the unified speech period of a bilingual child
TRANSCRIPT
Portland State University Portland State University
PDXScholar PDXScholar
Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses
1990
The Unified Speech Period of a Bilingual Child The Unified Speech Period of a Bilingual Child
Gary Frank Wood Portland State University
Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds
Part of the Applied Linguistics Commons
Let us know how access to this document benefits you.
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Wood, Gary Frank, "The Unified Speech Period of a Bilingual Child" (1990). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 4118. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.6002
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected].
AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Gary Frank Wood for the Master of Arts in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages presented May 3, 1990.
Title: The Unified Speech Period of a Bilingual Child.
APPROVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE THESIS COMMITTEE:
Susan H. Foster, Chair
Thomas C. Buell
Marjorie Terdal
Previous studies of bilingual infants learning their languages
simultaneously have suggested that such children go through what is known
as a unified speech period in which they make no differentation between the
languages in question and in which they frequently use mixed utterances
lArnberg, 1987; Grosjen, 1982; Leopold, 1939; & Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981 ). To
2
test the validity of the claim that there is such a period, an English-Japanese
bilingual child from one year and six months of age t 1 :6 J through two years
and six months of age (2:6 l was observed and his speech recorded.
In order to investigate the unified language claim, written diaries of
the child's utterances were kept from l ;6 years of age through 2:0 (and
intermittantly later) and audio tapes were made for the seven month period
from 2;0 through 2;6. Because of the varying nature of the data. this study
focused primarily on the latter seven-month period as this is where the
greatest amount of useful data was garnered. The diaries and tapes were
analyzed in terms of both lexicon and syntax. The analysis focused on
evidence of synonymy versus lack of overlap in the lexicons of the two
languages. and on syntactic mixing. In the latter case, the focus was on
determining the extent to which such mixing could be seen as evidence of
one or two svntactic svstems. • I
Analysis of the data suggested that while he used some cross-language
synonyms. this child did not rely on them to any great extent. These words
comprised only about 5.7% of the total recorded vocabulary. The analysis of
the syntactic mixing suggested that, contrary to some previous studies. the
separation of the two languages into two systems was already well
established at the age of two years. and that there is very little evidence of a
unified period. Rather, the two systems are differentiated. and employed for
reasons that are discussed.
THE UNIFIED SPEECH PERIOD OF A BILINGUAL CHILD
by
GARY FRANK WOOD
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS in
TEACHING ENGLISH TO SPEAKERS OF OTHER LANGUAGES
Portland State University 1990
TO THE OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES:
The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Gary Frank
Wood presented May 3. 1990.
APPROVED:
Susan H. Foster, Chair
Thomas C. Buell
Marjorie Terdal
Mary E. Gordo~
ir, Department of Applied Linguistics
C. William Savery, Interim Vice Bf-ovost for Graduate Studies and Research
'( 686 I-906 I) POO& ~UOlS t?Jt?J:l JO ;\Jom~m ~ql Ol P~lt?:'.>!P~P S! S!S~ql srq1
NOilV:>ICIHO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
LIST OFT ABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . v
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Review of the Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SUBJECT...................................................... 9
PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Data Collection and Transcription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Utterance Length Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Lexical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Syntactic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
RESULTS ....................................................... 23
Mean Length of Utterance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Single and Multiple Word Utterances........................ 26
Lexical Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Syntactic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5
iv
DISCUSSION ............................................. 43
Mean Length of Utterances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Single and Multiple Word Utterances................. 43
Lexical Analysis .................................... 44
Syntactic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Language Contexts .................................. SS
Maintenance of Linguistic Diversity ................... 57
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND SUMMARY .......... 62
REFERENCES ............................................. 64
APPEND I CFS
A SINGLE WORD UTTERANCES .................... 64
B MULTIPLE WORD UTTERANCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
C RULES FOR CALCULATING MEAN LENGTH OF UTTERANCE AND UPPER BOUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
I Number of Utterances Recorded ...................... 14
I I Comparison of Danny, Evan, Marcus, and Raivo's MLU . . . 24 III Comparison of Evan's Single Word and Multiple Word
Utterances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
IV Word Length of Multiple Word Utterances ............. 28
V Evan's Neutral Vocabulary ........................... 29
VI Onomatopoeia in Evan's Lexicon ...................... 30
VII Evan's Baby Talk ................................... 31
VIII Evan's Interjections ................................. 32
IX Evan's Cross-Language Synonyms 2;0-2;6 .............. 35
X Language Mixing 2;0-2;6 ............................ 38
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. Increase in Evan's Mean Length of Utterance ........... 24
2. Comparison of Danny, Evan, Marcus, and Raivo's MLU .... 25
3. Evan's Single Word Versus Multiple Word Utterances .... 27
4. Overall Language Mixing ............................. 38
5. Overall Language Mixing ............................. 39
6. Language Mixing 2;0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
7. Language Mixing 2;1 ................................ 40
8. Language Mixing 2;2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
9. Language Mixing 2;3 ................................ 41
10. Language Mixing 2;4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
11. Language Mixing 2;5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
12. Language Mixing 2;6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
INTRODUCTION
It has been suggested that simultaneous bilingual infants (i.e .. infants
who learn two languages before the age of three) go through an initial period
of about three years in which they mix their two languages both lexically
and syntactically (Grosjean. 1982 & Volterra & Taeschner, 1977). In order to
see if this was the case for my Japanese-English simultaneous bilingual son
Evan, I collected and analyzed naturally occurring spoken language data
from the period in which the unified period is considered to occur. The
hypothesis was that this child would do a lot of lexical and syntactic mixing,
and that this would indicate a confused period for bilingual inf ants in which
they attempt to sort out the two languages. The analysis suggested that
there was, in fact, little mixing done by Evan at the syntactic level. The data
mostly came from audio recordings in naturalistic settings and it has been
analyzed mainly in terms of Evan's recorded lexicon and syntax from the age
of 2;0 through 2;7.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
There are several terms that need to be defined for the purposes of
this research. The term bilingual has been variously defined. Weinreich
( 1953) broadly defined it as "the practice of alternately using two
languages." Bloomfield (1933), on the other hand, has given us a more rigid
definition with " ... native-like control of two languages." Bilingualism is a
complex phenomenon and each of the various definitions has had its
problems.• To avoid these difficulties in a definition of bilingualism. some
recent researchers have tended to follow one of two paths.
2
One way is to adopt an established definition and to add some caveats
as Albert and Obler ( 1978) have done. They are satisfied with Weinreich's
definition, but ask all researchers to consider that there are some unresolved
issues at work with that particular definition. The first is the issue of
whether or not mutilingua1ism is an extension of bilingualism and if the two
states are qualitatively different. The second is a consideration of whether
two distinct languages are being employed or not (i.e., Should bidialectalism,
diglossia, and even wide register control come under the same rubric?).
Third they ask us if the use of language entails any minimal fluency criterion
and, if so. what are the parameters of fluency? Last they tell us to consider
what modalities (i.e., speaking, comprehension, writing, and reading) are to
be considered in the practice of alternately using two languages.
Another way to define bilingualism is to attempt to " ... work within the
framework of a typology of bilingualism which allows for a clear delimitation
of the particular area of investigation within a larger field." (Baetens
Beardsmore, 1982) What is meant here is to make, for example, a distinction
between individual bilingualism and societal bilingualism and to attend to
the fact that there are many and varying forms of bilingualism.
Even though a single appropriate and exhaustive definition has not
been (and may never be) found, we do know two fundamental facts about
1 For more concise overviews of the history of the definition of bilingualism. see Skutnabb-Kangas (1981) and Swain and Cummings (1982).
3
bilingualism. We first know that more than one language is involved.I More
importantly we know that bilingualism is not a static condition. Rather it is
dynamic and subject to change. It either progresses towards an ideal
ambilingualism or regresses towards a monolingual condition (Baetens
Beardsmore, 1982). Ambilingualism here is the Halliday, McKintosh, and
Strevens' ( 1970) term denoting the capability of " .. .functioning well in
either .. .language .. .in all domains of activity and without any traces of the one
language . ..in the other." This type of bilingualism is rare since most
bilinguals are more dominant in one of the two languages. By dominance I
mean that one language is employed more than the other.
An example of regression might be the "returnee" problem in Japan
in which a language loss occurs among those young people who have lived
for a considerable time outside of japan and have returned to Japan. The
language used in the former speech community quite often is unused and
forgotten. A regressive transition is made from a bilingual condition to a
monolingual one. It should be mentioned, however, that if these individuals
are put back into the community of the atrophied language their linguistic
ability can be reactivated while maintaining their native Japanese. This is an
example of a progressive transition, i.e. from monolingualism to bilingualism
(Yamamoto, 1987).
Bilingualism, then, is by its very nature unstable, and this is one of the
deterrents in scholarly attempts to define bilingualism, as well as a factor in
frustrating attempts to estimate sizes of bilingual populations in the world.
1 As in Albert and Ohler (1978), even the criteria to distinguish between distinct languages are problematic. For a further discussion see Skutnabb-Kangas (198 0.
4
Dulay, Burt, and Krashen ( 1982) have estimated that there are more than a
billion bilinguals in the world while Harding and Riley ( 1986) state that over
half the world's population is bilingual. These authors, however, do not tell
us their criteria for a bilingual condition, and we therefore have no way of
knowing just how strictly they are defining bilingualism.
Given the confusion over the precise definition of the term 'bilingual,'
a definition close to Weinreich's was selected as the most appropriate for this
project. This definition has been articulated by Grosjean ( 1982), who defines
bilingualism functionally as the use of two languages on a daily basis for the
purposes of genuine communication. This was deemed most appropriate for
the current study because the data were recorded in a natural family setting
in which two languages were used daily for communication.
The term 'simultaneous' when used in regard to bilingual children
generally denotes a speaker of two languages who has acquired two
languages before the age of three. This is in contrast to a successive
bilingual who has learned one of the languages in infancy and the second
after the age of three (McLaughlin, 1978 ).
Another term to be defined is 'unified speech period. ·A number of
researchers have reported an initial period of about three years in which a
bilingual inf ant makes no distinction between the two languages and mixes
the lexicon and syntax of the two languages (Grosjean, 1982; Leopold, 1939;
Ronjat, 1913 & Volterra & Taeschner. 1978 ). Grosjean describes Leopold's
English-German bilingual daughter Hildegard's initial language development
as one in which there was an initial mixed language stage that slowly
separated into two language systems as she became aware of the two
systems. Ronjat reports that his son Louis learned German from his mother
s
and French from his father and went through an initial phase in which his
pronunciation was based upon a unified phonological system which was the
same for both languages. Volterra and Taeschner propose a three-stage
model of language development in the simultaneous bilingual child where
the child initially has one lexical system that uses words from both
languages and a single syntactic system, then moves into the second stage
that has two different lexicons but retains a single syntactic system, and
finally advances to the third stage of two separate lexicons and two syntaxes.
The most extensive study of the unified period remains that of
Werner Leopold. A number of researchers (Arnberg, 1987; Fantini. 1985;
Grosjean. 1982; Hakuta, 1986; & Skutnabb-Kangas. 1981) have analyzed and
discussed Leopold's data in depth. Leopold, a professor of German at an
American university, described the language development of his German
English-speaking daughter Hildegard in great detail. Hildegard was exposed
to German from her father and English from her mother and from her peers.
For Hildegard's initial language acquisition/learning period, she seemed to
combine the two languages into one system. For example, the speech sounds
she produced belonged to a single system which was not differentiated
according to language. In her first and early sentences. she mixed English
and German words and did not distinguish between two languages when she
spoke to monolingual speakers of each language. Leopold and others state
that she began showing signs of beginning to separate the two languages at
the end of her second year (Arnberg, 1987).
Not all researchers. however. have agreed that there exists a unified
speech period. Lindholm and Padilla ( 1978) argue that infant bilinguals
keep the languages separate from the onset of language development
between the ages of 2:6 and 6:2. based upon language samples from five
Spanish-English bilingual children. Only 2% of the total utterances they
examined contained mixes. The most common type of mix they observed
involved the insertion of single lexical items (mostly English nouns into
Spanish utterances). They observed very few phrasal mixes and they
concluded that language mixes do not constitute a major interference in the
acquisition of bilingualism since children appear to differentiate their two
linguistic systems from an early age.
Meisel ( 1989) absolutely rejects the idea of a unified speech period.
Based upon studies of the speech of two French-German bilingual children
from 1 ;O, his analysis suggests that bilingual children use different word
order in both languages no later than the appearance of two or more word
utterances.
Bergman ( 1976) proposes an independent development hypothesis:
As it is being acquired. each language is able to develop independently of the other with the same pattern of acquisition as is found in monolingual children learning that language.
It must be noted, though, that most of Bergman's data was of an anecdotal
nature.
Redlinger and Park f 1980) reported on the language mixing of four
bilingual children (Danny, Marcus, Henrik, and Marc) over a five to eight
month period with the children's ages 1: 11, 2:0, 2;4, and 2:8, respectively at
the onset of their study. They reported that in the beginning, Marcus, a
Spanish-German bilingual. mixed in 30% of his utterances. but this had
dropped to 21.2% after five and a hall' months. Danny, an English-Gerrnan
6
7
bilingual, went from 20.8 % to 3.7% in eight and a half months while Henrik, a
French-German bilingual went from 11.9% mixed utterances to a mere 2.5%
over eight months. Marc, a French-German bilingual (2;8 at the onset), went
from 2.6% to 0% by 3;1. Their analysis revealed an initially higher rate of
mixing which diminished with a growth in language development as
measured in MLU (Mean Length of Utterance/See below). They concluded
that the children in their study were at various stages in a gradual process of
language differentation. therefore providing support for the one-system (i.e.,
unified speech period) theory of bilingual acquisition. Their examination of
the distribution of lexical substitutions by part of speech revealed that nouns
were most frequently substituted by all of the children; however, more
function words were substituted than content words overall.
Fantini ( 1985) stands in the middle of the debate as he reports some
mixing by his Spanish-English son Mario• at 2;6 and 2;8. He reports no
mixing before those two ages. This is not surprising as the length of
utterances is usually only one or two words in this period. He claims that
such mixing ceased after 2:8 and that the months fallowing were of rapid
syntactic development. This means. of course, that Fantini's data show
mixing for only a three month period. Fantini's analysis was based upon an
exploration of the interrelationships of speech and the children's
environments from a sociolinguistic perspective focusing on the "use" of
language.
1 Mario may also be considered a trilingual as he also had a lot of input from Italian.
8
Finally, for the purposes of this project. a distinction also needs to be
recognized between language- or code-mixing and code-switching. Although
definitions vary, 'code-mixing' will be used to describe the insertion of one
lexical item from one language into a sentence in another language (McClure,
1977). 'Code-switching,' on the other hand, entails the ability to switch from
one language or dialect to another between clauses or phrases, or between
discourse blocks (Skuttnabb-Kangas, 1981) according to the interlocutor,
situational context, et cetera. Even changing registers can be considered a
kind of code-switch. I This distinction is quite different from Redlinger and
Park's (1980) as regards language mixing, which they describe as
"indiscriminate combinations of elements from each language." Code-mixing
is not the same as language mixing as defined by Redlinger and Park.
I from personal communication with Susan Foster
SUBJECT
As mentioned above, the subject for this study was my son Evan who
is two years and ten months of age (2; 10) as of this writing. Evan has lived
with his older brother Ken (9;2), his Japanese mother, and American father
since birth. For his initial nine months, Evan lived in japan and was exposed
to Enshu and Mikkawa dialects of Japanese from his family and friends and
to English also from his family and friends. The dominant language in his
environment was Japanese in this period.
Evan's brother Ken is a simultaneous Japanese-English bilingual whose
Japanese was the dominant language until after the move to the United
States, even though he had been attending an international school where
English was the language of instruction. My wife and I are successive
bilinguals in Japanese and English and our native tongues have always been
our dominant ones.
When Evan was ten months old the family moved to the United States
and Evan's language input now included not only the language of his brother,
mother, and father, but also an aunt, a cousin, a grandmother, and a nurse,
all of whom spoke English. The dominant language switched from Japanese
to English in the environment surrounding Evan. At the time that this
research concluded, the situation had changed slightly in that the cousin had
moved and the grandmother had passed on.
Our family mixes languages a great deal. In the home, one can hear
Japanese utterances, English utterances, mixed utterances, and idiosyncratic
ones (see below). It is not uncommon for one of us to begin a sentence in
one language and finish it in another. We have never practiced the one
person-one language strategy favored by so many who wish to encourage
bilingual language acquisition. Not only do we switch codes for
communication. but we play with language as well An example of this
10
might be if Evan were to utter something like "Wha chu going?" This is
grammatically incorrect in English and could possibly mean "Where are you
going?" or "What are you doing?" The family could in turn use "What chu
going?" for either of the possible meanings. This, in fact, did happen and it
was amusing for those of us who were the informed audience. The fact that
our f amity code-switches is very important for the purposes of this project
and distinguishes us from Redlinger and Park's subjects ( 1980). In their
study, two families employed the one person-one language strategy (see
below) and two code-mixed, but not within sentence boundaries. Our family,
on the other hand, sometimes switches intrasententially.
PROCEDURE
DAT A COLLECTION AND TRANSCRIPTION
This study began with my interest in the content and order of Evan's
utterances. I began to jot them down whenever I heard one that I thought
was new. Other f amiJy members started helping me to do the same. At that
time. I had no idea that this would eventually become the beginning of this
research. The casual data collection began when Evan was 0;9 and was the
earliest data. most of which has not been used here.
Also when Evan was 0;9, his paternal grandmother began keeping
informal diary entries on Evan's utterances. She was a monolingual speaker
of English whose ear was perhaps not attuned to his Japanese utterances and
the number of English utterances recorded in this diary was larger than the
number of Japanese ones as she recorded 23 English utterances and only two
Japanese ones. Six utterances she recorded would have to be called neutral
ones (see below). Since the grandmother's ear was not attuned to Japanese
and because of the paucity of data from this source, I have elected for the
most part to eliminate that data from this discussion.
From l ;6 until 2;0, I recorded a number of utterances in a diary of my
own in which I observed Evan and made notes on what he was saying to
whom. what the interlocutors were saying, and on what I believed the
meaning of his utterances were given the particular situations. Throughout
the whole study (and up to the present) I have done this to a certain extent.
12
These data, though, have not been very helpful for the purposes of this
research since, as with the data from Evan's grandmother's diary, the data
are very limited; and when compared to the taped data, clearly do not
provide a good record of Evan's overall language ability. However, in this
five month period (from 1;6 to 1;11), I recorded 140 of Evan's utterances, 33
of which were multiple-word utterances and 107 of which were single-word
utterances.
I began to make audio tape recordings at 2;0 of Evan and his
interlocutors on a monthly basis. In some cases, these tapings were done
when the participants did not know they were being recorded. This was
done in order not to change or skew in any way what they were saying. In
most cases. Evan did not know he was being recorded. His mother, Katsue,
knew to a greater extent that the tape player was on than Ken did, and I
always knew, as I was the one pushing the record button. The reason I give
for Evan not knowing is that I don't believe that his cognitive facilities were
well developed enough to completely understand the concept of audio
recording on cassette tapes. In Katsue and Ken's case, I would quite often
literally sneak up upon them with a cassette player on record and leave the
tape recorder where they couldn't see it. As they moved from room to room,
they would then notice that they were being recorded. I don't believe that
this changed Katsue's speech much, while it seemed to affect Ken to a greater
extent. I can not, however. say how many times the interlocutors knew they
were being taped with any certainty, except to say that I was always aware
of that fact. On the whole, I believe that this method was quite efficacious
for gaining naturalistic ethnographic data on Evan's speech with little
interference from the interlocutors knowing that they were being recorded.
13
These tapings proved to be the most valuable and reliable sources of data for
this project and. in fact. have caused me to examine and report in detail only
on the seven month period from 2;0 to 2;6. I do not believe that this data
base is skewed in any major way because of the knowledge of the
interlocutors that they were being recorded, especially as the data being
discussed herein are for the most part only that of Evan's personal
utterances.
Some of the problems inherent in collecting data through the use of
audio tapes did occur in that tapes from some one-month periods tended to
contain a greater number of utterances than others. Table I shows all the
transcribable utterances at each age. The total data base of transcribed
utterances may be found in Appendices A and B. • Most of the tapes were
sixty minutes in length; but given that the data were collected in a
naturalistic environment, some tapes contained more utterances than others.
The reasons for this are varied; having to do with, for example, people going
to sleep, electing to watch television rather than engage in conversation.
interlocutors leaving the scene. et cetera.
After the tapes had been made. I transcribed Evan's utterances onto
cards and then entered these data in two computer data bases, one for
single- word utterances2 and one for multiple-word utterances. Appendix A
I Japanese utterances have been rendered into Roman letters using the Hepburn system of romaj.i (i.e .. Romanization, or the rendering of Japanese words into Roman script, lit. Roman letters) that is currently popular in Japan. This was done because this is the Romanization of Japanese I am most familiar with and also because of its current widespread acceptance in Japan. It might be noted here that Hepburn Romanization and the older .ku.are.as.lJi.ki. Romanization are not all that dissimilar.
2 Which would not be useful in syntactic analysis
represents the single-word utterances and Appendix B represents the
multiple-word utterances.
Tape quality was not always good, especially as the tapes had been
made in many different situations such as the bath tub, in an auto, in front
of a television set, or in a meal time situation. This created a lot of
background noise that made the tapes difficult to transcribe at times. In
addition, it was difficult to note Evan's utterances when more than one
person spoke at the same time. In such cases, untranscribable utterances
were discarded. However, it was possible to garner a fair amount of data
from the tapes. Two tapes from the seven-month period in question were
not used because of technical problems which rendered them incoherent.
The tapings, though not reported on here, have continued since the
conclusion of this study.
TABLE I
NUMBER OF UTTERANCES RECORDED AND ANAL¥ZED
Age Number of Utterances Recorded and Analyzed 2;0 48 2; 1 391 2;2 1087 2;3 686 2;4 490 2;5 41 2;6 427
Total Number of Utterances: 3170
After all of Evan's transcribable utterances were transcribed, a
determination was made as to from which language each word came from.
t4
·~
This proved to be especially difficult in a number of cases because Japanese
has borrowed so heavily from the English language. So, for example, I had to
judge in some cases as to whether Evan was saying the English 'bus' or the
Japanese basu, the two being very similar in pronunciation. When a word
had English phonology, it was recorded as an English one and when it had
Japanese phonology it was assumed to be a Japanese word.1 An exception.
however, was made for personal names. All of these were counted as
neutral (irrespective of pronunciation) except when they were uttered in
complete sentences of either Japanese or English with no obvious mixing.
Most English names are pronounced differently in Japanese than in
English. For example, Sesame Street's Big Bird is biggu b1111do in Japanese
and Batman's nemesis, the joker, is rendered as z11jol:1111. Ken, on the other
hand, is pronounced the same in both languages. Japanese names are not
changed as much when uttered by English speakers. NokoNoko remains the
same. Evan did not utter any of the corporate names like Honda that
speakers of English change the pronunciation of. In Japanese, the ·o· in
Honda is spoken as the 'o' in the English word 'so,' while Americans give it an
·a· pronunciation as in the English word 'far.' For the purposes of this study,
however. names have all been considered neutral, except in the syntactic
1 Japanese has borrowed a great deal from English. Decisions had to be made on lexical items that are close phonologically because of a borrowing as in the case of shampoo versus sha.npu (Poplack & Sankoff, 1984). In the same vein, some lexical items could only be termed neutral as they existed in both languages and were indistinguishable on phonological grounds. An example of this would be that ever so useful 'OK' that speakers of the languages in question employ.
analysis when they appeared in conjunction with words all from one
language or the other .1
Nonce borrowings, which I have determined to be neutral items
lexically, also occurred as when Evan uttered 'fire' as 'faiya,· which is fire
with Japanese pronunciation. Over a long period of time, bilinguals and
bilingual families often create words. Over a long period of time, some of
these words turn into full-fledged loanwords. Another of this type of
,14
neutral lexical item are loanwords like kitty and monkey, both of which have
been borrowed from English into Japanese.2 These are loanwords in the
adult language. In Evan's case. it is not clear if they are from adult Japanese,
have been reborrowed by Evan, or if they have come from English.
Sometimes the choice is dependent on the differences in phonology. At other
times the choice is very difficult because of similarities in phonology
between the two languages.
UTTERANCE LENGTH ANALYSIS
A Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) analysis was performed using the
protocols of Brown ( 1973 ).3 This was done in order to compare Evan's
lengths of utterances with those of other simultaneous bilingual children.
Under Brown's system, words are not counted, but rather morphemes. All
I Although no formal interrater reliability anaysis was performed on the assignation of utterances, I feel confident that other bilingual speakers of English and Japanese would make their assignations in a very similar fashion to what I have done.
2 It might also be noted here that most studies of code-switching eliminate names all together.
3 For a complete list of these protocols, please see Appendix C.
17
compound words (two or more free morphemes), proper names, and
ritualized reduplications were counted as single words. Some examples here
are Aunt Edna. birthday, and choo-choo train. For MLU calculations. bye-bye
was counted as one morpheme; but later in the lexical analysis it was
counted as two words. Irregular past tense verbs were counted as one
morpheme unless there was evidence that both the irregular and past tense
were being employed. Diminutive names like 'Evan-chan' (Master Evan I)
were also counted as one morpheme as were auxiliaries and catenatives (e.g.,
gonna and wanna). Inflections for possessives, plurals, third person singular.
regular past tense, and progressives were all counted as separate
morphemes. Fillers such as mm and oh were not counted as morphemes, but
no, yeah. and hi were. Stutters counted as one morpheme. One modification
to Brown's system, however, was employed. Since all the data were put into
a computer data base and because of the nature of the data collection, it was
possible to go beyond Brown's minimal 100 word limit and do an MLU
cakulation on the entire data. This is called a range count.
LEXICAL ANALYSIS
Following the MLU calculation, I compared the numbers of single
versus multiple-word utterances over time. This was done in order to see if
single-word utterances declined in number as multiple-word utterances
grew in number. I also counted the multiple-word utterances in terms of
numbers of word length, e.g., two-word versus three-word utterances, et
I The translation here is vague. - ClJa.o is also a diminutive/honorific term of endearment.
cetera. This was done in order to examine the changing length of Evan's
utterances. Please bear in mind here that it is not morphemes that were
counted (as in the MLU calculations), but rather words. Morpheme counts
were only used in MLU calculations.
18 .
In an attempt to estimate the size of Evan's expressive vocabulary in
each language, I assigned his vocabulary into English, Japanese, neutral, and
idiosyncratic categories and counted the number of items in each category.
Neutral items were those words that can be found in both English or
Japanese (such as OK) and proper names Oike Mama, Papa, and Ken).
Idiosyncratic words are those that Evan or the family made up that can not
be found in English or Japanese (like uin uin for a siren sound) In addition,
the neutral category was further analyzed in order to determine the number
of proper names in this category in relation to other words.
This was followed by a survey of the lexicon to see what types of
onomatopoeia, interjections, immediate imitations. idiosyncratic words, and
baby talk expressions Evan was employing. After this, I surveyed the data
for cross-language synonyms during the time period in question because
Volterra and Taeschner ( 1977) have stated that in their first stage of a
unified speech period for almost any word in one of a bilingual child's
lexicons, there will not be a corresponding word in the other.
SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS
Analysis of the lexicon was followed by assignation of the multiple
utterances into the syntactic categories of English utterances with no mix,
English utterances with a mix, Japanese utterances with no mix, Japanese
:l9-
utterances with a mix, and a neutral utterance category. The expectation
was that if there was a genuine unified speech period, there would be a large
number of mixed utterances, as the literature reviewed suggested. However,
as ti.1eisel ( 198 9) argues, mixed utterances don't necessarily indicate a
unified speech period.
The decision as to which category to assign the utterances was made
on the basis of word order and the language of the words in the utterances.
Japanese is a Subject-Object-Verb (SOV) language while English has a
Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) syntactic order. This meant of course that some
two-word utterances would fall into a neutral category. For example, in
English you can say "That's juice." and in Japanese this becomes Are wa
juusu desu (that over there as for that juice is). Evan's two-word rendition
of this \Vas "are juice." There is no difference in the syntactic order as 'that'
and are are the subjects while 'juice' and ;llusu are the objects.• From the
data. I can't tell where Evan would have placed the verb had he used one.
In Evan's utterance. as either an English or Japanese sentence, the verb is
understood; though if employed it would have to come in the medial position
in English while the Japanese verb here ( desu) would have to come in the
final position. I do not have enough information to say where Evan would
have put a verb had he used one and am faced with an utterance with one
word from Japanese and one from English. I can't call this utterance English
or Japanese; rather we can only say that we don't know and assign it to a
neutral category.
1 Here j1111s11 is actually a predicate nominal as it is in a sentence with the copula. It does. however, come in the same position that a true object would come.
-_20•
Other word order constraints in the language also lead to neutral
utterances. In Japanese. every modifier. whether an adjective. adverb, or
others. will always precede what it modifies. The placement of the rest of
the grammatical forms. for example adverbial phrases is very flexible. An
example from Evan's data was when he said "toto here" (birdie here). The
adult English form of this would be "The bird is here." The adult Japanese
form would be" Tori ivo J:o.loni imostJ'' (bird as for bird here is). In Evan's
utterance. he used a baby talk form of tori with toto and used an English
locative phrase with the adverb here. If we were to consider this to be
either an English or Japanese sentence, the verb would be understood. In an
adult English form. though, the verb would have to come in a medial position
while it would have to come in the final position in an adult Japanese form.
Again. I do not have enough information to say which language's syntax is
operative here and so have assigned this utterance to the neutral category.
The use of Japanese verbs and particles is probably the most complex
aspect of the language; while nouns and other parts of speech, although
having their own peculiarities. are less complex than verbs and particles
(Matsuoka McClain, 1981 ). Japanese also is a language that uses a highly
stratified system of honorifics and a language that employs a great deal of
ellipses. Japanese syntax may be complex. but it is perhaps not as difficult
as some people assume it to be. The main verbs always occur at the end of a
sentence and these verbs are agglutinous (i.e., word formation in which
morphemes retain an independence of meaning and form rather than fusing
or blending with combining elements). Any element that changes the status
of these verbs, such as negation. desiderative, or passive forms will be
attached to the end of the verb.
21
English, on the other hand, employs verbs in the medial position
between the subject and object in most sentences. Verbs are not agglutinous
and elements changing the verbs usually precede them. English does not
employ ellipses as frequently as does Japanese and relies more on deictic
terms. While having honorifics in English, these honorifics are not employed
as frequently as which they are employed in Japanese.
Having decided on the basic syntax (English=SVO/ Japanese=SOV), the
next decision to be made was as to whether or not an utterance was
completely English or Japanese. Those utterances with English syntax and at
least one Japanese word were assigned to the English with mix category
while utterances with Japanese syntax and at least one English word were
assigned to the Japanese with mix category. One of Evan's utterances
assigned to the English with mix category was "wha dis toto" (what's this
birdie). If this utterance was from Japanese adult syntax, it would be 1·000
tori TVi1 nan des/Joo 1·3; with the equivalent of 'this' (.kono) in the initial
position sententially. Thus, this is an English sentence with a Japanese word
for 'bird' in it. Adult English syntax demands that 'this' be placed
intrasententially. Another of Evan's utterances, juice aru (juice have), was
assigned to the Japanese with mix category because the verb comes finally.
In English the utterance would place the verb medially. 'juice,' in this case
was uttered with English pronunciation.
Again, because Japanese has borrowed so heavily from English, some
judgement had to be employed and it may be that some utterances have
been coded in error. A best attempt approach was used and any errors, of
course, are mine. t 2 3
22
I The words in the utterances were also assigned to categories of function versus content words and parts of speech. The scope of this research does not include an analysis of these wo areas, but these assignations may be found in the appendices.
2 All of the above procedures were also performed on the data in the period from 1;6 to 1;11. Alt.hough not discussed above. the results from that data were as follows. In the multiple word category, 17 utterances were found to be English with no mix. 8 were found to be Japanese with no mix. and 8 were found to be neutral. In the single word category, 42 utterances were found to be English. 39 were found to be Japanese. and 10 had to be declared neutral.
3 Quirk and Greenbaum's .A Co11cise Gn.JIU/luofCo11temponry ED11is/J was used to determine parts of speech in English. while Matsuo.ta McCla.in 's l/MJd/Jook of Moder11 GraJDJ11u was used to determine Japanese parts of speech.
RFSULTS
MEAN LENGm OF UTTERANCES
The MLU showed a steady increase over the seven month period from
2;0 to 2;6. It was 1.204 at 2;0 and 1.840 at 2;6. The increase can be seen in
Figure 1. It should be noted that Evan·s MLU at 2;0 was slightly lower than
two bilingual children of the same age as Evan reported upon in Redlinger
and Park (1980). Marcus. a Spanish-German bilingual. had an MLU of 1.39
at 2;0 and Danny. an English-German bilingual had an MLU of 1.92 at 2:0 in
the Redlinger and Park study. At 2:5. Marcus' MLU was 2.21 compared to
Evan's 1.75 at the same age while Danny's was 3.35 at 2:6. Vihman ( 1984)
reports that her son Raivo. bilingual in English and Estonian, had an MLU of
1.02 at 1;7 and that it was well over 5 in both languages at 2;10. Table II
and Figure 2 show a comparison of the four children. In all cases a steady
increase in the length of utterance has been observed except for Danny from
2;2 to 2;3.
2.0
1
1
t1.U 1.4
1.2·
1.0
0 I 2p
I 2,1 2~ 2j& 2,4 2;,
• 2.6
I
figure 1. Increase in Evan's MLU.
TABLE II
COMPARISON OF DANNY, EVAN, MARCUS, AND RAIVO's MLU
Age MLU Danny
1;11.22-2;0.12 1.92 2;0.13-2;1.23 2.46 2;1.24-2;3.24 3.00 2;3.25-2;5.8 2.92 2;5.9-2;6.l 8 3.35 2;6.19-2;8.7 4.07
Evan 2;0 1.204 2;1 1.244 2;2 1.3116
24
6
5
4
MLIJ 3
2
TABLE II
COMPARISON OF DANI'IY. EVAN. 1'1ARCUS, AND RAIVO'S MLU (continued)
Ra1vo
Age MLU 2:3 1.540 2;4 1.601 2:5 1.750 2;6 1.840
Marcus 2;0.1-2;1.1 1.39 2;1.2-2;2.4 1.47 2;2.5-2;3. I 6 1.50 2;3.17-2;4.22 1.90 2;4.23-2;5.20 2.21
l ;7 2;10
0
Raivo 1.02 5+
Danny
~· _,..,....~· /·--- . • Marcus • ._....-a-e:::=e::;:::io::-•~a-a--c
Evan
0+--+-~-+--+~-+----t~-+---1~--+-~+--_._~._-4
1.6 1 .7 1 .8 1 .9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 Age
Figure 2. Comparison of Danny, Evan, Marcus. & Raivo's MLU.
"25-· -
-i6"~
SINGLE- AND MULTIPLE-WORD UTTERANCES
It was not unexpected to find that as the number of Evan's single
word utterances declined, the number of multiple-word utterances
increased. At 2;0, of Evan's utterances that I recorded, 79.167% of them
were single-word utterances while 20.833% were multiple ones. By 2;6, the
number of multiple-word utterances had increased to 45.902% while single
ones had dropped to 54.098 % of the total that I recorded. The trends can be
observed in Table III and Figure 3 below. The total number of utterances
tabulated for these purposes was 3189. Thus it seems clear that as Evan is
capable of more complex utterances he makes use of them, although many
single-word utterances continue to serve his communicative purposes long
after he is capable of more complex expressions.
TABLE III
COMPARISON OF EVAN'S SINGLE-WORD AND MULTIPLE-WORD UTTERANCES
Age 2:0 2; 1 2;2 2:3 2:4 2;5 2·6
'
swu 38 306 859 442 346 19 231 2241
% 79.167 78.261 78.025 64.431 70.612 31.667 54.098 70.304
MWU 10 85 228 244 144 41 196 947
% 20.833 21.739 20.975 35.569 29.388 68.333 45.902 29.696
Iotal 48 391 1087 686 490 60 427 3189
90
80 + •-·--~W 70 t
VI .,/""'
~ 60 "' .... c: 50 '1< t.:J I I\ lb ~ G> 40 Ci.
30 + /,:' 20 .L. o-----o- ~u
10 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 , , , , , , , ,
' Age
Figure 3. Evan's Single- Versus Multiple-Word Utterances. Key: lVJ\rC= Multiple-Word Utterances. SWU=Single-Word Utterances
.27
Looking at the types of multiple-utterances. it is clear that two-word
utterances preponderated throughout. At 2;0, of the 48 total utterances
recorded, 38 were single-word utterances. 8 were two-word utterances. and
only 2 were three-word utterances. For the period from 2;0 to 2;6, the first
four-word utterance was noted at 2; 1 along with the first six-word utterance
in the taped data.I The next six-word utterance wasn't recorded until 2;6.
At 2:6. the number of single-word utterances was 231 versus 196 multiple
word utterances. Of these multiple-word utterances, 123 were two-word, 47
were three-word, 22 were four-word, 2 were five-word, and 2 were six
word. Table IV below shows the total breakdown of multiple-word
utterances.
I In the earlier data that was not analyzed in depth. the first three word utterance was noted at 1 :6 and the first four word utterance was recorded at 1.10.
.2&. -
TABLE IV
WORD LENGTH OF MULTIPLE-WORD UTTERANCES
Age TotaJ mwu 2wu % 3wu % 2;0 10 8 80 2 20 2;1 85 76 89.411 7 8.235 2·? .... 228 177 77.632 37 16.228 2·"' .:> 244 184 75.41 45 18.443 2:4 144 102 70.833 30 20.833 2;5 41 24 58.537 14 34.146 2·6
' 196 123 62.756 47 23.98 Age 4wu % Swu % 6wu % 2:0 2; 1 1 1.177 1 1.177 2:2 1 l 4.824
.., 1.316 j
2;3 13 5.328 2 0.819 2;4 6 4.167 6 4.167 2;5 2 4.878 1 2.439 2;6 22 11.224 2 1.020 2 1.020
LEXICAL ANALYSIS
I counted a total of 594 words in Evan's lexicon. I am sure that his
vocabulary was larger, but there is no way of counting the number of items
in the lexicon without observing and recording the child every speaking
moment. Of these 594 words, 268 were English (45.451%),250 were
Japanese (42.087%), 61 were neutral (10.269%), and 15 were idiosyncratic
(2.525%). Neutral items, especially names, were counted as either Japanese
or English for the purposes of the syntax calculations below. This was done
when a neutral item was found in a sentence that was composed of
vocabulary items that were all from the other language. Of these neutral
items 37 of them were proper names (65.655% of the total neutral items).
These items can be seen in Table V below.
Names Apa (Papa) Aunt Edna Ban (Evan) Banchan (Evan) Banji (Evan) Banju (Evan) BanztEvan) Banzi (Evan l Batman Big Bird Cub by Daddy Dinorider Eban (Evan) Edna Egor Eman (Evan) Evan Evanchan (Evan) Garfield George Gum mi Heman
TABLE V
EVAN'S NEUTRAL VOCABULARY
Others ah (interjection in both languages) babul (bubble) barun (balloon) bebi (baby) bo (boru) bubba (bubble) bye bye (loanword) choc (chocolate) faiya (fire) flau (flower) fren (friend) juju (juice) K (OK) key (loanword) kitty monkey (loanword) oh (interjection in both languages) OK (loanword) ooh (idiosyncratic interjection) sau (sour/7 Up) shau (shower) washi (watch/clock) whoo (idiosyncratic interjection)
2fj-
Names Joker Karen K.en Kenchan k.enKen 1fama ~1om
~lona
r\ol:oNol:o Papa Pop Robocop Seinto Seiya Seiya
TABLE V
EVAN'S NEUTRAL VOCABULARY (continued)
Others WO\\' (interjection in both languages)
10
Onomatopoeia ~as dominated by expressions from Japanese. Of the
19 total onomatopoetic expressions. 10 were from Japanese (52.631 %), 5
from English 1.26.316%), and 4 were idiosyncratic (21.053%). They are listed
below in Table VI.
TABLE VI
ONOMATOPOEIA IN EVAN'S LEXICON
l.fil1anese bisho bisho (wetJ bu (car horn) gokin/kokin (nail cutter) hiin (neigh) jabu jabu (splish splash) niao (meow)
English boom (gun) boom boom (gun) caw (crow) meow (cat) oink oink (pig)
Idiosyncratic barn (gun) barn barn (gun) chim (bell) uin uin (siren)
llm.ane~e pi (flat ulation) pon pon ttummy) ton ton I drum) wan wan (dog J
TABLE VI
ONOMATOPOEIA IN EVAN'S LEXICON
(continued)
English Idiosyncratic
. 31
The baby talk expressions that Evan used were predominantly from
Japanese. Of the 27 recorded, 20 were from Japanese (74.074%), 2 from
English (7.407%), 4 were idiosyncratic (14.815%), and 1 was neutral
(3.704%). These expressions can be see in Table VII following.
llm.anese akkoldakko/hug.l anvo \walk)
' babai (dirty) bu (vehicle) chanko lsit :1
chichai (small) chiri (buttocks) chu (kiss) dakko (hug) goron (lay) meme (bad/eyes/insect) nainai (put away) nene (sleep) penpen (spanking) pon pon (tummy) shi (shiko/urination)
TABLE VII
EVAN'S BABY TALK
Idiosyncratic hoshi {horsey) mouchu (mouse) panchu (pants) tichu (tissue)
English horsey potty
Neutral juju (juice)
lfil.1ane~e tete lte/hand) toto (bird) unchi I feces) unma tJood/milkJ
TABLE VII
EVAN'S BABY TALK (continued)
I diosvncratic
32
English Neutral
English, on the other hand, was the source of most of Evan's
interjections. I In total, 43 interjections were noted. 23 were from English
(53.488%), 11 from Japanese (25.581 %), 4 were idiosyncratic (9.302%.), and 5
could be found in both languages and were counted as neutral ( 11.628 % ).
These interjections are in Table VIII below.
TABLE VIII
EVAN'S INTERJECTIONS
English }aQanese Idiosvncratic Neutral boo are (surprise) oh oh ah bye hai (back channel) ooh bye bye cowabunga hora (look) whoo oh hi itai (ouch) yaa OK hey ita (hurt) WO'\V
huh itei (ouch)
I For the purposes of this study inter.iections are defined as non-syntactic parts of a sentence that do not fit into any of the standard categories of word class. Frequently they are pragmatic insertions into discourse. The category includes such items as feedback cues and back-channel behavior. yes. no. uh-huh. and boo( I).
English no 'vav oh my gosh oh no oops ow pooey PlYU pyuii shush uh uh huh unh uh whoa whoops yeah yuct yummy
TABLE VIII
EVAN'S INTERJECTIONS (continued)
lapanese Idiosyncratic iya lno) ne (attention getter /tag marker) ototo (oops) umm (back channel) unh (back channel)
J3
Neutral
There were very few lexical items that were completely idiosyncratic.
They were buranket (blanket/buranketto),I chim (bell sound), gokin/kokin
(nail cutting sound), hoshi (horsey), mouchu (mouse), panchu (pants), tichu
(tissue). uin uin (siren), and washi (uochi/watch). Some of these items can
be found in the tables above as there is some overlap between categories.
1 This is a word that Evan made up that he pronounced a bit differently from blanket and boracetto. It may be the only blend to be noted in this study as it comes from the English blanket and possibly from the Japanese pronunciation of that word as borancetto. Buranketto has perhaps not yet been generally borrowed into Japanese and the most common word in that language for that woolen and rectangular piece of bedding is mofo. This was an important word for Evan, as he had a security blanket much like Linus· in the popular Peanuts cartoon series. Since this blanket was so important to Evan. either he or we as a family gave the term a special pronunciation.
3A
The utterance chim,· for example, is both idiosyncratic and onomatopoeitic.
Gokin/kokin comes from a Japanese language context situation. but is also
onomatopoetic. Several of these terms might be called coined baby talk.
These are hoshi (a word Evan and Ken made up), mouchu, panchu, tichu, and
\\·ashi. These words all come from English, but Evan has given them
Japanese pronunciation (and Japanese baby talk pronunciation at that!).
Surprisingly, to this author, not many immediate imitations were
recorded. Of the 7 total I recorded, S were English (71.429%) and 2
( 28.571 <;.; l were Japanese. The English imitations were shush, oh daddy, one
t\\·o. trick or treat, and shush traitor. The Japanese ones were ganban (for
gambare /give it your best shot) and kawachatta (for J;:owarecbatta I
brokenl.
Over the seven month period that Evan's speech was recorded, I
found 17 sets of cross-language synonyms that occurred in the same
monthly period or in the preceding or following monthly period in which
they were noted. Undoubtedly there are more and the ones noted are to be
found in Table IX below. In contrast to Leopold's study, Evan employed very
few cross-language synonyms within the same monthly or two month
period. There is a difference. however, between Hildegard's data and Evan's
data. Evan's data are fixed within the family while Hildegard's data includes
exchanges between a wider variety of interlocutors. The number of cross
language synonyms is likely to be few in number in naturally occurring
conversations such as those in Evan's data. This is because in bilingual
conversation you choose which code to use and so use one or the other
lexical item to the exclusion of its synonym. Synonyms are only likely to
appear for such purposes as for clarity, for humor. for translating, for play,
35
for emphasis. to teach, or to convey a nuance with one language that it is
difficult to convey in the other. These are about the only times that cross-
1anguage synonyms have a chance to be used close together in the same data
sample. Therefore I suggest that the number of synonyms is small because
they are so often not necessary or are redundant.
TABLE IX
EVAN'S CROSS-LANGUAGE SYNONYMS
J.iill.anese achichi 2:2
' ' " atsu1 _;:; a\va 2:2 basu 2:2 bu 2: 1. 2. 3. 4. 6 h h .. '2 OS 11 -:
iya 2;1, 2. 4 koko 2:2. 3. 4. 6 kore 2:0, 1, 2. 3. 4. 6 miru 2:0, 2. 3. 4 neko 2:0. 2 owari 2 5 ,_
roboto 2:4 shanpu 2;2 toto 2;0, l, 2 unma 2:0, 1, 2, 3, 4 wani 2·~ ··'
English hot 2: 1, 2, 3. 6
bubble/foam 2:2 bus 2;2, 3 car 2;2, 3. 4, 6 want 2;2, 6 no 2;0, 1. 2, 3. 4, S. 6 here 2;0, 1, 2, 3. 6 this 2:0. 1, 2. 4 look 2; 1, 3, 4, 6/see 2;3 cat 2:1 over 2;5 robot 2;4, 6 shampoo 2;2, 3 bird 2;1, 2 food/milk 2;3 crocodile 2;3
SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS
We can now turn from the lexical analysis to the syntactic analysis.
Please refer to Table X and Figures 4 and 5 below. Quite clearly, Evan did
very little mixing. Of the total utterances recorded, English with no mix
.36
accounted for 58.505~. of the utterances, Japanese with no mix for 21.238%,
neutral for 17. 472%, English with mix for 0.530%, and Japanese with mix for
2.255%. This trend did not change in any of the monthly periods except 2;0
and 2;) with English with no mix being the dominant language throughout,
Japanese witJ1 no mix secondary, neutral next in number of occurrences, and
very few mixed utterances in either English or Japanese. At 2;0, there were
no mixed utterances while English with no mix, Japanese with no mix, and
neutral utterances were balanced at 33.333% each. At 2;5, English with no
mix accounted for 34.146 % of the utterances as did the neutral category.
Japanese \Vith no mix followed with 26.830% while 4.878% of the utterances
\\:ere Japanese with a mix.
Throughout the seven month period reported upon, English utterances
with no mix preponderated at 58.505%. Three examples of these utterances
include ·1 see turtle,' ·wan dis' <want this), and 'Heman over.·
Japanese with no mix accounted for 21.238 % of the total mixed
utterances. Examples of this type of utterance include · boshinomou· (hat
drink Jets= lets drink the hat), · seinto seiyo mo necbouo · (Saint Seiya
already gone to sleep=Saint Seiya has already gone to sleep), and · JJ..-u zo ·
igolemphatic)=I'm outta here!).
The next largest category were utterances with a neutral syntax.
Often these were two-word utterances in which the English and Japanese
syntactic orders were the same. This type of utterance accounted for
17.472% of the total number of multiple-utterances. Examples include · shiko
please' (urinate please), · toto gone' (birdie gone), · toto please' (birdie
please). 'airplane engine kowai ·(airplane engine scary), and 'OK Banz ut.<:lJ
Mama' (OK Evan shoot Mama).
---------------------------- -----
37
When we look at the categories of English with mix and Japanese with
mix, we find that very few mixed utterances indeed were noted. English
with mix accounted for 0.530% while Japanese with mix accounted for
2.25 5?.; of the total number of mixed utterances.
Some examples of English utterances with a mix are 'I go upstairs
;un1ji' (I go upstairs 12 o'clock), 'it's rvani' (it's crocodile). and 'open bu
please· (open vehicle please). These sentences all show English word order
\\'ith the insertion of a single Japanese lexical item. In adult Japanese, they
would be .. Watasllirva;'un1jlniveniiki111asv" (I as for I 12 o'clock at up go),
.. Sore rva rvani desv" (it as for it crocodile is), and "Kvrvma o akete
J:vddasai" (car (particle] open please) respectively.
Japanese utterances with a mix included 'bus arv' (bus have=(I} have
bus), 'J;ore vin vin fire toraJ;J.·v' (this siren fire truck=this is a fire truck
with a siren). 'candy cbodai' (candy want=(!) want candy), 'Mama juice
nomv' (Mama juice drink=Mama drink juice), and 'turtle cbtVJ t cbodai'
(turtle Master want=I want the Master Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle). All of
these utterances show Japanese syntax with the insertion of lexical items
from English.
I Note that - chan is also a diminutive and honorific term of endearment that is in a lot of cases feminine.
Age
2:0 2; 1 2:2 2:3 2;4 2:5 2;6
TABLE X
LANGUAGE MIXING 2;0-2;6
Eng no mix Eng w/mix }aQ no mix n/%
48/33.333 x 33.333 392/56.471 3.529 21.176 1091148.707 x 40.517 686/60.656 0.820 24.180 490/43.750 x 37.500 60/34.146 x 26.830 426/54.315 2.538 20.812
70
VI GI CT•
60
so
:, 40 c: ~
/~\ t 30
Q..
20
10
0 . _.......,a-a-a
a..e"'9~g-c:i o E'WM o-==::::::+ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6
I I I I I JI
Age
}aQ w/mix
x 2.353 1.724 2.049 5.556 4.878 4.061
Figure 4. Overall Language Mixing (Line Graph). Key: ENM=English with no mix, EWM=English with mix, JNM=japanese with no mix, JWM=japanese with mix, and N=Neutral (Figures 5-12 below use the same key.)
38
Neutral
33.333 16.471 9.052 12.295 13.194 34.146 18.27 4
39
70
60
50 ... )
°" ~ 40 ... c '1> (.' ~ 30 '1• Q.
20
10
0 ENM E'WM JNM J'WM N
Figure 5. Overall Language Mixing (Bar Graph) by Month 2;0-2;6.
70
60
50 l'I '1• I'>
'" 40 .... c '1• 0 lo.. 30 '11 0..
20
10
0 ENM E'WM JNM J'WM N
Figure 6. Language Mixing 2;0
40
70
60
50 \~ Q.• i:;r.
'" 40 .... c: Q.• Q ~ 30 'l•
Q.
20
10
0 ENM E'w'M JNM J'w'M N
Figure 7. Language Mixing 2; 1
70
60
50 Ill
°' Cl> 40 ti)
+' c: 4• (.l ~ 30 4•
Q..
20
10
0 ENM E'w'M JNM J'w'M N
Figure 8. Language Mixing 2;2
Al
70
60
50 ..... GI
~ 40 .. c 11.• (.'I I. 30 11.• a..
20
10
0 ENM E'WM JNM J'w'M N
Figure 9. Language Mixing 2;3
70
60
50 ..... Q.•
~ 40 .. c 11.• (.\ 30 I. GI
a..
20
10
0 ~mmmmrn~ ENM E'WM JNM J'w'M N
Figure 10. Language Mixing 2;4
42
70
60
50 1,11 <I•
~ 40 ..... c: Qi ()
30 ~ Qi
Cl.
20
10
0 ,HHHHHEHHH
ENM E'w'M JNM J'w'M N
Figure 11. Language Mixing 2;5
70
60
50 1,11 <I• ~ 40 ..... c O.• i.) 30 I.. G•
Cl.
20
10 -olml, I !;;;;;;;;;:;;;;;;; I
ENM E'w'M JNM J'w'M N
Figure 12. Language Mixing 2;6
DISCUSSION
In this project, I have tried to assume the partial mantle of a Leopold
in the sense that I have tried to adequately describe what I could observe of
the unified language period of one simultaneous bilingual child. What was
found, however, was that little evidence for a unified speech period existed
for Evan from the age of two to two and a half. This was most evident in the
syntactic analysis, which will be discussed in more depth below.
MEAN LENGTH OF UTTERANCES
There is no readily available explanation as to why the length of
Evan's utterances was shorter than those reported upon in other studies (See
Figures 1 and 2 and Table II). One possible reason might be the amount of
trauma that the family had experienced due to illness, death, or taking care
of elderly f amity members in the period just before the collecting of the data
used in this research began.
SINGLE- AND MULTIPLE WORD UTTERANCES
Next we must turn to the ratio of single- to multiple-word utterances.
Overall, despite the peaks and valleys, the number of single-word utterances
is declining while the number of multiple ones is increasing. This is not
unexpected. and a similar trend might also be found among monolingual
language learners. Also as Evan's age has increased, so has the number of
three-word utterances grown in proportion to single-word and two-word
44
utterances. There are too few four-. five-. and six-word utterances in the
data to note any particular trends. It is clear then that as Evan is able to
exploit a greater amount of language, he is capable of using longer
utterances. He doesn't, however. cease to use one- and two-word utterances.
LEXICAL ANALYSIS
A type of neutral item that is interesting are those words that seem to
be chosen for their usefulness in either language. A bilingual child can pick
out a way to use things that are common to both languages, at least on the
lexical level. Some examples from Evan's speech include the following. Both
'babul' and 'bubba' were used for bubble/ baburu. 'Bo' was used for
ball/ boru. 'Choe' was used for chocolate/ chokoretto. 'Fren' was used for
friend/ fureodo while 'shau' was used for shower/ shauwa. Two of the more
interesting of this type of utterance were 'sau, · a familially idiosyncratic
term meaning the drink 7-Up from the English 'sour' and the Japanese
pronunciation ( sauwa) of that particular word and 'washi' to mean clock
from the English 'watch' and the Japanese pronunciation uochi. This type of
utterance has been considered neutral because the phonology of these terms
could come from either English or Japanese. We can't really say which
language they come from.
The child may be using an exploitation strategy that arises from using
that which is common to both languages. In using such neutral terms, the
child would be showing an awareness of differences in the two languages. I
tend to this view. On the other hand, the child may be paying no attention
whatsoever to differences in the two languages and therefore would be
muddling them. Another possibility is that there is a problem with the
analysis and not with the child. What might be reflected here is simply a
researcher's inability to adequately and correctly describe strategies that
simultaneous bilingual children employ. An example of this would be the
judgements I made in regard to coding the neutral utterances.
45
The first type of strategy shows us that a two year old bilingual child
doesn't have to mix vocabularies. but rather can use neutrality for
convenience when the opportunity to be neutral arises. Of these
explanations. the first seems most attractive. Bearing this in mind, it is not
surprising that a bilingual child like Evan has a large neutral vocabulary.
The second type of strategy would be indicative of a unified speech period,
while the third case would indicate that better research design is needed.
The neutral utterances are also interesting because some of them
(babul. bubba, bo, choc. fren, shau. and washi) were originally English terms
that have been borrowed into Japanese. t They stand in contrast to the other
neutral items that are personal names (like Cubby, Mama. and Ken) and
words borrowed into Japanese from English that Evan did not change the
pronunciation of (like key, kitty, and monkey). We have, so far, looked at a
number of areas where English and Japanese are quite different
typologically as in the case of word order and honorific usage. With these
neutral items, though, we find similarities. and it is these similarities that
can lead us to ask whether two languages that have borrowed a lot from
I A case might also be made for saying that sour has been borroved into Japanese as saun.
each other give bilingual children more opportunities to exploit neutral
strategies. This seems to be the case for Evan.
46
Most of Evan's onomatopoetic words seem to come from the Japanese.
This may be because Japanese seems to use a larger number of
onomatopoetic terms than English does. A much greater number of Japanese
baby talk expressions were used by Evan than English ones. This may be
due to the close personal contact that existed between Evan and his mother
who spoke Japanese to Evan more than she did English. The idiosyncratic
baby talk terms included one set where Evan gave Japanese phonology to
three English words which have all been borrowed into Japanese from
English. The three words in this set were mouchu (mouse/ mausu), panchu
(pants/ paot.f ), and tichu (tissue/ teisbu ). Mouse has been borrowed by the
Japanese because of Mickey Mouse and Macintosh computers.• Paotsu
means underpants to the Japanese. Teisbu retains the English meaning.
Baby talk is used in both languages and in both cases often takes the
forms of reduplication and phonological simplification and a high usage rate
of terms of endearment and nicknaming. Playing with words phonologically
also occurs in both languages.
An example of reduplication would be the term tete to mean 'hand' or
'give me your hand' where the adult form for hand in Japanese is simply le
In English, we reduplicate, for example, 'poo' into 'poo poo.' An example of
phonological simplification in Japanese would be the use of sbi instead of
1 By this I mean that mausu is used when speaking of Mic.key Mouse or when speaking of the computer peripheral by Japanese speakers. When speaking of the ubiquitous rodent, a Japanese term 11ezumi is employed.
shiko (urination). In English and Japanese, you can find phonological
simplification and reduplication with the use of juju for 'juice.'
47
Those of us who have had very young children in our environments
are all familiar with some of the English baby talk terms of endearment such
as 'snookums' and 'wil Uittle) baby.'• In Japanese, an honorific suffix often is
used to show affection as is the case with the suffix -chan being used for
both female and male children as in Ebanchan, Banchan, and Kenchan (in
contrast to its usual feminine usage).
In Evan's case, at least ten names and nicknames for himself were
uttered. The earliest of these, in the present study, occurred at 2; 1, and may
be evidence of the ability to use Japanese honorific suffixes and the growth
of self-awareness on Evan's part. This is relevant in regards to gaining
communicative competence in Japanese and because some researchers like
Kagan ( 1981) and Vihman ( 1984) have argued for the development of self
awareness in the latter part of the second year.
On the other hand, for some reason, Evan's interjections have mostly
come from English. I really don't have a ready explanation for this other
than to assume that since English was the dominant language in Evan's
environment he had access to more English interjections than Japanese ones.
In addition, a timing issue may be involved here. Because of the
intimate personal contact that Evan had with his mother from an early age, I
postulate that this caused him to acquire more baby talk from his mother's
dominant language, which has always been Japanese. As Evan became older.
he had more contact with his brother. father. and others in the household
I "WH' here also shows phonological simplification.
48
and community. Ken's dominant language became English quite soon after
his arrival in the U.S .. my dominant language has always been English. and
the dominant household and community-at-large language is also English.
Perhaps Ken and his peers used more interjections at school than in the
other language communities and Ken passed these on to Evan. It has been
suggested that children acquire more language from their peers and siblings
than from any other source (Stewart. 1964/See below).
Some of these interjections are cross-language synonyms, yet I did not
include them in that category as they occurred in different monthly periods
and because there is some disagreement as to whether interjections are
really words or whether they should count in the MLU calculations. Brown,
for example, allows 'yeah,' but does not allow 'uh huh.' Some of these cross
language interjection synonyms include ow/ itai and whoops/ ototo.
As mentioned previously, there were very few terms found that were
completely idiosyncratic. This says something about the power of languages
to ingrain themselves in children's minds or, rather, about the innate human
capacity to acquire one or more languages.
Grosjean ( 1982) has claimed that blends and compounds used by
simultaneous bilingual children are evidence of what is to be expected in
Volterra and Taeschner's first stage in that they reflect a single language
system. By blends he means what a two year old English-French bilingual
child Juliette did when she combined the English word 'pickle' with the
French word 'cornichon' to produce 'pinichon.' Juliette also gave him an
example of a compound when she would point to the moon and say 'moon
lune.'
49
No blends are to be found in the period from 2:0 to 2:6. I Three
possible compounds to be found in the data, such as moon/lune, were Evan's
use of bub us, bucar, and .bu motorcycle. Bu has meant any kind of vehicle
for Evan and has been an often used and important word for him. Evan once
uttered 'boot-shoes,' but this appears not to be a true blend in Grosjean's
sense because the words come from the same language. That, however,
might not be important here as Japanese has borrowed 'shoes' as sbuzu and
'boot· as butsu. The above are all that I was able to identify so far in the
data. The analysis. though, is continuing.
Fantini ( 1985) has suggested that immediate imitations require no
knowledge of underlying syntactic rules, so I thought it proper to see if Evan
would do a lot of immediate imitation. If so, this could perhaps be evidence
of a syntactically-confused unified speech period. There turned out to be a
paucity of immediate imitations in the data. Admittedly, a large part of
language acquisition involves imitation on some level. A large part of
language acquisition must be connected to imitation, but that is not
necessarily the same thing as immediate repetition.
In this study, though, there arose only seven occasions when Evan was
clearly immediately imitating. One was an imitation of his brother Ken and a
friend saying 'shush' and 'shush traitor' to each other. Another was imitating
a song on TV, with Fleetwood Mac crooning "Oh, daddy ... " Another time he
imitated his mother counting with a 'one, two.' At Halloween time, when
I An exception to this might be the 'buranket' that I mentioned earlier. It must be remembered, though, that this vas an idiosyncratic term.
trick-or-treating, there was an imitation of his brother calling out 'trick or
treat!' This term soon became internalized on that All Hallows Eve.
s.o
The two Japanese immediate imitations were attempts to say the
words that his mother was overtly trying to teach him. They were 'ganban'
for g:iJJlJ3re (give it your best shot) and 'kawachatta' for J;owareclliltta
meaning broken. Certainly Evan did more immediate imitating in the period
reported upon here. but these are the only examples to be found in the data.
I reiterate these imitations to show the contexts in which they
occurred. The imitations of his brother and friend at play may have
indicated Evan's desire to play with his peers. At least in the case of trick
or-treating, I think that it is accurate to say that Evan's immediate
communicative purpose was to receive candy and this goal could be
accomplished by doing what the other children around him were doing. In
the case of imitating his mother. this would not be at odds with Grice's
I l 975) notion of obeying a cooperative principle in conversation. By this I
mean that Evan was attempting to comply with his mother's desire that he
repeat the words she was eliciting. The imitation of the Fleetwood Mac song
may have just been a way for Evan to enjoy himself musically. It seems
here that Evan draws from whatever linguistic sources he has available.
\Vhether from two internalized lexicons or from the linguistic environment.
Although a number of conclusions can be drawn, what is perhaps
important to note is that although we can not say with any certainty that
Evan exploited words because of their neutrality, the possibilty of his doing
so existed. In addition, onomatopoetic terms seem to have come primarily
from Japanese; possibly because Japanese uses onomatopoeia more than
English does. Baby talk from both languages was used, though Japanese
'5f
preponderated, This was quite possibly due to the fact that Evan got more
baby talk input from his mother speaking to him in Japanese. English
interjections preponderated over Japanese ones and the reason for this may
have been that English was the dominant language in Evan's environment
from 2;0 to 2;6. Completely idiosyncratic terms were few in number and not
many blends or compounds were to be found, thus it is fair to conclude that
neither of the two latter categories were especially important in Evan's
lexicon, though previous studies have suggested that this would be the case.
SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS
We can now turn to the area of syntactic analysis, and this is where
we may note something of significance vis-a-vis the so-called unified speech
period. Contrary to some earlier studies mentioned above, in Evan's case we
can find virtually no evidence of repeated mixing as in every monthly period
observed there were very few, if any, utterances recorded that could fall
into the code-mixing categories of English with mix and Japanese with mix
while a fair number of neutral utterances (i.e., those utterances which we
could not say belonged to either English or Japanese syntax) were uttered.
Evan seems to have already clearly separated the two languages into
separate systems at the age of two since, as will be discussed below, mixed
utterances are not clear evidence of a unified language.
Before turning to this issue, it is important to ask two questions. One
query asks why the neutral utterances exist at all. The answers to this
question, as regards syntax, are very similar to the answers to the same
question when applied to lexicon. The bilingual child might be using a
'1
52
neutral exploitation strategy (suggesting an awareness of two languages),
may be paying no attention to language differentation (suggesting
unawareness of two languages), or it may be the case that this study is not
comprehensive enough to adequately describe the language of the period in
question. I suspect the first answer is at work, though one can not say so
with any great certainty.
The next important question to ask is what will happen to these
neutral utterances as Evan's mastery of the two syntaxes grows. It can be
expected that the number of this type of utterance will fall as Evan speaks
longer and longer sentences in both English and Japanese. Syntactic
restraints will probably cause this to a large extent.
As Evan evidenced so code-mixing, the data in this research project
stand in direct opposition to the claim that bilingual infants go through an
initial mixed language period until about three years of age. If Evan had
been going through a unified speech period, we would expect to find a large
number of English and Japanese utterances with code-mixes in them. In
fact, very few code-mixed utterances were noted in either English or
Japanese; yet a considerable number of what have to be termed neutral
utterances did exist. Neutral utterances may themselves be caused by a
bilingual child's ability and/or desire to exploit them in communicative
strategies when the options arise. This, of course, is related to the ability of
the human being to switch codes. as well as to acquire language and also to
circumstances related to the sociolinguistic environment that people find
themselves in.
In a unified speech period as described in the literature. we also
could expect to find a large number of cross-language synonyms. Here again,
·'53
a large number were not noted; but again we have to remember that a
considerable number of neutral lexical items did exist. Perhaps cross
language synonyms were not needed very much because of the availability
of neutral items. This availability of neutral items in Evan's case might have
been greater because Japanese has borrowed so heavily from English.'
Meisel ( 1989) would argue that language learners would not be able
to mix if the learner did not know there were two languages and that there
is no way to tell the difference between code-switching and a unified speech
period \\'hen the same data are used as evidence of both. He calls the claim
that bilingual children use only one lexicon initially as a controversial one
and the claim that there is a phase characterized by a single syntactic system
underlying performance in both languages as an even more controversial
one.
Based upon the data from Evan, I have to agree with Meisel that
children have the ability to distinguish separate codes from an early age. By
two years of age, it was clear that he had made a distinct separation between
some of the many codes of English and Japanese.
Meisel further noted that in the Volterra and Taeschner ( 1978) study
that argues for a three-stage unified period, the second stage in which a
single syntactic system is used, only one of the children (Lisa) used
constructions that could lead to this conclusion. He further interprets the
Redlinger and Park ( 1980) study as failing to offer good support in favor of
an initial unified speech period when they admit that various linguistic and
sociolinguistic factors influenced the degree of mixing. The one boy in their
I To a much lesser extent, English has also borrowed from Japanese.
54
study who used practically no mixed utterances (Marc) was also a child for
whom the two languages were clearly separated. His family used the well
known "one person-one language" strategy (Ronjat, 1913), in which the
mother spoke only French with the boy and the father only spoke German.
This is different from a code-switching family like Evan's. The lack of code
S\\citching in Marc's family or the imposition of any one language-one
interlocutor dictum may not be important factors in a bilingual child's (or
most children's, for that matter) ability to acquire and to use one or more
languages, registers. dialects. et cetera.
Meisel's research leads him to believe the kind of empirical evidence
that is necessary to demonstrate instances of syntactic mixing or
differentation between two syntactic systems needs to come from languages
in which the grammar or aspects of the grammar of the two adult target
systems differ. Rather than looking for evidence in support of a single
system. Meisel suggests that we look for evidence in favor of the notion that
bilinguals do indeed differentiate two grammatical systems from an early
age and that we should, in fact, ask a more basic question as to when in
language development we may assume that a child is able to use syntactic
modes of language processing. For Meisel, it is only possible to speak of
syntactic rules in a unified speech period if a child is able to ref er to a
syntactic mode of processing. This follows from a belief that both
monolinguals and bilinguals begin with a language processing mode that
foJlows general pragmatic principles rather than more specific grammatical
ones. Most researchers who have embraced the single-system hypothesis
assume that once a child has begun to use a syntactic mode of language
processing, that child will initially only develop one syntax by which both
languages are processed. Meisel puts it this way:
If one can show that a bilingual child uses different grammatical means for expressing the same or similar semanticpragmatic functions in both languages, this not only indicates that s/he is indeed differentiating the two grammatical systems, but also constitutes what I believe to be the clearest evidence that one can and, indeed, must attribute to the child---the ability to use the gn10101:tt1c/l./ mode. (Meisel. 1989: 21)
55
Meisel later concludes that "bilingual children use different word order
sequences in both languages as soon as they begin to produce multi-word
utterances" (Meisel. 1989: 28) and this, therefore, provides strong evidence
against a unified apeech period. If children use two languages. then they
must have them separated. This seems to have been the case with Evan.
It must be remembered that bilingual families and people have access
to at least one more code than monolinguals do. Thus they have the ability
to switch more codes. This may be done for clarity, for humor. for
translating, for play, for emphasis. to teach. or to convey a nuance. et cetera
with one language that it is difficult to convey in the other. Within a single
code. such as English. people have the ability to switch registers and this also
may be seen as an example of the human ability to acquire one or more
languages either simultaneously or successively.
LANGUAGE CONTEXTS
Evan was born in japan on May 26, 1987, and was separated from his
mother for about the first two weeks of his life due to medical complications
-5,
that arose. Arter being discharged from the hospital, Evan resided with his
mother, brother, and father for nine months in Japan. Most of his language
input at this time was from Japanese as he was with his mother and her
relatives most of the time. though there was some English input as the
family code-switched or when English speakers were visiting the family.
At the age of ten months, the family moved to the United States and
this caused a change in the language input. Evan now was living in an
English speaUng household in which most interlocutors spoke English. The
mother continued to provide a lot of Japanese input as did the brother and
father when they switched codes or when Japanese speaking friends visited.
Other inputs, all in English, came from Evan's paternal grandmother, an aunt,
a cousin. and housekeepers, nurses, or various tradespeople. From 0; 10
through 2;6, Evan and his family went through various traumas due to the
need to care for the elderly, prolonged illness. and death in the family.
While living in the extended family situation. there was some pressure from
the monolingual English speakers for the bilingual family to speak only
English.
At 2;7, the family visited Japan and stayed with the maternal
grandparents for a three week period. During this time, the language input
was almost entirely Japanese from relatives and friends too numerous to list
here. Surprisingly enough, during this period Evan tended to use English
more than was previously noted. I suspect that the reason for this might
have been a kind of showing off or perhaps an attempt to get the Japanese
interlocutors to switch codes.
At 2;8, the nuclear family returned to the United States and moved to
a different domicile where they freely switched codes again. Both of the
57
brothers are now learning their iwo languages simultaneously and in a non
traumatic way as did Grosjean's ( 1982) Ingrid (though the family does not
employ the one person-one language strategy that Grosjean·s did). The
brothers \\'ere also able to do this while living in Japan.
This discussion of the family's language contexts is important as it tells
us about our family's code-switches. This code-switching exposes Evan to
the fact that the interlocutors in his environment can and frequently do
S\\'itch codes. While we might be tempted to think that exposure to code
S\\·itching would lead to confusion on the part of the child in Evan's case
there is e\·idence that he simply exploited the code-switching option as
easily as he could. An example of this occurred after Evan was watching a
children's television cartoon show that featured a character named Heman
on the third floor of our house. After the end of the show. he went to the
second floor where his brother and mother (code-switchers) were and said
'Heman orvari" meaning "Heman is over." He then went to the first floor and
approached his aunt and her nurse (both monolingual English speakers) and
said "Heman over." This was at 2;5.
MAINTENANCE OF LINGVISTIC DIVERSITY
Linguistic environments must play an important role in attaining a
bilingual condition. Children of bicultural marriages are the children most
likely to be exposed to different languages and cultural environments;
though not all children of such marriages actually receive such exposure
(Yamamoto. 1987). In cases where a linguistic minority group is large
enough, it is quite likely that a stable and supportive community can be
58
established that allows frequent interactions in which linguistic and cultural
heritages can be maintained and transmitted. The community might build
national schools le.g., the Canadian Academy in Kobe, japan) or establish
Saturday schools (e.g., the Portland Japanese School in Portland, Oregon) for
its children and/or organize social activities to foster transmissions of the
above heritages. On the other hand, this degree of exposure may be difficult
to attain indeed if the minority group population is very small or scattered
geographically within the host country. In such cases individual endeavor is
very important to those parents wishing to transmit the minority heritage
i.Yamamoto, 1987).
In such environments where linguistic and cultural support is difficult
to attain, a goodly number of foreign parents are frustrated when they find
their children speaking exclusively the language of the host country---even
in cases where the parents themselves make considerable efforts towards
exposing their children to other languages. This problem often rears its head
around the time that children start school life and peer pressure becomes of,
perhaps, prime concern to them, i.e., the bilingual children. At this point the
tendency to speak the language of majority society becomes very
conspicuous. Some cases have been reported of children in mixed marriages
demanding that minority-language parents not address them in the minority
language in front of their friends (Saunders, 1982). This has happened on
only a few occasions in our family. Perhaps a reason for this not happening
very often is that we are a code-switching family.
On the other hand, some families achieve success in raising children to
be bilingual/bicultural. We need to find out what makes the differences
bet\\'een the two types of families if we wish to promote this dynamic
condition of bilingualism/biculturalism. One way we can begin further
investigation is to look at the linguistic environments of bicultural families
and then to perform discourse analysis on those environments as has been
done to a certain extent in this project.
Surveys performed upon bicultural families separately by Saunders
_59 .
( 1982) and Yamamoto ( 1985) indicated that in cases where children
successfully became bilingual, there was some influence by: 1) the language
used by the native-(speaking) parents in addressing their children; 2) the
linguistic interaction pattern between siblings; and 3) the language of
instruction at school. Factors which seemed to have the least significance
were: 1) the language used by the native Japanese (-speaking) parents in
addressing their children; 2) the linguistic interaction pattern between the
English-speaking parent and the Japanese (-speaking) parent; 3) the parents'
degree of bilingual competence; and 4) the amount of experience living
abroad (Yamamoto, 1987).
In eleven successful cases of bilingualism that Yamamoto ( 1987)
identified, the English-speaking parent always addressed the child in English.
For her, this seems to be the very first and most basic condition for raising
bilingual children successfully, i.e., to address the child solely in their native
languages. Skutnabb-Kangas made the same observation (Skutnabb-Kangas,
1981 ). This was predicted by Kielhofer and Jonekeit ( 1983: 16 & in Dopke,
1986: 495). We can't, however, accept that condition of only addressing
one's child in one's native language as a necessary or sufficient condition for
creating or fostering a bilingual environment---especially when based upon
a small sampling of subjects. Siblings and schools enter the picture
(Saunders. 1982; Skutnabb-Kangus, 1981; & Yamamoto.1987). Studies
60
performed upon Black English communities by Stewart ( 1964) in
Washington, D.C. suggested that " ... children learn more language behavior
from members of their own peer group than from their parents" (cited in
Dale, 1976: 281 ). Interacting in a mutually-shared linguistic domain, siblings
may have an equal importance, more or less, as peer group members have
on children's language.
Siblings are perhaps less intentional in their behavior than parents are
and their concerns are sometimes apt to be more communicative than
anything else when interacting with each other. They aren't trying to teach
a language; they are communicating. This may be a good thing. The
minority-language interaction between siblings may serve as a creator or
spur of linguistic and cultural competence while the minority-language
parent acts as an informant. School language and school activities must also
play important roles on the scale of dynamic bilingualism.
On the surface, at least, it seems that parents of different linguistic
backgrounds should be able to raise bilingual children naturally in some
easy manner. At least the process shouldn't be painful, as it seems to be in
some families. In reality something else seems to be at work. I would like
to quote Yamamoto here:
In order to raise bilingual children successfully, it must be remembered that bilingualism is a dynamic condition, not a static attribute. It is important to keep supplying as much bilingual stimulation to the children as possible. If society cannot offer a bilingual environment, this requirement is placed onto the parents' shoulders. However, it is not possible for the parents to provide every single possible linguistic condition. In
that case what should and can be done is to maximize the opportunities to supply the most influential inputs. (Yamamoto, 1987: 20-23)
Code-switching families will foster code-switching in their children.
61
This is a different conclusion than Yamamoto has reached in earlier
discussion. It is perhaps the case that a code-switching bilingual family will
perpetuate some code-mixed utterances in their children; yet I doubt that
this will remain the case for very long. Rather, I feel, this type of family will
perpetuate a condition in which their children will learn two separate codes
and code-switching strategies at an early age.
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS. AND SUMMARY
Based upon the data in this project, we can say that in Evan's case
very little language mixing was done and there exists virtually no evidence
for support of an initial unified language period. Rather, it looks as if Evan
separated English and Japanese into two separate syntactic systems at a
quite early age. In addition to this competence, Evan also has various code
switching strategies at his disposal and two separate lexicons for English and
Japanese. There also seems to be evidence of a neutral lexicon and possible
employment of neutrality strategies syntactically, though the neutral lexicon
is probably becoming smaller and the neutral syntax strategies will probably
decrease in number as the child learns the more complex grammatical rules
in each language. The syntactic differences in the two languages may, in
fact, cause these strategies to disappear in time as syntactic knowledge on
the part of the child in both languages becomes more complex. Neutral
strategies may be employed because they are more versatile than utterances
from either language.
This study did not address the psycholinguistic or neurolinguistic
factors involved in the physiological storage of these lexicons, strategies, and
syntaxes. This then, obviously, is an area that calls for further research.
Other areas for research suggest themselves. One such study might
examine the role of playfulness or mimetics in Japanese and how they are
connected to onomatopoeia in that language. In Evan's case, it might be
asked to what extent does he play with language and to what extent does he
63
employ onomatopoetic expressions from Japanese. Further discourse
analysis could be performed to see what makes a child like Evan switch
codes in terms of to whom and for what purposes. When, also, does such a
child switch and in what language contexts? What strategies do they employ
with monolinguals or other code-switchers?
More ethnographic studies occurring in naturalistic settings, such as
this one. are also called for as there are not, as yet, a lot of studies that have
been performed and reported in the literature. Hopefully, this study of
Evan's language development will continue in future months: perhaps such a
study will give us even more data to be used in investigating what really is
going on in the mind and the language development of young simultaneous
bilingual children.
REFERENCF.S
Albert, M. L. & L. K. Obler. 1978. TheBilingullfBrllin. Academic Press. New York.
Arnberg, L. 1987. Raising Children Bilingullfly: The Pre-school Years. Multilingual Matters, Ltd. Avon.
Baetens-Beardsmore, H. 1982. Bilingualism: Basic Principles. Multilingual Matters, Ltd. Avon.
Bergman, C. 1976. Interference vs. independant development in infant bilingualism. In Bilingualism in the bicentennial and /Jeyond, ed. G. Keller, R. Taeschner, and S. Vierra. Bilingual Press/Editorial Bilingue. New York.
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. Holt, Reinhard & Winston. New York.
Brown, R. 1973. A First Language. Harvard University Press.
Dale, P. S. 1976. Language J)evelopment: Structure and Function. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Dopke, S. 1986. Discourse strategies in bilingual families. Journal of Mult1lingullfandMulticulturalJ)evelopment. 7 (6). pp. 493-507.
Dulay, H., M. Burt, & S. Krashen.1982. Language Two. Oxford University Press.
Fantini, A. 1985. Language Acquisition of 11 Bilingual Ould. College Hill Press. San Diego.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and Conversation .William James Lectures. Harvard University Press
Grosjean, F. 1982. Life with TwoLanguages. Harvard University Press.
65
Hakuta, K. 1986. The Mirror of L1111gauge: The .Debate on Bilingullfism. Basic Books. New York.
Halliday, M. A. K., A. McKintosh & P. Strevens. 1964. The .linguistic Sciences 1111d L1111gu11ge Teaching. Longman. London.
Harding, E. & P. Riley. 1986. The B1lingulll Family: A Hand/Jool: for Parents. Cambridge University Press.
Kagan, I. 1981. The 5'econd Year. Harvard University Press.
Kielhofer, B. & S. Jonkeit. 1983. Zweispr11ch.ige i.'indererziehung. Stauffenberg Verlag. Tubingen.
Leopold, W. 1939-1949. Speech .Development of 11 Bffingulll Child (4 vols.). Northwestern Press. Evanston, 111.
Lindholm, K. & A. M. Padilla. 1978. Language mixing in bilingual children. journal of Child Language S.
Matsuoka McClain, Y. 1981. Handbook of Modern japli11ese Grammar. Hokuseido Press. Tokyo.
McClure, E. 1977. Aspects of code-switching in the discourse of bilingual Mexican-American children. Technical report no. 44. Center for the Study of Reading. University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana.
McLaughlin, B. 1978. Second-Language Acquisition in Childhood. Erlbaum. Hillsdale.
Meisel, J. 1989. Bilingulllism across the Lifespan: Aspects of Acquisition, Maturity, and Loss. (eds.) K. Hyltenstam & L. IC Obler. Cambridge University Press.
Poplack, S. & D. Sankoff. 1984. Borrowing: the synchronomy of integration . .linguistics, Vol 22, 99-135.
Quirk, R. & S. Greenbaum. 1973. A Concise Grammar of Contemporary .finglis.h. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. New York.
66
Redlinger, W. & T. Park. 1980. Language mixing in young bilinguals. journlll of Child Language 7.
Ronjat, L. 1913. le developpment du l11Dgage observe chez un enf'llDt bilingue. Champion. Paris.
Saunders, G. 1982. Bilingulll Children: 6uidance for the Family. Multilingual Matters. Ltd. Avon.
Sk utnabb-Kangas, T. 1981. Bilingull./ism or Nol· The .Bducation of Minorities. Multilingual Matters, Ltd. Avon.
Stewart. 1964. Cited in Dale, 1976: 281 above.
Swain, M. & J. Cummins. 1982. Bilingualism, cognitive functioning and education. In Kinsella, V. Surveys I. Cambridge University Press.
Vihman, M. 1984. Language differentation by the bilingual infant. journlll of
Child language 12.
Volterra, V. & T. Taeschner. 1977. The acquisition and development of language by bilingual children. journlll of Child language 5.
Weinreich, U. 1953. languagesinContact. Mouton.
Yamamoto, M. 1985. "Nihon no bairingarutachi---ankettos-chosa ni yoru eigo-nihongo bairingaru no gengo kankyo kosatsu". In (eds.) Peng, F. C., K. Akiyama, & M. Hamada. language in Society: The lnteraction~f of the linguistic Code, HumllDs llOd .Bnvironment. Bunk a Hyoron Publishing Co. Tokyo.
Yamamoto, M. 1987. Significant factors for raising children bilingually in japan. The language Teacher, XI; 10. JALT. Kyoto.
SH]NVNHlJJl GNO£-H19NIS
V XIGNHddV
a8en8ue1=8mq
sa~maJn:x>o 10 JaqwnN=X
sa:.:>ueJann JO q13ua1 .. n1
:y x1puaddy 01 _.\a;i
_ _.
!>_!
!!_ S
o_u_
!c~-
__
__
_ll!
!1tr.
.. n~1
_1 _
__
__
__
__
!~11n!'~111t~n-
__
__
-~~-
__
'::-" _
_ -~
t11
n.11
__
"fO
!_d
_ru.11
11_• _
_ -~
11r.
_t!_
!I_~
'!1
18.•
E~-
4/;'
~/A<
! T
I
alon
e 2,
Q
I [
I ~·
1i
esh
l •~
g 2.
tJ
I _,
c "
ba
Mt
dir
ty
2/l
I
J c
vbl~
'11
bet.I
bf
tbll
2
.1)
I N
"
" bO
O
2 1)
I
E
I on
o
(Uto
!Jl!
2.0
l
N
r: n
herP
. 2
;0
I f
f p
r11
~~y
2,1
) I
2 N
(
n
n1
Pm
P
A~IP
'7 /0
ll!li.
'J"'.
' /ln'
3f'.'1
:t 7
2,1)
I
.I
l ed
_i?
n"
Nn
rn
2.0
I E
(
n
"'='.I)
cet
2,0
I
.J c
" o
h
2,(
J
l E
I
Inte
r
OY
zo
I 'i
N
t ln
t.-r
pon
po
n
tum
rn11
2.
0 I
J (
" p<
:>tl\
I 2
I)
I E
c
n sh
l ur
l111
'tlon
Z.
O
I ..I
(.
n
tilt
s 2.
tJ
I E
I
Dro
we
n""
""
bo.,.
. w
ow
l'1o
p
2.0
' _I
I
01'1
()
'i/1
/60
T
t
mon
ke11
~.o
' N
c
n 5
/ 12
1Wl
T 1
gr
10'1
b1_I
A
2.1)
I
E
f in
l.~r
tot-11
l~t,11
~l'l
lsh srle~h
2,t
)
' J
I on
o ~~y
2.0
' N
c
n m
ine
2
1)
' 2
£ I
~·ro
mtn
J to
<eA
" 2,
0 '
J (
.v
net
""'' t
ti
ll'.
'lv~
/non
~ 2
,0
' .I
c
VI
le
•ftn
l ,•
:Mt
;_o
' J
f m
tn1
Q
no
2.1
)
' £
' ln
tt:t
r
toto
bt
r'11
~ 2
_f)
' J
c n
unr1
1.,
loQO/mtl~
2.t
)
' J
( n
f,/I
f)/
fl'l
r.rw
ri bA
f.r
2.'
'
[ c
n b
lr J
2, I
'
., f.
(:
n L
blJ
""h
ie IP
2
,'
' J
.J I.
fl
r.ft
W
tf"Q
"":"
2.
1 I
. O
flO
del~O
h1Jq
i.
' I
J I
\,'
~ning
~.1
' 2
[ (
\,'
dol•
ur·
2.1
' [
( \,
'
flft
ll
lhJW
l?r
~·. I
'
4 N
(
n
tJO
rtP
,·.
I '
.. E
(
I.'
L
hi;o
re
2.1
I [
' 11
10
ht
2, t
'
11
r t
1nl"
'r
~·"
2 '
I 4
N
(.
" ~e4
2.1
I ll
( 0
klH
• tn
mP
''~' ~
2, I
I
.I
( I.'
""'""
:'..'
' tj
(
n
ftlt
'fll
W
2.1
I [
( 1
Hl0
""' do
11't.
t•"
"'P
./lli
,•tP
. ~.
I I
.1
{ '!
J t
P
nP
nq
$
Jpo
p
;., 1
I
.1
( fl
"" :;o
I '
r f
lnlQ
r
filf
(h
1.'
I f.
, '""
-"'f
F',.,1
1.,
;·
I I
'i
ll
r "
~111
10
ur l
n"t
ln1
1
.. '
' -I
t n
·~
!hi'
;•I
I 'i
r I
pro
--!!
9_!!
__ ~_!Ure! _
__
__
l!ft!'
_!"_
ltftC
_e __
____
_ ---
___ Tre_n~'
'!'~
•n __
__
~'1
!_ -
____ L
U -
--·
'11
"!1 _
_ -
Wo_
r:dJJf
!111
• __
_ ".•!
:"IA
_·~ ~P
ll~!
'.!'
-F
j.-'
J(li8
9
1;n>
D
to to
M
rdll
' 2.
1 lj
-' (
,, to
y
l I
f [
n
Wll~
ht
rl•1
<•·
}.
I
1 N
c
n
61
11
16
9
T.2
elr
ple
M
2.1
~ £
(.
n er
u Mve/th~re t
s 1.
1 J
t v
bu
\I
Ph
lt'le
2.
1 J
c n
~"I
1 h~
ft•
t.to•
u'yt:t
.:;
2.1
2 J
I be
t-ft
•"n
~en
2. f
fj
t ,,
"""'"
1; I
N
c
n o
h
2.1
J F.
I In
t Pr
po
zu
POf.~
2. t
.J c
,. thpr~
~.I
£ I
1'10
6/1
4/6
9
GFW
D
f111
m11
·s 2;
l
2 ,,
I c
n
6/1
6/6
0
T 2
fle
11z
£v
nn
2.
1 l
} N
c
n fl
nnzt
[\
."""
2.
1 l
N
(.
n
(hU
~19<
2.1
l 2
,I
c n
[•ftd
d\I
1.1
l 2
[ r.
n
dts
2.
1 I
£ I
prn
Edr
te
2.1
l ri
( n
hn
t 2.
t l
l E
c
"d.f
t'<>n
2.
1 1
4 N
(.
n
~r>r
e lh
U
2.1
I ~
.J I
pro
no
2.
1 I
5 [
I In
ter
oh
~.
1 I
£ I
tntl?
'r
s,.b
•m u
p 7-
·Up
], I
l ~
r c
n
thl'
Z.
1 I
[ I
rirn
why
2.
1 I
F. I
intr
oQ
1f"9
2.
1 l
4 F.
I 1n
1 ..
r
6/1
91
69
T
2
nH'-'
h•
Jg
~-'
ntt
e
''"rJ
if11
11nr
t 2.
1 2
_, c
" fe
enz
£·,
nn
2.
1
l 1
N
( n
h!!
ho
hl<
lln
\¥~1
1.1
l J
c M
t h
net
2,
I
I }
J c
n
bll
~1P.
hl1:
le
2, 1
I
tl
J r
n ( ,, ....
2.
1 l
E
( n
c.he
-:-9"
2.
1 l
;; F
r n
coH
P1>
2.
1 I
4 £
(.
n
<ll
lHo
r1•1
q 2.
1 l
2 ·'
('
" lt!
lt I
fu .. ,,
r lj
OU
: If
P ~
2
l l
J I
tH._
t I
f'\fll
O
tiot
;>
I I
( [
[ ll
dl
hU
h?
:?
.I
! I
I tn
!Pr
tku
lo
111
1 2
I 1
.I
t v
Itel
O
llf
h.i
lf.
t1tJ
I I.;
; 2
, I
' ~
.I (
Vb!
Mlj
'"'~
ht\
2.
1 '
~ .1
f tn
tllor
)Ult
'~
2. I
1 }I
I. (
n
Juju
)l
tfi·
A
2.1
I .I
( fl
t il
~ ,'
1
1 ti
I
1nt~·r
•11<•
l:if
;I:)
L
, I
I I
( n
~Pll
], 1
I
';
II
t n
l"Y
<
'.l
' ll
( n
"'" •
1t•y
2.
1 I
4 ti
'
n 11
"n•f
ll i.
1
I ]
ti
( ,,
0
Dat
e S
eurc
:e
Ill t
en1
nce
--
---
---!
'.'!"1
11 111 !"
"---
----~!
LU
• l_en
g _ w
o~~--r 11
"11"
-__
_ !°"
!:! 11
_0!.
__S!
'!IJ
~h _
6
11
97
39
---i :z
-r1.,m
ft"-,
---
-· -
-------~-
--
-~\
. I
' f
( n
. rn
eiow
7,
I
1 f
( ""°
O
U)U
l!P
;>
I I
f L
n M
.2
,1
1 ,,
( I
lnt~r
nope
2.
1 1
f I
lntt
>r
ou
t ;•_
I I
'1 I
I ed
Y
ow
0.l
(h
2.1
I r
I 1r
1tP
r
penl
'.:h11
o,
,nri;
:: 2.
1 I
·~,
J (
n F~P"
21
I
' ti
,,
f-ll
•h
2 I
I ~
[ '-
v
~ ,,u
7-
llr>
2.
I
I fl
ll
l "
shth
1
ur
t11
,,tlo
ri
~.I
I -1
J c
n !ih
oe
s 2.
1 I
~ f
( n
~n( t
-'s
,l,1
1 E
(
n tti
ti:to
r11
turll~
2.1
1 :
I (
n IM
I 2.
f
1 l
I rr
o
tnu(
h1Jn
>:¥
n ~"
.I
f I
[ (
n u
h o
h
2.1
2 l
r tnt~r
11nc
h1
poo
2.1
1 ,
1 (
n 1m
me
tuoiJ/rnU~
;>I
I ..
.I
(_
" .,...
,,,,.,
""''"'
~' 1.
1 I
~I
r (
fl
r;;2
(1/R
ll
T .
, °'"
fl In
rro
nt o
r 2.
I
I J
f v~ ft>
11
nm.,
looo1/m1I~
l."1.1
1 1(
1 J
c n
T J
~~I~
lo~I
2.1
1 I
( n
t•l~
P ~.
•.
I [
I in
ter
( ~·
2.1
I I
( n
gnr1
.'Pl
1,,y
11,,
-... -,,
~-,
I
hi
~'-I
I r
I In
ter
il"t
n•.1
rh/l
l hu
r fq
2.
1 I
J r
vll
lill
l
Jul••
t1
1h ~
2.1
1 .I
c
n ,,.
,1;1
1 '."l"lf~r
2. I
I
J (
n ,, ... ,
dn
t1 I
h1
'•1e
/n1J
llA
;•
I I
J (
\'I
fe
11-:-
nq
s'~PP
;•I
1 J
( n
[I(>
<
.I
I 2
I I
1nt~r
,hil
o
11r1
rint
lor1
;•_
1 I
J (
n •. ,
•e·f
" '!"
"1'1
Pt
2.1
I I
( n
(,t,
' lif
l•l
r.fW
I)
"" ;:_
1 I
£ I
'n'P
r h
/ 24.
'0\J
r
•I 1'
rf!'
(,Ji
f"
:r
or s
•irr
rl•P
. ~-
I 1
.I
I lf
lfA
r
t1n
J f'
l,,u
~/1
h..-r
P i~
•'I
I
., I
,-\'
llll"
hl"
td/f
11
1m
rj
::.1
., I
( ,.
blJ
"'~ht CH
~ ;_
1
I .J
(
" C
Off
1'•'
2.1
I I
n
I ft
~ll
to w
rite
.'f:i
rrt"
.'I
I
I i
,. lt
Uy
;
I 1
N
l ll
• UPI~ U
ftl
run
nd
,,r-
.1r11
1111
11
; I
I I
( M
i ln
of
~· I
I ~
r ~
r111
r1.lf
!tll"
I
•h11
nl
ft_
~-I
1 I
(
" 0
11
( h
7.1
I F
I
IOfl
Pf
\jll
cf
2.1
I F.
I 1n
ts::·r
6.
'l~-
--09
r
5 r~re
., '
1 .'
~,
(
" ·-·
t-./2
9:'8
•>
' ·~ tt
m ...
flll
n
2.2
I . '
I "
~
n11r
h8
H::I
• /I
ht•
I '?
I '5
;'
?
I _1
(.
"
Oat
• S•
11rc
• U
tter
ance
T
nn
al11
llon
61
,;9i
aa --
15
--;~-
---
----
--1o
e;;:;
-----
· ----
---
b11M
1 d
lrl4
b"
t>ur
u be~e
1>11
m i;
,n)I
£l
o1>)
U
f\onz
!>
Pbl
Mon~
''·
~II
bu
bb
" hu
s b1
,te
("rt
l'.!
1~9
chn
det
C
hu
coffe~
dP.l
:tta
d
is
l11l
yt!
ful'l
fllJ
gnnh
"n
h"'
ht•
sht
ho~t
iil
II ""'
Ht~
"'" juju
jU~\
jU
le1
til
ren
t·e
o t'.
•n
J fJ
rf?
ti""'"
m
eri
t\
mln
P.
mo
m
on
ne
Mn
P
no
non
not
t,,
nh
oh
oh
rile.mu.~
01
0tn
ou
ch
ow
bUbb
lP
fuo
1 be
r1g
(\.'
0"
£'.·a
n rv
.. n
Mt1
4
VP
.hhc
lP.
bu
bM
P
qtv
p O
\P
119'
·
'~ouM O
n. It
tire
gtvP
. bP
.9t ~hot
I h
et!
r 40
11.'y
P.'
hO
r'IP
lj
W81
11
Q<JO
<I
wit
tl/
1l h•nl~
It t
11Jr
l
no
)U
fi'A
m
r11?
ltiP
ri
( hP
"p·~
··,,
I e
lhl'
;
exp
of
"nQ
d p
:.·(
r 01
t'
lllf
.)r•
I
fflg
tn~
r·t
f>f
-;.!
'!''l
•
go
t 11
r1:n
11ir:
· 11
)'1~
!,ll
l'l•
O(l
ltP
'li
,,tp
f'j
nnq•
tJ ·
(Inf.~
~9• _
____
_ l,t
.'_.
_X_
!:.41!'
9 _
_ !'o
_r_d
_!..V
ll!fB
___
_ ~-
e~t.
s_o.
!._~
P_!•
.~-
2./
1
.. I
C
n 2
.1
I I
J <.
vhla
•ll
~ .1
I
J c
n 2.
1 'l
·')
~
' ....
.. ~-
., ' . ·' ~
'
··'
-· ~ ... 2
.2
'~
"·"·
2.1
2.2
.. , ., ... 2
.~
'2.2
2
.2
2.2
7
.2
2 '
,L
2.2
2 ., ·'
2.2
2;2
2.2
.,
1 ... 2.2
.., .,
<,L
l.2
2.
2 ..,
, 4
,L
'2.2
'i
.2
2.2
2.2
L.2
,., _
_.,
•.<
2.
2 , .., ... 'l
.2
.2.2
2.
2 2;
2 2
.2
} ' ·'
~ ., ... .....
. 2
. ., .. ..,
'·'
~.2
.., ' ... 2.2
... ) ...
' ..
I 2 2
J 12
I N
N
2
N
J F
.l
c 1
N
t E
~ 1 2
J c
2 J
c 9
l J [ N
2 •. 1
3 J
2 5 J J
15
J
2 J J
2 N
2
J J 11'
1 ti
c ti
c
2 J
f 61
II
.,
r
·2 1'1 l'1 2
.1 ·' ·' I r. .I -' F
..I J [ J
n 01
10
11
11
11 n n n n 11
Inte
r n
vhl~
l'IJ
n/on
o n y pro
11
.. a.1
b"ck
cM
n n
vb
lad
l lld
.1
vbln
rtt
v ln
tt•r
n fl
Mj
n n N·o
11
ono
rro
mt e
r
'..' .~-~"
' t1
1g
11
'"'"r
\'
\'
Inte
r 11
1ter
v
1n,f.l
lr 1nt~r
rnte
r ""' N
Det
e S
ourc
e U
tter
ance
lr
ena
lell
on
_ _
__
_ ~'
~-_
_ l IJ
_ _
_ _!_
_l n
n!J
__
~nr_d_T UP!~--
--~e
r:!~
--!!
_ Spe_!_
~h-
-6/2
9/f
19
-1
$-
~--
---·
·---
----
----
-·-
--
p"n
tsu
p
ents
.. '
I
., J
f n
L,L
p1>t
al
2.2
I
E
r n
pO~ft P•
Jk~
w"r
m
2.2
I ...
J I
ono
p~n po
n tumrn~
,.. ,
L,L
t
.I
(.
n sh
ampo
o 2,
.,
,4
I
3 N
c
n Sh
ft•.J
$ht,
wer
2.
:2
I N
c:
n S
hi
u• 1
nfl
)t1r
m
2.2
I
5 J
c n
sh
Uo
u
rln
"\11
£'.'f
l 2.
1 I
2 J
c n
f IS
'!'IJ
E'
2.2
I
' [
( n
ton
ton
dr
um <
011n
d 2
2 I
3 J
f on
o fo
lio
bln1
1e
2.2
I J
c n
tot•
e I
t.coo
k ii
2;2
2
J c
v un
mfl)
fo~Mmill
"• ,.,
··'
I :2
8 J
c n
w"11
1'11
....,,,,~r
,., .,
"'-·"·
I
;;> £
( n
Wl!
if.
2,l
I
E
c v
Wl!
lll
2.2
I E
c
v
4ou
,., ,
"··"·
t E
I
pro
;oo
,..
, I
2 £
(.
n .....
.. 7
/10
/60
T
.r.
~llSU
blJS
2.
2 I
4 J
c n
deM
t do
esn·
1 9"
11•
1!
2.2
.,
5 J
t m
ft,J
" ll
"lf
itl
,., ,
1 J
f "d
Y
... pt
Te
ri
so•1
nrJ
2 .• ~
I
2 J
f tn
ler
TS
!l
'.'rP
lh
h
2 .,
.L
I
J f
pro
T
.6
ft~M
ochl
ho
t :1
1t•1
1t
2.2
t
... _,
( ft
dl
l!h
,., .
t N
c:
Inte
r ...
11trp
t11n
e 2.
2 t
20
E
r n
11ny
n "'
"l~l
ng
2.2
1
I (
,. er
e ~._n
twc
ot -
::uro
r·tt;;
1.t
~.2
I J
' ln
l"r
"rt
h&
Y'!I
2.
2 2
4 J
c v
fl!"
ll
hl!I
Yo>
/lher
t IF
,.,
., L
,4
t
2 J
c: y
.,nr:·
hf
tYP
It?
2.
2 I
J l
,. tt
l'!'J
r•fl
heed
"
, I
2 J
t n
...
ftf
"411,.·
"!' he
ed
2.2
t
5 J
c n
nl '
\111
oe1
nnt
tlM
1J'1
h
\ ·"
\ 3
J (
v L
,•
"""
loun
i:l'h
ert
~.2
2 J
r v
Mt>
n1
dlr•
y '1
.}
t 2
.. I
r vt
l1M
1f
t• ... li
l'llt·:
-dl
r•y-
:>
~. ,,
I J
c ''llt~·1J
t."1t
••J1
b1Jf
if)lP
·,
·")
1 tl
c
n b
l'lh
'lrll
btlt1t11~
.. i
I 2
J t
n h
l'lll"'
"'
,,.'
}
t £
' ll
[ll!
l'l
r·;on
,,
.-,
I ti
( ,,
• ,L
[111
11,t
] ~,
J,
I "
( n
blJ
fllO
~"
111o
nn
.....
t Pl
l
,. [letm~n
.· .. ·,
t Ii
r
( ,,
... M
r:•v
ltl
J'
.:..~
I 1
4
£ (
n M
n!
.~
'}
t ~
[ t
n t1
h11>
. ,
t .I
c
lldj
.1
,4.
h•'
brt1
f /f'
>i1
l'I
Z./
t
2 J
( n
bo:io
l "
' t
2 [
c n
.....
(ttJ
v'C'P
olcl
e ,,
, t
21
,1
(.
n ' ..
tlnc•
t?I
•"\ ·l
t
[ (
,. ~'
... t.
•1$
v_,ti
le:.I"
' -;.•
,:..l
I J
c 11
~
De
te
Se
urc
1
lit t
11r-
ence
T
r!!n
sllt
!l.!
'n _
__
_
AIJ
I __
_ '::_
U _
__
--~
-l_
nnq -·-""~d.J!JP~!._ _
_ --~
11r_
t11
o! ~llHCh _
?7
10.·'
f.W
-r-c
,·--o
ti!l
---·
-· -
-----
-·-·
···
... I
<l I
f lr
it_. r
L'
•
Cf'!
tr
2.2
I
., '
r c
n L
L
che
nko
s1
1 ,.,
., I
.I
c v
.. ch
tm
~l~P M
il ~
Olln
d .. '
I
I I
1100
. '
co
olt
e
2.2
I I
c n
dPl·
I d
el 1
n111
r"
n I
tin I
t 2.
J.
2 ,I
c
v
<1 ...
t..1
mti
<
on
t
'2.2
2
,, J
c v
d~~·tnl'I•':'
rrm
T7
.. '
2 ,,
J c
v ',L
dP~lf a
I
1.ii
t1li
l d!
J tt
'
' 2
If•
I c
v L
.L
dP~·
lf a
l I
.,....
,nl
f_,,
d~1
1l
2 2
2 J
f v2
re
den
i to
p·•
JI
;:.2
I
J c
, . d
is
.. ; I
5 E
f
pro
L
.L
Eb11
n fv
"n
2
.2
I N
c
n
Em
an
Eve
n 2
2 I
.. N
c
n -
11ng
lne
'11.
I
., N
('
n
Ev
en
' .,
I N
c
n 11
1·9
2 2
I f
c n
gl'
lllo
i::
t:ho
ol
2.2
I J
c n
Q!'
lln
nl
'lll
c•1
liln
q s
mm
(!
2.2
I 2
I f
ono
gom
t gl
'lrbn
·JP
2
2
I J
r. n
gr"
"n
2.1
I
~
£ c
l'ldj
gum
2
.2
I [
c n
hei
I
he
er yr
>u/q
p~
; ;
I ·,
J f
hM-
r.M
rr
L L
hetr
11ne
t W
Of•
l l\
nte
r 2.
2 J
6 J
c v
t>1t
tl8
I p
ut
11.
on
2.
2 2
2 .I
c
v hl
'lllJ
"f'
r'P..1
r· 2.
7.
I '
J c
y .
h"m
m"r
2.
2 I
4 E
c
n
""'"
2.2
I '
r f
rrn
hol
hold
2
.2
I r
c v
t'1n
nto
: re
elh
F
2.2
I -'
' ed
u ti
oro
lno
l '"
~Y
' .; . ·'
I 3
.)
' In
t Pr
htl~hl
t111
rs~1
~ '
., 1
'j
I c
n ...
h0
9h
h
Wll
lll
22
I
16
.I
r ''l
llor
!J
hOI
2.2
I [
c l'l
rtj
ti
OK
2.2
I .J
c M
t tk
u to
Q~
";
I .I
c v
ln11
1 11
1')1.
hF!'r
e 2
.:
I .
.I c
v
lll'I
n
o
2 2
I 2
J r.
lnt~r
ti!!
• o
•Jch
/l t
n•lr
ts
2.2
I l'
i J
c vt
iJ.ir
tJ
ti.et
11
11c.
h.'1
1 ti
•Jrl
s ,
' . ·' .,
.I c
''11'~"1
ttt•
it
h11
r1./
tt"l
•lt
n
' '
.. ;
J c
vbl.~tl)
... L
tyn
no
~ 2
I 2
J '
lnl ~r
Juj•
1 I"
""
2.7
I
.' ti
c fl
~ISO
,.,,.
t-2
.2
I '
I c
fl
~en
;;,2
I tl
I n
~"''
!<en
}
2 I
ll
c "
l'!y
2
2 '
4 tl
( n
Inch
! ov
er h
pra:io
'}
' ...
I .I
f p
m
lo~n
her~
.; '
I fl
J
' ll
f!Y
lorA
lh
l;
J .• .•
I J
f 01
11
~Q"'
"'
.,~"
"I
2 •'
I II
J
c vt
iJ.,o
:IJ
.......
ft..
ow"r
·arh
e:u~
hr
·e.,
k ti
"'
. , "!>
,I
t
v ....
-~~·-
5_!'
~!=~
----·-
-l!~~11r1tn~•---
__
__
_:rre
n11_
111_
1 ~~ ·--
-~911 _
____
L~• -
--
-~
l_11n
_9
__ Wo_!d_llPll.~.-
__
_ P11r_l~o!_ 5-
Pe_e
"._h _
_ 7
/l')
/8Q
r
f'
~11n
1 •o
""'
''!
:z.~
1
2 J
kuro
me
0•
1r
2.2
t
J c
n
""'"
"
,,"l,l
I
fl N
r.
n m
ert
p
wel
t.
2.2
1
J c
v m
ern
e
eqp'
:'/hf
)117
2.
2 1
J r.
i'
rn•n
e 2
.2
1 E
I
pro
rn
tru
to
C:E
tP
2,2
1
J c
v ll
lOll
~PIJ
2
.2
1 f
C.
n 0
1n
11
stP
r 2.
1 I
... E
('
n
ri"t<
-" tn
-s1r
1P
2.2
1
') .I
f 11
,,rt
nl".'ln·"~
nll)m
c>
2,.2
1
J t
ri
nP
'"
9 IT
l,,rl
l'r-'1
1111
1 Q
Pll
Pr
2,2
I J
I ln
l'!r
riP
l-'O
t~I
~.2
1 J
c n
nenf
l' sle~p
'1.2
I
.t
l n
n1
ltit-
3 fl
l"t ~
2.'
l I
2 .I
1
pn
rt
no
l 2
I 4
7
£ t
1nt1
1r
no
rw1
tn
11r
·in~
: J'
.2
1 . I
f.
v n
Qn
1
h1rl'1~
~.2
t ~
J c.
Y
not
2.~~
1 £
f ll)
d\.'
oh
2
.2
I 12
£
f in
ter
oh
nh
u
h o
h
2.1
l 1
t In
ter
oln
l ntn~
2.2
1
£ I
nn
o
01<
2 .1
I
2 N
I
Inte
r om
.JI
11e~
v1.1
2
.1
1 1
,I
c e~
)
ooti
2.
2 1
N
I lnt~r
o~ht
hor.
;~q
'2.Z
I
2 I
c n
Oll
th
2.2
I E
f
•nt.P
.r p
11 p
u/<.
11n1
·1.1
".
:.l
1 .,
E
t n
no
I'""'"
" p&
nl. ~
-<.
J 1
J <
11
rer1
1 ~
2 1
14
ti
c. n
plM~
2.2
1
1<;
E
<
n t•
f~ft
SP
:.."'.
} 1
}. [
f ffl
t D
Oo
7 .. :'
. J
2 [
l n
r•"""
4 2
.l
1 E
c
n J.
tnf'
lJ 2.
2
1 r
c n
'.-e
f<>·
··~u
2.
2 1
E
( n
~ "'
1<:0
O
Xf::i'
JPn
~·. 2
I
4 J
c n
;~11
.'
·Ur
2.2
1
ti
c n
Se
lyft
S
,iatn
t,o
s~11
1_~,
, 2
.2
I J
c n
sh•
111h
:ntio
11
7.2
I
'5 J
c. n
~.ht
ko
11rl
11,_
ltrr1
1 ... 1 .
l I
'l
._I
"" n
shin
1A
,,, ,,'
'"' s
~·
.2
1 J
c. n
$0~ 0
't
1~1
tl
2 ')
1
1..1
J f
..,,, .
..
1ftt
'iAl"
ll
tP
2.2
2
.J (
\I
t'n·1
2
.2
I f
t n
te t
a•
h"11
r1-s
::
A"!
1 '
n •1
m
: l
1 '5
E
l ef
!J
IMO~:<
-'.2
1
J £
( vn
fhl~
2,2
I
2 f'
f p
t".'
t11t
1J
t1tr
rtl,.
'\
·) 1
~
J c.
n '·
twn
;'
.:i
1 E
c
e•IJ
·~
uh
hu
h
;> _;•
r
t 1n
•Ar
\JI
D11
te
Seu
rce
lltt
en1
nte
T
rene
l11t
ton
-771
·078
Q--T
·6--~n u
in -
--·-
·-----·-
----~;;;-c;~~in~
8/1
'5!f
l0
T 7
un
unh
un
m"t
W8t
11'1
who
n w
ow
y1
1r•
y11r
i y~tle
ye~h
Y"'
yo
you
yuc~
eh
ene
etr
ul
h"(J
b"'m
fl
ntm
an
lir:-e
n•
bf>~
S
bl,
nk
tl
1>11
n·s
tll't~t
t>n1
1t4S
bn·•
ht
bll
b•Jr
,nt<
Jl
blJ
!'
bll<
,h
(."f
'dtj
("r
cer1
1 fh
trM
t rh
o1ot
ch
1Jl
h
c.hu
cotre~
cnw
.,b11
r,qe
trt)
on
dll
• cu
tP
d"''
(>io
orid
,,.,..
d
l9
[dfl
l!
fir•
l•
l!I l!~ld
l•e•
:~g~
go
~1
nr1f
ll
gn
it·h
a
focw
liin
m
w"'
"r
do
ofn
dn
verh
rnr
m
"."t
lh0
7
h(1
lp
hnt
g1Jr1
c;1
111n
r:t
Ml
""'t1
1ete
bl
'"ke
\/hu
fl1n
l er
to
Ml/
b.,
sh
l
smnllidils~tt
g1\/
j~
fUF
ll
e to
or /w~tt/ht>y
•is•:
'• is
-:; c
-.111
101'
.f
lhet
lhl•
;
gol
yrnr
Age
''
~.2
2 2
2.2
2
2 ;·
2 2
.2
2 ., .. ''
... ~· 2
2.2
~
' .. } ·'~
2
2 2
1 2
I 2.
3 2.
1 2.
s
2.:a:
2,.3
2
3 :u
2
.1
2 .. 3
2
1 2
.3
2.'
l.
~
2 3
:' ~
2 .. ~
2.~
;'. 3
2.
" 2.
1:
l,J,
~'i.
"'i
;:,~
~.5
~
., 2
~
2.~
' -
.&..-·
2
.,
2.~
2, ~
~).'
2. s
2.
, 2
.. !
~:1
Lii
7 r } ~ ., :' 2
II I 1
1n11
__
wo.
rcdT
lfPlll
l _
__
_ P_
er:tR
__ '!!~!•ch_
1}
I
1 O
M
l r
t 1n
t~r
5 J
c n
5 [
c n
N
N
~~
J Q
.I
~1
.1
12
E
15
B
2 4 5 4
J r .I
.I
.J c
.J c
I f
[ [ £ [ F F [ ..I
'"'
.I I
5 J J
2 r
')
2 1 tj 9 2
[ [ .J .. 1
.J I t
r [ ( ~
Inte
r mt~r
\' .,
tntn
r in
t Pr ., p
ro
1nti:
ar
Int o
r n
vbl8
r!f
"di
ono n n n n n n " n n n n n n n " l!df
3•:b
l~rt
1
~cfy
n n tn
tor
n •ut.1
rrP
p n
rrP.
p " n n ,.. ,. ... ,. ''-I
a.
.
_!~ !_!D~_! _
__
!!_l
l_!'
r_!r
l~!f
__
__
__
__
_ _!
':_!
':'B
l!_~
~ft-
__
_ ~"
'!. ---~--_!!-
111!
1_9 --~-'!!li_!lfl'I!~---
-~11
!'._
l~!_
! ~!II"._~-
fl/
I '51
89
T 7
G
um
m I
(·•1m
m1
bPer
( ·'"
'''J
;:, '
I T
" F
r
n gu
y 2.
J
1 r
c n
h•l
n1
to
p.,
tpr
~l;.
~ I
J c
y
h~l·
•lu
•ll
' .T
I
r c
n <
.>
hPr•
i 7
.. ~
I 7
[ f
•!Iv
he\l
2. ~
I [
f in
t.o
r
ht
2;~
I (
f 1
nto
r h
lkt>
2.
~ I
4 E
hQ
nPy
1 ~
I E
(
n h
nl
2.~
I 2
E
c M
J h
l"t:
' 1.
~
I (
(.
edt
hu
rl
::.~
I
5 f
c y
ll11t
It
hu
rl>
2
.·3
2 5
J c
Yb
l•iJ
I )1
11'11
_ll'
lblJ'
:' 51
1l!q
h qr•e~h'
2."'f;
I J
f o
nn
Joti
0r
2,'5
I
7 r
( n
JO~Ar'.'
2. ~
I [
c n
Jul>
:"
2.~
I 2
( c
n 1:er~n
2.~
I ~
[ c
n f:i
Em
:n
I 14
L
I (.
n
~ncht
over
hP
r&
2.~
I 2
J I
l!d'
: l·
nh
• ht
>fP
2.
~
1 .I
f
1!(1
\' .. ., ..
. ,.~ h~rp?
2.'
1
·' f
•II·
: H:
•r~
OH~
2.1
I
.I
f p
m
l·or~?
tnl<
?
2.~
I -'
I pr~
I o
wl!
tAth
ftll
e I hr,1~?
tt.
7 ~
4 6
-' c
v
llg
htt
fll!C
A
2. 3
1
[ c
n
110 .
. Z
."
I 2
F
( ro
11JO
I 2
.•
1 £
flr.
tl'lft
2.
1 I
6~
N
( n
n1~tnP
tns,
:act
2.
~ I
g .)
c
n m
111
:?.~
I
r (
n rn
tn'?
2.
"'!-1
q [
I pr
o m
ini
to c
..pp
2 ~
I 7
J m
on
.-·..:p
or
"n
gil
r/
frto
no
fitt
....
. 'T
I
J I
inte
r '·
, rn
-:u-'°
' 2.
; I
r t
11rlj
1110
11
~~r•
O
f M
g>
r :, .
~
I l
J I
inte
r
n"n
1i'
' ';"
fh;t
tt
t1n
1P
2
' 2
l J
I tn
t10
9
n~r1P
~'~~fl
2 ~
I .,
.I
t ,,
nens:
io·::-
..;hw
p·:·
' T
' J
( n
4 . ~·
no
2,
I 4
(1
[ f
int~
...-
nor1
1n11
1 ":
"'Ot1
"I
nil
µ
" .
~ 1
J (
y . •
'
CJh
~ ~
I .,
[ r
rnte
r (II
<.
2.3
I \
f,I
' I!
~)
(J<:
hl~·
· t1
m1
urln
ll'.'
lt"m
2.
~ 1
.I
( n
w/h
on
or
r.ut.:;1<1~
'• .
I r
( n
.. , (J
V/
2."5
I
6 r
I In
ter
nw·.
,rl
ena
~.'
2 .I
(
~1t1
~111
,,,,
,, fu
f'.'l/
t,,,•
"'
~ ~
I .1
(
n fn
p11
2'
I '•
LI
c II
i•I
t1"'
•1l.,
t111
ri -
:inun
11
2.
I .1
..I
I c1
n1)/
inlt
-r
r•n~
I!
JIO
J .-,
ho
t 2.
I
J I
"'"'
......
f'<lP
.,
I ~
lJ
r. "
.......
..
Det
e S
ourr
.a
Ill t
enm
ce
871~ir:N
·-17
····· -
;~-11--
\}/1
/A9
T
f!
Sft
tln
('lf
lt
~ee
s~tq
11
~hen1poo
sho
np
u
Sh~nptr:"
Shl
JO
c;hi
Sh
OP
5
S.h
(lw
er
~.how e
r?
sh
u'h
~lp•pq
surf
'!
'" •~l•phooe
loh
e
tor1
1 tc1
tJ> .. h
1J~wri
""li
e TV
tw
n
Ith
Oh
unrnf
.11
¥.'I
Sfl
"
W't
llt
we1
11-;
"'h
at?
v-
•htl
"
""""
YP
5
ynv
y11c
~
Y""
'"":
l n1
m-i,
,, t1
t\t1"
.'ll
b•l
l fl
., .. ;
fl
ftlr
nn
rl
M
c"r.r
1y
""~~
o a1
1rne
d
Pl
11•
<1f
l""'
ll
r· .. .,r.
11
11t1
hP
ll'
hi tlu
11
11t
Tr
11ne
1111
te
n
St
SPi•
.J•
ghem
poo
9h~n
1,1n
o-:S
Sh
il /.t~r
Mn'
1
toil
et
,,, '"~~
fooo
/rro
11~.
Wl!
IRr
el I 1
•1et
or /c
rocn
dtl
e nl
1lc
JI'"
'01/
rro(
1)tf
1 fp
·:'
hPe<
I
dort
'J
Eve
n
Mil
hu
q r
ni:.
t1"i
l I.,,~, l\
t>tp
to
'10
It
'''
rtn
It t
111r
•-s '1
1urh
A91
1 .
; . '
~,. ~
2. ~
2.'
2
,1
2 ~
2, ~
.i. ~
2 ~
'} '
., .
.......
2.~
:2.1
2
~
1.~
:.? . ~
2.~
•')
.,.
""·-·
•l
• .. ' ·l ~
~ .. 2.-.'
: }.~
2.'
2.
~
:.."'.::
2.~
2. ~
2'
2.J
2
.'
1,3
2
.3
"~
··- 2.J
2.
4 2.
4 2
.4
~~;4
2.4
2
,4
;:,4
&~A
2.4
;·
4
i.4
~;
.4
2,4
~.4
;•,4
2
,4
2.4
Lii
I I 2 2 2
X
I e
n9
__
~os
:_d _
TlfP"~ _
_ ·-
~e,.
_l_a
_o!_
~Pllt!C.!'_
2 7 ,~
~
~ 6 2 5 ,, :: 2 5 <;
} .~
I c
n
I f .I J N
.J [ .J J [ f E
[ [ .J E
.J .I E
[ .I .J I H
f H
[ I~ F f F ,J
.J
c c
n II n n n n n n " n n
tnt1
1r
l\d
Y
l\d
j n n n v n n n 1111
1 In
t Pr
n n n n pr
on
lnt~r
Int p
r
1n
tRr
pro
ffit
~r
tntP
r n
•·tll~·1
t n " ,., n n II
lldi
v lld
" n Ml ,.
int P
r II
'-111~
·1 I
........
00
Del
• S
ourc
e U~ 1
ei:_e_t_1~!_-·
-_
__
_ _
:!r•
n!J'
!!' !
.!'_!!_
___
·---
~"-
---·
l!I __
.. __
_!.
1,11
n11. ---~o!"l'
_ !_\IP
tta ·--
_ ~1
1rt_
~ of -
~P'!
_'!C
_h_
9..'11~9--~
ty11
no
2.
·1
1 5
·' I
tnJt
?r
jeP
!l
2,..i
1
£ c
n ju
t ct>
2
,4
1 I.I
E
( n
)U)I
J Ju
l re
2.4
I
2 J
,. n
k11w
11rh
11tt1
1 ch
11nq
P1J
2,4
3
J c
v ~1
1w11
t111
r~11ngoJ
2.4
3
.1 c
v
l<~n
2 .1
1 N
c
n ~·
or~
lhl"
2
.4
1 .J
f pr
o ~·
uri1
•11
ru
n 11
.md
~011
rr:-
un11
2
·1 1
J I
11<t
v
tool
2
4
1 £
("
v
f111
m11
:'.·1
1 37
N
r
n m
eme
ln3
p(.
f ;;
',.1
1 J
c n
rntr1
1 to
~~P
2.4
I
J c
y
No
rn
2.4
I
~ r
l n
mol
le
MM
2
,4
2 .,
,I
c ,.
11111
nnn.
;i ''1
on
·t h
a·:@
2.
·'J
I 5
-' c
,. no
2
.4
1 1(
1 r
f 1
nfA
r
nnro
u to
rtr
tnk
2.4
1
J c
,. no
t 2.
4 1
1 r
I ll
dY
OIJ
(h
24
1
r I
lfl(
Pr
O"N
2
.4
1 2
£ I
int A
r F'
.,J'll
:?
.4
' 4
£ c
n ro
tt11t
2.
•1
1 £
c n
rol:>
oln
roth
it
2.4
1
11
J c
n ro
b>lt
n'.'
f"ll
ti·~
'?
2,L1
1
J c
n S
OC
.('"@
r 2
4 I
E
c n
lllb
·•ko
rtg
11r·e
1 t~
2.4
1 /.
J c
n tt
el'I
P
2.4
1
5 E
c
y
1m
ml't
fo
n,1
/mm
: 2
,4
1 ,)
·'
c n
ut.&
11"
~,,r
1Q
:;,> 4
2 .J
( ,.
"'h11
1.c·
~.4
1 f
I pr
o Y
l'hy>
2
•1 1
£ I
~dY
\jll~IJU
t111s~M11
2.4
1
., f
c ,.
. y1
1r·u
to
1!l1
2
,4
1 3
.I
r ,.
yl\
flp
oo
ii
2.4
2
4 J
( y
yellowter~et
2.4
1
E
(.
n
yes
2
,4
1 .,
r I
•~ter
q:'
j/tj
O
T6
O
lf"l
llllll
P 2.
·1
1 ,
r c
" em
• 11
11n
2.4
I I
c n
ere
Lil
PX£
I n
f -,
1Jr
t1rt
')P
2.
4 1
.I
f 1n
t!tr
11
1111
fO
IJft
f1.'h
1t1J
~.4
., .J
<: "
b11m
gu
n c:1
,11re1
t ....
4 I
N
' on
o fl
enz
f'Jf
t~
.,4
I
N
f n
bee
r .. '.
4
I 2
I .
( n
tilc~<.le
;· ..
1 l
( n
MO~
~ ..\
1
J f
l n
f)IJ
Y
t!thl
i.lf>
2
.4
1 ".
.I
f n
("'
24
1
J £
( n
cho1
t~1
Qi',
•O r
tlf'
;1
,4
., I
(.
Vlll
•i1t
c
O':W
l!l'bu
r19a
.\.
-1
1 I
I in
t Pr
Cl!!
t~l.
I fQ
f't
J P
t)I
Jt
~""
1 .I
t ,.
......
rtl!
l'IM
I c1
1rd
,fo
/4
2
' (
v '°
Da
ta
S•u
rc•
Utt
era
nc
e
Tre
n11
h1l
lon
A
ge
Lil
--q
.;570
9---
re·-
de•1
13
·--·
-··
·---
---;
-M-'
llll•
1~-d
-;. I
i ·-
---
;.x -
--· 2
dP.r
di S
O
dog
lin
e r-~rfl1M
gori~
Mt
h<>4
h
i h
OM
I!
hurl
<
t~llMI
l~u>
lnel
ip
pftt
11
..,1
tt"~
'J
JUIC
P
~-ll
ty
lr(I
HJ
li:>1
"9
~nrP?
!no~
n"
tlft
lllfl
ll
met
.1w
m
1r•e
rn
1ru
ml~"
nl)r
n m
orC
!f I
• m
otto
n"
t r1
"irh
ttu
nMn
no
no,...
H
olo
Nol
n
oh
(I
I(
one
oop~
ow
p11n~ll
(.le
~q·
Por11~hA
sht
so
$!\l
flld
lf
tf),
I (o
l11r
t""
tf1
ef'
P
!ht<
"'
I h
e"r
yl)
Uiq
pq
won
·t go
g
tJ?
nttt
h,,,.
.e
lull
It
hur
l.s'
ttu~
h
it h
l.H r
F.:
p.,t
nlut
h"'
rs
lt;l
,i
Hu
s?
fl)
F9
P
w11
le1
ml'.
>lor
~ytl
e
mn
re
do
n 1
h!l\
•e/n
on
e
er~
m1?
11·-A
·
r..,t
""m~
Por
o;:r
he
urh1
1'11
Inn
thn
l 1:
. ·-:
o
rtq~n•ttA
2.4
2.4
2.4
2
.4
2;4
2
.4
2.4
2
.4
2.-1
2
.4
2.4
2.4
2.
4 2
.4
2.4
2.4
2
.4
2.4
2
,4
2.4
2
.4
2.4
2
.4
2.4
~4
2.4
24
2
.4
2.4
2
.4
Z.4
2.
4 },4
2.4
2
A
2.4
Z
4
2,4
2.4
2
.4
:.4
,_4
2.
4 2.
4 2
.4
2.4
;·.4
}."'
;:.f
i,
4
.. -..4
~ :. 3 2 I 3
~--_l!
'!l_9
---~
ll':
d_T!
JPBS
.. _
-~1
1~!!
!_ o~
~f'!
'!'.
£.h_
~
,I
C
\I
' 2 2 1::
10
'j 3 17
., t'i ., L 5 I ; I'
'j
f [ [ J f ,I
J J .J
.I _, [ EJ J J J E
E
N
[ E
J J N
E
.J
J .J J [ E
J I I.I f r. I J I r J E
I ft
llv
n t c c f r ( c c I c ' H
pro
n "d
) ,, \'
Mlr
rhn
n
1nt1
?r
1nt1
?r
v v \' v
vtila
i:IJ
•·bl
•~!
vlll
adJ
n n t!IW
pr
•l.'I
p
rfo
y n n ono
pr~fl
v ll
n n ftflv
\'
v nno
1nt~r
1nt1
?r
" in
ter
n lr
't~r
Inte
r n '" n n
tl'1Y
"'11 ,, n
ob
0
Dat
e ~!ll!!,=! _
__
__
~1t_er11n_ce _
__
__
__
__
_ ~r~n ..
l11l
in'!
--
--··
~9!
____
11! _
__
_ 11
~~'!
9 _
_ ~nrrl_T\11!~'---~r)~_o!_~Pf!~C'!_
9/5
ifl9
T
.fl
lhi•
7
2 ·l
I
E
I p
ro
\1111
11
I IC
lfl~
I\
'J
.. ·1
2 J
t v
tr~ln
2 4
I F
c
" 1
rur\
: 2
.4
I 4
E
c n
uh o
h 2
.4
[ I
1nt~r
um.,
hnr;;~
.2.4
I
J t
n un
••n
ti 2
4 2
F. I
1n1e
r un
t1
1tf
flf
n1 f:
a.,n·
ct1l
'lnot
1I
2.4
~
J I
h•k
cM
n
Ul•
2.4
I
[ I
ed
v u
pG
.t.,
in;
2.4
I
E
( n
w11
;\'lin
g 2
4
2 2
~ c
v Y
'h•l
'' 2.
4 '
E
I p
ro
y..•o
w
2,4
'
[ I
tnto
r y1
11to
dn
. ,,
1
,4
., J
c \'
L
yoeh
2
.4
I d
E
I in
tor
y~•
2.4
'
2 E
I
In ta
r 1(
•.'41
139
T9
t11
1g1J
b1
1g
2.f
:)
I ,I
r.
n I ~n
2.5
[,
I c
n t1
11m
11
~.'5
2
LI
r. n
rn1
1u
.,,
.,,tP
.r 2
,5
J <:
n no
2
,5
3 E
I
lntl!
tr
riom
u to
i:t
rtnt
2.
'1
3 J
c v
nnm
u"."
to i
:tnn
t''
2.5
J
c ,.
(W
2,t
; [J
I In
ter
''C'IJ
~~
" '
.?! f
c v
lln'
li't
hOrC
.i'!I'
2.5
.I t
n Y
"n1?
to
f1{1
':'
2,5
2
J c
\'
10
/3 I
/69
G
FW!)
c11n
i:ty
2.15
r
c n
gnor
tt11'
e ,,,
6 E
I
tnt,
.r
~·n-
1"11
cu
to/l
or
kew
.1tl
~.6
.J c
•111
Jd)
. ~f
tWll
ll
cute
2
.6
.J
c V
ble!
Jj
IO"l
'lli
S
!llr
\I
2,6
J
('
•f•l
o<ll
Min
i!>
~·
.6
( I
PIO
I 1
19
/69
G
fW()
fl
lll•o
r I
f"."1
l 2
[ c
n 1
1/2
5/!
19
T
.I.>
11
1_t1
or1
2 f1
I
[ c
n n1
q1l1
1ne
"2.fi
I
[ c
n 1
u-o
"''l
hu
nh"
26
I
2 .J
I In
t or
nso
tiu
to p
t11y
)6
I
., I
t \'
lltl
ll
loun
d..'h
ort
26
2
J c
v
bllm
qu
n c:i
:1ur
ir1
2,f,
I
I I
ono
H
I on
o fl
an
[V!l
n
2.~l
I [.
J
r n
fl""''
Ev11
n 2
6
I f,
J r
n
l>an
z7
Evttr
1"7
26
I
LI
c n
t;o<1
m
2.6
I E
I
QI'
()
gun
o;n1J
r1·I
; .t
i I
2 E
I
OM
t>o
"ln
Q
26
'
'.-f
r n
l1U
Y
l'hl(
le
?.
f:J
I .)
r
n ca
n<ly
;·
'5 I
E
,. l't
t ,,,
. i
'·
I 2
E
, n
calo
:h
2.6
I
E
c v
<»
ChC1
1'."
~\
f-1
'j
H
r n
-
_ _!
>!!
!__ ~eurce _
__
IJ_I t
~!!l"!e _
__
_ --
-~11
_!1!
1_~1
!_1!
'!_ _
__
_ A
f!_
__
'.:_II _
_ ~-
L_!lf
19
__
_ ~.,r:d .
!It!
'!• _
_ -~~~!.!.!._~!!~-
, , .
. >5/
!.'19
T
10
dP~tl 8
I
w11
-; 11
t>tn
to
rto
If.
~~.6
2
4 J
t v
dP
r tt
1p1·
a 2
.6
I 2
E
f l!
dY
de
tle
w
en
t n1
J1
2.6
2
J (
v d
l9
t~I<
2.6
I
2 E
f
fl!O
dr:o
to?
vth
tire
7
2,6
I
J f
lntr
iJg
em
pty
2
;6
I E
c
'ld
i fi
n
2;1i
I
3 [
r n
frq
n
lrlP
nd
2,
6 I
2 N
c
n qo
2.
6 I
3 [
c ,.
QO
ll"'
~.
6 2
E
c v
gu
n
2;6
I E
r
n h1
1bur
a<hl
to
otl
ll>•u
sh
2.6
I
J t
n hllllelnJ~
ts I
I fl
lSld
P
2,6
3 J
t v
h•~ •J~
~un
8h
fhC
JO
7,6
1 J
I In
ter
Hem
en
2.6
I
E
c n
t1f:'
re
2.6
I
19
E
I t!r
:IY
hlln
O
lltgh
2
,6
I J
I In
t Pr
ho
rse
y 2.
6 I
3 E
c
n h
ot
2.6
1 E
c
lld
j t1
Uh
7
2,6
4
£ '
tntP
r n
o
lei's
go
2;6
2 J
c v
ft ft
It
hur
• s!
I hi
2.6
I
11
J f
Int A
r lt
lli
It h
urt
s.'
nu
•h
2.6
2
J c
\'hl~rt1
Jun1
p 2.
6 I
E
c v
J•tni
11
t} n'<lnr~
2.6
2 4
J c
n •e
n
2.6
1 N
c
n f
111
2.6
I
2 E
c
v I 0~(1
Mre
2;
6 I
7 .J
f 11
r!u
1·n~o7
he
r'!?
2
,6
1 3
J f
l!dY
• nr
ie-11
11'
2.6
1 5
J f
pro
I n
re"'
t1
11s?
2
.6
1 2
J '
p1 n
ln
ot
2.6
1
2 E
r.
\'
flllllll!
2,6
1 6
N
t n
me
2,6
I
£ '
pro
fH
l"A
2
.6
I 2
E
' Jl
lll
rntt
" I
S6W
tr
2.6
')
J
t v
mor
P.
2,6
I r
t 111
11 ne
~)
.6
I J
f In
f Pr
hO
L.f•
1 '5
E
I fn
f Pr
o
h
:',6
1
4 F.
I in
ter
op
en
2
.6
I E
c
\'
ou
t g
et
ou
t 2
.6
1 E
c
\'
Pt1J>
11
2.6
I
} t~
(
" r1
1e11
q.,
2,6
I
E
I ro
p4
11ti
sll••~\j
2.15
I
E
' in
t or
f'nbn
-:or
~.
ft
1 £
t n
rnt>
<it
2.6
I
' [
t "
~ 1t
4'tsh
it1Jt
•I
MP
2
,6
' .I
c "
~.~q,,t
'P.
tin
.I I
t/~
.,~~
Sllli
e 2;
6 )
(.
" ~ . .,
ruu
~l)r
ttll
? 2
.6
E
c M
l ~.
hor ~
2.6
I
[ t:
" ~
~.hu
'lf
2.6
I
E
( ...
-~·~
.!'-
Soun
:_e_
---· '!~l!!'.1111~·--·
-_
__
__
'!'.!:
""~'.!
'' 1_
on __
_ ~9!
___
to __
__ ...
!' .. L_
en9
___ --
~·~
.TJp
e_e_
__
-~~~ s_ll!~!'!!~
I l/
,.?
5/8
9
T 1
0 S
1)(t"
t:IU
4·
6 I
E
c. n
gom~
snur
su
re
fl!lb
&ko
f&
Mko
?
ltib
"''··
ta~o
tePn
.,9e
IPre
bl
11\e
re
119e
r tr
ee
lrfJ
P'._
uh t1
11h
•1h
oh
um
m
•muo
n W
ll
""""'
Wft
lth
'.¥t"
1dt.'
:i
Wh1
JOJ1
S
wlr
A
4""'
411S
A
!I"""
•t~t
lh
qi:w
le
-r-t
Jp
ctg1
1ret
le
c•gn
n?tt
".'7
M
lil
ort
,·1p
u-:
.
l~IPvlshm
I l\•
11r 4~ui!llc''i
wnt
er
to 1
to
~n l\/yett~
ito i
f
rP•'
1 II
1 ri
2.6
2.6
2.'1
:'.
.6
1.r:
i 2
f.i ;>
,6
2.6
26
~·
.tj
2.6
z.r
. 2.
rl
;> 6
2.rJ
2.
6 2,
,,
L.6
2
,,
2.6
:2
.IJ
2.6
2.15
2.'1
2
6
~.f-
i
/ h
I E
c
!IOI
£I
c n
E
c l'ld
l '}_
.J
( n
J (
n ,,
J r
v J
( n
[ c
!IO j
r c
n [
f """
£
c n
E
( n
F
[ n
~13
f f
1n1e
r .,
I f
In I P
r ~
J I
be~ch.,nllnter
2 E
f
Inte
r n v
2 f.
c v
:2 f
f p
ro
lnt"
r 2
E
c n
._I
c v v
1 9
I (
v
2 F.
f Int~,.
~
2 J
c v
00
~
S3JNVN3ll11 GNOli\-31dll1ffW
g XIGNHddV
a8en8ue1=8utq
SCJJmUn:X>() JO JaqmnN=X
sa::mtuann JO q18ua1=n1
:g X!puaddv 01 "\a;t
Oet
e S
ou
rce
Ull
eren
ce
Tr1
1nal
11llo
n --
----
---------
----
--·-
· ---
----
-· -
----
-· --
--4
/26
16
9
T I
a
ttn
nt>
ne
lnon
r.f <
l••r
• b
"MI
no
n
ot
d1r
t..1
5/1
2/6
9
61
1/A
9
6/1
0/6
9
6/1
1/6
9
T.
I
GfW
D
GFW
O
T :;
'
Cub
by m
ine
h
yo
J•1j
11 p
len
sP
I Py
Ml
wa
n d
is P
ar11
oh
rny
go
sh
l'ep1
1 rt
oln
"-'te
nt
c;om
e
ttPll
keti
her
e 91
> Jt
lel!
SP
hi r
111•1
1 ht
to
lo
11.0
Plf
>ll
SP
ne
Pnp
e n
o P
nr11
F'
llPll
dn
lo
rar1
1 m
e t>
oy
F'er
11 n
n r1
1r11
•h
i<
F'11
r111
ny
Pl'P
I ll
j fl
ou
sh
lf o
Ple
t1r.
e ••
1tn
gnnf
> to
rn pl~"~e
W&
'lh
l l=
'"Jlft
wh~ di~
tolC
I W
M ~
Olll
'J;·
bl')f
tl:'I"
~ru
tho
o ,.
huo
tra
in
uin
uin
l.:
ite
6114
/E.1
9 r,r
wo
t·@nc
h.,n
~uru
61
16
.'fN
T
2
6(1
9/6
9
TZ
r t111
1rne
~ q·
·u
11,,m
e,..
tiutr
tot.
'l ~nnP
flaro
;:I ,
.,..,
kPpt
tp
Julo
.e r
tem
11
k~t1
1Jp
P~pn·r-:
~en b
u
Na
ma
trye
n
o 1
:9n
110P
11r1
1 o
h P
11•1
rtu
wh
nt
,, lh
111
Par
" M
•;ht
b1·
"''
erp
(.)
1
j•tlc
t>
1\•n
1l f
1tll
fl ft-
'11.&
:I JUI(~
blS
IHl
bl>-
M "
'"<
Ill
IJO
hl '·llO~S
chew
(h
(rfl
tr
l!lt
n
H's
Ot
flll<
P [ll
~l!S
P
nt:>
~· ..
y
wht
>re
· s F
'llPO
Pll
M •~y h
pr·e
hi blr~te
ii r'~
"~e
hPy
P11p
a
WhP
rtl
S P
llP
ll
pr9
t 1.y
rto
wP
r
p"e
pl .
. e:;
o b
lrd
lA •
ione
~lr•HP pl
Aa<
e rlor~
1•11
p11
~'"·
" "
this
b1
rdte
thP
re·s
e b
nm
be
r
N&
stf!
"r t<
.Pn'
5 U
)mln
q
Mer
na·s
cor
nln(
I fl'
!trn
fll <
; b<
"1"-
b1r1
J1p
9nue
b
·1n
".'l
!rtl
5 ~~tchur
~·lt
n v~hltle
F'ap
11·~
wet
lt
'"''s
Jure~
.,..q1
wet
.,.r
-~91
! ___
_ L_I
J ___
_ -~
-_!.
_ant
__
.'.i.!I"~~ _
__ w_
O!'.!'.
_TJf P
.H __
-~llr~ _a_f_
!i_!
!!~!
!_
•' •
.l .J
J ,)N
f1
~'•.
I n
I v
2.n
;o
EJ
N
lell
la
djl
ad
v
2 •)
2 E
E
NN
le
11
I
pro
I n
l.•)
2
.J •. .'N
t1
2'c
I ""'
1 v
2.r
i 2
2 E
J N
le
If
I
n 1
re
2,•)
2.
•)
2/t
2.
1 2
1
1. I
2.
I
2.1
2.1
2.1
2. I
2.
1 2.
1 2.
1 2,
1
2, I
2. I
2.
I 2.
1 ;!
.I
2; I
2.
1 2.
I
2. I
l.
I 2.
1 2.
I 2.
I
i.1
2.
1 ;,
I 2.
I
2. I
2.
1
2.1
2; I
2,
I 2.
' 2.
I
;•;'
~''
1 ;•
.I
2.1
2.'
2 '
2.1
2. I
2 3 1 2 2 .3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ., 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 ~ } 2 2 J 2 ,, 2 2
J JN
ll
E
EN
tl E
fN
M
J JN
M
E
EN
N
E
£NM
E
E
Nt1
E
E
NM
E
J N
E
E
Ntl
J JN
t1
E
EN
I!
J ,I
Ntl
E
ENM
E
E
NN
E
E
Nft
E
ENM
E
E
Ntt
EJ
N
EJ
N
EJ
N
LI
N
[,I
[WM
E
EN
M
2 J
,IN
H
4 E
E
Ntl
.J JN
ll
J ,IN
l1
.. I
JN
tl
EJ
N
[,J
II
.J JN
H
£ H
iii
r 11
.J ,1
Ntt
F. F
Ntl
F.
£N
it
r m
n E
£
Nil
[ ft
ltl
,.) ,l
lil1
2 f.
J II
E
fN
tt
E
lNrt
r .
. 1
N
E
£Nit
6 f
£Hll
2c 2r
II
le 2
1 Ir
II
2t
le II
le
1
r le
II
le
II
21
le
II
tr
II
le
II
2e
II
le
II
le
II
2c
2
t le
tr
2
c le II
2C
IC
21
le
II
2
t le
If
}<
.
2•
2l
2c
2c
2r
If
2r
2r
2c
I!
If
le It
le If
I,
. If
l(
2t
]f
f( lt
}(
2• z. l<
Ir
H
I n
l IM
P
tp
ro
tn
lv
1
inte
r I
n I
pro
I
lntr
nq
In
I
llill
I v
2n
1pa
1
ra 1
v
t In
ter
In
I tn
lPr
In
t
la
I p
ro
t tnl~r In
I
edv
l n
t 1n
1roq
I n
1
prtJ
2 n
I
aoh'
I
n In
I p
ro
in
1 ad
l In
1
ra 1
n
In I
v
1 la
1 n
2n
I
lnlr
og
t n
I or
o I
rntr
ott
1 v
In I
v
In t
on
o
I fl
Iv
I
r1 Iv
In
Iv
2n
11
1 Iv
2
n I
rort
I
n t
v 2n
:?
n I
inle
t' In
I
ll•l
v l
n I
atN
In
I
tnle
1 In
m
l.1 u
g
I p
ro
I y
I ll•
ll In
I
11
I pr
o /n
;~
n
I ~·II In
I
11•1.
f I
ft
ln 1
nnn
00
a-
.
De
te
So
urc
e
U".
ll!"l
llftC
ll _
__
__
__
__
_ !r
11nRl'!_t~1111 __
_ -~'"-
--·~·--
__ II_
'=-"_
!ll _!!.W"~"~---
__
w_._,.-~_1:!!1!!11 _
__ -~_!l_rt_!_!!_Sl!_HC~
67i9
~'ii
9---
r-;-
-h
erf
t c:
omf:
'~ r.~n;;:
2.1
4 [
£Nt1
2
f Ir
1
n I
pe
1 v
rm g
on
no
s11
y It
2.
1 ~
E
HU
I Jc
2r
2p
r·o
3v
11 l
jl'
t1 9
0¥
2
.1
., I
JNtt
2
c I
.,.11
I y
Jule
~ l!
re (
JI
lhft
l s
JUIC
P.
2 1
,, FJ
ti
le
tr
In
I p
ro
Jull
e o
ru
f''ll'
'tVP
)U
t(P
2,
1
2 L
I ,I
WM
2
c In
IY
11
"m" ~Unt
tl.,n
1,,·<
:. (o
m1
n9
;
I 2
~ J
JNt1
2c
In
Iv
N
o1ne
loo~
2.1
7 [
EN
tl
2c
1" I
y
no unm~
no
100
>1.'
rntt
~ 2.
1 2
., E
J [W
M
2C
I !l
dj
1 y
" n
o "
'll\I
'2
I I
E
rN11
1c
If
I
!l1W
In
o
h 1
•1IL
e Z.
I
., ~
[ FN
l1
le If
1
lnle
r In
~"u ju
ice
sou
r _l
ui(P
".'7
-IJ(
l?
7.'
2
E
[Nt1
2
t I
!l•l.f
In
!h
i' h
uh
' 2,
I
2 E
£N
t1
21
I ln
lPr
I p
ro
11nr
ti1 n
o
no
po(
1 2.
1 .
,'
EJ
N
le tr
I
l!dV
In
w
111c
h o
ut
2.1
2 E
£N
II
1c If
1
pre
p I
v
MZ
Q/6
9
T.J
co
ff P
• pl
Pt1~
1!'
2.1
'· 4
£ £N
t1
le
II
I In
In
K
en k
uru
i-
en·s
eo
mln
Q
2, 1
'•
J ,1
Nt1
2
e 1
n Iv
P
11M
Nam
11
2.
I 2
f,I
N
2c
;>n
r1en
DA
R 11
.,rnl
l sM
nk
t1o
mo
2. I
2 J
JNt1
2
c 2
n
r•ro
min
i'
pil
low
min
e
2.1
2
E
ENt1
le
1
f I
pro
In
11
1n 1
11n
kuru
4
iln
m1
nm
Et'
3
Z. I
; J
,1tm
2
e In
Iv
"'
h~r
P y
ou
go
Pe(1
o 2.
1 4
[ I
NII
2c
21
I ln
1rl'.
'g
I n
I p
ro I
v
60
4/6
9
T4
C
hoo
cho
n l
r111
r1
2, I
I
E
£Nt1
le
ir
In
lo
no
6
/29
/89
T
.5
b11b
•1ru
dete
b
ub
ble
s o
re c
11m
lng
ou
l 2.
2 3
-' ,1
Nt1
2
c In
IV
Il
ene
hftn
ro
nch
t Ev~n·~
lun
ch
2.2
3
-' JN
t1
2c.
1t
2 n
1 hl
•nor
h
lnn
k•'
plP~9P
2.2
2
F. £N
tl
le
11
In
1 l
e
bu
bn$
bU
S 2.
2 2
[_I
N
2c
2n
b
ub
MP
Mlh
..,
., ... 2
., E
EN
t1
2c
2n
b
us
oru
hllY~ bU~
2.2
2 -'
JWN
2
e In
Iv
b
us
no
ru
ril!
e b
us
2.2
.., -'
JWf1
:?
c .
ch
irl
Het
b
ull
n• ~ ~
hu
rt
2.2
:: -'
.1N
t1
IC
H
I fe
1
n d.
,H!I
nn
• th
"' on~
2.2
z r
EN
I!
Ir If
In
lp
ro
dli
"''!l
I.hi
~ w
eu
2.2
2 1
E
£N11
le
If
In
lp
ro
ttnnt
'.fun
d!it
mf!t
sl
<>,d
il~
Md
2
.2
2 ,J
JNll
le
II
I
llelj
I •J
nO
I w
en '1
1<
2,2
3
[ [N
t1
le 2
r IV
Z p
.-o
I W
lln
t 2
.2
.. , 2
[ £N
fl
Ir.
11
I p
ro
I v
. I
wan
t to
2
.J
:: E
[N
II
le 2
r 1
• 1
prfl
l'
I p
m
II y
t:>
trs
01.
2.2
'•
-' ,IN
l1
2c
IMJ
Iv
II y
•ll1
,me
Its
oi-t1
•m'
.., -.
>
-' ,I
N!!
3
( le
d)
In I
v
.. • 11
111
no
hu
rl r
10
.., ..,
. u
N
;;'1
1 Y
ble
dl
I ln
tPr
... -'
1111
1110
ll
hu
rt•
2.2
•.
:1 .I
JN
l1
le If
Iv
1 v
bll
ldj
f111
m11
nen
e ll
l'lrn
e sl
~l>p
2
2 ,,
' J
JNll
2r
2
n
n11t
ne
?
ti S
nf1
( h
Pra
, 11
;: tt-
;"·
'2.2
2
,I
,!N
II
1<
I f
Iv
1 t
og
nen
'! y
fJ sl
e<>p
2
.2
.. , J
.JN
ll
2t
In 1
·1
no
wey
2
.2
I 12
[
ENI!
le
II
In
I ln
ler
no
""l
l\I t1
11m
a 2
.2
~ £
[NII
]c
11
;>
n 1
'"tr
itr
oil
tfln
}
2 .-.
2 [_
I fl
,,
1(
1n I
Ir.I.
Ar
rap
e h
oJ<
hlt
Pft
r•11
w11
nts1
1 '·
'
..: '
.I
. lll
ll
2r
In
1·:
ble
dj
... pA
l.'f
-!n
l r1
.,te1
MY
"'
' '
_, £,
I N
2
t In
1·1
. ,_ ch
emt•
U ho~lll
wen
l sM
mro
o
2.l
'•
., J
.1N
t1
le If
In
lv
bln
dl
. th
l'lll
k •j
(llJ
..,
·• I
[ f.N
11
tc
It
1Y
1 p
re!'
u1n
ut11
tiu
vel
olc
le w
/sir
•n
.-, .
.. , 2
1-J
JN!!
2c
ll
lolj
In
~
., • .,n
t -::.
•1rne
'·
>
')
..: E
ft
lll
2c
IM_t
In
.C
,,,,
--.!
!!!'
_ S
ou
rc.!
. _
__
_!I~
~.!'
~"'!
-:• _
__
__
__
__
_!!on11l11~10~---
-~g•
____
_ L~-
__
-~-
l~n1
1_ _
__
S91
1_!_
!1!_
_ --~.!":d_!QP•!I _
__
_ _!'_
!l_rt_
!' of_Sjll)~!!__
6/1
9/f
N
T 5
w
en
t tn
2
.2
2 f
EN
tl le
1f
lp1
Pp
Iv
wh
et•
g t
his
2
.2
2 (
[NII
le
II
lr
>rn
IY
yu
kl o
7
/4/6
9
C-.f
WD
I
rlo
n·t
~now
pe
n rlo~o?
7110
169
T 6
11
1rp1
11ne
en
qtn
e t
ow
el
en•
Be
nct
utr
i ere
(,I
I bu
uo
eru
yo
E111
nch1
1n
B11
nch1
1n 1
111t
t11
Blln
JI h
u b1
1shu
nor
1J
b11s
u k
oM
17
b
esu
nP
n1
bll
SIJ
nn
ru?
b
icycle
Jin
bu
111
1"
bu
rer
bu
Msh
ll
blJ
lll!lm
e bu
s n
oru
cer
blJ"
C
llr
11n ii
cer
15 n
ul
ch
ntt
o m
1111
e d
ll\
Cllf
"
d"~lln y
o
dP~lllll no
Ul
di
111r
plft
'1"
di
11
irp
l"n
e lg
ou
t d
is 1
1tr r
>l •n
" h11
n'.'
dis
b1"
11• I~
dis
Fdn
11
dl5
IS
dis
tln
mn
11
19 O
nt'
dis
one
oln
u1n
bOI
d
is o
w
dis
Pap
e d
is t
"'1
?
en
Jin
ko,
v111
Ik
e e
ngln
P
go
od
rol
qhf
t1l'l
tl11
big
-;c
hllp
p11
hf)mmP1~ l
'o·.,
..·pr
hM
hll n
u
hr.>~.hll 4~
hn
sh
ll 1
1n C
.l'lr
hr:tu
F:e
ou
t I
cnn·
t I
c11n
·1 d
u II
~now/p11rt1clP o
wherp·~ 1
hP p~n7
111r
r111
ne e
nq
tna
r,ce
ry
oh n~·.tPr f
ven
th
el >
"·1
eh
ic IP
I
hn
ve
11
Mn~•~r E
ven
tin
ner
Evn
n d
id I
I E
van
tnr
rtd
e b"~
i~n·
1_
1111
• b
us
rnm
lng
?
I w
111
rloJ
P t.
n• b
11s
uin
I r
idP
th
e b
us?
b
lkp
bel
l ~o>unoJ
I fn
11nt
l/t1l
"ld e
r&r
Y .. tt
lth
! I.
Ill
I W
l!ln
l I.h
e ve
lttc
te
r11r
11"
m"
rir:le
t-1
15
'l'l'!
llt "
bit
lh
lll
c11r
I Wl
l~ "
blP
lo
doJ
I I
I w
.mt
h1
do
J 11
lh
l!I l
!llr
plen
e Il
l~ elrpl1n~ 1
; 11
1Jt
1h
l> 1
1irr
t111
1P Ev~n·
lh'-
• l:o
ic11
•.le
1111
'1 [l
1n
oi'
I
this
I J
tn1
, tl.
,n•!
I th
is on~
thl-:
: or
11? ~ln!n u
f..lh
tr:l
fl
ltll
s O
fl".'1
1
lhlg
P~p•
lhl<
. l~1.--·
~ny1
nt:t
<I""'
'.I
I P
iii
nn h
tg sltpp~t
""""
'-•1
11
I W
MI
tt (P
Oljo
h~ll
o)
I w
.,n
l c1
r
2,2
2
.2
2.-i
2.
2 2
.2
.2.2
2
., ,L
2.2
2,2
2.
1 2.
2 ~
} ... ' '
"·"'·
.2,.2
2
.2
2.2
2
,2
2.2
;!
.2
2.-
i 2
.2
2.2
2.2
2
2
2.2
2
.2
2.2
2
.1
2.2
2.2
2
,2
2}.
2 ., ..
~ ., .. • '•
' .. • 2
:2
2,2
2.2
~
., ... 2 l
i.2
2.
2 .·,
... . ·' ., ' .. ... ., ... 2 2
2.~?
2,2
2
.2
2.2
2 J
JN
tl
le If
In
lpo
!SI
4 2 3 3 3 2 4 2 2 3 2 2 ., L 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 J 2 4 3 ~ ' ' 2 _, 4 2 2 ::' 3 1 4 ., L 2 2 3 2 3 5
3 -:? ., L
E
EN
tl
2c
21
I ed
v I
p
ro 2
v
J ,1
Nt1
Ir
If
1
tnl.
rog
In
E
J N
2c
If
I
"di
In l
vb
led
J ,I
JN
t1
It 2
1 In
I
ho
no
r I
inte
r J
.JN
tl It
21
111
lpro
IY
.I
JN
ll
}C
2v
,I
.1N
tl le
If
In
lh
On
or
.I
JNl1
2
t If
In
lh
nM
r IY
,I
J J J .)
El J EJ J J E.1 £ [ r J E
J J [ [ E
[ [ £
JNt1
JN
tl
,1N
t1
JNt1
Jtu
l E
Nt1
Jt
jt1
N
JNH
.1
Nt1
JW
M
EN
t1
£NH
[N
tl
Jiit!
[N
t1
JN11
,I
Ntl
fN
tl
rNt1
F
Nll
F
Nll
rN
tl
rNt•
Etl
tl
[NII
E
IJ
N
[ £N
t1
( F
Ntl
2c
}e
le I
I :l
l le
le
If
2c
. 2
c 1c If
2c
2e
Ir
If
2c If
2c
1
f It
If
1 I
11
2f
Ir I
f Ir
H
2r
2r
2r
It
Ir
1f
Ir I
f le
1 r
" ,,
1r
If
2c
2r
2l
2n
In I
v
lro
lvbl
11d)
In
IV
In
f\•
ti
nte
r In
'" 1
-· in
to
lv
bl11
dJ
21'1
ln I
Y
lin
ter
In
1111
0 n
Iv
'""'c I
n I
v
leol
J Iv
In
lp
ro
l\'
1v
IVbl
lldl
11
!1.-t
In
l~r1
u l~rt
ln I
v
2n 1
c..-o
In
lp
ro
l[o
to In
IP
tO IY
lp
on
In
lp
ro I
n
l11d
_t
In
lon
o
lr•r
o
I tr,
t.,r
lpr
t:'I
lpt
n In
2
[ ft
ll1
Ir I
f It
II
It
II
In l
pro
lbdt
~1 M '"
.I
,1N
t1
II
£ fN
tl
£Nt1
L
I N
F.
INtl
J
.1111
1 J
.JN
tl 4
£,I
N
I N
II
2 E
lt
ll1
3
[ ft
ltl
2r.
'2r
Zr
If
~·c Ir If
le
tr
7f
1
f
le.'"
' I(
21
71
3f
I 8•1
1 In
ld
J In
l~
<ll
ln 1
.-2n
In
l"
-'bln
f11
I••
I V
blll•
'-t
1n
IV I
"'11~'11
lllo
h•l
n
}f'll ll IV
1"11
'..' .
_'pr
n ly
• 00
·-~-
--
---
-
~-!!.!__!!.'!!re• _
__
_ _l~ll'!nnce _
__
__
__
__
_ !Lll""~!'~~on __
___
A._!I
!_ __
_ '.:.'
! ___
__ I!__
I !'1
19 _
_ Siii
!~!!
___
___ W~r-d !~!.. _
_P~!.!_!'J!l:'!!l:ll_
_ 7
/10
:'8
0
r.r,
I
w.,
ntJt
s l,
2
1 F
EN
tl le
If
2
pr•
p I
v
I'll
de>
II
2 l
4 .'
l
fNtl
2c
2f
2p
ro 2
v t'
ll '5
t'le
IJJU
2.
2 4
F
EN
H
2c 2
r 2
oro
2v
II y
n tt
's 1
1 ~lg S
h'J
e lt
'g E
gor
M11
mn
H"s
hot
i1
9i ~owet
111e
101
0
~"",.,.,II•
yn
~"o n
o 1-
ep b
u
~en 1
>11?
1e
y •~·•
I nL
•J b
<tl:l
'll
to~n "
"tnn
l kO
lcl)
Utn
llll
1
lor~ ch
lQ11
07
~or~ 1
1tn
uln
fire
tno
·ett.
u kor~ I.
JI to
w"i
11t
., 11
tn b
u 1~n11nt
flem
"'b.
,.,,
11,,m
ll d
'* l
nllt
f·l11
r1e
~\<, M
•
r111
m11
ho-ih
ti !-
111n
111M
tr111
r11'
I 8
rn~l 1
e u
inu
m t:
-11
rnt:t
~t:
re
nilg
t Ip
nn
ll1
1m"
nQ 1
1ern
n I!
...,o
,_•·s
no "'
"'J ~•
I CW
•:11
1 O<
r--1
tM
(•":-h
l b•
I Yt
J {1
~hl
n.1t
r1,,1
pl!n
h•1
<~11
P!lf
lll f
orn
ewM
rf.
9e
nk
yc>u
9~e y
ou
~tJe yo
u c1
1r s,
.e y
ou E
ven
s~e
Y''"
t1"1
11"
IMnk
4011
l~I' ko
••n~
·
tJ11
~.
,,..
.~
'·•'
"'~r
e ll
P f
lt)
ul
no \
.J)
r.er
u
1n1
Jint-1
1
tt s
nr
n•1r
l 9
rnn
1
on
h1r
ltlP
fl
!fff
W!l
ll
fl'llr
:..,
no
i'
Pri
VP
t'1C
.lf
lift
n f
111r
·':"·
l't>Y
QO
her~ d
lrl•
J
hP.rm
:-""
'' ,.
..... ,,.
,, hP
.rEt
E.1n
:~n
lht;
d•f
ft>
ren
l?
\hli
si1
Pn
11rP
. t1
11t•
thrs
1
scnr
·11
sir
en
v~Mr l
e
l~t
01P
M"m
l!C
!!ri
'I rt"
rn11
I.h
i; o
n•
rt~rnl!
.,.~nl
11,,m
., h1
1nd
wl!
1l <
tr•n
veh
icle
m
P f
.hlC
::
rip
lll h-
"'~
tior
~~\j
·1P
hic
IP
hCtrqe~
·;~h
1(l"
tc:
(fllr
Ttl•
h)
hf.tr
.. ~eit 1
••J'
"'f'.'"
1Y
br•.
,11 ~;mt
th~1 1
11k
41'.'11
1
lhl~ M
il ru
t Ung
'.'
blr.
Jlp
her
e 11
1' n
o
~•r••n~t~r
c: ir
.m (
.,,
2,2
~.2
2.2
2,
6.~
~. ,,
L ,L
' .
L ,L
2.2
2.2
2.2
2
2 2
_, ,L
' ,
'·
L
2 2
2 _,
.L
2,2
2.
2 '.
, ... 2.2
2_2
2.2
2.2
2
2
2 2
2.1
2 2
2_2
:' l
'2.2
2.
2 Z
.2
2,2
'l.2
2.
2 1
.2
' ,
4..
~-
2.1
2 .,
,L
2 2
2.2
'1
.
2 2
~~. l
2.
2 2.
2 2
2
0 .,
.1
.,1
.
2.2
2.
2
1.2
'i 4 4 . } 0 1 4 4 2 ' ~ 4 2 ' 4 0 . ., . . . ., 2 _, ,, L ' ~ }
5 J _I
.I J [F
,I
.I 2
J ·' IJ
J fJ
,I
J 2
f r J f .I [ ,I J fJ
J 8
[ E
£ F. [.I
£,I
[,I .I E
f 1
0
F £ E
[.I
:2 r f,I r.1
fl,I
10
1-J
.. IN
ll
FN
ll
!NII
fN
tl
,!N
II
JNt1
,I
Ntl
ti
.1N
t1
Jtlt
1
.Jlll
t1
.JN
ll Jtm
.l
tltl
• l
tlll
J\l
ill
Jtl
ll
-JN
ll E
tlll
EN
tt JN
t1
r1111
1 .1
Nt1
£N
t1
.llltl
Jt
!t1
ti
Jt
lll
[Ntl
£NII
[
t<tt
fNt1
ti
ti
ti
Jtl
ll
FtU
I ft
UI
Hit
t i t
ltl
P~ll
I ti
ll
r111
1 N
f N
II
H
H
H
JtU
I
2c
2r
2f
2r
2f
2<
If
21
le If
~[
It If
2c
?
r )(
Ir
11
Ir If
tr
If
2c
~<
If
h
II
2r.
If
Ir I
f tr
1f
2<-
ic 1
f Ir
If
" 1 f
2r
~r
21
2r 1 (_
tr
~(
21
;!r
In
2r.
?l
•c
2r
2r I<
If
re If
,,
If
2l"
1f
2c
If
)l
" I'
If
,,
1f
Ir I
f Ir
If
~·
2'
If
21
l"(f
j Iv
1
adj
1 n
rt I
pro
1n
I pro
211
Iv
ll
!dt
lpro
tv
2v
lllei
11
In 1
lr•t
er
1n ?
v 11
111"
In
ln
2n
}<
:
lad
l i.i
no
ll!d
v Iv
la
dv
lo
no
lp
ro l
vbla
•1J
I ll
'ljl
pro
2n
lpro
Iv
tadJ
In
lv
bl
nd
j lp
ro I
n
ltn
ler
In
1n !\
' I p
ro 2
n
In
lvbl
nf11
11
1,tv
In
2n
la
d!
tn I
v
2p
ro
le•l_
I In
ln
o!V
In
ll
!dv
lert
::'n
l~dv
111
1·:
I Mt
In
ln
211
'"
111
IV
1n
lvbt
efll
11
1.iv
In
1111
0 Iv
ID
IO
Iv
lo l
pr;
, ,.
, !p
re•
111
Iv
1p
ro h
1 '"
" !p
t 0
IV
In
lpro
In
lp
ro
l~fl
u
l lld
v l l
nl~r
l~ll
l In
I o
no
ll!o
lj
In
,,..,
>.&>
Dat
a S
oun:
1 U
t !!".a_!I~~----_
__
_
Tr-!l
!'!!!'
t_l_
o'!_ _
__
~9! _
_ ':
ll _
__
!_ -~~9. _
_ !:!1
1n1_11
_11 _
__
_ !'f
_~!°"~
. !_
!IPR!
_ ___
_!l
!r ~1
1.'!f 5~•_!
t_h _
_ m
0.'
89
-T6
uln
utn
bu
et t
t1 y
n 9
fem
Yt>
hlr
le f
o1tn
<1/h
orj
' '
5 IJ
JN
M
4c
1~dt
In "
l.'J
.. u
lnu
tn ~or
·e y
o g
lre
n t
h1q
Is
2.2
3 J
JW
I le
'1f
In l
pro
1·:
uln
uln
tu
ru
slr
•n w
tl I
c.m
e 2.
2 2
IJ
JNtl
:!
f In
IV
unm
11 h
osh
tl
foo1/ml1~ ,.,
.ent
""
' ... 2
2 J
JNt1
tr
. 1v
In
1vb
l~c:
ll
un
me
mo
tte
10
0·1/
mll~
11
•'1<1
2
"
.•
J J
,1N
t1
?r.
111
Iv
un
me
te
?
wh
nt
11tin
ut
frw
1/m
1lt
.?
".,
•.•
2 J
JNl1
If
H
1n
lpo~I
w11
n d
is
w11
nt l
hl&
:U
2
( [N
H
le H
IP
ro I
v
w!S
9 d
is c
111l
e<I?
whnt"~ th
lr c
11llP
d'.'
2.2
4
[ £
Ntl
2c
21
2r
21
we~ d
ir?
w
hn
lA l
h•r
'.'
2.2
3
2 £
fNM
le
21
2Pro
Iv
w
Mn
dis
w
hn
t";
thl<
".
, 3
2 E
fN
t1
Ir 2
1 2o
n1
1v
wh
Pre
·s 1
1e h
1Sm
mer
'!"
'har
p's
1 h
A h"mm~r·
2.2
4
J ,IN
M
2c 2
1 le
rt
I ~d
'-'
In I
v
;:os1
1n n
et11
I 11
r fl
»rh
er1
I w
11•1
lq '" S
IEIP
P 2
.2
4 J
,INl1
2
c 21
I
hono
r In
Iv l
vbln
<IJ
8/1
'5/8
9
T.7
ti C
llnnr
1dP
r 2.
'I
2 [
ENt1
2
c I t
ldj
In
"sh
Ow
er-
:>
23
.,
E
fNN
le
1f
Inn
In
L
1Sno
ne
llste
n
2.)
2
.J J
Jl'lt
1 21
:ltnl~r
ett1
1 l<
en
fou
n'1
/htld
I ~n
2.~
3 J
JN
ll
Zr
In I
V
.Aun
t F
dM
2,
3 2
N
N
2c
}n
Ele
ne h
11n
h!S
i ru
E
ven
en
ter
2' .>
'I
.J
JNl1
le
1f
!ho
no
r 1n
Iv
l'11n
chen
h(l
qh
ll l1
t!•l
Pr
Eve
n w
en
t&
2,3
3
J JN
l1
Ir.
2f
I ho
no
r In
lvb
lMj
big
tro
ub
le
2.'
I 2
[ £
NII
2
c l1
1dl
In
Mg
trn
uMi:>
Ke
n
2,1
3
[ [N
l1
3c
1,,.J
_i )n
b I e
nl<P
t '"l~htl
I w
en
t th
e b
lnn
k!•t
2.
3 2
[.J
.IWl1
le
H
tn l
vb
l"d
f bu
do~ o
·7
wherp·~ th
• ve
hic
le?
2.
3 2
J JN
JI
le I
f lln
tro
'.J 1
n
bu n
e Y
i:>t.l
r.le.
lq
n't
It
2.3
2
J .11
'11"1
Ir 1
f In
111
\g
bu
no
Y
eh
lde
no
2.3
' 3
E.J
N
le tr
In
ltr
1l.P
r .
hu
no
ru
rldt1
t•U
S 1
.3
z J
,1N
t1
2c
In h
'
bu
no
t\e
lru
n
din
g v
ehl•.
IP
2.~
4 2
J J!
it1
2r
In I
v
cen
I l
n•e
•h
ow
•r"
2.3
4 3
E
Pil
l 3c
If
In
1o
ro '2
°"' tl
\n I
':'
2,3
2
r [1
1111
I c
If
lpro
Iv
C fl
n'11
j th
t:>dl
\I g
lv•
me
c11
nd4
2,3
'
2 [.
J J"
IM
le tr
In
l''b
l'ld
l •.
cen<
ly h
o,h
•i
""""
' re
nd~
2.3
., 2
[ J
.•w11
le
If
In I
vb
lad
f re
r o
ut
2,3
2
[ £
NII
It
11
l11d
v In
ch
lrh
lll
•ore
tlf
trn
ft
sm
oll t
h•s
s H
l\n1t
1 2.
3 3
J ,IN
11
2c
1f
IMI
lprn
In
cho
n c
ho
n I
r"'"
2.
3 I
E
(l'IH
2r
. lf
l/ 1
np1
1
chon
< ho
o tr~in ,..
ome
1)n
2.3
3 [
[Nt1
2c
2r
lpre
p I
n I
ono
h·
cho
ltc'
c11
nc1y
fl
bit
of
r.""
d\l
2
-~
2 3
[.f
Ill
It I
f 1
elt
v In
cho
l 1n
dl\
t ..
JU~I
t!
1111
1~
2 3
2 )
.J .•
NII
21
2~
<11'
chu
11n
mo
~lc.
. t11
1r11
& 2
.1
2 .J
,Ifi
ll
2r
ln
co
n1
P t
1P
fQ
2 .. 3
2
[ £N
11
le If
le
.w l
y
com
e o
n 2
.3
2 2
[ [N
II
" If
IP
r•p
,,.
cu
te b
u (I
JIA
··e
Mrl
P,
2.~
2 [.
J N
2
t l"
•tj
In
cu
te n
lnt&
tu
r\lo
.-,
"11"
3
E
£H11
~r
. '"
''·'
,'n
...
dll\
j ce
r"
2, 3
2
[ [!
ill
"-
-~"
do
ing
mA
m•l
d
f}in
q J
n•cp
1I
') :
'. 3
f. I
ri :.'.
\. In
Iv
clrl
u~ln
q J<
J•rA
2.
~ '
[ rn
r·1
';(
In I
V
Gert
t~l1
11Jr
.ne
2. ~
3
r ["
lf-1
:c
11
1 IV
G
ert
leld
., I
n I
he
r• M
erM
2
.. 1
'5 f
EN ti
~t 2
f le
llv I
n l
!ffP
P I
V
g'?t
. S
Prt
1m
<
2.~
2 2
E
11m
2
r le
.Jj
I•·
9"'1
se
l qo
2.
P,
3 2
[ fN
11
:!c.
1&•1
) }\
'
g0M
re1e
2.~
' ~
E
flil
l 2(
11
11·.·
t1"1
J i:t
ude
~·'"
., 4
£ £.1
'111
ll "
li
nte
r '''
"" t1
'!'y G~rru~1t1 q
ont?
fl,
,m.,
2.'
'j
E
fl
ill
Jr
If
I lnl
.t:r
~·ri
I y
0
Oet
e S
ourc
e ll
Her
ence
T
nn
ale
llen
--
----
----
----
----
--··
---
----
---
-f)
/15
:69
T
·1
h11y
g•.l
lJ<
h11y
MO
fol8
h
l!y lj
Oll
hi g
•.oy<
h
ot
w•d
e
I ~now M
ll•"f
t I
15$!
.. 'J
l'..'IU
Im b
ni•
f Im
sl•
P,P
y H'~ c
•M•J
11
·~ ho
!
it's
K~n
It."
~ w
•nl
)Hii
i M
sh
il
ten
ftl
lJ
ten
be~"
te11
m11
• t~no:Mn
te1
.:M
n o
wen
J lt'
llll•
h11
p lf
r.tt
1·oc
h1 m
em•
h•c
hl
nene
k-
:tn~
r.•
·11t
:ha1
..-
orA
mem
P.
~ore 0
1 f
~nw11i !
IOU
~·nwf'lrPt:h,,u
TY':>
r1
11r1
1111
n.1
00
tl
Mlll
•ho
lllO
,,,
.,rn,
.. fu
te
11,,r
neC
111
1m td~r
flll
rn.,
hf'1
e n
it e
llllrn
ll H
ru
1111
1111
1 IQ
ttk ,
,, o
11s
t1.,r
11e
rnPm
l? ~or h
i fl
llff
il!
llP
lle
l111r
n11
~lro
.ln
lurt
lP
r1ar
nr"'
l•11t
nrlt1
1 11
1111
1!1
Sll
•I
ll'!
mll S
h8u
lfll
ffil
l I U
1 li
e
rnem
e he
rP.
mP
.mP
•:f'
.ld•
I ml
?'in
~ ~
rit
ti1 t1om~
rnA
mP
k•h
• m
l!lm
P.l<
('fe
r11P
mef
·J,,m
l"I
n1P
f11t
l;' U
P
n1
P1
1W
Id~
•1.1
r:.1,.,.
.e r.i
h•q
""m
e r1
er1l
l •I
" fo
r n
ri<I
A"
r1~n-:-
t•"t
tfl!
ho
t W
iil A
r
I b
ro•e
II
I w
.,n
l tu
ice
tA
n M
s I!
te
n f
ofl
l
t•~~
l.P.
r t·
en
fl
ll'f
Pr
ten
to
flnl~h
tPlt
"hup
hu
rl.s
o
ver
her
t? h
19PC
t o
ver
hPr
P. S
IAP
P
lhl9
Em
llll
lh
l9 l
n<
ecl
!hi•
(lf
f I!
s $('
~ry
(Em
p"l
br~1J-
rv?
ll
~t~r
i M
ftm.,
ll11m
e w
11IP
:tle
mfl
ti b
i!?
t1"m
e to
cut
tl
All
l" 1
0111
< ,.,t
tht
!'.:
f·l~
mt!f
tn
,,i?
rt. n
vp
r h~re
r·111
m11
q l~•p
1111
1111
1111
1n\'
Nl'JJ
11e
sho
wP
r
tns~rt
httrJ
o i1
15r•
( t n·
·~f
f1f'r
19
h1~u(I
0"P
I h
Pre
t1.,I
T'lo1
t·1~···c t
h-:a
ir·e
tns.
.,i:
t 11
11s
in~:
t>(I
t1.,r1~
lni;
1.-(
I •I
p
wh~t rr
m• ~~for
11 rl
~•r;
·
ftll
ft:l
t -:::11·~··
~'"-
-· ... ~
~.~
2, ~
2.~
2,1
2,
1 2
.3
2.1
2.~
z.~
2.3
2.~
2,3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2,1 1.-'
2,'5
2.
3 2.
1 2
,3
2,,
l.
'3
2.3
2. 3
2,
3 2.
~
1:~
2.3
2.':
2.3
2. 3
2
.3
2 3
?.·~
2.3
2. ~
0 T
.. . 2.~
.,
T ... 1 ~
2. 3
~1
:"
..... •
j. 3
2.'
;-'
~,
:. -.
' ' 1?
:
;• '
_ i,~
r_ _
_ _II
_ ~!
'"9 --
-~'"
-'"~
__
. __
w!J~_ll
TJll!
B!..
__
1>11
_rt1
ef_S
IJ!'
ll_I
:_~
J :
E
EN
tl
le I
f ll
ntq
r In
2
E
llit
l Ir
. If
ll
nlQ
r In
2
2 [
EN
tl }I
lln
\•r
1 pr(
l 3
'i
f P
IM
le If
ti
nie
r ln
2
C
[NII
:?c
. lll
d.1
In
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 " . 2 2 3 4 3 2 ~ ., L 3 2 4 3 2 3 2 2 .. 2 ' '· ' 2 ~ '· T
3 t> ~
El'l
tl 2r
. If
In
l[
lro
Iv
[Ntl
£H
tl
5 f.
[HM
EN
I!
1 [
[Nil
' r
rn11
2 [.
J [W
t1
z J
J!l
ll
' .I
JH
ll
J JN
l1
[ [H
tl
2 J
-11'11
1 J
Jlltl
r .
.1 ri
3
.I
JH11
J JH
M
.J ,I
Nll
4 ,I
,l
!itl
£.
J N
,I
,I
Nll
C. I
,,
J .IN
M
J ,1
Ht1
E
fN
tl
[ [N
II
( (N
II
::'
,I
,IH
I I
EH
ll J
,IN
tl
J JN
tl
2 r
nm
.J JN
ll
£ CN
>I
N
ti
£ !H
I!
r..t
t4 .I
,I
Hll
.1 J
.•r-11·
1 .1
,•N
II
) t
,IN
ll
J ,I
HI!
.J
.•
Nil
I. [N
II
[ H
iii
r.1
r1 J
,IM
tt
It 2
1 ;>
r 1f
If
}f
2t.
11
2L If
Jr
1f
2t
If
Ir
If
:>c
](:
2c Ir.
If
21
If
le
If
It I
f le
If
Ir
If
I c
If
21
1c If
2
c le 2
f le
. If
2t
2r
. 2<
If
2c
2f
' 2
f 2r
If
)<
'k
2<
:'r
Ir II
ll: , ,
If
Ir If
:/1
II
h
. II
" If
~.
11
If
~·
If
" If
:j
~(
21
~prn
I\.'
lt1d
l lr
irn
Iv
l•
<lv
In
Iv
l~ro
In
Iv
IMI
ll:•tn
Iv
In
lpro
Iv
In I
ll"'
Iv
In lvbl~dj
In 1
·1 :l
n 2n
lh
orm
r In
!h
on
or
In 1
Y
In l
vbl.
,dJ
le<
lv l
n
l~<l
v 1n
IM
_il
rro
In
lp
ro
18dv
lr:
irn
tv lvbl~dJ
In I
'•
21
nte
r In
l&
dv
In
l'd
j In
2
n
llld.
1 l1
!11v
In
'" "'
In l
rro
lp
re[l
ly
l&dv
~n
2n
~n
2n
Zn
11!•1
( tn
2n
ll!l
lv I
n
led
'' In
ll
"tlV
.?n
I t't
t1\.'
1 n
lr
>ro
In
2n
ll'
l•IV
In
In
hm
11
Iv
In 1
pn
1
111r
t li
lrq
In
lrr
er:
i Iv
"'
IV
.jQ
-
Dat
e S
eurc
e U
I ter
ence
T
n1ns
let I
on
~:.7i-5.·e9 -G
--;;
;;;;;;
;.---
·--·-
·---
--
·;i;;i)~(J
---
---
9.'
li6
9
Tl!
ntg
hl
ntgh
t nt
n_jn
t u
rtlP
nt
n111
tu
rtl•
hP.
n• M
"mll
nln_
1e t
urt
le n
e n
tnle
11
1rt
lr l
sn t
It
nln
J"
turt
I•
e>•z
z11
nln
.i"
tur-
t le
uri
me
"" r .
.. rl)
pld
qon
• no
H's
net
no
rB
n
not1
11m
11
no
ue
ne
""n
ot.
no
s·n
ol
no s
no
t .. Jn
H•>
r no
w11
y no
r.,n
3t b
u no
r.,nn
t c ~
r
on11
tw
o
F'C
f n
nru
p
lzz"
wn
n s
om
e
schf
'.IO
I b•
is
scM
ol
b••s
•:h
•~nt
l se
kke
n M
MI
sho
w u
r sh
ut
uo
tor1
1 m
1t11
to
y r
er t1
"rn"
tu
rl le
p"w
•r
UfM
llH1
bll
u1n1
1111
tUJ
nn
Wl'l
4 u
nh
ftl
'trf1
Pld
uc
;o t
-:on
""""
d"I
W
f)fi
t;O
m'!
""""
" '!:MT1~
t_,1
1rnr
nt
':'":e
n tS
ome
1i•n
nmt
t1ttm
8 'f
";'f
tiC
h o
ut
wh
at
dotn
g w
ht1t
'<1
In t
he•
.. ~-
yet t
e I
I""'
ye
ah
tl<J
m
you
rMn>
P.
you
mon
yo
u w
nnuf
'll 1:
0fff
1~"7
11m
Pl,ll
J 11
t"m
"' tic
~ l<J
llr
• 1•
1'~11.:.Mn
)PA
P t1
1~e
mo
m
Cll!t~I
Msh
li
<le~
~ o
t sqk
au
C111
I w
•tt 1
;, ~lr
o ll
•:H
e 11
.-.•:•
e
n•n
le tur
tl~
fM•I
nn '
lle•
p
no H
's n
ot
nCI
it.'<
: n
ut
Jo
• e
r
Ml
ridB
veh
icle
ft
f)t
rid
e ro
r
Fer
rid
e pl
zc'!
we
nt
,nm
"'
\.P
OP
IS
dlr
lq
I <
"w 1
1 ll
g•r
slr~n v~htcl~
~irPn ve
tfnc
IP. now.,,~
~{',
i;
,,,.
,,P
lrf
l1P
Ye
n
wo
nt
the
t \''
l'.tn
t ~orne
, •• .,
,tl
··.oi
ne Gumrnyh~111rr.,n'14
',"'ft
r1t
'•0
"1P
r11
1m11
"ty t1
!tm~
r11
tin I
t (E
mpt
.l
t 111
11 tn~ert.
lt''lt
.1 l'
tr•q
~r .
-..~
ct'/
n,
.. n,
.
11 •
r11
tn
h"i•
J fi
r.JI
~ li
ck IP
ti
( vn
ri JA
PP
follt
J W
8nl
J1IH
.~ t
J<.9
llt~
I '\"
\''Il
l
~ll!
~·. ~
2.
~
2.3
2. ~
2.;
2.
'>
2,i
;
2.3
'l 5
2.~
2 3
., .
...... •
2
,3
2."3
,, . ..... • ~.~
2}i
2.'>
2
.'
2.J
2.
J 2,
-,
2.1
i.:s
21
2,
.5
2.3
2. ~
2.1
2.1
2.
-~
' .
4.
, ..
I
2.;
,.
>
2.J
2.
3 ;:
,·;
2,.1
:
2.3
'. ... ·' :2 1
2.3
.,
, 2
3 .. :
1
2 ·1
/4
,,,,
1,4
2.4
-~·
1 ;•_
4 ;_
4
___
1_11 _
__
~-
t~nll
__
s9n_
t1111
__
·--~~~-
!Jl~
ll!_
__
_!~
~.!_
!_'!
P_!!
c:'!
_ ;'
r.1
ti
le H
tn
tt
n•.e
r I
E
EN
H
11
lln
tPr
2 n
E
EN
tl 2e
2
n
4 [
EN
tl 3
r H
lt
ttlV
Jn
J E-
1 N
2r
. If
2n
tt '9
•
f C
NN
~
~
4 " 2 2 2 ' 4 I 4 4 2 2 2 2 J 3 } 2 3 I ~ ' L 3 4 } 4 3 ' 2 ')
4 4
E.J
N
E
EN
H
[ fN
tt
16
E
fllf
tl
8 f
EN
!I
[.J
N
E
EN
tl f
lNtt
E
EH
M
J E
E
Htl
2 ,I
,lr
.fl·l
F.J
N
4 £
EH
tl J
E.J
N
E
CHM
2
£ E
Htl
U
N
J ,IN
N
E
EN
tl 3
E
EN
tt
J JN
tl
E
£.N
tl E
lN
tl
,,,.... 1J
N
} , -
EIJ
N
[.
J N
J E
E
J [ £.)
LI E
J [,I r..1
E
,J J E
JH
tl
EHJ-1
lN
tl
rNtt
rN
tl
r.rm
£.N
il
fNfJ
.I
Hll
(N
II
,, ti
! N
il
,INJ·
J ti
N
IHtl
.I
Nll
.!N
il
f N
il
Jc
2e I
f le
Jf
le I
f le
If
te
If
2
f tc 2
f 2c
2f
le I
f 2c
?c
Jc
2c
2c
H
2r
3c
2r le.
1 r
tc I
f 2
c Jc
2c
tr I
f 2
r 2r
I (
If
2c
le
If
le
If
2c If
Jc
1f
tr I
f le
If
2<
. 2(
Zc
,,
If
le
I'
2f
2r.
1r
2t
....... , 2C
tr.
1r
tr
1(
2(.
2c
H
3n
tin
ter
Jn
Iv
1 ~d•
· ti
nt e
r I p
ro I
v ti
nie
r 1 n
ti
nte
r Jn
tn
I ln
ttor
1 l
ldv
ttnt~r
I 8•1
V 1 p
r-o
Iv
lftd
v tr1
Jc
iro
Iv
tin
ter
1 n
'" ··~
In l
v
2~dt
In l
v
led•
· In
Iv
2n
le
dl
2n
l11d
t '"
lp
rf!p
1•'
lpro
p lv
ln
IV
.'in
:2n
I <:>
no I
n
1 ln
tPr
2n 1
ono
lb~hhen
In
~n
l[lr
cl
IV
1,,.1
., •~
I ~d'
' 11
1 tv
l~dv
211
1·1
le1
lv ly
Jpro
Jv
IM
v lpr~o
ltoro
I•'
,'v
lt
ntp
r 11
1
ll'r
'l I
n
lln
h•r
lp
t')
lprn
Ito
)·
: ln
t;·
I r
t J
·:
-~"
1tnt
p1
In
·~
···b
l ft
•ll
}V
1f•r
ft 11
1 1V
,\ "' N
D11
te
S11
urc1
U
tte
ren
r.e
T
r11n
sl11
t Io
n
-~~S/t10 -
-·r
5·
Cer d
f)ko
t..-
;;~,
,-~-
------
-·-· -
· -7;
;;-,
:;.;
~;;,
-i 1~~
,,,,
cer
doko
"' cn
r ~.
,her
P?
ehu
do
me
~'s' M
d
cnrn
"' otrpl~M
cre
sh
no
do
n t.
ove
n
Ge
rflo
ld doko~
goch
iFO
~f)
rn.:
t
hPre
·s o
nt?
ti1
Nfl!
lrne
I n
ee
d
I w
"nl G~rfl81d
I w
on
t to
fln
f1 f
t I'
m n
ot
ll.11
i tl
,me
ti1e
de
kn
to m
o
~-nmeitte n
e ti
nf'
A m
ite
•nrP
mo
~ore w
,,1
• c·r
·e u
e1t 4
llem
e M~l!I
N11
rne bl~ntpt
"""'"
d~k
ko
Nl!r
nft
tlnv
m I
hP
rP n
:u
tt~me H
•men
f1
11m
l! I
lln•
I 11
lll!
ml!
lne1
ft
ftrn
e ne1rh"''~
,_,,,,q,
, nl!i
cti•
•ui
f '"'
''"
nei<
:tP'"l
'J m
iru
or(
" n..-~''" n
r_, p
eri
I lft
rnft
p~n( ii
flH>
to
o t1
orn
ttPri!
t''!=-
on?.
ttm
n •·
l't.l
'l
ffll
)IOf
l:'~
Jt.
IP l
l•I
n<:1
f1r.t
rn,.
no n
ot n
•'W
Min
o
riot
no
w
oh
no
oh
•Jh
g1J
ne
c1m
l7.u
hn
-;t,
1 t
one
two
th1
..,,~
r(1ur
q0·
1e
Of)J
lq:
c.r
,rh
,._,.
. ..
(lfl
l•n
tl1
-;.
pl °
''J I U
h1lt
qH
-llf
t hl'ltn.~
lhfll
ln.-.
qn1
t
t t~;ue S
.:ore
whi
:>re
·s G
er1
1P
ld7
ft1
f'll1
1._.
•j
OIJ
fn
r lh
'?'
rrtl?
ftl
II h
o1rl
r-11
eme
n(l
Is
h~re
r.ils
11
1ht1
1·~
loo
bl!d
. tq
n't
II
fQO~ et lhi~
lhl;
\Q
O
""'h
"t ·;
th
is?
tnts
d''
Ml!
ll'"
is illrl
y
N11
rne
hug
f·'ft
"1&
(Jn
'f/f
l I .
. 1P
r ~
QO
Nl!m
ll ts
n'l '1
Pre
rt
11m
" cr:
es
r1"'n
" cr
t AC-~
ln(l
l ttl
. tt,
,01,
,.s r
ryin
g·?'
r1
,,rnt
:t"tJ
1E>r
1
nnn1
her
f\
r11ntorryd~ Y
t:th1
f le
tinr,
wet
.er
.,,,~n•
Ol'
Pll
lh
!>
swa1
1ter
en1
.e1·
tis...:
:.uf.o
thi~
Al!
! :;:
.j
2.4
'2
4 2
.4
2 .:1
Z4
2
,J
2.·1
1
.4
2.4
2.
4 :2
,4
24
2
.4
;• 4
~.4
Z.4
2
,4
2.4
2.
·1
2.4
2
,4
2.4
2
.4
2.4
;'
.4
2.4
2.4
'2
.4
2.4
2
.4
2.4
2
.4
2.4
2
.4
:;> 4
~.·I
2.4
2
4 2
.4
:.?.4
i~.4
2 . ..
i 2.
-1
2,.a
7.4
:'.
·I
4')
,4
~
.. 1
Z4
i,
...
2 .:I
LU
; 3 ~
L 5 :: •' 3 3 2 4 3 5 4 6 z :.: 4 ' 3 2 ~ ~I I\
'I
~ .. 2 ;'
JI L
!'"\
l __
,_s1
n.t1
1_11
__
__
W4.
"'d.
Tq
fl!_
!' ___
___ .!!r:.~...!!.~!!!!~!'_
£ 1
. •v'
tl 2c
. If
t n
tro
q 2
n 2
(.J
,IW
ll
IC
tr
lnlr
og
In
.1
JN
tl
2e
l11d
j In
[
fNtl
2
c In
Iv
£
p111
le
If
??".
' ti
nte
r In
(y
7)
E!J
tl 2c
tr
ll
!dv
2v
f.1
.)
E
ti
2r
tr
led
v 1
n Iv
.I
Ntl
le
2r
2h
on
or
In
lNM
2
r tr
lp
ro 1
11
Iv
[Nil
1r
tr
tin
ier
In
£"1t
l tr
tr
lp
ro
Iv
EN
N
2r
If
In lr
rn I
v
CN
t1
7c 3
f 1p
rAp
2p
ro 2
v 1.
"ltl
le
If
11..-
n In
Iv
.1 .1
.J I
JN
tl
le If
1n
lv
bl,
dJ
,11m
1
ctr
1
!nt<
Jrl•
(r1
Jp)
l J
' .1
.J .J
J f
,IN
ll .1
Nt1
,!
NH
,I
Nll
JN
ll
,IN
ll
.!N
II
ltlt
l .1
.1
Nt1
! .
.J .•v
!H
2 E.
J N
E
£H
t1
I JN
tl
.J .!N
t1
5 ,I
,I
Nl'I
2
·I
JN
ll
.J
,IH
ll
E
EN
ll £N
tl
[NII
E.I
N
f.J
tl ~
EN
tl f.
f Ntt
f
[NII
E
F
Ntl
f
Hiii
II
t•
.1
·"""
( I
NI·!
r rn
n r
lNtl
[
!NII
.J
,IN
ll
F. rn
tt
l. r .
1 II
~
le tr
le
tr
~ v le
tr
Ir
II
k u 2c I
f k ~v
k k ~
3r.
" 2c
H
~
v 3c If
le
If
k I(
If
11
2r
~ " "
II
le
If
le 2(
~ z, "
Ir.
II
~
~
le I
r I(
If
2edv
ll1
1g
Iv
lpro
Iv
led
" l
oro
1 p
<1r\
«o
l I
pro
lp
ro
Iv
1n 1
·1bl
edt
.'n
In
Iv
l11d
v In
IV
ln
2
pro
In
t·1
In
IV
In
1·;
In
Iv
In I
PO
Vi
p111
I .
'v
In l
pn-s
s ... 'n
lll
d•1
!pro
l<
1dv
211
IV
l~dv
In
Jn
tin
ier
In
1~r111
lin
ter
In
I '!I<
!\' lln
l ar
l~ll
v In
1 t
r1l1
1r
lln
l P.r
1,·
I h,in
.,1·
I n
I •1M
l!d J
411
1·:
ltn
lpr
tn I
Y
lpro
IV
In
1·:
Ill
1·:
ll'f
O
IV
1[1!
o
Ill
\D
~
___J
I~.!
!_ S
o~~C
_!. ----~ ':!~".!"-----_
__
_!r!
n&I n
_I ~·
'! _
__
~!---
L~I --
_x
9/
I /8
9
T 8
d
ow
n llr~IP. t1
cH
9
2.·1
2
9.'
'l/6
9
T.I!
do
wn
t 1
(1. I~
tic
.• le
Ucl
·te
geH
.o •
"""" h
".'<
;hll
he
lp m
11
ho
9h
tl plee~e
ho
w ft
f'"IP
, IJ
OIJ
t>ow
ftl
P l
!OIJ
?
ho
w d
o lf
tJ•J
1!(•
It
I tn
n·1.
I
Cftn
'I do
"
I r1
1n·1
do
lht'
I
.von
som
P
Im f
ln9
tt
ni
yo
JUIC
9 hO~hh
JUIC
A •
om
.. • o
•·o n
Pn"
11~11111hhnlet
t111
ine
•1"1
.k"
t •u
l au
ll1
1nie
J•.•
l•:e
tl11r
ru1
IUlle
nnm
•1
ll"m
" 1u
Ju n
mn1
1 N
M11
1 too~
tl"m
e t
1111
e
11
,.M
un.
:111
~hltP
rnl)
rne
kir
n'
no d
lln•
e n
o r
ner1
f"
no 4PllnwJ.,~l l!
't J1
!n h
o·;
hll
rn
bdlt"
' f)
ru
rot'l
oh•
hsio
1r
r·ot
h:tt
n ~
PJ..n
"1"
.'1"1
0 ~l
!lll
P. <
jnw
n ~.
et 1
1€' d
ow
n (
It 7
S".
'((8
1
b-•1
1 w
ha
ch
u <
1oln
q7
yAll
owje
r ...
,_ •l
"rrl
P
yo11
Cft
l'
eke
no
&ka
no
Pnru
o;t.
~1
11k1
1I p~n
erne
11.
llr"'
emeM
I b1
1~11
no
Pon
l'3he
1 b"
m '"
"i '1t
"o:.t
i-10
11en
rMn
bP.i
r 11
enct
>3n
l 11
11
(le
n(h
;'n
nflt
u:-t1
,,u
f'llln
)1 <
1ena
1 'I
" £1
a1m
11n
•Its
li
lt)
r11r
qh
no
l M
q "
'11n
t
w11
nt p
le11
~~
I w
1m'
s"m
e
II
hu
rl.•
l[m
ph
)
her~
''"~~
Mam
e hu
q u
se
N11
m11
JU
lt:P.
drl
nl.
f'l11m
11 j
uic
e drtn~
1111
rn11
ste
n1t
tl~rnn p~ ..
do
i~SP(I dl~llH
no t
1l'H
I
r10 m~uu:t
pin w~nl
hnv~ r
oM
t r»
t•ol
!>P
IO
rol'
nt
her"
' t1e
mft
~htt
f "r
P. 1
~o•J
11o
mg?
~j
l:;'
Jl'1
\o'l
l"f"
.. {11
'1. tH~11:1
r"d
S•
J1T
>elh
lr•1
r•!d
Pcw
e:ch
" I
prj
~1P
n
r M
to t
ht"~
'-'lr
t n·1
t•e
ve
1 f•'1
Pu•
~··
h~ t-
.,a. n
=A~
I\
t1'1r1r~ r
iot
hP
P• ~P
' n
h l
11
f•
:ent
io.,
, II
r v
11n w~~r /(
UI ~
fl
fl.'f
tll
l 'ftl~
II f'
ftn
'~·~n·t g~ m
il
tint
•n~1
1 •h
i·~
2,4
2.4
2.4
2
,4
2.4
~~-4
~.4
2.4
2
.4
2.4
2
.4
2.·1
2
,4
2,4
2,
.:t
2.4
2
.·1
2.4
2
.4
2,.:S
2,4
2
.a
2.4
2.4
2.4
2
.4
2 4
2.4
2.
4 2.
4 2.
4 2
.4
2.4
2.4
~~.4
2.4
:'.
,4
24
2
,4
2.4
2
.1
'l.4
'-'.")
. ~1
2 • .:
1
).'•
2.4
7
.4
),<
I
2 . .c
t 2
.4
2 . ..
:l
4 4 0 2 J 3 'j 3 5 5 3 3 3 ? 2 'j 2 3 2 3 4 ' 2 ., 2 ' 2 3 ' 2 2 4 2 ' ' ~ ·I
~ : 'i 4 7
2 5 2 3 4 2
1:11'.
'.9 _
_ sy
n111
11 _
__
__
_ W
!!r d
_ !J
J~ll
_! _
_ -~llE!~~P.1111.C'!_
r E
Ntl
le
1f
IM
V
Iv
E
£N
II
2r
If
l11d
v ?
v .I
JN
tl
2c
tr
2n
lvb
led
J £
fl'l
tl
le Ir
ll
ll'O
Iv
[.
J N
21
I h
lv
bl
Mt
E
FNt1
le
. 21
I l
l<lv
I p
ro I
v
E
£NII
le
21
1111
1'1 lp
ro I
v
E
fHt1
:<'1
. Jr
I M
v 2
P• n
Iv
E
!N
II
It 2
r IM
\' lp
ro
Inv
[ lN
ll
;'1
V
I ~dv <'
pno
;>ev
E
f
!111·1
2
t Jr
I !
!<Iv
:11
r~ .'a
v
E
EN
tl
It 2
r lf
tdv
lp1
0 I
v
EN
ll 2
r II
IM
J IO
I"
Iv
.I
JNl·I
le
H
Iv
l•
:bl"
11
EJ
.1""
11
lr If
1n
l'
Jbl~
dl
E
[Nl·I
2c
I l
id.I
In
.I
JN
tl
IC If
ll
ld'I
In
E
£N
t1
2C
2n
J
,IN
tl
E
EN
tl E
.• J
,1W
t1
I JN
ll
E
ENll
.J JN
l·t
,J ,I
N!'!
J ,IN
11
E.J
N
[J
ti
£ rn
t1
(.I
JWl1
.J
.IN
l1
[.J
" J
JN
tl
E
EN
tl E
EH
N
£ [N
II
[ H
iii
f J
tl
E
[NII
.I
.11
'111
.J
,•N
II
.J .'
NII
.J
.. '
Ntl
,J
.IH
I!
.J .. •H
1·1
IJ
.,1W
l1
r.1
r1 I
,•Hl'I
.J
JHll
J
.•H
tl
l £N
II
E
Hiii
3c
:Zr
~r
Jc.
2c
le If
.~
l le I
f tc
If
It
If
Ir t
r le
If
2
r 2c
2
r 11
" If
lt
21
'Jr
2n
tc 2
r i1
1
t ir
I(
II
b "
I!
Ir
Ir
1f
?c
2r
If
?f If
~[ Ii
~I
Ir
2
r Jr
Jc
. 1c
1
f ,,
In ~v
Zn
2n
IV
2n
1V
In
Iv
ln
•v
2n
Iv
ln lv
bl"
d)
llld
j li
nl•
r lt
nte
r In
11n•~r
In
1n
l'.'b
lMJ
In I
v
In I
'.'
llldV
.'n
le
dv
Iv
Il
l(!•
· 1 i1
1l~r
1'
'
l11d
v tp
11'.l
Iv
ll
lilj
In
In
IC
ll'.l
l•d.
t 1
ro<
s lllllj
In l
f"IS
S
1n
I 'Jt
Jl•r
.lj
IPro
lh
In
IV
l•
df
In l
pn3<
.
ll)t
i<I
·-""'
1l10
1•nr
.?r
'l lh
1m11
•· In
ly
ltw
nu
r In
Iv
'" .
~''J
lp1
0 I
n
ll11l
j l11
\I:
>
.:..·
-~ _S_
!'~r
c1 ----~!'!r.!'n!! _
__
__
__
_!!'
.!n!
ll!t
~!!.
. _
__
-~9
!-_
_ 11
1 _
__
.X !-
!.n9
__
S_1n
_!'!
~---
---~
~'!_
!JJ~
•! _
_ __
P'!'"l!~!_~~lch
Q.'~i/89
T6
U
l' th
ere
).~1
I f
fNtl
21
I r
rPp
lp
1 0
W!IR
di~
W!I
Ot
this
;'
,.1
2 E
Pl~I
le tr
!p
ro I
v
wetc
h I
t 2
,4
2 [
rnr1
le
tr
p
rn
Iv
Y"l
lelr
u n
e w
P·r
e d1
J1ng
It.
rh
1h
t7
2,4
4
J JN
!'!
le
II
lt•q
Iv
9
/27
16
9
GFW
O
SP
e l'
.lis
SPP
1.ht
5 2.
5 2
E
Hit
t le
II
lp
ro I
v
Sel
nto
Sel
y"
mo
nec
hlll
t11
St
'i M~elreMygon~ t
o s
le"p
2.~
6 J
J:ir
1 3c
II
l"
dv
Zn
Iv
"'""
di~
WM
! t hi~
2.5
2
2 E
H
lM
le
II
lpro
Iv
1
(1/4
/69
T
.9
Ele
nz f
ven
chfl
n ur
u,11
1 or
E
,·en
f1 [v
en nol~y O
il 2
.5
'5 [1
.J
N
3t
21
IMI
lh·1
nor Jnlv~tedf
fl!l
nz n
omu
E·o
en l
o ~rink
:2,5
2
I.I
N
2c
In I
Y
fl.,n
zl n
<:>m
u fw
tn t
o d
rin
k
2.5
2
1..1
N
2c
In 1
·1
b1>M
11n
u 2.
S
2 l
CNN
le
It
lp
rrJ
Iv
cer
yoo
2,'5
2
[ f'
ltl
le If
lp
rn I
n
[v!l
n ur
us11
I n
ot
Ev!
ln n
ol n
ots
y
2 5
J L
I N
le
2f
l"•:I
Y
In
lvb
lMJ
~en u
rus"
t t'.
en n
ois
y
2.5
2
2 J
.INN
I c
II
In
lvb
l!ld
f Y~n u
nis
"I M
t ¥
en n
nt
no
isy
2
.5
3 E
J N
It
21
1111
1" I
r,
lvb
led
f t·
en uru~ai 40
tM
• i~
nn1
«4 t
fmp
h)
Z.'5
J 2
.J ,I
Nll
2
c II
In
IV
lv
bl•
dj
tcor
e n
nn
e lh
t< m
inP
:.1
.5
2 E
J N
21
2
rro
tl
"m"
c,,,.
2
,5
2 E
[N
tl
'](
}n
t1"m
" it
"il
tler
n"
hlJI
t. s
2
.5
J .J
JN!l
Ir
II
In
lv
ble
dl
t•"m
" t
en y
11ru
2.
5 J
J J'
lll
~c
2n I
v
tl"m
" o
o"t
t1o
ko7
N11r
n11
leets
wti
p1·e
7 2
.5
J ,I
JHfl
Z
r II
tl
nlr
np
2n
tlnm
11 u
nn
et
no
t r1
11m
e no
t n
ois
y
2,5
J
~
[J
N
tc 2
r l"
d"
In l
vb
lMI
mtr
u ~or~e
see hor~e
2.5
2
EJ
N
2c
In t
v
OK
fle
nz 1
11s1
1 M
nrn1
1 O~
. E
v~n ~hoot
M11
me
2,'
i "
[.J
N
31'
II
tin
ier
:>n
Iv
Set
nlo
S•t
y11
St.
+;~i
U'-'
2,
c;
2 .J
JNr-1
2
r Zn
ll
Jrtl
erhl
'ln
~ho<
l"i
111.
tlP.
turt
le w
ent
2.5
3
EJ
JWl1
ll
2r
lh'1
nor
In l
vb
llld
j
y11r
u "'
"""
to d
o m
ine
2."i
2
[.J
N
le I
f IP
lll
IV
10
17
/!1
9
GFW
O
nont
1tt
rwl
drh
1H
ng
not
. 2.
5 4
E,I
JWN
le
II
l"
•IV
IY
l(
.'l/F
J.'!1
9 G
F\11
0 gom~n&s~t n
o\
sorr
y n
ot
2.5
2
[J
~l
I c
II
IMY
In
H
em11
n o,
·pr
., r
, .. ~
E
l'Ntl
2c
. IM
I In
H
em11
n ow
11rl
Hem
l'ln
Pnd
2
.5
2 J
,IN ti
2
t In
Iv
1
0/J
lit
l9
GF\
llll
~O"'
"l l
jO
H's
ct
&P
j lf
mp
h)
;:,s
2 J
,IN
tl
ll I
I Iv
lv
bll
ldl
oil
m11
9osh
2
5
I E
EN
t1
3f
21
nte
r lp
ro
Ol'B
n o
no
r 2.
5 2
E
EN
tl 2
r In
IV
se
e y
nu n
gftl
n 2
.5
J E
[N
t1
2r
If
llld_
I l1
wo
Iv
lhen
k Y
CIU
2.5
I
[ £N
l"I
It If
lp
ro I
v
lrir
~ o.
r \r
~11I
:.1
."i
I [
lNtl
2C
. Ir
tc
nn
j 2n
1
1/6
.'6
9
GF\
110
b"b
uru
b~th
bllt•
bh>
Mlh
l.
5
2 [.
J N
21
Zn
1
1/9
.'6
9
C·FW
O
thll
nk l
j(ll
• 2.
S
I E
[N
H
IC If
I l
'.-0
, .,
1111
9 I~
g~r~~CIP
2.'3
J
E
lHll
It 2
f lp
l'!t
In
Iv
11
/25
/89
T
.10
e
turt
le
2.6
2 r
rm1
Ir
If
lert
In
ere
(Jl
to
lle
tek
e lh
11t
} r,
3 J
,rrn
1
le.
I(
!pro
1v
ew C
l'.lfll
t! o
n
2.r.
2 E
£N
II
21
21nt
f'.l'r
b1
1m
gun
·:.r.t
in'1
:l.
l'.I
I I
" If
11
ntll.
:"'r/n
no
b11m
b11m
gu
n-=.
,,,,,,..
, 2
6
I Q
H
,,
II
1onl
l tl1
1ne h
en .
,r•
(. I l
'J"
11
f·:,
n lh~t h
<rn
,pll
l 2
.fl
3 .J
,IH
ll
2<
21
lh.a
nor
lt'I
O I
n Iv
l1
11nz
~o~hl
[Y!l
nM
I 2;
6 :.1
IJ
ti
2r
2n
fl11n
z <
hM
t [v
"n ~
.ho"
.'11
. 2.
f:i
2 f
I N
21
In
I•
~ani •
J'1rtJ
E'
'"" <I
O 2
;6
2 6
IJ
II
zc Zn
Ber
1zi 'l"
'" [•:"" (
1()
2.
6 2
l.J
ti
2c
2ri
Mom
Q
IJfl
o;
(1U
rid
2/J
I
F lH
~I
11
ltnl~r:ouo
-.&>
bo':.
ttl
no1n
o•1
t~I
"" 0
1'111~ M
l 2
,6
' J
.•H
tl
21
1111
\o'
VI '
~.!!._ ~
.!l!
_c:!
---~~!·~E• _
__
__
_ _!~nll~tl_
~l!n
__
__
_ -~9
! __
__ '::!
! ___
_ X_
L!'!
ll _
_ !'
•"-'-~--
--~!
'1!_
!1~1
1!_ _
__
Per~ _!_
f_Ji
p~-~
1
1/2
5/6
0
T I
•)
bl's
h1 y
et t
t1
hlll
do
2.l
l 3
.J ,I
NH
2
c In
Iv
bo~•np s
••ru
bo
x1nq
do
2
.6
2 [.
J N
2c
In
Iv
b
u 4
1!1t
te
Yeh
tcl'
l ~o
2.6
3
,I
JHM
2
t In
Iv
bye
b4e
2
,6
1 H
N
If
ll
nt1>
r C
en
t ~ee t
t7
2,6
4
4 E
E
HH
2
e 2
r 2
pro
2Y
C
en 1
~ee, t
111m
e<:>
2
,6
4 E
(H
M
~c It
In
I p
ro 2
v
Co
n 1
~
2.6
2
E
[Nil
le
It
lpro
tv
co
nt
we
2.6
'
E
[Ntl
2c
It
l.,
11V
2Y
..
rer
hM
htl
cer
wen
l 2
,6
2 2
E.J
JWtl
It
It
In
1 vb
! n
dt
com
e ~r~
rQm
P.
hP.r
e 2
.6
2 E
E
HN
le
It
la
dV
ly
tn
m!'
he
re
2.f
\ 2
4 E
E
Ntl
It I
f ll!
ldY
ly
com
11 o
n
l.6
2
[ E
Ntl
le It
lp
rPp
Iv
d
er
lurl
11>
there
tu
rl.I
P
2.6
2
E
£NH
le
It
le
dv
In
d
•s t
>tr
d \h
i• t
nrd
2
.6
2 ~
E
EN
tl
It I
f lp
10
In
d
is b
o11l
lh
l• b
oa
t 2
.6
2 r
[Ht1
It
Ir
lp
rn I
n
dis
Is
bo11
t th
••'"
t>o
et
:2.6
3
[ E
NH
2c
Ir
lp
ro I
n
Iv
dis
lu
rllo
I.
hi•
turt
le
2.6
2 [
[Htl
le
Ir
!p
ro I
n
ft r
e d
nk
n M
h1
>re
fire
wh
ere
Pll~S
here
2
.6
4 E
J N
le
3r
I tn
tro
g I
n 1
PUG
S 1 p
ro
fire
w11
lch
2.6
2
[ £H
M
2e
111
Iv
for
me
.lu
tre
2.6
3
E
FNt1
le
2r
lpr1
>p
l!>ro
In
!n
m o
ver
lr
te11
d o
ver
2
.6
2 [
EN
tl
It I
t In
I p
rep
lren
i;'o
t"'c
op
fr
lt>
nd R
ollo
cop
2.6
2
£ E
Ntl
2
t Zn
g
ot
It
2.6
2
E
[Ntl
le
If
!p
ro I
v
~et
.tut
r.e
Mre
·s .
tutc
e 2
,6
2 E
J ti
le
It
li
nte
r 1 n
h
11
ilet
ru 1
11!11
1111
tt
s
tn l
hero
N11
me
2.6
5
J JN
tl
2c
tn
Iv
he·r
-b
oro
2
.6
3 :;
[ E
Htl
2
t "
In
!pro
Iv
hP
lf' 1
'109
2.6
2
r EN
ti
le ir
!p
ro I
v
11~1
ne11
g"
gh
lnd
e H
enoe
n d
ied
2.
f•
4 E
J ,1
W11
2
c H
In
l1
Mrt
H~rnen 4
"'· '
e
11en
1111
1 d
o
2 l'i
3 ]
EJ
,IW
tl
2c
In
I•·
t1J!'
re r
t1n
her~ l
hl!
r"
2/>
2
E
f.NH
21
20
d'i'
t1Pf
~ Q
Ol
2.l'i
2
f (N
II
Ir
H
lp!"
O
Iv
hl!•
e t1
orn1
1 2
6
2 ~
f. H
iii
le If
lp
ro I
n
ht.J
re 1
1nfn
e O
Ftn
2.6
3
[.J
N
2r
tr
le<
lv ;
>n
her
A·•
llP
'l 2.
l'i
3 F
E
Ntl
2
t 1
f '"
"" I
n
Iv
hn
ne4
•J~
l1 e
hnro;~y
do 1
1. 2.
l'i
3 u
tl
Zr
In I
v
t•l".'
Shl d~~ I
I ".I
I w.,~ 1
1bl'l
•o
'10
'"101
~••
j 2
.6
3 I.I
_1
Wl1
2c
lo
Iv
I
rftn
2.
fJ
2 I
£Ntl
le
It
lp
10
Iv
I
rnn"
I ~~e
2.l'i
4
.!
[ ff
'ltl
2
r 2
r I '
Id'"
1 p
ro 2
v I
cnn
·t s
~e 11
~e 1
.hl9
:Z
."i
6 [
EN
tl
3r
2r
I !Id
I , .,
,1'J
2pl
0 2Y
1
cen
·t S
•I!
tMI.
!to
ts
2.6
6
f 1N
t1
')•
4t
I "II
'"
1 pr"
D .
2pro
2v
1 do
n"I
w""'
It
2.6
5
F. fH
ll
i.-Jr
I e
dv ;
·pr-
o 2v
I
go
2
.6
... f
rn11
I<
. tr
!p
ro I
v
f IH
I!
Ir It
lp
l"O
I•
· I
gC1 up
~l1!
1rs
luro
t I'
I fJC
1 •J
11~l
rUr'
9 "'
12
V
i 4
F IY
/11
2.-·
2r
l"d
'' h
i 1[
1roi
IV
I
go
t n
tu1-
llP
.2
,.,
5 E
fN
ll
?i
2r
!&rt
1 n
l1
oro
IY
1 I.I'
'',,
:2,.,
4
4 E
F
Ntl
,,
2
r tn
2D
r ..
Iv
I ~n
1~ 1
11''1
2.6
3
f I.
Ht!
11
2
r li
ntP
r •r
ro l
o
I <.
1·~
2.l
l .,
z E
H
iil
" "
IJ.ir
n Iv
I •~
I! 1
u1U
e 2
.6
3 £
I ..
ti
,., "
In 1
1:1n1
Iv
1 ~MTV
~-"'
·' r
Etl
ll
2i
" In
lp
rn I
V
1 tl
''l
ljO
ll
~h
:. £
EH
ll
" 2r
2(
.tfl
1 1Y
-.t>
1
w,n
1 p
11pP
r 2.
r'o
"I [
I Hll
2r.
H
1ri
l1:-i
r11
IV
'a-.
Det•
S
..n
:e
Utt
enin
ce
Tre
nel
etle
n ~ _
.!:!
! _
_!_ !-
.5
S .. tB
IC
Wen
lT1f
PH
P
erte
ef
Sp
HC
ll
11
72
5/i
9
T 1
0 I
wa
nt
to
2.6
3
E
ENM
IC
2r
lpre
plp
ro I
v
I'm g
ol n
g ac
lio
n
2,6
5 E
EN
M
2c I
f In
lp
ro I
v
I'm g
oing
act
ion
dis
I'm
go
ing
act
ion
th
is
2,6
6
E
ENM
2c
2r
1n 2
pro
Iv
I'm R
ot>o
cop
2;6
3
3 E
EN
M
2c If
In
lp
ro I
v
I'm s
unk
2;6
J
3 E
£N
M
2c I
f ll)
f'O 2
V
lku
zo
I'm g
oin
g (
Em
ph l
2.6
2
J JN
M
2c
2V
11 t
ha
t lig
ht?
2
.6
3 E
EN
M
2c I
f 1n
!p
ro I
v
lttl
Nem
e tt
hu
rt.
M911
111
2;6
J
J JN
M
le t
r 1n
lvb
lad
J Ju
nl d
ll ne
tt
's 1
2 O
'clo
ck.
tsn
·t I
t 2
;6
J J
JNM
2c
tr
1n l
tag
lv
Junl
ye
tte
ko
re
12 d
o th
is
2.6
4
J JN
M
2c t
r 1
pro
In
Iv
Ken
goe
s like
th
is
2,6
!I
E
ENM
2c
2f
ledV
In
lp
ro I
v
Ktn
he
lp m
e 2;
6 J
E
ENM
2
c tr
!p
ro I
n I
v
Ke
nw
a7
w
ha
t ab
out
k1n7
2
;6
2 J
JNM
IC
tr
In
!p
ert
ko
ko J
en
tt ·e
he
re (
Em
P!.
/dla
U
2.6
2
4 J
JNM
1c
tr
lpro
Iv
kore
boa
t th
is b
oa
t 2;
6 2
EJ "
le t
r In
lp
ro
kore
ke
n
this
ken
2
;6
2 J
JNM
IC
tr
IDf'O
Iv
ko
rt M
ama
thlg
Mam
a 2
;6
2 J
JNM
le
II
lpro
Iv
kore
mlJ
u
this
wa
ter/
ka
rt m
tzu
2
;6
2 J
JNM
IC
tr
In
tp
ro
!cor
e ne
t th
is I
sn't
2
;6
2 J
JNM
le
If
lpro
Iv
kore
na
nl?
w
ha
t's
this
?
2.6
2
2 J
JNM
2
f lt
ntr
ov 1
pro
!c
ore
turt
le
this
tu
rf.I
t 2
,6
2 E
J N
le
tr
In l
pro
ko
rt y
ett
e
do t
his
2
.6
J 4
J JN
M
IC I
f lp
ro '"
kore
yor
lde
read
th
is
2;6
J
J JN
M
le I
I lp
ro I
V
kore
yon
d9 p
lee
tt
reed
th
is p
ltlllt
2
.6
4 EJ
"
le 2
r 1
ra l
pro
Iv
kOU
Ita
l th
us
hu
rts
2,6
3
J JN
M
2f
I adv
I Y
blll
dj
kow
are
cha
tta
ne
It's
bro~en, I
sn't
It
2;6
!I
J JN
M
tc t
r lt
ag I
V
1111
see
Mam
a l!!
lt 's
seA
Mem
o 2
;6
3 E
EN
M
Jc I
I In
lp
ro 2
v le
t·s
go
2;6
3
E
ENM
2c
11
tp
ro 2
v le
t'S g
o M
ama
2,6
4
E
ENM
Jc
II
In l
pro
2v
let'
s g
o T
V
2.6
4
2 E
EN
M
Jc 1
1 In
to
ro 2
v lig
ht
on
2.6
2
E
ENM
le
II
In !
pre
p
Mam
e ch
Oda
l M
om w
an
t 2
.6
2 E.
J N
le
II
In t
vbla
dJ
11am
a ru
n 2
;6
2 E
EN
M
2c
llld
j In
M
em
eh
etp
me
2,6
3
E
ENM
2c
II
lpro
In
Iv
Na
me
ptc
tlre
2
.6
2 E
EN
11
2c
2n
Mam
a se
g11s
htte
M
ama
ttn
d
2;6
4
J JN
M
2c
In I
V
Nam
e ts
uke
la
Mam
a p
ut
It o
n 2
.6
4 J
JNM
2C
In
IV
N
am
aya
t.te
N
em
ed
o
2.6
3
J JN
M
2c
In t
v
Nam
11yo
nde
Ma
me
re'ld
2
;6
4 J
JNH
2c
In
Iv
mlr
uT
V
see
TV
2
.6
2 E
J N
2
c In
IV
m
o h
lto
rl
one
mo
re C
pers
on l
2.6
2
J JN
N
le I
I le
dv
In
Mom
som
e m
ore
?
2.6
3
E
ENM
3c
2a
dJ
Iv
my
wa
tch
2
,6
2 E
EN
N
le I
I In
tp
ro
nin
ja t
.urt
te
2.6
2
E
ENM
2c
2n
no
boo
m M
om
2
.6
2 E
l N
2
f lin
ter
lon
o
oh t
fin
d It
2,6
4 E
EN
H
IC 3
r ti
nte
r 2
pro
Iv
oh lt
11
oh h
urt
s 2
.6
2 IJ
N
le
11
!In
ter
Iv
oh n
o M
erna
Rob
ocap
2.
6 3
E
EN
N
2c I
f ti
nie
r 2n
oh
she
shln
oh
ph
oto
gn
ph
2
;6
2 IJ
N
le
11
tin
ter
In
onelc
11 h
at t1
1ru
Is ln
91de
Mn
sto
m11
eh
2.6
5
J JH
N
2C I
I !h
on
or
In I
v
open
bu
ple
l!IH
op
en l
ht
Ylll
llcle
p19
11H
2
.6
3 E
J E
WH
2c
II
Ila
In
IV
'° os
htko
ho
n ur
tn11
llon
2.6
2
J JN
M
tc 1
1 !h
on
or
In
......
Dat
e S
ourc
• --
----
--I
1/25
/1:1
9 T
I~•
Ut!.
!''.
!'"~
__
__
__
___
_ !_r
.!'ns
lntt
11n _
__
__
~9
!..
_ ~'!_-
_!
_L~_n_g _
_ s9n_
!n_!
'__ --~_!'rd !
Jl!'
n __
_!'!
rt
a o
f S!JHC~
f'ftp
ft w
h" c~u gnin~?
2,r
) 5
[ EN~I
2l
2r
2o
ro I
v
pic
ture
ft
cn
r 2
.f)
3 [
EN ti
?
r If
h
1rt
2o
ple
"se N
"m"
2.f..
i 2
[ E
Nll
f (
If
Ifft
In
11ob
oc op
"'"' te
do
Po
ho
top
2.
f.
3 r.
J ,!
Wit
2c
In
Iv
roto
ot h
ere
11e
me
2,,
3
E
FNl1
Zc
1f
le
dv
2n
shu~h
trni
11•r
2
.6
2 2
E
Elm
le
If
ll
nlA
r In
91
Mt.,
•n 1
·nt o
)ft
n 16
Mre
tE
n1ph
/11
1el
) 2
.6
3 [.
J N
2<
If
l"
dv
In
Iv
Sf'.l
"!"l'h
.,t-:-
· 2
,,
I E
FN~I
21
lnd
v !
pro
lh
l<
nn11
ptc
ture
2,
,,
3 F
1.
Ntt
2c
tr
I p
ro Z
n I t
g~1
'hnr~
2.6
2
6 [
FNll
:Zr.
2n
l>u~
.,11
11 M
nmn
tt111
1u1
ure
d I
t 2,
,, 4
J JN
ti
2c
tn I
v
turt
le m
iru
tu
rtle
~P.
~ 2.
6 2
f.J
N
2c
In I
v u
h o
h n
o 1.
her
e 2.
6 3
[ EN
N
31
llll
lv ti
nte
r !p
ro
wan
l to
2
6
2 E
C
HM
h
1f
lpr"
p I
v
'l"!ll
S In
here
7
whn•·~ In
l'll
!r•?
2
,6
3 3
[ rH
tl
le.
31
lftd
Y
lpr"
p I
pro
Iv
w
n•d
1d
ts
W!l
li.h
\h
tS
2.6
2
[ E
NI!
1 c
If
lpro
Iv
W
h11I
~Ol
nt:r
? 2
,,
3 [
[Ntl
Ir.
If
!p
ro I
v
wir
e w
e·o
e~ f
or \
hi!
win
•" .
2
.6
2 f..
J .1
w11
Ir
rr
tn I
on
rt
y111
1 B
"nzi
111
1n1
Y""
[vft
n w
ill
<to
I\
2;6
3 [l
.J "
2c
If
ltn
ler
In I
v
IJ"'-'P
. ~or
e do
lh
l9
2.rJ
3
2 .J
JNH
le
If
I p
rep
h'
yet
te l1
11m
11
do N
'!m
" 2.
6 3
3 .J
.rrm
2c
In
Iv
y~u c
omf"
her
e 2.
6 3
E
[NII
le
2r
lnd
v !
pro
Iv
~
00
APPENDIX C
RCLES FOR CALCULATING MEAN LENGTH OF UTTERANCE AND UPPER BOUND
Source: .4 Fkst Language, R. Brown, 1973, Harvard University Press, p. 54.
100
1. Start with the second page of the transcription unless that page involves a
recitation of some kind. In this latter case start with the first recitation-free
stretch. Count the first 100 utterances satisfying the following rules.
2. Only fully transcribed utterances are used: none with blanks. Portions of
utterances. entered in parentheses to indicate doubtful transcription, are
used.
3. Indicate all exact utterance repititions (marked with a plus sign in the
records~. Stuttering is marked as repeated efforts at a single word; count the
word once in the most complete form produced. In the few cases where a
word is produced for emphasis or the like (no, no, no) count each
occurrence.
4. Do not count such fillers as 0101 or o.b, but do count no. yeah, and .bi.
) All compound words ( two or more free morphemes), proper names, and
ritualized reduplications count as single words. Examples: birtbday,
ra<.."·.J.-e~v-boom, ""'.boo-c.boo, quacJ •. ·-quac.A·, nig.ht-nig.bt, poc1·etboo.k, see saTV·.
Justification is that there is no evidence that the constituent morphemes
function as such for these children.
6. Count as one morpheme all irregular pasts of the verb (got, did, went,
saw J. justification is that there is no evidence that the child relates these to
present forms.
7. Count as one morpheme all diminutives ( doggie, 0100101ie) because these
children at least do not seem to use the suffix productively. Diminutives are
the standard form used by the child.
8. Count as separate morphemes all auxiliaries (i~ . .bave, w1JJ. can, must,
would). Also all catenatives: gonna, wanna, .bafta. These latter counted as
separate morphemes rather than as going to or want to because evidence is
that they function so for the children. Count as separate morphemes all
101
inflections. for example, possessive (s), plural (s), third person singular (s),
regular past (d), progressive {i~).
9. The range count follows the above rules but is always calculated for the
total transcription rather than for 100 utterances.