__ E: 3:; 22:2; ___ mmm . .0 . . o 3.. . .. 'm a . 4‘. \ on. Q oh u. o 1. ‘ '- . .. \ _ a. . p. s .. o AKL 5 I. A J; “I ‘. C' O'- ‘ ‘3‘ k .31-. \f-‘x. Q ‘1: A I. r s. .5 2 . .A g G«: n... ‘ w“ ~. o I. by I; O. . Y C 8 m , .. .- os . ‘ a .. a a I. WQ t I. . s . D9 . d .— a. . . ~ . a. . J . . A . . .u I ~ . . y. I o . .II .‘,; 1 : ; x: a u a... u a. n}. or .6 A STUDY OF ENGLISH SOUNDS DIFFICULT FOR FILIPINO STUDENTS By Nobleza Castro éguncion A THESIS Submitted to the College of Communication Arts of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Speech 1956 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author wishes to express her sincere thanks to Dr. Hugo J. David, under whose helpful encouragement, constant supervision, and unfailing interest this investi- gation was undertaken. She is also greatly indebted to Dr. Charles Pedrey and Dr. Max Nelson for their valuable advice and constructive suggestions which mere instrumental in the final completion of this study. The writer is very appreciative of the valuaole assistance and encouragement received from Dr. Wilson B. Paul, Head of the Department of Speech at Michigan State University. Sincere gratitude is also extended to Gordon Thomas and Germaine Holmes for their assistance in analyzing the recordings. *********‘k ii A STUDY OF ENGLISH SOUNDS DIFFICULT FOR FILIPINO STUDENTS By Nobleza Castro Asuncion AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the College of Communication Arts of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Speech Year 1956 Approved /‘ .' »c;fa . if g 2~+»~a.;\ Nobleza C. Asuncion ABSTRACT A Study of English Sounds Difficult for Filipino Students The purpose of this study was to determine which English sounds are difficult for Filipino students to produce. T enty-three Filipino students at Michigan universities partici- pated as subjects in this study. All but one of them had finished a baccalaureate degree and were working towards either a master's or a doctorate degree, or were working under the Exchange Visitors program of the State Department. The sound systems of seven major Philippine dialects were compared with the English sound systems to determine which sounds of the English language are not found in or are different from each of these dialects. A three-part reading list administered to the subjects consisted of isolated words, simple sentences and an informal interview, and included all vowel and consonant sounds of English, three diphthongs, the stressed and unstressed vowel combinations, and consonant blends. The list was read by each subject and recorded on tape. The recordings were then analyzed by the writer with the help of two advanced students in Speech Correction at Michigan State University. In this analysis of the subjects' production of English sounds, deviations from General American in their production of English sounds were classified as iv substitutions, distortions, omissions or additions in either initial, medial or final positions in the word. Broad phonetic transcription was used. The authoritative standard was Kenyon and Knott, A Egonouncing Dictionagy gf American English. Within the limits of this study, the following conclusions seem to be warranted: 1. There are certain sounds many Filipino speakers of English do not produce correctly: those that are not found in the dialect sound systems and those which are found but are produced differently from English. 2. The Filipino speaker of English does not articulate some English sounds clear enough to be readily understood by the native Speaker of the language. 3. Dialects do affect to a certain extent English sound production and intonation. 4. Generally Speaking, all the subjects tended to show the same kind of tifficulties in the production of certain sounds regardless of the dialects they spoke. 5. Vowel sounds are miSpronounced more frequently than consonant sounds. 6. Substitutions and distortions are the most common errors of a Filipino Speaker of English. 7. A Filipino speaker of English seems to be more or less influenced by the Spelling of an English word in his pronouncing of it so that he produces the sound which the symbol represents in his native tongue. 8. The use of the unstressed vowel appears to be unknown to the Filipino Speaker of English; he emphasizes or stresses all of the sounds present in a given word or sentence; he tends to transfer the intonation pattern of his dialect into English. In connected discourse, his speech therefore lacks smoothness and rhythm. 9. Spanish influence is evident in most of the major dialect sound systems and affects the production of English sounds by the Filipino speaker. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTIONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0... 1- BaCkground 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 Purpose 0 O I O I O O I O O O O I O I O O I I O O I O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O 10 Procedure 0 O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O C O O 1-0 II. RESULTS.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODOOOOOOOO0.00.0.0... l6 Explanatory Statements .......................... 16 Errors in Production ............................ 18 Vowels ..................................... 18 Diphthongs ................................. 24 Consonants ................................. 25 Consonant Blends ........................... 34 Comparison of Sound Systems ..................... 37 Rank and Order of Frequency of Errors ........... 41 III. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS............................... 44 Summary ......................................... 44 Conclusions ..................................... 49 BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................. 50 APPENDIX A................................................ 52 APPENDIX B................................................ 56 APPENDIX COO-OOOOOOOOOOOOOO...0.0.0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0. 60 vii CHAPTER I BACKGROUND OF STUDY, THE PROBLEM AND PROCEDURE The Philippines is a country of many languages. These came with the varied pe0ples who migrated to the Islands. As these people settled down, they retained many of their differences especially in their modes of expression. Today it is estimated that eighty-seven languages or dialects survive.1 Of these eighty-seven, the eight major dialects are Tagalog, Ceb- uano, Ilocano, Hiligaynon, Bicol, Samar-Leyte Bisayan, Pampango and Pangasinan. Each dialect has its own sound system but not one of them is completely different from any or all of the others. ”All are similar in grammatical and phonetic structure; all are closely related members of the Malayo-Polynesian family."2 Although all Philippine dialects are of the same phonetic basis, no two are sufficiently alike to be intelligible to a person who knows only one of them. The Philippine dialects are considered primitive in that they do not contain words for and ”have never been used to express the complex social concepts of our modern social, economic and political systems.” l UNESCO-PHILIPPINE Educational Foundation, Fifty Years of Education For Freedom,_l90l,,195l, (Manila: National Printing Co., 1953), p. 63. 2 Clifford H. Prator Jr., Language Teaching in The Philippines. A Report, (Manila: United States Educational Foundation in The Philippines, 1950), p. 2. Ibid, Since the Philippines has been occupied in most of its modern history by foreign powers, the language used in the government, school, business and society has been the mother tongue of the successive occupying countries. Spanish was used for nearly four hundred years from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries and English has been used from 1898 to the present time. Today the official languages of the Islands are English, Spanish, and Tagalog, with the first being preferred by most of the peOple especially the educated. Since the Americans occupied the Islands in 1898, the language of instruction from the elementary to college level has been English. The Language Problem Since English is not the native tongue of the Filipinos, its widespread use has contributed to the unusual language problem of the country. Prator says in his report: The language problem in the Philippines has traditionally been a composite of several closely related questions, what is to be the language of the home, national language, the language of instruction. The question of the language of instruction appears to be the most difficult phase of the total problem and the one tgward the solution of which least progress has been made. Use of English in the Philippines English first came to be used when the American Army Opened seven schools in Manila on August 13, 1898. Each school was under the direction of a soldier who was assigned to teach English. America's avowed 4 Ibid., pp. 8, 9. 3 intention in her occupation of the Islands was to prepare the people for self-government. Education was conceived as a prerequisite to the deve10pment of social and political reSponsibility in the individual. The curriculum of the schools first set up by the government of Spain and revised by the revolutionary government was completely modified. Since America's aim was to inculcate democratic concepts, it was necessary to give equal chances of education to rich and poor alike. It was believaithat a prOper system of public education was fundamental to the preparation for essential independence of the Filipinos. With this thought in mind, the Philippine Public School System was launched. Act No. 74, passed by the Philippine Commission on January 21, 1901, marked its real beginning. The number of languages in the Islands presented a problem to the authorities concerned. According to the UNESCO report: The urgent need fiar a common language, for textbooks and trained teachers dictated the decision to conduct primary education in the English language. Another reason for using English was that in teaching a people democracy, it was wise to use the language to whflzh most democratic principles were native. With the arrival of more American teachers in 1901, English was on its way to become the language of instruction. Official encouragement was given to the use of English when in 1907 the schools were gradually required to use it as the language of instruction. This policy was in keeping with the primary objectives of the American government in the Philippines as enunciated by President McKinley's Philippine policy, 5 UNESCO-PHILIPPINE Educational Report, Op. cit., pp. 99, 144. one of which was To supplant the Spanish language by making English the '1ingua franca' for the Far East, the basic language of in- struction and the medium of intercourse and communication. The American teachers were distributed in all parts of the Islands. Their methods of teaching and the materials they used were practically identical with those being used by teachers in the United States. They were teaching English as if it were the native tongue of the natives. Advantages of the Use of English. The use of English as the language of instruction in the Philippines has shown distinct advantages. It was one way of unifying the Filipinos during the American regime. The UNESCO report states: The fact that the child of the laborer could learn the language of the courts and of the government in the public schools carried the Filipinos another long step forward on the road toward self-respect which had been denied them for years.7 Prator adds in his report: Because of their knowledge of English, Filipinos were able to swim in the currents of interna ional scientific, technological and cultural development. Disadvantages. A majority of Filipino school children do not go far. beyond the first four grades of elementary education. Many drOp out at the end of the first two years. The average Filipino child who first 6 Ibid., p. 99. 7 Ibid. 8 Prator, op. cit., p. 7. S enters school at the age of seven has had no previous background in the English language. When he goes to school, he is taught the fundamentals of life in a language entirely foreign to him. At home and on the play- ground he speaks his native tongue. Then at the end of the second year he drOps out of school for economic reasons. The law providing for com- pulsary education up to Grade IV can hardly be enforced due to lack of funds. Ideas which his teachers have tried to inculcate in his young mind have not taken root because the child did not have a grasp of the language in which it was expressed. The time he Spent in school did not benefit him as much as it would have if he had a working knowledge of the language in which these concepts were taught. The child had spent most of his time ”devoting most of his efforts to learning a distorted smatter- ing of a language for which he has little need and which he will probably soon forget.”9 English in High Schools and Colleges. In the secondary schools and colleges the use of English as the medium of instruction cannot be questioned. Prator believes that Neither Tagalog nor any of the vernaculars can as yet be used to communicate the concepts of most technical fields of Study. Tagalog will presumably never possess in the natural sciences or even the humanities a body of litEBature even remotely comparable to that existing in English. 9 Ibid., p. 13. 0 Ibid., p. 12. The lack of books and teaching aids in the national language which could be used for instructional purposes in high school and college further justifies the use of English as the language of instruction in these levels. The students will by this time have acquired a command of the language to enable them to make full use of it. There is a great possibility that the majority of the students who continue their education into college will become leaders of their communities ant as such will help guide the destiny of the nation. A sufficient knowledge of English will be helpful to them as they keep up wfihtie international Situation. Another reason is that, if the Philippines is to take her place among the family of nations, her people should be able to competently handle English as an international language. Their competence in using English as a medium of communication was tested considerably during World War II when American tr00ps again came to the Islands. The English of the Filipinos could hardly be understood by the Americans and the Filipinos in turn had difficulty understanding the Speech of the Americans. This State of affairs was true with other foreigners who spoke English as their native tongue. It implied that something was wrong somewhere in the use of English by the Filipinos. With more and more Filipinos taking over the teaching of English in schools, instruction in this language went from bad to worse. The absence of good models presented and still does present one of the gravest problems in English teaching in the Philippines. As Isidro says in his article: Lacking a model for common usage, due Filipino child has to depend upon his textbooks as the sole authority for determining the correctness of eXpression. In con- sequence, while Filipinos may write grammatically correct English, their expression is bookish, generally lacking in idioms, With Filipino teachers who leave much to be desireu as models for oral English and the lack of an English-speaking environment outside of the classroom, the Filipino child who isliearning the language is placed at a most severe handicap. Prator ties in the language problem of the Philippines with th: success of Philippine education when he says in his report: The success of the almost all Philippine education depends at present on the degree of the pupil's command of English, the medium of instruction, and yet that command, which by the very nature of things it would be impossible to develOp too highly, seems to have deteriorated rapidly in recent years. Prator gives a summary of the fundamental changes that have taken place in the Islands in the last decade to illustrate the current crisis in the teaching of English. 1. Government decrease in the length of the daily school session. 2. Decrease in the number of years of instructionm.[A.bill which restores the seventh grade has been passed by Philippine Congress, thereby increasing it to seven-years in the elementary schoolsg 3. Transfer to national language of time formerly Spent in using English. 4. Decreased supply of texts and supplementary readings. [The use of paper bound books which are cheaper to buy has been encouragedi] 5. Increased prOportion of untrained teachers. (Teachers who have an inadequate command of the language used as the medium of instruction.) \ l 1 Antonio Isidro, ”New Directions in Our English Instruction." The MST English Quarterly, 11:3, October, 1953, pp. 2-10. Prator, 0p. cit., p. 41. 6. Larger classes. 7. Deterioration of language models. [Some school divisions have set up speech improvement seminars for teachers. The govern- ment in c00peration with the United States Educational Founda- tion has sent some Filipino teachers abofad to train in the teaching of English as a second language and in Speech. A few native speakers of English who are considered Specialists in * English instruction have been brought to the Islands through the same Foundation to teach classes in Speech and English in some colleges and universities and in the Bureau of Public Schools in the PhilippinesJ 8. Uncertaigty as to the position of English and loss of teacher morale. English as a Second Language. Leading Filipino educators are becoming more alarmed at the kind of English being taught in Philippine schools today. They have come to realize that English is a second language for Filipinos and as such cannot be taught by the same methods and techniques that are being used to teach children who use it as their native tongue. With this in mind, more and more teachers are ad0pting the methods of teaching as a second language. One important aSpect of the learniig and teaching of a language is its pronunciation. The teacher who would teach English to Filipinos should first of all have a systemative comparison of the sound system of the language with the sound system of the language of the learner. This would reveal what sounds in English are different from or are not found in the learner's own sound system which make learning it difficult for him. With this knowledge, she can proceed with her teaching of the language concentrating and laying more emphasis on the critical sounds. k 13 Ibid. Related Literature The same authorities interested in the improvement of the teaching of English in the Philippines have decried the lack of a systematic study of the sound system of the various Philippine dialects. Prator states in his report: The years since 1928 have not brought much progress in the analysis of Philippine languages. Today, there is no complete scientific description of most of them. Definite information regarding their rhythm and intonation patterns is particularly lacking even in the case of Tagalog. This means that a reliable basis for the course of study in phonetics is yet to be found. It also means that it cannot for many years be found through a comparative study of sound systems, not untilaa great deal more fundamental research has been carried out. Adelaida Paterno, Assistant Supervisor of Secondary English in Manila, analyzed the sound system of Tagalog and compared it with that of English. She was able to draw conclusions as to what vowel sounds and consonant sounds were likely to be difficult for the Tagalog learner 15 . . . of English. Prator reported a Similar study but no results of it seem to have been published. The Ateneo de Manila Graduate School also started on a project of comparing the sound systems of the Philippine dialects with that of English in its Special summer workshops in Speech improvement but no results have as yet been made public. These studies Show the trend of English instruction in the Islands today. They recognize the gravity of the problem of English instruction, its effects on the education of the people and in her international '4 Ibid., p. 67. 15 Adelaida Paterno, ”English Sounds Difficult For Tagalog Learners of English.” The MST English Quarterly, III: 3, 4, October, 1953, December, 1953. 10 relations. They also suggest that more studies should be done in this area in order to bring about a distinct improvement in language teaching in the Philippines. It is the hOpe of the writer that this study may serve as a con- tribution in this area since it points out the English sounds difficult for Filipino learners, the sound systems of some of the major dialects and also examines whether the sounds that are commonly mispronounced and on which the students make the most mistakes are those which are not found in their native tongue, or if they are found, are pronounced differently. THE PROBLEM The purpose of this study is to determine which English sounds are difficult for Filipino students to produce. PROCEDURE At the time this study was undertaken, six Filipino students at Michigan State University were availabkaas subjects. Since this number would be inadequate to fulfill the purpose of this study, thirteen Filipino students enrolled in the University of Michigan were also asked to partic- ipate. Four others not enrolled in either of these schools volunteered to be subjects. Efforts were made to select the subjects so that there would be a fair distribution by dialects. The goal was five subjects from each of the major dialects but this was impossible. Twenty-two of the twenty-three subjects Spoke Tagalog fluently. Six Spoke Ilocano ll fluently; Pangasinan, three; Samar-Leyte Biséfifik three; Pampgango, two; Hiligaynon, one; and Bicol, one. (See Table III in Appendix A.) Three of the students were working for their doctorate, thirteen for their master's, one for a baccalaureate degree, two finished graduate studies in dietetics, two held bachelor's degrees and were working in this country under the Exchange Visitors program. All of the students who participated in this study were multi- lingual. (See Table III in Appendix A.) A short-answer questionnaire was answered orally by each subject flat the time of the recording. The questionnaire was constructed to get information relating to the subject's place of birth, location of home in the Philippines, the dialects he Spoke, the approximate age at which he had learned to speak English, the extent of his education, the length of time he has spent in the United States, and how much time he was Spending with native Speakers of English. All these factors had influenced to a certain degree the ability of the subject to speak English. Tables I - X Show the data obtained from the questionnaire. (See Appendix A.) A comparison was made of the sound systems of Tagalog, Ilocano, Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Bicol, Samar-Leyte Bisayan and Pangasinan with English, to determine which sounds of the English language are not found in each of these dialects. After the comparisons were made the writer was able to establish certain hypothesis to which English sounds were likely to be difficult for the Filipino Student. These were verified in the analysis of the tape recordings made by the subjects. 12 A three-part reading list was devised by the writer. The first part was made up of isolated words including all the vowel and consonant sounds, three diphthongs and the stressed and unstressed vowel combina- tions. The first part was subdivided as follows: a. Monosyllabic words containing vowels and diphthongs. A few polysyllabic words were used when a monosyllabic word could not bring out the desired sound. b. Bisyllabic words containing consonant sounds. A few monosyllabic words were included. The second part consisted of consonant blends used in relatively short sentences. The third part was the informal interview. Leading questions were asked that would encourage the subjects to give longer responses so that there was a better chance for them to use many vowels, consonants and consonant blends. 16 The word lists were adapted from lists by Van Riper, Masher,17 19 18 Prator, Carroll-McCarron, and the Harvard PB List and Auditory Test 20 . . No. 9. The sentences containing consonant blends were adapted from 21 22 publications of Johnson and Van Riper. The interview questions were those commonly asked the writer and other foreign students on the campus. Charles Van Riper, Speech Correction, Principles and Methods, (New York: Prentice Hall Inc., 1954), pp. 176-178. 17 Joseph A. Mbsher, The Production of Correct Speech Sounds, (Boston: Expression Co., 1950) 183 Thomas Carroll, S.J., JOhn McCarron, S.J., Laboratory Manual for thg_ Qgprse in Phoneticg, §peech Laboratory Technique and Speech Workshop, (Manila: Ateneo De Manila, n.d.). 159 Hallowell Davis, Hearing and Deafness, (New York: Murray Hill, 1947). 13 The isolated word list in articulation was employed to determine the difficulties the Filipino student would have in producing the vowel and consonant sounds in isolation. The sentences containing consonant blends. were included for two reasons: 1. To test the subject's proficiency in making consonant blends. 2. To test the subject's ability to produce vowel and consonant sounds wien used in sentences. The third part, the informal interview, was used to test the subjects on their skill in vowel and consonant sound production in connected discourse. The last two parts of the reading list not only had their own specific aims but served also as a check on the first part. Two sets of the reading list were made: one for the subject and another for the analyzer. The list for the analyzer contained a chart Opposite each word or sentence having the sound being studied. The chart was divided into columns for substitutions, distortions, additions, omissions. In the isolated word list, the individual sounds were class- ified according to their relative position in the word whether initial, :medial or final. (See Appendix B.) In order to reduce the subject's awareness of what was being tested and to enable him to be more natural in.his production of the sounds, the list for the subject did not have éuny chart to identify the articulation errors. (See Appendix C.) ‘ '2(3 Clifford H. Prator, Manual of American English Pronunciation for Adult Egreign Students, (Berkeley: Univ. of Calif. Press, 1951). Wendell Johnson, Frederic Darley, D.C. Spriestersbach, Diagnostic Manual in Speech Correction, (New York: Harper, 1952). 2 2 . . Van Riper, Op. Cit. 14 The recording was done on a Revere tape recorder Model T-7OO D with Scotch magnetic tape No. 111A-12. The speed was 7.5 inches per second. The subject read the reading list into the micrOphone. Each one had a recording time of from five to seven minutes. A distance of one to one and one-half feet from the microphone was maintained. The analysis of the recordings was done by the writer with the help of two students majoring in Speech Correction at Michigan State University. One was a graduate assistant in the Speech and Hearing Clinic and the other was a senior in speech correction in the Department of Speech. They were chosen on the basis of their proficiency in sound analysis as evidenced in their class work in phonetics and in related subjects. The three analysts listened to the recordings at the same time. Each had a copy of the exercise prepared for the tester, and as they listened to the recordings, they wrote in phonetic transcription those sounds produced by the subject which deviated from accepted standards. The error was classified as substitution, distortion, omission or addition and as either initial, medial or final in its relative position in the word. If a sound was not clear or was doubtful, the recording was played back again until the analysts could determine where the error lay. In the analysis of the vowel sounds in the isolated word list, attention was given only to the vowel sounds. Mistakes in the production of consonant sounds were ignored unless they were very serious. In the list of words containing consonant sounds, primary attention was focused on consonant sounds, but errors in vowel sound production were also noted, eSpecially if they were too severe to be ignored. 15 In the analysis of the sentences, primary attention was on all the elements involved in the study, namely: vowels, consonants, consonant blends. The analysts ignored errors made in intonation, accentuation and rhythm. After the analysis had been completed, the writer went over the records a second time to review the results. Broad phonetic transcription was used instead of the narrow form of phonetic transcription. Since this study was directed towards the Filipino teacher of English who only had a limited background and train- ing in phonetics, it was deemed advisable to make it as simple as possible in order for her to understand and make use of it. No attempt was made to transcribe the refinements and shadings of the language in narrow phonetic transcription. The authoritative standard used in this study ‘was Kenyon and Knott, A Pronouncing Dictionary of American English.23 General American pronunciation was the criterion followed. 2 3 John S. Kenyon, Thomas A. Knott, A Pronouncing_Dictionary of American English, (Springfield, Mass.: G. and C. Merriam Co., 1949). CHAPTER II RESULTS Charts I-III show the errors of the twenty-three Filipino students in their recordings of the prepared reading list. Chart I represents the errors committed in the production of vowels, diphthongs, stressed and unstressed combinations. Chart II represents the errors in consonants and Chart 111 represents errors in consonant blends. Chart IV and V show the comparison of the dialect sound systems with English. Chart IV shows vowel and diphthong comparisons and Chart V shows consonant comparisons. An asterisk after a phonetic symbol indicates that the sound has a Spanish pronunciation. The symbol ”#” when found above the name of the dialect indicates that all the sounds in the dialect are pronounced in the same manner as Spanish. The abbreviations S, D, O, A found on the first line of a column stand for substitutions, distortions, omissions, additions, The phonetic symbols aligned under the columns S, D, O, A represent the deviations Inade by the subjects of the particular sound being studied. The abbrevia- tions 1, M, F after each phonetic symbol represent the position of the Subund; whether it is initial, medial, or final. The Arabic numeral under 11, M, F shows the number of times the particular error was committed by t he subject . Each subject was given a number and those subjects who Spoke the same dialect were grouped in immediate numerical sequence in the following charts. The Arabic numbers running down the left-hand side of the chart represent the number of the subjects. 17 18 t ( cm... A 4. Han w iv EMA: EU .‘QHJ. _ y M an. . X-» 1.5 an. m uH.‘ NH s A : not.“ stun if?“ dtfi A *E.“ i ‘ ! ha—sn T i an .7. a. i - u I tune... tn .w :EHHcL _ . 2mg: C... Emu“; . . a i m a Iolfln m 4a o_ a _ I 1. r . . . mums? .. H $25 1 ram 1‘1!” 1 ZOHHUDQOMm 2H mmommum 19 Amara} 1 hr .1 utnm. i 1 ya «sh tm {.6 «as; _ _ i r A V U l l i A l .chl I! t i A 5.3 ass tn T34 W a use; a i m o a _ w: a 41m _ a m Fr i M‘ l 1 o H i mamzo> - H Hm n H Hm1 $ .02 mazu£ uuoauwv «gnu mo ava90m unu ~H< § sequuoHH 1MHoaaanoo < 1 1 1 1 101 1m... u. U U 01 u «11 11m11 All.“ IQ I01 11$ 111m A .d .6 .5 1 1 1 1 11 n. 1 1 11 1 1 b >131 MS 1HJMJ| L31 MS #3 “.311 J... 111° 10 do 110 1B1 1 311 101 a 1 1 1 X AA w 1w w .w .w Allw u w A 1 M11 «H 11% «4111A A 1H 7N A H Ln. 1 In J fifimuwfim 283m .7m A383 :ocwuxdm A wodwwma A nafiwau 3mg? - >H ago 1 1'1 gamwm nan—Om mo zomHMAwm—AOU 8 3 .maoHuuwugaoua 535% 96: ”.0033 32.5 «0 355m .23 :< «A AA 1 1 1 Till 1 1 11...... 1111 1 A A 1 A A 1 1 Na. NA. Na. Na. Hm Mn. Hn Hn. A Nu. N» H» m»? A 1 u» NH 1 :1 2.. 1m H 5 V 3 v 5 1m 1.5 $1 .5 fl 5 w 1; Mu 1 1 1 .Am A L h fiagofim «amam 41m 303m 2023953 A 200.3 A 0253.13 823m. £3.55 A 1 1 822353 92 3mg? 1 3 255 9&5.me 9.50m .mo wamHfim—ZOO 39. 'Hi 1. 1.1151111“.— .cofiuuwucscoum amaawam £ .mcowuwwocscoum nmwcmmm o>u£ nooaufiv «gnu mo nausea osu HH< % \ 1 x x \ A A A A Q . Q Q Q c c A U c \v V b \v V ‘0 V V 1 .1 U: .A. U1 A u. a" U. U. A «D. A «.19 “.1 T1 1 1 11 11. 1 1 1 1 m1 A A 1 1 w 11 > «A > > A 1 +1 A 1 4h 3 3 3 \3 1 1 1 1 1 \2\ Q kx Nx 1E 1 E S E 5 v n V V n w w w 15‘ A 1. 0s Qs RR K «K A As Ox K 332051“ 3953 .71. A38? zozfiudmA wofiofiH A ofiafio 3%.... 53% 1 mgzomzoo 11 > 538 gamma esom wofloflfimzoo w 1 A. 1 .A...11 .coflumwoascoum nmficmmm « .mcofiumfioaaaoua nmficamm m>ms gouamfiu mas“ «o avasom any HH< * .1 A .A 1.1 1A1 1A1 A11. N1 w 1 a e 1N1 m 9 Q11 A 11 Ax 11‘ 1 AM A A\ Ax 1 A1 1 m m 1&1 1w m m m1 V. 1 1w<1 1 11.1 A w 1w v.1 e u. 1 :1 11 1 11 A IN. nw 1 11 111 11 11 1 11 Au 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 11 1 n A 11 1 .1 1 .11 A1 11 \ 1. 11 11 1 1 1h 1w. 11w w11 n m w m1 w 1L1 11M£ L ML111 L 1L L A $23324.“ ¢1~Qmm m xHszmm< mmHoz mHHm mmaom MH MH¢SOEM< AAMBMZH zm>40mmm :UDOZH Emma mmoqu mm MMHQAOW MumuHM MummmHm um¢zmmNM . anznda A NMDHDM BOQZHB admmmHQz mz< mm>HQ :mHm mmH .QQMMME madman “5044 mamm mm .mMMOh mmH 44¢ H< mmwb¢4 mmm .mmHo> Hmo4 NEH Ebom< mummHmz Nmmh .QMMHZH 4