This talk
Leipzig 2016
Restructuring as the
regulator of clause size
Susi Wurmbrand
University of Connecticut
Misconceptions about restructuring
❖
Extent and significance of restructuring from a crosslinguistic perspective
❖
Restructuring as the main regulator of clause size
❖
Two ways to arrive at size differences
1
2
Traditional restructuring
Traditional restructuring
Piero ti
verrà
a parlare di parapsicologia
Piero to.you will.come to speak about parapsychology
‘Piero will come to speak to you about parapsychology.’
[Rizzi 1982:1, (1a,b)]
*Piero ti
deciderà di parlare di parapsicologia
Piero to.you will.decide to speak about parapsychology
‘Piero will come to speak to you about parapsychology.’
[Rizzi 1982:1, (1c,d)]
❖
❖
Restructuring = Restructuring as in Italian (replace by
your favorite restructuring language)
3
❖
Variation in the verbs that trigger restructuring and the
properties that characterize restructuring.
❖
Result: variety of restructuring analyses (often
incompatible)
❖
Wide-spread conclusion: restructuring is just some
language-specific ‘add on’, that doesn’t play a role in
general considerations of structure building, control, or
syntactic domains.
4
Summary table
A different approach
❖
Treat restructuring as general, but certain properties as
variable (within definable bounds)
❖
Distinguish between different types and degrees of
restructuring (Wurmbrand 2001 et seq.)
❖
Consider the broad distribution of complementation
and verb classes (rather than specific verbs)
5
The exciting part (for me at least)
❖
Cross-linguistically observable stable split of
complement clauses (both finite and non-finite)
❖
Three (broad) types of complements
❖
Systematically different behavior regarding a range of
properties (morphological, syntactic, semantic) that can
be associated with specific clausal domains (CP, TP)
❖
Approach that covers the cross-linguistic similarities,
but also leaves sufficient room for variation
6
Vision of the research program
❖
Size restructuring is universal.
❖
Differences in clause size are due to restructuring.
7
Three types of complements
Sections 1 & 2
8
Handout
Summary table
Traditional restructuring properties
3 Types of complements
Restructuring/non-restructuring is a binary opposition
FALSE
There are different types and degrees of restructuring
❖
❖
❖
Tenseless
Leo tried/began/managed/forgot to eat (*tomorrow).
Scrambling,
clitic climbing
claim
decide
try
Type A
✗
✗
✗
Type B
✗
✗
✓
Type C
✗
✓
✓
✓
✓
✗
✓
✗
clitic
clitic
Type D
Future
Leo decided/planned/propose to eat (tomorrow).
Unattested
Attitude, speech
Leo claimed to be eating/*to eat (*tomorrow), when...
Transparency
LDS,
✗CC
✓
clitic
9
10
Semantic correlates
Semantic correlates
Handout
Interpretation
claim, believe
decide
try
Simultaneous
Future
Simultaneous
E: INF
BCS, CyG: PRES
Morphology
(option)
Perfective
Temporal element
✗
✓
✓
short RT (AH’S NOW)
WOLL
no C, T
Jovan je pokušao / odlučio da čita
/ pročita
knjigu.
Jovan AUX tried
/ decided DA read.PRES.IMPFV / read.PRES.PFV book
da čita
/ *pročita
knjigu.
DA read.PRES.IMPFV / *read.PRES.PFV book
11
claim, believe
decide
try
Simultaneous
Future
Simultaneous
E: INF
BCS, CyG: PRES
Morphology
(option)
Leo tried/decided to eat a frog.
Leo claimed/believes Zoe *to eat/to be eating a frog.
Jovan je tvrdio
Jovan AUX claimed
Interpretation
✗
✓
✓
Temporal element
short RT (AH’S NOW)
WOLL
no C, T
Minimum size of
complement
CP
TP
vP
Perfective
❖
If the semantic information about tense and the speech context
is represented syntactically, different (minimum) sizes arise:
Context-lambda, S/A operator ⇢ C
future ⇢ WOLL ⇢ T/Mod
12
Restructuring
❖
A lexical predicate (VP) that does not project to a
full CP.
Restructuring—How?
❖
Shrinking: A verbal predicate is projected to CP and
subsequently shrunk to TP or vP.
❖
Stunting (bonsai approach): A verbal predicate does not
project to a full clause (CP), but stops at vP (θ domain)
or TP (φ domain)
❖
Growing and removing proceed in a cyclic fashion—no
omitting projections from the middle
13
14
Stunting
Stunting
Vmatrix vP (Θ)
15
15
Stunting
Stunting
Vmatrix
TP (Φ)
vP (Θ)
vP (Θ)
15
15
Stunting
Stunting
CP (')
TP (Φ)
TP (Φ)
vP (Θ)
15
vP (Θ)
15
Shrinking
Shrinking
Vmatrix
CP (')
TP (Φ)
vP (Θ)
Vmatrix
[−C−]
16
16
Shrinking
Shrinking
Vmatrix
CP (')
[−C−]
TP (Φ)
TP (Φ)
vP (Θ)
16
vP (Θ)
16
Shrinking
Shrinking
Vmatrix
Vmatrix
[−C−]
[−T−]
[−C−]
[−T−]
TP (Φ)
vP (Θ)
vP (Θ)
16
16
Maximum amount of restructuring
Minimal structures
Summary table
claim
decide
try
CP
✓
TP
✗
✓
vP
✗
✗
✓
•C•
•C•
−C−
•C•
−C−, −T−
Shrinking
Stunting
Required for interpretation:
C
T
V
claim
V
decide
CP
[attitude, speech]
S/A OP
TP
[irr]
TP
WOLL
✓
s-selection, LF output condition,
or similar mechanism
18
vP
Under-projecting
V
claim
TP
V
decide
[attitude, speech]
Over-shrinking
vP
❖
claim [•C•]
❖
The distribution of the three types of complements is
not arbitrary (e.g., there is no ⟦CLAIM⟧ [−C−, −T−]).
❖
Presumably there could also be a way to restrict/predict
the remove features, e.g., via a recoverability condition,
to prevent over-shrinking * [•FSEM•, −F−].
[irr]
❖
If combined with some recoverability condition, restructuring
captures the broad distribution of complement types.
❖
There is also room for variation: semantic information could be
encoded directly on the matrix verb (I assume this is possible
exceptionally, covering outliers).
19
decide [•C•, −C−]
try [•C•, −C−, −T−]
20
Syntax-semantics connection
Classification issues
21
❖
If the semantic information about tense and the speech
context is represented syntactically…
❖
This is not a necessary assumption.
❖
Ongoing debate about whether the semantic
contribution leading to a future orientation or the
speech coordinates are part of the embedded clause or
part of the meaning of the irrealis/attitude verb.
22
Room for variation
❖
❖
❖
Omission is recoverable
For both WOLL and context-lambdas/variables, monster
operators, arguments have been given that these elements
are active in syntax (Abusch 2004, Anand & Nevins 2004,
Anand 2006, Sudo 2012, Shklovsky & Sudo 2014, Messick
2016).
But this doesn’t mean that the semantic information can’t
also sometimes be encoded as part of an embedding verb.
This gives some desired room for variation among the
verbs belonging to the different classes.
23
✓
vP
V
plan, want
⟦irr⟧
❖
irrealis interpretation of
the complement is
‘written’ into the matrix
verb
❖
The cross-linguistic tendency is to map semantic information to
syntactic positions; which accounts for the broad distribution observed
in all languages.
❖
With the exception of want (which functions as a modal semantically in
many/most? languages), complex lexical entries are the outliers.
24
Ambiguous classification
❖
What if a verb is both a speech verb and an irrealis
verb?
❖
Promise appears to be such a case (make a promise, give
one’s word).
❖
Options encountered so far: group with speech verbs
(BCS), either class (Buryat, German).
25
Some illustrations
Section 3
26
Handout
Polish complementizers
claim
CP
✓
TP
✗
vP
✗
decide
complementizer obligatory
CC, SCR
❖
❖
What Polish tells us
try
claim
decide
try
complementizer
obligatory
optional
impossible
CC, SCR
impossible possible when no C
✓
✗
✓
Stunting
CP
Why is C possible?
vP
optional
impossible
Shrinking
CP
Expected
Why obligatory
shrinking?
impossible possible when no C
possible
Verbs on the handout—broad classes are very clear (minor variability as
noted above)
The need/desire for clitics, XPs to get out of an embedded clause cannot
be seen as motivation to shrink/stunt (CP cannot be omitted/removed
in claim contexts).
❖
Minimal structures (CP): as above
❖
Open question: decide optionality (stunting), try
obligatory shrinking (shrinking)
27
Handout
possible
28
Handout
Buryat (with T. Bondarenko)
bɜšәg
tumәn-ɜr
bɜšә-žә
ɜxilә-gd-ɜ
letter.NOM Tumen-INSTR write-CONV1 begin-PASS-PRT1
Lit. ‘The letter was begun to write by Tumen.’ ‘Tumen began to write the letter.’
lenә lizә-dә [ üšö nɜgә konfәtә ɜdi-x-ijә-n’
] zübšö-gö
Lena Liza-DAT [ more one sweet eat-POT-ACC-3 ] allow-PRT1
‘Lena allowed Liza to eat one more sweet.’
sajәnә [ (bi)
tɜrgә ɜmdәl-ә-b
gɜžә ] mɜd-ɜ
Sajana [ (1SG.NOM) cart break-PRT1-1SG COMP ] know-PRT1
‘Sajanai found out that shei broke the cart.’ (For example, she was drunk and didn’t remember it).
29
Buryat (with T. Bondarenko)
believe
be.shy
try
Construction
CP
clausal nominalization
converb
Long passive
no
no
yes
TP: TMA elements, NEG
yes
yes
no
CP: C, shifted indexicals
yes
no
no
Embedded subject Case
NOM, ACC
GEN, ACC
*
❖
There is no mixing and matching of the properties in a single structure
(e.g., *nominalization & C-elements)
❖
Many (but not all) verbs of the be.shy (decide) class can also occur in
the believe class
❖
The try class shows a strong preference for the converb construction; try
restructuring is obligatory/strongly preferred
30
Handout
What Buryat tells us
❖
❖
❖
Shifted indexicals as a new diagnostic for CP and, in
languages that allow shifting, the lack thereof; also found in:
Aymara, Quechua (Andean; Martínez Vera, p.c.)
Shifted indexicals only possible in CP structure—S-A/
monster operator in CP (Anand & Nevins 2004, Anand 2006,
Sudo 2012, Podobryaev 2014, Shklovsky & Sudo 2014,
Messick 2016); see below for ECM
Shrinking: indexical shift has to occur after removal of CP
(shifting is impossible in nominalizations and converb
constructions, even when the same verb is used—(15))
Buryat complementation options
V
believe
❖
CP
*nP
*vP
nP
V
be.shy
TP
*CP *vP
V
try
n
vP
*CP
*nP
Constraints at work: project only the minimum
(stunting); remove as much as you can (shrinking)
31
32
Handout
Nominalization & optionality
❖
❖
❖
Be.shy (decide) class: project minimum/shrink maximum
yields a TP (some TMA projection).
Restriction (preliminary): V cannot combine with TP in
Buryat (perhaps more generally an XP with interpretable
tense; Pesetsky & Torrego 2006; Wurmbrand 2014 for a
similar approach to embedded root contexts).
Stunting: TP necessary; cannot combine with V; either merges
with C (yielding a CP configuration will all the CP
properties) or a nominalizer (showing none of the CP
properties) [tbd when the choice is not optional]
33
BCS
Restructuring is restricted to infinitives
FALSE
Languages without infinitives show restructuring effects as well
❖
Restructuring despite finiteness (Progovac 1993a, b, 1994,
1996, Stjepanović 2004)
❖
All three types of constructions (can) look the same at the
surface: V {claim, decide, try} DA V.PRES
❖
Todorović and Wurmbrand 2015, 2016: the three constructions
differ in several properties, which suggests the usual size
restructuring (da is not necessarily a complementizer)
34
Handout
Restructuring despite finiteness
claim
decide
try
Clitic climbing
no
yes/?
yes
NPI/NC licensing by
matrix NEG [P/S]
no
yes
yes
matrix »
embedded
free
free
Infinitival complement
possible
no
yes
yes
Overt subject in da
complement possible
yes
yes
no
Long passive (with INF)
no
wh ordering [P/S]
Adverb/da ordering
no
yes
{da} ADV {*da} {da} ADV {da} {?-*da} ADV {da}
35
English QR
Wurmbrand 2015, 2016:
❖
Cumulating evidence, theoretical and experimental, that QR is
not clause-bound.
❖
Experimental evidence (Moulton 2007) for a difficulty scale of
cross-clausal inverse scope, rather than rigid
(un)grammaticality
finite
Embedded CP
non-restructuring
restructuring
simple predicate
CP, TP
vP
—
⇠hardest
easiest ⇢
36
Brazilian Portuguese
❖
Does not allow clitic climbing out of any type of
infinitive
❖
Try-type complements are still transparent (= smaller) in
that embedded NPI/NC items can be licensed by matrix
negation (in decide and claim contexts this is not
possible).
37
Quick summary
38
Stunting = Shrinking
Signature restructuring configurations
claim
decide
try
A
B
C
+P
±P
+P
−P
−P
impossible
optional,
sometimes
obligatory
obligatory or
preferred
Distinct properties
Specific properties
Restructuring
39
❖
The systematicities of restructuring (3 classes of
complements, generalizations regarding over-shrinking/
under-projecting) track s-selection.
❖
If meaning can affect (or filter out at the interface) certain
illicit configurations or feature combinations, both
shrinking and stunting capture the distribution.
❖
Not surprising since the structures we end up with are (or
could be) the same.
❖
This is good.
40
Where are the differences?
❖
Shrinking: There is a derivational step involving a full
clausal structure in (all?) restructuring contexts.
❖
Stunting: There is no sign of CP, or CP and TP in reduced
complements.
❖
Müller 2015: evidence for an initial full clause structure:
binding, overt subjects, optionality
Specific property
claim
decide
try
+P
+P
+P
41
Embedded subjects
Section 4
42
Broad generalization
❖
Summary: minimal structures
Cross-linguistic generalization: the more structure, the
freer the distribution and interpretation of the subject
❖
Stunting: structural correlate that can be implemented in a
theory of control
❖
Shrinking: no structural difference, unless control is
determined post-shrinking (removing the potential for an
argument for an initial CP)
Crosslinguistic
claim
decide
try
EC, PC
PRO or pro
EC, PC PRO
EC; ∅ (if voice
restructuring)
V
claim
CP
V
decide
C
TP
S/A OP
V
try
TP
T
vP
vP
WOLL
PRO
(Wurmbrand claims) Restructuring infinitives do not have a subject FALSE (¼T)
Only voice restructuring involves a shared subject
43
44
Handout
Binding: same/different predictions
❖
Size restructuring (stunting = shrinking): binding confined
to the embedded predicate; no interaction with the matrix
predicate (binding domain — domain of the closest subject).
❖
Voice restructuring (shrinking): Binding should not differ in
voice restructuring contexts from binding in full CPs (unless
voice restructuring is not done via shrinking).
❖
Voice restructuring (stunting): Binding should differ since
the crucial property of voice restructuring is that it lacks a
subject throughout the derivation.
45
Binding differences
*weil sich der Fisch
mit Streifen vorzustellen versucht wurde since SELF the fish.NOM with stripes to.imagine
tried
was
‘since they tried to imagine what the fish would look like with stripes’
weil versucht wurde [sich den Fisch
mit Streifen vorzustellen ] since tried
was [self the fish.ACC with stripes to.imagine ]
‘since they tried to imagine what the fish would look like with stripes’
Amerika-de-wa kyodaina hanbaagaa-ga
America-IN-TOP huge hamburger-NOM
(*zibun-no) kodomo-ni
(*SELF-GEN) child-DAT
atae-tuzuke-rare-tei-ru
give-continue-PASS-PROG-PAST
‘They continue to give huge hamburgers to their children in the US.’
[Shimamura and Wurmbrand 2014]
46
Handout
Handout
Overt subjects
BCS, Buryat
Müller 2015:
“the subject of a restructuring control infinitive can never be realized by
an overt DP; this restriction can be tied to a CP shell that blocks case
assignment from the matrix predicate”
claim/believe
decide/expect
try/see
German
*overt subject
*overt subject
AcI
English
ECM
ECM
AcI
overt subject
overt subject
*overt subject (any)
BCS, Buryat
❖
Shrinking: If it is the CP (once built, then removed) that
is responsible for prohibiting overt subjects—why only
in try-type complements (which can still be finite in
BCS)?
❖
Stunting: Both languages allow long passive; lack of
subject could be related to voice restructuring (sharing
of the subject; Wurmbrand 2014b, 2015a, Wurmbrand
and Shimamura To appear).
47
48
Overt subjects in German
AcI: Predicted under stunting
Handout
✓
❖
❖
German allows overt subjects in AcI infinitives (let, see,
hear), which involve reduced complements (i.e., some
degree of restructuring).
Shrinking: If initial CPs (even if removed later) block
Case licensing in German, AcI cannot involve a
derivational history with a CP. Why? Finite
complements are possible in principle.
vACC
AcI possible since
(some) restructuring
❖
Note that finite CPs are
possible in principle for
PV contexts (see
handout).
VP
V
see
vP
[event]
DP [−CASE]
49
❖
50
ECM
❖
❖
❖
Lack of ECM: predicted under stunting
German, like many other languages, does not allow
ECM with attitude verbs (and like English, not with
agentive verbs).
German does show extensive restructuring (size, voice,
and functional), hence it is puzzling why ECM is not
available, if ECM is derived via size reduction.
Stunting: it is not a coincidence that ECM only occurs as
AcI in German—only in contexts that allow size
reduction via restructuring.
51
✗
CP
V
believe
❖
no ECM since no
restructuring
❖
DP is not
accessible
[attitude, speech]
TP
OP/NOWAC
✗
DP [−CASE]
52
English ECM
❖
Shrinking: Given the existence of AcI (German) and ECM (other
languages), it seems difficult to maintain that Case is a property of the
initial structure, before removal.
❖
If Case targets the structure after removal, the argument/motivation for
a CP goes away.
❖
So far, all accounts, as they are, need something extra.
ECM/AcI
believe ECM
AcI
Shrinking
Exfoli
ation
Stunting
English
✓
✓
no restructuring
✓
?
German
✗
✓
no restructuring
?
✓
53
ECM disclaimer
54
Handout
Finite ECM
❖
Buryat ECM (Bondarenko 2016)
Finite ECM and raising (hyperraising): Brazilian
Portuguese, Buryat, Fijian, Greek, Janitzio P’urhepecha,
Japanese, Korean, Mishar Tatar, Niuean,
Passamaquoddy, Tsez, Turkish, Uyghur, Zulu….
❖
Şener 2008: finite ECM in Turkish
❖
Bondarenko 2016: finite ECM in Buryat
❖
Some of the properties below also hold for Mishar Tatar
and Uyghur.
[matrix v.ACC
[matrix v.ACC
V [CP DP.ACC C [TP … ]]]
V [TP DP.ACC T [vP … ]]]
❖
ECM is possible in CP and TP (nominalization) contexts
(sometimes those are referred to as finite and non-finite)
❖
DP.ACC is Case dependent on the matrix predicate (e.g.,
embedded ACC subjects are impossible with matrix passive)
❖
ACC
subject originates in the embedded clause (idioms,
embedded reflexives which require a clause-mate binder, no
additional overt pronominal subjects, PBC violations)
55
56
Buryat ECM (Bondarenko 2016)
What this tells us
Handout
[matrix v.ACC V
[CP DP.ACC
[matrix v.ACC V [TP DP.ACC
❖
❖
❖
👾
[TP
NOM.1/2
]]]
CP is a phase: movement to embedded Spec,CP is required
for the subject to be accessible from the matrix clause
❖
Clause-size reduction is not triggered by ECM; reduced TPcomplements arise due to something else—restructuring
❖
Spec,CP can be an A-position (or whatever notion is
relevant for Case) in at least certain languages (see also
Bruening 2002, Takeuchi 2010)
❖
Note that there is clear evidence for a CP in Buryat (the
lack of CP leads to a nominalization)
T [vP … ]]]
CP-complements: Movement to embedded Spec,CP is
required for ECM
Buriat: DP.ACC can occur in the embedded Spec,CP—below
matrix verb, but above the operator that shifts indexicals
(or optionally scramble to matrix clause)
Turkish: DP.ACC must be in embedded Spec,CP
57
❖
58
ECM
❖
ECM constraints
Under the restructuring view here, attitude ECM should
be CPs, whether finite or non-finite
Attitude
ECM
[+FIN]
CPemb
[−FIN]
CPemb
Mov’t to
matrix
A-Mov’t to
finite
Spec,CP
A-Mov’t to
non-finite
Spec,CP
English,
Icelandic
✗
✓
maybe
no
yes
Turkish,
Buryat
✓
N/A
T: no B: optional
yes
N/A
German
✗
✗
✗
no
no
❖
Restructuring (when clausal domains can and cannot be missing—
German ECM vs. AcI)
❖
Agent condition/Case availability of matrix v (Pesetsky 1992)
❖
van Urk 2015: A- and A’-properties derive from properties of the
features of a head, not positions; in Dinka, a single operation/
position can simultaneously have A- and A’-properties.
❖
CP A/A’ parameter:
❖
❖
59
C elements {can/cannot} co-occur with A-features.
A/A’ co-occurence scale: A’: ⇠ [+FIN, +T.NOM] » [+FIN] » [−FIN] ⇢ A
Turkish
Buryat English
60
Handout
ECM typology
Attitude
ECM
[+FIN] [−FIN]
CPemb CPemb
A/A’ C
possible
A/A’ C
A-Mov’t to
Spec,CP
English,
Icelandic
✗
✓
yes
C [−FIN]
*[+FIN]
✓[−FIN]
Turkish,
Buryat
✓
N/A
yes
C [+FIN +T.NOM]
C [+FIN]
✓
German
✗
✗
no
—
*
Unattested
✓
✗
Optionality
Section 5
cannot be derived
61
62
Summary table
Summary table
Preference for restructuring
Cross-linguistic tendency against a full structure in try-contexts:
Optionality of restructuring
Cross-linguistic tendency for an optional CP in decide-contexts:
❖
Polish: *complementizers
❖
Polish: optional complementizers
❖
Buryat: *nominalizations, *CP
❖
❖
English: ??finite complements
Greek: optionality between na and oti complement (vs. try—
only na, and claim—only oti; Christopoulos, p.c.)
❖
Greek: ??oti complements
❖
❖
BSC: *overt subjects; infinitival complement preferred in some
dialects
Buryat: some verbs allow either a nominalization or CP (but
some only nominalization)
❖
English: finite or non-finite complements possible
❖
BCS: optional true complementizer
❖
Cross-linguistically resist partial control
63
64
Upper limits of non-restructuring
Non-restructuring: stunting perspective
claim
decide
try
optional, sometimes ✗
dispreferred or ✗
TP
✓
✗
?
vP
✗
✓
✗
CP
❖
Optionality (decide class): C can carry meaning—[IRR]
❖
Such a feature is not restricted to future infinitives but
can be seen as irrealis morphology in many languages
❖
Bogomolets 2016: in Arapaho, irrealis occurs in
questions, imperatives, negative clauses, subjunctives…
❖
Todorović & Wurmbrand: indirect evidence for an
irrealis C in questions in BCS, which (in contrast to
declaratives) license silent future/WOLL.
✓
Both: Why is restructuring sometimes optional,
sometimes preferred, sometimes obligatory?
Shrinking advantage: Optional restructuring effects
Stunting advantage: Obligatory restructuring effects
66
Decide class — two structures
V
decide
[irr]
V
decide
[irr]
TP
WOLL
CP
C
vP
Shrinking perspective—a worry
❖
claim [•C•]
❖
Needed: algorithm to restrict/predict the (im)possible
feature specifications.
❖
The available correlate is whether the CP has
unrecoverable meaning parts: if yes, −C− is impossible; if
no, −C− is obligatory (with the decide class being inbetween as above)
❖
Worry: if CP shrinking only applies to vacuous CPs, what
motivates projecting such a CP in the first place?
TP
⟦IRR⟧
WOLL
vP
decide [•C•, (−C−)]
try [•C•, −C−, −T−]
67
68
Conclusion
Thank you!
❖
Complement clauses display different degrees of clausehood
which are observable cross-linguistically through morphological,
syntactic, and semantic differences.
❖
The minimum clause size (diagnosed via a range of properties) is
a reflection of the matrix verb’s s-selectional properties mapped
to CP, TP, and/or vP.
❖
Both stunting and shrinking capture the signature restructuring
configurations if restructuring is linked to meaning/s-selection.
❖
The main issue for a shrinking approach is to motivate the initial
CP structure.
69
Jonathan
& Leo
Tanya
Bondarenko
Christos
Christopoulos
Koji
Shimamura
Neda
Todorović
Marcin
Dadan
Renato
Lacerda
Sabine
Laszakovits
Gabriel
Martínez Vera
Zheng
Shen
70