distinction is a semantic
distinction, as seems to have been implicit in Tesnière’s original
discussion. Thus, Van Valin (2001: 93) says that a nominal is an argument, not
an adjunct, if it is a semantic argument, i.e. an element that is conceptually
necessary to saturate the predicate. And according to Farrell (2005: 31),
“the basic idea is that arguments express defining elements of the process
or state designated by the verb” (similarly Carnie 2002: 166). Such an
approach is adopted very explicitly by Schikowski et al. (2014) in their work on
Chintang valency: “we use a strictly semantic definition of argumenthood:
referential phrases instantiate arguments iff their existence and role is
logically entailed by the semantics of the lexical predicate and cannot be
derived from any other element in the linguistic or nonlinguistic context”
(Schikowski, Paudyal and Bickel 2014) But it has been widely recognized that there is often a discrepancy
between “semantic valency” and syntactic valency, so that the two
cannot be equated. In particular, it is often the case that a semantically
necessary participant cannot be expressed syntactically. For example, the
Russian verb molčat’
‘remain silent’ does not allow the syntactic expression of the
addressee role, even though conceptually this role is necessary and the referent
has to be inferred from the context (Apresjan 1974: 147-148). Conversely,
linguists often say that passive agents, which are semantically necessary
participants just as active agents, are adjuncts (e.g. Van Valin 2001: 93), so
on this view passivization would be syntactic valency reduction without semantic
change. Similarly, valency augmentation need not involve a semantic change;
thus, German befahren ‘drive (on)’, which requires an
Accusative object (e.g. Sie befahren die Straße ‘They drive
on the street’), does not have a meaning that is really different from
fahren ‘drive’. Dummy arguments such as it in it
rains are also instances of discrepancies between semantic necessity and
syntactic argumenthood. Thus, in this paper I deal with arguments and adjuncts as syntactic
elements, and I ask how they could be identified within a language and across
languages. But before doing this, I will briefly discuss the question why we
should make this distinction in the first place. 3. Why Distinguish Arguments and
Adjuncts?Syntax textbooks often present the argument-adjunct
distinction as if it required no further justification, something that students
need to learn about simply because many people use these terms. But they also
often admit that the distinction is problematic. So do why do we need the
distinction in the first place? Interestingly, it seems that the need for such a distinction is more
practical than theoretical. Levin & Rappaport Hovav’s (2005)
authoritative overview of theoretical approaches to argument realization hardly
mentions the distinction, and many grammatical descriptions of languages get by
without it. The original impetus for a more wide-ranging discussion of the
issues seems to have come from language teaching: Helbig & Schenkel’s
(1969) dictionary of German verb valency derived from the needs of teaching
German as a foreign language. The authors realized that their students made
errors of valency and decided to address the problem systematically, by
recording the valency information for every German verb. This reminds us of the basic rationale for distinguishing arguments from
adjuncts: Arguments are verb-specific and thus have to be learned together with
each verb, whereas the use of adjuncts is independent of particular
verbs. However, not all arguments are equally verb-specific. Some are quite
idiosyncratic and are not predictable at all from the verb’s meaning. For
example, that rely requires an argument with on (rely on
something) while succeed requires an argument with in
(succeed in doing something) has to be learned as a set of idiosyncratic
facts. But that agents are generally realized as subjects and patients as
objects is far more systematic, approaching the systematicity of instrument
expression by with. English is quite typical in this regard, and
impressionistically even seems to have more cases of idiosyncratic valency than
other languages. So for practical purposes, it would perhaps be sufficient to list the
idiosyncratically expressed arguments of those verbs that have them. And for
languages that have fewer (or perhaps no) verbs with idiosyncratic valency, the
relevance of the argument-adjunct distinction would not be as high. 4. Language-Particular Criteria
for the Argument-Adjunct DistinctionSyntax textbooks and more theoretical works are full of
language-particular criteria for distinguishing between arguments and adjuncts.
This section lists a few more or less random examples of such criteria. It would
be easy to multiply them. Helbig & Schenkel (1969: 32) observe that in German, adverbial
adjuncts such as am Vormittag ‘in the morning’ may occur in
post-participle position (in the postfield, after the sentence bracket), while
adverbial arguments (such as dorthin ‘there’ in (1)) may
not:
| a. | Du | {hast | das | Buch | am | Vormittag | dorthin | gelegt}. |
|
| you | have | the | book | in | pre-noon | there | put.PTCP |
| b. | Du | {hast | das | Buch | dorthin | gelegt} | am | Vormittag. |
|
| you | have | the | book | there | put.PTCP | in | pre-noon |
| c. | *Du | {hast | das | Buch | am | Vormittag | gelegt} | dorthin. |
|
| you | have | the | book | in | pre-noon | put.PTCP | there |
|
| ‘You put the book there in the morning.’ |
A similar language-particular word-order criterion is cited by Farell
(2005: 35-36) for Tagalog: Only adjuncts such as para kay Pedro
‘for Pedro’ may be preposed to preverbal position: (2) | Tagalog |
| a. | Para | kay | Pedro | ko | binili | ang | libro-ng | ito. |
|
| for | ART | Pedro | 1SG.GEN | bought | NOM | book-LINKER | this |
|
| ‘For Pedro, this book was bought by me.’ |
| b. | *Ang | libro-ng | ito | ko | binili | para | kay | Pedro. |
|
| NOM | book-LINKER | this | 1SG.GEN | bought | for | ART | Pedro |
|
| ‘This book was bought by me for Pedro.’ |
And likewise for English, Kay (2005: 92) notes that adverbial adjuncts
can be readily preposed, while adverbial arguments are much more
restricted: (3) | English |
| a. | In the closet, the top was spinning. |
| b. | *Off the table, the top was spinning. |
Sometimes different relativization strategies are cited. For example,
for Sliammon, a Salishan language, Watanabe (2014) observes that oblique phrases
which are arguments (“oblique objects”) are relativized without a
special marker (cf. 4), while adjunct (“non-core”) oblique phrases
are relativized by means of the nominalizing proclitic əxʷ=
(cf. 5). The subject of the relative clause is marked as a
possessor. (4) | ʔəy-sxʷ-Ø-mut=č
| tə=pəču | [həy-ʔəm-θ-ʔu-s] |
| good-CAUS-3OBJ-very=1SG.INDC.SBJ | DET=basket | make-IND-TR.1SG.OBJ-PAST-3POSS |
| ‘I like the basket she made for me.’ (Lit. I like the
basket [her having made for me]) |
(5) | ʔəy-sxʷ-Ø-mut-as | šə=ʔayaʔ | [əxʷ=θu-ʔu-s] |
| good-CAUS-3OBJ-very-3ERG | DET=house | NOM-go-PAST-3POSS |
| ‘I like the house to which he went.’ (Lit. ‘I like
the house [her having gone]’) |
In other cases, authors appeal to very simple coding properties of
clausal elements. Thus, Margetts (2002: 614) says that arguments in Saliba (an
Oceanic language of Papua New Guinea) lack postpositions, while adjuncts have
postpositions. Thus, in (6) the recipient phrase ‘to Maria’ is an
adjunct, because of the postpositional flagging. (6) | Saliba (Margetts 2002: 629) |
| Leta | wa | ye | hetamali | Maria | unai. |
| letter | the | 3SG | send | Maria | to |
| ‘He sent the letter to Maria.’ |
5. Language-Particular Criteria
Define Descriptive CategoriesIt needs to be kept in mind that the language-particular
criteria for argument-adjunct distinctions in different languages that we saw in
the last section give us language-particular categories. “Arguments”
as defined by word-order criteria in German are not the same thing as
“arguments” as defined by relativization in Sliammon, for example.
Thus, these are not notions of general linguistics, but notions of
language-particular descriptive linguistics. This simple fact seems to be overlooked routinely by linguists. Very
commonly they seem to assume that arguments and adjuncts are concepts that must
be relevant for all languages, that exist universally, even though in some
languages they are somewhat hidden and can be discovered only by
linguists’ ingenuity, using different criteria in different languages. But
different criteria yield different categories, even if we use the same labels
(“argument”, “adjunct”) to describe these categories.
Thus, the kinds of criteria that we saw in §4 are relevant only in
language-particular contexts, and not in general discussions of arguments,
adjuncts or valency as features of human language.
However, there is a conceivable alternative to the above conclusion:
“Argument” and “adjunct” could be cross-linguistic
categories that (at least potentially) exist in all languages and whose
existence is independent of language-particular criteria, probably because they
are innate categories of Universal Grammar (UG). Such a view is fact fairly
widespread with respect to grammatical features of various sorts, especially in
generative grammar and other restrictivist approaches (cf. Haspelmath 2014 for
discussion of restrictivist vs. non-apriorist approaches). But if that is the
case, the tests for argumenthood and adjuncthood that we saw in §4 are not
defining criteria, but are merely “diagnostics” that help us draw a
distinction that is somehow established independently. As was explained clearly
by Zwicky (1985) and discussed recently in Haspelmath (2014+), generative
linguists generally refrain from defining the categories they work with because
they see these categories not as tools for language description by linguists,
but as innate elements of the language system. Linguists can use whatever hints
they find to detect these pre-established categories in particular languages. In
particular, they can use different tests for different languages, somewhat like
doctors can use different symptoms in different patients to diagnose a disease
(Zwicky 1985). But of course, the argument-adjunct distinction is not a prominent
category in generative grammar. Phrase structure principles such as traditional
X-bar theory make a distinction between specifiers (sisters of X´ and
daughters of XP) and complements (sisters of X). Phrase-structure adjuncts, i.e.
sisters of X´ that are also daughters of X´ (Carnie 2008: 122), play
a much less prominent role, and there is only a rather tenuous relationship
between such phrase-structural objects and what has been called
“adjunct” in the non-generative literature. Thus, I would assume that most of the authors who propose
language-particular criteria for distinguishing between arguments and adjuncts
as in §4 do not have in mind any generative or otherwise innate concept.
Their criteria therefore give us language-particular categories. 6. Arguments and Adjuncts as
Comparative Concepts?To carry out cross-linguistic research, linguists need
comparative concepts (Haspelmath 2010), i.e. concepts that are applicable in the
same way to all languages, using the same criteria. Thus, if we want to study
valency cross-linguistically, we need to identify arguments and distinguish them
from adjuncts in a way that is comparable across languages. In bringing together
the authors of the Valency Patterns Leipzig (ValPaL) database (Hartmann et al.
2013), we were aware of this, and we proposed a definition of argument that we
hoped would be applicable to any language. We defined “argument” in
the following way: An argument of a verb is a phrase whose occurrence is made
possible by a specific verb, and which therefore cannot occur with a generic
verb. This can be tested by attempting to move a phrase into a neighbouring
clause with an anaphoric verb, as shown in (1a, 1c). Adjuncts, by contrast, are
not tied to particular verbs and can therefore be moved out into a clause with
an anaphoric verb (1b, 1d): (1) a. I wrote a letter. > *I wrote, and I did a letter.
b. I wrote with a pen. > I wrote, and I did it with a pen.
c. I put the book on the table. *I put the book, and this
happened on the table. d. I wrote the letter on the table. > I wrote the letter,
and this happened on the table. This way of identifying arguments has often been used in the
literature on valency. An early application to a language other than German or
English is Happ (1976). This author gives the paradigm in (7-8). (7) | a. | Trimalchio | bibit | totam | noctem. |
|
| Trimalchio | drinks | all.ACC | night.ACC |
|
| ‘Trimalchio drinks all night.’ |
| b. | Trimalchio | bibit | et | id | facit | totam | noctem. |
|
| Trimalchio | drinks | and | this | does | all.ACC | night.ACC |
|
| ‘Trimalchio drinks, and he does this all night.’ |
(8) | a. | Trimalchio | bibit | aquam. |
|
| Trimalchio | drinks | water.ACC |
|
| ‘Trimalchio drinks water.’ |
| b. | *Trimalchio | bibit | et | id | facit | aquam. |
|
| Trimalchio | drinks | and | this | does | water.ACC |
|
| ‘*Trimalchio drinks, and he does this water.’ |
We assumed that all languages have anaphoric verbs of one
kind or the other, just as all languages have anaphoric nominal expressions, so
that this test should be applicable universally, and should yield a comparative
concept of argument that can be applied to all languages, so that we can compare
languages with respect to their valencies without assuming a pre-established,
innate notion of argument, and without appealing to semantic criteria
exclusively. This test sometimes gives results that are not fully in line with what
one would expect on the basis of semantic criteria. Thus, the German “free
Dative” (expressing a beneficiary, similar to the preposition
für) turns out to be an argument according to this
criterion: (9) | a. | Er | hat | für | mich | einen | Kuchen | gebacken. |
|
| he | has | for | me | a | cake | baked |
|
| ‘He baked a cake for me.’ |
| b. | Er | hat | einen | Kuchen | gebacken, | und |
|
| he | has | a | cake | baked | and |
|
| das | hat | er | für | mich | getan. | das | hat | das |
|
| that | has | he | for | me | done | that | has | that |
|
| ‘He baked a cake, and he did this for me.’ |
(10) | a. | Er | hat | mir | einen | Kuchen | gebacken. |
|
| he | has | me.DAT | a | cake | baked |
|
| ‘He baked me a cake.’ |
| b. | *Er | hat | einen | Kuchen | gebacken, | und | das | hat | er | mir | getan. |
|
| he | has | a | cake | baked | and | that | has | he | me.DAT | done |
|
| ‘*He baked a cake, and he did me this.’ |
|
From a semantic point of view, the free Dative has usually
been regarded as a non-essential element, so the test does not seem to be
sensitive exclusively to semantic features in German. However, it appears that the expectation that all languages allow this
criterion was too optimistic. At least one author of the forthcoming handbook of
valency, Frank Seifart, notes that in Bora, it is not possible to apply this
test (Seifart 2014), and even in Russian anaphoric verbs like do so or
do it seem to sound unnatural (Andrej Malchukov, p.c.). We definitely
need more discussion of the issue of how to define arguments
cross-linguistically, so the jury is still out, but it may be that no good
cross-linguistic definition of arguments and adjuncts as syntactic elements that
largely coincides with our intuitions will be possible. 7. Comparing Valency without a
Comparative Concept of ArgumentFortunately, it turns out that it is possible to compare
important aspects of participant expression across languages without using a
well-defined notion of argument.
Even though in Hartmann et al. (2013) we set out to compare the valency patterns across languages
(in the spirit of Tsunoda (1985) and Malchukov (2005)), in reality we were
interested primarily in the expression of a fairly circumscribed number of
participants, namely those that have theme, patient, experiencer and stimulus
roles and the like. Agents and locations are expressed very uniformly across
languages, and we neither expected nor found anything particularly surprising in
the ValPaL database with respect to their expression. Likewise, instruments tend
to behave quite uniformly. So it is precisely those kinds of partcipants whose
status as arguments is the most contentious (locations, instruments, passive
agents) that are expressed in the least variable way. In practice, we proceeded as follows: We gave the language experts that
filled in our questionnaire a list of verb meanings, each with a set of possible
or likely roles, described by means of English labels and role frames, as well
as English example sentences, as in (11). (11) | a. | LIKE | E likes M | The boy liked his new toy. |
| b. | WASH | A washes P | The mother washed the baby. |
| c. | LEAVE | A left L | The boy left the village. |
| d. | TAKE | A takes P (from X) | The man took the money from his friend. |
| e. | CARRY | A carries T (to X) | The men carried the boxes to the market. |
| f. | CUT | A cuts P (with I) | The woman cut the bread with a sharp knife. |
In the “role frames” (in the second column), we
parenthesized some of the possible roles, because we thought that they might be
less essential, but we did not ascribe any significance to this. The
contributors were supposed to decide independently whether a participant is an
argument (and thus included in the verb’s valency frame) or an adjunct
(and thus not included). But the results were not particularly consistent, and we realized that
in general, the authors of ValPaL did not seem to have good independent reasons
for including a participant or leaving it out. In many cases, they seem to have
simply followed our role frames and included all those participants in the
valency frame that we included in the role frame. However, for our goal of capturing salient differences between
languages, this did not matter much, because the salient differences concern the
participants with theme, patient, experiencer and stimulus roles (and the like),
and these are always included in the role frames. There are two primary ways in
which argument coding can be compared readily on the basis of ValPaL
data. On the one hand, we can look at the coding of individual participant
roles, which we call “microroles” (Van Valin’s 2001: 29
“verb-specific semantic roles”). Thus, we can ask whether the
‘helpee’ role and the ‘hittee’ role is expressed in the
same way (as in English) or is expressed differently (as in Russian), and so on.
In Hartmann et al. (2014), we call this approach “microrole
alignment”. On the other hand, we can group the participants in our valency frames
into argument types such as A and P (Haspelmath 2011), where A is defined as an
argument that is coded like the ‘breaker’ participant of the
‘break’ verb, and P is defined as an argument that is coded like the
‘broken thing’ participant, when both of these are expressed
simultaneously. In Haspelmath & Hartmann (2014+), we show that some of the
previous ideas about transitivity prominence are confirmed by our ValPaL data,
while others are not confirmed. Again, these are very interesting and relevant
results, but they do not depend crucially on a distinction between arguments and
adjuncts at a cross-linguistic level, let alone at a language-particular
level. Thus, even though we began the valency patterns project with the
assumption that valency could be identified in all languages, my current view is
somewhat closer to Jacobs’s (1994) deconstruction of the
“valency” concept. According to Jacobs, the original valency concept
really consists of seven different (though not unrelated) concepts:
obligatoriness, involvement, semantic necessity, exocentricity, formal
specificity, selectional restrictions, and associatedness. What we have been
able to study in our comparative work is the “formal specificity” of
many of the verbs’ participants, even without a clear comparative concept
of “argument”. And perhaps this is all we need. If we were able to identify arguments
and adjuncts in a clear and unambiguous (and intuitively satisfying) way across
languages, we would be able to ask further questions, e.g. whether verbs tend to
have more arguments in some languages than in others. We cannot ask such
questions with our current data, but maybe there is no great loss. After all,
nobody has suggested “number of arguments per verb” as a typological
parameter. ReferencesApresjan, Jurij Derenikovič. 1974.
Leksičeskaja semantika: sinonimičeskie sredstva jazyka. Moskva:
Nauka. Carnie, Andrew. 2002. Syntax: a generative introduction. Malden,
MA: Blackwell. -----. 2008. Constituent structure. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. Engel, Ulrich. 1977. Syntax der deutschen Gegenwartssprache.
Berlin: E. Schmidt. Farrell, Patrick. 2005. Grammatical relations. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Happ, H. 1976. Grundfragen einer Dependenz-Grammatik des
Lateinischen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Hartmann, Iren, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.) 2013.
Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: MPI for Evolutionary
Anthropology. Hartmann, Iren, Martin Haspelmath & Michael Cysouw. 2014.
Identifying semantic role clusters and alignment types via microrole
coexpression tendencies. Studies in Language. doi:10.1075/sl.38.3.02har Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive
categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language
86/3.663–687. doi:10.1353/lan.2010.0021 -----. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for
alignment typology. Lingustic Typology 15/3.535–567 doi:10.1515/lity.2011.035
-----. 2014. Comparative syntax. The Routledge Handbook of Syntax,
ed. by Andrew Carnie, Yosuke Sato, and Dan Siddiqi, 490-508.
-----. 2014+. Defining vs. diagnosing linguistics categories: a
case study of clitic phenomena. Categories, ed. by Joanna
Błaszczak. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Haspelmath, Martin & Iren Hartmann. 2014+. How widespread is
transitive encoding? Forthcoming. Helbig, Gerhard and Wolfgang Schenkel. 1969. Wörterbuch zur
Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben. Leipzig: Bibliographisches
Institut. Jacobs, Joachim. 1994. Kontra Valenz. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher
Verlag Trier. Kay, Paul. 2005. Argument structure constructions and the
argument-adjunct distinction. Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots, ed.
by Mirjam Fried and Hans Christian Boas, 71–98. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument realization.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Malchukov, Andrej. 2005. Case pattern splits, verb types, and
construction competition. Competition and variation in natural languages: The
case for case, ed. by Mengistu Amberber and Helen de Hoop, 73–117. London:
Elsevier. Schikowski, Robert, Netra P. Paudyal, and Balthasar Bickel. 2014.
Valency classes in Chintang. Valency classes: a comparative handbook, ed. by
Bernard Comrie and Andrej L. Malchukov. Berlin: De Gruyter
Mouton. Seifart, Frank. 2014. Valency classes in Bora (Peru). Valency
classes: a comparative handbook, ed. by Bernard Comrie and Andrej L. Malchukov.
Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Tallerman, Maggie. 1998. Understanding syntax. London:
Arnold. Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Éléments de syntaxe
structurale. Paris: Klincksieck. Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1985. Remarks on transitivity. Journal of
Linguistics 21.385-396. doi:10.1017/s0022226700010318 Van Valin, Robert D. 2001. An introduction to syntax. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Vater, Heinz. 1978. On the possibility of distinguishing between
complements and adjuncts. Valence, semantic case and grammatical relations, vol.
1, ed. by Werner Abraham, 21–45. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Watanabe, Honore. 2014. Valency classes in Sliammon. Valency
classes: a comparative handbook, ed. by Bernard Comrie and Andrej L. Malchukov.
Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Clitics and particles. Language
61/2.283–305. doi:10.2307/414146 Author’s Contact Information: Martin Haspelmath
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6
04103 Leipzig
Germany
haspelmath@eva.mpg.de |