TitleComprehension of grammatical structures in Cantonese-speaking preschoolers a Cantonese adaptation of the test forreception of grammar

OtherContributor(s) University of Hong Kong

Author(s) Cheung, Mee-ping, Penita; 張美娉

Citation

Issued Date 1993

URL http://hdl.handle.net/10722/56349

Rights

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.; Theauthor retains all proprietary rights, such as patent rights andthe right to use in future works.

COMPREHENSION OF GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURES IN CANTONESE-SPEAKING PRESCHOOLERS : A Cantonese adaptation of the Test For Reception Of Grammar

CHEUNG MEE-PING, PENITA

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Science (Speech and Hearing Sciences), The University of Hong Kong, April 30, 1993.

ABSTRACT

This study assessed the performance of preschoolers in understanding grammatical

contrasts in Cantonese, with a view to explore the order and age of acquisition. A total

of 152 children aged 3;6 to 5;11 were tested individually. A picture-choice task was

adapted from the Test for Reception of Grammar (TROG) (Bishop, 1982) in which subjects

chose appropriate pictures to match with spoken phrases/sentences among grammatical and

lexical distractors. Results revealed significant age differences in subjects1 scores;

older children obtaining more correct responses than their younger counterparts.

Although the course of syntactic comprehension development was gradual, three and a half

to four years of age appears to be the period of greatest achievement. A near-ceiling in

syntactic development was approached in children aged 5;11 years. When errors were

analysed, younger children showed a preference for lexical distractors while older

children chose more grammatical one; 42-47 months group being the watershed separating

grammatical from lexical groups. Regardless of age, preschool children adopted

comprehension strategies but types of strategies showed strong interaction with age.

Comprehension of syntactic structures in Cantonese followed a developmental order and

concurred with similar findings for English. By contrast, Cantonese preschoolers

acquired syntactic structures earlier and over a shorter period of time compared with

English-speaking children. The Cantonese test developed was found to discriminate among

children at different age levels. It also provided a preliminary assessment tool and,

with further extension, norms for the comprehension of grammar in Cantonese-speaking

preschoolers.

Grammar traditionally is divided into two parts : 1) morphology, or the addition and

substitution of word parts that modify meaning and 2) syntax, or the combining of words

to form phrases and sentences (Vren, 1985). In short, both parts embrace the netvork of

rules to organize linguistic expression (Crystal, Garman & Fletcher, 1989)*

During normal acquisition, young children need to acquire morphological and

syntactic knowledge in order to make sense of sentences they hear, without which

language would become "an incoherent jumble of vocabulary and sounds" (Crystal, Garman &

Fletcher, 1989, p.6) to them.

Development in young children is more than " a cumulative list of change and

accomplishments" (Owens, 1988, p.63) and the course to develop morphological and

syntactic knowledge is not an exception. Findings obtained from years of research and

longitudinal studies revealed several generalizations such as regularities in age and

order of acquisition in clausal, phrasal and morphological development. For example, the

order of emergence and age of mastery of the fourteen morphemes suggested by Brown

(1973) (Owens, 1988), and the syntactic developmental stages provided by the Language

Analysis, Remediation and Screening Procedure (LARSP) (Crystal, Garman, & Fletcher,

1989).

The period of greatest acquisition in the development of grammatical knowledge in

children was postulated to begin from early preschool years to late preschool years.

Reasearch by de Villiers & de Villiers (1982) revealed that by age of three years, the

first rule-bound morphemes are mastered by children which signals the start for

syntactic awareness. By the age of five, according to James (1990), grammatical errors

are less noticeable in children's speech which indicates that language development slows

down and arrives at the subtle refinement of language abilities in this stage.

Findings concerning the development of grammatical knowledge in children mentioned

so far cover only English.

Currently, little research has been done on the acquisition of Cantonese syntax in

children although there are valuable descriptive data of specific structures such as

classifiers (Eoke & Harrison, 1986; Makt 1991)- A more comprehensive study of syntactic

development of Cantonese-speaking preschool children was carried out by Kwong (1987).

1

However, this study dealt only with the expressive language. The developmental sequence

of grammatical comprehension in Cantonese-speaking children is still unknown and this

lack of knowledge is a handicap to professions working with children in Hong Kong and

other places where Cantonese is spoken.

Assume from research findings cited above, the present study aims to provide a

preliminary picture of the performance of Cantonese-speaking children's syntactic

comprehension from three years to six years old.

In response to research in English that yielded age-effects and predictable

sequence/pattern in syntactic acquisition, the present study, specifically, has the

motivation to provide answers to the following questions :

1) What are the age-related differences in the comprehension of grammar among Hong Kong

preschool children ?

2) Do differences in sex and birth order influence the comprehension of Cantonese

grammar in preschool children ?

3) Does preschool children's comprehension of Cantonese grammar follow a predictable

order ?

4) What are the characteristics of Cantonese syntactic structures that preschool

children can comprehend ?

DATA COLLECTION

1. METHOD

A picture-choice task was developed which required no verbal response from the

subjects. Children were asked to match a spoken phrase or sentence to one of four

pictures. The appropriate picture had to be chosen from three distractors which had been

carefully selected to contrast with the correct one grammatically and lexically (see

examples in Appendix 1). Such arrangement enabled the experimenter to obtain not only

the quantitative (correct scores) but also the qualitative (specific areas of strength

and weakeness) results through the interpretation of the types of errors made by

subjects.

This method was adapted from Test for Reception of.Grammar (TROG) which is a

standardized test developed by Bishop (1982). It was designed to assess the

2

understanding of grammatical contrasts in English-speaking children from four to twelve

years of age.

2. MATERIALS

A. ITEMS

The stimulus phrases or sentences items children heard were key aspects of Cantonese

grammar. Three steps were included in the development of the experimental version of the

items for the task :

a) To establish a framework in Cantonese syntax.

A literature review of studies in Cantonese syntax yielded that there are various

views concerning the analysis of Cantonese syntactic structures and not a single one is

comprehensive and systematic enough to describe all aspects of contemporary Cantonese.

In order to set up the theoretical basis for use to generate items in the study, an

"eclectic" framework of Cantonese, therefore, was developed by the experimenter.

Aspects of Cantonese syntax in Table 1 incorporated the work of several linguists in

Cantonese and their published approaches entitled Cantonese As Spoken In Hong Kong

(Cheung, 1972), JffJllff&Qfgg (Studies in Canton Dialect) (JS4^» 1980) and /jgjllffift

H (Teaching Cantonese) (JITIITK, 1989). References were added from frameworks or

descriptions suggested in Mandarin and English under the titles Mandarin Chinese (Li &

Thompson, 1981), A Grammar of Spoken Chinese (Chao, 1968), "i\i&%k&%ttl:%.l&n (The

system used for teaching syntax in secondary schools in Mainland China) (A E $£ if iJJ J!£ ?1 rlJ

^•tSX'M.* 1984) and A University Grammar of English (Quirk & Greenbaum, 1973).

3

Table 1. THE ASPECTS OF CANTONESE SYNTAX

ASPECTS OF CANTONESE SYNTAX

BY FUNCTIONS BY FEATURES

1. Declarative 2. Interrogative 3. Imperative 4. Exclamatory 5. Affirmative 6. Negation 7. Comparative

I) STRUCTURE

A. Sentence Level 1. Simple Sentence with just one predicate :

a. Subtypes : i) Predicate-only-sentence

ii) Subject-predicate-sentence (vith/vithout verb)

b. Basic structure :

/° yO + C

(S) + (V) V C ^ A + A

2. Complex Sentence with more than one verb :

a. Subtypes : i) Serial verb sentence

ii) Coordinated sentence

b. Basic structure :

SVO + (co) + V + 0 C A

D- Phrase Level - Noun, Verb, Adjective, Numeral, Classifier, Pronoun, Adverb, Preposition, Locative particle, Plural Marker-Noun, Negative Marker, Intensifier

c- Word Level - Suffix (Gender) Suffix (Size), Suffix (Plural Marker-Pronoun) Aspect Marker Nominalizer

II) COMPLEXITY

1.Subject/Object Noun Phrase modification (Attributes)

2.Preverbal/adjectival modification (Adverbial Adjunct)

3.Postverbal/adjectival modification (Predicate-complemen t)

Footnote : () = optional element, S = subject, V = verb, 0 = object, C s complement, A « adverbial, co = coordination

4

b) To generate iterns.

Syntactic structures included as items were selected from the framework established

above and phrases/sentences were generated by the experimenter accordingly. The

selection procedure followed the restriction set by both the method adapted; that is

items must be picturable and involve events in the "here and now", and incorporate

vocabulary selected for two to four-year-old children from the Kindergarten Curriculum

Besides general characters like; i/jfj' (boy), ^{j- (girl), i/JA (man), and j^A

(woman) to "participate" in the events described by the items, some specific characters

were created by the experimenter (see Appendix 2) like; t£t£ (father), J»,J», (mother), J!J

,r!J (elder brother), jilkl (younger sister) andli'l'il«J* (baby) also "took parts" in the

activities. The presence of a variety of characters provided different topics the items

could describe and as characters were members of the family, they brought liveness to

the items,

c) To validate items.

Ten primary-six school children (aged 11;6 to 12;8) participated in the validation

procedure. They were five girls and five boys from the same school and same class. First,

children were asked to generate their own phrases/sentences according to pictures (target

pictures) and guidelines (specific syntactic structures) provided. Then their items were

compared with one another including those generated by the experimenter. Finally they

came to a compromise the most acceptable version of the items through discussion. Items

initially generated by the experimenter were modified subsequently if they were not what

children usually used or heard in daily life.

The modified version of the items were administered to twelve preschool children

whose age matched with the subjects. Further changes were made to the items after this

pilot study.

B. PICTURES

Test pictures were clear line-drawings and were coloured only when the items

concerned colour concepts. Some pictures were excluded or modified after the pilot study

stated above as they were hard to discriminate or provided clues to the subjects about

5

the correct choice.

C. THE EXPERIMENTAL VERSION OF THE ITEMS

Twenty-six categories (A-Z) of Cantonese structures (Table 2) were selected as the

basis for developing items in the study. After the validation procedures, a total of 104

items were complied (see Appendix 3 ) .

Table 2. Cantonese structures selected and categorized from A-Z.

Category Structure

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

II

I

J

K

L

M

N

0

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

V

X

Y

Z

Noun Phrase

Verb Phrase

2-element SP (V/C)

2~element SP (A + A expansion)

2-element SP (C + S expansion : attributive)

(C + 0 expansion : Adverbial Adjunct)

3-element SP (VO) : Irreversible/reversible active

3-element SP (VC) : Existential verb/Copula verb

3-element SP (VA + A expansion)

3-element SP (VO/C + S expansion : Initiator)

3-element SP (VO + 0 expansion : attributive)

3-element SP (VO + V expansion : complements)

3-element SP (VO + S expansion : attributive)

4-element SP (VOdOi)

5-element SP (V0)P(VA)/SP(V0)P(V0)

5-element SP (VO)P(VO) : pivotal structure

Negation : Nonexistence/Reject/Denial/Not Yet

Plurality

Classifier : shape/borrowing/container/collective

Question word : what/where/vho/how

Passive : reversible passive

Comparative

Comparative : superlative/sameness

Coordination : phrasal/clausal

Coordination : additive

Subordination : temporal

Subordination : concession/exclusion

Footnote : S = subject, P = predicate, V = verb, 0 = object

C = complement, A = adverbial

3- SUBJECTS

A total of 152 preschool children aged from 3;0 to 5;11 were included. They were put

into one of six groups representing six-monthly age interval (Table 3). The children

were from three local kindergartens in different districts; eastern and western

districts of Hong Kong Island, and western district on Kowloon side. They were all

native speakers of Cantonese and who used only Cantonese in their daily life. Subjects

were excluded if they were considered by the teachers or assessed by professionals as

6

having a sensory or developmental handicap. While not a random or stratified sample,

they incorporated usual pre-school attendees.

4. PROCEDURES

One experimenter conducted the study. The children did the picture-choice-task

individually in their own school. They followed instructions (see Appendix 4) and were

given all items regardless any mistakes during the test. This allowed for developmental

information on all items.

To ensure that vocabulary errors did not contribute to the subjects' mistakes, all

children from the youngest group had a vocabulary check (see Appendix 5) before actual

testing was administered. In the older groups, a vocabulary check was carried out only

when there was question about their vocabulary ability. Of all the children

participated, three 3-year-old (one boy and two girls) children were excluded from the

study because they showed confusion in colour terms.

The procedures were carried out in two stages and the same experimenter conducted

the study in both stages. In the first stage, the task was administered to 123 children

(Table 3) who were from two kindergartens on the Hong Kong Island.

After the first stage was completed, items analysis (see details under Data Analysis

section) was carried out and resultant modification on the items. It involved the

reordering of the items in the test in which grammatical constrasts were arranged in

order of increasing difficulty. The modified version of the items was administered to a

further twenty-nine children (Table 3) from the second stage groups. They were from the

kindergarten sited on the Kowloon side.

Table 3. The number of children tested in each stage.

PROCEDURES FIRST STAGE SECOND STAGE TOTAL

GROUP AGE AGE IN MONTHS BOYS GIRLS BOYS GIRLS

1 3;0-;5 (36-41 months) 10 9 2 3 24 2 3;6-;11 (42-47 months) 10 10 3 2 25 3 4;0-;5 (48-53 months) 11 10 1 3 25 4 4;6-;11 (54-59 months) 10 11 4 2 27 5 5;0-;5 (60-65 months) 1 1 1 1 3 2 27 6 5;6-;11 (66-71 months) 10 10 1 3 24

TOTAL 62 61 14 15 152

7

As it had been found that the modification made very little difference in the extent

of subsequent responses, the tvo stages were aggregated to form a total of 152 children

and it is from this total sample that the analysis in the present study has been

complied.

DATA ANALYSIS

The analysis of results were four-fold : 1) Scores Analysis dealt with the number of

correct choices obtained by subjects; 2) Error Analysis concerned the subjects1 error

choices; 3) Item Analysis looked at the discriminability of the items; and 4) Analysis

by Structure identified characteristics of structures in the course of development.

1* SCORES ANALYSIS

The distribution of total correct scores that individual subjects obtained from the

picture-choice task were grouped under different age-bands and are illustrated in Fig.1.

The curves show shifts from left to right - low to high scores in response to increases

in age. Although overlappings of scores between groups can be noted, the shifts reveal

the fact that most individuals from older age groups obtained higher test scores than

individuals from younger groups.

Fig. 1. The distribution of individual scores by age-groups.

Number of Children (<;um)

— ~ 06-41 mon - * - * 42-47 mon - * - 40-58 mon -"**- 54-59 mon

- * ~ 00-05 mon - * - 00-71 mon

8

In Fig.2, the developmental trends are even clearer in showing the relationship

betveen age and scores. The degree of slope for the mean scores is somevhat stable with

only a slight spurt at the age of 42-47 months. It indicates that the acquisition of

syntactic comprehension ability in children is a gradual process and their performance

is predictable from age. In the course of development, the greatest increase in

achievement is found from the age of three and a half to four.

Fig. 2. The developmental trends for mean scores, maximum and minimum scores.

Gooroo 110 105 100 95 90 85 00 70 70 05 (30 55 50 45 40 35 °0

00-41 42-47 40-53 54-59 00-05 60-71

Ayo in Months Mean Scores ~~+~ Mm Scores —*— Max Scores

Overall, the mean scores gained by subjects in their correct comprehension of

syntactic structures given in Table 4 shoved steady increments from 54.13 at 36-41

months to 87.38 at 66-71 months. The result confirms the previous findings that older

children obtain higher scores than their younger counterparts.

When children's performance were compared among adjacent groups (Fig. 3) f a sharp

increase in test scores vas noticed at 42-47 months. The disparity in performance

between the tvo youngest group is as large as 22.6%. The progress in the tvo oldest

groups vas least vith an increase in score by only 4%. The result indicates that the

greatest achievement in syntactic development is obtained at the age of three and a half

years vhile a slov development phase is after 60-65 months.

I-

r

-

~

L -

r

-

#—

y r''

y """"

_l

• ^

i 1

%r "

^»—-""""

^"^ _ K

1

—-%r"^

^ - ^ ^

^ l ~ — —

f

^y&

K

i

—# |

y

i 1

9

Fig. 3- Comparison of mean scores among adjacent groups.

Test score differences in % 3 0 %

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

o% AGE 3 /3 .6 A3E 3 .6 /4 AGE 4 /4 .6 AGE 4 . 6 / 5 AGE 5 /5 .6

COMPARED ADJACENT GROUPS £§§3 Increment of scores

The spread of scores reflected in standard deviations for each age group (Table 4)

narrows with increasing age. This convergence of scores in the oldest group is

confirmation of an approaching "ceiling" in development in syntactic comprehension by

5;11 years. Based on the mean scores obtained, by the age of about six, children will

reach the 83 percent level of achievement. Using Bartlett's test for homogeneity of

variance, the results as a whole reach significance at .041 level.

Table 4. Mean scores and standard deviation obtained by subjects in their correct comprehension of syntactic structures.

Group

36-41

42-47

48-53 54-59 60-65 66-71

Count

24 25 25 27 27 24

Mean

54.1250 66.3600

71.8400 77.1111

83.8519 87.3750

Standard

Deviation

9.7236

11.0675 10.8922

8.0734

8.4339 5.8593

Standard

Error

1.9848

2.2135 2.1784 1.5537

1.6231 1.1960

95% Conf int

50.0191 61.7916

67.3439 73.9174

80.5155 84.9008

To To To To To To

for mean

58.2309 70.9284 76.3361

80.3048 87.1882 89.8492

10

.22.695,.

A oneway analysis of variance was employed to find if the above observed differences

in scores on age were statistically significant. Results are shown table 5 :

Table 5. One-way analysis of variance in scores on age.

Variable Score

By Variable Age

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean _F £ Source jl.f\ Squares Squares Ratio Prob.

Between Groups 5 18214.4441 3642.8888 43.2568 .0000 Within Groups (Error) 146 12295.4441 84.2154

Viewed as a whole, a highly significant effect of age on score was revealed,

J? (5,146)=43.2568, p =0.0000. Differences between groups were also statistically

significant at the 0.05 level by Tukey-Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) Procedure

except between adjacent groups : 42-47 months and 48-53 months, 48-53 months and 54-59

months, 54-59 months and 60-65 months, 60-65 months and 66-71 months (Table 6).

Nonsignificant differences between these groups can be interpreted by grouping of

subjects in the continuous samples as age difference in children from adjacent groups

was small and did not allow a discrete difference in their performance.

Table 6. Significant differences among groups.

Variable Score

By Variable Age

Multiple Range Test

Tukey HSD Procedure

Age Groups in Months 36-41 42-47 48-53 54-59 60-65 66-71

36-41 42-47 *

48-53 *

54-59 * *

60-65 * * * 66-71 * * * *

Footnote : (*) denotes pairs of groups significantly different at

the .05 level.

In order to determine the differences in scores by sex and birth order and their

interaction with age, two 2-way analysis of variance was carried out. Results are shown

in Table 7 and 8 :

11

Table 7- Two-way analysis of variance of age x sex

Variable Score By Variable Age

Sex

Analysis of Variance

Sum of Mean Source d.f. Squares Squares

Age 5 Sex 1

Interaction 5

Error 140

Table 8. Two-way analysis of

Variable Score By Variable Age

Birth Order

18159-075 198.261

431.592 11665.592

variance age x

Analysis of Variance

Source d.f.

Age 5 Birth Order 6

Interaction 20 Error 120

Sum of

Squares

17179.650 529.597

1738.590 10027.257

3631.815 198.261

86.318 83-326

birth order

Mean

Squares

3435-930 88.266

86.929 83.560

43-586

2-379 1.036

1

41.119 1.056

1.040

.000

.125

• 399

j?

.000

-393 -422

There were nonsignificant differences for both sex and birth order and their

interaction effects with age. This confirms the fact that "age" is the most important

factor in determining the syntactic comprehension ability in children.

2- ERROR ANALYSIS

Distractors in the picture-choice task were selected to contrast with the correct

pictures grammatically and lexically at different levels (word, phrase and clause), so

qualitative results were then obtained through the interpretation of children's error

responses-

Firstly, analysis of children's errors by types were carried out.

An examination on graphic presentation in Fig. 4 revealed that children, regardless

of age, made more grammatical errors than lexical ones. The proportion of total error

choices the subjects made indicated that children's lexical errors decreased as they

became older while their grammatical errors increased with increasing age. It showed

that younger children tended to make proportionately more lexical choices when compared

12

with their older counterparts. For older children, their mistakes contained more

grammatical types than children from the younger group.

Fig.4. Constrasting the proportion of total lexical errors with total grammatical errors.

% of Error Choices

36-41 42-47 48-53 54-59 60-65

Age in Months 66-71

L • Total H Q : Total fc \ S S l S W o i .

As a result of this observation, the gaps between the percentage of lexical and

grammatical errors made by the groups widened in response to the increasing age. The gap

for the youngest group was 15% which was the narrowest and remained within 20$ for the

second youngest group. The distance was further widened apart by about 5% for every

increment in age. At the oldest group, the difference between two types of errors was

nearly 40% (Table 9).

Table 9. Error Distribution by types and levels.

AGE IN MON

36-41 42-47 48-55 54-59 60-65 66-71

TYPES OF ERRORS IN PERCENTAGE

LEXICAL

LEVELS :

VORD

0.75 0.64 0.56 1.22 0.52 0.00

PHRASE

9.66 10.52 8.99 9.52

9.11 7.25

CLAUSE (CI)

52.72 29.44 28.69 24.75 22.07 25.19

SUB­TOTAL (T1)

45.15 40.60 57.42 55.27 51.70 30.42

(%)

GRAMMATICAL

VORD

3.17 5.08 4.74 2.16 5.25 5.49

PHRASE

25.06 25.18 26.48 29.06 29.42 50.42

CLAUSE (02)

30.64 51.14 51.55 33.51 35.65 55.67

SUB­TOTAL (T2)

56.87 59.40 62.58 64.75 68.50 69.58

TOTAL

100 100 100 100 100 100

DIFFERENCES C2-C1

-2.08 1.7 2.66 8.78 11.56 10.48

T2-T1

15.74 18.8 25.16 29.46 56.67 59.16

13

Such qualitative results suggested that when children interpreted problematic

syntactic structures, older children favoured grammatical distractors while younger

children tended towards lexical ones* This may be regarded as a pattern of development

in children's awareness towards grammatical cues they hear.

Table 9 shows the differences between grammatical and lexical errors subjects made

at clause level. It is found that 42-47 months is a transitional period where children

shift their preference for grammatical cues over lexical ones. A large disparity between

the two error types was noticed at the age of five. It shows that in this stage, there

is greatest increase in children's "achievement" towards a "grammatical mind".

Relationship between scores and grammatical awareness is illustrated in Fig. 5.

Observational differences indicate that positive correlation between improvement in test

scores and development in grammatical awareness. Three periods are worth mentioning. The

42-47 months group gained most improvement in test scores in result of their preference

shift. On one hand, children from this second youngest group tended to make more

grammatical error choices. On the other hand, children obtained the most improvement in

test scores by an increase of 22.6%. The 48-53 months group and the 60-65 months group

behaved similarly as the 42-47 months group, but the improvement in test scores was not

so dramatic.

Fig. 5. Relationship between test scores and grammatical awareness.

increase by %

26 ~-|

Q , K ^ * - ^ **~~~« — —

AGE 3/3.6 AGE 3.6/4 AGE 4/4.6 AGE 4.6/5 AGE 5/5.6 COMPARED ADJACENT GROUPS

Test scores B3a Grammatical errors

As mentioned above, during the testing, children made choices among three

distractors which contained different combination of lexical and grammatical error

14

types. The combination of distraction types for each item were grouped as 1) all three

lexical distractors (LLL), 2) all three grammatical distractors (GGG), 3) two lexical

distractors and one grammatical distractor (LLG), 4) one lexical distractor and two

grammatical distractors (LGG).

Children's errors to different combination of distraction types in each item is the

main focus for the following analysis plotted in Fig. 6. It shows that all children

performed better (made less mistakes) in items with combination of distractor type - LLL

while they performed worst in items of GGG. Their performance (graded from best to

worst) can be illustrated as : LLL --> LGG —> LLG — > GGG.

Fig. 6. Children's error choices in relation to combination of distraction types.

Tolal [jror Choices in peruonfage

The gains and losses in children's performance in LLL items and GGG items were

compared. It was found that the group aged 42-47 months gained most (cues) from

distractors in LLL items to find target pictures. That is to say, assume from the

previous findings, increased sensitivity towards grammatical cues tended to help this

group of children to make correct choices, by elimination.

Children's bias towards lexical and grammatical distractors vas further confirmed

when their performance vas analysed in items containing LLG distractors. Fig.7 shows

that lexical error choices tended to attract the younger groups as the total lexical

15

error choices they made was equal to their grammatical error choices. For older

children, even though they had more chances (about two to one) to be "trapped" by

lexical distractors, they stuck to the grammatical ones because they were more sensitive

to grammatical cues provided*

Fig. 7. Children's error choices in LLG items.

L " Lexical .,„,„. ^^^ Q - Grammatical H i L 1 • L 1+2 E H Q

Further error analysis by levels was administered.

Subjects' mistakes at clause level were examined. About 30-40% of the errors

children made at clause level, regardless of age, involved the "verb". An

examination on relevant items revealed that children tended to trade off the lexical

property of "verbs" when they were overloaded by the complex syntactic structures they

heard as in :

"Sister gives a dog (to) mother".

/ 3

I I G=» GO

z ..

16

Here they tended to choose picture 4 instead of target picture 2.

Fig. 8. Constrasting errors involved the verb and other errors made at clause level.

3 6 - 4 1 months of age 66 -71 months of age errors at clause level errors at clause level

complement 4 8

At phrase level, the Noun-premodifiers (PrN) or the attributives attracted most

errors from children across age. Similarly, about half of the mistakes subjects made at

phrase level concerned the premodification at the noun (Fig. 9). When their error

choices were further analysed, it was revealed that children tended to overlook the

premodifiers in more complex sentences as they might have concentrated on the basic

structures as in :

sit on the table the baby's shoes are red

"The baby is sitting on the table, his shoes are red".

n /"^

<3b«

Here they tended to choose picture 4 instead of picture 2.

17

Fig. 9. Contrasting Noun-premodifier with other phrase level errors.

36-41 months of age Grammatical error/Phrase level

66-71 months of age Grammatical error/Phrase level

Pc» 'Po»P»'Pcstnxxl«!i«f/Pr«P"P«"«oce<tiori

3. ITEM ANALYSIS

Quantitative evaluation vas carried out for each item and two values vere sought :

a) the difficulty index for each item to determine its discriminability, and b) the

significant level of each item to measure its ability to distinguish between groups.

The difficulty of an item was estimated in terms of the proportion of children who

responded correctly to it in the picture-choice task; the smaller the proportion, the

more difficult the item; and conversely, the greater the proportion, the less difficult

the item. Estimation was done separately for each age group. Table 10 indicated that

Item 35 "$lV,}7teMk!jlFM1kW\" is easiest for the oldest group (with 90% of the subjects

responded correctly) but is hardest for the youngest group (only 50% of the subjects

responded correctly).

Table 10. Different levels of d i f f icu l ty among different age groups for Item 35 : flflfjte of&ffiJSfgiliJo and Item 85 : mW!)Hnm°%fro

Item 35

mm*mmmmo Age in Months

36-41 42-47 48-53 54-59 60-65 66-71

p value =

Level of Diff iculty

*.5417 .6400 .6400 .7037 .9630 .9583

.0006

Item 85

mmyATtm«%^o Age in Months

36-41 42-47 48-53 54-59 60-65 66-71

p value =

Level of Difficulty

.1667

.2800

.4400 *.5185

.7407

.7500

.0000

18

Fifty percent (.5 level of difficulty) difficulty was chosen as the point which had

the most efficient power to discriminate children's performance between adjacent groups

for a specific item. In Table 10, Item 35 is most discriminable to differentiate between

the two youngest groups (36-41 months and 42-47 months) while item 85 can differentiate

between the groups aged 54-59 months and 60-65 months.

The difficulty index was also used to determine the 104 test items in the order

associated with age. The result is shown in Table 11 (see Appendix 6 for all items).

Table 11. Difficulty idex estimated for five items.

STRUCTURE RANK SIGNIFICANT LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY VITH AGE IN MONTHS CATEGORY ORDER LEVEL 36-41 42-47 48-53 54-59 60-65 66-71

A 1 0.6978 0.958 0.960 1.000 0.963 1.000 1.000 B 22 # 0.0024 *0.667 0.880 0.920 0.926 0.963 1.000 X 87 # 0.0038 0.333 0.320 0.400 *0.519 0.630 0.792 Z 104 0.5326 0.250 0.120 0.160 0.185 0.259 0.253 Y 75 # 0.0027 0.458 *0.520 0.520 0.630 0.852 0.875

Footnote : (*) denotes levels with the most discriminable power. (#) denotes significant levels <0.05.

The significant level for each item was also calculated by employing the oneway

analysis of variance (Table 11 and see also Appendix 6). Seventy-two out of 104 items

were found to be statistically significant. When nonsignificant items were analysed, it

was revealed that they were items which were too easy or too difficult for the subjects,

i.e. level of difficulty was >.5 for the youngest group and level of difficulty was <.5

for the oldest group respectively. Item 1 and Item 104 were two extreme examples

illustrated in Table 11.

4. ANALYSIS BY STRUCTURE

As mentioned above, items selected in the picture-choice task originated from A-Z

(twenty-six) types of structures. Based on the order of items established by the

difficulty index, these structures were arranged and grouped to reflect the course of

development in children. Several age-related characteristics require discussion :

A) The effect of length (number of basic sentence constituents) in children's

comprehension.

Only the performance of younger children in syntactic comprehension tasks appeared

to be affected by the increased length of basic sentence structures. Children aged

19

36-41 months could only comprehend sentences vith a maximum of 5 elements. At the age of

42-47 months, they could comprehend up to 5 element sentences which was the maximum

basic sentence structure in this study. It indicated that children seemed to acquire

basic structure competence early, around four years old. In the following stages of

development, children tended to continue with internal sentence expansion and structure

refining, such as elaborating the noun and verb phrases, conjoining and embedding

functions. Syntactic structure not yet fully acquired before six years of age were

mainly passives, plurality, SC sentences with modification by quantifiers, subordination

(exclusion) and question words (see details In Appendix 7).

B) The predictable developmental order of grammatical items

i) Negation

Four types of negation markers reflecting different semantic functions were tested

in the study. Result shows in Fig. 10 that "reject" (n/f) is acquired first, at the age

of 36-41 months. It was followed by "nonexistence" ( # ) • AT 42-47 months, "denial"

("ri O can be comprehended , while "not yet" (>fO was acquired quite late at 54-59 months.

The first three markers accorded with findings in English (Pea, 1979) and late

acquisition of >|< was confirmed in research in Cantonese (Lee, 1992).

Fig. 10. The developmental order of Negation

LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY

1.0h •••

ash

o.el . 5 «

0.4 h ,

0 2 h

Q 0 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 36-41 42-47 46-53 54-59 80*65 66-71

AGE IN MONTHS

" • • REJECT ~ H - DENIAL - * - NONEXIST - ° - ' NOT NET

ii) Classifiers

Children were found to have acquired all types of classifiers at early age*

Interestingly enough, the shape classifier ({$) which seems to be the most commonly used

20

type was the most difficult one for children (Fig, 11). Both borroving classifier (<]B)

and container classifier (£[) were acquired at the age of 36-41 months, followed by

collective classifier (f»J) at the age 42-47 months, then last by shape classifier

(«5).

Fig. 11. The developmental order of Class i f iers

LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY

36-41 42-47 48-53 54-59 60-85 66-71

AGE IN MONTHS "•*" SHAPE - + - BORROWING - * ~ CONTAINER - S - COLLECTIVE

iii) Preposition (locatives)

The order of acquisition of preposition (Fig. 12) in Oliiflfi), on (Jiiiil), under (Tilil)-

and behind (fulfil) confirmed those developed in English (Johnston & Slobin, 1973 cited

in Slobin 1985).

Fig. 12. The developmental order of Preposition (locatives)*

LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY

1.0

0.6

0,6

- 5 * -

0.4

0,2 h

0.0

.-K"

• * = * - « • • ; • * - * • „^W

,X.X^", B

36-41 42-47 48-53 54-59 60-65 66-71

AGE IN MONTHS

In •"+•••• under - *~ on -Q- behind

21

DISCUSSION

Results in the present study reveal regularities in age and order of acquisition in

syntactic comprehension among Cantonese-speaking preschoolers. Three areas are worth

discussion in light of results; 1) conceptual development, 2) comprehension strategies

and 3) properties of Cantonese as an individual language.

A) THE PRIMACY OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT

A predictable order of syntactic development in Cantonese was reported in this study

and was compared with research in English. Although means of expression are different

among these two languages, common acquisitional sequences are revealed in similar

structures. For example, English uses "prepositions" to express locative relations (e.g.

"The pen is under the flower.") and Cantonese involves "postpositions" (e.g."~Jl*Mk~JC

)L Kifii ")» but their concurrence in the acquisitional trend is not affected. This

phenomenon was explained by Parisi & Antinucci (1970). They revealed conceptual

underpinnings of children's acquisition of locatives and postulated that children's

ability "to conceptualize spatial relations, moving from simple topological relations to

more complex projective relation" determines that common developmental sequence across

languages (Parisi & Antinucci, 1970 cited in Slobin, 1985, p.9).

Children's comprehension of three negation markers in Cantonese, cited in this

study, also followed a developmental order : "»,V (reject), "JM" (nonexistence), and wH/j

i'&n (denial). In fact, the same sequence of acquisition in negation markers in English

was postulated by Pea (1979) and he claimed that such sequence reflects different levels

of cognitive complexity required : "rejection" marker is the simplest as it expresses

children's emotional attitudes related to things present in the context and involves no

internal representation, hence is acquired first; "nonexistence" marker is the second as

internal representation is required when objects referred to is not present but expected

in the context; with "denial" marker the last because it needs internal representation

of a propositon and is cognitively more complex (Pea, 1979, cited in Slobin, 1985).

Hence it is another evidence for the importance of conceptual development in pacing the

course of syntactic development in children crosslinguistically.

22

B) THE EVIDENCE OF STRATEGIES

Strategies to comprehend sentences were applied regularly at all ages in the study,

especially to sentences children did not fully understand. Four major strategies were

identified during the test and three of them were relatively dominant in the two

youngest groups.

The "probable event strategy" (Chapman, 1977) was used by 36-41 months and 42-47

months groups in interpreting :

Item 36 : imimittXffiHtm Tall boy is chasing the horse.

da

c£ i. ~~""""'~'V<C!HL-

mS §

Incidence of specific error choices (chose

picture 4 instead of target picture 2)

among age-bands in months :

36-41 6

42-47 4

48-53 2

34-59 1

60-65 0

66-71 0

Based on semantic-pragmatic factors, these young preschoolers interpreted the

sentence according to their "scripts" of the most usual relation between objects (boy,

horse). They identified probable agent (boy) and patient (horse) but ignored the

syntactic cues (chase) which related "boy" and "horse" in a way that vas not consistent

with their experience (Chapman, 1977).

Although animate/inanimate distinction is not morphologically marked in Cantonese,

Cantonese-speaking children are not hindered to use the "animate-noun as agent strategy"

postulated by Kail (1989). During sentence comprehension in the study, three to three

and a half years old children tended to identify the lexical-semantic property of the

noun, checked for their animacy and assigned roles according to their animate-

agents/inanimate-patients rule. Such rule enabled younger children to make sense of

"irreversible active sentences" correctly like Item 13 : tWJlAi&*Mti%z (The man is

eating an apple.) This strategy vas not always helpful to them when both nouns in

23

"reversible active sentence" were animate and so good candidates for agents as in Item 34

: VWlttl^yim (The horse is chasing the dog). The developmental order of both types of

active sentences illustrated in Fig. 13 confirmed such phenomenon : there is "late"

acquisition of "reversible active sentences" by children at the age of four as compared

with "early" acquisition of "irreversible active sentences" at three years of age.

Fig. 13. The developmental order for "reversible active sentences" and their irreversible counterparts.

LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY

38-41

AGE IN MONTHS IPREVERSIBL - * - iPREVERS'BL ' * - REVERSIBLE * « ~ REVERSIBLE

The strategy which some children from the youngest group used in the study was the

"intransitive-verb strategy" (Taylor & Taylor, 1990). They tended to treat transitive

verbs as intransitive and might not have the attempts to make one object act on the other

as in :

Item 52 : yi'\'WJ£\\i"l The cow is pushing brother

I 4-

Incidence of specific error choices

(chose picture 3 instead of the target

picture 1) among age-bands in months :

36-41 4

42-47 1

48-53 0

54-59 0

60-65 0

66-71 0

24

"Word-order" strategy (Paul, 1990) is dominating over other comprehension strategies

of English-speaking children since the canonical order of their language is

Subject-Verb-Objecfc (SVO). This happens to Cantonese* Firstly, Cantonese bears the same

kind of "standard order" as in English. Secondly, children, across all age groups in the

study used word order consistently to decode semantic relations in sentences. It is

consistent with Chapman1s saying that preschool years is the time when "linguistic

knowledge begins to take precedence over world knowledge" (Chapman, 1977).

Reliance on the canonical order- SVO allowed subjects in the study to interpret

majority active sentences correctly. But overreliance on assigning actor-action-object to

all noun-verb-noun sentence sequences led to incorrect interpretation of passive sentence

by reversing the roles between actor and object as in :

Item 95 : UJtkW£,»jiLl Sister is chased by the horse.

£v.

<&Kf ^v

f

Incidence of specific error choices

(chose picture 3 instead of the target

picture 1) among age-bands in months :

36-41 13

42-47 16

48-53 16

54-59 12

60-65 9

66-71 10

Observational data support the fact that subjects' misinterpretations of sentences

were systematic and consistent within their groups; different strategies at various

levels of development. At the age of three, children showed a very strong preference for

semantically (lexically) based strategies, but by the age of five, syntactic based

strategies became dominant.

Here some main comprehension strategies used by preschoolers were evaluated.

Although some of the explanation for the children's performance might have remained as a

matter of speculation, age related differences or sequence in their comprehension

25

strategies was confirmed which is, again, evidence of developmental universal pattern.

C) THE INFLUENCE OF LANGUAGE-SPECIFIC PROPERTIES

The present study have demonstrated strong evidence of "developmental universal

pattern" in the acquisition of syntax revealed by Slobin (1985). However,

language-specific effects was also found to have their way to cause differences in age

and period of acquisition between the two languages.

Fig. 14. Comparing developmental trends obtained by TROG and this study.

Reversible passive Comparative

A?S s'C-ns Age g-cjos — - to i sway - * - TPOQ ~~" fnu stuay - ° - TROG

Modified subjects Three elements % ot oofraei reaponaaa _ _ _ _ ^ _ _ _ , * oi correct nsaoonaw

3 36 4 4 6 6 55 6 3 3fi 4 «s e & 6

Age CC-DS Ags g-o-cs - * - Inn away - * - TROQ — • Tnu gtuoy — 7KOG

A more comprehensive picture of syntactic comprehension in English-speaking and

Cantonese-speaking children was obtained by comparing the developmental trends

postulated in English by TROG and in Cantonese by this study. Eight (see Appendix 8)

Cantonese grammatical constrasts corresponded to English syntactic structures were chosen

for illustration in Fig. 14. An examination on the graphical presentation indicated early

acquisition of all grammatical structures in Cantonese-speaking children. For example,

ninety percent of Cantonese-speaking children at the age of four can comprehend 3-element

sentences (SVO) while compared with the performance of English-speaking children with

matched age, a fifty percent was obtained. Even by the age of five, only seventy percent

of the English subjects in TROG responded correctly to SVOs and a ninety percent level

was achieved by the age of six. If age of mastery is set at .9 level of difficulty (90%

of the population responded correctly), then Cantonese-speaking children are found to

take one preschool year (preschool years started from three to six years of age) to

acquire SVOs but English-speaking children need three years of learning.

26

Vhen the TROG items were analysed, it was found that the property of a language

tended to facilitate or impede acquisition, hence lengthen or shorten the period of

acquisition, pace the age of acquisition at a earlier or later stage. Here is an example.

Late acquisitional items in TROG showed a common structural variable ~

involvement of postmodifying subject. Items using postmodifying subjects are relative

clauses and embedded sentences (see examples in Table 12).

"Postmodifying subject" is found to create much confusion in children during the

sentence comprehension process. According to Chomsky (1969), children at the age of five

to ten (a period when children were thought to have already acquired a full adult

grammar) tend to perceive relative clauses wrongly. She discovered that children

develop a rather "matured" syntactic strategy to comprehend complex sentence — the

minimal distance principle. Based on this principle, children assign the noun

immediately preceding the verb as the subject. However, as the postmodifying subject is

sited between the noun and the verb, a widened distance is established between these

two basic constituents, thus, affect the children's performance in comprehension.

In Cantonese, the lack of postmodifying functions to subject noun phrases ease the

Cantonese-speaking children from handling problematic relative clauses and embedded

sentences. Modification (see examples in Table 12) of the noun phrase in Cantonese is

sited in the front of the noun, hence the distance between the noun and the verb is not

affected, and less confusion is created during interpretation.

Table 12. Constrasting premodification function in Cantonese with postmodification function in English.

English examples : Cantonese examples :

"The boy chasing the horse is fat." *fl oR&frffiffff fill!! "The square is in the star that is blue." MlilM W fliHWJEff Jg&fe& "The cat the cow chases is black" i W O j | i ! c l i & i f i

The developmental trends illustrated in Fig. 14 confirmed that SVO with expansion

at the subject noun phrase are acquired earlier by Cantonese-speaking children. Vith the

confusion created by the post-modifying function to subject noun phrases,

English-speaking children acquire the matched structures at late age (about ten years of

age).

27

CONCLUSION

To summarize, the findings from the present study suggested that :

1) There is strong support that syntactic comprehension ability is associated with age.

Although the course of development is gradual, three and a half years of age is a

somewhat critical period for achievement.

2) The younger groups tend to have a marked preference for lexical cues while the older

groups relied on grammatial cues. The onset of grammatical development in children is

believed to be at 42-47 months.

3) The developmental order of syntactic structures in Cantonese is predictable and

agreed generally with those cited in English. The language-specific features in

Cantonese exert influence to the overall acquisitional sequence of grammatical contrasts

in which children acquired basic structures earlier and over a shorter period of time as

compared with English.

4) Comprehension strategies used by Cantonese speaking children were also found for

English. These strategies showed strong interaction with age.

IMPLICATIONS

A preliminary order of Cantonese syntactic structure in the course of development in

children is acquired. The test developed in the study is found to be sensitive in

discriminating children at different age and ability level (see cases in Appendix 9)

Here, data collected in this study can be regarded as a protocol basis for

developing an assessment tool to examine syntactic comprehension ability in

Cantonese speaking preschoolers. This assessment tool should not only provide

quantitative data such as an age equivalent or total scores for children tested

but also qualitative data such as the level of breakdown, specific strength and

deficits of the children in relation to syntactic development.

The usefulness of exploring the strategies of children in their understanding of

sentences is the application for the disordered population. The question being raised

and not yet answered empirically is "whether comprehension strategies should be taught

to children who fail to use them spontaneously". If it is the case, what strategies

should be taught, "age equivalent" strategies or "adult strategies" ?

28

According to Paul (1987), those no-strategy children should be helped by "attempts

to provide chances for them to process sentences slightly above their current level of

functioning". He also suggested different approaches to help disabled children in

learning strategies and the starting point for training would be the clinician to accept

children's "strategy-based responses as adequate rather than their responding correctly"

(Paul, 1987 cited in Paul 1990).

The empirical data collected in this study concerning strategies normal children use

will take a part in all stages of treatment. Firstly, they can discriminate whether the

strategies children rely on are age-appropriate. Secondly, they can help charting

changes in children's performance throughout the treatment program such as the

transition from reliance on world knowledge to decontextualized understanding of

linguistic form. Such information can serve as a guide to the path children with

language handicaps follow to acquire more mature communicative skills.

IMPLICATION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

The scale of the present test is still small and further normative data need to be

sought. It will be valuable to conduct the test on more subjects from the existing age

bands. In addition the test can be extended to older groups in order to determine the

performance ceiling in children and the application of the items in disordered

populations can be extended for clinical use. Continuous modification on the items is

expected during this process. This would help to bring an reliable/valid assessment tool

for the testing of syntactic comprehension in Cantonese to come about.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author gratefully acknowledge the principals, teachers and children from the following kindergartens and school for their assistance and cooperation during data collection :

Tack Ching Kindergarten Sean Jean Kindergarten Vestgarden Grace Kindergarten Ho Fai Primary School (MaOnShan)

The author would like to express thanks to Professor Ann Zubrick, Dr. Godfrey Harrison, Dr. Valter Ciocca and Mr. Samuel Leung for their suggestions and advices.

Lastly, the author would like to thank Mr. Tam Koo-yin, her husband, for his

psychological and technical support during the study.

29

REFERENCES

Bishop, D. (1982). Test for reception of grammar. University of Manchester.

Chao, Y.R. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. University of California Press.

Chapman, R. (1977). Comprehension strategies in children. In J. Kavanaugh & V. Strange (Eds). Language in the laboratory, school and clinic. Cambridge : MIT Press.

Cheung, H.L. (1972). Cantonese as spoken in Hong Kong. The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Chomsky, C. (1969)* The acquisition of syntax in children from 5 to 10. Cambridge : MIT Press. —

Crystal, D., Carman, M., & Fletcher, P. (1989). Grammatical analysis of language disability. London : Cole & Vhurr.

de Villiers, J. G., & de Villiers, P. A. (1982). Language acquisition. Cambridge : Havard University Press.

James, S.L. (1990). Normal language acquisition. Boston : Little Brown company.

Kail, M. (1989). Cue validity, cue cost, and processing types in sentence comprehension in French and Spain. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds). The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge : Cambridge Univerity Press.

Kwong, S. M. (1987). The syntactic development of Cantonese-speaking preschool children. In S. Opper (Eds). Development of Hong Kong preschool education. University of Hong Kong.

Lee, L. (1992, April). Understanding of negation in Cantonese speaking children. Dissertation paper presented in the Department of Speech & Hearing Sciences, HKU.

Li, C.N., & Thompson, S.A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese. Berkeley : University of California Press.

Loke, K. K. & Harrison, G. (1986). Young children's use of Chinese (Cantonese and Mandarin) sortal classifiers. In H.S.R. Kao & R. Hoosain (Eds). Lingusitics, psychology, and the Chinese language. University of Hong Kong.

Mak, D. (1991, November). Acquisition of Cantonese shape classifiers. Paper presented at the Department of Speech & Hearing Sciences, HKU.

Owens, R.E. (1988). Language development : an introduction. Columbus : Merrill

Publishing Co.

Paul, R. (1990). Comprehension strategies : Interactions between world knowledge and the development of sentence comprehension. Topics in language disorders, 10.(5)» 63-75.

Quirk, R. & Greenbaum, S. (1973). A university grammar of English. Hong Kong : Longman.

Slobin, D.I. (1985) The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition V.I : The data London : lawrence Erlbaum Ass. Inc.

Taylor, I., & Taylor, M.M. (1990). Psycholinguistics : learning and using language.

Englewood Cliffs : Prentice Hall.

Wren, C.Y. (1983). Language learning disabilities. London : ASPEN publication.

AK®fflllKK*l'l'TO£35. (1984). • I "Wft ;.'?&&*&.

•fjii r-. (1980). ifijiiarftpfft. s&iflussniaiin.

ttinsp^wiMffi^f/aitn^nft. (1989). m ^ x v i n w ^ a

jms?. d989). jajo&ff.. JAJII : *V]k-kmwm\..

APPENDIX 1. A SAMPLE FROM THE PICTURE-CHOICE TASK.

<2^x >i^

4-

a

The spoken sentence is J£'Mil !?* lit 3ty H n e horse is chasing the dog). The correct

choice is picture 2. Picture 1 and 4 are lexical distractors vith error both at the

clause level-subject and object position respectively• Picture 3 is a grammatical

distractor at Clause level in which subject and object are being reversed.

APPENDIX^ 2^ THE CHARACTERS IN THE TEST

Five characters are created in the test, they are members of the family.

They are father, mother, brother, sister and baby.

FATHER MOTHER ELDER BROTHER

YOUNGER SISTER

BABY

APPENDIX 3. THE 104 TEST ITEMS

SI". (Ml !!!•

z. J< 'A if-

II.'.I yj ir- w vi!

'i. fi,i'^ m k ir-

//•n w

K m 7. •?;.,!« ^

0. ftW-VI /K

! " •'. U .

10.

I I .

\?.

& W M 1

(|,',I /y- ff-WiiSI

ft P. i!'ii

IW a i'iff fri,

| l"l 13.

1 M-1 1 1 3 .

Id.

& 3.W .«[ ¥11 W! ifii

f|A| BIIISIufeiHM. m ^ ifii

U W«f,S U- fb T ifii

« ! l i WXfcfW il:. •/;'ifKI-. ifii

:/r. 17.

IB.

IS).

SO.

]C!»!K & -T- *IAJ yj ir- n jii»

M Ji!. M fl! ifii (N KM161 f£ Wf f «

w fti; n>m it- M * W>A& M M M i«l' '"I! $ VI! f£ di: I «

1 A 21.

? .

Z3. 1 Z4.

!W 1/) A f » : M !l-!-

& m ix<m \p< .'•£ k\\ j l ' J " ! ^ iSE W

•4 i | : |f|..>!¥S lir IIF

i - 25. ii'v. lav. a iw .H;

a*- 5R 5t -fi P 'A tf

n. lJi $& \& OS f «

zo. IN fit ^ ini"l:'Jf;

A ?n. Ak lUc l t ' # Jllj

30. i£ ^J-,1-'#)A:

3i. Ilf iif ?!£'#> WWi^i f t i

32. »? -'h (#.(£ (|,',| yj A iVf ffif

% 33.

34.

35.

30.

m m yj if- w w « * (IAI m w u % M & - 914 % - \ii it

zi u- ?fi - a

-h 37.

30.

39.

10.

<Jl W j i M .«£ iVi IfiuiUE m (/•

fl-Oi tf-WS#1ftHF A » l ! «

M M< - M l «S Wi M Vt: ;JM J£ 4*«!!K ^ fM U WM. l)\ A

1-1-41.

1 A2' 43.

44.

fir w m m fi-M *r S ft )fl! )l£ 'JK 1*

A '-v- K m m m m k if- px iii"i IF TK J

| - | - - 45.

40.

AT.

40.

H'il/AI ftAI •/* If. « ,R

*r- ii'i." ftn yj u- mm *& & i\M a PI! ifii fN '"I1- i«|s i W i1? M

«3I'# W< (I'M W A [ « n 111

I -|-H 49.

50.

51.

52.

<W W if- W- m M JK'«!' '"1!

M w;- f i >JI )H m m m n>- m»\& w ik r \hi biM </\ if vi % if-m m is J-. ifii ft urn ?r? M

1 -I'M S3.

| 54.

55.

50.

(W W A ft) IW 84' N'- -fij l;f

w M &t\& w it ® ii\i ®z %s fc '«V- ,l!1'- ifcPfefi flAI 1ft . 1 : ifii fl'IMl: J£ ft!

s s w .«E {v- w m m

|-/f. !>/. 'Mi >Ai Bit VI n of*, a m m n; mi! i^ -H: VH M . & W MWli f|.'OJ if- Wli i i

GO. ft a Jdi i£ -'I ox 7k

•i-A (3i. fw a hi mmm fK. 1? T ifii f|.',| fit ii," i f I I ; [fiuij't

C3. fi-M k \\- ii/i C-X 7j<

Gi. ill lif >R- -tffcl

-I-L' K3.

1 GO.

(17.

00.

•#J W if- !i 'M« \)X

l!f 111' {|>#nf|'.J 5C .

VI '-\- H$ 11; I I ! JlH

ill JUl M l ffi

: i f i l

|- |-A (iU.

1 70.

1 71-72.

- fir- fi'fi

- $K w l l l l . l l l l .

- .rj J•!

I - I - A 7 3 .

1 1Al

1 715.

70.

(M # IT- iif- ff ffl M it

mmwA&m 'mm*\w&m vi w m m w i'/f iiafi ft ft K 12? tf ' fiF i:r .iVi 13? i-f

in |

I - - I - 7 7 .

78.

1 7 9 .

1 HO.

ft* 4-I; M- S£ AIS )Q

Vi '-Y- tt'- m k A Jffi

ift Kill CV- ft ft 3Cl

IN W if- W «j n= Jff;

1 l l - o i .

| (32.

1 8 3 .

[ ^

i£ ¥!i A" Ji4 it£ tK i'(-

\k m M- $ \n h: j£ sbt iim m vi w IN & A M $ ft s

I U ' » • (W k A I'fi B, hk hi

wi. i t m A!-; WI-. W ,'ii ,fi;

H/. AI fc A - I Ml. \'H V ?<\ if- Ml MiftS to

[TlH 09-

90.

9J.

92.

A1* w; IHI "'i'- n u \& i'.( fo n % m I»I J'IJ t/i i',i /ii? JI ' I , ,^ i t n-

K ft fiX' ?l< li.'l J'l! it <ri }&

l\M k if f'l'- (W il li.'l J'l! * ;'? »| i;f j

11KM 93.

94.

9!i.

f U C i .

•$ 1$ X .:":i Y. f£ 111 to Ms

m yj i r - - i f i i i i : i ! ! 1 : - — mf ft I I O J » &

I'.'l III il: m ft if- (if* fiS to ' 3'H fW K: /j|5 (4v Ms

(M 4c If- I'.'l Ji't il: Km VI '1- ' f'l' J!M1 J£ W MS

1 I|-.7L9/.

9B.

99.

100.

Afc ftfc fti'!¥S 'ii'i Jlinim p|i ' f:r r:f i i j ^ rtf

m W ff- ! M * Ni > if£ W iHs IV: fli

S 8 IliTfS !'! Z iV! 1)11 ftf

• m t(K A<. z m nirs ,

in

IIA101.

102.

10.3.

J(M.

>:*(>:u.mu v\ ' in i . « i u s ft (w iftv- i"-v- MI. $ -rr •?{ ?* • \m&m ww. i .'/,: IN j< w z w > m m an w 14 i'i to I M : m k if Z. ft ' m i\M A l\\'> IJ\M till

111

in

in

APPENDIX 4. INSTRUCTIONS AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE TEST

Administration of the test :

1. Introducing the characters.

a. Characters created by the experimenter are introduced to the child before the actual

test is administered.

(The experimenter)

"First, I would like to introduce to you some people. Here ve are (pointing to the

characters). This is father, mother, elder brother, younger sister, and this is the

baby.

Now, can you remember who they are."

mt, MM'i-DAWfi*. (mwMJi). o m ^ t S , J W , mm* UMC, « . m&mT<$

mmrmwji: b. The child is asked to say out the "name" of the characters.

(The experimenter)

"Now look at them once again. Remember their face. They will be hiding somewhere in

the following pictures. Listen to what I say and you can find them out."

2. Instructing the task.

(The expermenter)

Open the picture book and give the child some seconds to scan the pictures. "Look we

have four pictures here, point to what I say. Listen carefully". Say out the

phrase/sentence and record the answer. "Yes. Now I am going to show you more pictures.

Again listen carefully and point to what I say."

When the child's response is consistent, the instruction will be omitted. Only the

phrase/sentence is spoken after the child is allowed to scan all four pictures.

As a reminder to the child, for every ten pictures, the instruction will be

repeated. "So far, you have been a good boy/girl. Nov I will shov you another four

pictures, look at them all and point to what I say."

For Item 19, 20, 48 and 65, the instruction is "Here ve have four pictures, point to

something which is 'ONE CLASSIFIER CLASSIFER1-"

3. Repeating the items.

The items are repeated if requested. When the child does not respond after five

seconds, the item will be repeated. A maximum of three times of repetition is allowed.

4. Scoring.

The child's response is recorded in the box next to the Items. The exact number of

pictures the child chooses are written down.

When the child refuses to response after three repetition. A no-response is recorded

as "0" in the box which will be regarded as incorrect response.

5. Using vocabulary check.

All children from the 36-41 months group are asked to do the vocabulary test. The

child is asked to name the pictures, for any items that the child is not able to name,

the experimenter will ask the child to point to the picture spoken.

Any children from the other groups who are suspected of having difficultis with the

vocabulary in the test, they will do the vocabulary check after the test has been

administered.

APPENDIX 5 . THE VOCABULARY CHECK

|j?l:*i : ~

III il£ II JDI :

801 ffiSt M JUI :

>-M :

LREJIJL

ft.W'l : 1

w # #1 & *T- f/r

( Sffi ) (Jft ) m m m m m m

1 1 7. |M

A. n 3. <>

r.. it) m

1 i.-^-x !>• M ;'!':

?- hi iii.

n. £ S

|lV7. $

2- & <r-4. M -iir

r>. i« 5',. jfli

i - i c i r -n- 'A' 3. W

if i. 16 4. ^

1 2. ^ '

3. 91 if-«• ft 7. ini IBI

fi. ifc Mc | 5. tU

1 Vi 5. |0c

3. Km 7. tf 4. ^

1. W-fi. Ill]

a. KM 2. 11$

1 HI 7. n m

a. JK W-'i 4. | f

2. ).£

5. m fi. W A

J . ifHf-

__3-^ # M

& IS IK »d * 3£ 1 1IU: 1 1

I £ ft If f : | j f » « £ « I I * • ' I 1

VII 8. iii,"

i. I I :

3. A"

fi. I I

j 2. ft« 7. \\\

~ " s . JK

4.1;" J 1 1

APPENDIX 6^ _DIFraCjaTLMPELiMj_gIGNIFICANT LEVEL OF 104 ITENS

STRUCTURE

CATEGORY

group 1 A

A C A G U X L C I R E F F P R L B C G H B D P J C K G

group 2 B J N 0 A F H L U X H K L V 0 B R Y ¥ N N Z X

RANK SIGNIFICANT ORDER LEVEL

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

0.6978 0.3800

0.3988 0.6018

0.5746

0.5353

0.3433

0.2899 0.2302

* 0.0228

0.0784 0.6000

* 0.0562

0.5794 * 0.0022

* 0.0577

* 0.0352

* 0.0014 * 0.0005

* 0.0081

# 0.0122

# 0.0024 * 0.0040

0.2975 * 0.0009 * 0.0011

# 0.0034

0.2609

0.3504

* 0.0023 0.5368

* 0.0397

0.0994

* 0.0013 * 0.0006

* 0.0001

* 0.0001

* 0.0001

* 0.0500 * 0.0000

w 0.0206

* 0.0000

* 0.0040

# 0.0005 * 0.0116

* 0.0000

* 0.0000

* 0.0002

# 0.0467

* 0.0001

* 0.0000

LEVEL (

36-41

0.9583

0.9583 0.9582

0.9167 0.9167 0.9167 1.0000

0.9167

0.8333

0.8333

0.8333

0*8333 0.7917

0.7917

0.7917

0.7917

0.7917

0.7083

0.7083 0.7083

0.7083 0.6667 0.6667

0.6667 0.6667

0.6250

0.6250

0.6250

0.5833

0.5833

0.5833

0.5833 0.5417

0.5417

0.5417

0.5417

0.5417

0.5417

0.5000

0.5000

0.5000

0.5000

0.5000 0.4583

0.4583

0.3333

0.3750 0.2917

0.3333

0.3750

0.4583

3F DIFFICULTY VITH AGE IN MONTHS 42-47

0.9600 1.0000

0.9200 0.8000 0.9600 0.8000 0.8888

0.9200 0.9200 0.8800

0.8800

1.0000

0.9600

0.8800

1.0000

0.9600

0.8000

0.9200

0.8400 0.8800

0.9200 0.8800 0.8000

0.8400 0.8800

0.7600

0.8000

0.7200

0.8400

0.6400 0.7200

0.7600

0.6400 0.8400

0.6400 0.8400 0.6800

0.8400 0.8800

0.6800

0.7600

0.6800

0.6800

0.7600

0.7200

0.8400 0.8000

0.7200

0.7200

0.7200

0.6800

48-53

1.0000 1.0000

1.0000

0.8400 0.9600

0.8400 0.9200

0.8400 0.8800

1.0000

0.9200

0.9600

0.9200

0.8800

0.9600

0.9600

0.9200

0.8800

0.9600

0.8400 0.9200 0.9200 0.8800 0.7600 0.9200

0.9200

0.8400

0.7600

0.7200

0.8800

0.6000

0.6800

0.6800 0.6800 0.6400 0.7600 0.4800

0.7200

0.6400

0.8400 0.7600

0.8400 0.7200

0.6000

0.8000 0.9200

0.8800

0.7200

0.7200

0.8000

0.9600

54-59

0.9630 1.0000

0.9630 0.8519 1.0000 0.8148

0.9259 0.9630 0.9630 1.0000

0.8889

0.9630

0.9630

0.8889

0.9630

0.9259 1.0000

0.9630 1.0000

0.9630 0.8148

0.9259 0.9630 0.7407 0.9638

1.0000

0.9259

0.8519

0.7400

0.7037

0.7407

0.8519 0.7407

0.8889 0.7037

0.8889 0.5556

0.9630 0.6667

0.9259 0.8148

0.8519 0.8889

0.8519 0.5556

0.9259

0.9630 0.7407 0.7778

0.8519

0.9630

60-65

1.0000 1.0000

1.0000

0.8889 1*0000

0.8889 0.9630 0.9630 0.9630

0.9630

0.8889 1.0000

0.9630

0.9259 1.0000

1.0000

0.9630 1.0000

1.0000 1.0000

0.9630 0.9630 0.9259 0.8519 1.0000

0.8519

0.9259

0.8889

0.7037

0.8519 0.7407

0.7407 0.7407

0.8889 0.9630 0.9630

0.9259

0.8889 0.8519

0.9630 0.8148

1.0000

0.8889 0.8148

0.8519 0.7778

0.8889 0.7778

0.9259

0.9259 1.0000

66-71

1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

0.8333 0.9583 0.9583 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

1.0000 1.0000

0.9583 1.0000

0.9583 1.0000

0.9583

0.9583 1.0000

0.9583

0.9583 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.9167

0.9583

0.9583 1.0000

0.7917

0.8333 1.0000

0.7917

0.9583 0.9167

0.8026 0.9583 1.0000

0.9583 1.0000

0.9167 1.0000

0.9167 1.0000

0.8750 0.9583 0.7917 1.0000

0.9167

0.8333 0.9167

0.7083

1.0000

F

P M M R Z 0

group 3 U

M N 0 G V

s Q D V V T

group 4 V

V V J Y D S P T Y

group 5 U

J M K I E X E Q E

group 6 D

Q Z I T Y

group 6+ Q

S T H I S K Z

52

53 54 55 56 57 58

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90

91 92 93 94 95 96

97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104

* 0.0000

* 0.0001

* 0.0116

0.1815

* 0.0159 * 0.0046

* 0.0075

* 0.0004 * 0.0000

* 0.0002 * 0.0001

* 0.0002 * 0.0000

* 0.0002 w 0.0000

* 0.0007 * 0.0000

* 0.0101

* 0.0005

* 0.0019 * 0.0002

* 0.0000

w 0.0000

* 0.0027 * 0.0000

* 0.0000

0.1236

0.5703 * 0.0001

* 0.0007

* 0.0322

0.4230 0.0740

* 0.0000

* 0.0102

* 0.0038

* 0.0153 0.1676

* 0.0005

0.0915

0.6803 * 0.0477 0.3610

* 0.0058

0.1312

0.2432

0.3271

* 0.0342

* 0.0427

0.7936

0.9857

0.7184 0.5326

0.3333 0.4167

0.4167

0.4167

0.3750

0.5833

0.6250

0.3333 0.4583 0.4583

0.3333 0.4167

0.2500

0.3333 0.2083

0.3333 0.1250

0.5833 0.3333

0.4167

0.4167

0.3333

0.2083

0.4585

0.2083

0.2083 0.4167

0.6250 0.4167

0.3335 0.5417

0.5000

0.6250 0.1667

0.4583

0.3333

0.2500

0.4583 0.2917

0.3750

0.4583

0.2500 0.4167

0.2083 0.2917

0.5417

0.2500 0.2917 0.1667

0.4167

0.3333 0.2914

0.2500

0.6400

0.6400

0.6400 0.6000

0.6000

0.6000

0.6000

0.5600 0.5600 0.5600 0.5200

0.4800

0.4400

0.4400

0.2400 0.4800 0.6800 0.4800

0.4400

0.4400 0.6000

0.5600

0.4800

0.5200

0.4000

0.4000

0.4000

0.6400 0.2800

0.2800

0.5600

0.4400

0.6400 0.2800

0.4000 0.3200

0.4400

0.4800

0.2400

0.4000

0.4400

0.4400 0.5200

0.2400 0.3600

0.4000 0.3600

0*3200 0.1600

0.4000 0.3600

0.4000 0.1200

0.7200

0.8000

0.8000

0.8000

0.6800

0.8000

0.8800

0.7200 0.7200 0.7200 0.6000

0.8400 0.7200

0.6800

0.6400

0.6400 0.6000

0.6000 0.6000

0.5600 0.5600

0.5600

0.5200

0.5200

0.4000

0.4400

0.4000 0.6667 0.3200

0.3600

0.5600 0.2800

0.5200

0.4400

0.4400

0.4000

0.4400

0.4400

0.4400

0.4800

0.3600 0.3200

0.5200

0.4000 0.5200

0.4000 0.3200

0.2400 0.3200

0.2800

0.3200

0.3600

0.1600

0,8519

0.8889 0.8148

0.7407

0.7037

0.8148

0.8519

0.5626

0.9259 0.8148

0.7037 0.7778 0.7778

0.7407 0.7407

0.7037 0.3704 0.6667 0.7407

0.8148

0.8148

0.7407

0.7037 0.6296

0.8519 0.6296

0.6667

0.6269 0.6667

0.5926

0.5926

0.5926

0.5556

0.5185

0.5185

0.5185

0.3704 0.7037

0.4444

0.4074

0.3704 0.5556

0*5185

0.3704 0.4074

0.4444 0.4815 0.4444

0.4074

0.2963 0.3704

0.4074 0.1852

0.9630 0.9167 0.7778 0.9585 0.7778 0.7917

0.8148 0.9167 0.8148 0.7038

0.8889 0.9583 0.8889 0.9167

0.7778 0.9167

0.9259 0.9583 0.9259 0.9167

0.8889 0.8750 0.8148 0.8750

0.8889 0.9167 0.6296 0.9167

0.6667 0.8750 0.8148 0.8333 0.7037 0.8750 0.8148 0.9167 0.7778 0.8333

0.8519 0.8333 0.8519 0.9167

0.9259 0.9167 0.8148 0.7917

0.8519 0.8750 0.8519 0.7500 0.7778 0.9167

0.8889 0.7083 0.7037 0.7083

0.6667 0.8750

0.6296 0.7617

0.8148 0.8750

0.6667 0.6667

0.8519 0.7917

0.7407 0.7500

0.7407 0.8333

0.6296 0.7917

0.6667 0.6667

0.6667 0.7083 0.6296 0.7917

0.5556 0.6667 0.4440 0.6667

0.4815 0.5417 0.5556 0.6667 0.4444 0.6250 0.4444 0.6667

0.4074 0.5833 0.4074 0.5417

0.4815 0.5000 0.4815 0.4583

0.2963 0.4167

0.3333 0.4167

0.2917 0.4815

0.2593 0.2533

FOOTNOTE : * DENOTES SIGNIFICANT LEVEL <0.05.

APPENDIX^- STRUCTURES ACQUIRED (COMPREHENDED) AT DIFFERENT AGE-GROUPS

GROUPS

STRUCTURES

Noun Phrase Verb Phrase

SV

sc SA SA (+A) SC SC (+S) SC (+C)

SVO SVC SVA SVA (+A)

SVO (+S) SVC (+S) SVO (+0) SVO (+V)

SVOdOi SVOVA

SVOVO

Pivotal s t r u c t u r e

Negation Nonexistence Reject Denial Not Yet

P lura l i ty Class i f ier

Shape Borrowing Container Collect ive

Question words Passive Comparative Coordination Subordination

GROUP 1

X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X

X X

X X

X X

X X

GROUP 2

X X

X

X X X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X X X

GROUP 3

X

X

X

X X X X

X

X X X X

GROUP 4

X

X

X

X X X X

GROUP 5

X

X X X X

X

X

X X

GROUP 6

X

X X

X

X X

X

X X

X X

Footnote (X) denotes structures acquired at a specific age-band Group 1 : 36-41 months

42-47 months 48-53 months 54-59 months 60-65 months 66-71 months

2 3 4 5 6

APPE^ijLs^oNsm^ TR0G VITH THIS STUDY

Reversible passive «1 of correct responses

4 4 5 5 55

Age grcjps - * - Tnis stuOy - * ~ TFOQ

Modified subjects % of correct responses

Comparative 56 of correct lesponaea

4 45 5 65 Age groups

-**- This study - ° ~ TROQ

Three elements % ol correct responses

4.5 6

Age grcups This Study —<— TPOQ

Two elements Negation % of correct responses

too*

80*

ao*

4035

205b

% of ccrsot responses

^~~~~^^>*^ yS^ V[^^^

3 36 4 A & &

Age grcups

- * - TW» study ~°- TPOG

-

'" .

-

-

65

• -

6

Plurality Reversible active % of co'rert responses

Age gtups This stuoy ~ ° " TPOG

» o' correct responses

APPENDIX 9. TWO JSAMPLES FROM THE STAGE^ TWO PROCEDURES TQ ILLUSTRATE SENSITIVITY OF THE TEST ITEMS.

Case 1. Child aged 5;2 (Male)

The ceiling item (according to five errors in eight consecutive items) is 50. This is the point which is most discriminable for children between 56-41 months and 42-47 months. Hence the child's age is predicted correctly.

Case 2. Child aged 5;4 (Female)

The ceiling item (according to five errors in eight consecutive items) is 60. This is at 48-55 months level. The child is found to have one year behind in her syntactic comprehension ability. Discussion with her teacher revealed that her poor performance in the test is correlated to her poor academic attainment level. She has experience long period of hospitalization.

1 HON OF m m STRUCTURES E - S P I i PRESCHOOLERS

RPPPA m%

BY CHEUNG MEE PING, PENITA 1993

ftt^f

& £ B SPIS ttS'J :

ss B m

w^n&mt; ( lit ) ( ft )

?i sa BU PJ s a « 1 1 7 . »

L_„4- S | 3. ft

6. 13 S

_J-Jc A 5. mm

\ 2. MM ^ 8 . | g

II 1. ft 4. #

| 2. ^ 3. H i? 8. ft 7. 1 1 6. « & 5. ff

• . , • • „ , — —

n.fi s. mm 4. ff

2 . 0J5

5. * •

6- S A 1. £ ff

3. JE 7J ^

& A JR. JX :5C S

# ft- :

M S :

( « ) ( f t ) una ®\m.'&

IV 7. ,1

2- &ff

^ • 1 1 6. £

5. a 1- &ff 8. 9 3. jft

| v 6. m, 5. £

2. |S

8. gc

i. j i 7. 4£

! 3. J | 4. ±

1 vi 5. IO:

3. ft

7. m A . *

i. #

e. m 8. Si 2. g$

rvi8."n i. a 3. *

6. ft

2. m 7. Jg

1 5 . JE j 4. $

COVPREHEVSIO* 0? SfcWWOl STWWOS W OIWWBE S*eAWK FfiSChO&PS Bff CICUM'S U P K U t t JW3

/ w ^ vv^ ^

V ^

2 0 ,p^/ZS—72- p.

^-l/*

f46 1 01.

1 02.

1 03.

04.

0 5 ~

067"

07.

08.

fc B * A£>f?

S S i F f t il D« {0 & f?

« a ffi M & ng ft « & & ft ?£ si m x ft x ^ M ^ M A ffl ® fS «# w? ^ Dg § B

A

A

C

A

G

u !

x I

L

2

I 1

2 1 2 [ 3 1

_ _

1

1 J 09.

1 10.

11.

12.

^ m m *i m m # 3 m m & -SJHJt

fcfc fcfc # ° ! # # *? A

c

I

R

E

1

4

1

4 J 1 13~7

14.

15.

1 16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

mm A&«K$c^ Ife Ifi 5c «* &

{0 & ff "I IK 7j<

— * & • < & •

11XX JLLXX

Hill afi ft m H A m °1 #

"# n» #

<@ i t E ft II$ n$ ^ flg ?ff

SI f'J Ik Oil tfc

F

F

P

R

L

B

C

G

H

3

4

1

2

1

1

3

1

3

1 22. JSlfc ~~~ B

1 23. i l a ' p i HE « % m _?__ 24. jig ^ ~ f e l ^ p

1 25. -fig H f f E§ P& <® #? * p^ ^ i_

1 26. m&ftvft pi L_ | 27. i&^mmmw. K

28. gg % W ftS &~fF~ 6 j

[_3 4

! 2 !

1

4

3 1 4 1

1

29.

31.

33.

37.

38.

0$«

30. mtkM*%mmmn % xmmten^

32. mm BUM

m&mm 34. I l i B f l i

^ A ra 1®

<® H ff - ® © # > -

35. f l - t t | % l t i

36. S F i S M H f i F ! t n | « J S

X

2

2

39. &c fcfc 4& 0$ Jill

40. I f i f ®& 3l§ i i rrn,

41. '(3 °t f i £ # & *i *

42. fg$4ff-t«I6 43. sg m n D| IS n f? 44. &*%&

45. — m M

46. W c ^ ^ B i i ^ ^ f l g i ^ ' w^mtXtiL

47. ^ @ 0:7j< |sj a

48. =g =g }t g 4 # m m

49. n$ wfc ± D{| m i ± ® B$ ft It & 50. m vty n41 E $ W ' (I ^ $£

OUPffihEWN Of QMMfWK STTOWSS IN CAWCWESESPSAKIHfi -R^^OLSW

si. m m ± m & & m m & » m m # UP ^ x 52. ft 4: m BR If flf 53.

56.

T © f@ ^ Dg 1£ &E -fe 54. m «4 n$ oil 3i m r m u *% & & 55. ft ^ # 41 WK m ± ® "i m

%& &t

57. ^mmmuM > is. % m & m & 58. #§ m m f± «# «$ m

M

M

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

is m m m m m m % if n m m & m n m m & m m m m m & n% ?K

§ S I og m * ^ * AS {* BI o£

u M

N

0

G

4

1

4

4

1 J

64. ft AH mmg.mm&D#mm

1 65.

66.

67.

60.

! 69.

70.

m m $> w si »»$ «$ °i 5ft ^ 23 tf El °I &

i i i i °n fla IE # ^ ± ® ft M M ©s # a M H fj & A - m n& 1(5 ft #j # g ^ it

s Q

D

V

V

T

2

1

3 J 3 1 4

2

75.

71. f i l&AiiM 72. m m n n «# IP ^ n -6 # 73. # & # n m ± M a # § ^ 74. ftriiii°i ^ft & "R^ff

!$*£ elites

76. # $E 0$ & 7£ T II

GR6

.5

GR6

.5

77. mm mm m m m

79.

91.

95.

98.

101.

104.

78. ^f -# 5fc M

ft n ft m m so. m m ft m «%mw >g.® B & &

m m n wm 92. If W £ D« °ft & ±

93. m B4m -kftZ-W >®mx mu *\ 94. =

* n ft n m ge. HI?, UJ?. &7j<£ m e i i

97. ft ^ § | £ jg jfe

& fr- # PI? # m A

99. i ^ f f i ^ A *§ ioo. ft-^li "(IM H Affl

— 5k 3h *UB

102. g % Ii i l ^ ' IF IF S£ i^ ^ 103. g g #1 j£ 5B *E

Bfc D£ f@ A & £ ^ ' ^ M $ SP ^ * & z

1 4

2

2

GKb

.5

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

06.

07.

ft m. A m ft m. ft '31 IS ^ Ql H M £? J!E oR H A

Ms a* # ft $ m w m&ff'fomtt7k W m m ft ffl 0: ul 7j<: & Bift 4 ^ M g f ? # m

mikftngw-±mm§i^ >wm.QI

u

J

M

K

I

E

imm

r~2 4

2

2

3 1 1

4

1 ST 89.

90.

4* BII m m M ^ '4 <E i-ik ^ » i m

& M M ti m m m

m m & & fe DS

n m n -fe DM

E

Q

E

2

2

1 J

4

CO

0 / \ ft

IA

T"i

-**¥"•"

-4*

t*

O

*L \ 0>

\

'Br

J

6» I t V>-

(ff *S:S

c^r^n

. 0>C

3»

*J0

r Hri

• ^ LP

i. i o »;

< % _ > S|

C^^

*o

IV ^3<£

tdk*

xy1

pr ( N ^

& *

£t

^ A

O

/

/

A

Cf^3

c3d

l w

45b PU

I

izLi ^ a>A <5b

•T W /*»:

3

Q

9 •'(^>Yi

baQl-

I?

CE5E5

j f T ^ ,

&

feElfe*. • \ * r ^ ^

4?}

O S

ft

Zb,

fr" ifV>

/w /^i^j-^1

Q I

•<v>/ a A

° < ^ D

\ !

Si

&

-Q-

J3

fvC®

«

^ T

fa

J-IL

4' "\ i " c i

fr <* Q

tfx ^

L _ J J 3

Jl #

If i

y Q w

a

B -ft. ;p

«

Vs o «n

srw>

-*LT

1 CX g>

M&O*

<© CM

o iTa

o

Ja>

^ J ? f f i

([rfD-ij

fc& ^ ft

I ^ 0 n

0

&< m

Q fc

S

a

C

K. j ib

ft CuJS QCD

b?

*y

c£>

e=*-

r/i *

Ff

pl

^ 'co

CD «

& ft'

ft 1

*3&

^M A

to' l

PF71J

P> rT)

/ J y

I-

* , -{.•\< :£

• ^

H ! ^

U7* ^

jfea_C? li~~.

^&)k$

(fc^<Zfc^

4=1

"L

t £&£!

o ^

°J-

f ^ 1 1

$ A f

n~5

if &5A-.

°tj

# CitW

TT-ffi D

8? TO HJ

x &

l /VA

O t if

/fi

£

4

c56

1!

©

£ & m

ft *J r-

ry ir:

cm

f"Q

c 2 ^

,U*« f^l-EEEE£l

0 5*4

ft

m

—Q-.J

£ipi V

P^rl^

w

¥ V=J

f?#

ITT "uni

<3

.8 IT -*tt u

"^Jr-n*

%K 8 "i?

•r

ZS#

^

y /

/

0 Jllh

e &

<% 1 o

<3> \ Yv

YC-4

(!ZD^~

^ IB} fo—. <£3 ^

^ •J W*

'9 6?

:tJk

Q CH^'I

J? f?! ,« J?

tSXU

¥ I '",r

«£S.

^Rk

% €£r

tt ft

si

• Q -

-Q-

•"§ * £

e£N*

i$r>N

5 4S

0

W V 0

SM, £ & ^ j

H?T4

H 1 M

ft 8

1 «•

i **

to

Hi&ii"

1 **

S i

9 [3 ^

9 v4 ^

a4

8 ^

affi 6to OO

D

D

\>K$^

1

n j

ft

1

n ft

& •

IfiSu

Ji 1

<3>

§g

J8L, R n

^A &

Or «> tf

""tzisk

&r-

©

Jj'vy^ « UU *Sa

5 % c£>

£ fe

S " ^

M

« $

V j o - ^ f t

51

<i^6

.9, 'V!

t o D

C I E ~ ^ >

oft* (i

^rA &

ti& &

6» M

rtf Jjllf

<3 ID

- ^ #

<3>i !-<&

li_)

9

©i

a r ^

% A > *'

&

^ & »

i* M

a

IT, Wii itf

V"

T15 B

<^s—vA

£

J>/ 0 .

VQ

QjLff

ifal.

0 o tars

IfiA

^ ;t §

") <#

£) ^ ~ > B W

Pi /•4

^

felfiW

fe>J4

|i i,

m <$*

fHi

i—n

« ; " IT r¥ r h

ju

ih I

©

n

«f

rips

9* w

o d

rffl^l

K

&p ^

s >r^

3 9.

A /-0~7WlffiSl

rK'SCi r 1 J irp-ir Tf-ji-wjs^

£~<N—s^v

«a. ) H \

<*S5

RSB

Wfft 2 2 MAR 2008

>

F O

? i£V^ s&

1H>/

J S W

!&-<£& iF~~5fl

:||l ^ r

©

fi

<i

©Hi

owcP