AIM OF THE PRESENTATION Learner corpora and second language - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

aim of the presentation
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

AIM OF THE PRESENTATION Learner corpora and second language - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

AIM OF THE PRESENTATION Learner corpora and second language acquisition: a study of the production of Verb-Subject structures in L2 English. To inform on the results of a study on the production of postverbal subjects (VS order) in ICAME 28


slide-1
SLIDE 1

1

Learner corpora and second language acquisition: a study of the production of Verb-Subject structures in L2 English.

ICAME 28 Stratford-upon-Avon 2007

Cristobal Lozano

Universidad de Granada

Amaya Mendikoetxea,

Universidad Autónoma de Madrid/Lancaster University

http://www.uam.es/woslac

2

AIM OF THE PRESENTATION

To inform on the results of a study on the

production of postverbal subjects (VS order) in non-native English (Spanish/Italian learners), as represented in the relevant ICLE subcorpora (Granger et al. 2002)

What are the conditions under which learners produce inverted subjects, regardless of problems to do with syntactic encoding?

3

The WOSLAC Project: objectives

To determine the properties that constrain word order in non-native grammars (L2):

  • Spanish L1 – English L2 & English L1 – Spanish L2.

a)

Lexicon-syntax interface: how the lexical properties of verbs are represented in the syntax (syntactic realization of arguments and adjuncts).

b)

Syntax-discourse interface: the relevance of information structure notions such as topic (given/old/retrievable information) and focus (new/non-retrievable information) in word order in L2 grammars ENGLISH and SPANISH differ in devices employed for constituent ordering: English ‘fixed’ order is determined by lexico-syntactic properties and Spanish ‘free’ order is determined by information structure, syntax-discourse properties.

4

DATA ANALYSIS: FRAMEWORK

Comparative Framework: to determine the role of L1 in L2

acquisition (transfer) in the areas under study:

  • L1 properties
  • L2 properties
  • Universal Grammar
  • We adopt some methodological aspects of CIA: Contrastive

Interlanguage Approach (see, e.g. Granger 1996 and Gilquin 2001)

(a) NNS vs. NS: non-native vs. native data. It involves a detailed analysis of linguistic features in native and non-native corpora to uncover and study non-native features in the speech and writing

  • f (advanced) non-native speakers. This includes errors, but it is

conceptually wider as it seeks to identify overuse and underuse of certain linguistic features and patterns. (b) NNS vs. NNS: different non-native data. By comparing learner data from different L1 backgrounds, we can gain a better understanding of interlanguage processes and features, such as those which are the result of transfer or those which are developmental, common to learners with different L1.

slide-2
SLIDE 2

5

The phenomenon

Production of postverbal subjects in L2 English (Zobl 1989 Rutherford 1989, Oshita 2004)

  • L1 Spanish/Italian/Arabic – L2 English:
  • Only with unaccusative verbs (never with unergatives).
  • Unaccusatives: arrive, happen, exist, come, appear, live…
  • Unergatives: cry, speak, sing, walk ...
  • Explanation: syntax-lexicon interface (Unaccusative Hypothesis)

6

Unaccusatives vs. Unergatives

Unaccusative V : S is a notional object

(patient or theme): an entity that comes into existence (Problems exist), appears on the scene (Three girls arrived) or undergoes a change of state/location (The window broke)

Unergative V: S is a notional subject is an

agent or has protagonist control over the action: John spoke/cried/laughed… John is a subject both notionally and syntactically

7

Main purpose

To characterise the interlanguage of

advanced learners (L1 Sp/It – L2 Eng)

by examining their production of both

grammatical and ungrammatical VS structures:

!"

  • 8

Word Order in L1 English (1)

  • Fixed SV(O) order- Restricted use of postverbal subjects:

a)

XP V S (Inversion structures with an opening adverbial) (7) Michael puts loose papers like class outlines in the large file-size pocket. He keeps his checkbook handy in one of the three compact pockets. The six pen and pencil pockets are always full and <in the outside pocket> go <his schedule book, chap stick, gum, contact lens solution and hair brush>.

[Land’s End March 1989 catalog. p. 95] (Birner 1994: 254)

(i) XP is an adverbial element, typically expressing time or place and linking the sentence to the prior discourse (ii) V is an intransitive verb, typically expressing existence or appearance on the scene (= unaccusative) (iii) S is often syntactically/phonologically ‘heavy’ consisting of a noun and a variety

  • f pre and/or postmodifiers, which introduce new information in the discourse.
slide-3
SLIDE 3

9

Word Order in L1 English (2)

b) There-constructions

(8) a. Somewhere deep inside [there] arose a desperate hope that he would embrace her [FICT ]

  • b. In all such relations [there] exists a set of mutual obligations in the

instrumental and economic fields [ACAD]

  • c. [There] came a roar of pure delight as…. [FICT]

[Biber et al. 1999: 945]

10

Word order in L1 English (summary)

  • Lexicon-syntax interface (Levin & Rappaport-Hovav, etc):
  • Unaccusative Hypothesis (Burzio 1986, etc)

# "$ %& '( )$ &'(

  • Syntax-discourse interface (Biber et al, Birner 1994, etc):
  • Postverbal material tends to be focus/relatively unfamiliar into

*%+%

  • Syntax-Phonological Form (PF) interface (Arnold et al 2000, etc)
  • Heavy material is sentence-final (Principle of End-Weight, Quirk et al.

1972) – general processing mechanisms (reducing processing burden)

,- %. %%/. % &012345 (

Subjects which are focus, long and complex tend to occur postverbally in those structures which allow them.

11

Word Order L1 Spanish/Italian (1)

  • Postverbal subjects are produced ‘freely’ with all

verb classes (as part of the cluster or properties associated

with the Null Subject Parameter):

(13) a. Ha telefoneado María al presidente. (transitive). Has phoned Mary the president

  • b. Ha hablado Juan.

(unergative) has spoken Juan

  • c. Ha llegado Juan.

(unaccusative) has arrived Juan

12

Word Order L1 Spanish/Italian (2)

  • Inversion as ‘focalisation’:
  • preverbal subjects are topics (given information)
  • and postverbal subjects are focus (new information) (Belletti 2001, 2004,

Zubizarreta 1998) (14) ¿Quién ha llegado/hablado? (15)Chi è arrivato/parlato? Who has arrived/spoken? i. Ha llegado/hablado Juan

  • i. É arrivato/parlato Gianni

ii. #Juan ha llegado/hablado

  • ii. # Gianni é arrivato/parlato
  • The occurrence of postverbal subjects in Spanish and Italian is

determined by:

  • syntax-discourse properties (they are focus)
  • and syntax-phonology properties (heavy subjects show a tendency to be

postposed – a universal language processing mechanism: placing complex elements at the end reduces the processing burden, Hawkins 1994)

slide-4
SLIDE 4

13

Hypotheses

GENERAL HYPOTHESIS:

Conditions licensing VS in L2 Eng are the same as those in

Native Eng, DESPITE differences in syntactic encoding. SPECIFIC HYPOTHESES:

:

Postverbal subjects with unaccusatives (never with unergatives)

!:

Postverbal subjects: heavy (but preverbal light)

"!#$%:

Postverbal subjects: focus (but preverbal topic)

14

Method

  • Learner corpus: L1 Spa – L2 Eng; L1 Ital – L2 Eng
  • ICLE (Granger et al. 2002)

(Problem: proficiency level?)

  • WordSmith v. 4.0 (Scott 2004)
  • Concordance queries can be performed automatically with WordSmith, by

targetting specific verbs BUT there is a lot of manual work (filtering out unusable data, coding data in Excel, analysing data in SPSS, etc).

  • SPSS v. 12.0

Corpus Number of essays Number of words ICLE Spanish 251 200,376 ICLE Italian 392 227,085 TOTAL 643 427,461

15

  • !"
  • #$

!%

  • #$

# %$ !% &

  • #'

'

  • 367$08--,9

'

  • '
  • ,:9;08--,9

'

  • '
  • '
  • %
  • +

(( ! %%

  • +
  • ++
  • '
  • '+
  • %
  • 803308-
  • %
  • :<-$910

08--,9

  • %%
  • '##

"

  • 8990=,>
  • 50?96
  • "

)(( !

  • $3?@0=<-

%+

  • %%
  • +
  • '
  • <=0$70@0=<-

* ! $+ )! )#'' %

  • %')$+(!'
  • "
  • ""

DATA ANALYSIS

  • Based on Levin (1993) and Levin & Rappaport-Hovav (1995):
  • Unergatives: cough, cry, shout, speak, walk, dance…
  • [TOTAL: 41]
  • Unaccusatives: exist, live, appear, emerge, happen, arrive…
  • [TOTAL: 32]

16

WordSmith: query searches:

For every lemma (e.g., APPEAR, ARISE), we

searched for:

All possible native forms:

  • appear, appears, appearing, appeared
  • arise, arises, arising, arose, arisen

All posible overregularised and overgeneralised learner

forms:

  • arised, arosed,arisened, arosened (“So arised the Sain

Inquisition”)

All possible forms with probable L1 transfer of spelling:

  • apear, apears, apearing, apeared

All other possible misspelled forms:

  • appeard, apeard
slide-5
SLIDE 5

17

Data analysis (cont’d)

  • CONCORDANCES: RAW OUTPUT
  • Thousands of concordances, BUT approx. ¾ were unusable.
  • Filtering criteria had to be applied manually.

18

Data coding/analysis: EXCEL

19

H1: syntax-lexicon

))A )A #A B)A ))A )A #CA !)A

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% SV VS SV VS Unerg Unac % of production Spanish Italian

Subcorpus V type # postverbal S # usable concordances Rate (%) Spanish Unergative 153 0/153 (0%) Unaccusative 52 640 52/640 (8.1%) Italian Unergative 143 0/143 (0%) Unaccusative 15 574 15/574 (2.6%)

20

Examples: syntax-lexicon (unaccusatives only)

  • ,#-,./012/314

5! %%+D' '

  • ,%-,.612714

C $ '$ %%%, # B 8%%9 '8' 8%%

slide-6
SLIDE 6

21

Result: VS and specific unaccusative verbs

22

Types of VS structures and the problem

  • f syntactic encoding
  • Locative inversion:

(19a) In the main plot appear the main characters: Volpone and Mosca.

  • There-insertion:

(19b) There exist positive means of earning money.

  • AdvP-insertion:

(19c) … and here emerges the problem.

  • * it-insertion:

(20a) *In the name of religion it had occurred many important events…

  • * XP-insertion:

(20b) *In 1760 occurs the restoration of Charles II in England.

  • * Ø-insertion:

(20c) …*because exist the science technology and the industrialisation.

GRAMM. UNGRAM.

23

Results: Unaccusative: grammatical vs. ungrammatical VS

Figure 1. Proportion (in %) of grammatical vs. ungrammatical unaccusative VS

65.4% 34.6% Ungrammatical Grammatical Grammaticality Group: VS Spanish ICLE 53 . 3% 46 . 7% Ungrammatical Grammatical Group: VS Italian ICLE 24 there-insertion AdvP-insertion Ø-insertion XP-insertion Loc inversion it-insertion 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

Production rate (%)

13 20 7 33 27 12 10 10 15 15 38

VS Italian ICLE VS Spanish ICLE

Group

Result: Unaccusative: Type of VS structures

slide-7
SLIDE 7

25

H2 : syntax-phonology

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1213141516171819202122 232425

Weight (# of words)

VS Spanish ICLE VS Italian ICLE SV Spanish ICLE SV Italian ICLE

Group

  • 26

Examples: syntax-phonology

SV: typically LIGHT

' %% ' 2

VS: typically HEAVY

': % ' ; -%

  • %%

27

Result 3: syntax-discourse

#A #BA #)!A #A ))A )))A A BB#A

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Top Foc Top Foc SV VS Spanish Italian

Discourse status (topic/focus) has to be measured manually by establishing theoretical criteria and then by checking the context (or even the essay) manually

28

EXAMPLES: syntax-discourse

VS: FOCUS

  • '- <

BB)' =

  • SV: typically TOPIC

% %%' ' 4 %' %% +

slide-8
SLIDE 8

29

  • 15. Summary/Conclusion

&% %'(

Syntax-discourse………………………………… FOCUS Syntax-phonology……………………………………. HEAVY

%'( &%

Syntax-discourse…….. TOPIC Syntax-phonology……… LIGHT

& &

30

TO DO LIST

Compare our results with those obtained from an

equivalent native English corpus: LOCNESS, LANCAWE.

Compare our results with those obtained from an

equivalent native Spanish corpus (in progress).

Design experiments to control certain variables

more closely to see if we obtain convergent evidence.

31

NNS vs. NS: VS Structures

100,0% 0,0% 92,9% 7,1% 100,0% 0,0% 97,8% 2,3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% SV VS SV VS Unerg Unac Spanish ICLE+WriCLE LOCNESS 32

NNS vs. NS: comparisons across different NNS

97,4 91,9 92,9 97,7 97,8 2,6 8,1 7,1 2,3 2,2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Italian ICLE Spanish ICLE Spanish ICLE & WriCLE French ICLE LOCNESS Frequency (%) of VS production SV VS

slide-9
SLIDE 9

33

Ns: Verbs in VS structures

LOCNESS: Inv/Totalinvs

0,0 % 0,0 % 0,0 % 0,0 % 6,3 % 56,3 % 0,0 % 0,0 % 0,0 % 0,0 % 0,0 % 0,0 % 0,0 % 31,3 % 0,0 % 0,0 % 0,0 % 0,0 % 0,0 % 0,0 % 0,0 % 0,0 % 0,0 % 0,0 % 0,0 % 6,3 % 0,0 % 0,0 % 0,0 % 0,0 % 0,0 % 0,0 % 10,0 % 20,0 % 30,0 % 40,0 % 50,0 % 60,0 %

550= ==@0 <069 ;0@03,5 ;-550= 080=60 0-150 >33 >,33,* 6=,* 7;0 3@0 5-- =0$:=9

  • 0$$30
  • :=@@0

34

Thank you!

35

! > ! 5?@

  • 2A 2:2$2!" 50BBB@2C*,=D223E,06-FF
  • %250BB?@2C GH ID2,*9JA-+(95@2EB-/B
  • %250BBK@25@ 7+9,'=(
  • %250BBK@2(2,$!II 5@ 0+9,'=(
  • % 2)2A2"$2 > 5?///@2$,$
  • %2%5?//K@2 2 3B,077-0F/
  • %2%5?//F@2( 2 /3,007-0FE
  • %2)5?/33@2 !" $,$
  • %2A5?//K@2$"2 3B,30-?7?
  • %I2$5?/6E@2#" ),L
  • 2"2$I2!AMI2#9=#5@2C!2->,ND25@2O

#

  • 925?/6?@2$"),>
  • 925?//F@2!22#,#(
  • 2(:!)$50BB?@2 , 2% ?/20,067-7?B
  • )PI2$50BBK@2! &# %,()
  • 2$'>QI 50BBK@'##,"
  • >QI-2'5?/6/@2C-N((D2!" ??,006-07/
  • >QI-2'5?//7@2CRD2 ()*??,??7-?F?
  • >2A5?//0@2 $",(
  • >I2$50BBK@2C5)@>D2+,-,2

(2'0BBK

  • "92!5?//?@2C ,-2, 5@2 &./"

%,#"2?K?-?E3

  • "<2"50BB?@2C#D2 75?@,/F-?07
  • "25?//E@2C>9,ID2,LN2% %#A #5@2

#01022$,$(273-F?

  • "250BB0@2CS-D2,"2A*(-5@2".-

$$$EJ(,%N27-77

  • "2 )= ># 50BB0@2)1 3045!$--,($
  • *92A5?//K@2.5,(
  • *2A50BB7@2C$=< D242?/,037-7BK
  • *2-A5?/6K@2C'D2-2?F,F7?-F3K
  • *922A-+(95@50BB?@2 16$4/$'=='=,'=(
  • A2'L 5@5?/6/@2%16),L
  • LT92"50BBK@20#0#&.#+#:,%U
  • LT92"50BBF@2C-= ,D272?B50@,??/-?F/
  • LI92(50BB?@2C ,% D2,(!2:2# 2* 5@2899:

$,!$27?0-700

  • L2"5?//6@2.$J+9,$
  • L2*J) 5?//?@2CND2 6F,0??-0F6
  • $2%5?//7@2;1.&.$,(
  • $2%#!-* 5?//F@2/$#0#22#,#(
  • $2A2% 5?//K@C$,QP<ORD2) F,K7-66

36

! > ! 50@

  • $I250BB7@/$&-+0$ =,()
  • $I250BBE@C>,<-D24 00,?-K7
  • $I2#9=50BB3@2C(N$0 ,D2"<2"2%)PI ( 5@

$4!

  • $I2#9=5@2CN,CD -D25@2"V

O #

  • $NQ2#5?///@C =OOD,%< ) 5@2*$<2#, -2?03F-?7?F
  • (2)5?/36@2CD2.!2K,?F3-?6/
  • '2*50BBB@2C:,CD $0 D24 ?E,0/7-70K
  • '2*50BB0@2C,N-$0 D2 ?,KF-E?A$
  • '2*50BBK@2C W=D24 0B,/F-?7B
  • (#PI J#PI- 50BBE@
  • (25?//6@2C' =(N(=ND21" ?B,0?/-0K?
  • (2#5?//3@2$162,$
  • (2 >5?/6?@2C="-D ,(5@242$,(2007-0FF
  • (2 >5?//0@2CX(",N2D2,2:#25@233&3$. 4#2

,A%N20/F-70F

  • Y92!2"2"$JN9 5?/30@2 .$" $,$
  • !II $5?/60@2# ),>
  • !II2$5?//3@2CD2,$*5@2)1$# ?),L (
  • !II2$50BBK@2C$D2,% 5@2007-0F?
  • !2#5?/6E@2 $2,A%N
  • !2:5?/6E@C"$0<,D2 4" 0,?-?F
  • !2:5?/6/@CD2," A
  • 5@2$.-2,(2?E7-?60
  • 2L5?/6F@22,(
  • 2#50BB0@25# =$>9?" '=,'=(
  • 25?//7@2CD24 /,00-K3
  • 25?//F@2C<9D2,$ 92$92#-5@2&

) 4,A%N2?F7-?3F

  • P2 5?//B@22()2(
  • :25?//3@2 -9D274"0E,7K3-7E?
  • :25?//3@C -:9D(D7420E57@,7K3-7E?
  • :2J2A50BB7@C( D!2"%# 5@3;,

(

  • +250BB0@2C$0<D2,A#A> 5@..899:.-$,

Z ( $206/-0/E

  • X2L50BB0@2#2,(
  • X2*5?/6/@C $0<D2," A 5@2$.-2

,(20B7-00?

  • XI2#$5?//6@2" 522#,#(
  • XI2#$5?///@C$,D2%< ) 5@2*$<=$@?2#,
slide-10
SLIDE 10

37

ADDITIONAL SLIDES TO FOLLOW:

38

Unaccusativity Hypothesis

(1)

  • a. unergative
  • b. unaccusative

‘John spoke’ ‘Three girls arrived’

39

ST

  • SD

T’ pro T SV llegó

  • V

SD llegó un hombre

VS in native Spanish

)*%+ ,-./0 Inergativos: SV Inacusativos: VS

A: ¿Qué pasó anoche en la reunión? B: Un hombre gritó. # Gritó un hombre. A: ¿Qué pasó anoche en la reunión? B: # Un hombre llegó. Llegó un hombre.

ST

  • SD

T’ un hombre T SV gritó

  • SD

V un hombre gritó

40

ST

  • SD

T’ pro T SFoc llegó

  • SD

Foc’ un hombre

  • [+Foc] Foc

SV [+Foc] V SD llegó un hombre [+Foc] ST

  • SD

T’ pro T SFoc gritó

  • SD

Foc’ un hombre [+Foc] Foc SV [+Foc] SD V un hombre gritó [+Foc]

VS in native Spanish (2)

!). ,-1%0 Inergativos: VS Inacusativos: VS

A: ¿Quién gritó anoche en la reunión? B: # Un hombre gritó. Gritó un hombre. A: ¿Quién llegó anoche a la reunión? B: # Un hombre llegó. Llegó un hombre. [-interp] [+interp] [+interp] [-interp]

slide-11
SLIDE 11

41

Data analysis (cont’d)--------

  • CONCORDANCES: 6 BASIC FILTERING CRITERIA:

The verb must be intransitive (unergative or unaccusative).

  • In the screen of the television one or two “rombos” should appear. [unac]
  • Leontes cries and the statue talks. [unerg]
  • This government’s movement has created several opinions. [trans]

The verb must be finite, with(out) aux.

  • …also it exists the psychological agresssions… [finite no aux]
  • … the cases of men mistreated do not appear in the media. [finite aux]
  • This contradiction could disappear [finite modal]
  • There’s no reason for it to exist. [for clause + to inf]
  • Poor people cross borders to escape from poverty. [to-inf clause]
  • …let time pass… [‘let’ constructions]
  • …make everyone’s life go ahead [causative + infinitive]
  • Returning to the title of this paper,… [gerundive clauses]
  • …they go away in order to escape to France. [‘in order to’ clauses]
  • …women have to live with the agressor [have to/ought to/able to]
  • …prudence was beginning to disappear. [verbal/aspectual periphrases]
  • Before entering the argumentation,… [small clauses]
  • …instead of following… [complement of P]
  • …likely to happen… [complement of A]
  • The tests to enter the army are quite difficult now. [complement of N]

42

Data analysis (cont’d)--------

The verb must be in the active voice.

  • This contradiction could disappear. [active unaccusative]
  • This situation has already been happened. [passivised unaccusative]

The subject must be an NP.

  • …it arose [diverse social ranks, the rich and the poor that depended on the

property they had]. [inverted NP subject]

  • …it only remains [to add that nowadays we live in a world…] [extraposition]
  • It happened [that the countries which make the weapons are…] [extraposition]

The sentence can be either grammatical or ungrammatical in native English.

  • This contradiction could disappear. [gram]
  • …it won’t exist nothing of what people don’t get bored or tired. [ungram]

The subject can appear either postverbally (VS) or preverbally (SV).

  • …the real problem appears when they have to look for their first job. [SV]
  • So arised the Saint Inquisition. [VS]

43

Data analysis (cont’d) ---------

  • OTHER FILTERING CRITERIA
  • Target V + V (verbal coordination)
  • Families without father exist and work well.
  • Coordinator + target V
  • …we can manage to obtain it and live in a better world.
  • Interrogatives (only if V is the target)
  • How could they live?
  • Does exist then a manipulation of television?
  • Formulaic & Set expressions in English
  • As sometimes happens…
  • …fall victim to…
  • …the world we live in.
  • Set expressions transferred from the L1
  • …it happens the same.
  • …they fall into account that they have treated very badly Mr Hardcastle.
  • Phrasal verbs:
  • …a scientist come up with an intention…
  • Quotes (literary or other):
  • “To what purpose, April, do you return again?
  • “Feminism has to evolved or die”, Friedan said in 1982…

44

WordSmith: query searches:

For every lemma (e.g., APPEAR, ARISE), we

searched for:

All possible native forms:

  • appear, appears, appearing, appeared
  • arise, arises, arising, arose, arisen

All posible overregularised and overgeneralised learner

forms:

  • arised, arosed,arisened, arosened (“So arised the Sain

Inquisition”)

All possible forms with probable L1 transfer of spelling:

  • apear, apears, apearing, apeared

All other possible misspelled forms:

  • appeard, apeard
slide-12
SLIDE 12

45

Extraposition was discarded

NOTE: extraposition discarded:

&;4 %%&9;4

46

Result: VS and (in)definiteness

Figure 1: Production of postverbal subjects according to their definiteness. Definite 41.4% Indefinite 58.6%

DEFINITE '%%

  • %%
  • %%%,

# INDEFINITE 2%% , $%% %% %% 9;

47

Scale (syntactic weight/complexity)

NOMINAL SCALE ORDINAL SCALE SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE (D) N PRN LIGHT 1 (D) ADJ N (D) N (D) ADJ* N 2 (D) (ADJ) N* PP (D) (D) (ADJ) N N PP* AdjP* (D) ADJ N PP (D) N IP/CP (D) (ADJ) N* PP* HEAVY 3 (D) ADJ N* (PP*)

48

Topic vs. Focus: Retrievability scale

$%.1, 0 $%.1, 0 $%.1, 0 $%.1, 0

  • $%2,!

$%2,! $%2,! $%2,!#0 #0 #0 #0

  • !

! ! !

  • !!

" " " "#! #! #! #!

  • $

$ $ $ !!

  • %

% % %& & & & !