English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

A language sensitive to a thing-place distinction (e.g., cup vs. Paris) may use thing-to-place conversion devices to allow a thing to be conceptualized as a place. Mandarin Chinese behaves inconsistently in the use of the conversion device – the addition of a localizer (e.g., li ‘inside’) to a thing noun – in that the device is not required in every situation where a thing is understood as a place, cf.  dao chezi- * (li)  arrive car-inside and  jin chezi-(li)  enter car-inside. Drawing evidence from Chinese directed motion contractions, I argue that such inconsistency is closely related to the other function of localizers: specifying the search domain of a ground that a figure is located with respect to. Specifically, Chinese adheres to a Localizer Condition according to which a localizer is not required if the information conveyed in the path verb and the (thing) ground is sufficiently specific to identify the figure's final location with respect to the (thing) ground. I show that the effects of the condition are observed in other languages such as Likpe and French, despite differences in encoding spatial relations.

Thing-place distinction and localizer distribution in Chinese directed motion construction