Linguistics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the field of study. For the journal, see Linguistics (jour
nal).
"Linguist" redirects here. For other uses, see Linguist (disambiguation).
Linguistics
Theoretical
Cognitive Generative Quantitative
Functional theories of grammar
Phonology Morphology
Morphophonology Syntax Lexis Semantics Pragmatics Graphemics Orthography Semioti
cs
Descriptive
Anthropological Comparative Historical Etymology Graphetics Phonetics Sociolingu
istics
Applied and experimental
Computational Contrastive
Evolutionary Forensic Internet
Language acquisition
Second-language acquisition
Language assessment
Language development
Language education
Linguistic anthropology
Neurolinguistics Psycholinguistics
Related articles
History of linguistics
Linguistic prescription
List of linguists
Unsolved linguistics problems
Linguistics portal
v t e
Linguistics is the scientific[1] study of language.[2] There are three aspects t
o this study: language form, language meaning, and language in context.[3] The e
arliest activities in the description of language have been attributed to Pini, wh
o was an early student of linguistics[4](fl. 4th century BCE),[5] with his analy
sis of Sanskrit in Ashtadhyayi.[6]
Linguistics analyzes human language as a system for relating sounds (or signs in
signed languages) and meaning.[7] Phonetics studies acoustic and articulatory p
roperties of the production and perception of speech sounds and non-speech sound
s. The study of language meaning, on the other hand, deals with how languages en
code relations between entities, properties, and other aspects of the world to c
onvey, process, and assign meaning, as well as to manage and resolve ambiguity.
While the study of semantics typically concerns itself with truth conditions, pr
agmatics deals with how context influences meanings.[8]
Grammar is a system of rules which govern the form of the utterances in a given
language. It encompasses both sound[9] and meaning, and includes phonology (how
sounds and gestures function together), morphology (the formation and compositio
n of words), and syntax (the formation and composition of phrases and sentences
from words).[10]
In the early 20th century, Ferdinand de Saussure distinguished between the notio
ns of langue and parole in his formulation of structural linguistics. According
to him, parole is the specific utterance of speech, whereas langue refers to an
abstract phenomenon that theoretically defines the principles and system of rule
s that govern a language.[11] This distinction resembles the one made by Noam Ch
omsky between competence and performance, where competence is individual's ideal

knowledge of a language, while performance is the specific way in which it is u

sed.[12]
The formal study of language has also led to the growth of fields like psycholin
guistics, which explores the representation and function of language in the mind
; neurolinguistics, which studies language processing in the brain; and language
acquisition, which investigates how children and adults acquire a particular la
nguage.
Linguistics also includes nonformal approaches to the study of other aspects of
human language, such as social, cultural, historical and political factors.[13]
The study of cultural discourses and dialects is the domain of sociolinguistics,
which looks at the relation between linguistic variation and social structures,
as well as that of discourse analysis, which examines the structure of texts an
d conversations.[14] Research on language through historical and evolutionary li
nguistics focuses on how languages change, and on the origin and growth of langu
ages, particularly over an extended period of time.
Corpus linguistics takes naturally occurring texts or films (in signed languages
) as its primary object of analysis, and studies the variation of grammatical an
d other features based on such corpora. Stylistics involves the study of pattern
s of style: within written, signed, or spoken discourse.[15] Language documentat
ion combines anthropological inquiry with linguistic inquiry to describe languag
es and their grammars. Lexicography covers the study and construction of diction
aries. Computational linguistics applies computer technology to address question
s in theoretical linguistics, as well as to create applications for use in parsi
ng, data retrieval, machine translation, and other areas. People can apply actua
l knowledge of a language in translation and interpreting, as well as in languag
e education - the teaching of a second or foreign language. Policy makers work w
ith governments to implement new plans in education and teaching which are based
on linguistic research.
Areas of study related to linguistics include semiotics (the study of signs and
symbols both within language and without), literary criticism, translation, and
speech-language pathology.
Contents [hide]
1 Nomenclature
2 Variation and Universality
2.1 Lexicon
2.2 Discourse
2.3 Dialect
2.4 Structures
2.5 Relativity
2.6 Style
3 Approach
3.1 Generative vs. functional theories of language
3.2 Methodology
3.3 Analysis
3.4 Anthropology
3.5 Sources
4 History of linguistic thought
4.1 Early grammarians
4.2 Comparative philology
4.3 Structuralism
4.4 Generativism
4.5 Functionalism
4.6 Cognitivism
5 Areas of research
5.1 Historical linguistics

5.2 Sociolinguistics
5.3 Developmental linguistics
5.4 Neurolinguistics
6 Applied linguistics
7 Inter-disciplinary fields
7.1 Semiotics
7.2 Language documentation
7.3 Translation
7.4 Biolinguistics
7.5 Clinical linguistics
7.6 Computational linguistics
7.7 Evolutionary linguistics
7.8 Forensic linguistics
8 See also
9 References
10 Bibliography
11 External links
Nomenclature[edit]
Before the 20th century, the term philology, first attested in 1716,[16] was com
monly used to refer to the science of language, which was then predominantly his
torical in focus.[17][18] Since Ferdinand de Saussure's insistence on the import
ance of synchronic analysis, however, this focus has shifted[19] and the term "p
hilology" is now generally used for the "study of a language's grammar, history,
and literary tradition", especially in the United States[20] (where philology h
as never been very popularly considered as the "science of language").[21]
Although the term "linguist" in the sense of "a student of language" dates from
1641,[22] the term "linguistics" is first attested in 1847.[22] It is now the co
mmon academic term in English for the scientific study of language.
Today, the term linguist applies to someone who studies language or is a researc
her within the field, or to someone who uses the tools of the discipline to desc
ribe and analyze specific languages.[23]
Variation and Universality[edit]
While some theories on linguistics focus on the different varieties that languag
e produces, among different sections of society, others focus on the universal p
roperties that are common to all human languages. The theory of variation theref
ore would elaborate on the different usages of popular languages like French and
English across the globe, as well as its smaller dialects and regional permutat
ions within their national boundaries. The theory of variation looks at the cult
ural stages that a particular language undergoes, and these include the followin
g.
Lexicon[edit]
The lexicon is a catalogue of words and terms that are stored in a speaker's min
d. The lexicon consists of words and bound morphemes, which are words that can't
stand alone, like affixes. In some analyses, compound words and certain classes
of idiomatic expressions and other collocations are also considered to be part
of the lexicon. Dictionaries represent attempts at listing, in alphabetical orde
r, the lexicon of a given language; usually, however, bound morphemes are not in
cluded. Lexicography, closely linked with the domain of semantics, is the scienc
e of mapping the words into an encyclopedia or a dictionary. The creation and ad
dition of new words (into the lexicon) are called neologisms.
It is often believed that a speaker's capacity for language lies in the quantity
of words stored in the lexicon. However, this is often considered a myth by lin
guists. The capacity for the use of language is considered by many linguists to
lie primarily in the domain of grammar, and to be linked with competence, rather
than with the growth of vocabulary. Even a very small lexicon is theoretically

capable of producing an infinite number of sentences.

Discourse[edit]
A discourse is a way of speaking that emerges within a certain social setting an
d is based on a certain subject matter. A particular discourse becomes a languag
e variety when it is used in this way for a particular purpose, and is referred
to as a register.[24] There may be certain lexical additions (new words) that ar
e brought into play because of the expertise of the community of people within a
certain domain of specialisation. Registers and discourses therefore differenti
ate themselves through the use of vocabulary, and at times through the use of st
yle too. People in the medical fraternity, for example, may use some medical ter
minology in their communication that is specialised to the field of medicine. Th
is is often referred to as being part of the "medical discourse", and so on.
Dialect[edit]
A dialect is a variety of language that is characteristic of a particular group
among the language speakers.[25] The group of people who are the speakers of a d
ialect are usually bound to each other by social identity. This is what differen
tiates a dialect from a register or a discourse, where in the latter case, cultu
ral identity does not always play a role. Dialects are speech varieties that hav
e their own grammatical and phonological rules, linguistic features, and stylist
ic aspects, but have not been given an official status as a language. Dialects o
ften move on to gain the status of a language due to political and social reason
s. Differentiation amongst dialects (and subsequently, languages too) is based u
pon the use of grammatical rules, syntactic rules, and stylistic features, thoug
h not always on lexical use or vocabulary. The popular saying that a "language i
s a dialect with an army and navy" is attributed as a definition formulated by M
ax Weinreich.
Universal grammar takes into account general formal structures and features that
are common to all dialects and languages, and the template of which pre-exists
in the mind of an infant child. This idea is based on the theory of generative g
rammar and the formal school of linguistics, whose proponents include Noam Choms
ky and those who follow his theory and work.
"We may as individuals be rather fond of our own dialect. This should not make u
s think, though, that it is actually any better than any other dialect. Dialects
are not good or bad, nice or nasty, right or wrong they are just different from
one another, and it is the mark of a civilised society that it tolerates differ
ent dialects just as it tolerates different races, religions and sexes." [26]
Structures[edit]
Linguistic structures are pairings of meaning and form. Any particular pairing o
f meaning and form is a Saussurean sign. For instance, the meaning "cat" is repr
esented worldwide with a wide variety of different sound patterns (in oral langu
ages), movements of the hands and face (in sign languages), and written symbols
(in written languages).
Linguists focusing on structure attempt to understand the rules regarding langua
ge use that native speakers know (not always consciously). All linguistic struct
ures can be broken down into component parts that are combined according to (sub
)conscious rules, over multiple levels of analysis. For instance, consider the s
tructure of the word "tenth" on two different levels of analysis. On the level o
f internal word structure (known as morphology), the word "tenth" is made up of
one linguistic form indicating a number and another form indicating ordinality.
The rule governing the combination of these forms ensures that the ordinality ma
rker "th" follows the number "ten." On the level of sound structure (known as ph
onology), structural analysis shows that the "n" sound in "tenth" is made differ
ently from the "n" sound in "ten" spoken alone. Although most speakers of Englis
h are consciously aware of the rules governing internal structure of the word pi

eces of "tenth", they are less often aware of the rule governing its sound struc
ture. Linguists focused on structure find and analyze rules such as these, which
govern how native speakers use language.
Linguistics has many sub-fields concerned with particular aspects of linguistic
structure. The theory that elucidates on these, as propounded by Noam Chomsky, i
s known as generative theory or universal grammar. These sub-fields range from t
hose focused primarily on form to those focused primarily on meaning. They also
run the gamut of level of analysis of language, from individual sounds, to words
, to phrases, up to cultural discourse.
Sub-fields that focus on a structure-focused study of language:
Phonetics, the study of the physical properties of speech sound production and p
erception
Phonology, the study of sounds as abstract elements in the speaker's mind that d
istinguish meaning (phonemes)
Morphology, the study of morphemes, or the internal structures of words and how
they can be modified
Syntax, the study of how words combine to form grammatical phrases and sentences
Semantics, the study of the meaning of words (lexical semantics) and fixed word
combinations (phraseology), and how these combine to form the meanings of senten
ces
Pragmatics, the study of how utterances are used in communicative acts, and the
role played by context and non-linguistic knowledge in the transmission of meani
ng
Discourse analysis, the analysis of language use in texts (spoken, written, or s
igned)
Stylistics, the study of linguistic factors (rhetoric, diction, stress) that pla
ce a discourse in context
Semiotics, the study of signs and sign processes (semiosis), indication, designa
tion, likeness, analogy, metaphor, symbolism, signification, and communication.
Relativity[edit]
As constructed popularly through the "Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis", relativists belie
ve that the structure of a particular language is capable of influencing the cog
nitive patterns through which a person shapes his or her world view. Universalis
ts believe that there are commonalities between human perception as there is in
the human capacity for language, while relativists believe that this varies from
language to language and person to person. While the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is
an elaboration of this idea expressed through the writings of American linguists
Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, it was Sapir's student Harry Hoijer who te
rmed it thus. The 20th century German linguist Leo Weisgerber also wrote extensi
vely about the theory of relativity. Relativists argue for the case of different
iation at the level of cognition and in semantic domains. The emergence of cogni
tive linguistics in the 1980s also revived an interest in linguistic relativity.
Thinkers like George Lakoff have argued that language reflects different cultur
al metaphors, while the French philosopher of language Jacques Derrida's writing
s have been seen to be closely associated with the relativist movement in lingui
stics, especially through deconstruction[27] and was even heavily criticised in
the media at the time of his death for his theory of relativism.[28]
Style[edit]
Stylistics is the study and interpretation of texts for aspects of their linguis
tic and tonal style. Stylistic analysis entails the analysis of description of p
articular dialects and registers used by speech communities. Stylistic features
include rhetoric,[29] diction, stress, satire, irony, dialogue, and other forms
of phonetic variations. Stylistic analysis can also include the study of languag
e in canonical works of literature, popular fiction, news, advertisements, and o
ther forms of communication in popular culture as well. It is usually seen as a
variation in communication that changes from speaker to speaker and community to

community. In short, Stylistics is the interpretation of text.

Approach[edit]
Generative vs. functional theories of language[edit]
One major debate in linguistics concerns how language should be defined and unde
rstood. Some linguists use the term "language" primarily to refer to a hypothesi
zed, innate module in the human brain that allows people to undertake linguistic
behavior, which is part of the formalist approach. This "universal grammar" is
considered to guide children when they learn languages and to constrain what sen
tences are considered grammatical in any language. Proponents of this view, whic
h is predominant in those schools of linguistics that are based on the generativ
e theory of Noam Chomsky, do not necessarily consider that language evolved for
communication in particular. They consider instead that it has more to do with t
he process of structuring human thought (see also formal grammar).
Another group of linguists, by contrast, use the term "language" to refer to a c
ommunication system that developed to support cooperative activity and extend co
operative networks. Such theories of grammar, called "functional", view language
as a tool that emerged and is adapted to the communicative needs of its users,
and the role of cultural evolutionary processes are often emphasized over that o
f biological evolution.[30]
Methodology[edit]
Linguistics is primarily descriptive. Linguists describe and explain features of
language without making subjective judgments on whether a particular feature or
usage is "good" or "bad". This is analogous to practice in other sciences: a zo
ologist studies the animal kingdom without making subjective judgments on whethe
r a particular species is "better" or "worse" than another.
Prescription, on the other hand, is an attempt to promote particular linguistic
usages over others, often favoring a particular dialect or "acrolect". This may
have the aim of establishing a linguistic standard, which can aid communication
over large geographical areas. It may also, however, be an attempt by speakers o
f one language or dialect to exert influence over speakers of other languages or
dialects (see Linguistic imperialism). An extreme version of prescriptivism can
be found among censors, who attempt to eradicate words and structures that they
consider to be destructive to society. Prescription, however, is practiced in t
he teaching of language, where certain fundamental grammatical rules and lexical
terms need to be introduced to a second-language speaker who is attempting to a
cquire the language.
Analysis[edit]
Before the 20th century, linguists analyzed language on a diachronic plane, whic
h was historical in focus. This meant that they would compare linguistic feature
s and try to analyze language from the point of view of how it had changed betwe
en then and later. However, with Saussurean linguistics in the 20th century, the
focus shifted to a more synchronic approach, where the study was more geared to
wards analysis and comparison between different language variations, which exist
ed at the same given point of time.
At another level, the syntagmatic plane of linguistic analysis entails the compa
rison between the way words are sequenced, within the syntax of a sentence. For
example, the article "the" is followed by a noun, because of the syntagmatic rel
ation between the words. The paradigmatic plane on the other hand, focuses on an
analysis that is based on the paradigms or concepts that are embedded in a give
n text. In this case, words of the same type or class may be replaced in the tex
t with each other to achieve the same conceptual understanding.
Anthropology[edit]
The objective of describing languages is to often uncover cultural knowledge abo

ut communities. The use of anthropological methods of investigation on linguisti

c sources leads to the discovery of certain cultural traits among a speech commu
nity through its linguistic features. It is also widely used as a tool in langua
ge documentation, with an endeavor to curate endangered languages. However, now,
linguistic inquiry uses the anthropological method to understand cognitive, his
torical, sociolinguistic and historical processes that languages undergo as they
change and evolve, as well as general anthropological inquiry uses the linguist
ic method to excavate into culture. In all aspects, anthropological inquiry usua
lly uncovers the different variations and relativities that underlie the usage o
f language.
Sources[edit]
Most contemporary linguists work under the assumption that spoken data and signe
d data is more fundamental than written data. This is because:
Speech appears to be universal to all human beings capable of producing and perc
eiving it, while there have been many cultures and speech communities that lack
written communication;
Features appear in speech which aren't always recorded in writing, including pho
nological rules, sound changes, and speech errors;
All natural writing systems reflect a spoken language (or potentially a signed o
ne) they are being used to write, with even pictographic scripts like Dongba wri
ting Naxi homophones with the same pictogram, and text in writing systems used f
or two languages changing to fit the spoken language being recorded;
Speech evolved before human beings invented writing;
People learnt to speak and process spoken language more easily and earlier than
they did with writing.
Nonetheless, linguists agree that the study of written language can be worthwhil
e and valuable. For research that relies on corpus linguistics and computational
linguistics, written language is often much more convenient for processing larg
e amounts of linguistic data. Large corpora of spoken language are difficult to
create and hard to find, and are typically transcribed and written. In addition,
linguists have turned to text-based discourse occurring in various formats of c
omputer-mediated communication as a viable site for linguistic inquiry.
The study of writing systems themselves, graphemics, is, in any case, considered
a branch of linguistics.
History of linguistic thought[edit]
Main article: History of linguistics
Early grammarians[edit]
Main articles: Philology and History of English grammars

Ancient Tamil inscription at Thanjavur

The formal study of language began in India with Pini, the 5th century BC grammari
an who formulated 3,959 rules of Sanskrit morphology. Pini's systematic classifica
tion of the sounds of Sanskrit into consonants and vowels, and word classes, suc
h as nouns and verbs, was the first known instance of its kind. In the Middle Ea
st Sibawayh (
) made a detailed description of Arabic in 760 AD in his monumental work,
Al-kitab fi al-nahw (
, The Book on Grammar), the first known author to distin
ounds and phonemes (sounds as units of a linguistic system). Western interest in
the study of languages began as early as in the East,[31] but the grammarians o
f the classical languages did not use the same methods or reach the same conclus
ions as their contemporaries in the Indic world. Early interest in language in t
he West was a part of philosophy, not of grammatical description. The first insi
ghts into semantic theory were made by Plato in his Cratylus dialogue, where he
argues that words denote concepts that are eternal and exist in the world of ide
as. This work is the first to use the word etymology to describe the history of
a word's meaning. Around 280 BC, one of Alexander the Great's successors founded
a university (see Musaeum) in Alexandria, where a school of philologists studie

d the ancient texts in and taught Greek to speakers of other languages. While th
is school was the first to use the word "grammar" in its modern sense, Plato had
used the word in its original meaning as "tchn grammatik" ( ),
e "
o
e  le of oe of
e mos mpo  wos of
e Alexde s
ool by Do
ysus 
x.[32] 
oug
ou

e Mddle Ages,
e s udy of lguge ws subsumed
ude
e op of p
lology,
e s udy of e lguges d ex s, p e
d by su
edu os s Roge As
m, Wolfgg R e, d Jo
 Amos Comeus.[33]
Comp ve p
lology[ed ]
I
e 18
e uy,
e fs use of
e omp ve me
od by Wllm Joes sp
ed
e se of omp ve lgus s.[34] Bloomfeld  bu es "
e fs
ge se f lgus  wo of
e wold" o Job mm, w
o wo e Deu s

e mm .[35] I ws soo followed by o
e u
os w g sml omp 
ve s udes o o
e lguge goups of Euope. 
e se f s udy of lguge
ws bodeed fom Ido-Euope o lguge  geel by Wl
elm vo Humbold ,
of w
om Bloomfeld sse s:[35]


s s udy eeved  s foud o 

e
ds of
e Puss s  esm d s

ol Wl
elm vo Humbold (17671835), espelly 
e fs volume of
s wo
o Kv,
e l ey lguge of Jv, e  led be de Ves
ede
e des me
s
l
e Sp
bues ud 
e Eflu uf de ges ge E welug des Mes
e
ges
le
s (O
e Ve y of
e S u ue of Hum Lguge d  s Ifluee
upo
e Me l Developme of
e Hum Re).
S u ulsm[ed ]
M  le: S u ulsm (lgus s)
Ely 
e 20
e uy, Sussue  odued
e de of lguge s  s  
sys em of  eoe ed u s, defed
oug

e oppos os be wee
em. By
 odug  ds  o be wee d
o o sy
o lyses of lguge
,
e ld
e foud o of
e mode dsple of lgus s. Sussue lso
 odued sevel bs dmesos of lgus  lyss
 e s ll foud
ol  my o empoy lgus 
eoes, su
s
e ds  os be wee
 sy gm d pdgm, d
e lgue- pole ds  o, ds gus
g lgu
ge s  bs  sys em (lgue) fom lguge s  oe e mfes  o of

s sys em (pole).[36] Subs  l dd ol o bu os followg Sussu
e's def o of  s u ul ppo
o lguge me fom 
e Pgue s
ool,
Leod Bloomfeld, C
les F. Hoe , Lous Hjelmslev, mle Beves e d Rom
 Jobso.[37][38]

ee vsm[ed ]
M  le: ee ve lgus s
Dug
e ls
lf of
e 20
e uy, followg
e wo of Nom C
omsy, l
gus s ws dom ed by
e gee vs s
ool. W
le fomul ed by C
omsy
 p s  wy o expl
ow
um begs que lguge d
e bologl
os  s o
s qus o,  p e 
s lgely bee oeed w

gvg foml ou s of spef p
eome   ul lguges. ee ve

eoy s moduls d fomls  
 e. C
omsy bul o ele wo of
Zellg Hs o fomul e
e gee ve
eoy of lguge. Aodg o
s

eoy
e mos bs fom of lguge s  se of sy   ules uvesl fo
 ll
ums d udelyg
e gmms of ll
um lguges. 
s se of ul
es s lled Uvesl mm, d fo C
omsy desbg  s
e pmy obj
e ve of
e dsple of lgus s. Fo
s eso
e gmms of dvd
ul lguges e of mpo e o lgus s oly  so f s
ey llow us
o dse
e uvesl udelyg ules fom w


e obsevble lgus  v
bl y s gee ed.
I
e lss fomls o of gee ve gmms fs poposed by Nom C
oms
y 
e 1950s,[39][40]  gmm oss s of
e followg ompoe s:
A f e se N of o eml symbols, oe of w

ppe  s gs fomed f

of

om .
A f e se \Sgm of eml symbols
 s dsjo fom N.
A f e se P of podu o ules,
 mp fom oe s g of symbols o o

e.
A foml desp o of lguge  emp s o epl e  spee's owledge of

e ules of
e lguge, d
e m s o podue  se of ules
 s m
o suessfully model vld lgus  foms.
mlly suffe
Fu olsm[ed ]
M  le: Fu ol
eoes of gmm
Fu ol
eoes of lguge popose
 se lguge s fudme lly 
ool,  s esoble o ssume
  s s u ues e bes lyzed d udes
ood w
efeee o
e fu os
ey y ou . Fu ol
eoes of gm
m dffe fom foml
eoes of gmm, 


e l e see o defe

e dffee eleme s of lguge d desbe
e wy
ey el e o e
o
e
s sys ems of foml ules o ope os, w
ees
e fome defes
e fu o
s pefomed by lguge d
e el es
ese fu os o
e lgus  elem
e s
 y
em ou . 
s mes
 fu ol
eoes of gmm ed o
py  e o o
e wy lguge s  ully used, d o jus o
e foml
el os be wee lgus  eleme s.[41]
Fu ol
eoes desbe lguge 
evels of lguge.

em of

e fu os exs g  ll l

P
oologl fu o:
e fu o of
e p
oeme s o ds gus
be wee df
fee lexl m el.
Sem  fu o: (Age , P e , Repe , e .), desbg
e ole of p
p s  s  es of ffs o  os expessed.
Sy   fu os: (e.g. subje d Obje ), defg dffee pespe ves

e pese  o of  lgus  expesso
Pgm  fu os: (
eme d R
eme, op d Fous, Ped e), defg
e
fom ol s  us of os  ue s, de emed by
e pgm  o ex of

e vebl  e o. Fu ol desp os of gmm s ve o expl
ow l
gus  fu os e pefomed  ommu o
oug

e use of lgus 
foms.
Cog vsm[ed ]
M  le: Cog ve lgus s
I
e 1950s,  ew s
ool of
oug
ow s og vsm emeged
oug

e f
eld of psy
ology. Cog vs s ly emp
ss o owledge d fom o, s o
pposed o be
vosm, fo s e. Cog vsm emeged  lgus s s  e
 o o gee vs

eoy 
e 1970s d 1980s. Led by
eos s le Rol
d Lge d eoge Loff, og ve lgus s popose
 lguge s  e
mege pope y of bs, geel-pupose og ve poesses. I o s
o

e gee vs s
ool of lgus s, og ve lgus s s o-moduls 
d fu ols  
 e. Impo  developme s  og ve lgus s 
lude og ve gmm, fme sem s, d oep ul me p
o, ll of w


e bsed o
e de
 fomfu o oespodees bsed o epese  os
deved fom emboded expeee os  u e
e bs u s of lguge.
Cog ve lgus s  epe s lguge  ems of oep s (some mes uve
sl, some mes spef o  p ul ogue)
 udele  s fom. I s

us losely sso ed w
sem s bu s ds  fom psy
olgus s, w


dws upo empl fdgs fom og ve psy
ology  ode o expl

e me l poesses
 udele
e qus o, s oge, podu o d ude
s dg of spee
d w g. Ule gee ve
eoy, og ve lgus s
dees


ee s  u oomous lgus  ful y 
e md;  udes d
s gmm  ems of oep ulz o; d lms
 owledge of lguge 
ses ou of lguge use.[42] Beuse of  s ov o
 owledge of lgu
ge s leed
oug
use, og ve lgus s s some mes osdeed o be
 fu ol ppo
, bu  dffes fom o
e fu ol ppo
es 
 

s pmly oeed w

ow
e md e es meg
oug
lguge, d

o w

e use of lguge s  ool of ommu o.
Aes of ese
[ed ]
Hs ol lgus s[ed ]
Hs ol lgus s s udy
e
s oy of spef lguges s well s geel

 es s of lguge 
ge. 
e s udy of lguge 
ge s lso efee
d o s "d
o lgus s" (
e s udy of
ow oe p ul lguge
s 

ged ove me), w

 be ds gus
ed fom "sy
o lgus s" (
e
omp ve s udy of moe
 oe lguge   gve mome  me w
ou 
egd o pevous s ges). Hs ol lgus s ws mog
e fs sub-dsp
les o emege  lgus s, d ws
e mos wdely p ed fom of lgu
s s 
e l e 19
e uy. Howeve,
ee ws  s
f o
e sy
o pp
o

e ely we e
e uy w
Sussue, d beme moe pedom
 wes e lgus s w

e wo of Nom C
omsy.
Soolgus s[ed ]
Soolgus s s
e s udy of
ow lguge s s
ped by sol f os. 
s
sub-dsple fouses o
e sy
o ppo
of lgus s, d loos 

ow  lguge  geel, o  se of lguges, dsply v o d ve es
  gve po  me. 
e s udy of lguge v o d
e dffee v
e es of lguge
oug
dle s, egs es, d deole s  be led

oug
 s udy of s yle, s well s
oug
lyss of dsouse. Soolgus s
ese
o bo
s yle d dsouse  lguge, d lso s udy
e
eoe l
f os
 e  ply be wee lguge d soe y.
Developme l lgus s[ed ]
Developme l lgus s s
e s udy of
e developme of lgus  bl y
 dvduls, p ully
e qus o of lguge  
ld
ood. Some of

e ques os
 developme l lgus s loos  o s
ow 
lde que l
guge,
ow dul s  que  seod lguge, d w


e poess of lgu
ge qus o s.
Neuolgus s[ed ]
Neuolgus s s
e s udy of
e s u ues 
e
um b
 udele
gmm d ommu o. Rese
es e dw o
e feld fom  ve y of
bgouds, bgg log  ve y of expeme l e
ques s well s wd
ely vyg
eoe l pespe ves. Mu
wo  euolgus s s fomed
by models  psy
olgus s d
eoe l lgus s, d s foused o 
ves g g
ow
e b  mpleme

e poesses


eoe l d psy

olgus s popose e eessy  podug d ompe
edg lguge. Neu
olgus s s udy
e p
ysologl me
sms by w


e b poesses fo
m o el ed o lguge, d evlu e lgus  d psy
olgus 
eoe
s, usg p
sology, b mgg, ele op
ysology, d ompu e modelg.
Appled lgus s[ed ]
M  le: Appled lgus s
Lgus s e lgely oeed w
fdg d desbg
e geel es d
ve es bo
w
 p ul lguges d mog ll lguges. Appled l
gus s es
e esul s of
ose fdgs d "pples"
em o o
e es.
Lgus  ese
s ommoly ppled o es su
s lguge edu o, lex
ogp
y, sl o, lguge plg, w

volves goveme l poly m
pleme  o el ed o lguge use, d  ul lguge poessg. "Appled
lgus s"
s bee gued o be some
g of  msome.[43] Appled lgus
s  ully fous o mg sese of d egeeg solu os fo el-wold l
gus  poblems, d o l elly "pplyg" exs g e
l owledge fom
lgus s. Moeove,
ey ommoly pply e
l owledge fom mul ple so
ues, su
s soology (e.g., oves o lyss) d 
opology. (Cos 
u ed lguge f s ude Appled lgus s.)

ody, ompu es e wdely used  my es of ppled lgus s. Spee
sy

ess d spee
eog o use p
oe  d p
oem owledge o povde vo
e  efes o ompu es. Appl os of ompu  ol lgus s  m

e sl o, ompu e-sss ed sl o, d  ul lguge poessg 
e es of ppled lgus s

ve ome o
e foefo . 
e fluee

s
d  effe o
eoes of sy x d sem s, s modelg sy   d
sem 
eoes o ompu es os  s.
Lgus  lyss s  sub-dsple of ppled lgus s used by my gove
me s o vefy
e lmed  ol y of people seeg sylum w
o do o
o
ld
e eessy doume  o o pove
e lm.[44] 
s of e es
e fo
m of   evew by pesoel   mmg o dep me . Depedg o
e 
ou y,
s  evew s odu ed e
e 
e sylum seee's  ve lgug
e
oug
  epe e o    e ol lgu f le Egls
.[44]
Aus l uses
e fome me
od, w
le emy employs
e l e;
e Ne
el
ds uses e
e me
od depedg o
e lguges volved.[44] pe eodgs
of
e  evew
e udego lguge lyss, w

 be doe e
e by p
v e o  os o w
  dep me of
e goveme . I
s lyss, l
gus  fe ues of
e sylum seee e used by lys s o me  de em 
o bou

e spee's  ol y. 
e epo ed fdgs of
e lgus  l
yss  ply   l ole 
e goveme 's deso o
e efugee s  us
of
e sylum seee.[44]
I e-dsply felds[ed ]
W

e bod dsple of lgus s, vous emegg sub-dsples fo
us o  moe de led desp o d lyss of lguge, d e of e og
zed o
e bss of
e s
ool of
oug
d
eoe l ppo



ey pe
-suppose, o
e ex el f os
 fluee
em.
Semo s[ed ]
Semo s s
e s udy of sg poesses (semoss), o sgf o d ommu
 o, sgs, d symbols, bo
dvdully d gouped  o sg sys ems, 
ludg
e s udy of
ow meg s os u ed d udes ood. Semo s of
e do o es 
emselves o lgus  ommu o w
e s udyg
e use
of sgs bu ex ed
e meg of "sg" o ove ll ds of ul ul symbols
. Noe
eless, semo  dsples losely el ed o lgus s e l ey
s udes, dsouse lyss, ex lgus s, d p
losop
y of lguge. Semo
s, w

e lgus s pdgm, s
e s udy of
e el os
p be wee
lguge d ul ue. Hs olly, Edwd Sp d Fedd De Sussue's s 
u uls
eoes flueed
e s udy of sgs ex esvely u l
e l e p
of
e 20
e uy, bu l e, pos -mode d pos -s u ul
oug
,
ou
g
lguge p
losop
es ludg Jques Ded, M
l B
, M
el Fou
ul , d o
es,
ve lso bee  osdeble fluee o
e dsple 

e l e p of
e 20
e uy d ely 21s e uy.[45] 
ese
eoes emp

sse
e ole of lguge v o, d
e de of subje ve usge, deped
g o ex el eleme s le sol d ul ul f os, 
e
 meely o

e  eply of foml eleme s.
Lguge doume  o[ed ]
Se
e ep o of
e dsple of lgus s, lgus s
ve bee oe
ed w
desbg d lysg pevously udoume ed lguges. S  g w

Fz Bos 
e ely 1900s,
s beme
e m fous of Ame lgus
s u l
e se of foml s u ul lgus s 
e md-20
e uy. 

s fous o lguge doume  o ws p ly mo v ed by  oe o doume

e pdly dsppeg lguges of dgeous peoples. 
e e
ogp
 dme
so of
e Bos ppo
o lguge desp o plyed  ole 
e devel
opme of dsples su
s soolgus s, 
opologl lgus s, d
lgus  
opology, w

ves g e
e el os be wee lguge, ul
ue, d soe y.


e emp
ss o lgus  desp o d doume  o
s lso ged pome
e ou sde No
Ame, w

e doume  o of pdly dyg dgeous l
guges beomg  pmy fous  my uves y pogms  lgus s. L
guge desp o s  wo- esve edevou, usully equg yes of fel
d wo 
e lguge oeed, so s o equp
e lgus o w e  suff
e ly u e efeee gmm. Fu
e,
e s of doume  o eques

e lgus o olle  subs  l opus 
e lguge  ques o, oss 
g of ex s d eodgs, bo
soud d vdeo, w

 be s oed   e
ssble fom w
 ope epos oes, d used fo fu
e ese
.[46]
sl o[ed ]

e sub-feld of sl o ludes
e sl o of w e d spoe ex
s oss medums, fom dg l o p d spoe. o sl e l elly mes
o smu e
e meg fom oe lguge  o o
e. sl os e of e
employed by ogs os, su
s vel gees s well s goveme l embs
ses o fl  e ommu o be wee wo spees w
o do o ow e
o
e
's lguge. sl os e lso employed o wo w
 ompu  ol lgus
s se ups le oogle sl e fo exmple, w

s  u om ed, pogmmed
fl y o sl e wods d p
ses be wee y wo o moe gve lguges.
sl o s lso odu ed by publs
g
ouses, w

ove wos of w
g fom oe lguge o o
e  ode o e
ved udees. Adem 
sl os, spelze d sem spelze o vous o
e dsples su
s;
e
ology, See, Lw, Eooms e .
Bolgus s[ed ]
Bolgus s s
e s udy of  ul s well s
um- ug
ommu o sys
ems  mls, omped o
um lguge. Rese
es 
e feld of bolg
us s
ve lso ove
e yes ques oed
e possbl y d ex e of lgu
ge  mls.
Cll lgus s[ed ]
Cll lgus s s
e ppl o of lgus 
eoy o
e felds of Sp
ee
-Lguge P
ology. Spee
lguge p
ologs s wo o oe ve mesue
s o ue ommu o dsodes d swllowg dsodes.
Compu  ol lgus s[ed ]
Compu  ol lgus s s
e s udy of lgus  ssues   wy
 s 'o
mpu  olly esposble', .e., g eful o e of ompu  ol osde
o of lgo
m spef o d ompu  ol omplex y, so


e lg
us 
eoes devsed  be s
ow o ex
b e  desble ompu  ol
pope es d
e mpleme  os. Compu  ol lgus s lso wo o ompu
e lguge d sof we developme .
Evolu oy lgus s[ed ]
Evolu oy lgus s s
e  edsply s udy of
e emegee of
e
lguge ful y
oug

um evolu o, d lso
e ppl o of evolu o
y
eoy o
e s udy of ul ul evolu o mog dffee lguges. I s l
so  s udy of
e dspesl of vous lguges oss
e globe,
oug
movem
e s mog e ommu es.[47]
Foes lgus s[ed ]
Foes lgus s s
e ppl o of lgus  lyss o foess. Fo
es lyss ves g es o
e s yle, lguge, lexl use, d o
e lgu
s  d gmm l fe ues used 
e legl o ex o povde evdee 
ou s of lw. Foes lgus s
ve lso o bu ed expe se  ml 
ses.
See lso[ed ]
M  les: Ou le of lgus s d Idex of lgus s  les
Cog ve see

Hs oy of lgus s

I e ol Lgus s Olympd
I e ol Cogess of Lgus s
Lgus s Dep me s  Uves es
Summe s
ools fo lgus s
Ls of lgus s
O
e ems d Coep s
A
opoymy
A ul oy p
oology
A ul oy sy
ess
Asem w g
Axom of  ego y
Bolgus s
Bosemo s
Coep Mg
Copus lgus s
C l dsouse lyss
Cyp lyss
Dep
eme
Developme l lgus s
Emboded og o
Edgeed lguges
lobl lguge sys em
lo ome s
mm ( eo-Rom wold)
I eg ol lgus s
I eg osm
I eul ul ompe ee
I e ol Lgus  Olympd
Lguge qus o
Lguge   o
Lguge egeeg
Lguge geogp
y
Lgus  ypology
M
e sl o
Me ommu ve ompe ee
Molgus s
N ul lguge poessg
Ooms s
O
ogp
y
P
lology
Redg
R
y
m  lgus s
Seod lguge qus o
Sg lguges
Spee eog o
Spee
poessg
Spee
eog o
Spee
sy
ess
Spee
-Lguge P
ology
S  f ol lgus s
ex lgus s
W g sys ems
Refeees[ed ]
Jump up ^ Cys l, Dvd (1990). Lgus s. Pegu Boos. ISBN 9780140135312.
Jump up ^ Hlldy, M
el A.K.; Jo
 Webs e (2006). O Lguge d Lgu
s s. Co uum I e ol Publs
g oup. p. v. ISBN 0-8264-8824-2.
Jump up ^ M e , Ad (1960). Eleme s of eel Lgus s. . Elsbe
P
lme Rubbe (S udes  eel Lgus s, vol. .). Lodo: Fbe. p. 15.
Jump up ^ Res Bod (2014). A New Hs oy of
e Hum es: 
e Se
fo P

ples d P es fom A qu y o
e Pese . Oxfod Uves y Pess. ISBN
0199665214.
Jump up ^ Ss L e ue 
e Impel ze ee of Id, v. 2 (1909), p. 2
63.
Jump up ^ S.C. Vsu (.) (1996). 
e As
d
yy of P (2 Vols.). Ved Boo
s. ISBN 9788120804098.
Jump up ^ Jobso, Rom (1937). Sx Le ues o Soud d Meg. MI Pess,
Cmbdge, Mss
use s. ISBN 0262600102.
Jump up ^ C
e
, eo d Slly MCoell- e (2000). Meg d mm
: A I odu o o Sem s. MI Pess, Cmbdge, Mss
use s. ISBN 9780
262531641.
Jump up ^ All efeees 
s  le o
e s udy of soud s
ould be e
o lude
e mul d o-mul sgs used  sg lguges.
Jump up ^ Ad Amj, R
d A. Demes, A K. Fme, Robe M. Hs
(
2010). Lgus s (6
ed.). 
e MI Pess. ISBN 0-262-51370-6. Re eved 25 Ju
ly 2012.
Jump up ^ de Sussue, F. (1986). Couse  geel lgus s (3d ed.). (R. H
s, s.). C
go: Ope Cou Publs
g Compy. (Ogl wo publs
ed
1972). p. 9-10, 15.
Jump up ^ C
omsy, Nom. (1965). Aspe s of
e 
eoy of Sy x. Cmbdge, MA:
MI Pess.
Jump up ^ Joul of Lguge d Pol s
Jump up ^ Rymod Mougeo d ey Ndsd (1998). Soolgus  Dso u
y  Mo y Lguge Commu es pp. 40-55. Lgus  Soe y of Ame.
Jump up ^ "S yls s" by Joyb o Mu
ejee. C
p e 49. Eyloped of Lgu
s s.
Jump up ^ Ole E ymologl D oy Def o of P
lology
Jump up ^ JSOR pevew: I odu o: P
lology   Musp Cul ue by S ep

e . N
ols.
Jump up ^ MM
o, A. M. S. (1994). Udes dg Lguge C
ge. Cmbdge U
ves y Pess. p. 19. ISBN 0-521-44665-1.
Jump up ^ MM
o, A. M. S. (1994). Udes dg Lguge C
ge. Cmbdge U
ves y Pess. p. 9. ISBN 0-521-44665-1.
Jump up ^ A. Mopugo Dves Hs . Lgus s (1998) 4 I. 22.
Jump up ^ Ole E ymologl D oy of P
lology
^ Jump up o:  b Ole E ymologl D oy Def o of Lgus
Jump up ^ "Lgus ". 
e Ame He ge D oy of
e Egls
Lguge.
Houg
o Mffl Hou . 2000. ISBN 978-0-395-82517-4.
Jump up ^ Hele Lee-y, Lguge d Co ex :  Fu ol Lgus  
eo
y of Regs e, Co uum I e ol Publs
g oup, 1995, p6. ISBN 1-85567
-272-3
Jump up ^ Oxfod Egls
d oy.
Jump up ^ udgll, P. (1994). Dle s. Eboos Ole Rou ledge. Floee, KY.
Jump up ^ Jques Ded (Au
o) d Al Bss ( sl o) (1978). W g 
d Dffeee. Uves y of C
go Pess. ISBN 9780226143293.
Jump up ^ "Rel ve 
g." 
e ud. Novembe 2004.
Jump up ^ IA R
ds (1965). 
e P
losop
y of R
e o. Oxfod Uves y Pes
s (New Yo).
Jump up ^ Is, Del; C
les Ress (2013). I-lguge: A I odu o o L
gus s s Cog ve See, 2d ed o. Oxfod Uves y Pess. ISBN 978-0
199660179.
Jump up ^ Bloomfeld 1914, p. 307.
Jump up ^ Seue, Pe e A. M. (1998). Wes e lgus s: A
s ol  od
u o. Wley-blwell. pp. 224. ISBN 0-631-20891-7.
Jump up ^ Bloomfeld 1914, p. 308.
Jump up ^ Bloomfeld 1914, p. 310.
^ Jump up o:  b Bloomfeld 1914, p. 311.
Jump up ^ Cle, Dvd S. (1990). Soues of semo : edgs w
omme y
fom  qu y o
e pese . Cbodle: Sou
e Illos Uves y Pess.
pp. 143144.

Jump up ^ Holqus 1981, pp. xv-xv.

Jump up ^ de Sussue, Fedd. Couse  eel Lgus s. M w Hll, Ne
w Yo. ISBN 9780802214935.
Jump up ^ C
omsy, Nom (1956). "
ee Models fo
e Desp o of Lguge".
IRE s os o Ifom o 
eoy 2 (2): 113 123. do:10.1109/I.1956.1056
813.
Jump up ^ C
omsy, Nom (1957). Sy   S u ues. 
e Hgue: Mou o.
Jump up ^ N
ols, Jo
 (1984). "Fu ol 
eoes of mm". Aul Rev
ew of A
opology 13: 97117. do:10.1146/uev..13.100184.000525. [Fu o
l gmm] "lyzes gmm l s u ue, s do foml d s u ul gmm;
bu  lso lyses
e e e ommu ve s u o:
e pupose of
e spe
e
eve ,  s p p s,  s dsouse o ex . Fu ols s m 


e ommu ve s u o mo v es, os s, expls, o o
ewse de e
mes gmm l s u ue, d
  s u ul o foml ppo
s o me
ely lm ed o   flly es  ed d  bse, bu s dequ e s  s u
 ul ou . Fu ol gmm,
e, dffes fom fomule d s u ul g
mm 
  pupo s o o model bu o expl; d
e expl o s g
ouded 
e ommu ve s u o."
Jump up ^ Cof , Wllm d D. Al Cuse (2004). Cog ve Lgus s. Cmb
dge: Cmbdge Uves y Pess. p. 1.
Jump up ^ Bb Sedl
ofe (2003). Co oveses  Appled Lgus s (pp. 2
88). Oxfod Uves y Pess. ISBN 0194374440.
^ Jump up o:  b  d Edes, D (2005). "Appled Lgus s d Lguge A
lyss  Asylum Seee Cses" (PDF). Appled Lgus s 26 (4): 503526. do:10.1
093/ppl/m021.
Jump up ^ Pul Alle Mlle (1998). "
e Clssl Roo s of Pos -S u ulsm:
L, Ded d Fouul 
e". I e ol Joul of
e Clssl d
 o (Spge) 5: 204225. do:10.1007/bf02688423. JSOR 30222818.
Jump up ^ Hmmelm, Nolus Lguge doume  o: W
 s  d w
 s 
good fo?  P. ppe , Jos , Nolus P Hmmelm & Ule Mosel. (2006) Esse
 ls of Lguge doume  o. Mou o de uy e, Bel & New Yo.
Jump up ^ Cof , Wllm (O obe 2008). "Evolu oy Lgus s". Aul Rev
ew of A
opology (Aul Revews) 37: 219234. do:10.1146/uev.
o.37.081
407.085156.
Bblogp
y[ed ]
Amj, Ad; Demes, R
d; Fme, A; Hs
, Robe (2010). Lgus
s: A I odu o o Lguge d Commu o. Cmbdge, MA: 
e MI Pess
. ISBN 0-262-51370-6.
Is, Del; C
les Ress (2013). I-lguge: A I odu o o Lgus s
s Cog ve See, 2d ed o. Oxfod Uves y Pess. ISBN 978-0199660179.
Pe, S eve (1994). 
e Lguge Is  . Wllm Moow d Compy. ISBN 9
780140175295.
C
omsy, Nom (1998). O Lguge. 
e New Pess, New Yo. ISBN 978-1565844759.
Ded, Jques (1967). Of mm ology. 
e Jo
s Hops Uves y Pess. IS
BN 0801858305.
Cys l, Dvd (1990). Lgus s. Pegu Boos. ISBN 9780140135312.
Ex el ls[ed ]
Fd moe bou
Lgus s
 Wped's ss e poje s
Se
W oy
Def os fom W oy
Se
Commos Med fom Commos
Se
Wews News s oes fom Wews
Se
Wquo e
Quo  os fom Wquo e
Se
Wsoue
Soue ex s fom Wsoue
ex boos fom Wboos
Se
Wboos
Se
Wves y
Leg esoues fom Wves y

e Lgus Ls ,  globl ole lgus s ommu y w
ews d fom 
o upd ed dly
lossy of lgus  ems by SIL I e ol (ls upd ed 2004)

Lguge Log,  lgus s blog m ed by pome (popul see) lgu
s s
lo oped, MedW-bsed eyloped of lgus s, ude os u o
Lgus  sub-felds odg o
e Lgus  Soe y of Ame
Lgus s d lguge-el ed w  les o S
olped d C zedum
"Lgus s" se o A Bblogp
y of L ey 
eoy, C sm d P
lology
, ed. J. A.  Ld (Uves y of Zgoz, Sp)
A Adem Lgus s Foum (ue ly some e
l poblems, Feb 2013)
Lgus s Co e s fo No-Egls
Wold [1]
Compu ezed omp ve lgus s Clul o o ompe
e el edess (gee
 poxm y) fo ove 160 lguges (fom Af o Zulu)
Lgus s  DMOZ
[s
ow] v e
P
losop
y of lguge
[s
ow] v e
Sol sees
lobelg.pgLguge po l Pseee.svgLgus s po l
Au
o y o ol
ND: 4074250-7 NDL: 00562334
C egoes: Lgus sCog ve seeLgugeSol sees
Nvg o meu
Ce e ou No logged lCo bu osLog A lelRedEd Vew
s o
y
Se

o
M pge
Co e s
Fe ued o e
Cue eve s
Rdom  le
Do e o Wped
Wped s oe
I e o
Help
Abou Wped
Commu y po l
Ree 
ges
Co  pge
ools
W
 ls
ee
Rel ed 
ges
Uplod fle
Spel pges
Peme l
Pge fom o
Wd   em
C e
s pge
P /expo
Ce e  boo
Dowlod s PDF
P ble veso
Lguges
Afs
Alems

gls
Agos
Ames


As uu
Ave'
Azby
Bm
B-lm-g

()

Boss
Bez
oeg
C l

Cebuo
e 
Cosu
Cymeg
Ds
Deu s

Dolosebs
Ees 

spao

sperato

usara
Fj Hd
Froyst
Fraas
Frys
Fura
Gaege
Gaeg
Gd
g
Gaego

Horjoserbsce
Hrvats
Ido
Ioao
Ba
asa Idoesa
Itergua
Itergue
/uttut

sles
I lo

Bs Jw
-

Kszbsz

Keowe
Ksw
l
Keyl ysye
Kud

Ldo
L gu
L 
L veu
L zebueges

Le uv
Lmbugs
Lojb
Lumb
Mgy

Mlgsy

B
s Melyu

Nhuatl
Nederlands
Nedersaksies

Nodfs
Nofu / P e
Nos boml
Nos yos
Nouomd
Novl
O 

Ozbe
/

Pemo s
o Ps
Pl d s

Pols

ortugus
Rom
Roma
Rua Sm

Sdu
So s
Seel es
S
qp
Slu

Smple Egls

Slove
Slove
/
/ sps
Spso
v s /
Bs Sud
Suom
Sves
glog
/  

e

Ve o
Veps el
Tg V
Vr
Wl 

Wry

Zz
Zeuws
em 

Ed ls

s pge ws ls modfed o 24 Sep embe 2015,  17:03.
ex s vlble ude
e Ce ve Commos A bu o-S
eAle Lese; dd
 ol ems my pply. By usg
s s e, you gee o
e ems of Use d P
vy Poly. Wped s  egs eed dem of
e Wmed Foud o, I
.,  o-pof ogz o.
Pvy polyAbou WpedDslmesCo  WpedDevelopesMoble vewW
med Foud o Poweed by MedW