West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) (38th : 2020)

Multiple Polarity-related Heads, their interpretations, and NSI Licensing Park, Dongwoo; Hoe, Semoon; Chung, Han-Byul 2020-03-06

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
73804-Park_D_et_al_Polarity_related_heads_WCCFL38_2020..pdf [ 718.48kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 73804-1.0389867.json
JSON-LD: 73804-1.0389867-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 73804-1.0389867-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 73804-1.0389867-rdf.json
Turtle: 73804-1.0389867-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 73804-1.0389867-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 73804-1.0389867-source.json
Full Text
73804-1.0389867-fulltext.txt
Citation
73804-1.0389867.ris

Full Text

WCCFL 38 @ UBC March 6th, 2020  1  Multiple Polarity-related Heads, their interpretations, and NSI Licensing   Dongwoo Park  (Korea National Open University, dongwoop@knou.ac.kr),   Semoon Hoe (Pusan National University, geisthoe@gmail.com),   Han-Byul Chung (University of Hawaii at Mānoa, hchung2@hawaii.edu)    Core data: two types of Negative Sensitive Items (NSIs): Amwuto vs. Nwukwuto  (1)  Hoya-ka    nwukwu-l       cohaha-ni?             H.-NOM     someone-ACC  like-Q Polar Q: ‘Does Hoya like someone?’      (2)  a. Ani,  (ku-nun)   amwuto  *(an)  cohahay.    b. Ani, (ku-nun) nwukwuto   *(an)    cohahay.          No     he-TOP      NSI           NEG like                 No    he-TOP   NSI                 NEG   like          ‘No, he does not like anyone.’                          ‘No, he does not like anyone.’    (3)  a.  Ani,   amwuto.                                       b. *Ani ,  nwukwuto.            No      NSI                                                   No    NSI   The literature dealing with the semantic differences between amwu- and nwukwu- does exist.   They are not satisfactory to account for the asymmetry in (3) (See Appendix A).   In this presentation, we argue that the contrast in (3) can be attributable to the structural difference.  Claims  1. The structure of sentences with polar particles in Korean  (4) Pol<same/reverse, u[ ]POL> [ … Σ1<i[ ]POL>  [FocP … [XP … Σ2<i[ ]POL-light>    [TP … NEG<u[ ]POL>  …]]]]   (5)   Pol Σ1 Σ2 NEG  Function Truth-based system (cf. polarity-based system) Regular polarity Light polarity Morphological marking  Interpretability Uninterpretable Interpretable Interpretable Uninterpretable  i) Pol at the far left ii) Σ1 above FocP: bears a regular polarity variable  iii) Σ2 above TP: designated for a light polarity (Ladusaw 1979; Schwarz & Bhatt 2004)  iv) low NEG: hosts morphosyntactic negative expressions spelled-out inside TP; does not convey negative force (cf. Gribanova 2017).   2. Two types of NSIs in Korean:  amuwto and nwukwuto must be c-commanded by a different licensor at narrow syntax (NS); amuwto by Σ1, while nwukwuto by Σ2.             WCCFL 38 @ UBC March 6th, 2020  2  Assumptions  1. Σ1, Σ2, Neg get their POL values through AGREE with the Pol head   The Agree-chain - Deal’s (2009) AGREE system inspired by Pesetsky and Torrego (2007).  Pol<same/reverse, u[α]POL> [ … Σ1<i[α]POL>  [FocP … [XP … Σ2<i[α]POL-light>    [TP … NEG<u[α]POL>  …]]]]  AGREE                      AGREE                             AGREE  ① When Σ2 is introduced into the derivation, Σ2 and NEG establish an AGREE relation ② As soon as Σ1 merges with FocP, it AGREEs with Σ2. → The three heads at hand contain unvalued POL features.   ③ When the Pol head enters the derivation, it AGREEs with Σ1.  ④ As a result, all the heads (i.e., Pol, Σ1, Σ2, and NEG) form an AGREE chain  ⑤ Pol, Σ1, Σ2, and NEG all share the same POL value (i.e., [+]: affirmative, [-]: negative).   This analysis is compatible with some variants of phase theory (Chomsky 2001; Bošković 2008)                   2. The POL value of the Pol head in Korean follows a truth-based answering system    The Pol head carries both <same/reverse> and <u[ ]POL>.  - The realization of polarity particles ung and ani is solely dependent on the value of <same/reverse>.  - The value of <u[ ]POL> in the Pol head of the answer is also determined by <same/reverse>        (cf. Authier 2013).   e.g.  Pol <same> → ung,  the value of <u[]POL> in the answer = the value of <u[]POL> in the question.  Pol <reverse> → ani, the value of <u[]POL> in the answer ↔ the value of <u[]POL> in the  question.  (6)  [PolP  Pol[+]  [Hoya-ka    nwukwu-l       cohaha-ni]?                                    H.-NOM      someone-ACC  like-Q Polar Q: ‘Does Hoya like someone?’      (7)  a. [PolP  Pol[reverse], [-] … ]                                          a’. [PolP  Pol[same], [+] … ]     Ani, (ku-nun)   amwuto  *(an)  cohahay.               Ung,  (ku-nun)  nukwu-lul        cohahay.                    No     he-TOP     NSI           NEG like                       yes      he-TOP someone-ACC like                    ‘No, he does not like anyone.’                                 ‘Yes, he like someone.’              WCCFL 38 @ UBC March 6th, 2020  3  Derivation of (1) and (2)   (1)  Hoya-ka    nwukwu-l       cohaha-ni?             H.-NOM     someone-ACC  like-Q       Polar Q: ‘Does Hoya like someone?’  (8) Q … Pol<_, u[+]POL>  Σ1<i[+]POL> … [XP… Σ2<i[+]POL-light> [TP H.-ka  NEG <u[+]POL> [vP nwukwu-lul  cohaha]-T]-ni?                                AGREE              AGREE                       AGREE   (2)  a. Ani,  (ku-nun)   amwuto  *(an)  cohahay.    b. Ani, (ku-nun) nwukwuto   *(an)    cohahay.          No     he-TOP      NSI           NEG like                 No    he-TOP    NSI              NEG   like          ‘No, he does not like anyone.’                          ‘No, he does not like anyone.’                                                                                                          √LICENSING    √LICENSING                                                              (9) Pol<reverse, u[-]POL> Σ1<i[-]POL>…  [XP Σ2<i[-]POL-light> [TP H.-ka  NEG <u[-]POL> [vP amwuto/nukwuto  cohaha]-T]-y].                                AGREE                     AGREE                    AGREE                                                                        In (9)  ① Pol, Σ1, Σ2, and NEG form an AGREE chain. (See Assumption 1) ② The POL value of Pol head is determined as <reverse> and is realized as ani.  ③ POL value of Pol in the answer (9) is determined negative due to Pol <reverse>, since the POL value of Pol in the question (8) is positive. (See Assumption 2) ④ The POL value of Σ1, Σ2, and NEG are all determined negative via the already-established AGREE chain.  ⑤ NEG is realized as negation form an in a post-syntactic component (i.e., PF).  ⑥ amwuto and nwukwuto in (2a, b) are both in the domain of Σ1 and Σ2, respectively. Therefore, (2a) and (2b) are all grammatical.   Derivation of (3)   Assumption 3: Derivational approach to ellipsis (Park 2017; cf. Aelbrecht 2010, Baltin 2012)    Ellipsis occurs in the course of derivation at NS  Ellipsis occurs as soon as all the featural requirements of the ellipsis licensor are satisfied. (≒ Ellipsis occurs when the licensor is introduced into the derivation)   Ellipsis deprives lexical items in the ellipsis site of their phonological features, but preserves their formal/syntactic features.   Elided elements can participate in further formal/syntactic operations that occur after ellipsis.  (For more information, see Appendix B)   Spoiler!  (1)  Hoya-ka    nwukwu-l       cohaha-ni?             H.-NOM     someone-ACC  like-Q        Polar Q: ‘Does Hoya like someone?’  (3)  a.  Ani,   amwuto [Hoya-ga  t    an   cohahay].                                                           No      NSI        Seemingly non-identical constituent can be elided as a result of satisfying the identity condition – HOW?    The identity requirement can be satisfied through this derivational approach to ellipsis. WCCFL 38 @ UBC March 6th, 2020  4  (1)  Hoya-ka    nwukwu-l       cohaha-ni?             H.-NOM     someone-ACC  like-Q        Polar Q: ‘Does Hoya like someone?’  (3)  a.  Ani,   amwuto.                                         b. *Ani ,  nwukwuto.            No      NSI                                                    No     NSI  (10) a.                                                [XP… Σ2< i[  ]POL-light> [TP H.-ka  NEG<u[  ]POL>  [vP  NSI  cohaha]-y]                                                AGREE       b.                                      [FocP  NSI1 [XP…Σ2< i[  ]POL-light> [TP H.-ka  NEG<u[  ]POL>  [vP   t1  cohaha] …]] …     c.                   Σ1<i[  ]POL>… [FocP NSI1 [XP…Σ2<i[  ]POL-light >  [TP H.-ka  NEG<u[  ]POL>  [vP   t1  cohaha] …]] …                                                AGREE                                                      AGREE       d. Ani<reverse, u[-]POL> Σ1<i[-]POL>…[FocP NSI1 [XP…Σ2<i[-]POL-light> [TP H.-ka  NEG<u[-]POL>   [vP   t1  cohaha]…]] …                         AGREE                              AGREE                                  AGREE   ① Σ2 and NEG establish an AGREE relation, while they are unvalued – (10a)  ② When Foc enters the derivation, the NSIs in (3) move to Spec,FocP (Merchant 2004, a.o.), and subsequently, XP is elided – (10b).  ③ At the point of ellipsis, Σ2 and NEG remain unvalued.   ④ Identity condition is satisfied! – unvalued features in the EC are underspecified/open ones, and thus, they are non-distinctive from the valued counterparts in the AC for the sake of the identity requirement (cf. Holmberg 2013). (see Assumption 3)   ⑤ Σ1 establishes an AGREE relation with Σ2, since elements elided during the derivation can participate in further syntactic derivation after ellipsis (Abels 2012, Park 2017).  ⑥ Once the Pol head is introduced into the derivation, all the heads in the AGREE chain get valued.     The explanation of the contrast in (3)                                √LICENSING            *LICENSING              *LICENSING                                                                          (11) Pol<reverse, u[-]POL> Σ1<i[-]POL>  [FocP amwuto1/nwukwuto1[XP Σ2 i[-]POL-light [TP H.-ka  NEG<u[-]POL> [vP  t1 cohaha]…]]…                                                          (3a)           (3b)  In (3a), amwuto is in the domain of Σ1 even after it is moved out of the ellipsis site, while nwukwuto in (3b) is located outside the domain of its licensor Σ2.   cf. Negative Questions and the distribution of two NSIs   (12)   a.  Hoya-ka   amwuto   an       cohahani?      Negative polar Q: ‘Didn’t Hoya like anyone?                H.-NOM     NSI           NEG    like-Q   b. ung,   amwuto.                                       c. *ung,  nwukwuto.                yes,    NSI                                                      yes,   NSI                  ‘No, He didn’t like anyone.’                                √LICENSING            *LICENSING              *LICENSING                                                                          Pol<same, u[-]POL> Σ1<i[-]POL>  [FocP amwuto1/nwukwuto1[XP Σ2 i[-]POL-light [TP H.-ka  NEG<u[-]POL> [vP  t1  cohaha] …]] ….                                                     (12b)        (12c)   WCCFL 38 @ UBC March 6th, 2020  5   Discussions: Two NSIs and Two different licensors    A puzzle in our analysis  (4) Pol<same/reverse, u[ ]POL> [ … Σ1<i[ ]POL>  [FocP … [XP … Σ2<i[ ]POL-light>    [TP … NEG<u[ ]POL>  …]]]]  Even though two distinct interpretable Σs get negative values through AGREE chain, this does not induce a positive meaning    When a clause contains multiple Σs    i. Double Negation (Holmberg 2013, etc.) ii. Negative concord (Kramer & Rawlins 2009, etc., cf. Authier 2013; Roelofsen & Farkas 2015)    No Double Negation i) Suppose that the two distinct interpretable Σs get negative forces. ii) Sentences with two negative-valued Σs would convey a positive interpretation via double negation, contrary to fact.   No Negative Concord i) Suppose that the AGREE chain gives rise to a Concord relation between the two interpretable negative heads (Σ1 and Σ2): Σ1 and Σ2 are semantically identical ii) It would be hard to explain why each NSI can be bound by only one of the licensors.     Our suggestion:  Negative-valued Σ1 is plain negation, while negative-valued Σ2 in Korean is light negation.   (4) Pol<same/reverse, u[ ]POL> [ … Σ1<i[ ]POL>  [FocP … [XP … Σ2<i[ ]POL-light>    [TP … NEG<u[ ]POL>  …]]]]    Light negation (Ladusaw 1979; Schwarz & Bhatt 2004)  (13)   a. *I am happy that you didn’t see something.    b. I am surprised that you didn’t see something.  ① The PPI is available when the negative marker not is in NPI licensing contexts.  ② Light negation is an NPI, thus must be licensed in NPI licensing contexts ③ PPIs, as well as NPIs, can appear in the domain of light negation.    Our data  1. Not negative concord, but NPI-licensing: The AGREE between the negative valued Σ1 and Σ2 is established via NPI-licensing (not negative concord relation) 2. Not double negation: While Σ1 and Σ2 are distinct interpretable Σs, negative force of Σ2 is dependent on Σ1.     Two different Σs and two different types of NSIs in Korean Amwu-to is c-commanded at NS by the plain negative head = Σ1<i[-]POL>             Nwukwu-to is c-commanded at NS by the light negative head = Σ2<i[-]POL-light> WCCFL 38 @ UBC March 6th, 2020  6    The revision: the AGREE chain  i. The AGREE between Σ2 and NEG: valuation ii. The AGREE between Pol and Σ1: valuation iii. The AGREE between Σ1 and Σ2: Polarity Sensitive Item licensing (e.g. NPI licensing)   (14) The derivation of (3)           Pol <reverse, u[-]POL> Σ1<i[-]POL>…[FocP NSI1 [XP…Σ2<i[-]POL-light>   [TP H.-ka  NEG<u[-]POL>   [vP   t1  cohaha]…]] ….                         AGREE                      AGREE (NPI-LICENSING)                     AGREE   iv. Some crucial implementations ① The uninterpretable POL value of the NEG head is solely dependent on Σ2. ② As long as NPI-licensing relation is established between Σ1 and Σ2, Σ2 can receive the negative POL value from Σ1. (Even if the POL value of Σ1 itself is not negative)    The extensions – the existence of light negation in Korean  (15) a.  Hoya-ka  mwues-ul          an      mek-ess-ci?      b. *Hoya-ka mwues-ul          an     mek-ess-ta.           H.-NOM   something-ACC  NEG   eat-PAST-Q           H.-NOM   something-ACC  NEG  eat-PAST-D   polar Q: ‘Did Hoya not eat something?’             ‘*Hoya didn’t eat something.’                                  (15a):  Q … Σ1<affective> … Σ2<i[-]POL-light>… NEG<u[-]POL> … okPPI  1. Suppose that a clause has an NPI licensor Q that can affect the value of Σ1 (i.e. Σ1<affective>). 2. Such an NPI-licensing Σ1 will be able to license Σ2 as Σ2<i[-]POL-light>, as it is a light negation. (Even if the POL value of Σ1 itself is not negative) 3. In (15a), since Σ2 is light and Σ1 is not a (plain) negation, the use of the PPI is available.  4. Although Σ2 is light, its value is still negative. Thus, NEG receives negative valuation via AGREE and is realized as an.  (15b):      … Σ1<i[-]POL>  …  Σ2<i[-]POL-light>… NEG<u[-]POL> … *PPI  1. In (15b), since there is no such NPI licensor, as in (15a), Pol, Σ1, Σ2, and neg form a canonical Agree chain. 2. The realization of an indicates that the neg is valued [-], which means that Σ1 and Σ2 are both <i[-]pol>.   3. Although Σ2 is light, unlike in (15a) Σ1 is a (plain) negation. Thus, PPI is still under the local domain of a plain negative. 4. Therefore, PPI is blocked in (15b).           WCCFL 38 @ UBC March 6th, 2020  7     Appendix A: Two indeterminate NPs in Korean Amwu- vs. Nwukwu-   Alternative 1: NPI vs. NCI   i. NC criteria (Vallduvi 1994; Watanabe 2004)   Fragment answers: Only NCIs can be used as a fragment answer   (16)  Q: Hoya-ka   nwukwu-l  mannass-ci?  H.-NOM  who-ACC  met-Q                                                                         wh-Q: ‘Who did Hoya meet?’             A: Amwuto/*Nwukwuto               NSI                 (int.) ‘no one’                           Based on (16), one might claim that amwuto is an NCI, while nwukwuto is an NPI.   But,  ii. Nwukwuto passes some of the NCI criteria  (17)  subject position test (Watanabe 2014)    Amwuto/nwukwuto  Hoya-lul   an     mannassta.             NSI                          H.-ACC     NEG  met                            ‘Hoya did not meet anyone.’                    (18) clause-boundness test (Watanabe (2014)         *Na-nun  [CP  Jon-i         amwu/nwukwu-to cohahan-ta-ko  ]  malhaci   anh-ass-ta.         I-TOP           John-NOM   NSI                  like-DECL-COMP  say        not-PAST-DECL          ‘(lit.) I did not say that John liked anyone’   Given that fragment answers involve ellipsis (Merchant 2004, a.o.), our analysis can explain (16) just like (3), without the distinction between NPI and NCI.  (1)  Hoya-ka    nwukwu-l       cohaha-ni?             H.-NOM     someone-ACC  like-Q        Polar Q: ‘Does Hoya like someone?’  (3)  a.  Ani,   amwuto.                                         b. *Ani ,  nwukwuto.            No      NSI                                                      No     NSI   Alternative 2: Semantic differences between the two indeterminate NPs  i. Previous analyses on the semantic differences between amwu- and nwukwu- ① Choi 2007: the property of domain widening ② Giannakidou & Yoon 2015: vagueness ③ Kim & Kaufmann 2006: intensionality  ii. Problems for ① and ② (a) The semantic contrasts discussed in ① and ② become blurred in a strong negative WCCFL 38 @ UBC March 6th, 2020  8  context. (b) Both NSIs in (3) and (8) are located under a strong negative context.    iii. Problems for ③ (a) Kim & Kaufmann (2006) argue that nwukwu, unlike amwu-, is a plain indefinite, and it        is more heavily sensitive to existential closure.  (b) In this line of reasoning, it is possible to say that nwukwu-to must stay in the existential        closure domain (TP/vP; Diesing 1992, etc.). But,  (19) Amwuto/nwukwuto   way     hakkyo-ey     an     ka-ss-ni?         NSI                      why    school-DAT    NEG   go-PST-Q        “(lit.) why didn’t anyone go to school?”  (c) Given the assumption that way ‘why’ in Korean is based generated in the low(est) position of left-periphery (Ko 2005, 2006), (19) shows that both NSIs can be extracted out of the existential closure domain.   Appendix B: Park’s (2017) derivational approach to ellipsis (cf. Abels 2012)  (20) a. What should Bill be proud of, and what should John be proud of?       b. What might Tom not be fond of, and what might he be fond of?  (21) a. ?*I don’t know what Bill should be proud of, but I don’t know what John should be proud of.        b. ?*Although I wonder what Tom might not be fond of, I don’t wonder what he might be fond of.    (22) The timing of ellipsis  XP ellipsis occurs as soon as all the featural requirements of the licensor of XP ellipsis are  satisfied.   (23) The derivation in (20)                         WCCFL 38 @ UBC March 6th, 2020  9  (24) The derivation in (21)                (25) Ellipsis is a syntactic operation that eliminates the phonological feature matrices of lexical items  inside the ellipsis site, but it preserves their formal/syntactic feature matrices.                   Consequence: Elements which are deprived of their phonological feature matrices can  participate in further formal operations that occur after ellipsis    Evidence  (26) a. I bought the book last week that John read.         b. I bought the book last week [book1 that John read t1]  Hulsey and Sauerland (2006) – The Matching analysis is forced.    (27) a. *Tom will be fond of all the books next year which Mary will be fond of.          b. ?Tom will be fond of all the books next year that Mary will be fond of.  Given the assumption that C of the RC bears the uninterpretable feature (i.e., [uOp]) triggering movement of the internal head, the elided internal head must be able to participate in Agree.                   WCCFL 38 @ UBC March 6th, 2020  10  Selected references Abels, K. (2012) Phase: An essay on cyclicity in syntax. Berlin: de Gruyter. Aelbrecht, L. (2010) The syntactic licensing of ellipsis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Authier, J.-M. (2013) Phase-edge features and the syntax of polarity particles. Linguistic Inquiry 44, 345–389. Baltin, M. (2012) Deletion vs. pro-forms. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30, 381–423. Bošković, Ž. (2008) On the Locality and Motivation of Move and Agree: An Even More Minimal Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 589-644. Choi, J. (2007) Free choice and negative polarity: A compositional analysis of Korean polarity sensitive items. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Chomsky, N. (2001) Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. By Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Deal, A. R. (2009) The Origin and Content of Expletives: Evidence from ‘‘Selection’’. Syntax 12, 285–323. Ko, H. (2005) Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [SPEC,CP] in the overt syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23:867–916. Ko, H. (2006) On the structural height of reason Wh-Adverbials: acquisition and consequences. In L. Cheng and N. Corver (eds.), Wh-Movement: Moving On, 319–349. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kramer, R. & K. Rawlins (2009) Polarity particles: An ellipsis account. In Proceedings of NELS 39. Graduate Linguistic Student Association. Giannakidou, A & S. Yoon (2015) Scalar marking without scalar meaning: Nonscalar, nonexhaustive even-marked NPIs in Greek and Korean. Language 92, 522–556. Gribanova, V. (2017) Head movement and ellipsis in the expression of Russian polarity focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 35, 1078–1121. Holmberg, A. (2013) The syntax of Negative Questions and their Answers. In Proceedings of GLOW in Asia IX, 1–18. Kim, M.-J. & S. Kaufmann (2006) Domain Restriction in Freedom of Choice: Korean ‘INDET-NA’ items, In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11. Ladusaw, W. (1979) Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. Merchant, J. (2004) Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 661–738. Park, D. (2017) When does ellipsis occur, and what is elided? Doctoral Dissertation. University of Maryland. Pesetsky, D & E. Torrego (2007) The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In S. Karimi, V. Samiian & W. K. Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds, 262–294. John Benjamins Publishing. Schwarz, B. & R. Bhatt (2006) Light negation and Polarity. In R. Zanuttini, H. Campos, E. Herburger & P. Portner (eds.), Cross-Linguistic Research in Syntax and Semantics: Negation, Tense and Clausal Architecture, 175–198. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Vallduvi, E. (1994) Polarity items, n-words and minimizers in Catalan and Spanish. Probus 6:263-294. Watanabe, A. (2004) The Genesis of Negative Concord: Syntax and Morphology of Negative Doubling, Linguistic Inquiry 35-4: 559-612 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.73804.1-0389867/manifest

Comment

Related Items