exploring linear contiguity - the overlapping...

Exploring linear contiguity

The overlapping decomposition

Pavel Caha

Introduction

1/53

Introduction

Syncretism

2/53

Introduction

Syncretism

• one form, multiple functions: you (sg. or pl.)

2/53

Introduction

Syncretism


• [ADDRESSEE] vs. [ADDRESSEE + OTHERS]

2/53

Introduction

Syncretism



• underspecification (traditional): you = ADDRESSEE

2/53

Introduction

Syncretism




• overspecification (Starke 2009): you = ADDRESSEE + OTHERS

2/53

Introduction

Syncretism





This talk:

• look at Blansitt’s generalization (a *ABA type of generalization)

2/53

Introduction

Syncretism





This talk:


• introduce a new type of decomposition

2/53

Introduction

Syncretism





This talk:



• can be captured by overspecification

2/53

Introduction

Syncretism





This talk:



• can be captured by overspecification

• impossible to capture by underspecification

2/53

The pattern

3/53

Datives, allatives, locatives

4/53


dative = recipient

allative = goal of motion

locative = place where

4/53


dative = recipient

allative = goal of motion

locative = place where

(1) Basque (Hualde & de Urbina 2003, 856, 412, 392)

a. NikI

alta-ri

father-dat

etaand

ama-ri

mother-dat

opariagift

emangive

diet.aux

‘I’ve given a gift to my father and mother.’ Recipient

b. XabierXabier

bulego-ra

office-all

dietucall

dute.aux

‘They called Xavier to the office.’ Goal

c. PatxikPatxi

soro-an

field-loc

gariawheat

ereinsow

du.aux

‘Patxi sowed wheat in the field.’ Location4/53

Blansitt’s generalization

Blansitt (1988) notes that “the functions

(2) dative – allative – locative

can be identically marked only if the identically marked functions

are contiguous in the order shown.”

5/53






(3) Syncretism patterns and Blansitt’s generalization

dative allative locative

attested

5/53








attested

attested

5/53








attested

attested

attested

5/53








attested

attested

attested

not attested A B A5/53

DAT = ALL = LOC

(4) Japanese (Takamine 2010, 55, 57)

a. Taro-gaTaro-nom

tomodach-ni

friend-dat

hon-obook-acc

ageta.gave

‘Taro gave a book to his friend.’ Recipient

b. Kodomotachi-wachildren-top

futatu-notwo.cl-gen

kooen-ni

park-all

itta.went

‘The children went to two parks.’ Goal

c. Akiyama & Akiyama (2002, 51)

Ginza-waGinza-top

Tokyo-ni

Tokyo-loc

arimasu.is

‘Ginza is in Tokyo.’ Location

6/53

DAT = ALL 6= LOC

(5) Pite Saami (Wilbur 2014, 86-7, 90)

a. Vaddagive.imp

Jåssjå-jJosh-dat

aj.too

‘Give (one) to Josh, too!’ Recipient

b. Danow

vuodjadrive.3pl

bijla-jncar.com

Ornvika-j.Ornvika-all

‘Now one drives to Ornvika by car.’ Goal

c. Vágge-nvalley-loc

Sálvo-jåhkkåSálvo-creek.nom.sg

l.is

‘Sálvo Creek is in the valley.’ Location

7/53

DAT 6= ALL = LOC

(6) Dime (Seyoum 2008, 47, 55, 152)

a. Paté1.sg

šiftay-inshiftaye-dat

mesáf-imbook-acc

Pim-tub.give-fut

‘I will give the book to Shiftaye.’ Recipient

b. KEnédog

Péh-óhouse-loc

ýiz-i-n.run-pf-3

‘A dog ran home.’ Goal

c. Ńits-ischild-def

Péh-óhouse-loc

dán.cop

‘The child is in the house’ Location

8/53

What is excluded

(7) Pseudo English (*ABA)

a. He gave the book in Mary.

b. He went to the pub.

c. He lives in New York.

9/53

What is excluded

(7) Pseudo English (AAB)

a. He gave the book to Mary.

b. He went to the pub.

c. He lives in New York.

9/53

Blansitt’s sample

71 genetically unrelated languages: Accoli, Adamawa, Alawa, Awa,

Basque, Bimoba, Birom, Cambodian, Chagatay, Chrau, Dehu, Dinka,

English, French, Gidabal, Grebo, Guaraní, Gumbaynnggir, Guugu

Yimiddhir, Hopi, Hungarian, Iai, Izi, Jalanga, Kalkatungu, Kamasu,

Kapau, Kirghiz, Khasi, Kunjen, Kurdish, Kwanga, Lamani, Lithuanian,

Manambu, Mandak, Maranungku, Mixteco, Moroccan Arabic,

Orokaiva, Papago, Parji, Pengo, Quichua, Quiotepec Chinantec,

Raramuri, Resigaro, Ronga, Sebe, Shuar, Shuswap, Spanish, Somali,

Southern Sierra Miwok, Tahitian, Tamazight, Tarascan, Tatar, Tboli,

Tigrinya, Tlingit, Turkish, Warao, Welsh, Yele.

10/53

Blansitt’s sample

71 genetically unrelated languages: Accoli, Adamawa, Alawa, Awa,

Basque, Bimoba, Birom, Cambodian, Chagatay, Chrau, Dehu, Dinka,

English, French, Gidabal, Grebo, Guaraní, Gumbaynnggir, Guugu

Yimiddhir, Hopi, Hungarian, Iai, Izi, Jalanga, Kalkatungu, Kamasu,

Kapau, Kirghiz, Khasi, Kunjen, Kurdish, Kwanga, Lamani, Lithuanian,

Manambu, Mandak, Maranungku, Mixteco, Moroccan Arabic,

Orokaiva, Papago, Parji, Pengo, Quichua, Quiotepec Chinantec,

Raramuri, Resigaro, Ronga, Sebe, Shuar, Shuswap, Spanish, Somali,

Southern Sierra Miwok, Tahitian, Tamazight, Tarascan, Tatar, Tboli,

Tigrinya, Tlingit, Turkish, Warao, Welsh, Yele.

A related study by Rice & Kabata (2007) confirms the findings.

10/53

*ABA: The standard approach

11/53

Root suppletion in degree morphology

The comparative-superlative generalisation I: (Bobaljik 2012)

If the comparative degree of an adjective is suppletive, then the

superlative degree is also suppletive (i.e. with respect to the

positive).

12/53





positive).

(8) Root suppletion patterns

positive comparative superlative

not attested A B A

12/53





positive).

(8) Root suppletion patterns

positive comparative superlative

not attested A B A

attested smart smart-er smart-est

attested bad worse wors-t

allowed12/53

Nesting structures

(9) positive

AP

A

(10) comparative

CmprP

Cmpr AP

A

(11) superlative

SprlP

Sprl CmprP

Cmpr AP

A

13/53

Nesting structures

(9) positive

AP

A

(10) comparative

CmprP

Cmpr AP

A

(11) superlative

SprlP

Sprl CmprP

Cmpr AP

A

(12) star-(ý) (old) — star-š-(í) (older)

13/53

Nesting structures

(9) positive

AP

A

(10) comparative

CmprP

Cmpr AP

A

(11) superlative

SprlP

Sprl CmprP

Cmpr AP

A

(12) star-(ý) (old) — star-š-(í) (older) — nej-star-š-(í) (oldest)

13/53

The syncretism-containment conjecture


*ABA suggests a decomposition of the relevant categories into

‘nesting structures.’

14/53



*ABA suggests a decomposition of the relevant categories into

‘nesting structures.’

participles Starke (2009)

case Caha (2009); Harðarson (2016); Zompì (2017)

directionals Pantcheva (2011)

case/numberMoskal (2015); Smith et al. (2015)

negation De Clercq (2013)

wh-pronouns Vangsnes (2013)

demonstratives Lander & Haegeman (2016)

personal pronouns Vanden Wyngaerd (2017)

complementizers Baunaz (2017)14/53

Applying the idea to BG: option I

(13) Blansitt’s Generalisation: Dat — All — Loc

15/53

Applying the idea to BG: option I

(13) Blansitt’s Generalisation: Dat — All — Loc

(14) dative

DatP

Dat

(15) allative

AllP

All DatP

Dat

(16) locative

LocP

Loc AllP

All DatP

Dat

15/53

Applying the idea to BG: option II

(17) Blansitt’s Generalisation: Loc — All — Dat

16/53



(18) locative

LocP

Loc

(19) allative

AllP

All LocP

Loc

(20) allative

DatP

Dat AllP

All LocP

Loc

16/53



(18) locative

LocP

Loc

(19) allative

AllP

All LocP

Loc

(20) allative

DatP

Dat AllP

All LocP

Loc

However, both of these options fail when containment is

considered. 16/53

Containment

17/53

Tigrinya

(21) The distribution of markers in Tigrinya


form ne nab ab

18/53

Tigrinya



form ne ne+ab ab

18/53

Tigrinya



form ne ne+ab ab

ab

ne

18/53

Macedonian

(22) Macedonian: dat-loc-N

a. Tomič (2006, 78)Muhim.dat

goit.acc

dalgave

podarokotpresent.def

na

dat

sinason

i.her

‘He gave the present to her son.’ Recipient

b. Pantcheva (2011, 36)OdamI-go

na

dat

kaj

loc

parkot.park

‘I am going to the park.’ Goal

c. Kaj

loc

parkotpark.def

sum.am

‘I am at the park.’ Location

19/53

Waris

(23) Waris: N-loc-dat (Brown 1988, 44, 46, 55)

a. Him-bahe-top

bukubook

ka-mI-dat

vrahoi.gave

‘He just gave me a book.’ Recipient

b. Deuv-ra-m

house-loc-dat

Luk-ina-m

Luke-loc-dat

ka-vaI-top

ga-v.go-pres

‘I go to Luke’s house.’ Goal

c. Ovlaknife

deuv-ra

house-loc

ka-ina

I-loc

dihel-v.exist-pres

‘The knife is at my house’ (lit. at house at me). Location

20/53

Malayalam

(24) Malayalam: N-loc-dat (Asher & Kumari 1997, 107, 113)

a. HaniphaHanifa

eni-kk@

I-dat

iithis

pustakanbook

tannu.gave

‘Hanifa gave me this book.’ Recipient

b. Kiíihaí

birdskunúú-ilee-kk@

nest-loc-dat

parannufly-pp

pookunnu.go.pres

‘The birds fly to their nests.’ Goal

c. Viiúú-ilhouse-loc

aarokkewho all

uïú@?be.pres

‘Who are there at home?’ Location

21/53

Tsez

(25) Tsez essives and allatives (Comrie & Polinsky 1998, 104)

essive allative dative

in -a -a-r -r

among -λ -λ-er -r

on (horizontal) -ň’(o) -ň’o-r -r

under -ň -ň-er -r

at -x(o) -xo-r -r

near -de -de-r -r

on (vertical) -qo -qo-r -r

22/53

Iatmul

(26) Iatmul: N-dat-loc (Staalsen 1965, 10, 21)

a. Kooda-koot

who-dat

viyoo-a?hit-1st.dual

‘For whom did we two hit?’ Recipient

b. gay-koot-ba

house-dat-loc

‘to the house’ Goal

c. gay-ba

house-loc

‘in the house’ Location

23/53

Summary

(27) The ALL tends to be composed of the DAT and the LOC

24/53

Summary


a. dat-loc-N (Tigrinya, Macedonian)

24/53

Summary



b. N-loc-dat (Malayalam,Waris, Tsez)

24/53

Summary




c. N-dat-loc (Iatmul)

24/53

Summary





(28) BG: DAT – ALL – LOC

The nesting structures won’t work for this case.

24/53

Summary





(28) BG: DAT – ALL – LOC

The nesting structures won’t work for this case.

There must be more ways to *ABA.

24/53

Capturing containment

25/53


(29) Decomposing the Tigrinya forms


[b] [a,b] [a]

ab = [a] ab

ne = [b] ne

form ne ne+ab ab

26/53


(29) Decomposing the Tigrinya forms


[b] [a,b] [a]

ab = [a] ab

ne = [b] ne

form ne ne+ab ab

There is a similar proposal in Bobaljik & Sauerland (2017).

26/53

In tree format

The allative denotes a path leading to location (Jackendoff 1983;

Koopman 2000; van Riemsdijk & Huybregts 2002; Zwarts 2005;

den Dikken 2003; Cinque 2010; Svenonius 2010)

(30) locative

a

loc

NP

...N...

allative

b

dat

locative

a

loc

NP

...N...

27/53

In tree format

The allative denotes a path leading to location (Jackendoff 1983;

Koopman 2000; van Riemsdijk & Huybregts 2002; Zwarts 2005;

den Dikken 2003; Cinque 2010; Svenonius 2010)

(30) locative

a

loc

NP

...N...

allative

b

dat

locative

a

loc

NP

...N...

dative

b

dat

NP

...N...

The dative denotes a path leading to an individual

27/53

Explaining Containment I

(31) a. Macedonian

allative

b

na

locative

a

kaj

NP

...N...

28/53

Explaining Containment I

(31) a. Macedonian

allative

b

na

locative

a

kaj

NP

...N...

b. Waris

allative

locative

NP

...N...

a

ina

b

m

28/53

Explaining Containment II

(32)

NP

gay

allative

b

koot

locative

a

ba

NP

gay

• See Cinque (2005), Abels & Neeleman (2009)

29/53

Capturing syncretism

30/53

Preliminaries

(33) Xabier bulego-ra dietu dute.

Xabier office-all call aux


31/53

Preliminaries




(34)

NP

gay

allative

b

koot

locative

a

ba

NP

gay

31/53

Preliminaries




(34)

NP

bulego

allative⇒ ra

b locative

a NP

bulego

31/53

Preliminaries




(34)

NP

bulego

allative⇒ ra

b locative

a NP

bulego

(35) ra⇔ ba

31/53

Preliminaries




(34)

NP

bulego

allative⇒ ra

b locative

a NP

bulego

(35) ra⇔ ba

(36) a. ALL = [A, B]

b. LOC = [A]

c. DAT = [B]

31/53

Basque (no syncretism)(37) a. LOC⇔ [A]

b. DAT⇔ [B]

c. ALL⇔ [A, B]

32/53


b. DAT⇔ [B]

c. ALL⇔ [A, B]

(38) Overspecification (The Superset Principle):

Lexical items spell out any node they are a superset of.

32/53


b. DAT⇔ [B]

c. ALL⇔ [A, B]



(39) Competition in Basque


[b] [a,b] [a]

DAT⇔ [b]

32/53


b. DAT⇔ [B]

c. ALL⇔ [A, B]





[b] [a,b] [a]

DAT⇔ [b]

LOC⇔ [a]

32/53


b. DAT⇔ [B]

c. ALL⇔ [A, B]





[b] [a,b] [a]

DAT⇔ [b]

LOC⇔ [a]

ALL⇔ [a b]

32/53


b. DAT⇔ [B]

c. ALL⇔ [A, B]





[b] [a,b] [a]

DAT⇔ [b]

LOC⇔ [a]

ALL⇔ [a b]

after competition DAT ALL LOC 32/53

Japanese (DAT=ALL=LOC)

(40) ni⇔ [a, b]

33/53


(40) ni⇔ [a, b]

(41) No competition in Japanese


[b] [a,b] [a]

-ni⇔ [ a b ]

insertion -ni -ni -ni

33/53

Pite Saami (DAT=ALL 6=LOC)

34/53


(42) Competition in Pite Saami


[b] [a,b] [a]

-j⇔ [ a b ]

34/53




[b] [a,b] [a]

-j⇔ [ a b ]

-n⇔ [ a ]

34/53




[b] [a,b] [a]

-j⇔ [ a b ]

-n⇔ [ a ]

after competition -j -j -n

34/53

Dime (DAT 6=ALL=LOC)

35/53


(43) Competition in Dime


[b] [a,b] [a]

-ó⇔ [ b a ]

35/53




[b] [a,b] [a]

-ó⇔ [ b a ]

-in⇔ [ b ]

35/53




[b] [a,b] [a]

-ó⇔ [ b a ]

-in⇔ [ b ]

after competition -in -ó -ó

35/53

*ABA

36/53

*ABA

(44) No way to ABA


[b] [a,b] [a]

A⇔ [ a b ]

36/53

*ABA

(44) No way to ABA


[b] [a,b] [a]

A⇔ [ a b ]

B

36/53

*ABA

(44) No way to ABA


[b] [a,b] [a]

A⇔ [ a b ]

B

after competition -A -B -A

36/53

*ABA

(44) No way to ABA


[b] [a,b] [a]

A⇔ [ a b ]

B

after competition -A -B -A

(45) However, B is impossible: B⇔ [ a b ]

36/53

Underspecification fails

37/53


38/53


(46) Japanese


[b] [a,b] [a]

-ni⇔ [K ø]

38/53


(46) Japanese


[b] [a,b] [a]

-ni⇔ [K ø]

insertion -ni -ni -ni

38/53


39/53




[b] [a,b] [a]

-n⇔ [K ø]

39/53




[b] [a,b] [a]

-n⇔ [K ø]

-j⇔ [K b]

39/53




[b] [a,b] [a]

-n⇔ [K ø]

-j⇔ [K b]

after competition -j -j -n

39/53


40/53




[b] [a,b] [a]

-in⇔ [K ø]

40/53




[b] [a,b] [a]

-in⇔ [K ø]

-ó⇔ [K a]

40/53




[b] [a,b] [a]

-in⇔ [K ø]

-ó⇔ [K a]

after competition -in -ó -ó

40/53

ABA is derivable

41/53

ABA is derivable

(49)


[b] [a,b] [a]

A⇔ [K ø]

41/53

ABA is derivable

(49)


[b] [a,b] [a]

A⇔ [K ø]

B

41/53

ABA is derivable

(49)


[b] [a,b] [a]

A⇔ [K ø]

B⇔ [K a,b]

41/53

ABA is derivable

(49)


[b] [a,b] [a]

A⇔ [K ø]

B⇔ [K a,b]

after competition A B A

41/53

Conclusions

42/53

More than one way to derive *ABA

43/53


• Blansitt’s generalisation: DAT—ALL—LOC

43/53



• Allatives tend to be composed of locatives and datives

43/53




• Overlapping decomposition

43/53





• Overspecification approach can derive the facts

43/53





• Overspecification approach can derive the facts

• Underspecification fails

43/53

Thank you!

44/53

References I

Abels, Klaus & Ad Neeleman. 2009. Universal 20 without the LCA.

In José M. Brucart, Anna Gavarró & Jaume Solà (eds.),Merging

features: Computation, interpretation and acquisition, 60–79.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Akiyama, Nobuo & Carol Akiyama. 2002. Japanese grammar. New

York: Barron’s Educational Series.

Asher, R. E. & T. C. Kumari. 1997. Malayalam (Descriptive

Grammars). London: Routledge.

Baunaz, Lena. 2017. Decomposing complementizers: The fseq of

French, Modern Greek, Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian

complementizers. Ms. Universität Zürich, to appear in Exploring

Nanosyntax volume at OUP.45/53

References II

Blansitt, Edward L. 1988. Datives and allatives. In Michael

Hammond, Edith Moravcsik & Jessika R. Wirth (eds.), Studies in

syntactic typology, vol. 17 (Studies in Languages), 173–191.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2012. Universals in comparative morphology:

Suppletion, superlatives, and the structure of words. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Bobaljik, Jonathan & Uli Sauerland. 2017. *ABA and the

combinatorics of morphological features. Ms. Uconn and ZAS, to

appear in Glossa, available at lingbuzz/003320.

Brown, Robert. 1988. Waris case system and verb classification.

Language and linguistics in Melanesia 19(1-2). 37–80.

46/53

References III

Caha, Pavel. 2009. The nanosyntax of case. Tromsø: CASTL,

University of Tromsø dissertation.

Cinque, Guglielmo. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s universal 20 and its

exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 315 – 332.

Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. Mapping spatial PPs: An introduction. In

Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), The cartography of

syntactic structure, vol. 6, 3–25. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Comrie, Bernard & Maria Polinsky. 1998. The great Daghestanian

case hoax. In Anna Siewerska & Jae Jung Song (eds.), Case,

typology and grammar: In honor of Barry J. Blake, 95–114.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

47/53

References IV

De Clercq, Karen. 2013. A unified syntax of negation. Ghent: Ghent

University dissertation.

den Dikken, Marcel. 2003. On the syntax of locative and directional

adpositional phrases. Ms. CUNY.

Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and

the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser

(eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of

Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Harðarson, Gísli Rúnar. 2016. A case for a weak case contiguity

hypothesis—a reply to Caha. Natural Language & Linguistic

Theory 34(4). 1329–1343.

Hualde, José Ignacio & Jon Ortiz de Urbina. 2003. A grammar of

Basque, vol. 26. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 48/53

References V

Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

Koopman, Hilda. 2000. Prepositions, postpositions,

circumpositions, and particles. In Hilda Koopman (ed.), The

syntax of specifiers and heads, 204–260. London: Routledge.

Lander, Eric & Liliane Haegeman. 2016. The nanosyntax of spatial

deixis. Studia Linguistica Early View.

Moskal, Beata. 2015. Limits on allomorphy: A case study in nominal

suppletion. Linguistic Inquiry .

Pantcheva, Marina. 2011. Decomposing Path. The nanosyntax of

directional expressions. Tromsø: CASTL, University of Tromsø

dissertation.49/53

References VI

Rice, Sally & Kaori Kabata. 2007. Crosslinguistic grammaticalization

patterns of the allative. Linguistic Typology 11(3). 451–514.

Seyoum, Mulugeta. 2008. A grammar of Dime. Leiden: Universiteit

Leiden dissertation.

Smith, Peter W., Beata Moskal, Jungmin Kang, Ting Xu & Jonathan

Bobaljik. 2015. Pronominal suppletion: Case and number. In Thuy

Bui & Deniz Özyıldız (eds.), Proceedings of the 45th annual

meeting of the North East linguistic society, vol. 3, 69–78.

Amherst: GLSA, UMass.

Staalsen, Philip. 1965. Iatmul grammar sketch.

Https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/31101.

50/53

References VII

Starke, Michal. 2009. Nanosyntax. A short primer to a new

approach to language. In Peter Svenonius, Gillian Ramchand,

Michal Starke & Tarald Taraldsen (eds.), Nordlyd 36: Special issue

on Nanosyntax, 1–6. Tromsø: University of Tromsø. Available at

www.ub.uit.no/munin/nordlyd/.

Svenonius, Peter. 2010. Spatial P in English. In Guglielmo Cinque &

Luigi Rizzi (eds.), The cartography of syntactic structure, vol. 6,

127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Takamine, Kaori. 2010. The postpositional hierarchy and its

mapping to clause structure in Japanese. Tromsø: CASTL,

University of Tromsø dissertation.

Tomič, Olga Mišeska. 2006. Balkan Sprachbund morpho-syntactic

features. Dordrecht: Springer.51/53

References VIII

van Riemsdijk, Henk & Riny Huybregts. 2002. Location and locality.

In Marc van Oostendorp & Elena Anagnostopoulou (eds.),

Progress in grammar: Articles at the 20th anniversary of the

comparison of grammatical models group in Tilburg, 1–23.

Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.

Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido. 2017. The feature structure of pronouns:

A probe into multidimensional paradigms. Ms. KU Leuven,

CRISSP, to appear in Exploring Nanosyntax volume at OUP.

Vangsnes, Øystein A. 2013. Syncretism and functional expansion in

Germanic wh-expressions. Language Sciences 36. 47–65.

Wilbur, Joshua. 2014. A grammar of Pite Saami. Berlin: Language

Science Press.52/53

References IX

Zompì, Stanislao. 2017. Case decomposition meets dependent-case

theories. Pisa, Italy: Università di Pisa MA thesis.

Zwarts, Joost. 2005. The case of prepositions: Government and

compositionality in German PPs. Paper presented at the 21st

Annual Meeting of the Israel Asso-

ciation for Theoretical Linguistics, Haifa, June 23, downloadable at:

http://www.let.uu.nl/users/Joost.Zwarts/personal/Papers/CofPs.pdf.

53/53

exploring linear contiguity - the overlapping...

Documents