DOCSLIB.ORG

Retroflexion in Norwegian

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Retroflexion in Norwegian Retroflexion in Norwegian Tor Håvard Solhaug Masteroppgave i allmenn språkvitenskap Fakultet for humaniora, samfunnsvitenskap og lærerutdanning Universitetet i Tromsø Høsten 2010 1 2 Preface Before I started studying, I could not imagine how it could be possible to write more than five pages on just one topic. Well, here I am and all of a sudden it occurred to me that what I used to think was impossible, is actually over. The idea of writing about retroflexion came to me as I was looking in Gjert Kristoffersen’s The Phonology of Norwegian and I realized that speakers of Eastern Norwegian had different retroflexion patterns than I had in my own dialect. So, I decided to take a closer look at that and here is the result. I would like to thank Martin Krämer, my supervisor, for his eternal patience and valuable feedback. He has taught me everything I know about phonetics and phonology. I would also like to thank Siri K. Gaski for proof-reading and general moral support. Stavanger, 15. november 2011 Tor Håvard Solhaug 3 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 9 1.1 The retroflexes............................................................................................................ 9 1.1 Retroflexion.............................................................................................................. 11 1.3 Phonetic and phonological properties of retroflexes................................................ 12 1.4 Optimality Theory.................................................................................................... 12 2 Retroflexes as speech sounds ......................................................................................... 15 2.1 The Norwegian sound inventory.............................................................................. 15 2.1.1 Vowels.............................................................................................................. 16 2.1.2 Consonants ....................................................................................................... 17 2.2 History...................................................................................................................... 19 2.2.1 Retroflexion started by / ɽ/ ................................................................................ 20 2.2.2 Retroflexion started with /r/ ............................................................................. 21 2.2.3 Retroflexion as a result of constraint interaction.............................................. 21 2.2.4 Summary .......................................................................................................... 22 2.3 Phonetic properties................................................................................................... 22 2.3.1 Articulatory properties ..................................................................................... 23 2.3.2 Acoustic properties........................................................................................... 25 2.4 Phonological properties............................................................................................ 26 2.4.1 Phonological representation............................................................................. 26 2.4.2 Theoretical issues............................................................................................. 28 2.5 Phonological contexts .............................................................................................. 30 2.5.1 Rhotic contexts................................................................................................. 30 2.5.1.1 General patterns................................................................................................ 30 2.5.1.2 Multiple retroflexions................................................................................... 32 2.5.1.3 The prosodic range of retroflexion............................................................... 33 2.5.2 Other contexts .................................................................................................. 39 2.6 The phonological status of retroflexes ..................................................................... 41 2.7 Summary .................................................................................................................. 45 4 3 Optimality Theory .......................................................................................................... 47 3.1 Generative grammar................................................................................................. 47 3.1.1 Basic assumptions ............................................................................................ 47 3.1.2 Generative phonology ...................................................................................... 49 3.2 The architecture of OT ............................................................................................. 50 3.2.1 Why OT?.......................................................................................................... 50 3.2.2 Constraints........................................................................................................ 51 3.2.3 OT architecture................................................................................................. 53 3.3 Conspiracy and opacity............................................................................................ 56 3.3.1 Conspiracy........................................................................................................ 56 3.3.2 Opacity............................................................................................................. 59 3.3.2.1 General opacity ............................................................................................ 59 3.3.2.2 Opaque retroflexion...................................................................................... 62 3.3.3 Does opacity exist?........................................................................................... 63 3.3.4 OT approaches to opacity................................................................................. 64 3.3.4.1 OT-CC.......................................................................................................... 65 3.3.4.2 Turbidity Theory .......................................................................................... 68 3.4 Summary .................................................................................................................. 71 4 Earlier approaches to retroflexion ................................................................................ 72 4.1 Kristoffersen’s analysis............................................................................................ 72 4.2 Bradley’s analysis .................................................................................................... 76 4.3 Hamann’s analysis.................................................................................................... 79 4.4 Molde’s analysis....................................................................................................... 82 4.5 Uffmann’s analysis................................................................................................... 85 4.6 Summary .................................................................................................................. 90 5 Transparent retroflexion ............................................................................................... 92 5.1 The data to be analyzed............................................................................................ 92 5.2 An OT analysis......................................................................................................... 93 5.3 General r-loss ........................................................................................................... 99 5.4 Summary ................................................................................................................ 102 5 6 Opaque retroflexion ..................................................................................................... 103 6.1 An analysis of opaque retroflexion ........................................................................ 103 6.1.1 An OT-CC analysis........................................................................................ 104 6.1.2 Turbidity Theory............................................................................................ 107 6.2 Extensions of TT.................................................................................................... 109 6.2.1 /sl/-clusters ..................................................................................................... 109 6.2.2 /ʃ/ as a trigger for retroflexion? ...................................................................... 113 6.3 Summary ................................................................................................................ 115 7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 116 7.1 Is retroflexion universal?........................................................................................ 116 7.2 Opacity ................................................................................................................... 117 7.3 Final remarks.........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • This Thesis Has Been Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for a Postgraduate Degree (E.G. Phd, Mphil, Dclinpsychol) at the University of Edinburgh
    This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. Feature specications and contrast in vowel harmony: The orthography and phonology of Old Norwegian height harmony Jade J. Sandstedt A thesis submitted in fullment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosoph to Linguistics and English Language School of Philosophy, Psychology & Language Sciences University of Edinburgh 218 Declaration I declare that this thesis has been composed solely by myself and that it has not been submitted, in whole or in part, in any previous application for a degree. Except where stated otherwise by reference or acknowledgment, the work presented is entirely my own. Jade J. Sandstedt Contents Abstract v Acknowledgements viii I Introduction 1 An Old Norwegian phonological riddle 1 1.1 Introduction ............................... 1 1.1.1 The Old Norwegian riddle in other languages .........
    [Show full text]
  • Sverrestauslandjohnsen
    Sverre Stausland Johnsen (Updated September 20, 2021) Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies [email protected] University of Oslo https://sverrestausland.github.io/ po Box 1102 Blindern Google Scholar profile 0317 Oslo, Norway Employment 2016– Professor of Scandinavian Linguistics Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies University of Oslo 2016 Associate Professor of Scandinavian Linguistics Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies University of Oslo 2015 Associate Professor of Norwegian and Teaching Norwegian as a Native Language Department of Languages Buskerud and Vestfold University College 2012–2015 Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Scandinavian Linguistics Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies University of Oslo 2013–2015 Adjunct Assistant Professor Department of Foreign Languages & Literatures National Chiao Tung University 2008–2010 Teaching Fellow Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures Harvard University 2007–2010 Teaching Fellow Department of Linguistics Harvard University Education 2011 Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Linguistics, Harvard University. Dissertation: The origin of variation in Norwegian retroflexion. Committee: Adam Albright, Jay Jasanoff, & Maria Polinsky. Major field: Phonology Minor field: Historical linguistics 1 of 17 Sverre Stausland Johnsen University of Oslo 2008 Master of Arts (M.A.), Harvard University. 2005 Master of Philosophy (M.Phil.) in Language – Comparative Germanic Linguistics, University of Oslo. Dissertation: The Germanic (i)jō-stem declension: Origin and development. Committee: Jón Axel Harðarson & Trygve Skomedal. 2003 Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), University of Oslo. Publications Articles and book chapters 2021 1901-rettskrivingi var den fyrsta samnorsk-umboti. Norsk Årbok, 111–118. 2021 Grammaticalization in Somali and the development of morphological tone. Pro- ceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 6(1): 587–599.
    [Show full text]
  • DOCTORAL DISSERTATION Suprasegmental Sound Changes In
    DOCTORAL DISSERTATION Suprasegmental sound changes in the Scandinavian languages Áron Tési 2017 Eötvös Loránd University of Sciences Faculty of Humanities DOCTORAL DISSERTATION Áron Tési SUPRASEGMENTAL SOUND CHANGES IN THE SCANDINAVIAN LANGUAGES SZUPRASZEGMENTÁLIS HANGVÁLTOZÁSOK A SKANDINÁV NYELVEKBEN Doctoral School of Linguistics Head: Dr. Gábor Tolcsvai Nagy MHAS Doctoral programme in Germanic Linguistics Head: Dr. Károly Manherz CSc Members of the thesis committee Dr. Károly Manherz CSc (chairman) Dr. Roland Nagy PhD (secretary) Dr. Valéria Molnár PhD (officially appointed opponent) Dr. Ildikó Vaskó PhD (officially appointed opponent) Dr. László Komlósi CSc (member) Further members Dr. Péter Siptár DSc Dr. Miklós Törkenczy DSc Supervisor Dr. Péter Ács CSc Budapest, 2017 Table of contents List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................... 0 Foreword .................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Theoretical considerations .................................................................................................. 2 1.1. Some notes on sound change ....................................................................................... 3 1.2. The problem of teleology ............................................................................................ 5 1.2.1. A philosophical overview ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Phonetic Documentation in Three Collections: Topics and Evolution
    Phonetic documentation in three collections: Topics and evolution D. H. Whalen City University of New York (also Haskins Laboratories and Yale University) [email protected] Christian DiCanio University at Buffalo [email protected] Rikker Dockum Swarthmore College [email protected] Phonetic aspects of many languages have been documented, though the breadth and focus of such documentation varies substantially. In this survey, phonetic aspects (here called ‘categories’) that are typically reported were assessed in three English-language collections – the Illustrations of the IPA from the Journal of the International Phonetic Association, articles from the Journal of Phonetics, and papers from the Ladefoged/Maddieson Sounds of the World’s Languages (SOWL) documentation project. Categories were defined for consonants (e.g. Voice Onset Time (VOT) and frication spec- trum; 10 in total), vowels (e.g. formants and duration; 7 in total) and suprasegmentals (e.g. stress and distinctive vowel length, 6 in total). The Illustrations, due to their brevity, had, on average, limited coverage of the selected categories (12% of the 23 categories). Journal of Phonetics articles were typically theoretically motivated, but 64 had sufficient measurements to count as phonetic documentation; these also covered 12% of the cate- gories. The SOWL studies, designed to cover as much of the phonetic structure as feasible in an article-length treatment, achieved 41% coverage on average. Four book-length stud- ies were also examined, with an average of 49% coverage. Phonetic properties of many language families have been studied, though Indo-European is still disproportionately rep- resented. Physiological measures were excluded as being less common, and perceptual measures were excluded as being typically more theoretical.
    [Show full text]
  • Feature Speci Cations and Contrast in Vowel Harmony
    Feature specications and contrast in vowel harmony: The orthography and phonology of Old Norwegian height harmony Jade J. Sandstedt A thesis submitted in fullment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosoph to Linguistics and English Language School of Philosophy, Psychology & Language Sciences University of Edinburgh 218 Declaration I declare that this thesis has been composed solely by myself and that it has not been submitted, in whole or in part, in any previous application for a degree. Except where stated otherwise by reference or acknowledgment, the work presented is entirely my own. Jade J. Sandstedt Contents Abstract v Acknowledgements viii I Introduction 1 An Old Norwegian phonological riddle 1 1.1 Introduction ............................... 1 1.1.1 The Old Norwegian riddle in other languages .......... 6 1.2 The where and why of harmony neutrality ................ 7 1.2.1 Harmony is limited by phonological contrast .......... 8 1.2.2 Harmony is not limited by phonological contrast . 1 1.3 The locus of explanation in phonology . 13 1.3.1 Grammatical vs. representational approaches . 13 1.3.2 Problems with equating dis/harmony with non-/contrastivity . 17 1.3.3 The usual way out ........................ 18 1.4 The need for a new model ........................ 22 1.5 Aims of this thesis ............................ 24 II Theoretical matters 2 Features and the contrastive hierarchy 29 2.1 Harmony as evidence for representations . 29 2.1.1 Representational overview .................... 3 2.2 Nature of phonological features ..................... 32 2.2.1 Privativity ............................ 32 2.2.2 Emergence ............................ 34 2.3 Building inventories and the Contrastivist Hypothesis . 36 2.3.1 Phonological in/activity as insight to features .
    [Show full text]
  • Norwegian Listeners
    Attitudes to Norwegian-accented English among Norwegian and non-Norwegian listeners Ola Haukland Mastergradsavhandling i engelsk fagdidaktikk ved institutt for lærerutdanning og skoleforskning Det utdanningsvitenskapelige fakultet UNIVERSITETET I OSLO Våren 2016 I II III Copyright Ola Haukland 2016 Attitudes to Norwegian-accented English among Norwegian and non-Norwegian listeners Ola Haukland http://www.duo.uio.no Trykk: Reprosentralen, Universitetet i Oslo IV V Abstract This study investigates Norwegian and non-Norwegian listeners’ attitudes towards degrees of Norwegian-accented English. A phonological analysis of 20 Norwegians recording a stimulus text has provided a description of Norwegian-accented English as a construct. The analysis reveals two dimensions of strong Norwegian-accented English: strong intonation and strong phonology. In a matched-guise experiment, 98 listeners from three listener groups (native and non-native speakers of English and Norwegians) listened to stimulus recordings created by three matched guise speakers. Two of the matched-guise speakers (MG1 and MG2) recorded four degrees of accentedness (native-like (RP), slight, strong intonation and strong phonology), whereas MG3 recorded two (native-like (RP) and moderate). Findings indicate that native-like (RP) accents are perceived with the most status, but that Norwegian listeners have much more negative attitudes towards Norwegian-accented English than non- Norwegians. The results also show that non-Norwegian listeners do not regard an accent with a strong Norwegian intonation as a strong foreign accent, as compared to accents with a strong Norwegian phonology, and non-Norwegian listeners give equally positive evaluations of strong intonation accents as slight Norwegian accents. Norwegian-accented English does not seem to affect evaluation of sociability, and even the strongest Norwegian accents are by non-Norwegians perceived as very intelligible.
    [Show full text]
  • 32. Supraregional Patterns and Language Change
    602 III. Supra-regional and regionally-unbound aspects Van Hout, Roeland and Henk Münstermann 1988 The multidimensionality of domain configurations. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 74: 107Ϫ124. Van Hout, Roeland and Ton Vallen 1984 Sociolinguı¨stiek: Januskop of kop van Jut [Sociolinguistics: Janus face or scapegoat]? Tijdschrift voor Taal- en Tekstwetenschap 4: 279Ϫ286. Van Istendael, Geert 2008 Plezier en pijn van het Nederlands [Pleasure and pain of Dutch]. Samen beleid maken in het GO! Onderwijs van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. Beleidscahier nummer 3,29Ϫ33. Brussel: Ministerie van Onderwijs van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. Willemyns, Roland 2003 Dutch. In: Ana Deumert and Wim Vandenbussche (eds.), Germanic Standardizations: Past to present, 93Ϫ125. (Impact: Studies in language and society 18.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Stefan Grondelaers, Nijmegen (The Netherlands) 32. Supraregional patterns and language change 1. Introduction 2. Supraregional phenomena 3. Supraregional patterns defined and explained by formal criteria 4. Conclusion 5. Suggestions for future research 6. Atlases and dictionaries 7. References 1. Introduction The two most important dialect groups that are traditionally recognized in the Dutch language area are Low Franconian, covering almost the whole area, and Low Saxon, located in the northeast, from Groningen to the north of Limburg. Low Franconian is usually subdivided into the traditional dialect groups of Limburgian, Brabantish, Flem- ish and Hollandic. In this contribution we will focus on phenomena that are not confined to these classi- cal dialect groups, and we do so from two perspectives. First, we approach these phe- nomena from a purely descriptive perspective (section 2). Our aim is to show that, in the Dutch language area, certain phenomena exist that are not confined to traditionally recognized geographical distinctions.
    [Show full text]
  • 24Mfm Abstracts Booklet
    The Twenty-Fourth Manchester Phonology Meeting ABSTRACTS BOOKLET Thursday 26th - Saturday 28th May 2016 Held at Hulme Hall, Manchester Organised by a collaboration of phonologists at the University of Edinburgh, the University of Manchester, and elsewhere. This booklet contains the abstracts for all the papers presented at the twenty-fourth Manchester Phonology Meeting, held at Hulme Hall, Manchester, in May 2016. The abstracts are arranged in alphabetical order by the surname of the (first named) presenter. If any abstracts are missing from this booklet, it is most likely because the authors did not submit a non-anonymous version of their abstract. The abstracts for the oral paper sessions are presented first, followed by the abstracts for the poster paper sessions, and the booklet concludes with abstracts for the special session. The final programme, included in your registration pack and available on the conference website, gives the details of which papers are in which room, and at which times. Oral papers Modelling the Production and Perception of Kaqchikel Mayan with ‘Small’ Data Ryan Bennett, Yale University, [email protected]; Kevin Tang, Yale University, [email protected] Motivation: No linguistic research is completed without understanding the interplay between production, perception and lexicon. ,e age of ‘big data’ has facilitated large-scale research on the e.ects of lexical statistics on phonological and phonetic patterning. Specially, recent work has shown that lexical factors such as functional load, distributional overlap and context-free/sensitive frequency, play a non- trival role in production and perception (Wedel et al. 2013, Seyfarth, 2014; Currie-Hall & Hume, 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • Prosodic Structure and Suprasegmental Features Short-Vowel Stød in Danish
    J Comp German Linguistics (2016) 19:221–268 DOI 10.1007/s10828-016-9083-8 ORIGINAL PAPER Prosodic structure and suprasegmental features Short-vowel stød in Danish Pavel Iosad1 Received: 3 April 2015 / Accepted: 21 March 2016 / Published online: 1 September 2016 © The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract This paper presents a phonological analysis of a glottalization phenomenon in dialects of Danish known as ‘short-vowel stød’. It is argued that both short-vowel stød and common Danish stød involve the attachment of a laryngeal feature to a prosodic node—specifically the mora. In the case of short-vowel stød that mora lacks segmental content, as it is projected top-down due to local prosodic requirements, not bottom-up by segmental material. I show that this device provides an account of the distribution of short-vowel stød as arising from the interplay of constraints on metrical structure (both lexically stored and computed by the grammar) and the requirement for morae to be featurally licensed. The analysis provides further evidence for the analysis of ‘tonal accents’ and related phenomena in terms of metrical structure rather than lexical tone or laryngeal features, and contributes to our understanding of the relationship between segmental and suprasegmental phonology in Germanic languages. Keywords Danish · Stød · Suprasegmentals · Tonal accents · Metrical phonology · Moraic theory The author and JCGL dedicate this article to Inger Ejskjær (1926–2015), professor of Danish dialectology at the University of Copenhagen from 1971 to 1996, without whose documentation and published account of short-vowel stød the present article could not have been written.
    [Show full text]
  • English Loanwords in Norwegian a Loanword Processing Study in Young Speakers of Norwegian
    NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology Master’s thesis Faculty of Humanities Department of Modern Foreign Languages Speakers ofNorwegian Speakers StudyinYoung Processing A Loanword inNorwegian English Loanwords Sander RolandKuitert Trondheim, spring2013 Trondheim, thesis Master’s in Linguistics English Loanwords in Norwegian A Loanword Processing Study in Young Speakers of Norwegian by Sander Roland Kuitert Master’s thesis in linguistics Department of Modern Foreign Languages Faculty of Humanities NTNU May 2013 Abstract Using loanwords in everyday speech is something most people do on a daily basis. This project examines, which factors come into play when processing loanwords. A test sample of 40 university students was tested on the processing of English loanwords used in Norwegian, using a lexical decision task. The two dependent variables of this project were reaction times, and accuracy. The results of the project showed that the most salient factors in processing English loanwords in Norwegian was the subjective native speaker rating on how Norwegian the loanword was perceived to be, the frequency of its usage, the level of English language competence and the length of the word. The results from this project highlight which factors play a role in the processing of English loanwords in Norwegian. ii iii Acknowledgements After countless hours of reading, analysing and writing, I can finally, proudly present my project. The work has been both demanding and challenging, but also intriguing and rewarding. I could never have imagined the workload and effort that has to be put down, in order to conduct a project of this size. However, the process of conducting the experiment, and analysing results, gave me new insight on the topic I was researching and has triggered my interest to dig deeper into the field.
    [Show full text]
  • Transparency and Blocking in Old Norwegian Height Harmony
    Transparency and blocking in Old Norwegian height harmony Jade Jørgen Sandstedt Abstract This paper provides a new phonological and philological analysis of previously unexplained disharmonic patterns in Old Norwegian height harmony. Old Norwegian displays cross- linguistically rare forms of blocking and transparency, which under traditional assumptions of Old Norwegian vowels and vowel harmony are both phonologically and orthographically irregular. I show that these patterns make perfect phonological sense if we reinterpret the Old Norwegian neutral vowels æ–ǫ as [−low, −ATR] /E, O/ and assume that Old Norwegian height harmony was relativized to [high] contrastive visibility and bounded by high-sonority elements, resulting in the transparency of [high] non-contrastive items and blocking by high- sonority [+low] vowels. This featural interpretation fits with the later diachronic development of Old Norwegian vowels and additionally helps explain patterned spelling variation found in both roman and runic writing. I Vowel harmony represents constraints on what are possible and impossible vowel sequences in a language for which there are both articulatory and perceptual motivations (Walker ), and yet it is not unusual for harmony languages to feature systematic disharmony through skipping, blocking, and other locality effects. How neutral harmony patterns are to be explained raises a number of fundamental questions about the nature and organization of harmony systems, and in this paper I explore some intricate underdescribed examples in th–th-century Old Norwegian which illustrate the role vowel contrastivity, sonority, and intervening featural under/specification can play in deriving surface disharmony. Old Norwegian featured height harmony, traditionally characterized as the lowering of non-initial /i, u/![e, o] following non-high vowels, but height harmony uniquely fails to occur for unknown reasons following the short vowels æ and ǫ and behaves inconsistently following derivational and definite suffixes.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright by Niamh Eileen Kelly 2015 the Dissertation Committee for Niamh Eileen Kelly Certifies That This Is the Approved Version of the Following Dissertation
    Copyright by Niamh Eileen Kelly 2015 The Dissertation Committee for Niamh Eileen Kelly certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: An Experimental Approach to the Production and Perception of Norwegian Tonal Accent Committee: Rajka Smiljani´c, Supervisor Scott Myers Megan Crowhurst Harvey Sussman Gjert Kristoffersen An Experimental Approach to the Production and Perception of Norwegian Tonal Accent by Niamh Eileen Kelly, B.A., M.A. DISSERTATION Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN May 2015 You don't set out to build a wall! You don't say, \I'm going to build the biggest, baddest, greatest wall that's ever been built." You don't start there. You say, \I'm going to lay this brick as perfectly as a brick can be laid." And you do that every single day and soon you have a wall. - Will Smith Acknowledgments The work that resulted in this dissertation was a collaborative effort, and I have many people to thank. I could not have done this without the support of my committee, whom I sincerely thank: Rajka, for unfaltering support and encouragement, not to mention extensive comments and guidance in all aspects of the research and writing, as well as understanding, affirmation, and belief in me. For constant confidence and help, whenever needed. Scott, for solid advice on experiments and writing, and for always being available to redirect when necessary! Megan, for very beneficial experiences as a research assistant, for very practical ad- vice about academia, and for inspired perspectives on this work.
    [Show full text]