Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T13:09:39.173Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Acceptability Judgments at the Syntax–Semantics Interface

from Part II - Experimental Studies of Specific Phenomena

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2021

By
Jesse Harris
Edited by
Grant Goodall
Grant Goodall
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access

Summary

This chapter reviews the theoretical and conceptual issues central to acceptability judgment tasks, and related paradigms, at the syntax–semantics interface, and provides a broad overview of core results obtained from research in this domain. Challenges faced by studies in experimental semantics are distinct from those in experimental syntax, which at times requires different linking hypotheses, research questions, or experimental paradigms. However, the current state of affairs suggests that acceptability and other offline judgments will continue to contribute highly informative and profitable tools for exploration of phenomena at the syntax–semantics interface.

Keywords

syntax–semantics interfaceinterpretationambiguity resolutionquantificationcompositionality
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax , pp. 341 - 370
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrams, K., Chiarello, C., Cress, K., Green, S., & Ellelt, N. (1978). The relation between mother-to-child speech and word-order comprehension strategies in children. In Campbell, R. N., & Smith, P. T., eds., Recent Advances in the Psychology of Language. New York: Plenum Press, vol. 4, pp. 337–347.Google Scholar
Alonso-Ovalle, L. & Menéndez-Benito, P. (2013). Two views on epistemic indefinites. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(2), 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amaral, P. (2010). Entailment, assertion, and textual coherence: The case of almost and barely. Linguistics, 48(3), 525–545.Google Scholar
Bach, E., Jelinek, E., Kratzer, A., & Partee, B. H. (1995). Quantification in Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Baggio, G., Choma, T., Van Lambalgen, M., & Hagoort, P. (2010). Coercion and compositionality. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(9), 2131–2140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bard, E. G., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72(1), 32–68.Google Scholar
Barker, C. (2002). Continuations and the nature of quantification. Natural Language Semantics, 10(3), 211–242.Google Scholar
Barker, C. (2012). Quantificational binding does not require c-command. Linguistic Inquiry, 43(4), 614–633.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(2), 159–219.Google Scholar
Beghelli, F. & Stowell, T. (1997). Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. In Szabolcsi, A., ed., Ways of Scope Taking. New York: Springer, pp. 71–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, S. (1987). Situation-based semantics for adverbs of quantification. In Blevins, J. & Vainikka, A., eds., University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publishing, vol. 12, pp. 45–68.Google Scholar
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. Cognition and the Development of Language, 279(362), 1–61.Google Scholar
Bott, O., Featherston, S., Radó, J., & Stolterfoht, B. (2011). The application of experimental methods in semantics. In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., & Portner, P., eds., Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 305–321.Google Scholar
Bott, O. & Radó, J. (2007). Quantifying quantifier scope: a cross-methodological comparison. In Featherston, S. & Sternefeld, W., eds., Roots: Linguistics in Search of Its Evidential Base. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 53–74.Google Scholar
Bott, O. & Radó, J. (2009). How to provide exactly one interpretation for every sentence, or what eye movements reveal about quantifier scope. In Featherston, S. & Winkler, S., eds., Fruits of Empirical Linguistics, vol.1: Processes (Studies in Generative Grammar, 101). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brasoveanu, A. & Dotlačil, J. (2012). Licensing sentence-internal readings in English. In Aloni, M., Kimmelman, V., Roelofsen, F., Sassoon, G. W., Schulz, K., & Westera, M., eds., Logic, Language and Meaning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 122–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1969). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifton, C. Jr. & Frazier, L. (2010). When are downward-entailing contexts identified? The case of the domain widener ever. Linguistic Inquiry, 41(4), 681–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifton, C. Jr. & Frazier, L. (2012). Interpreting conjoined noun phrases and conjoined clauses: Collective versus distributive preferences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(9), 1760–1776.Google Scholar
Clifton, C. Jr. & Frazier, L. (2013). Partition if you must: Evidence for a No Extra Times principle. Discourse Processes, 50(8), 616–630.Google Scholar
Crain, S. (1991). Language acquisition in the absence of experience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(4), 597–612.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. (2010). Quantitative methods alone are not enough: Response to Gibson and Fedorenko. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(6), 234–235.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1974). On the very idea of a conceptual scheme. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 47, 5–20. Reprinted in D. Davidson (1984). Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation: Philosophical Essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dayal, V. (2013). The syntax of scope and quantification. In den Dikken, M., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dummett, M. (2006). Thought and Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egg, M. (2005). Flexible Semantics for Reinterpretation Phenomena. Palo Alto, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. & Frisch, S. (2006). Effects of processing difficulty on judgments of acceptability. In Fanselow, G., Féry, C., Schlesewsky, M., & Vogel, R., eds., Gradience in Grammar: Generative Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 291–316.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1975). Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 6(3), 353–375.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2005). Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: Some wh- constraints in German. Lingua, 115(11), 1525–1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Featherston, S. (2008). Thermometer judgments as linguistic evidence. In Riehl, C. M. & Rothe, A., eds., Was ist linguistische Evidenz? Aachen: Shaker Verlag, pp. 69–89.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. & Clifton, C. Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(3), 348–368.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. & Sag, I. A. (1982). Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5(3), 355–398.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1999). On Sentence Interpretation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L. (2000). On interpretation: Minimal “lowering.” In Crocker, M. W., Pickering, M. & Clifton, C. Jr., eds., Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 303–323.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., Clifton, Jr., C., Rayner, K., Deevy, P., Koh, S., & Bader, M. (2005). Interface problems: Structural constraints on interpretation? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34 (3), 201–231.Google Scholar
Frisson, S. & McElree, B. (2008). Complement coercion is not modulated by competition: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
Geurts, B. (2000). Indefinites and choice functions. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(4), 731–738.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A. (1998). Polarity Sensitivity as (Non) Veridical Dependency. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E. & Fedorenko, E. (2010). Weak quantitative standards in linguistics research. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(6), 233–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S. T., & Fedorenko, E. (2013). Quantitative methods in syntax/semantics research: A response to Sprouse and Almeida (2013). Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(3), 229–240.Google Scholar
Gillen, K. (1991). The comprehension of doubly quantified sentences. Doctoral dissertation, Durham University.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. (1998). The truth-value judgment task. In McDaniel, D., Smith Cairns, H., & McKee, C., eds., Methods for Assessing Children’s Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 211–232.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. C. & Hendrick, R. (1998). The representation and processing of coreference in discourse. Cognitive Science, 22(4), 389–424.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gualmini, A., Hulsey, S., Hacquard, V., & Fox, D. (2008). The question–answer requirement for scope assignment. Natural Language Semantics, 16(3), 205–237.Google Scholar
Gyuris, B. & Jackson, S. R. (2018). Scope marking and prosody in Hungarian. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 83. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.311Google Scholar
Harris, J. A., Clifton, C. Jr., & Frazier, L. (2013). Processing and domain selection: Quantificational variability effects. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(10), 1519–1544.Google Scholar
Harris, J. A. & Korotkova, N. (2019). Preference for single events guides perception in Russian: A phoneme restoration study. In Ronai, E., Stigliano, L., & Sun, Y., eds., Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 149–163.Google Scholar
Harris, J. A. & Potts, C. (2009). Perspective-shifting with appositives and expressives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32(6), 523–552.Google Scholar
Heim, I. & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hinterwimmer, S. (2008). Q-Adverbs as Selective Binders: The Quantificational Variability of Free Relatives and Definite DPs. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1986). The semantics of a certain. Linguistic Inquiry, 17(2), 331–336.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J. R. & Shieber, S. M. (1987). An algorithm for generating quantifier scopings. Computational Linguistics, 13(1–2), 47–63.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P., Jaeger, T. F., Sag, I. A., Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2007). Locality and accessibility in wh-questions. In Sternefeld, W. & Featherston, S., eds., Roots: Linguistics in Search of Its Evidential Base. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 185–206.Google Scholar
Huang, C. T. J. (1982). Move WH in a language without wh-movement. The Linguistic Review, 1(4), 369–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husband, E. M., Kelly, L. A., & Zhu, D. C. (2011). Using complement coercion to understand the neural basis of semantic composition: Evidence from an fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(11), 3254–3266.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. (2010). The scope of indefinites: An experimental investigation. Natural Language Semantics, 18(3), pp. 295–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ioup, G. (1975). The treatment of quantifier scope in a transformational grammar. Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Jacobson, P. (1999). Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22(2), 117–185.Google Scholar
Janssen, T. M. V. (1997). Compositionality. In van Bentham, J. & ter Meulen, A., eds., Handbook of Logic and Language. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 417–474.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111(2), 228–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaan, E., Dallas, A. C., & Barkley, C. M. (2007). Processing bare quantifiers in discourse. Brain Research, 1146, 199–209.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. & Stavi, J. (1986). A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9(3), 253–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1998). Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Rothstein, S., ed., Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 163–196.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. & Shimoyama, J. (2002). Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Otsu, Y., ed., Papers Presented at the 3rd Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., Choi, A., Cohn, N., Paczynski, M., & Jackendoff, R. (2010). Electrophysiological correlates of complement coercion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(12), 2685–2701.Google Scholar
Kurtzman, H. S. & MacDonald, M. C. (1993). Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition, 48(3), 243–279.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, W. A. (1979). Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Larson, R. (1995). Semantics. In Gleitman, L. R. & Liberman, M., eds., An Invitation to Cognitive Science, vol. 1: Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 361–380.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1975). Adverbs of quantification. In Keenan, E., ed., Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
Lidz, J., Pietroski, P., Halberda, J., & Hunter, T. (2011). Interface transparency and the psychosemantics of most. Natural Language Semantics, 19(3), 227–256.Google Scholar
Ludlow, P. & Neale, S. (1991). Indefinite descriptions: In defense of Russell. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14(2), 171–202.Google Scholar
Majewski, H. (2014). Comprehending each other: weak reciprocity and processing. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
May, R. (1977). The grammar of quantification. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
May, R. (1985). Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. (1997). Subjecthood and subject positions. In Haegeman, L. M. V., ed., Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 197–235.Google Scholar
McElree, B., Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2006). Deferred interpretations: Why starting Dickens is taxing but reading Dickens isn’t. Cognitive Science, 30(1), 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElree, B., Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., Jackendoff, R. S., & Seely, R. E. (2001). Coercion in on-line semantic processing. Cognition, 78, B17–B25.Google Scholar
Meyer, M.-C. & Sauerland, U. (2009). A pragmatic constraint on ambiguity detection. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 27(1), 139–150.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (1983). Grammatical Theory: Its Limits and its Possibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pagin, P. & Westerståhl, D. (2010). Compositionality I: Definitions and variants. Philosophy Compass, 5(3), 250–264.Google Scholar
Park, J. C. (1995). Quantifier scope and constituency. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 205–212.Google Scholar
Partee, B. (1995). Lexical semantics and compositionality. In Gleitman, L. R. & Liberman, M., eds., An Invitation to Cognitive Science, vol. 1: Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 311–360.Google Scholar
Partee, B. & Rooth, M. (1983). Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In Portner, P. & Partee, B., eds., Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 334–356. Originally published in R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow, eds., (1983). Meaning, Use and the Interpretation of Language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 361–393.Google Scholar
Paterson, K. B., Filik, R., & Liversedge, S. P. (2008). Competition during the processing of quantifier scope ambiguities: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(3), 459–473.Google Scholar
Paterson, K. B., Filik, R., & Moxey, L. M. (2009). Quantifiers and discourse processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(6), 1390–1402.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., Frisson, S., McElree, B., & Traxler, M. J. (2004). Eye movements and semantic composition. In Carreiras, M. & Clifton, C., Jr., eds., The On-line Study of Sentence Comprehension: Eyetracking, ERPs, and Beyond. New York:Psychology Press, pp. 33–50.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., McElree, B., & Traxler, M. J. (2005). The difficulty of coercion: A response to de Almeida. Brain and Language, 93(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
Piñango, M. M. & Deo, A. (2015). Reanalyzing the complement coercion effect through a generalized lexical semantics for aspectual verbs. Journal of Semantics, 33(2), 359–408.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 17(4), 409–41.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L., Martin, A. E., McElree, B., & Smart, A. (2009). The anterior midline field: Coercion or decision making? Brain and Language, 108(3), 184–190.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. & McElree, B. (2006). The syntax-semantics interface: On-line composition of sentence meaning. In Traxler, M. & Gernsbacher, M. A., eds., Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 539–579.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. & McElree, B. (2007). An MEG study of silent meaning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(11), 1905–1921.Google Scholar
Radó, J. & Bott, O. (2012). Underspecified representations of scope ambiguity? In Aloni, M., Kimmelman, V., Roelofsen, F., Sassoon, G. W., Schulz, K., & Westera, M., eds., Logic, Language and Meaning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 180–189.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1997). Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20(4), 335–397.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Published as Infinite Syntax (1986). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Ruys, E. G. (1992). The scope of indefinites. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Saddy, D., Drenhaus, H., & Frisch, S. (2004). Processing polarity items: Contrastive licensing costs. Brain and Language, 90(1–3), 495–502.Google Scholar
Schiffer, S. (2015). Meaning and formal semantics in generative grammar. Erkenntnis, 80(1), 61–87.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. (1996). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. (2011). Linguistic evidence and grammatical theory. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(2), 206–221.Google Scholar
Schwarz, B. (2001). Two kinds of long-distance indefinites. In van Rooy, R. & Stokhof, M., eds., Proceedings of the 13th Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam, pp. 192–197.Google Scholar
Schwarz, B. (2011). Long distance indefinites and choice functions. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(12), 880–897.Google Scholar
Soames, S. (1992). Truth, meaning, and understanding. Philosophical Studies, 65(1–2), 17–35.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2008). The differential sensitivity of acceptability judgments to processing effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(4), 686–894.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2018). Acceptability judgments and grammaticality, prospects and challenges. In Hornstein, N., Yang, C., & Patel-Grosz, P., eds., Syntactic Structures after 60 Years: The Impact of the Chomskyan Revolution in Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 195–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2013). The empirical status of data in syntax: A reply to Gibson and Fedorenko. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(3), 222–228.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. (2017). Setting the empirical record straight: Acceptability judgments appear to be reliable, robust, and replicable. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & McElree, B. (2002). Coercion in sentence processing: Evidence from eye-movements and self-paced reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(4), 530–547.Google Scholar
Tunstall, S. (1998). The interpretation of quantifiers: semantics and processing. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Wijnen, F. & Kaan, E. (2006). Dynamics of semantic processing: The interpretation of bare quantifiers. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(6), 684–720.Google Scholar
Winter, Y. (1997). Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20(4), 399–467.Google Scholar
Xiang, M., Grove, J., & Giannakidou, A. (2016). Semantic and pragmatic processes in the comprehension of negation: An event related potential study of negative polarity sensitivity. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 38, 71–88.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×