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-69cd664f8f-fq6ln Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-13T08:02:17.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Corpus Linguistics and the Cognitive/Constructional Endeavor

from Part II - Methodological and Empirical Foundations of Constructional Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2025

By
Stefan Th. Gries
Edited by
Mirjam Fried  and
Kiki Nikiforidou
Mirjam Fried
Affiliation:
Univerzita Karlova
Kiki Nikiforidou
Affiliation:
University of Athens, Greece
Get access

Summary

This chapter provides an overview of corpus-based advances in Construction Grammar. After a brief introduction on kinds of data in linguistics in general and the notion of corpora in particular, I discuss a variety of corpus-based studies categorized into (i) largely qualitative studies, (ii) studies based on frequencies and probabilities, (iii) studies focusing on association strengths, and (iv) statistical as well as machine-learning studies. In each section, representative studies covering a variety of languages and questions are covered with an eye to surveying methodological as well as theoretical advantages. I conclude with an assessment of the state of the art by comparing how recent developments fare relative to Dąbrowska’s discussion of Cognitive Linguistics’s seven deadly sins.

Keywords

corpuslinguisticsfrequencyco-occurrence/associationscollostructionsregression modelingtree-based approachesconstruction induction
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar , pp. 171 - 195
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

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

Abdulrahim, D. (2019). ‘Go’ constructions in Modern Standard Arabic: A corpus-based study. Constructions and Frames, 11(1), 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausín, A. (2001). On A-Movement. PhD thesis. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Azazil, L. (2020). Frequency effects in the L2 acquisition of the catenative verb construction: Evidence from experimental and corpus data. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(3), 417–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2011). Corpus linguistics and naive discriminative learning. Brazilian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 295–328.Google Scholar
Backus, A. & Mos, M. (2011). Islands of productivity in corpus data and acceptability judgments: Contrasting two potentiality constructions in Dutch. In Schönefeld, D., ed., Converging Evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 165–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beliën, M. (2016). A constructional perspective on conceptual constituency: Dutch postpositions or particles? In Yoon, J. & Gries, S. Th, eds., Corpus-Based Approaches to Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 11–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernaisch, T., Gries, S. Th., & Mukherjee, J. (2014). The dative alternation in South Asian English(es): Modelling predictors and predicting prototypes. English World-Wide, 35(1), 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernolet, S. & Colleman, T. (2016). Sense-based and lexeme-based alternation biases in the Dutch dative alternation. In Yoon, J. & Gries, S. Th, eds., Corpus-Based Approaches to Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 165–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2004). You wanna consider a Constructional Approach to Wanna-Contraction? In Achard, M. & Kemmer, S., eds., Language, Culture, and Mind. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 479–491.Google Scholar
Brunner, T. & Hoffmann, T. (2020). The way-construction in World Englishes. English World-Wide, 41(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busso, L., Perek, F., & Lenci, A. (2021). Constructional associations trump lexical associations in processing valency coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(2), 287–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B., Depraetere, I., & Lesuisse, M. (2019). The necessity modals have to, must, need to, and should: Using n-grams to help identify common and distinct semantic and pragmatic aspects. Constructions and Frames, 11(2), 220–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, A. C.-H. (2022). Words, constructions and corpora: Network representations of constructional semantics for Mandarin space particles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 18(2), 209–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, I.-H. (2017). The polysemy network of Chinese ‘one’-phrases in a diachronic constructional perspective. Constructions and Frames, 9(1), 70–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2016). Cognitive Linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 479–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E. (1997). Then in conditional constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(2), 109–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. (2020). What predicts productivity? Theory meets individuals. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(2), 251–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, I. & Van de Velde, F. (2020). Semantic differences between strong and weak verb forms in Dutch. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(3), 393–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vaere, H., De Cuypere, L., & Willems, K. (2021). Alternating constructions with ditransitive geben in present-day German. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 17(1), 73–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, J. (2018). Finding variants for construction-based dialectometry: A corpus-based approach to regional CxGs. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(2), 275–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009a). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009b). Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 187–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (2016). Usage-Based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus Investigations of Construction Grammar. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flach, S. (2020a). Schemas and the frequency/acceptability mismatch: Corpus distribution predicts sentence judgments. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(4), 609–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flach, S. (2020b). Reduction Hypothesis revisited: Frequency or association? In Sanchez-Stockhammer, C., Günther, F., & Schmid, H.-J., eds., Language in Mind and Brain: Multimedial Proceedings of the Workshop Held at LMU, Munich, December 10–11, 2018. Munich: LMU Open Access, pp. 16–22.Google Scholar
Flach, S. (2021). From movement into action to manner of causation: Changes in argument mapping in the into-causative. Linguistics, 59(1), 247–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, L. & Nini, A. (2020). Individuality in syntactic variation: An investigation of the seventeenth-century gerund alternation. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(2), 279–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaeta, L. & Zeldes, A. (2017). Between VP and NN: On the constructional types of German -er compounds. Constructions and Frames, 9(1), 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1991). The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1), 37–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1999). The emergence of the semantics of argument structure constructions. In MacWhinney, B., ed., The Emergence of Language. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 197–212.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(3), 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, K. M. & Michaelis, L. A. (2018). Match, mismatch, and envisioning transfer events: How verbal constructional bias and lexical-class concord shape motor simulation effects. Constructions and Frames, 10(2), 234–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2003). Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement. London & New York: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(4), 365–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gries, S. Th. (2012). Frequencies, probabilities, association measures in usage-/exemplar-based linguistics: Some necessary clarifications. Studies in Language, 36(3), 477–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2013a). Data in Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 93–108.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2013b). 50-something years of work on collocations: What is or should be next … International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 137–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2015a). More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: On Schmid & Küchenhoff (2013). Cognitive Linguistics, 26(3), 505–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2015b). The role of quantitative methods in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus and experimental data on (relative) frequency and contingency of words and constructions. In Daems, J., Zenner, E., Heylen, K., Speelman, D., & Cuyckens, H., eds., Change of Paradigms – New Paradoxes: Recontextualizing Language and Linguistics. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 311–325.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2019a). 15 years of collostructions: Some long overdue additions/corrections (to/of actually all sorts of corpus-linguistics measures). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24(3), 385–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2019b). Ten Lectures on Corpus-Linguistic Approaches: Applications for Usage-Based and Psycholinguistic Research. Leiden & Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2021 [2009]). Statistics for Linguistics with R. A Practical Introduction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D. (2005). Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(4), 635–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D. (2010). Converging evidence II: More on the association of verbs and constructions. In Rice, S. & Newman, J., eds., Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 59–72.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Hilpert, M. (2008). The identification of stages in diachronic data: Variability-based neighbor clustering. Corpora, 3(1), 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Mukherjee, J. (2010). Lexical gravity across varieties of English: An ICE-based study of n-grams in Asian Englishes. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 520–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004a). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004b). Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative. In Achard, M. & Kemmer, S., eds., Language, Culture, and Mind. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 225–236.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 182–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Wulff, S. (2009). Psycholinguistic and corpus linguistic evidence for L2 constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Wulff, S. (2021). Examining individual variation in learner production data: A few programmatic pointers for corpus-based analyses using the example of adverbial clause ordering. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42(2), 279–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutzmann, D. & Henderson, R. (2019). Expressive updates, much? Language, 95(1), 107–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamunen, M. V. J. (2017). On the grammaticalization of Finnish Colorative Construction. Constructions and Frames, 9(1), 101–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, B., Bernaisch, T., & Gries, S. Th. (2017). Empirical perspectives on two potential epicenters: The genitive alternation in Asian Englishes. ICAME Journal, 41(1), 111–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, Th. (2020). Constructions, generalizations, and the unpredictability of language: Moving towards colloconstruction grammar. Constructions and Frames, 12(1), 56–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2006). Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(2), 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2008). Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2016). Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may. Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 66–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. & Flach, S. (2020). Disentangling modal meanings with distributional semantics. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 36(2), 307–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. & Saavedra, D. C. (2020). Using token-based semantic vector spaces for corpus-linguistic analyses: From practical applications to tests of theoretical claims. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 16(2), 393–424.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2020a). What would it take for us to abandon Construction Grammar? Falsifiability, confirmation bias and the future of the Constructionist enterprise. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2020b). Marginal argument structure constructions: the [V the Ntaboo-word out of]-construction in Post-colonial Englishes. Linguistics Vanguard, 6(1), https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T, Horsch, J., & Brunner, T. (2019). The more data, the better: A usage-based account of the English comparative correlative construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 30(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenset, G. B. & McGillivray, B. (2017). Quantitative Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? Construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, S. & Verhagen, A. (1994). The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(2), 115–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1975). Empirical foundations of linguistic theory. In Austerlitz, R., ed., The Scope of American Linguistics. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press, pp. 7–133.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Liu, L. & Ambridge, B. (2021). Balancing information-structure and semantic constraints on construction choice: Building a computational model of passive and passive-like constructions in Mandarin Chinese. Cognitive Linguistics, 32, 349–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, D. & Tizón-Couto, D. (2019). Chunking or predicting: Frequency information and reduction in the perception of multi-word sequences. Cognitive Linguistics, 30(4), 751–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martí, M. A., Taulé, M., Kovatchev, V., & Salamó, M. (2019). DISCOver: DIStributional approach based on syntactic dependencies for discovering Constructions. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2018-0028.Google Scholar
Martinez-Garcia, M. T. & Wulff, S. (2012). Not wrong, yet not quite right: Spanish ESL students’ use of gerundial and infinitival complementation. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, P. S. (1997). Figuring out figure out: Metaphor and the semantics of the English verb-particle construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 327–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, J. & Gries, S. Th. (2009). Collostructional nativisation in New Englishes: Verb-construction associations in the International Corpus of English. English World-Wide, 30(1), 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petré, P. & Anthonissen, L. (2020). Individuality in complex systems: A constructionist approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(2), 185–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D., De Smet, I., & Van de Velde, F. (2018). Constructional contamination in morphology and syntax: Four case studies. Constructions and Frames, 10(2), 269–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quochi, V. (2016). Development and representation of Italian light-fare constructions. In Yoon, J. and Gries, S. Th., eds., Corpus-Based Approaches to Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rastelli, S. (2020). Contingency learning and perfective morpheme productivity in L2 Italian: A study on lexeme–morpheme associations with ΔP. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 16(3), 459–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rautionaho, P. & Deshors, S. C. (2018). Progressive or not progressive? Modeling constructional choices in EFL and ESL. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 4(2), 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Röthlisberger, M., Grafmiller, J., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2017). Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(4), 673–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, R. (2018). Abstractions and exemplars: The measure noun phrase alternation in German. Cognitive Linguistics, 29(4), 729–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. & Küchenhoff, H. (2013). Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(3), 531–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schönefeld, D. (ed.). (2011). Converging Evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, M. B. (1994). Agreement and iconicity in Russian impersonal constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(1), 5–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soares da Silva, A., Afonso, S., Palú, D., & Franco, K. (2021). Null ‘se’ constructions in Brazilian and European Portuguese: Morphosyntactic deletion or emergence of new constructions? Cognitive Linguistics, 32(1), 159–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L. & Baumann, A. (2021). Of absent mothers, strong sisters and peculiar daughters: The constructional network of English NPN constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(1), 97–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2006). Negative evidence and the raw frequency fallacy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(1), 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2007). Linguistics beyond grammaticality. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 3(1), 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th. (2005). Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szczesniak, K. (2019). Variation motivated by analogy with fixed chunks: Overlap between the reflexive and the way construction. Constructions and Frames, 11(1), 79–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. (2006). Morphosyntactic Persistence in Spoken English. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A. & Koide, Y. (1987). Iconicity and ‘indirect objects’ in English. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(3), 399–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vázquez Rozas, V. & Miglio, V. G. (2016). Constructions with subject vs. object experiencer in Spanish and Italian. A corpus-based approach. In Yoon, J. and Gries, S. Th., eds., Corpus-Based Approaches to Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 65–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S. & Gries, S. Th. (2011). Corpus-driven methods for assessing accuracy in learner production. In Robinson, P., ed., Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 61–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S. & Gries, S. Th. (2019). Particle placement in learner English: Measuring effects of context, first language, and individual variation. Language Learning, 69(4), 873–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S. & Gries, S. Th. (2021). Explaining individual variation in learner corpus research: some methodological suggestions. In Le Bruyn, B. & Paquot, M., eds., Learner Corpora and Second Language Acquisition Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–213.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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
×