Citation
The development of the perception of ambiguity

Material Information

Title:
The development of the perception of ambiguity
Creator:
Mederer, Hyta, 1949-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
ix, 114 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Ambiguity ( jstor )
College students ( jstor )
Cookies ( jstor )
Dogs ( jstor )
Linguistics ( jstor )
Nouns ( jstor )
Police ( jstor )
Sentence structure ( jstor )
Sentences ( jstor )
Verbs ( jstor )
Ambiguity ( lcsh )
Language acquisition ( lcsh )
City of Gainesville ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaf 113).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Hyta Mederer.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
023342936 ( ALEPH )
AAL2927 ( NOTIS )
06572897 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text















THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PERCEPTION
OF AMBIGUITY





BY

HYTA MEDERER


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1979








































Copyright 1979

by

Hyta Mederer



































For Phil--the closer the better














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Robert

Scholes for his many contributions to this dissertation,

including his suggestions for the test designs, for the

analyses, and for the pictures, as well as his patience

in directing its progress.

I would also like to express my gratitude to Dr. Jean

Casagrande both for his comments and suggestions concerning

this dissertation and for his support and understanding

throughout my enrollment at the University of Florida.

To Dr. Paul Kotey I would like to convey my appreciation

for his reading and commenting on my dissertation as well

as for his support and advice.

I would like to thank Dr. Ira Fischler for his thorough

reading of this dissertation and for his invaluable sugges-

tions for its improvement.

To Dr. Tom Doherty I wish to express my sincere grati-

tude for his many hours of help in the analysis and inter-

pretation of the data for Experiment VI.

I would finally like to thank Steve Sledjeski of P.K.

Yonge Laboratory School for making it possible for me to

test students at that school and for providing me with

ideal testing conditions.










TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .

LIST OF TABLES. .

LIST OF FIGURES .

ABSTRACT. .

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION .


Notes. .

CHAPTER II EXPERIMENTS I THROUGH V .

Experiment I .
Experiment II. .
Experiment III .
Experiment IV. .
Experiment V .
Discussion of Experiments I Through V.

CHAPTER III EXPERIMENT VI. .


Method .
Procedure. .
Results. .

CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION. .

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION .

APPENDIX A SENTENCES FOR EXPERIMENT I. .

APPENDIX B SENTENCES FOR EXPERIMENT IV .

APPENDIX C PICTURES FOR EXPERIMENTS I THR

APPENDIX D SENTENCES FOR EXPERIMENT VI .

REFERENCES. .

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .


. 47
. 48
. 50

. 69

. 89

. 91

. 93

OUGH V. 96

. 111

. 113

. 114


Page

. iv

. vi

. vii

. viii

. 1













LIST OF TABLES


Table


1 Mean Number of Choices of Two Pictures for
the Ambiguous Sentences. .

2 Mean Number of Choices of Two Pictures for
the Unambiguous Sentences. .

3 Percent of Incorrect Responses on the Four
Verb Forms by Male and Female Subjects .

4 Percent of Incorrect Responses on Subject
and Object Nominals by Male and Female Subjects.

5 Percent of Choices of Are and Look in the
Ambiguous Sentences. .

6 Percent of Choices of Plural Verb Forms in
the Ambiguous Sentences by Male and Female
Subjects . .

7 Percent of Incorrect Responses for the Main
Verbs Be and Look. .

8 Percent of Incorrect Responses on Subject
and Object Nominals. .

9 Percent of Choices of Plural Verb Forms in
the Ambiguous Sentences. .


Page


. 66


* 73

77


. 80


: :














LIST OF FIGURES


Page

Figure 1 Percent of incorrect responses for the
verb form Is by male and female subjects. 54

Figure 2 Percent of incorrect responses for the
verb form Are by male and female subjects 55

Figure 3 Percent of incorrect responses for the
verb form Looks by male and female subjects 56

Figure 4 Percent of incorrect responses for the
verb form Look by male and female subjects. 57

Figure 5 Percent of incorrect responses on subject
and object nominals by male and female
subjects. . 61

Figure 6 Percent of choices of Are and Look in
the ambiguous sentences 64

Figure 7 Percent of choices of plural verb forms
in the ambiguous sentences by male and
female subjects . 67

Figure 8 Percent of incorrect responses for the
main verbs Be and Look. ... 74

Figure 9 Percent of incorrect responses on subject
and object nominals 78

Figure 10 Percent of choices of plural verb forms
in the ambiguous sentences. ... 81


vii













Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy



THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PERCEPTION
OF AMBIGUITY

By

Hyta Mederer

December, 1979

Chairman: Dr. Robert J. Scholes
Major Department: Linguistics


Sixty-nine white, native-English speakers between the

ages of eight and twelve years old were tested through picture-

verification in five related designs to determine at what age

they could perceive deep-structure ambiguity. The subjects

heard ten ambiguous sentences and twenty unambiguous sentences.

The unambiguous sentences consisted of two sentences for each

ambiguous sentence, each conveying one of the meanings of the

ambiguous sentence. Subjects chose pictures to indicate which

meanings they perceived. It was expected that the subjects

would choose one picture for each unambiguous sentence and,

when they perceived the ambiguity, choose two pictures for the

ambiguous sentences. However, the subjects consistently chose

more than one picture for both the ambiguous and unambiguous

sentences, indicating that to them all of the sentences were

ambiguous.


viii










Because most of the test sentences were composed of a

derived nominal, some form of the verb be, and an adjective,

it was felt that the problems were related either to the

verb be, itself, or to the plural marker which disambiguated

the nominal. A second test was designed in which twenty-four

sentences, twelve ambiguous and twelve unambiguous, were pre-

sented to 130 subjects between the ages of 7 and 12, and to

53 subjects between 18 and 29. These sentences consisted of

an ambiguous nominal, a subject nominal, or an object nominal

followed by either is and are or looks and look followed by an

adjective. The subjects were asked to circle the correct form

of the verb. For the ambiguous sentences, either form was

correct. For the subject nominal the plural form was correct,

and for the object nominal the singular form was correct. It

was concluded that subject/verb agreement in the context of

derived nominals is not fully acquired by the age of 12 years.

This finding was presented as an explanation for the inability

of the subjects in the first experiment to disambiguate the

nominal and thus perceive that twenty of the original test

sentences were unambiguous.












CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION


Attempts to understand how a child learns to speak his

native language have produced numerous anecdotal descriptions

of the child's linguistic behavior. However, systematic

descriptions of the child's acquisition processes are still

quite limited. We know the sequences of certain elements as

they appear during the first five years of the child's life.

But as the child grows older, he gains more subtle aspects of

his language. These more subtle aspects include various com-

plexities of sentence structure which the child learns to

comprehend and produce. The relationship between two sentences

which are similar in meaning and in structure can be described

with the use of transformations within the context of Trans-

formational Grammar. The Passive Transformation, for example,

states the structural relationship between sentences l.a. and

l.b.

l.a. Sam Peckinpah directed that movie.

l.b. That movie was directed by Sam Peckinpah.

Although these sentences share basically the same meaning,

their structures are quite different. As part of the process

of acquiring language, a child must learn those things about

sentence structure which transformations explain. Through

various testing methods, we are able to determine that by a

certain age most normal children have a specific transformation









in their grammars. For example, by the age of nine years

most children have acquired Dative Movement, a rule which

allows the child to comprehend that sentences l.c. and l.d.

have the same meaning (Scholes, Tanis, and Turner 1976).

l.c. Tom showed the dog to the little boy.

l.d. Tom showed the little boy the dog.

The number of grammatical structures which a child must

acquire is quite large, but the number for which we know the

age of acquisition is quite small. It is important that we

be able to say when a certain structure is acquired.

One reason for this importance is that this information

provides a guideline for comparing languages. We know that

native speakers of English acquire transformations in a fixed

sequence. Presumably there is a fixed sequence for each

language. Although different languages employ a variety of

different rules, there is an overlap in their use. For

example, many languages employ a plural marker to indicate

that there is a difference between nouns in the singular and

nouns in the plural. The native English-speaking child

acquires the plural morpheme by the age of four years. The

speakers of Egyptian Arabic do not master the rules of plural

formation before the age of fifteen years (Omar 1970, quoted

in Slobin 1973). Such a comparison offers us insight into

the similarities and differences which exist among languages.

Obviously, in this case there is a vast difference in the

complexity of the rules for plural formation in English and









those for Egyptian Arabic. If enough information about the

acquisitional sequences for different languages were available,

it would be possible to determine whether there is a trend

across languages toward a universal sequence of acquisition.

Secondly, because language development is highly corre-

lated with intellectual development, a knowledge of the order

and age of acquisition of transformations would provide a

basis for determining a child's developmental progress. This

is true among normal children, but it would also give us a

reference point for studying people who are deaf or retarded

or brain-damaged or who have undergone a hemispherectomy or

are abnormal in some other respect which is related to lin-

guistic development.

For those people who believe that the dissolution of

language (as with aphasia) follows somewhat the reverse order

of language acquisition, the knowledge of this sequence would

improve the chances for proving or disproving this belief.

A fourth reason for knowing the age of acquisition of

certain transformations is that for people who design tests

such as reading and IQ tests, it would be far more consistent

to test children's abilities in those areas of which they are

able to comprehend the content. In other words, a child may

perform poorly on a test because he does not understand the

syntax in the instructions or in some material which he has

to read. Consequently, it may appear that the child cannot

perform a particular task when, in fact, he may be quite










capable, but he simply does not comprehend other information

that he needs in order to complete the task. The problem is

not limited to children. A student may be asked to read an

article and then to draw a particular conclusion. He may

reach the wrong conclusion, not because of faulty logic or

because of an inability to read, but rather because the syntax

of the article is too complex for him.

A specific example has occurred in the Writing Labora-

tory at the University of Florida.2 Students in the Writing

Laboratory are tested in their ability to recognize sentence

errors. On one test the students were instructed to find

the incorrect sentence from a group of three sentences. The

following sentences are two of a set of three sentences from

this test:

l.e. A wide range of choices is offered students by

educators experimenting with new programs.

l.f. Experimenting with new programs, a wide range of

choices is offered college students.


Sentence l.f. is considered grammatically incorrect because

the introductory clause is a so-called 'dangling modifier.'

However, sentence l.e., although technically correct, is

syntactically difficult to the students in the Writing Labora-

tory. The first clause is passive, the to which is the overt

marker of the dative has been deleted, and the indication

that experimenting is derived from a relative clause is also

missing. This syntactic complexity led many of the students

to choose sentence l.e. as the incorrect sentence.










On another test in the Writing Laboratory the students

were instructed to identify the errors in the sentences on

the test. They were told that there would be either sentence

fragments, run-on sentences, sentences which lack parallel

structure, or sentences with no errors. One of the items on

the test is listed here as l.g.

l.g. Although the life-support system was defective,

the problem was discovered too late. Fearing money for the

space program will end if there is a scandal.


The clause 'Fearing money for the space program will end if

there is a scandal' is a sentence fragment. Many of the stu-

dents in the Writing Laboratory had considerable trouble with

this item on the test because it made absolutely no sense to

them. One student claimed that the clause was a complete

sentence with fearing money as the subject of the verb will

end rather than money as the subject of will end. From a

purely syntactic point of view, this interpretation is

possible. However, no sentence content corresponds to such

a syntactic structure, a fact which did not bother the student

because she was unable to make sense out of it in any other

way. The meaning of this clause would have been much clearer

had there been a that complementizer between fearing and money.

Adding that would not have altered the fact that this clause

is a sentence fragment, but it would have helped the students

in their understanding of this item. The point is that the

students' performance on this item was meant to indicate that










they could not recognize sentence fragments, when, in fact,

the problem was one of unnecessarily complex syntax. Had

syntactic complexity been taken into consideration, the test

would have been more valid. This sort of problem should be

avoided by people who design tests.

If it is in fact the case that different dialects of the

same language have different rules or different ordering of

rules or that their speakers acquire some transformations in

different orders, then this information would be important

for the following reasons:

1. As a basis for descriptive comparison.

2. If transformation X is acquired at the age of 7 in

one dialect, but not until the age of 9 in another

dialect, then this should be recognized as a dialect

difference and not, for example, as an indication of

retardation.

3. Aphasics of one dialect may possibly produce different

behavior from aphasics of another dialect; that is,

dissolution might follow a different sequence de-

pending on the aphasic's dialect.

4. Tests should be designed so as to avoid a bias in

favor of or against a particular dialect.

These four reasons are the same as the first four major rea-

sons but are applied here specifically to dialects.

Finding the age of acquisition of particular abilities

is simply one more aspect of the challenge that Noam Chomsky









set forth when he said, 'As a long-range task for general

linguistics, we might set the problem of developing an account

of this innate linguistic theory that provides a basis for

language learning' (1965:25). And an understanding or knowl-

edge of 'this innate linguistic theory' which a child uses

in order to acquire his native language would provide a fur-

ther understanding of the relationship of language to other

mental faculties. An understanding of the nature of the

child's internal grammar would provide a view into other

aspects of the mind. Since, as Chomsky put it, 'An actual

language may result only from the interaction of several

mental faculties, one being the faculty of language' (1975:

43), an increase in the understanding of one offers better

understanding of others.

It is for these reasons that we continue to search for a

systematic description of the processes which are involved in

language acquisition.

With these ideas in mind, I set out to determine at what

age the normal, white, native English-speaking child acquires

the ability to perceive that a sentence is ambiguous at the

level of the deep structure. Ambiguity, the presence of more

than one meaning, is generally divided into three main cate-

gories.

1. Lexical ambiguity--when a single word or lexical item

has more than one meaning. In the sentence 'The young boy was

sitting by the bank' the word bank may mean either a building

where people keep money or it may mean the edge of a river.









2. Surface-structure ambiguity--when different meanings

can result depending on the way in which the words in the sen-

tence are grouped. Surface-structure ambiguity, also known as

surface-bracketing ambiguity, is defined by Fodor, Bever, and

Garrett (1974:95) as ambiguity for which there are 'alternative

constituent structure analyses.' For example, the meaning of

the sentence 'They are visiting relatives' depends on whether

the words are visiting are grouped as a single constituent or

whether the words visiting relatives are grouped as a single

constituent. The meanings of this sentence 'can be represented

by reference to alternative bracketings' (Fodor, Bever, Garrett

1974:95) of the elements of the sentence:

l.h. They (are visiting) relatives.

l.i. They are (visiting relatives).

3. Deep-structure ambiguity--when two different deep

structures undergo transformations which give them identical

surface structures. It is not possible to bracket constituents

of sentences which are ambiguous at the deep-structure level

in order to represent the differences in structure or meaning.

Consider the sentence 'The police stopped drinking on campus.'

In this sentence, it is the subject of drinking which is am-

biguous. In the deep structure there are different subjects

for drinking, but in the surface structure those subjects have

been deleted by transformations. For the meaning which is

equivalent to 'The police quit drinking on campus,' the sub-

ject of drinking was deleted by Equivalent Noun Phrase

Deletion Transformation (also known as Equi NP Deletion or,










simply, as Equi). This transformation applies when the subject

of the main clause is also the subject of a gerund or an in-

finitive. It functions to delete the subject of that gerund

or infinitive. For the meaning which is equivalent to 'The

police ended drinking on campus,' the subject was deleted by

Pro Deletion Transformation. This transformation applies when

the subject of a gerund or an infinitive is an unspecified NP

in the deep structure. Its function is to delete the subject

of that infinitive or gerund.

A behavioral difference between surface-structure am-

biguities and deep-structure ambiguities is that for the for-

mer there is a difference in intonation patterns depending on

the meaning, whereas, for the latter, the intonation pattern

remains constant regardless of meaning. The sentence 'They

are flying planes' is a surface-structure ambiguity because

it can be explained in terms of bracketing:

l.j. They (are flying) planes.

l.k. They are (flying planes).

Such a sentence can be disambiguated with an intonation pattern

comparable to the bracketing:

1.1. They are flying planes.

l.m. They are flying planes.

However, a sentence such as 'They want to stop smoking' cannot

be disambiguated through an intonation pattern. In order for

a person to perceive both meanings of a deep-structure ambiguity,

he must be able to comprehend the structures which correspond

to each meaning. In the case of 'They want to stop smoking,'










the structure which corresponds to 'They want to quit smoking'

in which they is the subject of smoking is derived through

Equi NP Deletion. The ability to comprehend this particular

meaning depends on the ability to understand a structure which

is produced through Equi NP Deletion Transformation. Similarly,

the structure which corresponds to 'They want to prevent

smoking,' in which the subject of smoking is an unidentified

or unspecified element comparable to someone or others, has

been derived through Pro Deletion Transformation. The com-

prehension of this meaning is contingent on the ability to

understand the structure of a sentence which is derived through

Pro Deletion Transformation. Consequently, the ability to

perceive the ambiguity of this sentence is based on the ability

to comprehend the structures for both meanings. Thus a child

could not perceive both meanings of a deep-structure ambiguity

unless he had acquired both transformations which are necessary

for the two meanings.

The age at which a child becomes capable of perceiving

deep-structure ambiguity should be predictable on the basis

of the age of acquisition of the transformations which are

required to generate the structures that correspond to both

meanings. For example, if a child acquires the ability to

comprehend Equi NP Deletion Transformation by the age of 4

years, but acquires Pro Deletion Transformation at the age of

9 years, then beginning only at the age of 9 years should he

be able to perceive the ambiguity of a sentence such as 'They

want to stop smoking.' This prediction is based on the










assumption that perception of deep-structure ambiguity is

determined by the ability to comprehend relevant transforma-

tions and by cognitive capacities that are developed prior to

or at the same time as these transformations. If any such

cognitive capacities are necessary for the perception of am-

biguity but have not been developed by the time that these

relevant transformations are acquired, then the transformations,

themselves, would not be sufficient for the perception of the

ambiguity.

The assumption that the perception of deep-structure am-

biguity is determined by the ability to comprehend the relevant

transformations was the subject of this investigation. The

only other study which has investigated ambiguity from a

developmental standpoint was done by Frank Kessel (1970).

Kessel tested fifty children from kindergarten through fifth

grade (with the exception of the fourth grade) in their ability

to perceive lexical ambiguity, surface-structure ambiguity,

and deep-structure ambiguity.

In his study, subjects were asked to choose the picture

or pictures which represented the sentences which the experi-

menter read. The subjects heard twelve sentences, four for

each type of ambiguity. The four sentences with deep-structure

ambiguity which Kessel presented to his subjects were:

l.n. The eating of the chicken was sloppy.

l.o. She hit the man with glasses.

l.p. The visiting of the doctor was happening.

l.q. The shooting of the soldier was bad. (p. 26)






12



Kessel found that 'only after the age of 10 do children con-

sistently and spontaneously (without "lead-in" questions)

detect both meanings in surface and underlying structure am-

biguities' (p. 43). He made no attempt to determine or explain

what factors contribute to the acquisition of the ability to

perceive ambiguity.








Notes

1Whether a child actually acquires transformations or
whether transformations are, more appropriately, devices to
describe linguistic facts is still up for debate. For the
purpose of this paper, when I discuss the processes involved
in 'acquiring a transformation,' I am aware of the problems
which this phrase implies, but I will use this terminology for
the sake of simplicity.

2The Writing Laboratory is a one-credit course offered by
the Reading and Writing Center at the University of Florida.
It is designed to help students with such basic writing skills
as paragraph development and grammar.

3These examples are used by permission of The Writing
Laboratory. The tests from which these sentences were taken
are not professionally designed, standardized tests. They
were, instead, written within the Writing Laboratory of the
University of Florida and, like any tests which are designed
by a classroom teacher, are likely to contain errors in validity
and reliability.











CHAPTER II

EXPERIMENTS THROUGH V


Unlike Kessel's study, this investigation attempted to

predict perception of deep-structure ambiguity on the basis

of linguistic theory of transformations. This study attempted

to show that a child's ability to detect deep-structure am-

biguity can be predicted by his ability to handle certain

transformations. Only after a child has acquired the trans-

formations which are necessary to generate both meanings of

an ambiguous sentence, should he be able to comprehend both

meanings of that sentence.

This hypothesis was tested by presenting students with

sentences which were ambiguous at the deep-structure level.

For every ambiguous sentence there were two unambiguous sen-

tences, one for each of the meanings of the ambiguous sentences.

Not only did the unambiguous sentences convey the same meanings

as the ambiguous sentence, but they also had the same syntactic

structures which corresponded to the meanings of the ambiguous

sentence. The purpose of this paradigm was to predict behavior

on the ambiguous sentences by performance on the unambiguous

sentences which corresponded to it. Consider the following

three sentences:

2.a. Flying planes can be dangerous.

2.b. Flying planes is dangerous.

2.c. Flying planes are dangerous.










Sentence 2.a., which is ambiguous, contains the meanings ex-

pressed in sentences 2.b. and 2.c. Sentence 2.b. contains a

nominal which can be described as an object nominal and which

can be paraphrased as 'the act of flying planes.' The entire

nominal flying planes is the subject of this sentence. Sen-

tence 2.c., on the other hand, contains a subject nominal which

can be paraphrased as 'planes which are flying.' Since flying

functions as an adjective in sentence 2.c., only the noun

planes is the subject of the sentence.

The task which the subjects were asked to perform was to

indicate which picture or pictures corresponded to the sentence

which the experimenter read. The prediction was that the stu-

dents would choose the correct picture for each of the unam-

biguous sentences, thus indicating their comprehension of

these sentences and their structures, if they were to choose

the correct pictures for the ambiguous sentence. In other

words, the student should perform correctly on sentences 2.b.

and 2.c. if he is to get 2.a. correct.


Experiment I

Method

Subjects. Forty-seven students were selected from P.K.

Yonge Laboratory School in Gainesville, Florida. There were

four groups of males and four groups of females, ranging from

8 through 11 years of age. Because of a suspected difference

in dialect, there were no black students included in the study.

All of the students were native speakers of English.










Apparatus. The test design included five pretest sentences,

used to establish that the subjects could handle the task of

pointing to one or more than one picture for each sentence that

was read, and thirty test sentences, composed of ten ambiguous

sentences and twenty unambiguous sentences. A list of these

thirty-five sentences appears in Appendix A. The twenty unam-

biguous sentences consisted of two interpretations for each

ambiguous sentence. The criteria for the ambiguous sentences

were that they be deep-structure ambiguities, that the intona-

tion pattern be the same regardless of meaning, and that they

be representable with drawings.

Of the ten ambiguous sentences, seven had as their struc-

ture nominal phrase + can be + adjective, for example, 'Visit-

ing relatives can be boring.' The unambiguous interpretations

of these seven sentences were made up of the same nominal

phrase, either the verb is or the verb are, and an adjective.

Thus the two interpretations for 'Visiting relatives can be

boring' were 'Visiting relatives is boring' and 'Visiting

relatives are boring.' These last two sentences were not

ambiguous because the verb determined whether the nominal was

to be interpreted as a subject nominal or an object nominal.

The original sentence 'Visiting relatives can be boring' is

ambiguous because there is no overt marking for number on the

verb can be.

It was also important that the adjectives in these sen-

tences be appropriate to either interpretation of the nominal.

Hence, both the act of visiting relatives and relatives who








visit may be boring. However, the sentence 'Visiting relatives

can be generous' does not offer the same duality of interpre-

tation. It is grammatical to say 'Visiting relatives are

generous,' but the counterpart 'Visiting relatives is generous'

is ungrammatical. Similarly, 'Moving houses is easy' is ac-

ceptable, whereas 'Moving houses are easy' is not. And, con-

sequently, 'Moving houses can be easy' is not ambiguous.

Two of the three remaining ambiguous sentences were com-

posed of, among other constituents, the verb stop followed by

a gerund. The ambiguity arises because there are two inter-

pretations of the subject of the gerund. These different

interpretations occur because in the deep structure there are

different subjects for the verbs which eventually become

gerunds. Consider the sentence 'The police stopped fighting

on campus.' This sentence may mean either that the police

quit fighting on campus, in which the police is the subject

of fighting, i.e., the police were doing the fighting, or

that the police ended fighting on campus, in which the subject

of fighting is some unspecified but implied agent other than

the police.

The final sentence type on the test is also one in which

a nominal construction may be interpreted in more than one way.

The test sentence is 'The shooting of the Indian was bad.'

This nominal + of + NP construction is often ambiguous because

the NP may be both the agent of the action expressed in the

nominal or it may be the object of that action. In the case

of this sentence, the Indian may be either the shooter or the

victim.







For each sentence there was a set of four pictures for

the subjects to choose from. An example of each set of pic-

tures appears in Appendix C. For the pretest sentences, in

two cases only one of the four choices was correct, and in

three cases there were two pictures which were not identical

but which were appropriate choices for the pretest sentence.

For example, for the pretest sentence 'They are riding horses,'

there were two pictures of people riding horses, but the pic-

tures differed in their details. There were also two pictures

which were not appropriate to the sentence. The purpose of

having two different pictures which corresponded to the same

sentence was to determine that the subject could perform the

task of pointing to two pictures if they both matched the sen-

tence.

For the test sentences there were also four pictures for

each sentence. For each ambiguous sentence and its two unam-

biguous counterparts, the same four pictures were used. How-

ever, the location of the pictures within each set was ran-

domized to avoid a positional bias. The four pictures con-

sisted of one picture for each meaning of the ambiguous sen-

tence and two pictures of related but different and inappro-

priate events.

All of the pictures were made into two-inch slides and

were projected onto a solid-colored wall with a Kodak Carousel

750 Slide Projector. The pictures were labeled A, B, C, or D.

The score sheet for each subject provided space for re-

cording the name, age, sex, and teacher, as well as the subject's










responses to both the pretest and test sentences. Sufficient

space was allotted for any notable comments which the subjects

may have made or for any remarks which the experimenter may

have felt necessary.


Procedure

Subjects were tested individually in a quiet room which

was dark enough to allow adequate viewing of the slides. The

subject was seated in a chair approximately six feet from the

wall on which the slides were projected. The projector was

behind and to the left of the subject. The experimenter sat

to the right of the subject and controlled the projector with

a push-button, remote-control device.

The experimenter explained to each subject that she wanted

him to tell her which picture or pictures matched the sentences

which she was going to read to him. The experimenter repeated

or rephrased the instructions when necessary. On some occasions

if the subject said he did not understand, the experimenter

said, 'Let's try one and see if you understand then.' As soon

as the first slide appeared and the subject heard the first

sentence, the experimenter asked, 'Now, which picture or

pictures go with that sentence?' Almost always, if there had

been any question in the subject's mind, he would answer, 'Oh!

Now I get it,' or something comparable.

The subject indicated which picture or pictures he felt

were appropriate by naming the letter A, B, C, or D which

labelled the pictures. At no time did the task of choosing









letters to indicate which picture or pictures the subject

felt appropriate seem too difficult.

The experimenter recorded the subjects' responses on the

score sheets, taking care to record the sequence if more than

one response were given. The experimenter also recorded any

of the subjects' comments which the experimenter felt were

valuable to this study. Some of these comments offered in-

sights into the subjects' thoughts as they participated in

this experiment. For example, in the sentence 'He wants to

prevent smoking,' several subjects asked, 'What does prevent

mean? Start or Stop?' For the sentence 'Moving houses can

be frightening,' there were comments such as 'What kind of

moving?' and 'When you're moving them or when they are moving

by themselves?' Another subject, when he heard the sentence

'Shooting stars is exciting,' commented, 'That just doesn't

seem right. Is exciting? Oh! D.' One subject who had no

problem comprehending the ambiguities found them very funny.

'A dog walking This is funny, get it?' 'That is funny.

Grownups are playing.' These and other comments provided a

valuable view of what the subjects were doing and thinking and

how they performed the tasks of this experiment.

The conditions of this experiment were informal. If a

subject did not clearly understand a sentence which was read

to him, the experimenter repeated the sentence. The task of

this experiment was based on the subject's ability to compre-

hend the structure of a sentence. It was not a test of his

ability to perceive the sentence itself. Because intonation









does not affect the reading of the sentence, repetition did

not alter any of the conditions of the experiment. Also, if

the subject had any questions and if the answers to those

questions would not alter the conditions of the experiment,

the experimenter answered the subject's questions. For ex-

ample, when one subject asked, 'What does prevent mean? Start

or Stop?' the experimenter answered, 'Stop.' However, when a

subject asked, 'What kind of moving?' in reference to the

sentence 'Moving houses can be frightening,' the experimenter

answered, 'Whatever it means to you.' An answer to the last

question on the part of the experimenter would have invalidated

the test question. There would have been no way to explain

what kind of moving without providing too much information to

the subject.

After each subject had responded to the test sentences,

the experimenter asked him to look at some of the pictures

which he had just seen and to indicate what the pictures

represented to him. This was done because there was some

question as to the interpretation of some of the pictures.

To make sure that the pictures represented to the subjects

what they represented to the experimenter, the experimenter

showed some of the slides again and asked, 'What is going on

in picture A [or any other picture]?' The experimenter did

this for usually five or six pictures per subject. Ultimately,

there seemed to be no problem with the subjects' interpretations.

The subjects generally interpreted them correctly. They often

verbalized their interpretations with the same words that they










had heard in the testing. During the test they may not have

chosen the picture of two adults playing Pin the Tail on the

Donkey (Appendix C, p. 97 ) for the sentence 'Playing grownups

can be funny.' But when they described that picture they

usually said, 'Two grownups playing Pin the Tail on the Donkey.'

Usually, in their descriptions of the subject nominals, the

ing form followed the noun: 'Two dogs walking,' 'A boy shooting

at the stars,' 'Two houses moving,' or 'A horse painting a

flower.'

The entire testing procedure took just less than ten

minutes per subject.


Results

The results of this experiment were quite different from

those which were anticipated. The expected pattern was for

the subjects to choose two pictures each for the first ten

sentences, indicating their comprehension of the ambiguities

of these sentences and to choose one picture for each of the

last twenty sentences, indicating their comprehension of these

sentences which were not ambiguous.

On the first ten sentences, those which were ambiguous,

there was no significant difference at the .05 level in per-

ception of ambiguity regardless of age as determined by the

Mann-Whitney U Test (Bruning and Kintz 1977:224). See Table

1. This perception of ambiguity was measured as the number of

times the subjects chose more than one picture to match the

ambiguous sentences. If a subject chose more than two pictures









for a sentence, and sometimes this happened, this still counted

as one instance of perception of ambiguity. This absence of a

significant difference means that the eight-year olds perceived

ambiguity as often as eleven-year olds did. This particular

finding differs considerably from the results which Frank Kessel

obtained.

Even more surprising were the results on the unambiguous

sentences. The subjects continued to choose more than one pic-

ture per sentence even for the unambiguous sentences. This

pattern of response was the same for all four age groups as

determined by the Mann-Whitney U Test at the .05 level of

significance. See Table 2. In other words, performance did

not improve with age. Regardless of age the subjects con-

sistently chose more than one picture for the unambiguous

sentences.

Frequently, the subjects chose more than one picture for

the unambiguous sentences more often than they did for the am-

biguous sentences. It appeared that the more they heard the

nominals, the more meaning they perceived for them, regardless

of the fact that the second and third times the subjects heard

the nominals, the nominals occurred in unambiguous sentences.

For example, if a subject heard 'Playing grownups can be

funny' and chose only one picture, indicating he perceived

only one meaning for the sentence, he frequently chose more

than one picture later on in the test when he heard 'Playing

grownups is funny' and 'Playing grownups are funny.' Quite

obviously, subjects who chose more than one picture for the













TABLE 1

Mean Number of Choices of Two Pictures
for the Ambiguous Sentences


Age Mean Number of Sentences


8 3.36 11
9 3.90 10
10 4.63 11
11 5.40 15


TABLE 2

Mean Number of Choices of Two Pictures
for the Unambiguous Sentences


Age Mean Number of Sentences


8 5.45 11
9 6.60 10
10 8.09 11
11 8.46 15









unambiguous sentences were responding to the ambiguity of the

nominals and not to the verb form is or are which should have

disambiguated the sentences.

Another indication that the subjects' responses were

determined solely by the meaning of the nominal, and not the

nominal in the context of the entire sentence, was the fact

that some subjects saw one meaning for an ambiguous sentence

and they continued to see that same meaning for both of the

unambiguous sentences. For these subjects, too, the verb

form is or are had no effect on their choice of picture.

Often during the testing procedure the subject would

repeat the sentence or part of it to himself. On those

occasions when the subject repeated just the nominal in an

unambiguous sentence and then selected two pictures, the

experimenter cautioned the subject to listen to the entire

sentence and then the experimenter repeated the sentence.

This, however, never had any effect. The subjects consis-

tently chose the same pictures again.

Sometimes the subjects heard an unambiguous sentence

but repeated the ambiguous version of it. The experimenter

responded with 'No; listen carefully. Playing grownups is

funny.' Although stressing the verb form violated the con-

ditions of the experiment because it should have affected the

subjects' responses, there was no effect whatsoever. No

amount of prompting changed the subjects' choices of pictures.

After the test was completed, the experimenter informally

asked those subjects who chose more than one picture for some










of the unambiguous sentences if they could distinguish between

two sentences from the test whose meaning depended on the verb

form is or are: 'Can you tell me the difference between

"Shooting stars is exciting" and "Shooting stars are exciting?"'

All of the subjects, some more consistently than others, were

able to make the distinction. They were not always correct

in their explanations, and they often had problems verbalizing

the difference, but it was definite that when the subjects

heard both sentences together, they were able to distinguish

between them.

Two of the subjects, a nine-year-old girl and a ten-year-

old boy demonstrated a thorough understanding of the principles

involved in both the ambiguous and the unambiguous sentences.

Neither selected all of the pictures correctly, but they both

improved as they progressed through the test. The female sub-

ject chose two pictures for the ambiguous sentences eight out

of ten times and for the unambiguous sentences only six out of

twenty times. The six choices of more than one picture for

the unambiguous sentences occurred early in that part of the

test. After the first seven unambiguous sentences, she chose

two pictures only once. When the experimenter asked her,

after the formal testing was completed, why she chose only

one picture for some of the unambiguous sentences, the subject

attempted to explain. She became quite confused in her ex-

planation, lacking the ability to articulate the procedure

she was using. However, she clearly understood the difference.

Her best attempt at an explanation was 'You just don't say it

that way.'









The male subject articulated more of his thoughts as

he participated in the test. For the ambiguous sentences he

chose two pictures seven times. For the unambiguous sentences,

he chose two pictures only four times. When he heard the un-

ambiguous sentences, he often repeated them slowly and thought

carefully about his answers. His comments indicated his com-

prehension of the sentences and the tasks involved: 'Shooting

stars are exciting?' He then chose the correct picture. For

the sentence 'Shooting stars is exciting,' he commented, 'That

just doesn't seem right. Is exciting? Oh! D.' And for

'Moving houses are frightening,' he responded, 'Now I get it

--houses that are moving.' This subject's indecision seemed

to imply that he had only recently acquired or was still in

the process of acquiring the ability to handle these sentences.

Although neither of these two subjects was correct on all

of the test items, each clearly demonstrated an ability to

distinguish during the test between the ambiguous and unam-

biguous sentences. It was not necessary for these subjects

to hear both unambiguous sentences of a set together in order

for them to distinguish between the sentences. These subjects

seemed well on their way to acquiring the linguistic structures

and cognitive capacities necessary for the tasks of this ex-

periment. They were the only two subjects to display this

behavior.

Because the results of this experiment were so different

from those which were hypothesized, the experimenter decided

to alter the test conditions somewhat in order to determine









the reasons for the unexpected results. Each of the changes in

the test design is considered as a separate experiment, and

each is discussed separately in the following sections.


Experiment II


Since the ambiguous sentences preceded the unambiguous

sentences in Experiment I, the ambiguous sentences may have

been causing the subjects to see more than one meaning for

the unambiguous sentences. For this reason, the order of

presentation of the test sentences was altered so that the

unambiguous sentences preceded the ambiguous sentences.


Method

Subjects. Six subjects, three male and three female,

from P.K. Yonge Laboratory School in Gainesville, Florida,

participated in this experiment. There were three groups

consisting of one male and one female. The groups were

separated by age into 8, 9, and 10 years old. All subjects

were white, native speakers of English.

Apparatus. The apparatus for this experiment were the

same as those used in Experiment I. The only change in the

apparatus was that the twenty unambiguous sentences were pre-

sented before the ten ambiguous sentences. This was done be-

cause it was felt that the subjects may have seen ambiguity in

the unambiguous sentences because they had already been exposed

to the ambiguous sentences.










Procedure

The procedure was identical to that of Experiment I.


Results

Changing the order of the sentences so that the unambiguous

sentences preceded the ambiguous sentences did not alter the

subjects' interpretations of the unambiguous sentences. Five

of the six subjects saw ambiguity in eight to eleven of the

unambiguous sentences. The sixth subject saw no ambiguity in

any of the sentences. Apparently, the order of presentation,

whether that which was used in Experiment I or that used in

Experiment II, was not relevant to the subjects' perception

of ambiguity.


Discussion

With the exception of the student who saw no ambiguity

in any of the thirty test sentences, there was no difference

by age or sex in the perception of ambiguity in both the

ambiguous and the unambiguous sentences. The results of this

experiment suggest that the order of presentation of these

sentences does not affect performance. That the subjects

perceived ambiguity in sentences that were theoretically un-

ambiguous still remained to be explained.


Experiment III


The first two experiments demonstrated four points:

1. Subjects perceived ambiguity in both the ambiguous

and the unambiguous sentences.










2. The order of presentation of test sentences may be

either ambiguous followed by unambiguous sentences or unam-

biguous followed by ambiguous sentences without any effects

in the subjects' perception of ambiguity.

3. The verb forms is and are which should have disam-

biguated the nominals did not.

4. Although the subjects perceived many of the unam-

biguous sentences as ambiguous, they were able to distinguish

between the two sentences of the pair of unambiguous sentences

when those two sentences were presented together for them to

compare. To restate this point, if the experimenter asked a

subject to explain the difference between two sentences which

differed on the surface only in the verb is or are such as

sentences 2.d. and 2.e., the subjects were almost always ca-

pable of making the necessary distinction. They did not,

however, use this information during the test situation. In-

stead, when they heard either 2.d. or 2.e., they indicated that

the sentence was ambiguous by choosing more than one picture

to match the sentence.

2.d. Moving houses is frightening.

2.e. Moving houses are frightening.

Because of these facts, it was felt that if the subjects

were exposed to sentences of the same type as those on the

test before the actual test began, and if they were given

practice in making distinctions between these sentences, this

pretest experience might encourage the students to employ this

distinction during the test.










Method

Subjects. Five students from P.K. Yonge Laboratory

School in Gainesville, Florida, participated in this experi-

ment. Of the five, four were ten years old and one was nine.

Four of the subjects, including the nine-year-old, were female,

and one was male. All of the subjects were white, native

speakers of English.

Apparatus. The apparatus for this experiment were

identical to those in Experiment I with one exception. Four

new, theoretically unambiguous sentences were added as

additional pretest items:

2.f. Bouncing balls is fun.

2.g. Bouncing balls are fun.

2.h. Flying kites is fun.

2.i. Flying kites are fun.


Procedure

The procedure in this experiment was almost identical

to that of Experiment I. The only difference was that, after

the five original pretest sentences, the experimenter pre-

sented four more pretest sentences to the subjects. The

experimenter asked each subject to listen carefully to the

two sentences which she was about to repeat. The experimenter

then asked, 'Can you tell me the difference between these two

sentences: "Bouncing balls is fun" and "Bouncing balls are

fun"?' The experimenter recorded each subject's responses

and then asked, 'Can you tell me the difference between these










two sentences: "Flying kites is fun" and "Flying kites are

fun"?' The experimenter again recorded the subject's responses

and then began the actual test. The rest of the test continued

in the same manner as in Experiment I.


Results

In general, exposure to the sentence patterns and ex-

perience in distinguishing between pairs of sentences did not

facilitate performance on the test.

Four of the five subjects chose more than one picture

for some of the unambiguous sentences. One chose two pictures

for eight of the twenty unambiguous sentences, one chose two

for nine of the twenty, one for ten of the twenty, and one

for eleven of the twenty.

Only one subject, a ten-year-old female, chose only one

picture for each of the unambiguous sentences. She chose two

pictures for five of the ten ambiguous sentences. It would

appear that she understood the task of the experiment fairly

well, except for the fact that, of the twenty unambiguous

sentences, she chose seven incorrect pictures.

Of the four who continued to see ambiguity in the unam-

biguous sentences, three demonstrated an ability to distinguish

between the two sentences in each pair that was presented in

the pretest. That ability did not, however, appear during the

test situation, since they still chose more than one picture

several times. One subject could not explain a semantic

difference between the two sentences in each pair of unambiguous










sentences in the pretest. For him, the sentences with the

verb is had the same meaning as the sentences with are, except

that he felt those with is were ungrammatical. This feeling

did not stop him during the test from choosing two pictures

for nine of the twenty unambiguous sentences.


Discussion

This test design did not help the subjects to see the

difference in the sentences with is and the sentences with are.


Experiment IV


Because none of the previous test designs consistently

elicited a distinction between the members of the pairs of

unambiguous sentences, a new design was developed. The problem

of the verb be was eliminated by changing the structure of the

sentences which had previously had can be to I like + nominal

('I like visiting relatives'), those which had is to I like

+ infinitive ('I like to visit relatives'), and those which

had are to I like + noun + that are + verb + ing ('I like

relatives that are visiting'). It was hoped that eliminating

the verb be would eliminate the subjects' problems in dis-

tinguishing between the two types of nominals.


Method

Subjects. Four students from P.K. Yonge Laboratory

School in Gainesville, Florida, were chosen to participate

in this experiment. There were two ten-year-old males and

two eleven-year-old females. All four subjects were white,

native speakers of English.










Apparatus. This test design included the five pretest

sentences which were used in Experiment I to assure that the

subjects could adequately perform the task of selecting more

than one picture if more than one picture was appropriate to

the sentence which they heard. The test sentences, which

appear in Appendix B, consisted of twenty-seven sentences,

nine of which were ambiguous and eighteen of which were unam-

biguous. Of the nine ambiguous sentences, six consisted of

I like + nominal, in which the nominal could be either a sub-

ject nominal or an object nominal. The other three ambiguous

sentences were the same three from the original test design

which were not built on the nominal + can be + adjective

structure. The unambiguous sentences consisted of the six

sentences from the original design which were not dependent on

the verb be and of twelve sentences which were interpretations

of the I like + nominal sentences. These twelve sentences

consisted of six I like + infinitive structures and six I like

+ noun + that are + verb + ing, as in the following set:

2.j. I like playing grownups.

2.k. I like to play grownups.

2.1. I like grownups that are playing.

As was true of the design for Experiment I, each unam-

biguous sentence represented one of the meanings contained in

the ambiguous sentences. Again, the purpose of this design

change was to eliminate the problems that arose with the verb

be. The remaining aspects of the apparatus--the slides,

projector, and score sheet--were the same as those in Experi-

ment I.










Procedure

This aspect was also similar to that of Experiment I.

The only difference was in the sentences that were read.


Results

On the nine ambiguous sentences, two subjects chose two

pictures seven times, one subject chose two pictures eight

times, and one chose two pictures nine times. On the eighteen

unambiguous sentences, one subject chose two pictures five

times, one seven times, one nine times, and one ten times.

This design, like the ones that preceded it, failed to

elicit a consistent distinction between subject and object

nominals. In even the most unlikely cases, for example, 'I

like to visit relatives,' two of the subjects chose two

pictures.


Discussion

No matter what the method of testing, it seemed that the

subjects could not be forced into distinguishing between when

the subject-nominal interpretation was appropriate and when

the object-nominal interpretation was appropriate. For some

reason the subjects appeared to be treating all of the nominals

as surface lexical items rather than as derived structures.


Experiment V


Because there were no age differences in either the per-

ception of ambiguity or in performance on the unambiguous

sentences, it remained unclear as to when subjects actually










begin to make the distinctions necessary to perform well on

the unambiguous sentences. Some of the results of the pre-

ceding experiments implied that the ability to interpret the

relationships among the trio of sentences made up of an am-

biguous sentence and its two unambiguous counterparts, the

ability to distinguish between the two unambiguous sentences

in the trio, and the ability to recognize that the unambiguous

sentences were in fact unambiguous were available only to

those people who have an overt interest in language. These

abilities certainly did not seem to be a part of these native

speakers' intuitions about language.

It was decided that it would be helpful to know how

college-aged adults would perform the tasks of Experiment I in

this investigation. If they had no problems with the test

sentences, then somewhere between the ages of 12 and 18 years,

there should be a point which could be labeled 'the normal

age of acquisition' of the abilities needed to handle the

elements of this test. If adults were not able to make complete

distinctions between the unambiguous sentences and were not

sure that the unambiguous sentences were unambiguous, then

these abilities most probably belong only to those people who

consciously analyze their language.

This latter possibility seems remote because it would be

quite wasteful for a language to offer distinctions for its

speakers if the speakers do not naturally utilize them. These

distinctions should not exist for the language-conscious only,










but should be an active part of any native speaker's ability

to interpret his language. On the other hand, it is possible

that this wasteful aspect is prevalent in language. Many

people may never acquire certain transformations.


Method

Subjects. Seven students from the University of Florida

were chosen haphazardly to participate in this experiment.

These students ranged from 18 to 22 years in age. Three were

males and four were females. All were white, native speakers

of English.


Apparatus. The apparatus were identical to those in

Experiment I.


Procedure

The procedure was identical to that of Experiment I. The

only change was in location. Experiment I was conducted at

P.K. Yonge Laboratory School. Experiment V was conducted in

General Purpose Building A on the main campus of the University

of Florida.


Results

On the whole, these adult subjects demonstrated a more

thorough comprehension of the elements of this test. The ten

ambiguous sentences presented more problems to these subjects

than the unambiguous sentences did. No subject chose two

pictures for all of the ambiguous sentences. The seven sub-

jects each heard ten ambiguous sentences, for a total of










seventy total exposures to the ambiguous sentences. Out of

these seventy exposures, the subjects correctly chose two

pictures twenty-nine times or 41 percent of the time.

Performance on the unambiguous sentences was much better.

Twenty unambiguous sentences presented to the seven subjects

provided one hundred forty exposures to the unambiguous sen-

tences. The subjects chose two pictures only fourteen times

out of the possible one hundred forty times, or for 10 percent

of the time. This was by far the fewest times that subjects

in any one test design chose two pictures for the unambiguous

sentences. Even though these subjects chose only one picture

for the unambiguous sentences more frequently than the subjects

in previous test situations, they chose the wrong picture

twenty-nine times or 21 percent of the time.


Discussion

In order for subjects at a particular stage in develop-

ment to have mastered a specific aspect of their language,

they should demonstrate an ability to use that part of their

language consistently. In other words, subjects should reach

an age at which it becomes useless to test them because at

that age they show no difficulty with the test items. This

does not mean that all the subjects in that age group must

get 100 percent of the items correct. There are numerous

reasons why some errors may show up. But there should be a

consistent demonstration of proficiency with the test items.

The subjects in this test have not demonstrated such a

proficiency. Perceiving only 41 percent of the ambiguities









and seeing ambiguity in unambiguous sentences 10 percent of the

time with twenty-nine errors in the choice of pictures for the

unambiguous sentences would not seem to be a demonstration of

proficiency with these test items. It is true that these sub-

jects chose two pictures only 10 percent of the time, whereas

the subjects in the previous experiments chose two pictures

from 28 percent to 39 percent of the time.

The subjects' performances during the test and their

comments after the test often indicated different things. For

example, one subject chose two pictures for only three am-

biguous sentences and chose only one picture for each of the

unambiguous sentences. Although the test demonstrated that

this subject understood the unambiguous sentences, it did not

indicate that he perceived the ambiguity in the first ten

sentences. His comments after the test, however, showed that

he understood not only the ambiguities ('with can be, it can

have two meanings') but also the design of the test ('changing

from can be to is and are'). Although this ability to describe

the test design seems quite simple, very few of the subjects,

regardless of age, were able to explain what was happening

during the test.

Another subject's performance during the test differed

from his comments after the test. This subject chose two

pictures for seven of the ten ambiguous sentences and for

five of the twenty unambiguous sentences. Yet he commented

that all of the sentences with is were ungrammatical.










Like the younger subjects, the adults were able to dis-

tinguish between sentences with is and those with are if the

two sentences were presented together for them to compare.

They, too, did not always employ this distinction when they

chose pictures.


Discussion of Experiments I Through V


An experiment was designed to determine the age at which

children develop the ability to perceive deep-structure am-

biguity as in the sentence 'Flying kites can be exciting.'

It was hypothesized that the ability to perceive both meanings

in this sentence would develop only after the child could com-

prehend both of the unambiguous sentences which represent the

meanings which are contained in this ambiguous sentence. These

two sentences are 'Flying kites is exciting' and 'Flying kites

are exciting.' The results of this experiment were completely

different from those which were anticipated.

There was no significant age difference in ability to

perceive the ambiguity of the ambiguous sentences. What the

subjects failed to comprehend was the fact that the unambiguous

sentences were unambiguous. These subjects repeatedly saw more

than one meaning for the unambiguous sentences.

In order to determine whether the subjects' behaviors were

the result of some feature of the design or if, in fact, the

subjects could not comprehend that these sentences were not

ambiguous and if not, why, four more designs were used. The

results from these four experiments indicated that with the










exception of the adults and regardless of test design the

subjects were unable to tell that the unambiguous sentences

were unambiguous, unless the pair of unambiguous sentences

was presented together for the subjects to compare. Only then

could the subjects explain the difference between the two sen-

tences and recognize that these sentences were not ambiguous.

This inability on the part of these subjects to analyze

the unambiguous sentences unless they were presented in pairs

suggests that the ability to perform such an analysis is

available only to those people who consciously analyze their

language.

Although it may seem strange that a language may offer

distinctions which its speakers do not naturally use, this

happens quite often in terms of vocabulary items which people

may never learn or use and transformations which some people

may never acquire. That many people may never be able to

distinguish between the unambiguous sentences would not hinder

their ability to communicate since most ambiguities become

disambiguated in the contexts in which they are used.

The results of these five experiments raised a large

number of questions. The most obvious question was 'why did

the subjects perform so differently from the way that the

theory had led me to predict?' This question, of course,

embodied many other questions.

Since the only difference in the surface structure in the

pairs of unambiguous sentences such as 'Flying kites is ex-

citing' and 'Flying kites are exciting' lies in the verbs is










and are, it appeared that these verbs were not meaningful to

the subjects in their interpretations of the sentences. There

was no question that the subjects heard the verbs, since the

experimenter violated the conditions of the original experi-

ment to make sure that they heard these verbs. What was un-

clear was whether it was the verb be or the presence or ab-

sence of the plural marker on the verb which was causing prob-

lems for the subjects. It seemed quite possible that it was

the verb be because this verb carries no meaning.

In order to determine which of these factors was operating,

a completely new test design was developed. This design

tested both the verb be and the plural marker in the contexts

of twelve ambiguous sentences and twelve unambiguous sentences.













CHAPTER III


EXPERIMENT VI


The subjects who participated in the first five experi-

ments demonstrated an inability to properly analyze sentences

whose structures were of the form nominal + be + adjective,

when the nominal was structurally ambiguous. The sentences

which the subjects heard were either ambiguous because the

verb form did not determine which meaning of the nominal

should be available or unambiguous because the verb form did

determine which meaning of the nominal should be available.

Sentence 3.a. is an example of the ambiguous sentence type,

and sentences 3.b. and 3.c. are examples in which the verb

form should disambiguate the nominal.

3.a. Moving houses can be dangerous.

3.b. Moving houses is dangerous.

3.c. Moving houses are dangerous.

From a descriptive standpoint, the singular form of a verb

determines that the nominal be interpreted as an object

nominal; that is, in sentence 3.b., houses is the object of

moving. The plural form of the verb determines that the

nominal be interpreted as a subject nominal; for example, in

sentence 3.c., houses is the subject of the sentence and

moving functions as an adjective modifying houses. The verb










in sentence 3.a., can be, has no inflection for number and,

consequently, provides no information to disambiguate the

nominal.

Apparently, not all native speakers, even some adults,

make these distinctions between 3.b. and 3.c. unless they

have both sentences available at the same time. Most of the

subjects in the previous experiments viewed sentences of the

form of 3.b. and 3.c. as ambiguous. It appears that the

syntactic information contained in the verb was not enough to

override the ambiguity of the nominal. It was not clear

whether the problem resided in the verb be which has no meaning

or in the presence or absence of the plural marker.

In order to determine what factors were operating for

the subjects, a new experiment was designed. Twenty-four

sentences based on the nominal + verb + adjective structure

made up the test. In this design both the verb be and the

verb look were tested in both singular and plural forms. This

was done to determine if subjects would have the same problems

if the main verb in the sentence were not some form of be.

Another variable in this design was the type of nominal.

Twelve of the nominals were ambiguous and twelve were not. All

of the nominals contained a plural noun. The subjects were

asked to select the correct verb form; that is, they were to

circle is or are in twelve sentences and looks or look in

twelve sentences. For the ambiguous nominals either form of

the verb would be correct. (See sentences 3.d. and 3.e.)









However, for the unambiguous nominals there was only one

correct verb form for each sentence. (See sentences 3.f.

through 3.i.)

3.d. Sailing boats is/are dangerous.

3.e. Sailing boats looks/look dangerous.

3.f. Making cookies is/are fun.

3.g. Making cookies looks/look fun.

3.h. Roaring lions is/are scary.

3.i. Roaring lions looks/look scary.

The nominals in sentences 3.f. and 3.g. are object nominals,

and the only grammatical verb form in each sentence is the

singular form. The nominals in sentences 3.h. and 3.i., how-

ever, are subject nominals and are grammatical with only the

plural form of the verb.

Because the subjects in the previous experiments had

viewed sentences such as 3.d. as ambiguous, it was suspected

that the subjects in this experiment might do the same. It

was also expected that some subjects might choose the plural

verb form for all of the nominals because the nominal phrases

end in s and the plural noun is next to the verb. This type

of behavior constitutes a strategy which may not always pro-

duce the correct result. For example, in sentence 3.f. some

speakers may choose are because the noun cookies, which is

plural, is next to the verb. Although the word cookies is

not the subject of the sentence, it was felt that some speakers

might behave as if it were. Such a strategy would generate

the ungrammatical sentences 3.j. and 3.k.










*3.j. Making cookies are fun.

*3.k. Making cookies look fun.

This strategy applied to subject nominals also generates the

plural verb form, but in this case, it is the correct form.

If this strategy is actually being utilized, there should be

significantly more errors with object nominals than with sub-

ject nominals.

The subjects' behavior on this test should indicate the

importance of the verb form in interpreting the nominal. If

there were not significantly more errors with object nominals

than with subject nominals, it might mean that the verb form

was irrelevant to the interpretation of nominals. This would

follow if the syntactic information contained in the verb were

not enough to override the ambiguity of the nominal.

There were two other questions which this design attempted

to answer:

1. Is there a developmental point at which the verb be-

comes relevant to the interpretation of the nominal?

2. Is this linguistic behavior in any way a function of

education?

It seems that the ability to distinguish between 'Flying

kites is fun' and 'Flying kites are fun' should not be related

to how well a person has learned his English grammar lessons.

Since the two sentences represent differences in meaning, they

should be different to all native speakers of English, who

presumably cut up the semantic spectrum along the same lines.

There is some indication, however, that these sentences have










the same meaning for some speakers, and consequently, they do

not share the same divisions of the semantic spectrum with

those speakers for whom these two sentences have different

meanings. It may happen that the only explanation for this

linguistic behavior is that, unless the subject is overtly

and consciously aware of the rules of his grammar, he does

not attend to all the grammatical technicalities of a sentence.

These subjects rely, quite probably, on context. Contextual

factors ordinarily eliminate the need to analyze a sentence

closely enough to determine whether a speaker is talking

about the act of flying kites or about kites which are flying.

It was in an attempt to sort out some of these factors

that the following experiment was run.

Method

Subjects. One hundred eighty-three subjects participated

in this experiment. One hundred thirty of these subjects were

students between the ages of seven and twelve years old from

P.K. Yonge Laboratory School in Gainesville, Florida. The

other fifty-three subjects were students at the University of

Florida between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine. In all

there were eighty-nine females and ninety-four males. All sub-

jects were native speakers of English. In this experiment

there were no restrictions on race.

Apparatus. The apparatus consisted of one sheet of paper

for each subject with places at the top for name, age, and sex

and with twenty-four sentences, each containing the singular









and the plural forms of the verb be in the present tense or

the verb look in the present tense. All of the sentences had

a nominal + verb + adjective format. In twelve of the sen-

tences the nominal was ambiguous; that is, it could be either

a subject nominal or an object nominal (for example, 'flying

kites'). For these twelve sentences, both the singular and

the plural forms of the verb were grammatical. In the other

twelve sentences the nominals were not ambiguous; six nominals

were subject nominals and six were object nominals. The sub-

ject nominals were grammatical with only the plural verb, and

the object nominals were grammatical with only the singular

verb. Each nominal in the test was paired with the verb be

in one sentence and the verb look in another sentence. The

order of the sentences on the test was random. A copy of

this test is in Appendix D.

Procedure

This test was administered in the classrooms at P.K.

Yonge and at the University of Florida by the classroom in-

structors. Each instructor passed out the test forms and

directed the students to read each sentence carefully and to

circle the correct form of the verb. No other instructions

were given. However, for one group, an adjustment had to be

made. The youngest group, the seven-year olds, was incapable

of reading the test, so their teacher read it out loud to

them. Because intonation pattern does not affect the meaning

of these sentences, no problems arose from the sentences being

read aloud.









Two forms of this test were administered. In one form

the order of the twenty-four sentences was the reverse of the

order for the second form. One half of the subjects received

form one and the other half received form two.

The data were analyzed using the SAS General Linear Model

Procedure computer program for analysis of variance. In the

ambiguous sentences subjects could not make an error in their

choice of verb form. However, because it was thought that

subjects might employ a strategy of selecting the plural form

of a verb because the noun which precedes the verb is always

plural, it was important to know whether the subjects chose

the singular or the plural form of the verb in the ambiguous

sentences. Therefore, in order to distinguish the responses

for the unambiguous sentences from those for the ambiguous

sentences, the verbs were divided into six categories: two

singular--is and looks, two plural--are and look, and two

categories labelled be and 1k for the ambiguous sentences.

The subjects' responses were recorded in the following manner:

for the unambiguous sentences, a correct response was coded

as 0, and an incorrect response was coded as 1. Because there

was no way to make an incorrect choice of verb in the ambiguous

sentences, selection of the singular verb form was coded as 0

and of the plural verb form was coded as 1.

The data were also analyzed from the perspective of the

nominals. There were three categories of nominals. For the

unambiguous sentences the categories were either Subject or

Object nominals. For the ambiguous sentences, the nominal









could be interpreted as either subject or object, and, there-

fore, the category for the nominals in the ambiguous sentences

was labelled Subj-Obj. The numbers in the first two categories

were the number of times the subjects chose the wrong verb form

for a particular nominal type. The numbers in the category

Subj-Obj were the number of times subjects chose a plural verb

form for the ambiguous sentences. The responses for nominals

also represent a collapsing of the verbs which were appropriate

for the particular nominal type. For example, the mean for

nine-year-old males with respect to subject nominals represents

a collapsing of the scores for nine-year-old males on the verbs

are and look because these two verb forms are the correct re-

sponses for subject nominals.

One final point, all of the subjects older than twelve

were combined into one group. The subjects actually were be-

tween the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine, but they were all

considered in one age group which was labelled 21-year olds.

Results

Verbs in unambiguous sentences. For those sentences

which were not ambiguous, there was a three-way interaction

of sex, age, and verb which was significant at the .01 level.

The two-way interaction of sex and verb was not significant at

the .01 level. The age by verb interaction and the sex by

age interactions were significant, the former at an alpha level

of .0001 and the latter at an alpha level of .0027. Although

the main effect of sex was not significant, the main effects

of age and of verb were significant at the .0001 level.









Figures 1 through 4 indicate the percent of incorrect responses

for male and female subjects at each age interval for the four

verb forms. Figure 1 indicates the number of times subjects

chose the verb are when the correct response was is. Figure

2 indicates the number of incorrect responses for are, Figure

3 for looks, and Figure 4 for look. If the four figures are

imposed on one graph, the three-way interaction becomes evi-

dent. These scores are also listed in Table 3.

Is. When the correct response was is, the seven-year-old

male and female subjects' performances of 47 and 42 percent

respectively were not significantly different. The eight-year-

old subjects were not significantly different either from each

other or from the seven-year olds. The nine-year-old males

continued to perform in the same manner as the seven- and

eight-year olds. The nine-year-old females, however, improved

significantly, choosing the verb form are only 28 percent of

the time when they should have chosen is. At the age of ten,

female subjects performed just as the nine-year-old females.

The males, however, did worse at this age than at any other

age, choosing are 60 percent of the time when they should have

chosen is. The responsesof the eleven-year olds were almost

the reverse of those for the ten-year olds. The male subjects'

scores improved to 24 percent, while the females' scores

worsened by 28 percentage points to 57 percent. For the

twelve-year olds, there was another reversal. The males'

scores rose to 43 percent incorrect, while the females improved

by 40 percent to 17 percent incorrect. Finally, the scores









for male and female adults were nearly identical at 11 percent

and 12 percent, respectively.

Are. The subjects' behavior when the correct response

was are remained more consistent. At the ages of 7, 9, 10,

and 11, females did slightly, but not significantly, better

than males. At the ages of 8 and 21, males did slightly better.

And at the age of 12, both males and females had an identical

score of 0 percent incorrect responses.

Looks. At the age of 7, male subjects chose the verb

form look 13 percent of the times when they should have chosen

looks, whereas the females did this 18 percent of the time.

At the age of 8, both males and females did worse than the 7

year olds. The females made errors 26 percent of the time,

while the males were incorrect 44 percent of the time. At the

age of 9, the males improved to 33 percent and the females

improved to 4 percent. At the age of 10, both males and

females made errors 17 percent of the time. At 11, males

improved slightly to 12 percent and females remained almost

the same at 18 percent. At 12, the males had slightly more

errors--14 percent, and females made slightly fewer errors--8

percent. The adult males again improved slightly, this time

to 9 percent, and the females made errors 15 percent of the

time. From the age of ten to adult, none of the scores was

significantly different. Although the scores for male and

female subjects alternated in terms of which sex had fewer

errors at each of these ages, the fact that there was no
















TABLE 3


of Incorrect
by Male


Responses on the Four
and Female Subjects


Verb Forms


Age Sex Is Are Looks Look


7 M 47 13 13 53
7 F 42 6 18 30
8 M 49 10 44 33
8 F 46 13 26 49
9 M 45 9 33 55
9 F 28 5 4 48
10 M 60 17 17 33
10 F 29 13 17 28
11 M 24 15 12 18
11 F 57 9 18 27
12 M 43 0 14 0
12 F 17 0 8 25
21 M 11 1 9 4
21 F 12 1 15 3

Note. All scores are rounded off to the nearest
percentage point.


Percent
















60-

55- .

50-

45- ..* .' **

40- *,

o 35-

H30- .......

Z25-

20-

15- '*.

10-

5-

0 -, -----
7 8 9 10 11 12 21
AGE

a-: Male
******* Female


Figure 1. Percent of incorrect responses for the verb
form Is by male and female subjects.
























U40



H30-

Z25-

S20-

15

10- .. -

5- *** '*.


7 8 9 10 11 12 21
AGE

S-, Male
.... Female



Figure 2. Percent of incorrect responses for the verb
form Are by male and female subjects.































. .e.
*" "
*e
*

*


45-

S40-

S35-
0
U
Z 30-

H25-
z

20-

15-

10-

5-

0 1


*- Male
**.... Female


Figure 3.


Percent of incorrect responses for the verb
form Looks by male and female subjects.


I I I 1 I 1
7 8 9 10 11 12 21
AGE
















60 -

55-

50-

45- ."

D40-

S35- '.

H30 -

U *
25- "" ***.

215 \'.
20

15-

10-

5

00
7 8 9 10 11 12 21
AGE

--- Male
**.... Female



Figure 4. Percent of incorrect responses for the verb
form Look by male and female subjects.









significant difference in these scores indicates that there

was no genuine improvement after the age of 10.

Look. At the age of 7, male subjects chose looks 53

percent of the times that they should have chosen look. Fe-

male subjects chose looks incorrectly 30 percent of the time.

At eight, male subjects chose looks incorrectly 33 percent,

while females made errors 49 percent of the time. Nine-year-

old male and female subjects made errors 55 and 48 percent of

the time, respectively. Both male and female subjects improved

significantly by the age of ten to 33 and 28 percent, respec-

tively. At 11, males improved to 18 percent while females

stayed at 27 percent. At 12, the males again improved; this

time they made no errors. The females improved slightly to

25 percent. As adults, the male subjects made errors only

4 percent of the time and females improved to 3 percent.

Nominals in unambiguous sentences. This category is

simply a different perspective on the same data. The scores

are the combined scores for both the verbs which were gram-

matical for a particular nominal type. For example, in the

sentence 'Growling lions is/are--looks/look scary,' both are

and look are grammatical because this sentence contains a

subject nominal. These scores, then, indicate the number of

errors in choice of verb that males and females at each age

interval made for a particular type of nominal. The purpose

of looking at these data in this manner is to determine which

type of nominal presented more difficulty to the subjects.










The result of this analysis was that there was a signifi-

cant three-way interaction of sex, age, and nominal at the .01

level of significance. The two-way interactions of sex by

nominal and of age by nominal were not significant at the .01

level. The sex by age interaction was significant at the

level of .0047. The main effect of sex was not significant,

but the main effects of age and of nominal were significant

at the level of .0001. These scores are listed in Table 4

and the interaction is evident in Figure 5.

At the age of 7, male and female subjects made errors

with object nominals 30 percent of the time. For the subject

nominals, males made errors 33 percent and females 18 percent

of the time. At eight, male subjects improved on subject

nominals to 22 percent but had 46 percent incorrect with ob-

ject nominals. Females made more errors on both subject and

object nominals, 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively.

At nine, males improved with object nominals to 39 per-

cent but with subject nominals they were incorrect 32 percent

of the time. The females improved on subject nominals to 26

percent incorrect and on object nominals to 17 percent in-

correct.- At 10, the males stayed the same on object nominals

but improved with subject nominals to 25 percent incorrect.

Females improved with subject nominals to 20 percent but had

23 percent incorrect on object nominals. At the age of 11,

male subjects improved somewhat to 17 percent on subject

nominals and improved significantly to 18 percent on object



















TABLE 4

Percent of Incorrect Responses on Subject and Object
Nominals by Male and Female Subjects


Age Sex Subject Nominal Object Nominal


7 M 33 30
7 F 18 30
8 M 22 46
8 F 31 40
9 M 32 39
9 F 26 17
10 M 25 39
10 F 20 23
11 M 17 18
11 F 18 38
12 M 0 29
12 F 13 13
21 M 2 10
21 F 2 14

Note. All scores are rounded off to the nearest
percentage point.






61












50-

45- A.
40- /

E35 /

I30- .30
0
u25- \

g20- .* *.. \

'15 -
a0- \ ".

5-

0
7 8 9 10 11 12 21
AGE

Subject Nominals, Males
.****** Object Nominals, Males
--- Subject Nominals, Females
Object Nominals, Females



Figure 5. Percent of incorrect responses on subject and
object nominals by male and female subjects.







nominals. Female subjects improved just slightly to 18 percent

with subject nominals but made significantly more errors, 38

percent, with object nominals.

For the 12-year olds, there was a 29-point divergence

between the scores for the male subjects, as they had 29 per-

cent incorrect with object nominals and no errors with subject

nominals. The female subjects made errors 13 percent of the

time for both subject and object nominals. Adults were more

consistent by sex. The males had 10 percent incorrect for

the object nominals while females had 14 percent incorrect

for the object nominals, and both sexes had 2 percent incor-

rect for the subject nominals.

Verbs in ambiguous sentences. The scores in this cate-

gory indicate the percentage of times that the subjects chose

a plural verb form in each ambiguous sentence. The results

were that the three-way interaction of sex by age by verb and

the two-way interaction of sex by verb were not significant

at the .01 level of significance. The two-way interactions

of verb by age and of sex by age were significant to the

level of .0001. The main effect of sex was not significant

at the .01 level, whereas the main effects of verb and of age

were significant to the .0001 level. Table 5 contains a list

of the scores for the verb-by-age interaction. Figure 6 in-

dicates the percentage of plural verb forms that the subjects

chose for each main verb at each age interval for those sen-

tences which were ambiguous.


















TABLE 5

Percent of Choices of Are and Look
in the Ambiguous Sentences


Age Are Look


7 38.0 75.0
8 35.0 62.0
9 54.5 77.0
10 57.0 79.0
11 44.5 77.5
12 71.5 63.5
21 76.5 75.0

Note. All scores are rounded off to the nearest
one-half percentage point.






64









30-
...*** .**** ...
O 75- *. ..
0
70

65-

S60-

0 55-

W 50-
H
O 45-
U
40-
O
E 35-
z
U 30-

S25-

20 a i |
7 8 9 10 11 12 21
AGE

.-. Are
******* Look



Figure 6. Percent of choices of Are and Look in
the ambiguous sentences.









There is a pattern from the age of 7 through the age of

11 for the subjects to choose the plural form at least 23 per-

cent more often for the main verb look than for the main verb

be. The differences were significant at the .01 level at the

ages of 7, 8, 10, and 11. At the ages of 12 and 21, subjects

chose slightly more plural forms for be than for look. The

differences for these two ages were not significant. Overall,

as the age of the subjects increased, the choices of plural

verb forms also increased. The choices of plural verb form

for the verb look in the ambiguous sentences were between 62

percent and 79 percent for all ages. However, for the verb

be the percentage of plural responses ranged from 35 percent

for the eight-year olds to 76.5 percent for the adults.

The scores for the age-by-sex interaction are listed in

Table 6, and Figure 7 illustrates this interaction. At the

ages of 7, 8, 11, 12, and 21, male subjects chose plural verb

forms more often than female subjects did. The females chose

more plurals at the ages of 9 and 10. Only the differences

at the ages of 10 and 11 were significantly different at the

.01 level. From the ages of 7 to 8 there was a decline in

plural choices for both sexes. From 10 to 11, there was a

decline in the plural choices for females. From 11 to 12,

there was a slight decline among the male subjects. In all

other instances, the number of choices of plural verb forms

increased.

Nominals in ambiguous sentences. Again, to look at the

nominals is simply to look at the same data from a different


















TABLE 6

Percent of Choices of Plural Verb Forms in the
Ambiguous Sentences by Male and Female Subjects


Age Male Female


7 65.0 48.0
8 49.0 47.0
9 59.5 72.5
10 61.0 75.0
11 73.5 48.0
12 68.0 66.5
21 76.0 75.0

Note. All scores are rounded off to the nearest
one-half percentage point.

















80-

75 -

70-

65 -

60-

55 -

50 -

45 -

40 -

35 -

30 -

25 -

20


I I i I I I I
7 8 9 10 11 12 21
AGE


p.- Male
**.*** Female


Figure 7.


Percent of choices of plural verb forms in the
ambiguous sentences by male and female subjects.


*6*










perspective. In this case, to look at the number of times

that the subjects chose a plural verb form is to determine

how often they interpreted the ambiguous nominal as a subject

nominal. The result was a two-way interaction of sex and age

which is significant at the .01 level. The main effect of

sex was not significant at the .01 level. However, the main

effect of age was significant at the .0001 level of signifi-

cance. The scores for the nominals in the ambiguous sentences

are the same as the scores for the age-by-sex interaction for

verbs in ambiguous sentences. Therefore, Table 6 and Figure

7 are applicable here and will not be repeated.














CHAPTER IV


DISCUSSION


Because of the significant three-way interactions, it

is impossible to draw any clear conclusions about the data.

There are, however, some trends which can be discussed.

Verbs in unambiguous sentences. When the correct re-

sponse was are, the subjects had the fewest problems. The

highest percentage of errors with are was 17 percent for the

ten-year-old males. Performance with this verb form was also

the most consistent: There was considerably less fluctuation

in the scores for this verb form than for the others.

For all four verb forms, the number of errors for the

twelve-year olds and adults was smaller than the number of

errors for the seven-year olds. The greatest amount of im-

provement occurred with the verb forms look and is. The

least amount of improvement occurred with looks.

Between the ages of seven and eleven, the subjects'

performance on the two plural forms look and are never over-

lapped as there were significantly more errors with look at

the ages of seven, eight, and nine, and for the ten-year-old

males. With the exception of the twelve-year-old female sub-

jects' performance with look, all the twelve-year olds and

adults had almost identical scores on look and are, and those










scores were equal to 0 percent for the twelve-year olds and

very close to 0 percent for the adults. Consequently, the

twelve-year-old and adult subjects had fewer problems when

the correct answer was a plural verb form.

Nominals in unambiguous sentences. This perspective on

the data also indicates that there can be no automatic con-

clusions. The seven-year-old subjects performed better than

the eight-year olds in all cases except for the males with

subject nominals. After the age of eight, performance on the

object nominals was highly inconsistent for both males and

females. Females began to improve after the age of eight with

subject nominals, and they continued to do so all the way to

adults. Males did worse as nine-year olds with subject

nominals, but after that they steadily improved. At the age

of twelve they had 0 percent incorrect with subject nominals,

and as adults, their score of 2 percent incorrect was not

significantly different from 0 percent. The adults' per-

formances on object nominals of 10 percent incorrect for males

and 14 percent incorrect for females, although higher than

that of the subject nominals, were not significantly different.

All of the subjects seemed to acquire the ability to handle

subject nominals earlier and more completely than they did

object nominals.

Verbs and nominals in ambiguous sentences. The scores

in this category are the number of times that subjects chose

a plural verb form (are or look) in the ambiguous sentences,

or, in other words, how many times they interpreted the nominals









in the ambiguous sentences as subject nominals. Between the

ages of seven and eleven the subjects interpreted the nominals

in the ambiguous sentences as subject nominals 23 percent to

37 percent more often for those sentences with look than for

those with be. At the age of twelve and as adults, subjects

interpreted the nominals with be as subject nominals more

often than those with look. Thus the interaction of age and

verb was significant. As adults the subjects' performances

with both verbs were nearly identical. The scores for look

were high for all ages and finished at 75 percent. The scores

for be were as low as 38 percent and 35 percent for the seven-

and eight-year olds, respectively, and finished at 76.5 per-

cent for the adults. Consequently, the subjects showed a

tendency to choose the plural form more often as they got

older.

Having considered the statistical results of this test,

we should attempt to answer those questions which were posed

at the outset of this experiment.

Since the subjects in the first five experiments perceived

so many sentences as ambiguous, would the subjects in this

experiment perceive ambiguity in this format? Not only did

the subjects not perceive ambiguity in the unambiguous sen-

tences, they did not indicate that they perceived the ambiguity

in those sentences that were ambiguous. One subject, a twenty-

two-year-old female selected one verb for each sentence but

noted (incorrectly) at the bottom of the test form that all

of the sentences were ambiguous, and, therefore, all of the









verb forms were appropriate. All other subjects selected

only one verb form for each sentence. It is, however, quite

possible that the instructions--'Circle the correct verb form

in each sentence'--influenced the subjects' performance.

The subjects in the first five experiments did not

seem to use the syntactic information available in the verbs

in the test sentences. Because the verb forms in these

sentences were forms of the verb be, a verb which is

semantically empty, it was felt that some of the problems

which the subjects encountered might be related to the

nature of the verb be. For that reason, the verb look was

included in this experiment. If the subjects had problems

with be but not with look, then there would be evidence that

the semantically empty verb be was responsible for the prob-

lems of the subjects in the first series of experiments. If

the subjects had as many or more problems with look as with

be, then their problems must reside with the syntactic in-

formation carried by the verb and not with the semantics.

The subjects in this experiment had almost identical

totals of errors with be and look. If the scores for the

verb forms is and are are collapsed, and if the scores for

looks and look are collapsed, and if the sexes are collapsed

for both main verbs, the result is one score each for the

main verbs be and look at each age interval. These scores

are listed in Table 7 and graphed in Figure 8. It was

pointed out earlier that the three-way interaction of age,

sex, and verb in the unambiguous sentences was significant.






73







TABLE 7

Percent of Incorrect Responses for the
Main Verbs Be and Look


Bea


Lookb


7 27.0 28.5
8 29.5 37.5
9 22.0 35.0
10 29.5 23.5
11 26.5 18.5
12 14.5 12.0
21 6.0 7.5

Note. All scores are rounded off to the nearest one-
half percentage point.
aThe scores for Be represent the collapsing of the
scores for the verb forms is and are for both males and
females.
bThe scores for Look are the collapsed scores for
looks and look for both males and females.


Age




















.* .
*.
*
**
e


40-





35-





30-





0 25-


0
U
z
H20-


U


S15-





10-





5





0


I I
9 10
AGE


-., Be
*******.. Look


Figure 8.


Percent of incorrect responses for the main
verbs Be and Look.


0
*m


12 21










Because of this significance, collapsing verbs and sexes is

not legitimate statistical procedure. However, having one

score for the main verbs makes comparison of those verbs

easier. So, keeping in mind that this is a violation of

statistical procedure and that, as a result, it obscures

a large amount of information, this information will be

considered in collapsed form.

Seven-year olds had nearly equal trouble with be and

look, with an average of 27 percent and 28.5 percent in-

correct, respectively. Eight-year-old subjects had more

errors with both verbs: slightly more with be at 29.5

percent and somewhat more with look at 37.5 percent. The

greatest discrepancy occurred at the age of nine. These

subjects improved to 22 percent with be and to 35 percent

with look, for a difference of 13 percentage points between

the two. At the age of ten, subjects had more problems with

be, averaging 29.5 percent incorrect and improved considerably

with look to an average of 23.5 percent. After the age of

ten, subjects improved with both verbs at each age interval.

The seven-, eight-, and nine-year olds and adults had more

problems with look while the ten-, eleven-, and twelve-year

olds had more problems with be. It appears that the sub-

jects began to resolve their problems earlier with look than

with be, since their scores improved from the age of eight

onward, whereas they did not improve consistently with be

until after the age of ten.










Overall, the subjects' performances with be and look

were quite similar. There seems to be no evidence that

the semantically empty nature of be was responsible for

the problems which the subjects had in this syntactic con-

text.

The third area under investigation was how the subjects

would handle the singular and plural verb forms. It was

suggested that if the subjects had problems in their choice

of verb form, they would choose the plural verb form more

often because in every sentence, regardless of its phrase

structure, a plural noun occurred immediately before the

verb.

There are two ways to determine how the subjects handled

singular and plural markers. The first way was to look at

the subjects' performance with nominals in the unambiguous

sentences. Figure 9 represents the information presented

earlier as Figure 5, with the exception that the variable

sex has been collapsed. Again, the collapsing is a viola-

tion of statistical procedure because of a significant three-

way interaction of sex, age, and nominal, but it provides

a clearer comparison of the nominals. Figure 9 and Table 8

indicate that for every age except nine the subjects had

more problems with object nominals than with subject nominals.

This means that the subjects chose plural verb forms when

they should have chosen singular forms more often than they

chose singular when they should have chosen plural. Eight-

year olds made the most errors in choice of plural form.






77









TABLE 8

Percent of Incorrect Responses on Subject and Object Nominals


Age Subject Nominals Object Nominals


7 25.5 30
8 26.5 41
9 29.0 28
10 22.5 31
11 17.5 28
12 6.0 21
21 2.0 12

Note. All scores are rounded off to the nearest one-
half percentage point. The variable sex has been collapsed.




















50-

45-

E 40 .*'.

35- .'
O .*.
U 30 .****-..
z
H 25-

S20-

M 15-

10-

5-

0 II II
7 8 9 10 11 12 21
AGE

-__-* Subject Nominals
*....** Object Nominals


Figure 9. Percent of incorrect responses on subject
and object nominals.










Adults made the fewest errors with both singular and plural

forms.

The second perspective on singular and plural markers

is in the subjects' performance with the ambiguous sentences.

Figure 10 and Table 9 indicate the number of times that the

subjects chose are and look in the ambiguous sentences. Sex

and verb are collapsed in this figure, and consequently, a

lot of information is obscured. However, for the purposes

of this point, this information is sufficient. Because this

figure indicates the percentage of plural verb forms which

the subjects chose at each age interval, the percentage of

singular forms chosen can be determined by subtracting the

percentage of plural choices at a particular age from 100

percent. Therefore, nine-year-old subjects chose a plural

verb form 66 percent of the time for the ambiguous sentences,

and they chose a singular form 34 percent of the time.

Figure 10 clearly indicates a tendency to choose the plural

verb form more often than the singular verb form. Only at

the age of eight did the subjects choose a singular form

more often than a plural form. There was also a tendency,

although not as consistent, for the subjects to choose plural

forms more often as they get older. Adults chose a plural

verb form 76 percent of the time for the ambiguous sentences.

Both of these perspectives indicate a tendency on the

part of the subjects to choose a plural form in the context

of the test sentences. There are at least two explanations

for this linguistic behavior. In some instances the subjects
















TABLE 9

Percent of Choices of Plural Verb Forms
in the Ambiguous Sentences


Age Plural Verb Forms


7 56.5
8 48.0
9 66.0
10 68.0
11 60.5
12 67.0
21 75.5

Note. All scores are rounded off to the nearest one-
half percentage point. Both sex and verb have been collapsed.



































60 -

55 -

50 -

45 -


10 11
AGE


12 i1


0 Plural Verb Forms


Figure 10. Percent of choices of plural verb forms
in the ambiguous sentences.


_ _1









may be employing a strategy of choosing a plural verb form

to agree with the plural noun that precedes the verb, rather

than analyzing the structure of the nominal. The second

possible explanation is that the subjects chose a plural

verb form because they interpreted the nominal as a subject

nominal. The structure of a subject nominal is 'simpler'

than that of an object nominal. The problem of linguistic

simplicity is still unsolved; however, in this case there

are several reasons to believe that the meaning of a subject

nominal is more readily apparent than that of an object

nominal.

First, the interpretation of the subject nominal does

not require any information which is not available on the

surface. Visiting relatives in the sense of 'relatives

that are visiting' has lost no content in the derivation

since that and are are not content words. Visiting rela-

tives in the sense of 'someone is visiting relatives' loses

the information carried by the subject of visiting. Although

that subject may be unspecified, it is still implied by the

structure. Also, the subject of visiting may be specified

by the context of the sentence or in the manner of 'Visiting

relatives is boring to Jane' in which Jane appears overtly

in the sentence as well as being the deleted subject of

visiting. Consequently, the listener must supply informa-

tion in order to interpret an object nominal, but all of the

information is available in a subject nominal.









Secondly, although the subject nominal is derived

from a deep-structure sentence, it resembles other adjective

+ noun combinations. The test sentences with subject

nominals as their subjects have the more common composition

of adjective + noun + verb + adjective, whereas the sentences

which have object nominals as their subjects have the com-

position of Iverb + objects + verb + adjective. Thus, the
subject

listener must analyze the structure of an object nominal in

order to understand it, whereas it is possible to interpret

a subject nominal on the basis of its lexical content.

If, in fact, the interpretation of a nominal as a

subject nominal is more readily available to the subjects,

this would explain why subjects interpreted the nominals

as subject nominals more frequently than as object nominals,

and, therefore, why they chose plural verb forms more often.

Figures 9 and 10 seem to have some contradictory indi-

cations. As the subjects get older they choose a plural

verb form/interpret a nominal as a subject nominal more

often if the sentence is ambiguous. However, as subjects

get older they make fewer errors of choosing plural forms/

interpret object nominals as subject nominals less often

in the unambiguous sentences.

It may be that as they get older the subjects rely

heavily on the strategy in the ambiguous sentences, or

possibly, when there is no reason not to do so they inter-

pret the nominal as a subject nominal. And for the










unambiguous sentences the subjects' performances may improve

because, as they become older, the subjects acquire a better

understanding of the structure of the object nominal, as well

as its relationship with the verb. It may, in fact, be the

case that the subjects actually acquire Pro Deletion Trans-

formation--one transformation which is necessary for the

derivation of an object nominal--during the age span that

was tested in the experiment.

The numerous errors in subject/verb agreement make it

evident that, at least through the age of twelve, the sub-

jects do not fully understand the relationship between the

nominal type and the number of the verb. This, to some

degree, explains why many of the subjects in the first series

of experiments failed to attend to the verb is or are in

determining the meaning of the nominals in the test sentences

and, instead, perceived the sentences as ambiguous. The

only group of subjects who consistently demonstrated an

understanding of the relationship between the nominal and

the number of the verb was the adults. With the verb form

are, subjects never had many problems. And with looks, the

subjects began at about the age of ten to have fewer problems.

But for is and look, the age of understanding was somewhere

between twelve years and adults.

One final question which was considered was the role of

education in this linguistic behavior. As was mentioned

earlier, the difference between 'Moving houses is dangerous'

and 'Moving houses are dangerous' should be available to all










native speakers because it represents a difference in meaning.

However, not all subjects demonstrated a comprehension of

this difference. Could it be that this distinction is avail-

able only to those speakers who have learned the rules of

subject/verb agreement and for people such as linguists who

are highly conscious of the nuances of their language? Al-

though education was not a variable that was controlled in

these experiments, it is safe to say that education is not

a determining factor. Numerous studies have shown that

attempts to impose a rule onto a speaker's grammar before the

speaker reaches the normal stage of acquisition for that

rule confuses the speaker rather than speeding up the

acquisition process (McNeill 1966 and Braine 1971). It

is also true that the eight-year-old and older subjects in

the first five experiments were able to distinguish between

these two sentences if the sentences were presented together

for the subjects to compare. Apparently they have internalized

the information which is necessary to tell the difference

between the two sentence types if both are present. Possibly

they compare some features of the two sentences. But if

only one sentence is present so that there is nothing for

the subjects to compare that sentence with, they seem to

rely only on the lexical information in the surface structure.

This tactic leads them to comprehend two meanings in either

sentence. That is, they see the ambiguity which exists in

the nominal in sentences 4.a. and 4.b., but they do not rely










on the syntactic information of the verb to enforce a choice

between the two meanings. For this reason many of the sub-

jects in the first five experiments treated the unambiguous

4.a. Moving houses is dangerous.

4.b. Moving houses are dangerous.

test sentences as if they were ambiguous.

At some point in the acquisition process, speakers may

acquire an ability to compare sentence 4.a. with sentence

4.b. internally. That is, they may hear sentence 4.a. in

isolation and may be able to analyze it by generating sentence

4.b. and comparing the two. Possibly the subjects in these

experiments had not reached this point. They were able to

compare the two sentence types if both were presented by the

experimenter. But they were not able to generate the second

sentence internally on their own.

The problems which these subjects manifested under the

test conditions imply that the subjects would have difficulties

in normal communication. According to the results of these

experiments, on hearing the sentence 'Moving houses is

dangerous,' the subjects would comprehend two different

meanings and would be forced to guess which meaning the

speaker had intended. However, this would not, in fact, be

a problem. The context of a conversation would provide enough

information so that no choice would have to be made.

The conditions which occurred in the test situation and

which occur in the context of a conversation may differ in

that in a conversation the subjects do not need to compare










the potentially ambiguous sentence with any other sentence

because the meaning has been specified by the context. In

the test conditions if the experimenter offered no sentence

for comparison and if the subject had not acquired the ability

to generate the sentence for comparison, then the subject had

no method with which to disambiguate the nominal. A subject

at this stage would then perceive sentence 4.a. and sentence

4.b. as ambiguous.

There are two suggestions for any further investigation

or follow-up studies.

1. In experiment six the verb forms are and looks

always occurred in the second position for the subjects to

choose from (see Appendix D). It was also the case that the

subjects chose are and looks more often than they chose is

and look. It is possible that the subjects responded in this

manner because of a recency effect of selecting the verb form

which they encountered last. For this reason it is suggested

that, in any future study of this type, the order of the verb

forms not be the same throughout the test.

2. One of the test sentences in experiment six was

'Making cookies is/are looks/look fun.' Although the correct

verb forms for this sentence are is and looks, it is possible

that 'Making cookies look fun' is a grammatical phrase, as

in the sentence 'Mother always makes making cookies look fun.'

Although 'Making cookies look fun' is not grammatical as a

sentence, it and other phrases which may be interpreted as






88



grammatical parts of sentences could present some problems

in similar test designs.

This study indicates that a study of ambiguity or other

studies based in the theory of transformations must consider

not just a set of transformations but also the specific

lexical items--for example, the verb forms--which are in-

cluded in the study.














CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION


The first experiment in this study was based firmly in

the theory of Transformational Grammar, so much so that it

seemed almost uninteresting to attempt to prove the obvious.

It seemed unquestionable that sentence 5.a. is ambiguous

and that sentences 5.b. and 5.c. are unambiguous and represent

the meanings which are contained in sentence 5.a.

5.a. Flying kites can be exciting.

5.b. Flying kites is exciting.

5.c. Flying kites are exciting.

The question under consideration was at what stage speakers

would perceive the ambiguity of sentence 5.a. The behavior

of the subjects in these experiments contradicted the

theoretically-based assumptions. The subjects in Experiments

I through V indicated that sentences of the types of 5.a.,

5.b., and 5.c. were ambiguous. For these subjects it appeared

that the verb forms is and are were not functioning to dis-

ambiguate the nominal. This behavior was also unexpected.

Roger Brown (1973) has shown that by Stage V, which occurred

in the children he studied by the time they were 3-1/2 years

old, children have reached the criterion of 90 percent correct

usage of the copula and of the third-person singular morpheme










s. Thus, simple subject/verb agreement is acquired very

early by speakers of English.

Apparently, subject/verb agreement in the context of

sentences such as 5.b. and 5.c. was not acquired at such an

early stage. This was tested in experiment six where it was

shown that subjects as old as twelve years had problems with

subject/verb agreement, especially in the context of object

nominals as in sentence 5.b. These problems do not interfere

with communication simply because the context of a conversa-

tion serves to prevent any misinterpretation of the ambiguous

nominal.

The inability on the part of these subjects to handle

subject/verb agreement competently explains why in the first

five experiments the subjects perceived the unambiguous test

sentences as ambiguous. Because they had not clearly acquired

the rules for subject/verb agreement in the context of an

ambiguous nominal, they were incapable of using that syntactic

information to disambiguate the nominal, and, consequently,

they perceived the sentences as ambiguous.














APPENDIX A

SENTENCES FOR EXPERIMENT I


Pretest sentences

1. The cat is lying on the table.

2. Riding horses can be fun.

3. The clown is holding his shoe.

4. Eating popcorn can be messy.

5. The woman is wearing a dress.

Test sentences

1. Playing grownups can be funny.

2. Playing grownups is funny.

3. Playing grownups are funny.

4. He wants to stop smoking.

5. He wants to quit smoking.

6. He wants to prevent smoking.

7. Shooting stars can be exciting.

8. Shooting stars is exciting.

9. Shooting stars are exciting.

10. Sailing boats can be dangerous.

11. Sailing boats is dangerous.

12. Sailing boats are dangerous.

13. Painting horses can be messy.

14. Painting horses is messy.

15. Painting horses are messy.




Full Text
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PERCEPTION
OF AMBIGUITY
BY
HYTA MEDERER
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1979

Copyright 1979
by
Hyta Mederer

For Phil—the closer the better

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Robert
Scholes for his many contributions to this dissertation,
including his suggestions for the test designs, for the
analyses, and for the pictures, as well as his patience
in directing its progress.
I would also like to express my gratitude to Dr. Jean
Casagrande both for his comments and suggestions concerning
this dissertation and for his support and understanding
throughout my enrollment at the University of Florida.
To Dr. Paul Kotey I would like to convey my appreciation
for his reading and commenting on my dissertation as well
as for his support and advice.
I would like to thank Dr. Ira Fischler for his thorough
reading of this dissertation and for his invaluable sugges¬
tions for its improvement.
To Dr. Tom Doherty I wish to express my sincere grati¬
tude for his many hours of help in the analysis and inter¬
pretation of the data for Experiment VI.
I would finally like to thank Steve Sledjeski of P.K.
Yonge Laboratory School for making it possible for me to
test students at that school and for providing me with
ideal testing conditions.
IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES vii
ABSTRACT viii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
Notes 13
CHAPTER II EXPERIMENTS I THROUGH V 14
Experiment I 15
Experiment II 28
Experiment III 29
Experiment IV 33
Experiment V 35
Discussion of Experiments I Through V 40
CHAPTER III EXPERIMENT VI 43
Method 47
Procedure 48
Results 50
CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION 6 9
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION 89
APPENDIX A SENTENCES FOR EXPERIMENT 1 91
APPENDIX B SENTENCES FOR EXPERIMENT IV 93
APPENDIX C PICTURES FOR EXPERIMENTS I THROUGH V 96
APPENDIX D SENTENCES FOR EXPERIMENT VI Ill
REFERENCES. 113
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 114
v

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Mean Number of Choices of Two Pictures for
the Ambiguous Sentences 24
2 Mean Number of Choices of Two Pictures for
the Unambiguous Sentences 24
3 Percent of Incorrect Responses on the Four
Verb Forms by Male and Female Subjects 53
4 Percent of Incorrect Responses on Subject
and Object Nomináis by Male and Female Subjects. . . 60
5 Percent of Choices of Are and Look in the
Ambiguous Sentences 6 3
6 Percent of Choices of Plural Verb Forms in
the Ambiguous Sentences by Male and Female
Subjects 66
7 Percent of Incorrect Responses for the Main
Verbs Be and Look 73
8 Percent of Incorrect Responses on Subject
and Object Nomináis 77
9 Percent of Choices of Plural Verb Forms in
the Ambiguous Sentences 80
vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure
1
Percent of incorrect responses for the
verb form Is by male and female subjects. . .
. 54
Figure
2
Percent of incorrect responses for the
verb form Are by male and female subjects . .
. 55
Figure
3
Percent of incorrect responses for the
verb form Looks by male and female subjects .
. 56
Figure
4
Percent of incorrect responses for the
verb form Look by male and female subjects. .
. 57
Figure
5
Percent of incorrect responses on subject
and object nomináis by male and female
subjects
. 61
Figure
6
Percent of choices of Are and Look in
the ambiguous sentences
. 64
Figure
7
Percent of choices of plural verb forms
in the ambiguous sentences by male and
female subjects
. 67
Figure
8
Percent of incorrect responses for the
main verbs Be and Look
. 74
Figure
9
Percent of incorrect responses on subject
and object nomináis
. 78
Figure
10
Percent of choices of plural verb forms
in the ambiguous sentences
. 81
vi 1

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PERCEPTION
OF AMBIGUITY
By
Hyta Mederer
December, 1979
Chairman: Dr. Robert J. Scholes
Major Department: Linguistics
Sixty-nine white, native-English speakers between the
ages of eight and twelve years old were tested through picture
verification in five related designs to determine at what age
they could perceive deep-structure ambiguity. The subjects
heard ten ambiguous sentences and twenty unambiguous sentences
The unambiguous sentences consisted of two sentences for each
ambiguous sentence, each conveying one of the meanings of the
ambiguous sentence. Subjects chose pictures to indicate which
meanings they perceived. It was expected that the subjects
would choose one picture for each unambiguous sentence and,
when they perceived the ambiguity, choose two pictures for the
ambiguous sentences. However, the subjects consistently chose
more than one picture for both the ambiguous and unambiguous
sentences, indicating that to them all of the sentences were
ambiguous.
vm

Because most of the test sentences were composed of a
derived nominal, some form of the verb be, and an adjective,
it was felt that the problems were related either to the
verb be, itself, or to the plural marker which disambiguated
the nominal. A second test was designed in which twenty-four
sentences, twelve ambiguous and twelve unambiguous, were pre¬
sented to 130 subjects between the ages of 7 and 12, and to
53 subjects between 18 and 29. These sentences consisted of
an ambiguous nominal, a subject nominal, or an object nominal
followed by either ijs and are or looks and look followed by an
adjective. The subjects were asked to circle the correct form
of the verb. For the ambiguous sentences, either form was
correct. For the subject nominal the plural form was correct,
and for the object nominal the singular form was correct. It
was concluded that subject/verb agreement in the context of
derived nomináis is not fully acquired by the age of 12 years.
This finding was presented as an explanation for the inability
of the subjects in the first experiment to disambiguate the
nominal and thus perceive that twenty of the original test
sentences were unambiguous.
IX

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Attempts to understand how a child learns to speak his
native language have produced numerous anecdotal descriptions
of the child's linguistic behavior. However, systematic
descriptions of the child's acquisition processes are still
quite limited. We know the sequences of certain elements as
they appear during the first five years of the child's life.
But as the child grows older, he gains more subtle aspects of
his language. These more subtle aspects include various com¬
plexities of sentence structure which the child learns to
comprehend and produce. The relationship between two sentences
which are similar in meaning and in structure can be described
with the use of transformations within the context of Trans¬
formational Grammar. The Passive Transformation, for example,
states the structural relationship between sentences l.a. and
l.b.
l.a. Sam Peckinpah directed that movie.
l.b. That movie was directed by Sam Peckinpah.
Although these sentences share basically the same meaning,
their structures are quite different. As part of the process
of acquiring language, a child must learn those things about
sentence structure which transformations explain.^ Through
various testing methods, we are able to determine that by a
certain age most normal children have a specific transformation
1

2
in their grammars. For example, by the age of nine years
most children have acquired Dative Movement, a rule which
allows the child to comprehend that sentences l.c. and l.d.
have the same meaning (Scholes, Tanis, and Turner 1976).
l.c. Tom showed the dog to the little boy.
l.d. Tom showed the little boy the dog.
The number of grammatical structures which a child must
acquire is quite large, but the number for which we know the
age of acquisition is quite small. It is important that we
be able to say when a certain structure is acquired.
One reason for this importance is that this information
provides a guideline for comparing languages. We know that
native speakers of English acquire transformations in a fixed
sequence. Presumably there is a fixed sequence for each
language. Although different languages employ a variety of
different rules, there is an overlap in their use. For
example, many languages employ a plural marker to indicate
that there is a difference between nouns in the singular and
nouns in the plural. The native English-speaking child
acquires the plural morpheme by the age of four years. The
speakers of Egyptian Arabic do not master the rules of plural
formation before the age of fifteen years (Omar 1970, quoted
in Slobin 1973). Such a comparison offers us insight into
the similarities and differences which exist among languages.
Obviously, in this case there is a vast difference in the
complexity of the rules for plural formation in English and

3
those for Egyptian Arabic. If enough information about the
acquisitional sequences for different languages were available,
it would be possible to determine whether there is a trend
across languages toward a universal sequence of acquisition.
Secondly, because language development is highly corre¬
lated with intellectual development, a knowledge of the order
and age of acquisition of transformations would provide a
basis for determining a child's developmental progress. This
is true among normal children, but it would also give us a
reference point for studying people who are deaf or retarded
or brain-damaged or who have undergone a hemispherectomy or
are abnormal in some other respect which is related to lin¬
guistic development.
For those people who believe that the dissolution of
language (as with aphasia) follows somewhat the reverse order
of language acquisition, the knowledge of this sequence would
improve the chances for proving or disproving this belief.
A fourth reason for knowing the age of acquisition of
certain transformations is that for people who design tests
such as reading and IQ tests, it would be far more consistent
to test children's abilities in those areas of which they are
able to comprehend the content. In other words, a child may
perform poorly on a test because he does not understand the
syntax in the instructions or in some material which he has
to read. Consequently, it may appear that the child cannot
perform a particular task when, in fact, he may be quite

4
capable, but he simply does not comprehend other information
that he needs in order to complete the task. The problem is
not limited to children. A student may be asked to read an
article and then to draw a particular conclusion. He may
reach the wrong conclusion, not because of faulty logic or
because of an inability to read, but rather because the syntax
of the article is too complex for him.
A specific example has occurred in the Writing Labora-
2 . . .
tory at the University of Florida. Students m the Writing
Laboratory are tested in their ability to recognize sentence
errors.^ On one test the students were instructed to find
the incorrect sentence from a group of three sentences. The
following sentences are two of a set of three sentences from
this test:
l.e. A wide range of choices is offered students by
educators experimenting with new programs.
l.f. Experimenting with new programs, a wide range of
choices is offered college students.
Sentence l.f. is considered grammatically incorrect because
the introductory clause is a so-called 'dangling modifier.'
However, sentence l.e., although technically correct, is
syntactically difficult to the students in the Writing Labora¬
tory. The first clause is passive, the to which is the overt
marker of the dative has been deleted, and the indication
that experimenting is derived from a relative clause is also
missing. This syntactic complexity led many of the students
to choose sentence l.e. as the incorrect sentence.

5
On another test in the Writing Laboratory the students
were instructed to identify the errors in the sentences on
the test. They were told that there would be either sentence
fragments, run-on sentences, sentences which lack parallel
structure, or sentences with no errors. One of the items on
the test is listed here as l.g.
l.g. Although the life-support system was defective,
the problem was discovered too late. Fearing money for the
space program will end if there is a scandal.
The clause 'Fearing money for the space program will end if
there is a scandal' is a sentence fragment. Many of the stu¬
dents in the Writing Laboratory had considerable trouble with
this item on the test because it made absolutely no sense to
them. One student claimed that the clause was a complete
sentence with fearing money as the subject of the verb will
end rather than money as the subject of will end. From a
purely syntactic point of view, this interpretation is
possible. However, no sentence content corresponds to such
a syntactic structure, a fact which did not bother the student
because she was unable to make sense out of it in any other
way. The meaning of this clause would have been much clearer
had there been a that complementizer between fearing and money.
Adding that would not have altered the fact that this clause
is a sentence fragment, but it would have helped the students
in their understanding of this item. The point is that the
students' performance on this item was meant to indicate that

6
they could not recognize sentence fragments, when, in fact,
the problem was one of unnecessarily complex syntax. Had
syntactic complexity been taken into consideration, the test
would have been more valid. This sort of problem should be
avoided by people who design tests.
If it is in fact the case that different dialects of the
same language have different rules or different ordering of
rules or that their speakers acquire some transformations in
different orders, then this information would be important
for the following reasons:
1. As a basis for descriptive comparison.
2. If transformation X is acquired at the age of 7 in
one dialect, but not until the age of 9 in another
dialect, then this should be recognized as a dialect
difference and not, for example, as an indication of
retardation.
3. Aphasics of one dialect may possibly produce different
behavior from aphasics of another dialect; that is,
dissolution might follow a different sequence de¬
pending on the aphasic's dialect.
4. Tests should be designed so as to avoid a bias in
favor of or against a particular dialect.
These four reasons are the same as the first four major rea¬
sons but are applied here specifically to dialects.
Finding the age of acquisition of particular abilities
is simply one more aspect of the challenge that Noam Chomsky

7
set forth when he said, 'As a long-range task for general
linguistics, we might set the problem of developing an account
of this innate linguistic theory that provides a basis for
language learning' (1965:25). And an understanding or knowl¬
edge of 'this innate linguistic theory' which a child uses
in order to acquire his native language would provide a fur¬
ther understanding of the relationship of language to other
mental faculties. An understanding of the nature of the
child's internal grammar would provide a view into other
aspects of the mind. Since, as Chomsky put it, 'An actual
language may result only from the interaction of several
mental faculties, one being the faculty of language' (1975:
43), an increase in the understanding of one offers better
understanding of others.
It is for these reasons that we continue to search for a
systematic description of the processes which are involved in
language acquisition.
With these ideas in mind, I set out to determine at what
age the normal, white, native English-speaking child acquires
the ability to perceive that a sentence is ambiguous at the
level of the deep structure. Ambiguity, the presence of more
than one meaning, is generally divided into three main cate¬
gories .
1. Lexical ambiguity—when a single word or lexical item
has more than one meaning. In the sentence 'The young boy was
sitting by the bank' the word bank may mean either a building
where people keep money or it may mean the edge of a river.

8
2. Surface-structure ambiguity—when different meanings
can result depending on the way in which the words in the sen¬
tence are grouped. Surface-structure ambiguity, also known as
surface-bracketing ambiguity, is defined by Fodor, Bever, and
Garrett (1974:95) as ambiguity for which there are 'alternative
constituent structure analyses.' For example, the meaning of
the sentence 'They are visiting relatives' depends on whether
the words are visiting are grouped as a single constituent or
whether the words visiting relatives are grouped as a single
constituent. The meanings of this sentence 'can be represented
by reference to alternative bracketings' (Fodor, Bever, Garrett
1974:95) of the elements of the sentence:
l.h. They (are visiting) relatives.
l.i. They are (visiting relatives).
3. Deep-structure ambiguity—when two different deep
structures undergo transformations which give them identical
surface structures. It is not possible to bracket constituents
of sentences which are ambiguous at the deep-structure level
in order to represent the differences in structure or meaning.
Consider the sentence 'The police stopped drinking on campus.'
In this sentence, it is the subject of drinking which is am¬
biguous. In the deep structure there are different subjects
for drinking, but in the surface structure those subjects have
been deleted by transformations. For the meaning which is
equivalent to 'The police quit drinking on campus,' the sub¬
ject of drinking was deleted by Equivalent Noun Phrase
Deletion Transformation (also known as Equi NP Deletion or,

9
simply, as Equi). This transformation applies when the subject
of the main clause is also the subject of a gerund or an in¬
finitive. It functions to delete the subject of that gerund
or infinitive. For the meaning which is equivalent to 'The
police ended drinking on campus,' the subject was deleted by
Pro Deletion Transformation. This transformation applies when
the subject of a gerund or an infinitive is an unspecified NP
in the deep structure. Its function is to delete the subject
of that infinitive or gerund.
A behavioral difference between surface-structure am¬
biguities and deep-structure ambiguities is that for the for¬
mer there is a difference in intonation patterns depending on
the meaning, whereas, for the latter, the intonation pattern
remains constant regardless of meaning. The sentence 'They
are flying planes' is a surface-structure ambiguity because
it can be explained in terms of bracketing:
l.j. They (are flying) planes,
l.k. They are (flying planes).
Such a sentence can be disambiguated with an intonation pattern
comparable to the bracketing:
/ — /
1.1. They are flying planes.
/ _ /
l.m. They are flying planes.
However, a sentence such as 'They want to stop smoking' cannot
be disambiguated through an intonation pattern. In order for
a person to perceive both meanings of a deep-structure ambiguity,
he must be able to comprehend the structures which correspond
to each meaning. In the case of 'They want to stop smoking,'

10
the structure which corresponds to 'They want to quit smoking'
in which they is the subject of smoking is derived through
Equi NP Deletion. The ability to comprehend this particular
meaning depends on the ability to understand a structure which
is produced through Equi NP Deletion Transformation. Similarly,
the structure which corresponds to 'They want to prevent
smoking,' in which the subject of smoking is an unidentified
or unspecified element comparable to someone or others, has
been derived through Pro Deletion Transformation. The com¬
prehension of this meaning is contingent on the ability to
understand the structure of a sentence which is derived through
Pro Deletion Transformation. Consequently, the ability to
perceive the ambiguity of this sentence is based on the ability
to comprehend the structures for both meanings. Thus a child
could not perceive both meanings of a deep-structure ambiguity
unless he had acquired both transformations which are necessary
for the two meanings.
The age at which a child becomes capable of perceiving
deep-structure ambiguity should be predictable on the basis
of the age of acquisition of the transformations which are
required to generate the structures that correspond to both
meanings. For example, if a child acquires the ability to
comprehend Equi NP Deletion Transformation by the age of 4
years, but acquires Pro Deletion Transformation at the age of
9 years, then beginning only at the age of 9 years should he
be able to perceive the ambiguity of a sentence such as 'They
want to stop smoking.' This prediction is based on the

11
assumption that perception of deep-structure ambiguity is
determined by the ability to comprehend relevant transforma¬
tions and by cognitive capacities that are developed prior to
or at the same time as these transformations. If any such
cognitive capacities are necessary for the perception of am¬
biguity but have not been developed by the time that these
relevant transformations are acquired, then the transformations,
themselves, would not be sufficient for the perception of the
ambiguity.
The assumption that the perception of deep-structure am¬
biguity is determined by the ability to comprehend the relevant
transformations was the subject of this investigation. The
only other study which has investigated ambiguity from a
developmental standpoint was done by Frank Kessel (1970).
Kessel tested fifty children from kindergarten through fifth
grade (with the exception of the fourth grade) in their ability
to perceive lexical ambiguity, surface-structure ambiguity,
and deep-structure ambiguity.
In his study, subjects were asked to choose the picture
or pictures which represented the sentences which the experi¬
menter read. The subjects heard twelve sentences, four for
each type of ambiguity. The four sentences with deep-structure
ambiguity which Kessel presented to his subjects were:
l.n. The eating of the chicken was sloppy,
l.o. She hit the man with glasses,
l.p. The visiting of the doctor was happening,
l.q. The shooting of the soldier was bad. (p. 26)

12
Kessel found that 'only after the age of 10 do children con¬
sistently and spontaneously (without "lead-in" questions)
detect both meanings in surface and underlying structure am¬
biguities' (p. 43). He made no attempt to determine or explain
what factors contribute to the acquisition of the ability to
perceive ambiguity.

Notes
^Whether a child actually acquires transformations or
whether transformations are, more appropriately, devices to
describe linguistic facts is still up for debate. For the
purpose of this paper, when I discuss the processes involved
in 'acquiring a transformation,' I am aware of the problems
which this phrase implies, but I will use this terminology for
the sake of simplicity.
2
The Writing Laboratory is a one-credit course offered by
the Reading and Writing Center at the University of Florida.
It is designed to help students with such basic writing skills
as paragraph development and grammar.
3 . .
These examples are used by permission of The Writing
Laboratory. The tests from which these sentences were taken
are not professionally designed, standardized tests. They
were, instead, written within the Writing Laboratory of the
University of Florida and, like any tests which are designed
by a classroom teacher, are likely to contain errors in validity
and reliability.

CHAPTER II
EXPERIMENTS_I THROUGH V
Unlike Kessel's study, this investigation attempted to
predict perception of deep-structure ambiguity on the basis
of linguistic theory of transformations. This study attempted
to show that a child's ability to detect deep-structure am¬
biguity can be predicted by his ability to handle certain
transformations. Only after a child has acquired the trans¬
formations which are necessary to generate both meanings of
an ambiguous sentence, should he be able to comprehend both
meanings of that sentence.
This hypothesis was tested by presenting students with
sentences which were ambiguous at the deep-structure level.
For every ambiguous sentence there were two unambiguous sen¬
tences, one for each of the meanings of the ambiguous sentences.
Not only did the unambiguous sentences convey the same meanings
as the ambiguous sentence, but they also had the same syntactic
structures which corresponded to the meanings of the ambiguous
sentence. The purpose of this paradigm was to predict behavior
on the ambiguous sentences by performance on the unambiguous
sentences which corresponded to it. Consider the following
three sentences:
2.a. Flying planes can be dangerous.
2.b. Flying planes is dangerous.
2.c. Flying planes are dangerous.
14

15
Sentence 2.a., which is ambiguous, contains the meanings ex¬
pressed in sentences 2.b. and 2.c. Sentence 2.b. contains a
nominal which can be described as an object nominal and which
can be paraphrased as 'the act of flying planes.' The entire
nominal flying planes is the subject of this sentence. Sen¬
tence 2.c., on the other hand, contains a subject nominal which
can be paraphrased as 'planes which are flying.' Since flying
functions as an adjective in sentence 2.c., only the noun
planes is the subject of the sentence.
The task which the subjects were asked to perform was to
indicate which picture or pictures corresponded to the sentence
which the experimenter read. The prediction was that the stu¬
dents would choose the correct picture for each of the unam¬
biguous sentences, thus indicating their comprehension of
these sentences and their structures, if they were to choose
the correct pictures for the ambiguous sentence. In other
words, the student should perform correctly on sentences 2.b.
and 2.c. if he is to get 2.a. correct.
Experiment I
Method
Subjects. Forty-seven students were selected from P.K.
Yonge Laboratory School in Gainesville, Florida. There were
four groups of males and four groups of females, ranging from
8 through 11 years of age. Because of a suspected difference
in dialect, there were no black students included in the study.
All of the students were native speakers of English.

16
Apparatus. The test design included five pretest sentences,
used to establish that the subjects could handle the task of
pointing to one or more than one picture for each sentence that
was read, and thirty test sentences, composed of ten ambiguous
sentences and twenty unambiguous sentences. A list of these
thirty-five sentences appears in Appendix A. The twenty unam¬
biguous sentences consisted of two interpretations for each
ambiguous sentence. The criteria for the ambiguous sentences
were that they be deep-structure ambiguities, that the intona¬
tion pattern be the same regardless of meaning, and that they
be representable with drawings.
Of the ten ambiguous sentences, seven had as their struc¬
ture nominal phrase + can be + adjective, for example, 'Visit¬
ing relatives can be boring.' The unambiguous interpretations
of these seven sentences were made up of the same nominal
phrase, either the verb ij> or the verb are, and an adjective.
Thus the two interpretations for 'Visiting relatives can be
boring' were 'Visiting relatives is boring' and 'Visiting
relatives are boring.' These last two sentences were not
ambiguous because the verb determined whether the nominal was
to be interpreted as a subject nominal or an object nominal.
The original sentence 'Visiting relatives can be boring' is
ambiguous because there is no overt marking for number on the
verb can be.
It was also important that the adjectives in these sen¬
tences be appropriate to either interpretation of the nominal.
Hence, both the act of visiting relatives and relatives who

17
visit may be boring. However, the sentence 'Visiting relatives
can be generous' does not offer the same duality of interpre¬
tation. It is grammatical to say 'Visiting relatives are
generous,' but the counterpart 'Visiting relatives is generous'
is ungrammatical. Similarly, 'Moving houses is easy' is ac¬
ceptable, whereas 'Moving houses are easy' is not. And, con¬
sequently, 'Moving houses can be easy' is not ambiguous.
Two of the three remaining ambiguous sentences were com¬
posed of, among other constituents, the verb stop followed by
a gerund. The ambiguity arises because there are two inter¬
pretations of the subject of the gerund. These different
interpretations occur because in the deep structure there are
different subjects for the verbs which eventually become
gerunds. Consider the sentence 'The police stopped fighting
on campus.' This sentence may mean either that the police
quit fighting on campus, in which the police is the subject
of fighting, i.e., the police were doing the fighting, or
that the police ended fighting on campus, in which the subject
of fighting is some unspecified but implied agent other than
the police.
The final sentence type on the test is also one in which
a nominal construction may be interpreted in more than one way.
The test sentence is 'The shooting of the Indian was bad.'
This nominal + of + NP construction is often ambiguous because
the NP may be both the agent of the action expressed in the
nominal or it may be the object of that action. In the case
of this sentence, the Indian may be either the shooter or the
victim.

For each sentence there was a set of four pictures for
the subjects to choose from. An example of each set of pic¬
tures appears in Appendix C. For the pretest sentences, in
two cases only one of the four choices was correct, and in
three cases there were two pictures which were not identical
but which were appropriate choices for the pretest sentence.
For example, for the pretest sentence 'They are riding horses,'
there were two pictures of people riding horses, but the pic¬
tures differed in their details. There were also two pictures
which were not appropriate to the sentence. The purpose of
having two different pictures which corresponded to the same
sentence was to determine that the subject could perform the
task of pointing to two pictures if they both matched the sen¬
tence .
For the test sentences there were also four pictures for
each sentence. For each ambiguous sentence and its two unam¬
biguous counterparts, the same four pictures were used. How¬
ever, the location of the pictures within each set was ran¬
domized to avoid a positional bias. The four pictures con¬
sisted of one picture for each meaning of the ambiguous sen¬
tence and two pictures of related but different and inappro¬
priate events.
All of the pictures were made into two-inch slides and
were projected onto a solid-colored wall with a Kodak Carousel
750 Slide Projector. The pictures were labeled A, B, C, or D.
The score sheet for each subject provided space for re¬
cording the name, age, sex, and teacher, as well as the subject's

19
responses to both the pretest and test sentences. Sufficient
space was allotted for any notable comments which the subjects
may have made or for any remarks which the experimenter may
have felt necessary.
Procedure
Subjects were tested individually in a quiet room which
was dark enough to allow adequate viewing of the slides. The
subject was seated in a chair approximately six feet from the
wall on which the slides were projected. The projector was
behind and to the left of the subject. The experimenter sat
to the right of the subject and controlled the projector with
a push-button, remote-control device.
The experimenter explained to each subject that she wanted
him to tell her which picture or pictures matched the sentences
which she was going to read to him. The experimenter repeated
or rephrased the instructions when necessary. On some occasions
if the subject said he did not understand, the experimenter
said, 'Let's try one and see if you understand then.' As soon
as the first slide appeared and the subject heard the first
sentence, the experimenter asked, 'Now, which picture or
pictures go with that sentence?' Almost always, if there had
been any question in the subject's mind, he would answer, 'Oh!
Now I get it,' or something comparable.
The subject indicated which picture or pictures he felt
were appropriate by naming the letter A, B, C, or D which
labelled the pictures. At no time did the task of choosing

20
letters to indicate which picture or pictures the subject
felt appropriate seem too difficult.
The experimenter recorded the subjects' responses on the
score sheets, taking care to record the sequence if more than
one response were given. The experimenter also recorded any
of the subjects' comments which the experimenter felt were
valuable to this study. Some of these comments offered in¬
sights into the subjects' thoughts as they participated in
this experiment. For example, in the sentence 'He wants to
prevent smoking,' several subjects asked, 'What does prevent
mean? Start or Stop?' For the sentence 'Moving houses can
be frightening,' there were comments such as 'What kind of
moving?' and 'When you're moving them or when they are moving
by themselves?' Another subject, when he heard the sentence
'Shooting stars is exciting,' commented, 'That just doesn't
seem right. Is^ exciting? Oh! D.' One subject who had no
problem comprehending the ambiguities found them very funny.
'A dog walking . . . This is funny, get it?' 'That is funny.
Grownups are playing.' These and other comments provided a
valuable view of what the subjects were doing and thinking and
how they performed the tasks of this experiment.
The conditions of this experiment were informal. If a
subject did not clearly understand a sentence which was read
to him, the experimenter repeated the sentence. The task of
this experiment was based on the subject's ability to compre¬
hend the structure of a sentence. It was not a test of his
ability to perceive the sentence itself. Because intonation

21
does not affect the reading of the sentence, repetition did
not alter any of the conditions of the experiment. Also, if
the subject had any questions and if the answers to those
questions would not alter the conditions of the experiment,
the experimenter answered the subject's questions. For ex¬
ample, when one subject asked, 'What does prevent mean? Start
or Stop?' the experimenter answered, 'Stop.' However, when a
subject asked, 'What kind of moving?' in reference to the
sentence 'Moving houses can be frightening,' the experimenter
answered, 'Whatever it means to you.' An answer to the last
question on the part of the experimenter would have invalidated
the test question. There would have been no way to explain
what kind of moving without providing too much information to
the subject.
After each subject had responded to the test sentences,
the experimenter asked him to look at some of the pictures
which he had just seen and to indicate what the pictures
represented to him. This was done because there was some
question as to the interpretation of some of the pictures.
To make sure that the pictures represented to the subjects
what they represented to the experimenter, the experimenter
showed some of the slides again and asked, 'What is going on
in picture A tor any other picture]?' The experimenter did
this for usually five or six pictures per subject. Ultimately,
there seemed to be no problem with the subjects' interpretations.
The subjects generally interpreted them correctly. They often
verbalized their interpretations with the same words that they

22
had heard in the testing. During the test they may not have
chosen the picture of two adults playing Pin the Tail on the
Donkey (Appendix C, p. 97 ) for the sentence 'Playing grownups
can be funny.1 But when they described that picture they
usually said, 'Two grownups playing Pin the Tail on the Donkey.'
Usually, in their descriptions of the subject nomináis, the
ing form followed the noun: 'Two dogs walking,' 'A boy shooting
at the stars,' 'Two houses moving,' or 'A horse painting a
flower.'
The entire testing procedure took just less than ten
minutes per subject.
Results
The results of this experiment were quite different from
those which were anticipated. The expected pattern was for
the subjects to choose two pictures each for the first ten
sentences, indicating their comprehension of the ambiguities
of these sentences and to choose one picture for each of the
last twenty sentences, indicating their comprehension of these
sentences which were not ambiguous.
On the first ten sentences, those which were ambiguous,
there was no significant difference at the .05 level in per¬
ception of ambiguity regardless of age as determined by the
Mann-Whitney U Test (Bruning and Kintz 1977:224). See Table
1. This perception of ambiguity was measured as the number of
times the subjects chose more than one picture to match the
ambiguous sentences. If a subject chose more than two pictures

23
for a sentence, and sometimes this happened, this still counted
as one instance of perception of ambiguity. This absence of a
significant difference means that the eight-year olds perceived
ambiguity as often as eleven-year olds did. This particular
finding differs considerably from the results which Frank Kessel
obtained.
Even more surprising were the results on the unambiguous
sentences. The subjects continued to choose more than one pic¬
ture per sentence even for the unambiguous sentences. This
pattern of response was the same for all four age groups as
determined by the Mann-Whitney U Test at the .05 level of
significance. See Table 2. In other words, performance did
not improve with age. Regardless of age the subjects con¬
sistently chose more than one picture for the unambiguous
sentences.
Frequently, the subjects chose more than one picture for
the unambiguous sentences more often than they did for the am¬
biguous sentences. It appeared that the more they heard the
nomináis, the more meaning they perceived for them, regardless
of the fact that the second and third times the subjects heard
the nomináis, the nomináis occurred in unambiguous sentences.
For example, if a subject heard 'Playing grownups can be
funny' and chose only one picture, indicating he perceived
only one meaning for the sentence, he frequently chose more
than one picture later on in the test when he heard 'Playing
grownups is funny' and 'Playing grownups are funny.' Quite
obviously, subjects who chose more than one picture for the

24
TABLE 1
Mean Number of Choices of Two Pictures
for the Ambiguous Sentences
Age
Mean
Number of Sentences
8
3.36
11
9
3.90
10
10
4.63
11
11
5.40
15
TABLE 2
Mean Number of Choices of
for the Unambiguous
Two Pictures
Sentences
Age
Mean
Number of Sentences
8
5.45
11
9
6.60
10
10
8.09
11
11
8.46
15

25
unambiguous sentences were responding to the ambiguity of the
nomináis and not to the verb form is_ or are which should have
disambiguated the sentences.
Another indication that the subjects' responses were
determined solely by the meaning of the nominal, and not the
nominal in the context of the entire sentence, was the fact
that some subjects saw one meaning for an ambiguous sentence
and they continued to see that same meaning for both of the
unambiguous sentences. For these subjects, too, the verb
form ij3 or are had no effect on their choice of picture.
Often during the testing procedure the subject would
repeat the sentence or part of it to himself. On those
occasions when the subject repeated just^the nominal in an
unambiguous sentence and then selected two pictures, the
experimenter cautioned the subject to listen to the entire
sentence and then the experimenter repeated the sentence.
This, however, never had any effect. The subjects consis¬
tently chose the same pictures again.
Sometimes the subjects heard an unambiguous sentence
but repeated the ambiguous version of it. The experimenter
responded with 'No; listen carefully. Playing grownups _is
funny.' Although stressing the verb form violated the con¬
ditions of the experiment because it should have affected the
subjects' responses, there was no effect whatsoever. No
amount of prompting changed the subjects' choices of pictures.
After the test was completed, the experimenter informally
asked those subjects who chose more than one picture for some

26
of the unambiguous sentences if they could distinguish between
two sentences from the test whose meaning depended on the verb
form is_ or are: 'Can you tell me the difference between
"Shooting stars is exciting" and "Shooting stars are exciting?"1
All of the subjects, some more consistently than others, were
able to make the distinction. They were not always correct
in their explanations, and they often had problems verbalizing
the difference, but it was definite that when the subjects
heard both sentences together, they were able to distinguish
between them.
Two of the subjects, a nine-year-old girl and a ten-year-
old boy demonstrated a thorough understanding of the principles
involved in both the ambiguous and the unambiguous sentences.
Neither selected all of the pictures correctly, but they both
improved as they progressed through the test. The female sub¬
ject chose two pictures for the ambiguous sentences eight out
of ten times and for the unambiguous sentences only six out of
twenty times. The six choices of more than one picture for
the unambiguous sentences occurred early in that part of the
test. After the first seven unambiguous sentences, she chose
two pictures only once. When the experimenter asked her,
after the formal testing was completed, why she chose only
one picture for some of the unambiguous sentences, the subject
attempted to explain. She became quite confused in her ex¬
planation, lacking the ability to articulate the procedure
she was using. However, she clearly understood the difference.
Her best attempt at an explanation was 'You just don't say it
that way.'

27
The male subject articulated more of his thoughts as
he participated in the test. For the ambiguous sentences he
chose two pictures seven times. For the unambiguous sentences,
he chose two pictures only four times. When he heard the un¬
ambiguous sentences, he often repeated them slowly and thought
carefully about his answers. His comments indicated his com¬
prehension of the sentences and the tasks involved: 'Shooting
stars are exciting?' He then chose the correct picture. For
the sentence 'Shooting stars is exciting,' he commented, 'That
just doesn't seem right. I_s exciting? Oh! D.' And for
'Moving houses are frightening,' he responded, 'Now I get it
--houses that are moving.' This subject's indecision seemed
to imply that he had only recently acquired or was still in
the process of acquiring the ability to handle these sentences.
Although neither of these two subjects was correct on all
of the test items, each clearly demonstrated an ability to
distinguish during the test between the ambiguous and unam¬
biguous sentences. It was not necessary for these subjects
to hear both unambiguous sentences of a set together in order
for them to distinguish between the sentences. These subjects
seemed well on their way to acquiring the linguistic structures
and cognitive capacities necessary for the tasks of this ex¬
periment. They were the only two subjects to display this
behavior.
Because the results of this experiment were so different
from those which were hypothesized, the experimenter decided
to alter the test conditions somewhat in order to determine

28
the reasons for the unexpected results. Each of the changes in
the test design is considered as a separate experiment, and
each is discussed separately in the following sections.
Experiment II
Since the ambiguous sentences preceded the unambiguous
sentences in Experiment I, the ambiguous sentences may have
been causing the subjects to see more than one meaning for
the unambiguous sentences. For this reason, the order of
presentation of the test sentences was altered so that the
unambiguous sentences preceded the ambiguous sentences.
Method
Subjects. Six subjects, three male and three female,
from P.K. Yonge Laboratory School in Gainesville, Florida,
participated in this experiment. There were three groups
consisting of one male and one female. The groups were
separated by age into 8, 9, and 10 years old. All subjects
were white, native speakers of English.
Apparatus. The apparatus for this experiment were the
same as those used in Experiment I. The only change in the
apparatus was that the twenty unambiguous sentences were pre¬
sented before the ten ambiguous sentences. This was done be¬
cause it was felt that the subjects may have seen ambiguity in
the unambiguous sentences because they had already been exposed
to the ambiguous sentences.

29
Procedure
The procedure was identical to that of Experiment I.
Results
Changing the order of the sentences so that the unambiguous
sentences preceded the ambiguous sentences did not alter the
subjects' interpretations of the unambiguous sentences. Five
of the six subjects saw ambiguity in eight to eleven of the
unambiguous sentences. The sixth subject saw no ambiguity in
any of the sentences. Apparently, the order of presentation,
whether that which was used in Experiment I or that used in
Experiment II, was not relevant to the subjects' perception
of ambiguity.
Discussion
With the exception of the student who saw no ambiguity
in any of the thirty test sentences, there was no difference
by age or sex in the perception of ambiguity in both the
ambiguous and the unambiguous sentences. The results of this
experiment suggest that the order of presentation of these
sentences does not affect performance. That the subjects
perceived ambiguity in sentences that were theoretically un¬
ambiguous still remained to be explained.
Experiment III
The first two experiments demonstrated four points:
1. Subjects perceived ambiguity in both the ambiguous
and the unambiguous sentences.

30
2. The order of presentation of test sentences may be
either ambiguous followed by unambiguous sentences or unam¬
biguous followed by ambiguous sentences without any effects
in the subjects' perception of ambiguity.
3. The verb forms i_s and are which should have disam¬
biguated the nomináis did not.
4. Although the subjects perceived many of the unam¬
biguous sentences as ambiguous, they were able to distinguish
between the two sentences of the pair of unambiguous sentences
when those two sentences were presented together for them to
compare. To restate this point, if the experimenter asked a
subject to explain the difference between two sentences which
differed on the surface only in the verb is^ or are such as
sentences 2.d. and 2.e., the subjects were almost always ca¬
pable of making the necessary distinction. They did not,
however, use this information during the test situation. In¬
stead, when they heard either 2.d. or 2.e., they indicated that
the sentence was ambiguous by choosing more than one picture
to match the sentence.
2.d. Moving houses is frightening.
2.e. Moving houses are frightening.
Because of these facts, it was felt that if the subjects
were exposed to sentences of the same type as those on the
test before the actual test began, and if they were given
practice in making distinctions between these sentences, this
pretest experience might encourage the students to employ this
distinction during the test.

31
Method
Subjects. Five students from P.K. Yonge Laboratory
School in Gainesville, Florida, participated in this experi¬
ment. Of the five, four were ten years old and one was nine.
Four of the subjects, including the nine-year-old, were female,
and one was male. All of the subjects were white, native
speakers of English.
Apparatus. The apparatus for this experiment were
identical to those in Experiment I with one exception. Four
new, theoretically unambiguous sentences were added as
additional pretest items:
2.f. Bouncing balls is fun.
2.g. Bouncing balls are fun.
2.h. Flying kites is fun.
2.i. Flying kites are fun.
Procedure
The procedure in this experiment was almost identical
to that of Experiment I. The only difference was that, after
the five original pretest sentences, the experimenter pre¬
sented four more pretest sentences to the subjects. The
experimenter asked each subject to listen carefully to the
two sentences which she was about to repeat. The experimenter
then asked, 'Can you tell me the difference between these two
sentences: "Bouncing balls is fun" and "Bouncing balls are
fun"?' The experimenter recorded each subject's responses
and then asked, 'Can you tell me the difference between these

32
two sentences: "Flying kites is fun" and "Flying kites are
fun"?' The experimenter again recorded the subject's responses
and then began the actual test. The rest of the test continued
in the same manner as in Experiment I.
Results
In general, exposure to the sentence patterns and ex¬
perience in distinguishing between pairs of sentences did not
facilitate performance on the test.
Four of the five subjects chose more than one picture
for some of the unambiguous sentences. One chose two pictures
for eight of the twenty unambiguous sentences, one chose two
for nine of the twenty, one for ten of the twenty, and one
for eleven of the twenty.
Only one subject, a ten-year-old female, chose only one
picture for each of the unambiguous sentences. She chose two
pictures for five of the ten ambiguous sentences. It would
appear that she understood the task of the experiment fairly
well, except for the fact that, of the twenty unambiguous
sentences, she chose seven incorrect pictures.
Of the four who continued to see ambiguity in the unam¬
biguous sentences, three demonstrated an ability to distinguish
between the two sentences in each pair that was presented in
the pretest. That ability did not, however, appear during the
test situation, since they still chose more than one picture
several times. One subject could not explain a semantic
difference between the two sentences in each pair of unambiguous

33
sentences in the pretest. For him, the sentences with the
verb i£ had the same meaning as the sentences with are, except
that he felt those with i_s were ungrammatical. This feeling
did not stop him during the test from choosing two pictures
for nine of the twenty unambiguous sentences.
Discussion
This test design did not help the subjects to see the
difference in the sentences with .is and the sentences with are.
Experiment IV
Because none of the previous test designs consistently
elicited a distinction between the members of the pairs of
unambiguous sentences, a new design was developed. The problem
of the verb be was eliminated by changing the structure of the
sentences which had previously had can be to I like + nominal
('I like visiting relatives'), those which had djs to I like
+ infinitive ('I like to visit relatives'), and those which
had are to I like + noun + that are + verb + ing ('I like
relatives that are visiting'). It was hoped that eliminating
the verb be would eliminate the subjects' problems in dis¬
tinguishing between the two types of nomináis.
Method
Subjects. Four students from P.K. Yonge Laboratory
School in Gainesville, Florida, were chosen to participate
in this experiment. There were two ten-year-old males and
two eleven-year-old females. All four subjects were white,
native speakers of English.

34
Apparatus. This test design included the five pretest
sentences which were used in Experiment I to assure that the
subjects could adequately perform the task of selecting more
than one picture if more than one picture was appropriate to
the sentence which they heard. The test sentences, which
appear in Appendix B, consisted of twenty-seven sentences,
nine of which were ambiguous and eighteen of which were unam¬
biguous. Of the nine ambiguous sentences, six consisted of
I like + nominal, in which the nominal could be either a sub¬
ject nominal or an object nominal. The other three ambiguous
sentences were the same three from the original test design
which were not built on the nominal + can be + adjective
structure. The unambiguous sentences consisted of the six
sentences from the original design which were not dependent on
the verb be and of twelve sentences which were interpretations
of the I like + nominal sentences. These twelve sentences
consisted of six I like + infinitive structures and six I like
+ noun + that are + verb + ing, as in the following set:
2.j. I like playing grownups.
2.k. I like to play grownups.
2.1. I like grownups that are playing.
As was true of the design for Experiment I, each unam¬
biguous sentence represented one of the meanings contained in
the ambiguous sentences. Again, the purpose of this design
change was to eliminate the problems that arose with the verb
be. The remaining aspects of the apparatus—the slides,
projector, and score sheet—were the same as those in Experi¬
ment I.

35
Procedure
This aspect was also similar to that of Experiment I.
The only difference was in the sentences that were read.
Results
On the nine ambiguous sentences, two subjects chose two
pictures seven times, one subject chose two pictures eight
times, and one chose two pictures nine times. On the eighteen
unambiguous sentences, one subject chose two pictures five
times, one seven times, one nine times, and one ten times.
This design, like the ones that preceded it, failed to
elicit a consistent distinction between subject and object
nomináis. In even the most unlikely cases, for example, 'I
like to visit relatives,' two of the subjects chose two
pictures.
Discussion
No matter what the method of testing, it seemed that the
subjects could not be forced into distinguishing between when
the subject-nominal interpretation was appropriate and when
the object-nominal interpretation was appropriate. For some
reason the subjects appeared to be treating all of the nomináis
as surface lexical items rather than as derived structures.
Experiment V
Because there were no age differences in either the per¬
ception of ambiguity or in performance on the unambiguous
sentences, it remained unclear as to when subjects actually

36
begin to make the distinctions necessary to perform well on
the unambiguous sentences. Some of the results of the pre¬
ceding experiments implied that the ability to interpret the
relationships among the trio of sentences made up of an am¬
biguous sentence and its two unambiguous counterparts, the
ability to distinguish between the two unambiguous sentences
in the trio, and the ability to recognize that the unambiguous
sentences were in fact unambiguous were available only to
those people who have an overt interest in language. These
abilities certainly did not seem to be a part of these native
speakers' intuitions about language.
It was decided that it would be helpful to know how
college-aged adults would perform the tasks of Experiment I in
this investigation. If they had no problems with the test
sentences, then somewhere between the ages of 12 and 18 years,
there should be a point which could be labeled 'the normal
age of acquisition' of the abilities needed to handle the
elements of this test. If adults were not able to make complete
distinctions between the unambiguous sentences and were not
sure that the unambiguous sentences were unambiguous, then
these abilities most probably belong only to those people who
consciously analyze their language.
This latter possibility seems remote because it would be
quite wasteful for a language to offer distinctions for its
speakers if the speakers do not naturally utilize them. These
distinctions should not exist for the language-conscious only,

37
but should be an active part of any native speaker's ability
to interpret his language. On the other hand, it is possible
that this wasteful aspect is prevalent in language. Many
people may never acquire certain transformations.
Method
Subjects. Seven students from the University of Florida
were chosen haphazardly to participate in this experiment.
These students ranged from 18 to 22 years in age. Three were
males and four were females. All were white, native speakers
of English.
Apparatus. The apparatus were identical to those in
Experiment I.
Procedure
The procedure was identical to that of Experiment I. The
only change was in location. Experiment I was conducted at
P.K. Yonge Laboratory School. Experiment V was conducted in
General Purpose Building A on the main campus of the University
of Florida.
Results
On the whole, these adult subjects demonstrated a more
thorough comprehension of the elements of this test. The ten
ambiguous sentences presented more problems to these subjects
than the unambiguous sentences did. No subject chose two
pictures for all of the ambiguous sentences. The seven sub¬
jects each heard ten ambiguous sentences, for a total of

38
seventy total exposures to the ambiguous sentences. Out of
these seventy exposures, the subjects correctly chose two
pictures twenty-nine times or 41 percent of the time.
Performance on the unambiguous sentences was much better.
Twenty unambiguous sentences presented to the seven subjects
provided one hundred forty exposures to the unambiguous sen¬
tences. The subjects chose two pictures only fourteen times
out of the possible one hundred forty times, or for 10 percent
of the time. This was by far the fewest times that subjects
in any one test design chose two pictures for the unambiguous
sentences. Even though these subjects chose only one picture
for the unambiguous sentences more frequently than the subjects
in previous test situations, they chose the wrong picture
twenty-nine times or 21 percent of the time.
Discussion
In order for subjects at a particular stage in develop¬
ment to have mastered a specific aspect of their language,
they should demonstrate an ability to use that part of their
language consistently. In other words, subjects should reach
an age at which it becomes useless to test them because at
that age they show no difficulty with the test items. This
does not mean that all the subjects in that age group must
get 100 percent of the items correct. There are numerous
reasons why some errors may show up. But there should be a
consistent demonstration of proficiency with the test items.
The subjects in this test have not demonstrated such a
proficiency. Perceiving only 41 percent of the ambiguities

39
and seeing ambiguity in unambiguous sentences 10 percent of the
time with twenty-nine errors in the choice of pictures for the
unambiguous sentences would not seem to be a demonstration of
proficiency with these test items. It is true that these sub¬
jects chose two pictures only 10 percent of the time, whereas
the subjects in the previous experiments chose two pictures
from 28 percent to 39 percent of the time.
The subjects' performances during the test and their
comments after the test often indicated different things. For
example, one subject chose two pictures for only three am¬
biguous sentences and chose only one picture for each of the
unambiguous sentences. Although the test demonstrated that
this subject understood the unambiguous sentences, it did not
indicate that he perceived the ambiguity in the first ten
sentences. His comments after the test, however, showed that
he understood not only the ambiguities ('with can be, it can
have two meanings') but also the design of the test ('changing
from can be to _is and are' ) . Although this ability to describe
the test design seems quite simple, very few of the subjects,
regardless of age, were able to explain what was happening
during the test.
Another subject's performance during the test differed
from his comments after the test. This subject chose two
pictures for seven of the ten ambiguous sentences and for
five of the twenty unambiguous sentences. Yet he commented
that all of the sentences with is were ungrammatical.

40
Like the younger subjects, the adults were able to dis¬
tinguish between sentences with _is and those with are if the
two sentences were presented together for them to compare.
They, too, did not always employ this distinction when they
chose pictures.
Discussion of Experiments I Through V
An experiment was designed to determine the age at which
children develop the ability to perceive deep-structure am¬
biguity as in the sentence 'Flying kites can be exciting.'
It was hypothesized that the ability to perceive both meanings
in this sentence would develop only after the child could com¬
prehend both of the unambiguous sentences which represent the
meanings which are contained in this ambiguous sentence. These
two sentences are 'Flying kites is exciting' and 'Flying kites
are exciting.1 The results of this experiment were completely
different from those which were anticipated.
There was no significant age difference in ability to
perceive the ambiguity of the ambiguous sentences. What the
subjects failed to comprehend was the fact that the unambiguous
sentences were unambiguous. These subjects repeatedly saw more
than one meaning for the unambiguous sentences.
In order to determine whether the subjects' behaviors were
the result of some feature of the design or if, in fact, the
subjects could not comprehend that these sentences were not
ambiguous and if not, why, four more designs were used. The
results from these four experiments indicated that with the

41
exception of the adults and regardless of test design the
subjects were unable to tell that the unambiguous sentences
were unambiguous, unless the pair of unambiguous sentences
was presented together for the subjects to compare. Only then
could the subjects explain the difference between the two sen¬
tences and recognize that these sentences were not ambiguous.
This inability on the part of these subjects to analyze
the unambiguous sentences unless they were presented in pairs
suggests that the ability to perform such an analysis is
available only to those people who consciously analyze their
language.
Although it may seem strange that a language may offer
distinctions which its speakers do not naturally use, this
happens quite often in terms of vocabulary items which people
may never learn or use and transformations which some people
may never acquire. That many people may never be able to
distinguish between the unambiguous sentences would not hinder
their ability to communicate since most ambiguities become
disambiguated in the contexts in which they are used.
The results of these five experiments raised a large
number of questions. The most obvious question was 'why did
the subjects perform so differently from the way that the
theory had led me to predict?' This question, of course,
embodied many other questions.
Since the only difference in the surface structure in the
pairs of unambiguous sentences such as 'Flying kites is ex¬
citing' and 'Flying kites are exciting' lies in the verbs i_s

42
and are, it appeared that these verbs were not meaningful to
the subjects in their interpretations of the sentences. There
was no question that the subjects heard the verbs, since the
experimenter violated the conditions of the original experi¬
ment to make sure that they heard these verbs. What was un¬
clear was whether it was the verb be or the presence or ab¬
sence of the plural marker on the verb which was causing prob¬
lems for the subjects. It seemed quite possible that it was
the verb be because this verb carries no meaning.
In order to determine which of these factors was operating,
a completely new test design was developed. This design
tested both the verb b£ and the plural marker in the contexts
of twelve ambiguous sentences and twelve unambiguous sentences.

CHAPTER III
EXPERIMENT VI
The subjects who participated in the first five experi¬
ments demonstrated an inability to properly analyze sentences
whose structures were of the form nominal + be + adjective,
when the nominal was structurally ambiguous. The sentences
which the subjects heard were either ambiguous because the
verb form did not determine which meaning of the nominal
should be available or unambiguous because the verb form did
determine which meaning of the nominal should be available.
Sentence 3.a. is an example of the ambiguous sentence type,
and sentences 3.b. and 3.c. are examples in which the verb
form should disambiguate the nominal.
3.a. Moving houses can be dangerous.
3.b. Moving houses is dangerous.
3.c. Moving houses are dangerous.
From a descriptive standpoint, the singular form of a verb
determines that the nominal be interpreted as an object
nominal; that is, in sentence 3.b., houses is the object of
moving. The plural form of the verb determines that the
nominal be interpreted as a subject nominal; for example, in
sentence 3.c., houses is the subject of the sentence and
moving functions as an adjective modifying houses. The verb
43

44
in sentence 3.a., can be, has no inflection for number and,
consequently, provides no information to disambiguate the
nominal.
Apparently, not all native speakers, even some adults,
make these distinctions between 3.b. and 3.c. unless they
have both sentences available at the same time. Most of the
subjects in the previous experiments viewed sentences of the
form of 3.b. and 3.c. as ambiguous. It appears that the
syntactic information contained in the verb was not enough to
override the ambiguity of the nominal. It was not clear
whether the problem resided in the verb be which has no meaning
or in the presence or absence of the plural marker.
In order to determine what factors were operating for
the subjects, a new experiment was designed. Twenty-four
sentences based on the nominal + verb + adjective structure
made up the test. In this design both the verb b£ and the
verb look were tested in both singular and plural forms. This
was done to determine if subjects would have the same problems
if the main verb in the sentence were not some form of be.
Another variable in this design was the type of nominal.
Twelve of the nomináis were ambiguous and twelve were not. All
of the nomináis contained a plural noun. The subjects were
asked to select the correct verb form; that is, they were to
circle is or are in twelve sentences and looks or look in
twelve sentences. For the ambiguous nomináis either form of
the verb would be correct.
(See sentences 3.d. and 3.e.)

45
However, for the unambiguous nomináis there was only one
correct verb form for each sentence. (See sentences 3.f.
through 3.i.)
3.d. Sailing boats is/are dangerous.
3.e. Sailing boats looks/look dangerous.
3.f. Making cookies is/are fun.
3.g. Making cookies looks/look fun.
3.h. Roaring lions is/are scary.
3.i. Roaring lions looks/look scary.
The nomináis in sentences 3.f. and 3.g. are object nomináis,
and the only grammatical verb form in each sentence is the
singular form. The nomináis in sentences 3.h. and 3.i., how¬
ever, are subject nomináis and are grammatical with only the
plural form of the verb.
Because the subjects in the previous experiments had
viewed sentences such as 3.d. as ambiguous, it was suspected
that the subjects in this experiment might do the same. It
was also expected that some subjects might choose the plural
verb form for all of the nomináis because the nominal phrases
end in £ and the plural noun is next to the verb. This type
of behavior constitutes a strategy which may not always pro¬
duce the correct result. For example, in sentence 3.f. some
speakers may choose are because the noun cookies, which is
plural, is next to the verb. Although the word cookies is
not the subject of the sentence, it was felt that some speakers
might behave as if it were. Such a strategy would generate
the ungrammatical sentences 3.j. and 3.k.

46
*3.j. Making cookies are fun.
*3.k. Making cookies look fun.
This strategy applied to subject nomináis also generates the
plural verb form, but in this case, it is the correct form.
If this strategy is actually being utilized, there should be
significantly more errors with object nomináis than with sub¬
ject nomináis.
The subjects' behavior on this test should indicate the
importance of the verb form in interpreting the nominal. If
there were not significantly more errors with object nomináis
than with subject nomináis, it might mean that the verb form
was irrelevant to the interpretation of nomináis. This would
follow if the syntactic information contained in the verb were
not enough to override the ambiguity of the nominal.
There were two other questions which this design attempted
to answer:
1. Is there a developmental point at which the verb be¬
comes relevant to the interpretation of the nominal?
2. Is this linguistic behavior in any way a function of
education?
It seems that the ability to distinguish between 'Flying
kites is fun' and 'Flying kites are fun' should not be related
to how well a person has learned his English grammar lessons.
Since the two sentences represent differences in meaning, they
should be different to all native speakers of English, who
presumably cut up the semantic spectrum along the same lines.
There is some indication, however, that these sentences have

47
the same meaning for some speakers, and consequently, they do
not share the same divisions of the semantic spectrum with
those speakers for whom these two sentences have different
meanings. It may happen that the only explanation for this
linguistic behavior is that, unless the subject is overtly
and consciously aware of the rules of his grammar, he does
not attend to all the grammatical technicalities of a sentence.
These subjects rely, quite probably, on context. Contextual
factors ordinarily eliminate the need to analyze a sentence
closely enough to determine whether a speaker is talking
about the act of flying kites or about kites which are flying.
It was in an attempt to sort out some of these factors
that the following experiment was run.
Method
Subjects. One hundred eightv-three subjects participated
in this experiment. One hundred thirty of these subjects were
students between the ages of seven and twelve years old from
P.K. Yonge Laboratory School in Gainesville, Florida. The
other fifty-three subjects were students at the University of
Florida between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine. In all
there were eighty-nine females and ninety-four males. All sub¬
jects were native speakers of English. In this experiment
there were no restrictions on race.
Apparatus. The apparatus consisted of one sheet of paper
for each subject with places at the top for name, age, and sex
and with twenty-four sentences, each containing the singular

48
and the plural forms of the verb be in the present tense or
the verb look in the present tense. All of the sentences had
a nominal + verb + adjective format. In twelve of the sen¬
tences the nominal was ambiguous; that is, it could be either
a subject nominal or an object nominal (for example, 'flying
kites'). For these twelve sentences, both the singular and
the plural forms of the verb were grammatical. In the other
twelve sentences the nomináis were not ambiguous; six nomináis
were subject nomináis and six were object nomináis. The sub¬
ject nomináis were grammatical with only the plural verb, and
the object nomináis were grammatical with only the singular
verb. Each nominal in the test was paired with the verb be
in one sentence and the verb look in another sentence. The
order of the sentences on the test was random. A copy of
this test is in Appendix D.
Procedure
This test was administered in the classrooms at P.K.
Yonge and at the University of Florida by the classroom in¬
structors. Each instructor passed out the test forms and
directed the students to read each sentence carefully and to
circle the correct form of the verb. No other instructions
were given. However, for one group, an adjustment had to be
made. The youngest group, the seven-year olds, was incapable
of reading the test, so their teacher read it out loud to
them. Because intonation pattern does not affect the meaning
of these sentences, no problems arose from the sentences being
read aloud.

49
Two forms of this test were administered. In one form
the order of the twenty-four sentences was the reverse of the
order for the second form. One half of the subjects received
form one and the other half received form two.
The data were analyzed using the SAS General Linear Model
Procedure computer program for analysis of variance. In the
ambiguous sentences subjects could not make an error in their
choice of verb form. However, because it was thought that
subjects might employ a strategy of selecting the plural form
of a verb because the noun which precedes the verb is always
plural, it was important to know whether the subjects chose
the singular or the plural form of the verb in the ambiguous
sentences. Therefore, in order to distinguish the responses
for the unambiguous sentences from those for the ambiguous
sentences, the verbs were divided into six categories: two
singular--ij3 and looks, two plural — are and look, and two
categories labelled be and lk for the ambiguous sentences.
The subjects' responses were recorded in the following manner:
for the unambiguous sentences, a correct response was coded
as 0, and an incorrect response was coded as 1. Because there
was no way to make an incorrect choice of verb in the ambiguous
sentences, selection of the singular verb form was coded as 0
and of the plural verb form was coded as 1.
The data were also analyzed from the perspective of the
nomináis. There were three categories of nomináis. For the
unambiguous sentences the categories were either Subject or
Object nomináis. For the ambiguous sentences, the nominal

50
could be interpreted as either subject or object, and, there¬
fore, the category for the nomináis in the ambiguous sentences
was labelled Subj-Obj. The numbers in the first two categories
were the number of times the subjects chose the wrong verb form
for a particular nominal type. The numbers in the category
Subj-Obj were the number of times subjects chose a plural verb
form for the ambiguous sentences. The responses for nomináis
also represent a collapsing of the verbs which were appropriate
for the particular nominal type. For example, the mean for
nine-year-old males with respect to subject nomináis represents
a collapsing of the scores for nine-year-old males on the verbs
are and look because these two verb forms are the correct re¬
sponses for subject nomináis.
One final point, all of the subjects older than twelve
were combined into one group. The subjects actually were be¬
tween the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine, but they were all
considered in one age group which was labelled 21-year olds.
Results
Verbs in unambiguous sentences. For those sentences
which were not ambiguous, there was a three-way interaction
of sex, age, and verb which was significant at the .01 level.
The two-way interaction of sex and verb was not significant at
the .01 level. The age by verb interaction and the sex by
age interactions were significant, the former at an alpha level
of .0001 and the latter at an alpha level of .0027. Although
the main effect of sex was not significant, the main effects
of age and of verb were significant at the .0001 level.

51
Figures 1 through 4 indicate the percent of incorrect responses
for male and female subjects at each age interval for the four
verb forms. Figure 1 indicates the number of times subjects
chose the verb are when the correct response was _is. Figure
2 indicates the number of incorrect responses for are, Figure
3 for looks, and Figure 4 for look. If the four figures are
imposed on one graph, the three-way interaction becomes evi¬
dent. These scores are also listed in Table 3.
Is. When the correct response was is^, the seven-year-old
male and female subjects' performances of 47 and 42 percent
respectively were not significantly different. The eight-year-
old subjects were not significantly different either from each
other or from the seven-year olds. The nine-year-old males
continued to perform in the same manner as the seven- and
eight-year olds. The nine-vear-old females, however, improved
significantly, choosing the verb form are only 28 percent of
the time when they should have chosen is^. At the age of ten,
female subjects performed just as the nine-year-old females.
The males, however, did worse at this age than at any other
age, choosing are 60 percent of the time when they should have
chosen is. The responsesof the eleven-year olds were almost
the reverse of those for the ten-year olds. The male subjects'
scores improved to 24 percent, while the females' scores
worsened by 28 percentage points to 57 percent. For the
twelve-year olds, there was another reversal. The males'
scores rose to 43 percent incorrect, while the females improved
by 40 percent to 17 percent incorrect. Finally, the scores

52
for male and female adults were nearly identical at 11 percent
and 12 percent, respectively.
Are. The subjects' behavior when the correct response
was are remained more consistent. At the ages of 7, 9, 10,
and 11, females did slightly, but not significantly, better
than males. At the ages of 8 and 21, males did slightly better.
And at the age of 12, both males and females had an identical
score of 0 percent incorrect responses.
Looks. At the age of 7, male subjects chose the verb
form look 13 percent of the times when they should have chosen
looks, whereas the females did this 18 percent of the time.
At the age of 8, both males and females did worse than the 7
year olds. The females made errors 26 percent of the time,
while the males were incorrect 44 percent of the time. At the
age of 9, the males improved to 33 percent and the females
improved to 4 percent. At the age of 10, both males and
females made errors 17 percent of the time. At 11, males
improved slightly to 12 percent and females remained almost
the same at 18 percent. At 12, the males had slightly more
errors—14 percent, and females made slightly fewer errors—8
percent. The adult males again improved slightly, this time
to 9 percent, and the females made errors 15 percent of the
time. From the age of ten to adult, none of the scores was
significantly different. Although the scores for male and
female subjects alternated in terms of which sex had fewer
errors at each of these ages, the fact that there was no

TABLE 3
Percent of
Incorrect
by Male
Responses
and Female
on the Four
Subjects
Verb Forms
Age
Sex
Is
Are
Looks
Look
7
M
47
13
13
53
7
F
42
6
18
30
8
M
49
10
44
33
8
F
46
13
26
49
9
M
45
9
33
55
9
F
28
5
4
48
10
M
60
17
17
33
10
F
29
13
17
28
11
M
24
15
12
18
11
F
57
9
18
27
12
M
43
0
14
0
12
F
17
0
8
25
21
M
11
1
9
4
21
F
12
1
15
3
Note. All scores are rounded off to the nearest
percentage point.

54
• Male
• Female
Figure 1.
Percent of incorrect responses for the verb
form Is by male and female subjects.

55
• • Male
• Female
Figure 2. Percent of incorrect responses for the verb
form Are by male and female subjects.

56
a « Male
• a Female
Figure 3. Percent of incorrect responses for the verb
form Looks by male and female subjects.

57
0 Male
* Female
Figure 4. Percent of incorrect responses for the verb
form Look by male and female subjects.

58
significant difference in these scores indicates that there
was no genuine improvement after the age of 10.
Look. At the age of 7, male subjects chose looks 53
percent of the times that they should have chosen look. Fe¬
male subjects chose looks incorrectly 30 percent of the time.
At eight, male subjects chose looks incorrectly 33 percent,
while females made errors 49 percent of the time. Nine-year-
old male and female subjects made errors 55 and 48 percent of
the time, respectively. Both male and female subjects improved
significantly by the age of ten to 33 and 28 percent, respec¬
tively. At 11, males improved to 18 percent while females
stayed at 27 percent. At 12, the males again improved; this
time they made no errors. The females improved slightly to
25 percent. As adults, the male subjects made errors only
4 percent of the time and females improved to 3 percent.
Nomináis in unambiguous sentences. This category is
simply a different perspective on the same data. The scores
are the combined scores for both the verbs which were gram¬
matical for a particular nominal type. For example, in the
sentence 'Growling lions is/are—looks/look scary,' both are
and look are grammatical because this sentence contains a
subject nominal. These scores, then, indicate the number of
errors in choice of verb that males and females at each age
interval made for a particular type of nominal. The purpose
of looking at these data in this manner is to determine which
type of nominal presented more difficulty to the subjects.

59
The result of this analysis was that there was a signifi¬
cant three-way interaction of sex, age, and nominal at the .01
level of significance. The two-way interactions of sex by
nominal and of age by nominal were not significant at the .01
level. The sex by age interaction was significant at the
level of .0047. The main effect of sex was not significant,
but the main effects of age and of nominal were significant
at the level of .0001. These scores are listed in Table 4
and the interaction is evident in Figure 5.
At the age of 7, male and female subjects made errors
with object nomináis 30 percent of the time. For the subject
nomináis, males made errors 33 percent and females 18 percent
of the time. At eight, male subjects improved on subject
nomináis to 22 percent but had 46 percent incorrect with ob¬
ject nomináis. Females made more errors on both subject and
object nomináis, 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively.
At nine, males improved with object nomináis to 39 per¬
cent but with subject nomináis they were incorrect 32 percent
of the time. The females improved on subject nomináis to 26
percent incorrect and on object nomináis to 17 percent in¬
correct. At 10, the males stayed the same on object nomináis
but improved with subject nomináis to 25 percent incorrect.
Females improved with subject nomináis to 20 percent but had
23 percent incorrect on object nomináis. At the age of 11,
male subjects improved somewhat to 17 percent on subject
nomináis and improved significantly to 18 percent on object

60
TABLE 4
Percent of Incorrect Responses on Subject and Object
Nomináis by Male and Female Subjects
Age
Sex
Subject Nominal
Object Nominal
7
M
33
30
7
F
18
30
8
M
22
46
8
F
31
40
9
M
32
39
9
F
26
17
10
M
25
39
10
F
20
23
11
M
17
18
11
F
18
38
12
M
0
29
12
F
13
13
21
M
2
10
21
F
2
14
Note. All scores are rounded off to the nearest
percentage point.

61
• o Subject Nomináis, Males
• Object Nomináis, Males
° ' Subject Nomináis, Females
• * Object Nomináis, Females
Figure 5. Percent of incorrect responses on subject and
object nomináis by male and female subjects.

nomináis. Female subjects improved just slightly to 18 percent
with subject nomináis but made significantly more errors, 38
percent, with object nomináis.
For the 12-year olds, there was a 29-point divergence
between the scores for the male subjects, as they had 29 per¬
cent incorrect with object nomináis and no errors with subject
nomináis. The female subjects made errors 13 percent of the
time for both subject and object nomináis. Adults were more
consistent by sex. The males had 10 percent incorrect for
the object nomináis while females had 14 percent incorrect
for the object nomináis, and both sexes had 2 percent incor¬
rect for the subject nomináis.
Verbs in ambiguous sentences. The scores in this cate¬
gory indicate the percentage of times that the subjects chose
a plural verb form in each ambiguous sentence. The results
were that the three-way interaction of sex by age by verb and
the two-way interaction of sex by verb were not significant
at the .01 level of significance. The two-way interactions
of verb by age and of sex by age were significant to the
level of .0001. The main effect of sex was not significant
at the .01 level, whereas the main effects of verb and of age
were significant to the .0001 level. Table 5 contains a list
of the scores for the verb-by-age interaction. Figure 6 in¬
dicates the percentage of plural verb forms that the subjects
chose for each main verb at each age interval for those sen¬
tences which were ambiguous.

63
TABLE 5
Percent of Choices of Are and Look
in the Ambiguous Sentences-
Age
Are
Look
7
38 .0
75.0
8
35 . 0
62.0
9
54.5
77.0
10
57.0
79.0
11
44.5
77.5
12
71.5
63.5
21
76.5
75.0
Note.
All scores are rounded off
to the nearest
one-half percentage point.

64
• » Are
• Look
Figure 6. Percent of choices of Are and Look in
the ambiguous sentences.

65
There is a pattern from the age of 7 through the age of
11 for the subjects to choose the plural form at least 23 per¬
cent more often for the main verb look than for the main verb
be. The differences were significant at the .01 level at the
ages of 7, 8, 10, and 11. At the ages of 12 and 21, subjects
chose slightly more plural forms for be than for look. The
differences for these two ages were not significant. Overall,
as the age of the subjects increased, the choices of plural
verb forms also increased. The choices of plural verb form
for the verb look in the ambiguous sentences were between 62
percent and 79 percent for all ages. However, for the verb
be the percentage of plural responses ranged from 35 percent
for the eight-year olds to 76.5 percent for the adults.
The scores for the age-by-sex interaction are listed in
Table 6, and Figure 7 illustrates this interaction. At the
ages of 7, 8, 11, 12, and 21, male subjects chose plural verb
forms more often than female subjects did. The females chose
more plurals at the ages of 9 and 10. Only the differences
at the ages of 10 and 11 were significantly different at the
.01 level. From the ages of 7 to 8 there was a decline in
plural choices for both sexes. From 10 to 11, there was a
decline in the plural choices for females. From 11 to 12,
there was a slight decline among the male subjects. In all
other instances, the number of choices of plural verb forms
increased.
Nomináis in ambiguous sentences. Again, to look at the
nomináis is simply to look at the same data from a different

66
TABLE 6
Percent of Choices of Plural Verb Forms in the
Ambiguous Sentences by Male and Female Subjects
Age
Male
Female
7
65.0
48.0
8
49 . 0
47.0
9
59.5
72.5
10
61.0
75.0
11
73.5
48.0
12
68.0
66.5
21
76 . 0
75.0
Note. All scores are rounded off to the nearest
one-half percentage point.

67
• • Male
• * Female
Figure 7. Percent of choices of plural verb forms in the
ambiguous sentences by male and female subjects.

68
perspective. In this case, to look at the number of times
that the subjects chose a plural verb form is to determine
how often they interpreted the ambiguous nominal as a subject
nominal. The result was a two-way interaction of sex and age
which is significant at the .01 level. The main effect of
sex was not significant at the .01 level. However, the main
effect of age was significant at the .0001 level of signifi¬
cance. The scores for the nomináis in the ambiguous sentences
are the same as the scores for the age-by-sex interaction for
verbs in ambiguous sentences. Therefore, Table 6 and Figure
7 are applicable here and will not be repeated.

CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
Because of the significant three-way interactions, it
is impossible to draw any clear conclusions about the data.
There are, however, some trends which can be discussed.
Verbs in unambiguous sentences. When the correct re¬
sponse was are, the subjects had the fewest problems. The
highest percentage of errors with are was 17 percent for the
ten-year-old males. Performance with this verb form was also
the most consistent: There was considerably less fluctuation
in the scores for this verb form than for the others.
For all four verb forms, the number of errors for the
twelve-year olds and adults was smaller than the number of
errors for the seven-year olds. The greatest amount of im¬
provement occurred with the verb forms look and i£. The
least amount of improvement occurred with looks.
Between the ages of seven and eleven, the subjects'
performance on the two plural forms look and are never over¬
lapped as there were significantly more errors with look at
the ages of seven, eight, and nine, and for the ten-year-old
males. With the exception of the twelve-year-old female sub¬
jects' performance with look, all the twelve-year olds and
adults had almost identical scores on look and are, and those
69

70
scores were equal to 0 percent for the twelve-year olds and
very close to 0 percent for the adults. Consequently, the
twelve-year-old and adult subjects had fewer problems when
the correct answer was a plural verb form.
Nomináis in unambiguous sentences. This perspective on
the data also indicates that there can be no automatic con¬
clusions. The seven-year-old subjects performed better than
the eight-year olds in all cases except for the males with
subject nomináis. After the age of eight, performance on the
object nomináis was highly inconsistent for both males and
females. Females began to improve after the age of eight with
subject nomináis, and they continued to do so all the way to
adults. Males did worse as nine-year olds with subject
nomináis, but after that they steadily improved. At the age
of twelve they had 0 percent incorrect with subject nomináis,
and as adults, their score of 2 percent incorrect was not
significantly different from 0 percent. The adults' per¬
formances on object nomináis of 10 percent incorrect for males
and 14 percent incorrect for females, although higher than
that of the subject nomináis, were not significantly different.
All of the subjects seemed to acquire the ability to handle
subject nomináis earlier and more completely than they did
object nomináis.
Verbs and nomináis in ambiguous sentences. The scores
in this category are the number of times that subjects chose
a plural verb form (are or look) in the ambiguous sentences,
or, in other words, how many times they interpreted the nomináis

71
in the ambiguous sentences as subject nomináis. Between the
ages of seven and eleven the subjects interpreted the nomináis
in the ambiguous sentences as subject nomináis 23 percent to
37 percent more often for those sentences with look than for
those with be. At the age of twelve and as adults, subjects
interpreted the nomináis with be as subject nomináis more
often than those with look. Thus the interaction of age and
verb was significant. As adults the subjects' performances
with both verbs were nearly identical. The scores for look
were high for all ages and finished at 75 percent. The scores
for be were as low as 38 percent and 35 percent for the seven-
and eight-year olds, respectively, and finished at 76.5 per¬
cent for the adults. Consequently, the subjects showed a
tendency to choose the plural form more often as they got
older.
Having considered the statistical results of this test,
we should attempt to answer those questions which were posed
at the outset of this experiment.
Since the subjects in the first five experiments perceived
so many sentences as ambiguous, would the subjects in this
experiment perceive ambiguity in this format? Not only did
the subjects not perceive ambiguity in the unambiguous sen¬
tences, they did not indicate that they perceived the ambiguity
in those sentences that were ambiguous. One subject, a twenty-
two-year-old female selected one verb for each sentence but
noted (incorrectly) at the bottom of the test form that all
of the sentences were ambiguous, and, therefore, all of the

72
verb forms were appropriate. All other subjects selected
only one verb form for each sentence. It is, however, quite
possible that the instructions—'Circle the correct verb form
in each sentence'--influenced the subjects' performance.
The subjects in the first five experiments did not
seem to use the syntactic information available in the verbs
in the test sentences. Because the verb forms in these
sentences were forms of the verb be, a verb which is
semantically empty, it was felt that some of the problems
which the subjects encountered might be related to the
nature of the verb be. For that reason, the verb look was
included in this experiment. If the subjects had problems
with be but not with look, then there would be evidence that
the semantically empty verb b£ was responsible for the prob¬
lems of the subjects in the first series of experiments. If
the subjects had as many or more problems with look as with
be, then their problems must reside with the syntactic in¬
formation carried by the verb and not with the semantics.
The subjects in this experiment had almost identical
totals of errors with be and look. If the scores for the
verb forms i_s and are are collapsed, and if the scores for
looks and look are collapsed, and if the sexes are collapsed
for both main verbs, the result is one score each for the
main verbs be and look at each age interval. These scores
are listed in Table 7 and graphed in Figure 8. It was
pointed out earlier that the three-way interaction of age,
sex, and verb in the unambiguous sentences was significant.

73
TABLE 7
Percent of Incorrect Responses for the
Main Verbs Be and Look
Age
Bea
Look
7
27.0
28.5
8
29.5
37.5
9
22.0
35.0
10
29.5
23.5
11
26.5
18.5
12
14.5
12.0
21
6.0
7.5
Note. All scores are rounded off to the nearest one-
half percentage point.
aThe scores for Be represent the collapsing of the
scores for the verb forms .is and are for both males and
females.
y_
DThe scores for Look are the collapsed scores for
looks and look for both males and females.

74
• • B G
• Look
Figure 8. Percent of incorrect responses for the main
verbs Be and Look.

75
Because of this significance, collapsing verbs and sexes is
not legitimate statistical procedure. However, having one
score for the main verbs makes comparison of those verbs
easier. So, keeping in mind that this is a violation of
statistical procedure and that, as a result, it obscures
a large amount of information, this information will be
considered in collapsed form.
Seven-year olds had nearly equal trouble with be and
look, with an average of 27 percent and 28.5 percent in¬
correct, respectively. Eight-year-old subjects had more
errors with both verbs: slightly more with be at 29.5
percent and somewhat more with look at 37.5 percent. The
greatest discrepancy occurred at the age of nine. These
subjects improved to 22 percent with be and to 35 percent
with look, for a difference of 13 percentage points between
the two. At the age of ten, subjects had more problems with
be, averaging 29.5 percent incorrect and improved considerably
with look to an average of 23.5 percent. After the age of
ten, subjects improved with both verbs at each age interval.
The seven-, eight-, and nine-year olds and adults had more
problems with look while the ten-, eleven-, and twelve-year
olds had more problems with be. It appears that the sub¬
jects began to resolve their problems earlier with look than
with be, since their scores improved from the age of eight
onward, whereas they did not improve consistently with be
until after the age of ten.

76
Overall, the subjects' performances with be and look
were quite similar. There seems to be no evidence that
the semantically empty nature of be was responsible for
the problems which the subjects had in this syntactic con¬
text .
The third area under investigation was how the subjects
would handle the singular and plural verb forms. It was
suggested that if the subjects had problems in their choice
of verb form, they would choose the plural verb form more
often because in every sentence, regardless of its phrase
structure, a plural noun occurred immediately before the
verb.
There are two ways to determine how the subjects handled
singular and plural markers. The first way was to look at
the subjects' performance with nomináis in the unambiguous
sentences. Figure 9 represents the information presented
earlier as Figure 5, with the exception that the variable
sex has been collapsed. Again, the collapsing is a viola¬
tion of statistical procedure because of a significant three-
way interaction of sex, age, and nominal, but it provides
a clearer comparison of the nomináis. Figure 9 and Table 8
indicate that for every age except nine the subjects had
more problems with object nomináis than with subject nomináis.
This means that the subjects chose plural verb forms when
they should have chosen singular forms more often than they
chose singular when they should have chosen plural. Eight-
year olds made the most errors in choice of plural form.

77
TABLE 8
Percent of Incorrect Responses on Subject and Object Nomináis
Age
Subject Nomináis
Object Nomináis
7
25.5
30
8
26.5
41
9
29.0
28
10
22.5
31
11
17.5
28
12
6.0
21
21
2.0
12
Note. All scores are rounded off to the nearest one-
half percentage point. The variable sex has been collapsed.

PERCENT INCORRECT
73
e » Subject Nomináis
• « Object Nomináis
Figure 9. Percent of incorrect responses on subject
and object nomináis.

79
Adults made the fewest errors with both singular and plural
forms.
The second perspective on singular and plural markers
is in the subjects' performance with the ambiguous sentences.
Figure 10 and Table 9 indicate the number of times that the
subjects chose are and look in the ambiguous sentences. Sex
and verb are collapsed in this figure, and consequently, a
lot of information is obscured. However, for the purposes
of this point, this information is sufficient. Because this
figure indicates the percentage of plural verb forms which
the subjects chose at each age interval, the percentage of
singular forms chosen can be determined by subtracting the
percentage of plural choices at a particular age from 100
percent. Therefore, nine-year-old subjects chose a plural
verb form 66 percent of the time for the ambiguous sentences,
and they chose a singular form 34 percent of the time.
Figure 10 clearly indicates a tendency to choose the plural
verb form more often than the singular verb form. Only at
the age of eight did the subjects choose a singular form
more often than a plural form. There was also a tendency,
although not as consistent, for the subjects to choose plural
forms more often as they get older. Adults chose a plural
verb form 76 percent of the time for the ambiguous sentences.
Both of these perspectives indicate a tendency on the
part of the subjects to choose a plural form in the context
of the test sentences. There are at least two explanations
for this linguistic behavior. In some instances the subjects

80
TABLE 9
Percent of Choices of Plural Verb Forms
in the Ambiguous Sentences
Age
Plural Verb Forms
7
56.5
8
48.0
9
66.0
10
68.0
11
60.5
12
67.0
21
75.5
Note. All scores are rounded off to the nearest one-
half percentage point. Both sex and verb have been collapsed.

PERCENT OF CHOICES OF PLURAL VERB FORMS
81
• 0 Plural Verb Forms
Figure 10. Percent of choices of plural verb forms
in the ambiguous sentences.

82
may be employing a strategy of choosing a plural verb form
to agree with the plural noun that precedes the verb, rather
than analyzing the structure of the nominal. The second
possible explanation is that the subjects chose a plural
verb form because they interpreted the nominal as a subject
nominal. The structure of a subject nominal is 'simpler'
than that of an object nominal. The problem of linguistic
simplicity is still unsolved; however, in this case there
are several reasons to believe that the meaning of a subject
nominal is more readily apparent than that of an object
nominal.
First, the interpretation of the subject nominal does
not require any information which is not available on the
surface. Visiting relatives in the sense of 'relatives
that are visiting' has lost no content in the derivation
since that and are are not content words. Visiting rela¬
tives in the sense of 'someone is visiting relatives' loses
the information carried by the subject of visiting. Although
that subject may be unspecified, it is still implied by the
structure. Also, the subject of visiting may be specified
by the context of the sentence or in the manner of 'Visiting
relatives is boring to Jane' in which Jane appears overtly
in the sentence as well as being the deleted subject of
visiting. Consequently, the listener must supply informa¬
tion in order to interpret an object nominal, but all of the
information is available in a subject nominal.

83
Secondly, although the subject nominal is derived
from a deep-structure sentence, it resembles other adjective
+ noun combinations. The test sentences with subject
nomináis as their subjects have the more common composition
of adjective + noun + verb + adjective, whereas the sentences
which have object nomináis as their subjects have the com¬
position of |verb + object) + verb + adjective. Thus, the
subject
listener must analyze the structure of an object nominal in
order to understand it, whereas it is possible to interpret
a subject nominal on the basis of its lexical content.
If, in fact, the interpretation of a nominal as a
subject nominal is more readily available to the subjects,
this would explain why subjects interpreted the nomináis
as subject nomináis more frequently than as object nomináis,
and, therefore, why they chose plural verb forms more often.
Figures 9 and 10 seem to have some contradictory indi¬
cations. As the subjects get older they choose a plural
verb form/interpret a nominal as a subject nominal more
often if the sentence is ambiguous. However, as subjects
get older they make fewer errors of choosing plural forms/
interpret object nomináis as subject nomináis less often
in the unambiguous sentences.
It may be that as they get older the subjects rely
heavily on the strategy in the ambiguous sentences, or
possibly, when there is no reason not to do so they inter¬
pret the nominal as a subject nominal. And for the

84
unambiguous sentences the subjects' performances may improve
because, as they become older, the subjects acquire a better
understanding of the structure of the object nominal, as well
as its relationship with the verb. It may, in fact, be the
case that the subjects actually acquire Pro Deletion Trans¬
formation—one transformation which is necessary for the
derivation of an object nominal—during the age span that
was tested in the experiment.
The numerous errors in subject/verb agreement make it
evident that, at least through the age of twelve, the sub¬
jects do not fully understand the relationship between the
nominal type and the number of the verb. This, to some
degree, explains why many of the subjects in the first series
of experiments failed to attend to the verb i£ or are in
determining the meaning of the nomináis in the test sentences
and, instead, perceived the sentences as ambiguous. The
only group of subjects who consistently demonstrated an
understanding of the relationship between the nominal and
the number of the verb was the adults. With the verb form
are, subjects never had many problems. And with looks, the
subjects began at about the age of ten to have fewer problems.
But for is and look, the age of understanding was somewhere
between twelve years and adults.
One final question which was considered was the role of
education in this linguistic behavior. As was mentioned
earlier, the difference between 'Moving houses is dangerous'
and 'Moving houses are dangerous' should be available to all

85
native speakers because it represents a difference in meaning.
However, not all subjects demonstrated a comprehension of
this difference. Could it be that this distinction is avail¬
able only to those speakers who have learned the rules of
subject/verb agreement and for people such as linguists who
are highly conscious of the nuances of their language? Al¬
though education was not a variable that was controlled in
these experiments, it is safe to say that education is not
a determining factor. Numerous studies have shown that
attempts to impose a rule onto a speaker's grammar before the
speaker reaches the normal stage of acquisition for that
rule confuses the speaker rather than speeding up the
acquisition process (McNeill 1966 and Braine 1971). It
is also true that the eight-year-old and older subjects in
the first five experiments were able to distinguish between
these two sentences if the sentences were presented together
for the subjects to compare. Apparently they have internalized
the information which is necessary to tell the difference
between the two sentence types if both are present. Possibly
they compare some features of the two sentences. But if
only one sentence is present so that there is nothing for
the subjects to compare that sentence with, they seem to
rely only on the lexical information in the surface structure.
This tactic leads them to comprehend two meanings in either
sentence. That is, they see the ambiguity which exists in
the nominal in sentences 4.a. and 4.b., but they do not rely

86
on the syntactic information of the verb to enforce a choice
between the two meanings. For this reason many of the sub¬
jects in the first five experiments treated the unambiguous
4.a. Moving houses is dangerous.
4.b. Moving houses are dangerous,
test sentences as if they were ambiguous.
At some point in the acquisition process, speakers may
acquire an ability to compare sentence 4.a. with sentence
4.b. internally. That is, they may hear sentence 4.a. in
isolation and may be able to analyze it by generating sentence
4.b. and comparing the two. Possibly the subjects in these
experiments had not reached this point. They were able to
compare the two sentence types if both were presented by the
experimenter. But they were not able to generate the second
sentence internally on their own.
The problems which these subjects manifested under the
test conditions imply that the subjects would have difficulties
in normal communication. According to the results of these
experiments, on hearing the sentence 'Moving houses is
dangerous,' the subjects would comprehend two different
meanings and would be forced to guess which meaning the
speaker had intended. However, this would not, in fact, be
a problem. The context of a conversation would provide enough
information so that no choice would have to be made.
The conditions which occurred in the test situation and
which occur in the context of a conversation may differ in
that in a conversation the subjects do not need to compare

87
the potentially ambiguous sentence with any other sentence
because the meaning has been specified by the context. In
the test conditions if the experimenter offered no sentence
for comparison and if the subject had not acquired the ability
to generate the sentence for comparison, then the subject had
no method with which to disambiguate the nominal. A subject
at this stage would then perceive sentence 4.a. and sentence
4.b. as ambiguous.
There are two suggestions for any further investigation
or follow-up studies.
1. In experiment six the verb forms are and looks
always occurred in the second position for the subjects to
choose from (see Appendix D). It was also the case that the
subjects chose are and looks more often than they chose is_
and look. It is possible that the subjects responded in this
manner because of a recency effect of selecting the verb form
which they encountered last. For this reason it is suggested
that, in any future study of this type, the order of the verb
forms not be the same throughout the test.
2. One of the test sentences in experiment six was
'Making cookies is/are looks/look fun.' Although the correct
verb forms for this sentence are .is and looks, it is possible
that 'Making cookies look fun' is a grammatical phrase, as
in the sentence 'Mother always makes making cookies look fun.'
Although 'Making cookies look fun' is not grammatical as a
sentence, it and other phrases which may be interpreted as

88
grammatical parts of sentences could present some problems
in similar test designs.
This study indicates that a study of ambiguity or other
studies based in the theory of transformations must consider
not just a set of transformations but also the specific
lexical items—for example, the verb forms—which are in¬
cluded in the study.

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
The first experiment in this study was based firmly in
the theory of Transformational Grammar, so much so that it
seemed almost uninteresting to attempt to prove the obvious.
It seemed unquestionable that sentence 5.a. is ambiguous
and that sentences 5.b. and 5.c. are unambiguous and represent
the meanings which are contained in sentence 5.a.
5.a. Flying kites can be exciting.
5.b. Flying kites is exciting.
5.c. Flying kites are exciting.
The question under consideration was at what stage speakers
would perceive the ambiguity of sentence 5.a. The behavior
of the subjects in these experiments contradicted the
theoretically-based assumptions. The subjects in Experiments
I through V indicated that sentences of the types of 5.a.,
5.b., and 5.c. were ambiguous. For these subjects it appeared
that the verb forms ijs and are were not functioning to dis¬
ambiguate the nominal. This behavior was also unexpected.
Roger Brown (1973) has shown that by Stage V, which occurred
in the children he studied by the time they were 3-1/2 years
old, children have reached the criterion of 90 percent correct
usage of the copula and of the third-person singular morpheme
89

90
£. Thus, simple subject/verb agreement is acquired very
early by speakers of English.
Apparently, subject/verb agreement in the context of
sentences such as 5.b. and 5.c. was not acquired at such an
early stage. This was tested in experiment six where it was
shown that subjects as old as twelve years had problems with
subject/verb agreement, especially in the context of object
nomináis as in sentence 5.b. These problems do not interfere
with communication simply because the context of a conversa¬
tion serves to prevent any misinterpretation of the ambiguous
nominal.
The inability on the part of these subjects to handle
subject/verb agreement competently explains why in the first
five experiments the subjects perceived the unambiguous test
sentences as ambiguous. Because they had not clearly acquired
the rules for subject/verb agreement in the context of an
ambiguous nominal, they were incapable of using that syntactic
information to disambiguate the nominal, and, consequently,
they perceived the sentences as ambiguous.

APPENDIX A
SENTENCES FOR EXPERIMENT I
Pretest
sentences
1.
The cat is lying on the table.
2.
Riding horses can be fun.
3.
The clown is holding his shoe.
4.
Eating popcorn can be messy.
5.
The woman is wearing a dress.
Test sentences
1.
Playing grownups can be funny.
2.
Playing grownups is funny.
3.
Playing grownups are funny.
4.
He wants to stop smoking.
5.
He wants to quit smoking.
6 .
He wants to prevent smoking.
7.
Shooting stars can be exciting.
8.
Shooting stars is exciting.
9 .
Shooting stars are exciting.
10.
Sailing boats can be dangerous.
11.
Sailing boats is dangerous.
12.
Sailing boats are dangerous.
13.
Painting horses can be messy.
14.
Painting horses is messy.
15.
Painting horses are messy.
91

92
16. The shooting of the Indian was bad.
17. It was bad that the Indian was shot.
18. The Indian was a bad shooter.
19. Visiting relatives can be boring.
20. Visiting relatives is boring.
21. Visiting relatives are boring.
22. Walking dogs can be exciting.
23. Walking dogs is exciting.
24. Walking dogs are exciting.
25. The police stopped fighting on campus.
26. The police ended fighting on campus.
27. The police quit fighting on campus.
28. Moving houses can be frightening.
29. Moving houses is frightening.
30. Moving houses are frightening.

APPENDIX B
SENTENCES FOR EXPERIMENT IV
Pretest sentences
1. The cat is lying on the table.
2. Riding horses can be fun.
3. The clown is holding his shoe.
4. Eating popcorn can be messy.
5. The woman is wearing a dress.
Test sentences
1.
I
like
moving houses.
2.
I
like
houses that are moving.
3.
I
like
to move houses.
4.
I
like
walking dogs.
5.
I
like
dogs that are walking.
6 .
I
like
to walk dogs.
7.
I
like
visiting relatives.
8.
I
like
relatives that are visiting.
9.
I
like
to visit relatives.
10.
I
like
painting horses.
11.
I
like
horses that are painting.
12.
I
like
to paint horses.
13.
I
like
shooting stars.
14.
I
like
stars that are shooting.
15.
I
like
to shoot stars.
93

94
16. I like playing grownups.
17. I like grownups that are playing.
18. I like to play grownups.
19. The police stopped fighting on campus.
20. The police ended fighting on campus.
21. The police quit fighting on campus.
22. The shooting of the Indian was bad.
23. It was bad that the Indian was shot.
24. The Indian was a bad shooter.
25. He wants to stop smoking.
26. He wants to prevent smoking.
27. He wants to quit smoking.

APPENDIX C
PICTURES FOR EXPERIMENTS I THROUGH V


97

98

99

100

TOT

102

103
^
——
*
*
i
r
Â¥ r-^V
■ —
—
\ \\


105

106
CjJ


108

109

110
O O
o»

APPENDIX D
SENTENCES FOR EXPERIMENT VI
Name Age Sex
Directions—Circle the correct verb form in each sentence.
1.
Moving houses
is/are frightening.
2.
Painting horses look/looks messy.
3.
Walking dogs
is/are exciting.
4.
Dancing cats
is/are silly.
5.
Riding unicycles look/looks dangerous.
6.
Playing grownups is/are silly.
7.
Washing dishes
is/are messy.
8.
Walking dogs
look/looks exciting.
9 .
Sailing boats
look/looks dangerous.
10.
Growling dogs
is/are mean.
11.
Washing dishes
look/looks messy.
12.
Dancing cats
look/looks silly.
13.
Making cookies
is/are fun.
14 .
Painting horses is/are messy.
15.
Growling dogs
look/looks mean.
16 .
Moving houses
look/looks frightening.
17.
Sailing boats
is/are dangerous.
18.
Flying kites
look/looks fun.
19.
Riding unicycles is/are dangerous.
Ill

112
20. Playing grownups look/looks silly.
21. Roaring lions look/looks scary.
22. Making cookies look/looks fun.
23. Roaring lions is/are scary.
24. Flying kites is/are fun.

REFERENCES
Braine, Martin D.S. 1971. On two types of models of the
internalization of grammars. The ontogenesis of grammar,
ed. by Dan I. Slovin. New York: Academic Press.
Brown, Roger. 1973. A first language: The early stages.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Bruning, James L. and B. L. Kintz. 1977. Computational
handbook of statistics. Glenview, Illinois: Scott,
Foresman and Company.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1975. Reflections on language. New York:
Pantheon Books.
Foder, J.A., T.G. Bever, and M.F. Garrett. 1974. The
psychology of language: An introduction to psycho¬
linguistics and generative grammar. New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company.
Kessel, Frank S. 1970. The role of syntax in children's
comprehension from ages six to twelve. Monographs of
the society for research in child development. Vol. 35,
No. 6, Serial No. 139. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
McNeill, D. 1966. Developmental psycholinguistics. The
genesis of language: A psycholinguistic approach. ed.
by F. Smith and G.A. Miller. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
MIT Press.
Omar, Margaret. 1970. The acquisition of Egyptian Arabic
as a native language. Doctoral dissertation. George¬
town University. (Or see Slobin, Dan I. 1973.)
Scholes, Robert J., D.C. Tanis, and A. Turner. 1976. Syn¬
tactic and strategic aspects of the comprehension of
indirect and direct object constituents by children.
Language and speech. Vol. 19, No. 3, 212-223.
Slobin, Dan I. 1973. Cognitive prerequisites for the
development of grammar. Studies in child language
development. ed. by Charles A. Ferguson and Dan Isaac
Slobin. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
113

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Hyta Mederer was born in Valdosta, Georgia, on February
25, 1949. She received the degree of Bachelor of Arts in
psychology from Newcomb College in New Orleans, Louisiana,
in 1970 and her Master of Arts in Linguistics from the
University of Florida in 1975. Her interests include music,
physical anthropology, and animals. She is a member of the
National Wildlife Federation and Defenders of Wildlife and
is actively pursuing legislation for the preservation of
wildlife and the humane treatment of all animals.
114

I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
0.
0
2-
Robert J. Scholes, Chairman
Professor of Speech and
Linguistics
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
/!
Yyr?f<
¿¿to*
/s
J.ean Casagrande
Associate Professor of Romance
Languages and Linguistics
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of
ctor of Philosophy.
w
Paul Kotey-
Associate Professor of Humanities
and Linguistics
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
/ ^ /
Í ^..1
Ira Fischler
Associate Professor of
Psychology

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
the Program in Linguistics in the College of Liberal Arts
and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted
as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
December 1979
Dean, Graduate School

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08553 6315




PAGE 1

7+( '(9(/230(17 2) 7+( 3(5&(37,21 2) $0%,*8,7< %< +<7$ 0('(5(5 $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( &281&,/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

&RS\ULJKW E\ +\WD 0HGHUHU

PAGE 3

)RU 3KLOf§WKH FORVHU WKH EHWWHU

PAGE 4

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n WLRQV IRU LWV LPSURYHPHQW 7R 'U 7RP 'RKHUW\ ZLVK WR H[SUHVV P\ VLQFHUH JUDWLn WXGH IRU KLV PDQ\ KRXUV RI KHOS LQ WKH DQDO\VLV DQG LQWHUn SUHWDWLRQ RI WKH GDWD IRU ([SHULPHQW 9, ZRXOG ILQDOO\ OLNH WR WKDQN 6WHYH 6OHGMHVNL RI 3.
PAGE 5

7$%/( 2) &217(176 3DJH $&.12:/('*0(176 LY /,67 2) 7$%/(6 YL /,67 2) ),*85(6 YLL $%675$&7 YLLL &+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 1RWHV &+$37(5 ,, (;3(5,0(176 7+528*+ 9 ([SHULPHQW ([SHULPHQW ,, ([SHULPHQW ,,, ([SHULPHQW ,9 ([SHULPHQW 9 'LVFXVVLRQ RI ([SHULPHQWV 7KURXJK 9 &+$37(5 ,,, (;3(5,0(17 9, 0HWKRG 3URFHGXUH 5HVXOWV &+$37(5 ,9 ',6&866,21 &+$37(5 9 &21&/86,21 $33(1',; $ 6(17(1&(6 )25 (;3(5,0(17 $33(1',; % 6(17(1&(6 )25 (;3(5,0(17 ,9 $33(1',; & 3,&785(6 )25 (;3(5,0(176 7+528*+ 9 $33(1',; 6(17(1&(6 )25 (;3(5,0(17 9, ,OO 5()(5(1&(6 %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ Y

PAGE 6

/,67 2) 7$%/(6 7DEOH 3DJH 0HDQ 1XPEHU RI &KRLFHV RI 7ZR 3LFWXUHV IRU WKH $PELJXRXV 6HQWHQFHV 0HDQ 1XPEHU RI &KRLFHV RI 7ZR 3LFWXUHV IRU WKH 8QDPELJXRXV 6HQWHQFHV 3HUFHQW RI ,QFRUUHFW 5HVSRQVHV RQ WKH )RXU 9HUE )RUPV E\ 0DOH DQG )HPDOH 6XEMHFWV 3HUFHQW RI ,QFRUUHFW 5HVSRQVHV RQ 6XEMHFW DQG 2EMHFW 1RPLQ£LV E\ 0DOH DQG )HPDOH 6XEMHFWV 3HUFHQW RI &KRLFHV RI $UH DQG /RRN LQ WKH $PELJXRXV 6HQWHQFHV 3HUFHQW RI &KRLFHV RI 3OXUDO 9HUE )RUPV LQ WKH $PELJXRXV 6HQWHQFHV E\ 0DOH DQG )HPDOH 6XEMHFWV 3HUFHQW RI ,QFRUUHFW 5HVSRQVHV IRU WKH 0DLQ 9HUEV %H DQG /RRN 3HUFHQW RI ,QFRUUHFW 5HVSRQVHV RQ 6XEMHFW DQG 2EMHFW 1RPLQ£LV 3HUFHQW RI &KRLFHV RI 3OXUDO 9HUE )RUPV LQ WKH $PELJXRXV 6HQWHQFHV YL

PAGE 7

/,67 2) ),*85(6 3DJH )LJXUH 3HUFHQW RI LQFRUUHFW UHVSRQVHV IRU WKH YHUE IRUP ,V E\ PDOH DQG IHPDOH VXEMHFWV )LJXUH 3HUFHQW RI LQFRUUHFW UHVSRQVHV IRU WKH YHUE IRUP $UH E\ PDOH DQG IHPDOH VXEMHFWV )LJXUH 3HUFHQW RI LQFRUUHFW UHVSRQVHV IRU WKH YHUE IRUP /RRNV E\ PDOH DQG IHPDOH VXEMHFWV )LJXUH 3HUFHQW RI LQFRUUHFW UHVSRQVHV IRU WKH YHUE IRUP /RRN E\ PDOH DQG IHPDOH VXEMHFWV )LJXUH 3HUFHQW RI LQFRUUHFW UHVSRQVHV RQ VXEMHFW DQG REMHFW QRPLQ£LV E\ PDOH DQG IHPDOH VXEMHFWV )LJXUH 3HUFHQW RI FKRLFHV RI $UH DQG /RRN LQ WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV )LJXUH 3HUFHQW RI FKRLFHV RI SOXUDO YHUE IRUPV LQ WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV E\ PDOH DQG IHPDOH VXEMHFWV )LJXUH 3HUFHQW RI LQFRUUHFW UHVSRQVHV IRU WKH PDLQ YHUEV %H DQG /RRN )LJXUH 3HUFHQW RI LQFRUUHFW UHVSRQVHV RQ VXEMHFW DQG REMHFW QRPLQ£LV )LJXUH 3HUFHQW RI FKRLFHV RI SOXUDO YHUE IRUPV LQ WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV YL

PAGE 8

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

PAGE 9

%HFDXVH PRVW RI WKH WHVW VHQWHQFHV ZHUH FRPSRVHG RI D GHULYHG QRPLQDO VRPH IRUP RI WKH YHUE EH DQG DQ DGMHFWLYH LW ZDV IHOW WKDW WKH SUREOHPV ZHUH UHODWHG HLWKHU WR WKH YHUE EH LWVHOI RU WR WKH SOXUDO PDUNHU ZKLFK GLVDPELJXDWHG WKH QRPLQDO $ VHFRQG WHVW ZDV GHVLJQHG LQ ZKLFK WZHQW\IRXU VHQWHQFHV WZHOYH DPELJXRXV DQG WZHOYH XQDPELJXRXV ZHUH SUHn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£LV LV QRW IXOO\ DFTXLUHG E\ WKH DJH RI \HDUV 7KLV ILQGLQJ ZDV SUHVHQWHG DV DQ H[SODQDWLRQ IRU WKH LQDELOLW\ RI WKH VXEMHFWV LQ WKH ILUVW H[SHULPHQW WR GLVDPELJXDWH WKH QRPLQDO DQG WKXV SHUFHLYH WKDW WZHQW\ RI WKH RULJLQDO WHVW VHQWHQFHV ZHUH XQDPELJXRXV ,;

PAGE 10

&+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 $WWHPSWV WR XQGHUVWDQG KRZ D FKLOG OHDUQV WR VSHDN KLV QDWLYH ODQJXDJH KDYH SURGXFHG QXPHURXV DQHFGRWDO GHVFULSWLRQV RI WKH FKLOGnV OLQJXLVWLF EHKDYLRU +RZHYHU V\VWHPDWLF GHVFULSWLRQV RI WKH FKLOGnV DFTXLVLWLRQ SURFHVVHV DUH VWLOO TXLWH OLPLWHG :H NQRZ WKH VHTXHQFHV RI FHUWDLQ HOHPHQWV DV WKH\ DSSHDU GXULQJ WKH ILUVW ILYH \HDUV RI WKH FKLOGnV OLIH %XW DV WKH FKLOG JURZV ROGHU KH JDLQV PRUH VXEWOH DVSHFWV RI KLV ODQJXDJH 7KHVH PRUH VXEWOH DVSHFWV LQFOXGH YDULRXV FRPn SOH[LWLHV RI VHQWHQFH VWUXFWXUH ZKLFK WKH FKLOG OHDUQV WR FRPSUHKHQG DQG SURGXFH 7KH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WZR VHQWHQFHV ZKLFK DUH VLPLODU LQ PHDQLQJ DQG LQ VWUXFWXUH FDQ EH GHVFULEHG ZLWK WKH XVH RI WUDQVIRUPDWLRQV ZLWKLQ WKH FRQWH[W RI 7UDQVn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

PAGE 11

LQ WKHLU JUDPPDUV )RU H[DPSOH E\ WKH DJH RI QLQH \HDUV PRVW FKLOGUHQ KDYH DFTXLUHG 'DWLYH 0RYHPHQW D UXOH ZKLFK DOORZV WKH FKLOG WR FRPSUHKHQG WKDW VHQWHQFHV OF DQG OG KDYH WKH VDPH PHDQLQJ 6FKROHV 7DQLV DQG 7XUQHU f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f 6XFK D FRPSDULVRQ RIIHUV XV LQVLJKW LQWR WKH VLPLODULWLHV DQG GLIIHUHQFHV ZKLFK H[LVW DPRQJ ODQJXDJHV 2EYLRXVO\ LQ WKLV FDVH WKHUH LV D YDVW GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH FRPSOH[LW\ RI WKH UXOHV IRU SOXUDO IRUPDWLRQ LQ (QJOLVK DQG

PAGE 12

WKRVH IRU (J\SWLDQ $UDELF ,I HQRXJK LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH DFTXLVLWLRQDO VHTXHQFHV IRU GLIIHUHQW ODQJXDJHV ZHUH DYDLODEOH LW ZRXOG EH SRVVLEOH WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU WKHUH LV D WUHQG DFURVV ODQJXDJHV WRZDUG D XQLYHUVDO VHTXHQFH RI DFTXLVLWLRQ 6HFRQGO\ EHFDXVH ODQJXDJH GHYHORSPHQW LV KLJKO\ FRUUHn ODWHG ZLWK LQWHOOHFWXDO GHYHORSPHQW D NQRZOHGJH RI WKH RUGHU DQG DJH RI DFTXLVLWLRQ RI WUDQVIRUPDWLRQV ZRXOG SURYLGH D EDVLV IRU GHWHUPLQLQJ D FKLOGnV GHYHORSPHQWDO SURJUHVV 7KLV LV WUXH DPRQJ QRUPDO FKLOGUHQ EXW LW ZRXOG DOVR JLYH XV D UHIHUHQFH SRLQW IRU VWXG\LQJ SHRSOH ZKR DUH GHDI RU UHWDUGHG RU EUDLQGDPDJHG RU ZKR KDYH XQGHUJRQH D KHPLVSKHUHFWRP\ RU DUH DEQRUPDO LQ VRPH RWKHU UHVSHFW ZKLFK LV UHODWHG WR OLQn JXLVWLF GHYHORSPHQW )RU WKRVH SHRSOH ZKR EHOLHYH WKDW WKH GLVVROXWLRQ RI ODQJXDJH DV ZLWK DSKDVLDf IROORZV VRPHZKDW WKH UHYHUVH RUGHU RI ODQJXDJH DFTXLVLWLRQ WKH NQRZOHGJH RI WKLV VHTXHQFH ZRXOG LPSURYH WKH FKDQFHV IRU SURYLQJ RU GLVSURYLQJ WKLV EHOLHI $ IRXUWK UHDVRQ IRU NQRZLQJ WKH DJH RI DFTXLVLWLRQ RI FHUWDLQ WUDQVIRUPDWLRQV LV WKDW IRU SHRSOH ZKR GHVLJQ WHVWV VXFK DV UHDGLQJ DQG ,4 WHVWV LW ZRXOG EH IDU PRUH FRQVLVWHQW WR WHVW FKLOGUHQnV DELOLWLHV LQ WKRVH DUHDV RI ZKLFK WKH\ DUH DEOH WR FRPSUHKHQG WKH FRQWHQW ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV D FKLOG PD\ SHUIRUP SRRUO\ RQ D WHVW EHFDXVH KH GRHV QRW XQGHUVWDQG WKH V\QWD[ LQ WKH LQVWUXFWLRQV RU LQ VRPH PDWHULDO ZKLFK KH KDV WR UHDG &RQVHTXHQWO\ LW PD\ DSSHDU WKDW WKH FKLOG FDQQRW SHUIRUP D SDUWLFXODU WDVN ZKHQ LQ IDFW KH PD\ EH TXLWH

PAGE 13

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nGDQJOLQJ PRGLILHUn +RZHYHU VHQWHQFH OH DOWKRXJK WHFKQLFDOO\ FRUUHFW LV V\QWDFWLFDOO\ GLIILFXOW WR WKH VWXGHQWV LQ WKH :ULWLQJ /DERUDn WRU\ 7KH ILUVW FODXVH LV SDVVLYH WKH WR ZKLFK LV WKH RYHUW PDUNHU RI WKH GDWLYH KDV EHHQ GHOHWHG DQG WKH LQGLFDWLRQ WKDW H[SHULPHQWLQJ LV GHULYHG IURP D UHODWLYH FODXVH LV DOVR PLVVLQJ 7KLV V\QWDFWLF FRPSOH[LW\ OHG PDQ\ RI WKH VWXGHQWV WR FKRRVH VHQWHQFH OH DV WKH LQFRUUHFW VHQWHQFH

PAGE 14

2Q DQRWKHU WHVW LQ WKH :ULWLQJ /DERUDWRU\ WKH VWXGHQWV ZHUH LQVWUXFWHG WR LGHQWLI\ WKH HUURUV LQ WKH VHQWHQFHV RQ WKH WHVW 7KH\ ZHUH WROG WKDW WKHUH ZRXOG EH HLWKHU VHQWHQFH IUDJPHQWV UXQRQ VHQWHQFHV VHQWHQFHV ZKLFK ODFN SDUDOOHO VWUXFWXUH RU VHQWHQFHV ZLWK QR HUURUV 2QH RI WKH LWHPV RQ WKH WHVW LV OLVWHG KHUH DV OJ OJ $OWKRXJK WKH OLIHVXSSRUW V\VWHP ZDV GHIHFWLYH WKH SUREOHP ZDV GLVFRYHUHG WRR ODWH )HDULQJ PRQH\ IRU WKH VSDFH SURJUDP ZLOO HQG LI WKHUH LV D VFDQGDO 7KH FODXVH n)HDULQJ PRQH\ IRU WKH VSDFH SURJUDP ZLOO HQG LI WKHUH LV D VFDQGDOn LV D VHQWHQFH IUDJPHQW 0DQ\ RI WKH VWXn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n SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKLV LWHP ZDV PHDQW WR LQGLFDWH WKDW

PAGE 15

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n SHQGLQJ RQ WKH DSKDVLFnV GLDOHFW 7HVWV VKRXOG EH GHVLJQHG VR DV WR DYRLG D ELDV LQ IDYRU RI RU DJDLQVW D SDUWLFXODU GLDOHFW 7KHVH IRXU UHDVRQV DUH WKH VDPH DV WKH ILUVW IRXU PDMRU UHDn VRQV EXW DUH DSSOLHG KHUH VSHFLILFDOO\ WR GLDOHFWV )LQGLQJ WKH DJH RI DFTXLVLWLRQ RI SDUWLFXODU DELOLWLHV LV VLPSO\ RQH PRUH DVSHFW RI WKH FKDOOHQJH WKDW 1RDP &KRPVN\

PAGE 16

VHW IRUWK ZKHQ KH VDLG n$V D ORQJUDQJH WDVN IRU JHQHUDO OLQJXLVWLFV ZH PLJKW VHW WKH SUREOHP RI GHYHORSLQJ DQ DFFRXQW RI WKLV LQQDWH OLQJXLVWLF WKHRU\ WKDW SURYLGHV D EDVLV IRU ODQJXDJH OHDUQLQJn f $QG DQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RU NQRZOn HGJH RI nWKLV LQQDWH OLQJXLVWLF WKHRU\n ZKLFK D FKLOG XVHV LQ RUGHU WR DFTXLUH KLV QDWLYH ODQJXDJH ZRXOG SURYLGH D IXUn WKHU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI ODQJXDJH WR RWKHU PHQWDO IDFXOWLHV $Q XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH QDWXUH RI WKH FKLOGnV LQWHUQDO JUDPPDU ZRXOG SURYLGH D YLHZ LQWR RWKHU DVSHFWV RI WKH PLQG 6LQFH DV &KRPVN\ SXW LW n$Q DFWXDO ODQJXDJH PD\ UHVXOW RQO\ IURP WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI VHYHUDO PHQWDO IDFXOWLHV RQH EHLQJ WKH IDFXOW\ RI ODQJXDJHn f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n JRULHV /H[LFDO DPELJXLW\f§ZKHQ D VLQJOH ZRUG RU OH[LFDO LWHP KDV PRUH WKDQ RQH PHDQLQJ ,Q WKH VHQWHQFH n7KH \RXQJ ER\ ZDV VLWWLQJ E\ WKH EDQNn WKH ZRUG EDQN PD\ PHDQ HLWKHU D EXLOGLQJ ZKHUH SHRSOH NHHS PRQH\ RU LW PD\ PHDQ WKH HGJH RI D ULYHU

PAGE 17

6XUIDFHVWUXFWXUH DPELJXLW\f§ZKHQ GLIIHUHQW PHDQLQJV FDQ UHVXOW GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH ZD\ LQ ZKLFK WKH ZRUGV LQ WKH VHQn WHQFH DUH JURXSHG 6XUIDFHVWUXFWXUH DPELJXLW\ DOVR NQRZQ DV VXUIDFHEUDFNHWLQJ DPELJXLW\ LV GHILQHG E\ )RGRU %HYHU DQG *DUUHWW f DV DPELJXLW\ IRU ZKLFK WKHUH DUH nDOWHUQDWLYH FRQVWLWXHQW VWUXFWXUH DQDO\VHVn )RU H[DPSOH WKH PHDQLQJ RI WKH VHQWHQFH n7KH\ DUH YLVLWLQJ UHODWLYHVn GHSHQGV RQ ZKHWKHU WKH ZRUGV DUH YLVLWLQJ DUH JURXSHG DV D VLQJOH FRQVWLWXHQW RU ZKHWKHU WKH ZRUGV YLVLWLQJ UHODWLYHV DUH JURXSHG DV D VLQJOH FRQVWLWXHQW 7KH PHDQLQJV RI WKLV VHQWHQFH nFDQ EH UHSUHVHQWHG E\ UHIHUHQFH WR DOWHUQDWLYH EUDFNHWLQJVn )RGRU %HYHU *DUUHWW f RI WKH HOHPHQWV RI WKH VHQWHQFH OK 7KH\ DUH YLVLWLQJf UHODWLYHV OL 7KH\ DUH YLVLWLQJ UHODWLYHVf 'HHSVWUXFWXUH DPELJXLW\f§ZKHQ WZR GLIIHUHQW GHHS VWUXFWXUHV XQGHUJR WUDQVIRUPDWLRQV ZKLFK JLYH WKHP LGHQWLFDO VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUHV ,W LV QRW SRVVLEOH WR EUDFNHW FRQVWLWXHQWV RI VHQWHQFHV ZKLFK DUH DPELJXRXV DW WKH GHHSVWUXFWXUH OHYHO LQ RUGHU WR UHSUHVHQW WKH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ VWUXFWXUH RU PHDQLQJ &RQVLGHU WKH VHQWHQFH n7KH SROLFH VWRSSHG GULQNLQJ RQ FDPSXVn ,Q WKLV VHQWHQFH LW LV WKH VXEMHFW RI GULQNLQJ ZKLFK LV DPn ELJXRXV ,Q WKH GHHS VWUXFWXUH WKHUH DUH GLIIHUHQW VXEMHFWV IRU GULQNLQJ EXW LQ WKH VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUH WKRVH VXEMHFWV KDYH EHHQ GHOHWHG E\ WUDQVIRUPDWLRQV )RU WKH PHDQLQJ ZKLFK LV HTXLYDOHQW WR n7KH SROLFH TXLW GULQNLQJ RQ FDPSXVn WKH VXEn MHFW RI GULQNLQJ ZDV GHOHWHG E\ (TXLYDOHQW 1RXQ 3KUDVH 'HOHWLRQ 7UDQVIRUPDWLRQ DOVR NQRZQ DV (TXL 13 'HOHWLRQ RU

PAGE 18

VLPSO\ DV (TXLf 7KLV WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ DSSOLHV ZKHQ WKH VXEMHFW RI WKH PDLQ FODXVH LV DOVR WKH VXEMHFW RI D JHUXQG RU DQ LQn ILQLWLYH ,W IXQFWLRQV WR GHOHWH WKH VXEMHFW RI WKDW JHUXQG RU LQILQLWLYH )RU WKH PHDQLQJ ZKLFK LV HTXLYDOHQW WR n7KH SROLFH HQGHG GULQNLQJ RQ FDPSXVn WKH VXEMHFW ZDV GHOHWHG E\ 3UR 'HOHWLRQ 7UDQVIRUPDWLRQ 7KLV WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ DSSOLHV ZKHQ WKH VXEMHFW RI D JHUXQG RU DQ LQILQLWLYH LV DQ XQVSHFLILHG 13 LQ WKH GHHS VWUXFWXUH ,WV IXQFWLRQ LV WR GHOHWH WKH VXEMHFW RI WKDW LQILQLWLYH RU JHUXQG $ EHKDYLRUDO GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ VXUIDFHVWUXFWXUH DPn ELJXLWLHV DQG GHHSVWUXFWXUH DPELJXLWLHV LV WKDW IRU WKH IRUn PHU WKHUH LV D GLIIHUHQFH LQ LQWRQDWLRQ SDWWHUQV GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH PHDQLQJ ZKHUHDV IRU WKH ODWWHU WKH LQWRQDWLRQ SDWWHUQ UHPDLQV FRQVWDQW UHJDUGOHVV RI PHDQLQJ 7KH VHQWHQFH n7KH\ DUH IO\LQJ SODQHVn LV D VXUIDFHVWUXFWXUH DPELJXLW\ EHFDXVH LW FDQ EH H[SODLQHG LQ WHUPV RI EUDFNHWLQJ OM 7KH\ DUH IO\LQJf SODQHV ON 7KH\ DUH IO\LQJ SODQHVf 6XFK D VHQWHQFH FDQ EH GLVDPELJXDWHG ZLWK DQ LQWRQDWLRQ SDWWHUQ FRPSDUDEOH WR WKH EUDFNHWLQJ f§ 7KH\ DUH IO\LQJ SODQHV B OP 7KH\ DUH IO\LQJ SODQHV +RZHYHU D VHQWHQFH VXFK DV n7KH\ ZDQW WR VWRS VPRNLQJn FDQQRW EH GLVDPELJXDWHG WKURXJK DQ LQWRQDWLRQ SDWWHUQ ,Q RUGHU IRU D SHUVRQ WR SHUFHLYH ERWK PHDQLQJV RI D GHHSVWUXFWXUH DPELJXLW\ KH PXVW EH DEOH WR FRPSUHKHQG WKH VWUXFWXUHV ZKLFK FRUUHVSRQG WR HDFK PHDQLQJ ,Q WKH FDVH RI n7KH\ ZDQW WR VWRS VPRNLQJn

PAGE 19

WKH VWUXFWXUH ZKLFK FRUUHVSRQGV WR n7KH\ ZDQW WR TXLW VPRNLQJn LQ ZKLFK WKH\ LV WKH VXEMHFW RI VPRNLQJ LV GHULYHG WKURXJK (TXL 13 'HOHWLRQ 7KH DELOLW\ WR FRPSUHKHQG WKLV SDUWLFXODU PHDQLQJ GHSHQGV RQ WKH DELOLW\ WR XQGHUVWDQG D VWUXFWXUH ZKLFK LV SURGXFHG WKURXJK (TXL 13 'HOHWLRQ 7UDQVIRUPDWLRQ 6LPLODUO\ WKH VWUXFWXUH ZKLFK FRUUHVSRQGV WR n7KH\ ZDQW WR SUHYHQW VPRNLQJn LQ ZKLFK WKH VXEMHFW RI VPRNLQJ LV DQ XQLGHQWLILHG RU XQVSHFLILHG HOHPHQW FRPSDUDEOH WR VRPHRQH RU RWKHUV KDV EHHQ GHULYHG WKURXJK 3UR 'HOHWLRQ 7UDQVIRUPDWLRQ 7KH FRPn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n7KH\ ZDQW WR VWRS VPRNLQJn 7KLV SUHGLFWLRQ LV EDVHG RQ WKH

PAGE 20

DVVXPSWLRQ WKDW SHUFHSWLRQ RI GHHSVWUXFWXUH DPELJXLW\ LV GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH DELOLW\ WR FRPSUHKHQG UHOHYDQW WUDQVIRUPDn WLRQV DQG E\ FRJQLWLYH FDSDFLWLHV WKDW DUH GHYHORSHG SULRU WR RU DW WKH VDPH WLPH DV WKHVH WUDQVIRUPDWLRQV ,I DQ\ VXFK FRJQLWLYH FDSDFLWLHV DUH QHFHVVDU\ IRU WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI DPn ELJXLW\ EXW KDYH QRW EHHQ GHYHORSHG E\ WKH WLPH WKDW WKHVH UHOHYDQW WUDQVIRUPDWLRQV DUH DFTXLUHG WKHQ WKH WUDQVIRUPDWLRQV WKHPVHOYHV ZRXOG QRW EH VXIILFLHQW IRU WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH DPELJXLW\ 7KH DVVXPSWLRQ WKDW WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI GHHSVWUXFWXUH DPn ELJXLW\ LV GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH DELOLW\ WR FRPSUHKHQG WKH UHOHYDQW WUDQVIRUPDWLRQV ZDV WKH VXEMHFW RI WKLV LQYHVWLJDWLRQ 7KH RQO\ RWKHU VWXG\ ZKLFK KDV LQYHVWLJDWHG DPELJXLW\ IURP D GHYHORSPHQWDO VWDQGSRLQW ZDV GRQH E\ )UDQN .HVVHO f .HVVHO WHVWHG ILIW\ FKLOGUHQ IURP NLQGHUJDUWHQ WKURXJK ILIWK JUDGH ZLWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI WKH IRXUWK JUDGHf LQ WKHLU DELOLW\ WR SHUFHLYH OH[LFDO DPELJXLW\ VXUIDFHVWUXFWXUH DPELJXLW\ DQG GHHSVWUXFWXUH DPELJXLW\ ,Q KLV VWXG\ VXEMHFWV ZHUH DVNHG WR FKRRVH WKH SLFWXUH RU SLFWXUHV ZKLFK UHSUHVHQWHG WKH VHQWHQFHV ZKLFK WKH H[SHULn PHQWHU UHDG 7KH VXEMHFWV KHDUG WZHOYH VHQWHQFHV IRXU IRU HDFK W\SH RI DPELJXLW\ 7KH IRXU VHQWHQFHV ZLWK GHHSVWUXFWXUH DPELJXLW\ ZKLFK .HVVHO SUHVHQWHG WR KLV VXEMHFWV ZHUH OQ 7KH HDWLQJ RI WKH FKLFNHQ ZDV VORSS\ OR 6KH KLW WKH PDQ ZLWK JODVVHV OS 7KH YLVLWLQJ RI WKH GRFWRU ZDV KDSSHQLQJ OT 7KH VKRRWLQJ RI WKH VROGLHU ZDV EDG S f

PAGE 21

.HVVHO IRXQG WKDW nRQO\ DIWHU WKH DJH RI GR FKLOGUHQ FRQn VLVWHQWO\ DQG VSRQWDQHRXVO\ ZLWKRXW OHDGLQ TXHVWLRQVf GHWHFW ERWK PHDQLQJV LQ VXUIDFH DQG XQGHUO\LQJ VWUXFWXUH DPn ELJXLWLHVn S f +H PDGH QR DWWHPSW WR GHWHUPLQH RU H[SODLQ ZKDW IDFWRUV FRQWULEXWH WR WKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI WKH DELOLW\ WR SHUFHLYH DPELJXLW\

PAGE 22

1RWHV A:KHWKHU D FKLOG DFWXDOO\ DFTXLUHV WUDQVIRUPDWLRQV RU ZKHWKHU WUDQVIRUPDWLRQV DUH PRUH DSSURSULDWHO\ GHYLFHV WR GHVFULEH OLQJXLVWLF IDFWV LV VWLOO XS IRU GHEDWH )RU WKH SXUSRVH RI WKLV SDSHU ZKHQ GLVFXVV WKH SURFHVVHV LQYROYHG LQ nDFTXLULQJ D WUDQVIRUPDWLRQn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

PAGE 23

&+$37(5 ,, (;3(5,0(176B, 7+528*+ 9 8QOLNH .HVVHOnV VWXG\ WKLV LQYHVWLJDWLRQ DWWHPSWHG WR SUHGLFW SHUFHSWLRQ RI GHHSVWUXFWXUH DPELJXLW\ RQ WKH EDVLV RI OLQJXLVWLF WKHRU\ RI WUDQVIRUPDWLRQV 7KLV VWXG\ DWWHPSWHG WR VKRZ WKDW D FKLOGnV DELOLW\ WR GHWHFW GHHSVWUXFWXUH DPn ELJXLW\ FDQ EH SUHGLFWHG E\ KLV DELOLW\ WR KDQGOH FHUWDLQ WUDQVIRUPDWLRQV 2QO\ DIWHU D FKLOG KDV DFTXLUHG WKH WUDQVn IRUPDWLRQV ZKLFK DUH QHFHVVDU\ WR JHQHUDWH ERWK PHDQLQJV RI DQ DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFH VKRXOG KH EH DEOH WR FRPSUHKHQG ERWK PHDQLQJV RI WKDW VHQWHQFH 7KLV K\SRWKHVLV ZDV WHVWHG E\ SUHVHQWLQJ VWXGHQWV ZLWK VHQWHQFHV ZKLFK ZHUH DPELJXRXV DW WKH GHHSVWUXFWXUH OHYHO )RU HYHU\ DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFH WKHUH ZHUH WZR XQDPELJXRXV VHQn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

PAGE 24

6HQWHQFH D ZKLFK LV DPELJXRXV FRQWDLQV WKH PHDQLQJV H[n SUHVVHG LQ VHQWHQFHV E DQG F 6HQWHQFH E FRQWDLQV D QRPLQDO ZKLFK FDQ EH GHVFULEHG DV DQ REMHFW QRPLQDO DQG ZKLFK FDQ EH SDUDSKUDVHG DV nWKH DFW RI IO\LQJ SODQHVn 7KH HQWLUH QRPLQDO IO\LQJ SODQHV LV WKH VXEMHFW RI WKLV VHQWHQFH 6HQn WHQFH F RQ WKH RWKHU KDQG FRQWDLQV D VXEMHFW QRPLQDO ZKLFK FDQ EH SDUDSKUDVHG DV nSODQHV ZKLFK DUH IO\LQJn 6LQFH IO\LQJ IXQFWLRQV DV DQ DGMHFWLYH LQ VHQWHQFH F RQO\ WKH QRXQ SODQHV LV WKH VXEMHFW RI WKH VHQWHQFH 7KH WDVN ZKLFK WKH VXEMHFWV ZHUH DVNHG WR SHUIRUP ZDV WR LQGLFDWH ZKLFK SLFWXUH RU SLFWXUHV FRUUHVSRQGHG WR WKH VHQWHQFH ZKLFK WKH H[SHULPHQWHU UHDG 7KH SUHGLFWLRQ ZDV WKDW WKH VWXn GHQWV ZRXOG FKRRVH WKH FRUUHFW SLFWXUH IRU HDFK RI WKH XQDPn ELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV WKXV LQGLFDWLQJ WKHLU FRPSUHKHQVLRQ RI WKHVH VHQWHQFHV DQG WKHLU VWUXFWXUHV LI WKH\ ZHUH WR FKRRVH WKH FRUUHFW SLFWXUHV IRU WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFH ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV WKH VWXGHQW VKRXOG SHUIRUP FRUUHFWO\ RQ VHQWHQFHV E DQG F LI KH LV WR JHW D FRUUHFW ([SHULPHQW 0HWKRG 6XEMHFWV )RUW\VHYHQ VWXGHQWV ZHUH VHOHFWHG IURP 3.
PAGE 25

$SSDUDWXV 7KH WHVW GHVLJQ LQFOXGHG ILYH SUHWHVW VHQWHQFHV XVHG WR HVWDEOLVK WKDW WKH VXEMHFWV FRXOG KDQGOH WKH WDVN RI SRLQWLQJ WR RQH RU PRUH WKDQ RQH SLFWXUH IRU HDFK VHQWHQFH WKDW ZDV UHDG DQG WKLUW\ WHVW VHQWHQFHV FRPSRVHG RI WHQ DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV DQG WZHQW\ XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV $ OLVW RI WKHVH WKLUW\ILYH VHQWHQFHV DSSHDUV LQ $SSHQGL[ $ 7KH WZHQW\ XQDPn ELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV FRQVLVWHG RI WZR LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV IRU HDFK DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFH 7KH FULWHULD IRU WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV ZHUH WKDW WKH\ EH GHHSVWUXFWXUH DPELJXLWLHV WKDW WKH LQWRQDn WLRQ SDWWHUQ EH WKH VDPH UHJDUGOHVV RI PHDQLQJ DQG WKDW WKH\ EH UHSUHVHQWDEOH ZLWK GUDZLQJV 2I WKH WHQ DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV VHYHQ KDG DV WKHLU VWUXFn WXUH QRPLQDO SKUDVH FDQ EH DGMHFWLYH IRU H[DPSOH n9LVLWn LQJ UHODWLYHV FDQ EH ERULQJn 7KH XQDPELJXRXV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV RI WKHVH VHYHQ VHQWHQFHV ZHUH PDGH XS RI WKH VDPH QRPLQDO SKUDVH HLWKHU WKH YHUE LVB RU WKH YHUE DUH DQG DQ DGMHFWLYH 7KXV WKH WZR LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV IRU n9LVLWLQJ UHODWLYHV FDQ EH ERULQJn ZHUH n9LVLWLQJ UHODWLYHV LV ERULQJn DQG n9LVLWLQJ UHODWLYHV DUH ERULQJn 7KHVH ODVW WZR VHQWHQFHV ZHUH QRW DPELJXRXV EHFDXVH WKH YHUE GHWHUPLQHG ZKHWKHU WKH QRPLQDO ZDV WR EH LQWHUSUHWHG DV D VXEMHFW QRPLQDO RU DQ REMHFW QRPLQDO 7KH RULJLQDO VHQWHQFH n9LVLWLQJ UHODWLYHV FDQ EH ERULQJn LV DPELJXRXV EHFDXVH WKHUH LV QR RYHUW PDUNLQJ IRU QXPEHU RQ WKH YHUE FDQ EH ,W ZDV DOVR LPSRUWDQW WKDW WKH DGMHFWLYHV LQ WKHVH VHQn WHQFHV EH DSSURSULDWH WR HLWKHU LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH QRPLQDO +HQFH ERWK WKH DFW RI YLVLWLQJ UHODWLYHV DQG UHODWLYHV ZKR

PAGE 26

YLVLW PD\ EH ERULQJ +RZHYHU WKH VHQWHQFH n9LVLWLQJ UHODWLYHV FDQ EH JHQHURXVn GRHV QRW RIIHU WKH VDPH GXDOLW\ RI LQWHUSUHn WDWLRQ ,W LV JUDPPDWLFDO WR VD\ n9LVLWLQJ UHODWLYHV DUH JHQHURXVn EXW WKH FRXQWHUSDUW n9LVLWLQJ UHODWLYHV LV JHQHURXVn LV XQJUDPPDWLFDO 6LPLODUO\ n0RYLQJ KRXVHV LV HDV\n LV DFn FHSWDEOH ZKHUHDV n0RYLQJ KRXVHV DUH HDV\n LV QRW $QG FRQn VHTXHQWO\ n0RYLQJ KRXVHV FDQ EH HDV\n LV QRW DPELJXRXV 7ZR RI WKH WKUHH UHPDLQLQJ DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV ZHUH FRPn SRVHG RI DPRQJ RWKHU FRQVWLWXHQWV WKH YHUE VWRS IROORZHG E\ D JHUXQG 7KH DPELJXLW\ DULVHV EHFDXVH WKHUH DUH WZR LQWHUn SUHWDWLRQV RI WKH VXEMHFW RI WKH JHUXQG 7KHVH GLIIHUHQW LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV RFFXU EHFDXVH LQ WKH GHHS VWUXFWXUH WKHUH DUH GLIIHUHQW VXEMHFWV IRU WKH YHUEV ZKLFK HYHQWXDOO\ EHFRPH JHUXQGV &RQVLGHU WKH VHQWHQFH n7KH SROLFH VWRSSHG ILJKWLQJ RQ FDPSXVn 7KLV VHQWHQFH PD\ PHDQ HLWKHU WKDW WKH SROLFH TXLW ILJKWLQJ RQ FDPSXV LQ ZKLFK WKH SROLFH LV WKH VXEMHFW RI ILJKWLQJ LH WKH SROLFH ZHUH GRLQJ WKH ILJKWLQJ RU WKDW WKH SROLFH HQGHG ILJKWLQJ RQ FDPSXV LQ ZKLFK WKH VXEMHFW RI ILJKWLQJ LV VRPH XQVSHFLILHG EXW LPSOLHG DJHQW RWKHU WKDQ WKH SROLFH 7KH ILQDO VHQWHQFH W\SH RQ WKH WHVW LV DOVR RQH LQ ZKLFK D QRPLQDO FRQVWUXFWLRQ PD\ EH LQWHUSUHWHG LQ PRUH WKDQ RQH ZD\ 7KH WHVW VHQWHQFH LV n7KH VKRRWLQJ RI WKH ,QGLDQ ZDV EDGn 7KLV QRPLQDO RI 13 FRQVWUXFWLRQ LV RIWHQ DPELJXRXV EHFDXVH WKH 13 PD\ EH ERWK WKH DJHQW RI WKH DFWLRQ H[SUHVVHG LQ WKH QRPLQDO RU LW PD\ EH WKH REMHFW RI WKDW DFWLRQ ,Q WKH FDVH RI WKLV VHQWHQFH WKH ,QGLDQ PD\ EH HLWKHU WKH VKRRWHU RU WKH YLFWLP

PAGE 27

)RU HDFK VHQWHQFH WKHUH ZDV D VHW RI IRXU SLFWXUHV IRU WKH VXEMHFWV WR FKRRVH IURP $Q H[DPSOH RI HDFK VHW RI SLFn WXUHV DSSHDUV LQ $SSHQGL[ & )RU WKH SUHWHVW VHQWHQFHV LQ WZR FDVHV RQO\ RQH RI WKH IRXU FKRLFHV ZDV FRUUHFW DQG LQ WKUHH FDVHV WKHUH ZHUH WZR SLFWXUHV ZKLFK ZHUH QRW LGHQWLFDO EXW ZKLFK ZHUH DSSURSULDWH FKRLFHV IRU WKH SUHWHVW VHQWHQFH )RU H[DPSOH IRU WKH SUHWHVW VHQWHQFH n7KH\ DUH ULGLQJ KRUVHVn WKHUH ZHUH WZR SLFWXUHV RI SHRSOH ULGLQJ KRUVHV EXW WKH SLFn WXUHV GLIIHUHG LQ WKHLU GHWDLOV 7KHUH ZHUH DOVR WZR SLFWXUHV ZKLFK ZHUH QRW DSSURSULDWH WR WKH VHQWHQFH 7KH SXUSRVH RI KDYLQJ WZR GLIIHUHQW SLFWXUHV ZKLFK FRUUHVSRQGHG WR WKH VDPH VHQWHQFH ZDV WR GHWHUPLQH WKDW WKH VXEMHFW FRXOG SHUIRUP WKH WDVN RI SRLQWLQJ WR WZR SLFWXUHV LI WKH\ ERWK PDWFKHG WKH VHQn WHQFH )RU WKH WHVW VHQWHQFHV WKHUH ZHUH DOVR IRXU SLFWXUHV IRU HDFK VHQWHQFH )RU HDFK DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFH DQG LWV WZR XQDPn ELJXRXV FRXQWHUSDUWV WKH VDPH IRXU SLFWXUHV ZHUH XVHG +RZn HYHU WKH ORFDWLRQ RI WKH SLFWXUHV ZLWKLQ HDFK VHW ZDV UDQn GRPL]HG WR DYRLG D SRVLWLRQDO ELDV 7KH IRXU SLFWXUHV FRQn VLVWHG RI RQH SLFWXUH IRU HDFK PHDQLQJ RI WKH DPELJXRXV VHQn WHQFH DQG WZR SLFWXUHV RI UHODWHG EXW GLIIHUHQW DQG LQDSSURn SULDWH HYHQWV $OO RI WKH SLFWXUHV ZHUH PDGH LQWR WZRLQFK VOLGHV DQG ZHUH SURMHFWHG RQWR D VROLGFRORUHG ZDOO ZLWK D .RGDN &DURXVHO 6OLGH 3URMHFWRU 7KH SLFWXUHV ZHUH ODEHOHG $ % & RU 7KH VFRUH VKHHW IRU HDFK VXEMHFW SURYLGHG VSDFH IRU UHn FRUGLQJ WKH QDPH DJH VH[ DQG WHDFKHU DV ZHOO DV WKH VXEMHFWnV

PAGE 28

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n/HWnV WU\ RQH DQG VHH LI \RX XQGHUVWDQG WKHQn $V VRRQ DV WKH ILUVW VOLGH DSSHDUHG DQG WKH VXEMHFW KHDUG WKH ILUVW VHQWHQFH WKH H[SHULPHQWHU DVNHG n1RZ ZKLFK SLFWXUH RU SLFWXUHV JR ZLWK WKDW VHQWHQFH"n $OPRVW DOZD\V LI WKHUH KDG EHHQ DQ\ TXHVWLRQ LQ WKH VXEMHFWnV PLQG KH ZRXOG DQVZHU n2K 1RZ JHW LWn RU VRPHWKLQJ FRPSDUDEOH 7KH VXEMHFW LQGLFDWHG ZKLFK SLFWXUH RU SLFWXUHV KH IHOW ZHUH DSSURSULDWH E\ QDPLQJ WKH OHWWHU $ % & RU ZKLFK ODEHOOHG WKH SLFWXUHV $W QR WLPH GLG WKH WDVN RI FKRRVLQJ

PAGE 29

OHWWHUV WR LQGLFDWH ZKLFK SLFWXUH RU SLFWXUHV WKH VXEMHFW IHOW DSSURSULDWH VHHP WRR GLIILFXOW 7KH H[SHULPHQWHU UHFRUGHG WKH VXEMHFWVn UHVSRQVHV RQ WKH VFRUH VKHHWV WDNLQJ FDUH WR UHFRUG WKH VHTXHQFH LI PRUH WKDQ RQH UHVSRQVH ZHUH JLYHQ 7KH H[SHULPHQWHU DOVR UHFRUGHG DQ\ RI WKH VXEMHFWVn FRPPHQWV ZKLFK WKH H[SHULPHQWHU IHOW ZHUH YDOXDEOH WR WKLV VWXG\ 6RPH RI WKHVH FRPPHQWV RIIHUHG LQn VLJKWV LQWR WKH VXEMHFWVn WKRXJKWV DV WKH\ SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKLV H[SHULPHQW )RU H[DPSOH LQ WKH VHQWHQFH n+H ZDQWV WR SUHYHQW VPRNLQJn VHYHUDO VXEMHFWV DVNHG n:KDW GRHV SUHYHQW PHDQ" 6WDUW RU 6WRS"n )RU WKH VHQWHQFH n0RYLQJ KRXVHV FDQ EH IULJKWHQLQJn WKHUH ZHUH FRPPHQWV VXFK DV n:KDW NLQG RI PRYLQJ"n DQG n:KHQ \RXnUH PRYLQJ WKHP RU ZKHQ WKH\ DUH PRYLQJ E\ WKHPVHOYHV"n $QRWKHU VXEMHFW ZKHQ KH KHDUG WKH VHQWHQFH n6KRRWLQJ VWDUV LV H[FLWLQJn FRPPHQWHG n7KDW MXVW GRHVQnW VHHP ULJKW ,V H[FLWLQJ" 2K 'n 2QH VXEMHFW ZKR KDG QR SUREOHP FRPSUHKHQGLQJ WKH DPELJXLWLHV IRXQG WKHP YHU\ IXQQ\ n$ GRJ ZDONLQJ 7KLV LV IXQQ\ JHW LW"n n7KDW LV IXQQ\ *URZQXSV DUH SOD\LQJn 7KHVH DQG RWKHU FRPPHQWV SURYLGHG D YDOXDEOH YLHZ RI ZKDW WKH VXEMHFWV ZHUH GRLQJ DQG WKLQNLQJ DQG KRZ WKH\ SHUIRUPHG WKH WDVNV RI WKLV H[SHULPHQW 7KH FRQGLWLRQV RI WKLV H[SHULPHQW ZHUH LQIRUPDO ,I D VXEMHFW GLG QRW FOHDUO\ XQGHUVWDQG D VHQWHQFH ZKLFK ZDV UHDG WR KLP WKH H[SHULPHQWHU UHSHDWHG WKH VHQWHQFH 7KH WDVN RI WKLV H[SHULPHQW ZDV EDVHG RQ WKH VXEMHFWnV DELOLW\ WR FRPSUHn KHQG WKH VWUXFWXUH RI D VHQWHQFH ,W ZDV QRW D WHVW RI KLV DELOLW\ WR SHUFHLYH WKH VHQWHQFH LWVHOI %HFDXVH LQWRQDWLRQ

PAGE 30

GRHV QRW DIIHFW WKH UHDGLQJ RI WKH VHQWHQFH UHSHWLWLRQ GLG QRW DOWHU DQ\ RI WKH FRQGLWLRQV RI WKH H[SHULPHQW $OVR LI WKH VXEMHFW KDG DQ\ TXHVWLRQV DQG LI WKH DQVZHUV WR WKRVH TXHVWLRQV ZRXOG QRW DOWHU WKH FRQGLWLRQV RI WKH H[SHULPHQW WKH H[SHULPHQWHU DQVZHUHG WKH VXEMHFWnV TXHVWLRQV )RU H[n DPSOH ZKHQ RQH VXEMHFW DVNHG n:KDW GRHV SUHYHQW PHDQ" 6WDUW RU 6WRS"n WKH H[SHULPHQWHU DQVZHUHG n6WRSn +RZHYHU ZKHQ D VXEMHFW DVNHG n:KDW NLQG RI PRYLQJ"n LQ UHIHUHQFH WR WKH VHQWHQFH n0RYLQJ KRXVHV FDQ EH IULJKWHQLQJn WKH H[SHULPHQWHU DQVZHUHG n:KDWHYHU LW PHDQV WR \RXn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n:KDW LV JRLQJ RQ LQ SLFWXUH $ WRU DQ\ RWKHU SLFWXUH@"n 7KH H[SHULPHQWHU GLG WKLV IRU XVXDOO\ ILYH RU VL[ SLFWXUHV SHU VXEMHFW 8OWLPDWHO\ WKHUH VHHPHG WR EH QR SUREOHP ZLWK WKH VXEMHFWVn LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV 7KH VXEMHFWV JHQHUDOO\ LQWHUSUHWHG WKHP FRUUHFWO\ 7KH\ RIWHQ YHUEDOL]HG WKHLU LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV ZLWK WKH VDPH ZRUGV WKDW WKH\

PAGE 31

KDG KHDUG LQ WKH WHVWLQJ 'XULQJ WKH WHVW WKH\ PD\ QRW KDYH FKRVHQ WKH SLFWXUH RI WZR DGXOWV SOD\LQJ 3LQ WKH 7DLO RQ WKH 'RQNH\ $SSHQGL[ & S f IRU WKH VHQWHQFH n3OD\LQJ JURZQXSV FDQ EH IXQQ\ %XW ZKHQ WKH\ GHVFULEHG WKDW SLFWXUH WKH\ XVXDOO\ VDLG n7ZR JURZQXSV SOD\LQJ 3LQ WKH 7DLO RQ WKH 'RQNH\n 8VXDOO\ LQ WKHLU GHVFULSWLRQV RI WKH VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV WKH LQJ IRUP IROORZHG WKH QRXQ n7ZR GRJV ZDONLQJn n$ ER\ VKRRWLQJ DW WKH VWDUVn n7ZR KRXVHV PRYLQJn RU n$ KRUVH SDLQWLQJ D IORZHUn 7KH HQWLUH WHVWLQJ SURFHGXUH WRRN MXVW OHVV WKDQ WHQ PLQXWHV SHU VXEMHFW 5HVXOWV 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKLV H[SHULPHQW ZHUH TXLWH GLIIHUHQW IURP WKRVH ZKLFK ZHUH DQWLFLSDWHG 7KH H[SHFWHG SDWWHUQ ZDV IRU WKH VXEMHFWV WR FKRRVH WZR SLFWXUHV HDFK IRU WKH ILUVW WHQ VHQWHQFHV LQGLFDWLQJ WKHLU FRPSUHKHQVLRQ RI WKH DPELJXLWLHV RI WKHVH VHQWHQFHV DQG WR FKRRVH RQH SLFWXUH IRU HDFK RI WKH ODVW WZHQW\ VHQWHQFHV LQGLFDWLQJ WKHLU FRPSUHKHQVLRQ RI WKHVH VHQWHQFHV ZKLFK ZHUH QRW DPELJXRXV 2Q WKH ILUVW WHQ VHQWHQFHV WKRVH ZKLFK ZHUH DPELJXRXV WKHUH ZDV QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH DW WKH OHYHO LQ SHUn FHSWLRQ RI DPELJXLW\ UHJDUGOHVV RI DJH DV GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH 0DQQ:KLWQH\ 8 7HVW %UXQLQJ DQG .LQW] f 6HH 7DEOH 7KLV SHUFHSWLRQ RI DPELJXLW\ ZDV PHDVXUHG DV WKH QXPEHU RI WLPHV WKH VXEMHFWV FKRVH PRUH WKDQ RQH SLFWXUH WR PDWFK WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV ,I D VXEMHFW FKRVH PRUH WKDQ WZR SLFWXUHV

PAGE 32

IRU D VHQWHQFH DQG VRPHWLPHV WKLV KDSSHQHG WKLV VWLOO FRXQWHG DV RQH LQVWDQFH RI SHUFHSWLRQ RI DPELJXLW\ 7KLV DEVHQFH RI D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH PHDQV WKDW WKH HLJKW\HDU ROGV SHUFHLYHG DPELJXLW\ DV RIWHQ DV HOHYHQ\HDU ROGV GLG 7KLV SDUWLFXODU ILQGLQJ GLIIHUV FRQVLGHUDEO\ IURP WKH UHVXOWV ZKLFK )UDQN .HVVHO REWDLQHG (YHQ PRUH VXUSULVLQJ ZHUH WKH UHVXOWV RQ WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV 7KH VXEMHFWV FRQWLQXHG WR FKRRVH PRUH WKDQ RQH SLFn WXUH SHU VHQWHQFH HYHQ IRU WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV 7KLV SDWWHUQ RI UHVSRQVH ZDV WKH VDPH IRU DOO IRXU DJH JURXSV DV GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH 0DQQ:KLWQH\ 8 7HVW DW WKH OHYHO RI VLJQLILFDQFH 6HH 7DEOH ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV SHUIRUPDQFH GLG QRW LPSURYH ZLWK DJH 5HJDUGOHVV RI DJH WKH VXEMHFWV FRQn VLVWHQWO\ FKRVH PRUH WKDQ RQH SLFWXUH IRU WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV )UHTXHQWO\ WKH VXEMHFWV FKRVH PRUH WKDQ RQH SLFWXUH IRU WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV PRUH RIWHQ WKDQ WKH\ GLG IRU WKH DPn ELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV ,W DSSHDUHG WKDW WKH PRUH WKH\ KHDUG WKH QRPLQ£LV WKH PRUH PHDQLQJ WKH\ SHUFHLYHG IRU WKHP UHJDUGOHVV RI WKH IDFW WKDW WKH VHFRQG DQG WKLUG WLPHV WKH VXEMHFWV KHDUG WKH QRPLQ£LV WKH QRPLQ£LV RFFXUUHG LQ XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV )RU H[DPSOH LI D VXEMHFW KHDUG n3OD\LQJ JURZQXSV FDQ EH IXQQ\n DQG FKRVH RQO\ RQH SLFWXUH LQGLFDWLQJ KH SHUFHLYHG RQO\ RQH PHDQLQJ IRU WKH VHQWHQFH KH IUHTXHQWO\ FKRVH PRUH WKDQ RQH SLFWXUH ODWHU RQ LQ WKH WHVW ZKHQ KH KHDUG n3OD\LQJ JURZQXSV LV IXQQ\n DQG n3OD\LQJ JURZQXSV DUH IXQQ\n 4XLWH REYLRXVO\ VXEMHFWV ZKR FKRVH PRUH WKDQ RQH SLFWXUH IRU WKH

PAGE 33

7$%/( 0HDQ 1XPEHU RI &KRLFHV RI 7ZR 3LFWXUHV IRU WKH $PELJXRXV 6HQWHQFHV $JH 0HDQ 1XPEHU RI 6HQWHQFHV 7$%/( 0HDQ 1XPEHU RI &KRLFHV RI IRU WKH 8QDPELJXRXV 7ZR 3LFWXUHV 6HQWHQFHV $JH 0HDQ 1XPEHU RI 6HQWHQFHV

PAGE 34

XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV ZHUH UHVSRQGLQJ WR WKH DPELJXLW\ RI WKH QRPLQ£LV DQG QRW WR WKH YHUE IRUP LM RU DUH ZKLFK VKRXOG KDYH GLVDPELJXDWHG WKH VHQWHQFHV $QRWKHU LQGLFDWLRQ WKDW WKH VXEMHFWVn UHVSRQVHV ZHUH GHWHUPLQHG VROHO\ E\ WKH PHDQLQJ RI WKH QRPLQDO DQG QRW WKH QRPLQDO LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI WKH HQWLUH VHQWHQFH ZDV WKH IDFW WKDW VRPH VXEMHFWV VDZ RQH PHDQLQJ IRU DQ DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFH DQG WKH\ FRQWLQXHG WR VHH WKDW VDPH PHDQLQJ IRU ERWK RI WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV )RU WKHVH VXEMHFWV WRR WKH YHUE IRUP LM RU DUH KDG QR HIIHFW RQ WKHLU FKRLFH RI SLFWXUH 2IWHQ GXULQJ WKH WHVWLQJ SURFHGXUH WKH VXEMHFW ZRXOG UHSHDW WKH VHQWHQFH RU SDUW RI LW WR KLPVHOI 2Q WKRVH RFFDVLRQV ZKHQ WKH VXEMHFW UHSHDWHG MXVWAWKH QRPLQDO LQ DQ XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFH DQG WKHQ VHOHFWHG WZR SLFWXUHV WKH H[SHULPHQWHU FDXWLRQHG WKH VXEMHFW WR OLVWHQ WR WKH HQWLUH VHQWHQFH DQG WKHQ WKH H[SHULPHQWHU UHSHDWHG WKH VHQWHQFH 7KLV KRZHYHU QHYHU KDG DQ\ HIIHFW 7KH VXEMHFWV FRQVLVn WHQWO\ FKRVH WKH VDPH SLFWXUHV DJDLQ 6RPHWLPHV WKH VXEMHFWV KHDUG DQ XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFH EXW UHSHDWHG WKH DPELJXRXV YHUVLRQ RI LW 7KH H[SHULPHQWHU UHVSRQGHG ZLWK n1R OLVWHQ FDUHIXOO\ 3OD\LQJ JURZQXSV BLV IXQQ\n $OWKRXJK VWUHVVLQJ WKH YHUE IRUP YLRODWHG WKH FRQn GLWLRQV RI WKH H[SHULPHQW EHFDXVH LW VKRXOG KDYH DIIHFWHG WKH VXEMHFWVn UHVSRQVHV WKHUH ZDV QR HIIHFW ZKDWVRHYHU 1R DPRXQW RI SURPSWLQJ FKDQJHG WKH VXEMHFWVn FKRLFHV RI SLFWXUHV $IWHU WKH WHVW ZDV FRPSOHWHG WKH H[SHULPHQWHU LQIRUPDOO\ DVNHG WKRVH VXEMHFWV ZKR FKRVH PRUH WKDQ RQH SLFWXUH IRU VRPH

PAGE 35

RI WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV LI WKH\ FRXOG GLVWLQJXLVK EHWZHHQ WZR VHQWHQFHV IURP WKH WHVW ZKRVH PHDQLQJ GHSHQGHG RQ WKH YHUE IRUP LVB RU DUH n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n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n SODQDWLRQ ODFNLQJ WKH DELOLW\ WR DUWLFXODWH WKH SURFHGXUH VKH ZDV XVLQJ +RZHYHU VKH FOHDUO\ XQGHUVWRRG WKH GLIIHUHQFH +HU EHVW DWWHPSW DW DQ H[SODQDWLRQ ZDV n
PAGE 36

7KH PDOH VXEMHFW DUWLFXODWHG PRUH RI KLV WKRXJKWV DV KH SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKH WHVW )RU WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV KH FKRVH WZR SLFWXUHV VHYHQ WLPHV )RU WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV KH FKRVH WZR SLFWXUHV RQO\ IRXU WLPHV :KHQ KH KHDUG WKH XQn DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV KH RIWHQ UHSHDWHG WKHP VORZO\ DQG WKRXJKW FDUHIXOO\ DERXW KLV DQVZHUV +LV FRPPHQWV LQGLFDWHG KLV FRPn SUHKHQVLRQ RI WKH VHQWHQFHV DQG WKH WDVNV LQYROYHG n6KRRWLQJ VWDUV DUH H[FLWLQJ"n +H WKHQ FKRVH WKH FRUUHFW SLFWXUH )RU WKH VHQWHQFH n6KRRWLQJ VWDUV LV H[FLWLQJn KH FRPPHQWHG n7KDW MXVW GRHVQnW VHHP ULJKW ,BV H[FLWLQJ" 2K 'n $QG IRU n0RYLQJ KRXVHV DUH IULJKWHQLQJn KH UHVSRQGHG n1RZ JHW LW KRXVHV WKDW DUH PRYLQJn 7KLV VXEMHFWnV LQGHFLVLRQ VHHPHG WR LPSO\ WKDW KH KDG RQO\ UHFHQWO\ DFTXLUHG RU ZDV VWLOO LQ WKH SURFHVV RI DFTXLULQJ WKH DELOLW\ WR KDQGOH WKHVH VHQWHQFHV $OWKRXJK QHLWKHU RI WKHVH WZR VXEMHFWV ZDV FRUUHFW RQ DOO RI WKH WHVW LWHPV HDFK FOHDUO\ GHPRQVWUDWHG DQ DELOLW\ WR GLVWLQJXLVK GXULQJ WKH WHVW EHWZHHQ WKH DPELJXRXV DQG XQDPn ELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV ,W ZDV QRW QHFHVVDU\ IRU WKHVH VXEMHFWV WR KHDU ERWK XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV RI D VHW WRJHWKHU LQ RUGHU IRU WKHP WR GLVWLQJXLVK EHWZHHQ WKH VHQWHQFHV 7KHVH VXEMHFWV VHHPHG ZHOO RQ WKHLU ZD\ WR DFTXLULQJ WKH OLQJXLVWLF VWUXFWXUHV DQG FRJQLWLYH FDSDFLWLHV QHFHVVDU\ IRU WKH WDVNV RI WKLV H[n SHULPHQW 7KH\ ZHUH WKH RQO\ WZR VXEMHFWV WR GLVSOD\ WKLV EHKDYLRU %HFDXVH WKH UHVXOWV RI WKLV H[SHULPHQW ZHUH VR GLIIHUHQW IURP WKRVH ZKLFK ZHUH K\SRWKHVL]HG WKH H[SHULPHQWHU GHFLGHG WR DOWHU WKH WHVW FRQGLWLRQV VRPHZKDW LQ RUGHU WR GHWHUPLQH

PAGE 37

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
PAGE 38

3URFHGXUH 7KH SURFHGXUH ZDV LGHQWLFDO WR WKDW RI ([SHULPHQW 5HVXOWV &KDQJLQJ WKH RUGHU RI WKH VHQWHQFHV VR WKDW WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV SUHFHGHG WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV GLG QRW DOWHU WKH VXEMHFWVn LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV RI WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV )LYH RI WKH VL[ VXEMHFWV VDZ DPELJXLW\ LQ HLJKW WR HOHYHQ RI WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV 7KH VL[WK VXEMHFW VDZ QR DPELJXLW\ LQ DQ\ RI WKH VHQWHQFHV $SSDUHQWO\ WKH RUGHU RI SUHVHQWDWLRQ ZKHWKHU WKDW ZKLFK ZDV XVHG LQ ([SHULPHQW RU WKDW XVHG LQ ([SHULPHQW ,, ZDV QRW UHOHYDQW WR WKH VXEMHFWVn SHUFHSWLRQ RI DPELJXLW\ 'LVFXVVLRQ :LWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI WKH VWXGHQW ZKR VDZ QR DPELJXLW\ LQ DQ\ RI WKH WKLUW\ WHVW VHQWHQFHV WKHUH ZDV QR GLIIHUHQFH E\ DJH RU VH[ LQ WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI DPELJXLW\ LQ ERWK WKH DPELJXRXV DQG WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKLV H[SHULPHQW VXJJHVW WKDW WKH RUGHU RI SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI WKHVH VHQWHQFHV GRHV QRW DIIHFW SHUIRUPDQFH 7KDW WKH VXEMHFWV SHUFHLYHG DPELJXLW\ LQ VHQWHQFHV WKDW ZHUH WKHRUHWLFDOO\ XQn DPELJXRXV VWLOO UHPDLQHG WR EH H[SODLQHG ([SHULPHQW ,,, 7KH ILUVW WZR H[SHULPHQWV GHPRQVWUDWHG IRXU SRLQWV 6XEMHFWV SHUFHLYHG DPELJXLW\ LQ ERWK WKH DPELJXRXV DQG WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV

PAGE 39

7KH RUGHU RI SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI WHVW VHQWHQFHV PD\ EH HLWKHU DPELJXRXV IROORZHG E\ XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV RU XQDPn ELJXRXV IROORZHG E\ DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV ZLWKRXW DQ\ HIIHFWV LQ WKH VXEMHFWVn SHUFHSWLRQ RI DPELJXLW\ 7KH YHUE IRUPV LBV DQG DUH ZKLFK VKRXOG KDYH GLVDPn ELJXDWHG WKH QRPLQ£LV GLG QRW $OWKRXJK WKH VXEMHFWV SHUFHLYHG PDQ\ RI WKH XQDPn ELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV DV DPELJXRXV WKH\ ZHUH DEOH WR GLVWLQJXLVK EHWZHHQ WKH WZR VHQWHQFHV RI WKH SDLU RI XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV ZKHQ WKRVH WZR VHQWHQFHV ZHUH SUHVHQWHG WRJHWKHU IRU WKHP WR FRPSDUH 7R UHVWDWH WKLV SRLQW LI WKH H[SHULPHQWHU DVNHG D VXEMHFW WR H[SODLQ WKH GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WZR VHQWHQFHV ZKLFK GLIIHUHG RQ WKH VXUIDFH RQO\ LQ WKH YHUE LVA RU DUH VXFK DV VHQWHQFHV G DQG H WKH VXEMHFWV ZHUH DOPRVW DOZD\V FDn SDEOH RI PDNLQJ WKH QHFHVVDU\ GLVWLQFWLRQ 7KH\ GLG QRW KRZHYHU XVH WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ GXULQJ WKH WHVW VLWXDWLRQ ,Qn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

PAGE 40

0HWKRG 6XEMHFWV )LYH VWXGHQWV IURP 3.
PAGE 41

WZR VHQWHQFHV )O\LQJ NLWHV LV IXQ DQG )O\LQJ NLWHV DUH IXQ"n 7KH H[SHULPHQWHU DJDLQ UHFRUGHG WKH VXEMHFWnV UHVSRQVHV DQG WKHQ EHJDQ WKH DFWXDO WHVW 7KH UHVW RI WKH WHVW FRQWLQXHG LQ WKH VDPH PDQQHU DV LQ ([SHULPHQW 5HVXOWV ,Q JHQHUDO H[SRVXUH WR WKH VHQWHQFH SDWWHUQV DQG H[n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n ELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV WKUHH GHPRQVWUDWHG DQ DELOLW\ WR GLVWLQJXLVK EHWZHHQ WKH WZR VHQWHQFHV LQ HDFK SDLU WKDW ZDV SUHVHQWHG LQ WKH SUHWHVW 7KDW DELOLW\ GLG QRW KRZHYHU DSSHDU GXULQJ WKH WHVW VLWXDWLRQ VLQFH WKH\ VWLOO FKRVH PRUH WKDQ RQH SLFWXUH VHYHUDO WLPHV 2QH VXEMHFW FRXOG QRW H[SODLQ D VHPDQWLF GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH WZR VHQWHQFHV LQ HDFK SDLU RI XQDPELJXRXV

PAGE 42

VHQWHQFHV LQ WKH SUHWHVW )RU KLP WKH VHQWHQFHV ZLWK WKH YHUE Le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n, OLNH YLVLWLQJ UHODWLYHVnf WKRVH ZKLFK KDG GMV WR OLNH LQILQLWLYH n, OLNH WR YLVLW UHODWLYHVnf DQG WKRVH ZKLFK KDG DUH WR OLNH QRXQ WKDW DUH YHUE LQJ n, OLNH UHODWLYHV WKDW DUH YLVLWLQJnf ,W ZDV KRSHG WKDW HOLPLQDWLQJ WKH YHUE EH ZRXOG HOLPLQDWH WKH VXEMHFWVn SUREOHPV LQ GLVn WLQJXLVKLQJ EHWZHHQ WKH WZR W\SHV RI QRPLQ£LV 0HWKRG 6XEMHFWV )RXU VWXGHQWV IURP 3.
PAGE 43

$SSDUDWXV 7KLV WHVW GHVLJQ LQFOXGHG WKH ILYH SUHWHVW VHQWHQFHV ZKLFK ZHUH XVHG LQ ([SHULPHQW WR DVVXUH WKDW WKH VXEMHFWV FRXOG DGHTXDWHO\ SHUIRUP WKH WDVN RI VHOHFWLQJ PRUH WKDQ RQH SLFWXUH LI PRUH WKDQ RQH SLFWXUH ZDV DSSURSULDWH WR WKH VHQWHQFH ZKLFK WKH\ KHDUG 7KH WHVW VHQWHQFHV ZKLFK DSSHDU LQ $SSHQGL[ % FRQVLVWHG RI WZHQW\VHYHQ VHQWHQFHV QLQH RI ZKLFK ZHUH DPELJXRXV DQG HLJKWHHQ RI ZKLFK ZHUH XQDPn ELJXRXV 2I WKH QLQH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV VL[ FRQVLVWHG RI OLNH QRPLQDO LQ ZKLFK WKH QRPLQDO FRXOG EH HLWKHU D VXEn MHFW QRPLQDO RU DQ REMHFW QRPLQDO 7KH RWKHU WKUHH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV ZHUH WKH VDPH WKUHH IURP WKH RULJLQDO WHVW GHVLJQ ZKLFK ZHUH QRW EXLOW RQ WKH QRPLQDO FDQ EH DGMHFWLYH VWUXFWXUH 7KH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV FRQVLVWHG RI WKH VL[ VHQWHQFHV IURP WKH RULJLQDO GHVLJQ ZKLFK ZHUH QRW GHSHQGHQW RQ WKH YHUE EH DQG RI WZHOYH VHQWHQFHV ZKLFK ZHUH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV RI WKH OLNH QRPLQDO VHQWHQFHV 7KHVH WZHOYH VHQWHQFHV FRQVLVWHG RI VL[ OLNH LQILQLWLYH VWUXFWXUHV DQG VL[ OLNH QRXQ WKDW DUH YHUE LQJ DV LQ WKH IROORZLQJ VHW M OLNH SOD\LQJ JURZQXSV N OLNH WR SOD\ JURZQXSV OLNH JURZQXSV WKDW DUH SOD\LQJ $V ZDV WUXH RI WKH GHVLJQ IRU ([SHULPHQW HDFK XQDPn ELJXRXV VHQWHQFH UHSUHVHQWHG RQH RI WKH PHDQLQJV FRQWDLQHG LQ WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV $JDLQ WKH SXUSRVH RI WKLV GHVLJQ FKDQJH ZDV WR HOLPLQDWH WKH SUREOHPV WKDW DURVH ZLWK WKH YHUE EH 7KH UHPDLQLQJ DVSHFWV RI WKH DSSDUDWXVf§WKH VOLGHV SURMHFWRU DQG VFRUH VKHHWf§ZHUH WKH VDPH DV WKRVH LQ ([SHULn PHQW ,

PAGE 44

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£LV ,Q HYHQ WKH PRVW XQOLNHO\ FDVHV IRU H[DPSOH n, OLNH WR YLVLW UHODWLYHVn WZR RI WKH VXEMHFWV FKRVH WZR SLFWXUHV 'LVFXVVLRQ 1R PDWWHU ZKDW WKH PHWKRG RI WHVWLQJ LW VHHPHG WKDW WKH VXEMHFWV FRXOG QRW EH IRUFHG LQWR GLVWLQJXLVKLQJ EHWZHHQ ZKHQ WKH VXEMHFWQRPLQDO LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ ZDV DSSURSULDWH DQG ZKHQ WKH REMHFWQRPLQDO LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ ZDV DSSURSULDWH )RU VRPH UHDVRQ WKH VXEMHFWV DSSHDUHG WR EH WUHDWLQJ DOO RI WKH QRPLQ£LV DV VXUIDFH OH[LFDO LWHPV UDWKHU WKDQ DV GHULYHG VWUXFWXUHV ([SHULPHQW 9 %HFDXVH WKHUH ZHUH QR DJH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ HLWKHU WKH SHUn FHSWLRQ RI DPELJXLW\ RU LQ SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV LW UHPDLQHG XQFOHDU DV WR ZKHQ VXEMHFWV DFWXDOO\

PAGE 45

EHJLQ WR PDNH WKH GLVWLQFWLRQV QHFHVVDU\ WR SHUIRUP ZHOO RQ WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV 6RPH RI WKH UHVXOWV RI WKH SUHn FHGLQJ H[SHULPHQWV LPSOLHG WKDW WKH DELOLW\ WR LQWHUSUHW WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ WKH WULR RI VHQWHQFHV PDGH XS RI DQ DPn ELJXRXV VHQWHQFH DQG LWV WZR XQDPELJXRXV FRXQWHUSDUWV WKH DELOLW\ WR GLVWLQJXLVK EHWZHHQ WKH WZR XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV LQ WKH WULR DQG WKH DELOLW\ WR UHFRJQL]H WKDW WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV ZHUH LQ IDFW XQDPELJXRXV ZHUH DYDLODEOH RQO\ WR WKRVH SHRSOH ZKR KDYH DQ RYHUW LQWHUHVW LQ ODQJXDJH 7KHVH DELOLWLHV FHUWDLQO\ GLG QRW VHHP WR EH D SDUW RI WKHVH QDWLYH VSHDNHUVn LQWXLWLRQV DERXW ODQJXDJH ,W ZDV GHFLGHG WKDW LW ZRXOG EH KHOSIXO WR NQRZ KRZ FROOHJHDJHG DGXOWV ZRXOG SHUIRUP WKH WDVNV RI ([SHULPHQW LQ WKLV LQYHVWLJDWLRQ ,I WKH\ KDG QR SUREOHPV ZLWK WKH WHVW VHQWHQFHV WKHQ VRPHZKHUH EHWZHHQ WKH DJHV RI DQG \HDUV WKHUH VKRXOG EH D SRLQW ZKLFK FRXOG EH ODEHOHG nWKH QRUPDO DJH RI DFTXLVLWLRQn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

PAGE 46

EXW VKRXOG EH DQ DFWLYH SDUW RI DQ\ QDWLYH VSHDNHUn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
PAGE 47

VHYHQW\ WRWDO H[SRVXUHV WR WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV 2XW RI WKHVH VHYHQW\ H[SRVXUHV WKH VXEMHFWV FRUUHFWO\ FKRVH WZR SLFWXUHV WZHQW\QLQH WLPHV RU SHUFHQW RI WKH WLPH 3HUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV ZDV PXFK EHWWHU 7ZHQW\ XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV SUHVHQWHG WR WKH VHYHQ VXEMHFWV SURYLGHG RQH KXQGUHG IRUW\ H[SRVXUHV WR WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQn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n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

PAGE 48

DQG VHHLQJ DPELJXLW\ LQ XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV SHUFHQW RI WKH WLPH ZLWK WZHQW\QLQH HUURUV LQ WKH FKRLFH RI SLFWXUHV IRU WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV ZRXOG QRW VHHP WR EH D GHPRQVWUDWLRQ RI SURILFLHQF\ ZLWK WKHVH WHVW LWHPV ,W LV WUXH WKDW WKHVH VXEn MHFWV FKRVH WZR SLFWXUHV RQO\ SHUFHQW RI WKH WLPH ZKHUHDV WKH VXEMHFWV LQ WKH SUHYLRXV H[SHULPHQWV FKRVH WZR SLFWXUHV IURP SHUFHQW WR SHUFHQW RI WKH WLPH 7KH VXEMHFWVn SHUIRUPDQFHV GXULQJ WKH WHVW DQG WKHLU FRPPHQWV DIWHU WKH WHVW RIWHQ LQGLFDWHG GLIIHUHQW WKLQJV )RU H[DPSOH RQH VXEMHFW FKRVH WZR SLFWXUHV IRU RQO\ WKUHH DPn ELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV DQG FKRVH RQO\ RQH SLFWXUH IRU HDFK RI WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV $OWKRXJK WKH WHVW GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW WKLV VXEMHFW XQGHUVWRRG WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV LW GLG QRW LQGLFDWH WKDW KH SHUFHLYHG WKH DPELJXLW\ LQ WKH ILUVW WHQ VHQWHQFHV +LV FRPPHQWV DIWHU WKH WHVW KRZHYHU VKRZHG WKDW KH XQGHUVWRRG QRW RQO\ WKH DPELJXLWLHV nZLWK FDQ EH LW FDQ KDYH WZR PHDQLQJVnf EXW DOVR WKH GHVLJQ RI WKH WHVW nFKDQJLQJ IURP FDQ EH WR BLV DQG DUHn f $OWKRXJK WKLV DELOLW\ WR GHVFULEH WKH WHVW GHVLJQ VHHPV TXLWH VLPSOH YHU\ IHZ RI WKH VXEMHFWV UHJDUGOHVV RI DJH ZHUH DEOH WR H[SODLQ ZKDW ZDV KDSSHQLQJ GXULQJ WKH WHVW $QRWKHU VXEMHFWnV SHUIRUPDQFH GXULQJ WKH WHVW GLIIHUHG IURP KLV FRPPHQWV DIWHU WKH WHVW 7KLV VXEMHFW FKRVH WZR SLFWXUHV IRU VHYHQ RI WKH WHQ DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV DQG IRU ILYH RI WKH WZHQW\ XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV
PAGE 49

/LNH WKH \RXQJHU VXEMHFWV WKH DGXOWV ZHUH DEOH WR GLVn WLQJXLVK EHWZHHQ VHQWHQFHV ZLWK BLV DQG WKRVH ZLWK DUH LI WKH WZR VHQWHQFHV ZHUH SUHVHQWHG WRJHWKHU IRU WKHP WR FRPSDUH 7KH\ WRR GLG QRW DOZD\V HPSOR\ WKLV GLVWLQFWLRQ ZKHQ WKH\ FKRVH SLFWXUHV 'LVFXVVLRQ RI ([SHULPHQWV 7KURXJK 9 $Q H[SHULPHQW ZDV GHVLJQHG WR GHWHUPLQH WKH DJH DW ZKLFK FKLOGUHQ GHYHORS WKH DELOLW\ WR SHUFHLYH GHHSVWUXFWXUH DPn ELJXLW\ DV LQ WKH VHQWHQFH n)O\LQJ NLWHV FDQ EH H[FLWLQJn ,W ZDV K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW WKH DELOLW\ WR SHUFHLYH ERWK PHDQLQJV LQ WKLV VHQWHQFH ZRXOG GHYHORS RQO\ DIWHU WKH FKLOG FRXOG FRPn SUHKHQG ERWK RI WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV ZKLFK UHSUHVHQW WKH PHDQLQJV ZKLFK DUH FRQWDLQHG LQ WKLV DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFH 7KHVH WZR VHQWHQFHV DUH n)O\LQJ NLWHV LV H[FLWLQJn DQG n)O\LQJ NLWHV DUH H[FLWLQJ 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKLV H[SHULPHQW ZHUH FRPSOHWHO\ GLIIHUHQW IURP WKRVH ZKLFK ZHUH DQWLFLSDWHG 7KHUH ZDV QR VLJQLILFDQW DJH GLIIHUHQFH LQ DELOLW\ WR SHUFHLYH WKH DPELJXLW\ RI WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV :KDW WKH VXEMHFWV IDLOHG WR FRPSUHKHQG ZDV WKH IDFW WKDW WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV ZHUH XQDPELJXRXV 7KHVH VXEMHFWV UHSHDWHGO\ VDZ PRUH WKDQ RQH PHDQLQJ IRU WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV ,Q RUGHU WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU WKH VXEMHFWVn EHKDYLRUV ZHUH WKH UHVXOW RI VRPH IHDWXUH RI WKH GHVLJQ RU LI LQ IDFW WKH VXEMHFWV FRXOG QRW FRPSUHKHQG WKDW WKHVH VHQWHQFHV ZHUH QRW DPELJXRXV DQG LI QRW ZK\ IRXU PRUH GHVLJQV ZHUH XVHG 7KH UHVXOWV IURP WKHVH IRXU H[SHULPHQWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW ZLWK WKH

PAGE 50

H[FHSWLRQ RI WKH DGXOWV DQG UHJDUGOHVV RI WHVW GHVLJQ WKH VXEMHFWV ZHUH XQDEOH WR WHOO WKDW WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV ZHUH XQDPELJXRXV XQOHVV WKH SDLU RI XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV ZDV SUHVHQWHG WRJHWKHU IRU WKH VXEMHFWV WR FRPSDUH 2QO\ WKHQ FRXOG WKH VXEMHFWV H[SODLQ WKH GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH WZR VHQn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nZK\ GLG WKH VXEMHFWV SHUIRUP VR GLIIHUHQWO\ IURP WKH ZD\ WKDW WKH WKHRU\ KDG OHG PH WR SUHGLFW"n 7KLV TXHVWLRQ RI FRXUVH HPERGLHG PDQ\ RWKHU TXHVWLRQV 6LQFH WKH RQO\ GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUH LQ WKH SDLUV RI XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV VXFK DV n)O\LQJ NLWHV LV H[n FLWLQJn DQG n)O\LQJ NLWHV DUH H[FLWLQJn OLHV LQ WKH YHUEV LBV

PAGE 51

DQG DUH LW DSSHDUHG WKDW WKHVH YHUEV ZHUH QRW PHDQLQJIXO WR WKH VXEMHFWV LQ WKHLU LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV RI WKH VHQWHQFHV 7KHUH ZDV QR TXHVWLRQ WKDW WKH VXEMHFWV KHDUG WKH YHUEV VLQFH WKH H[SHULPHQWHU YLRODWHG WKH FRQGLWLRQV RI WKH RULJLQDO H[SHULn PHQW WR PDNH VXUH WKDW WKH\ KHDUG WKHVH YHUEV :KDW ZDV XQn FOHDU ZDV ZKHWKHU LW ZDV WKH YHUE EH RU WKH SUHVHQFH RU DEn VHQFH RI WKH SOXUDO PDUNHU RQ WKH YHUE ZKLFK ZDV FDXVLQJ SUREn OHPV IRU WKH VXEMHFWV ,W VHHPHG TXLWH SRVVLEOH WKDW LW ZDV WKH YHUE EH EHFDXVH WKLV YHUE FDUULHV QR PHDQLQJ ,Q RUGHU WR GHWHUPLQH ZKLFK RI WKHVH IDFWRUV ZDV RSHUDWLQJ D FRPSOHWHO\ QHZ WHVW GHVLJQ ZDV GHYHORSHG 7KLV GHVLJQ WHVWHG ERWK WKH YHUE Ee DQG WKH SOXUDO PDUNHU LQ WKH FRQWH[WV RI WZHOYH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV DQG WZHOYH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV

PAGE 52

&+$37(5 ,,, (;3(5,0(17 9, 7KH VXEMHFWV ZKR SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKH ILUVW ILYH H[SHULn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

PAGE 53

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e DQG WKH YHUE ORRN ZHUH WHVWHG LQ ERWK VLQJXODU DQG SOXUDO IRUPV 7KLV ZDV GRQH WR GHWHUPLQH LI VXEMHFWV ZRXOG KDYH WKH VDPH SUREOHPV LI WKH PDLQ YHUE LQ WKH VHQWHQFH ZHUH QRW VRPH IRUP RI EH $QRWKHU YDULDEOH LQ WKLV GHVLJQ ZDV WKH W\SH RI QRPLQDO 7ZHOYH RI WKH QRPLQ£LV ZHUH DPELJXRXV DQG WZHOYH ZHUH QRW $OO RI WKH QRPLQ£LV FRQWDLQHG D SOXUDO QRXQ 7KH VXEMHFWV ZHUH DVNHG WR VHOHFW WKH FRUUHFW YHUE IRUP WKDW LV WKH\ ZHUH WR FLUFOH LV RU DUH LQ WZHOYH VHQWHQFHV DQG ORRNV RU ORRN LQ WZHOYH VHQWHQFHV )RU WKH DPELJXRXV QRPLQ£LV HLWKHU IRUP RI WKH YHUE ZRXOG EH FRUUHFW 6HH VHQWHQFHV G DQG Hf

PAGE 54

+RZHYHU IRU WKH XQDPELJXRXV QRPLQ£LV WKHUH ZDV RQO\ RQH FRUUHFW YHUE IRUP IRU HDFK VHQWHQFH 6HH VHQWHQFHV I WKURXJK Lf G 6DLOLQJ ERDWV LVDUH GDQJHURXV H 6DLOLQJ ERDWV ORRNVORRN GDQJHURXV I 0DNLQJ FRRNLHV LVDUH IXQ J 0DNLQJ FRRNLHV ORRNVORRN IXQ K 5RDULQJ OLRQV LVDUH VFDU\ L 5RDULQJ OLRQV ORRNVORRN VFDU\ 7KH QRPLQ£LV LQ VHQWHQFHV I DQG J DUH REMHFW QRPLQ£LV DQG WKH RQO\ JUDPPDWLFDO YHUE IRUP LQ HDFK VHQWHQFH LV WKH VLQJXODU IRUP 7KH QRPLQ£LV LQ VHQWHQFHV K DQG L KRZn HYHU DUH VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV DQG DUH JUDPPDWLFDO ZLWK RQO\ WKH SOXUDO IRUP RI WKH YHUE %HFDXVH WKH VXEMHFWV LQ WKH SUHYLRXV H[SHULPHQWV KDG YLHZHG VHQWHQFHV VXFK DV G DV DPELJXRXV LW ZDV VXVSHFWHG WKDW WKH VXEMHFWV LQ WKLV H[SHULPHQW PLJKW GR WKH VDPH ,W ZDV DOVR H[SHFWHG WKDW VRPH VXEMHFWV PLJKW FKRRVH WKH SOXUDO YHUE IRUP IRU DOO RI WKH QRPLQ£LV EHFDXVH WKH QRPLQDO SKUDVHV HQG LQ e DQG WKH SOXUDO QRXQ LV QH[W WR WKH YHUE 7KLV W\SH RI EHKDYLRU FRQVWLWXWHV D VWUDWHJ\ ZKLFK PD\ QRW DOZD\V SURn GXFH WKH FRUUHFW UHVXOW )RU H[DPSOH LQ VHQWHQFH I VRPH VSHDNHUV PD\ FKRRVH DUH EHFDXVH WKH QRXQ FRRNLHV ZKLFK LV SOXUDO LV QH[W WR WKH YHUE $OWKRXJK WKH ZRUG FRRNLHV LV QRW WKH VXEMHFW RI WKH VHQWHQFH LW ZDV IHOW WKDW VRPH VSHDNHUV PLJKW EHKDYH DV LI LW ZHUH 6XFK D VWUDWHJ\ ZRXOG JHQHUDWH WKH XQJUDPPDWLFDO VHQWHQFHV M DQG N

PAGE 55

rM 0DNLQJ FRRNLHV DUH IXQ rN 0DNLQJ FRRNLHV ORRN IXQ 7KLV VWUDWHJ\ DSSOLHG WR VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV DOVR JHQHUDWHV WKH SOXUDO YHUE IRUP EXW LQ WKLV FDVH LW LV WKH FRUUHFW IRUP ,I WKLV VWUDWHJ\ LV DFWXDOO\ EHLQJ XWLOL]HG WKHUH VKRXOG EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH HUURUV ZLWK REMHFW QRPLQ£LV WKDQ ZLWK VXEn MHFW QRPLQ£LV 7KH VXEMHFWVn EHKDYLRU RQ WKLV WHVW VKRXOG LQGLFDWH WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH YHUE IRUP LQ LQWHUSUHWLQJ WKH QRPLQDO ,I WKHUH ZHUH QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH HUURUV ZLWK REMHFW QRPLQ£LV WKDQ ZLWK VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV LW PLJKW PHDQ WKDW WKH YHUE IRUP ZDV LUUHOHYDQW WR WKH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI QRPLQ£LV 7KLV ZRXOG IROORZ LI WKH V\QWDFWLF LQIRUPDWLRQ FRQWDLQHG LQ WKH YHUE ZHUH QRW HQRXJK WR RYHUULGH WKH DPELJXLW\ RI WKH QRPLQDO 7KHUH ZHUH WZR RWKHU TXHVWLRQV ZKLFK WKLV GHVLJQ DWWHPSWHG WR DQVZHU ,V WKHUH D GHYHORSPHQWDO SRLQW DW ZKLFK WKH YHUE EHn FRPHV UHOHYDQW WR WKH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH QRPLQDO" ,V WKLV OLQJXLVWLF EHKDYLRU LQ DQ\ ZD\ D IXQFWLRQ RI HGXFDWLRQ" ,W VHHPV WKDW WKH DELOLW\ WR GLVWLQJXLVK EHWZHHQ n)O\LQJ NLWHV LV IXQn DQG n)O\LQJ NLWHV DUH IXQn VKRXOG QRW EH UHODWHG WR KRZ ZHOO D SHUVRQ KDV OHDUQHG KLV (QJOLVK JUDPPDU OHVVRQV 6LQFH WKH WZR VHQWHQFHV UHSUHVHQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ PHDQLQJ WKH\ VKRXOG EH GLIIHUHQW WR DOO QDWLYH VSHDNHUV RI (QJOLVK ZKR SUHVXPDEO\ FXW XS WKH VHPDQWLF VSHFWUXP DORQJ WKH VDPH OLQHV 7KHUH LV VRPH LQGLFDWLRQ KRZHYHU WKDW WKHVH VHQWHQFHV KDYH

PAGE 56

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
PAGE 57

DQG WKH SOXUDO IRUPV RI WKH YHUE EH LQ WKH SUHVHQW WHQVH RU WKH YHUE ORRN LQ WKH SUHVHQW WHQVH $OO RI WKH VHQWHQFHV KDG D QRPLQDO YHUE DGMHFWLYH IRUPDW ,Q WZHOYH RI WKH VHQn WHQFHV WKH QRPLQDO ZDV DPELJXRXV WKDW LV LW FRXOG EH HLWKHU D VXEMHFW QRPLQDO RU DQ REMHFW QRPLQDO IRU H[DPSOH nIO\LQJ NLWHVnf )RU WKHVH WZHOYH VHQWHQFHV ERWK WKH VLQJXODU DQG WKH SOXUDO IRUPV RI WKH YHUE ZHUH JUDPPDWLFDO ,Q WKH RWKHU WZHOYH VHQWHQFHV WKH QRPLQ£LV ZHUH QRW DPELJXRXV VL[ QRPLQ£LV ZHUH VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV DQG VL[ ZHUH REMHFW QRPLQ£LV 7KH VXEn MHFW QRPLQ£LV ZHUH JUDPPDWLFDO ZLWK RQO\ WKH SOXUDO YHUE DQG WKH REMHFW QRPLQ£LV ZHUH JUDPPDWLFDO ZLWK RQO\ WKH VLQJXODU YHUE (DFK QRPLQDO LQ WKH WHVW ZDV SDLUHG ZLWK WKH YHUE EH LQ RQH VHQWHQFH DQG WKH YHUE ORRN LQ DQRWKHU VHQWHQFH 7KH RUGHU RI WKH VHQWHQFHV RQ WKH WHVW ZDV UDQGRP $ FRS\ RI WKLV WHVW LV LQ $SSHQGL[ 3URFHGXUH 7KLV WHVW ZDV DGPLQLVWHUHG LQ WKH FODVVURRPV DW 3.
PAGE 58

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f§ DUH DQG ORRN DQG WZR FDWHJRULHV ODEHOOHG EH DQG ON IRU WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV 7KH VXEMHFWVn UHVSRQVHV ZHUH UHFRUGHG LQ WKH IROORZLQJ PDQQHU IRU WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV D FRUUHFW UHVSRQVH ZDV FRGHG DV DQG DQ LQFRUUHFW UHVSRQVH ZDV FRGHG DV %HFDXVH WKHUH ZDV QR ZD\ WR PDNH DQ LQFRUUHFW FKRLFH RI YHUE LQ WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV VHOHFWLRQ RI WKH VLQJXODU YHUE IRUP ZDV FRGHG DV DQG RI WKH SOXUDO YHUE IRUP ZDV FRGHG DV 7KH GDWD ZHUH DOVR DQDO\]HG IURP WKH SHUVSHFWLYH RI WKH QRPLQ£LV 7KHUH ZHUH WKUHH FDWHJRULHV RI QRPLQ£LV )RU WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV WKH FDWHJRULHV ZHUH HLWKHU 6XEMHFW RU 2EMHFW QRPLQ£LV )RU WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV WKH QRPLQDO

PAGE 59

FRXOG EH LQWHUSUHWHG DV HLWKHU VXEMHFW RU REMHFW DQG WKHUHn IRUH WKH FDWHJRU\ IRU WKH QRPLQ£LV LQ WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV ZDV ODEHOOHG 6XEM2EM 7KH QXPEHUV LQ WKH ILUVW WZR FDWHJRULHV ZHUH WKH QXPEHU RI WLPHV WKH VXEMHFWV FKRVH WKH ZURQJ YHUE IRUP IRU D SDUWLFXODU QRPLQDO W\SH 7KH QXPEHUV LQ WKH FDWHJRU\ 6XEM2EM ZHUH WKH QXPEHU RI WLPHV VXEMHFWV FKRVH D SOXUDO YHUE IRUP IRU WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV 7KH UHVSRQVHV IRU QRPLQ£LV DOVR UHSUHVHQW D FROODSVLQJ RI WKH YHUEV ZKLFK ZHUH DSSURSULDWH IRU WKH SDUWLFXODU QRPLQDO W\SH )RU H[DPSOH WKH PHDQ IRU QLQH\HDUROG PDOHV ZLWK UHVSHFW WR VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV UHSUHVHQWV D FROODSVLQJ RI WKH VFRUHV IRU QLQH\HDUROG PDOHV RQ WKH YHUEV DUH DQG ORRN EHFDXVH WKHVH WZR YHUE IRUPV DUH WKH FRUUHFW UHn VSRQVHV IRU VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV 2QH ILQDO SRLQW DOO RI WKH VXEMHFWV ROGHU WKDQ WZHOYH ZHUH FRPELQHG LQWR RQH JURXS 7KH VXEMHFWV DFWXDOO\ ZHUH EHn WZHHQ WKH DJHV RI HLJKWHHQ DQG WZHQW\QLQH EXW WKH\ ZHUH DOO FRQVLGHUHG LQ RQH DJH JURXS ZKLFK ZDV ODEHOOHG \HDU ROGV 5HVXOWV 9HUEV LQ XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV )RU WKRVH VHQWHQFHV ZKLFK ZHUH QRW DPELJXRXV WKHUH ZDV D WKUHHZD\ LQWHUDFWLRQ RI VH[ DJH DQG YHUE ZKLFK ZDV VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO 7KH WZRZD\ LQWHUDFWLRQ RI VH[ DQG YHUE ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO 7KH DJH E\ YHUE LQWHUDFWLRQ DQG WKH VH[ E\ DJH LQWHUDFWLRQV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW WKH IRUPHU DW DQ DOSKD OHYHO RI DQG WKH ODWWHU DW DQ DOSKD OHYHO RI $OWKRXJK WKH PDLQ HIIHFW RI VH[ ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQW WKH PDLQ HIIHFWV RI DJH DQG RI YHUE ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO

PAGE 60

)LJXUHV WKURXJK LQGLFDWH WKH SHUFHQW RI LQFRUUHFW UHVSRQVHV IRU PDOH DQG IHPDOH VXEMHFWV DW HDFK DJH LQWHUYDO IRU WKH IRXU YHUE IRUPV )LJXUH LQGLFDWHV WKH QXPEHU RI WLPHV VXEMHFWV FKRVH WKH YHUE DUH ZKHQ WKH FRUUHFW UHVSRQVH ZDV BLV )LJXUH LQGLFDWHV WKH QXPEHU RI LQFRUUHFW UHVSRQVHV IRU DUH )LJXUH IRU ORRNV DQG )LJXUH IRU ORRN ,I WKH IRXU ILJXUHV DUH LPSRVHG RQ RQH JUDSK WKH WKUHHZD\ LQWHUDFWLRQ EHFRPHV HYLn GHQW 7KHVH VFRUHV DUH DOVR OLVWHG LQ 7DEOH ,V :KHQ WKH FRUUHFW UHVSRQVH ZDV LVA WKH VHYHQ\HDUROG PDOH DQG IHPDOH VXEMHFWVn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n VFRUHV LPSURYHG WR SHUFHQW ZKLOH WKH IHPDOHVn VFRUHV ZRUVHQHG E\ SHUFHQWDJH SRLQWV WR SHUFHQW )RU WKH WZHOYH\HDU ROGV WKHUH ZDV DQRWKHU UHYHUVDO 7KH PDOHVn VFRUHV URVH WR SHUFHQW LQFRUUHFW ZKLOH WKH IHPDOHV LPSURYHG E\ SHUFHQW WR SHUFHQW LQFRUUHFW )LQDOO\ WKH VFRUHV

PAGE 61

IRU PDOH DQG IHPDOH DGXOWV ZHUH QHDUO\ LGHQWLFDO DW SHUFHQW DQG SHUFHQW UHVSHFWLYHO\ $UH 7KH VXEMHFWVn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f§ SHUFHQW DQG IHPDOHV PDGH VOLJKWO\ IHZHU HUURUVf§ SHUFHQW 7KH DGXOW PDOHV DJDLQ LPSURYHG VOLJKWO\ WKLV WLPH WR SHUFHQW DQG WKH IHPDOHV PDGH HUURUV SHUFHQW RI WKH WLPH )URP WKH DJH RI WHQ WR DGXOW QRQH RI WKH VFRUHV ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW $OWKRXJK WKH VFRUHV IRU PDOH DQG IHPDOH VXEMHFWV DOWHUQDWHG LQ WHUPV RI ZKLFK VH[ KDG IHZHU HUURUV DW HDFK RI WKHVH DJHV WKH IDFW WKDW WKHUH ZDV QR

PAGE 62

7$%/( 3HUFHQW RI ,QFRUUHFW E\ 0DOH 5HVSRQVHV DQG )HPDOH RQ WKH )RXU 6XEMHFWV 9HUE )RUPV $JH 6H[ ,V $UH /RRNV /RRN 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 1RWH $OO VFRUHV DUH URXQGHG RII WR WKH QHDUHVW SHUFHQWDJH SRLQW

PAGE 63

f 0DOH f )HPDOH )LJXUH 3HUFHQW RI LQFRUUHFW UHVSRQVHV IRU WKH YHUE IRUP ,V E\ PDOH DQG IHPDOH VXEMHFWV

PAGE 64

f m 0DOH f )HPDOH )LJXUH 3HUFHQW RI LQFRUUHFW UHVSRQVHV IRU WKH YHUE IRUP $UH E\ PDOH DQG IHPDOH VXEMHFWV

PAGE 65

D m 0DOH f D )HPDOH )LJXUH 3HUFHQW RI LQFRUUHFW UHVSRQVHV IRU WKH YHUE IRUP /RRNV E\ PDOH DQG IHPDOH VXEMHFWV

PAGE 66

0DOH r )HPDOH )LJXUH 3HUFHQW RI LQFRUUHFW UHVSRQVHV IRU WKH YHUE IRUP /RRN E\ PDOH DQG IHPDOH VXEMHFWV

PAGE 67

VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKHVH VFRUHV LQGLFDWHV WKDW WKHUH ZDV QR JHQXLQH LPSURYHPHQW DIWHU WKH DJH RI /RRN $W WKH DJH RI PDOH VXEMHFWV FKRVH ORRNV SHUFHQW RI WKH WLPHV WKDW WKH\ VKRXOG KDYH FKRVHQ ORRN )Hn PDOH VXEMHFWV FKRVH ORRNV LQFRUUHFWO\ SHUFHQW RI WKH WLPH $W HLJKW PDOH VXEMHFWV FKRVH ORRNV LQFRUUHFWO\ SHUFHQW ZKLOH IHPDOHV PDGH HUURUV SHUFHQW RI WKH WLPH 1LQH\HDU ROG PDOH DQG IHPDOH VXEMHFWV PDGH HUURUV DQG SHUFHQW RI WKH WLPH UHVSHFWLYHO\ %RWK PDOH DQG IHPDOH VXEMHFWV LPSURYHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ E\ WKH DJH RI WHQ WR DQG SHUFHQW UHVSHFn WLYHO\ $W PDOHV LPSURYHG WR SHUFHQW ZKLOH IHPDOHV VWD\HG DW SHUFHQW $W WKH PDOHV DJDLQ LPSURYHG WKLV WLPH WKH\ PDGH QR HUURUV 7KH IHPDOHV LPSURYHG VOLJKWO\ WR SHUFHQW $V DGXOWV WKH PDOH VXEMHFWV PDGH HUURUV RQO\ SHUFHQW RI WKH WLPH DQG IHPDOHV LPSURYHG WR SHUFHQW 1RPLQ£LV LQ XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV 7KLV FDWHJRU\ LV VLPSO\ D GLIIHUHQW SHUVSHFWLYH RQ WKH VDPH GDWD 7KH VFRUHV DUH WKH FRPELQHG VFRUHV IRU ERWK WKH YHUEV ZKLFK ZHUH JUDPn PDWLFDO IRU D SDUWLFXODU QRPLQDO W\SH )RU H[DPSOH LQ WKH VHQWHQFH n*URZOLQJ OLRQV LVDUHf§ORRNVORRN VFDU\n ERWK DUH DQG ORRN DUH JUDPPDWLFDO EHFDXVH WKLV VHQWHQFH FRQWDLQV D VXEMHFW QRPLQDO 7KHVH VFRUHV WKHQ LQGLFDWH WKH QXPEHU RI HUURUV LQ FKRLFH RI YHUE WKDW PDOHV DQG IHPDOHV DW HDFK DJH LQWHUYDO PDGH IRU D SDUWLFXODU W\SH RI QRPLQDO 7KH SXUSRVH RI ORRNLQJ DW WKHVH GDWD LQ WKLV PDQQHU LV WR GHWHUPLQH ZKLFK W\SH RI QRPLQDO SUHVHQWHG PRUH GLIILFXOW\ WR WKH VXEMHFWV

PAGE 68

7KH UHVXOW RI WKLV DQDO\VLV ZDV WKDW WKHUH ZDV D VLJQLILn FDQW WKUHHZD\ LQWHUDFWLRQ RI VH[ DJH DQG QRPLQDO DW WKH OHYHO RI VLJQLILFDQFH 7KH WZRZD\ LQWHUDFWLRQV RI VH[ E\ QRPLQDO DQG RI DJH E\ QRPLQDO ZHUH QRW VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO 7KH VH[ E\ DJH LQWHUDFWLRQ ZDV VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO RI 7KH PDLQ HIIHFW RI VH[ ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQW EXW WKH PDLQ HIIHFWV RI DJH DQG RI QRPLQDO ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO RI 7KHVH VFRUHV DUH OLVWHG LQ 7DEOH DQG WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ LV HYLGHQW LQ )LJXUH $W WKH DJH RI PDOH DQG IHPDOH VXEMHFWV PDGH HUURUV ZLWK REMHFW QRPLQ£LV SHUFHQW RI WKH WLPH )RU WKH VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV PDOHV PDGH HUURUV SHUFHQW DQG IHPDOHV SHUFHQW RI WKH WLPH $W HLJKW PDOH VXEMHFWV LPSURYHG RQ VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV WR SHUFHQW EXW KDG SHUFHQW LQFRUUHFW ZLWK REn MHFW QRPLQ£LV )HPDOHV PDGH PRUH HUURUV RQ ERWK VXEMHFW DQG REMHFW QRPLQ£LV SHUFHQW DQG SHUFHQW UHVSHFWLYHO\ $W QLQH PDOHV LPSURYHG ZLWK REMHFW QRPLQ£LV WR SHUn FHQW EXW ZLWK VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV WKH\ ZHUH LQFRUUHFW SHUFHQW RI WKH WLPH 7KH IHPDOHV LPSURYHG RQ VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV WR SHUFHQW LQFRUUHFW DQG RQ REMHFW QRPLQ£LV WR SHUFHQW LQn FRUUHFW $W WKH PDOHV VWD\HG WKH VDPH RQ REMHFW QRPLQ£LV EXW LPSURYHG ZLWK VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV WR SHUFHQW LQFRUUHFW )HPDOHV LPSURYHG ZLWK VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV WR SHUFHQW EXW KDG SHUFHQW LQFRUUHFW RQ REMHFW QRPLQ£LV $W WKH DJH RI PDOH VXEMHFWV LPSURYHG VRPHZKDW WR SHUFHQW RQ VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV DQG LPSURYHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ WR SHUFHQW RQ REMHFW

PAGE 69

7$%/( 3HUFHQW RI ,QFRUUHFW 5HVSRQVHV RQ 6XEMHFW DQG 2EMHFW 1RPLQ£LV E\ 0DOH DQG )HPDOH 6XEMHFWV $JH 6H[ 6XEMHFW 1RPLQDO 2EMHFW 1RPLQDO 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 1RWH $OO VFRUHV DUH URXQGHG RII WR WKH QHDUHVW SHUFHQWDJH SRLQW

PAGE 70

f R 6XEMHFW 1RPLQ£LV 0DOHV f 2EMHFW 1RPLQ£LV 0DOHV r n 6XEMHFW 1RPLQ£LV )HPDOHV f r 2EMHFW 1RPLQ£LV )HPDOHV )LJXUH 3HUFHQW RI LQFRUUHFW UHVSRQVHV RQ VXEMHFW DQG REMHFW QRPLQ£LV E\ PDOH DQG IHPDOH VXEMHFWV

PAGE 71

QRPLQ£LV )HPDOH VXEMHFWV LPSURYHG MXVW VOLJKWO\ WR SHUFHQW ZLWK VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV EXW PDGH VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH HUURUV SHUFHQW ZLWK REMHFW QRPLQ£LV )RU WKH \HDU ROGV WKHUH ZDV D SRLQW GLYHUJHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH VFRUHV IRU WKH PDOH VXEMHFWV DV WKH\ KDG SHUn FHQW LQFRUUHFW ZLWK REMHFW QRPLQ£LV DQG QR HUURUV ZLWK VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV 7KH IHPDOH VXEMHFWV PDGH HUURUV SHUFHQW RI WKH WLPH IRU ERWK VXEMHFW DQG REMHFW QRPLQ£LV $GXOWV ZHUH PRUH FRQVLVWHQW E\ VH[ 7KH PDOHV KDG SHUFHQW LQFRUUHFW IRU WKH REMHFW QRPLQ£LV ZKLOH IHPDOHV KDG SHUFHQW LQFRUUHFW IRU WKH REMHFW QRPLQ£LV DQG ERWK VH[HV KDG SHUFHQW LQFRUn UHFW IRU WKH VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV 9HUEV LQ DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV 7KH VFRUHV LQ WKLV FDWHn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n GLFDWHV WKH SHUFHQWDJH RI SOXUDO YHUE IRUPV WKDW WKH VXEMHFWV FKRVH IRU HDFK PDLQ YHUE DW HDFK DJH LQWHUYDO IRU WKRVH VHQn WHQFHV ZKLFK ZHUH DPELJXRXV

PAGE 72

7$%/( 3HUFHQW RI &KRLFHV RI $UH DQG /RRN LQ WKH $PELJXRXV 6HQWHQFHV $JH $UH /RRN 1RWH $OO VFRUHV DUH URXQGHG RII WR WKH QHDUHVW RQHKDOI SHUFHQWDJH SRLQW

PAGE 73

f } $UH f /RRN )LJXUH 3HUFHQW RI FKRLFHV RI $UH DQG /RRN LQ WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV

PAGE 74

7KHUH LV D SDWWHUQ IURP WKH DJH RI WKURXJK WKH DJH RI IRU WKH VXEMHFWV WR FKRRVH WKH SOXUDO IRUP DW OHDVW SHUn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£LV LQ DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV $JDLQ WR ORRN DW WKH QRPLQ£LV LV VLPSO\ WR ORRN DW WKH VDPH GDWD IURP D GLIIHUHQW

PAGE 75

7$%/( 3HUFHQW RI &KRLFHV RI 3OXUDO 9HUE )RUPV LQ WKH $PELJXRXV 6HQWHQFHV E\ 0DOH DQG )HPDOH 6XEMHFWV $JH 0DOH )HPDOH 1RWH $OO VFRUHV DUH URXQGHG RII WR WKH QHDUHVW RQHKDOI SHUFHQWDJH SRLQW

PAGE 76

3(5&(17 2) &+2,&(6 2) 3/85$/ 9(5% )2506 f f 0DOH r )HPDOH )LJXUH 3HUFHQW RI FKRLFHV RI SOXUDO YHUE IRUPV LQ WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV E\ PDOH DQG IHPDOH VXEMHFWV

PAGE 77

SHUVSHFWLYH ,Q WKLV FDVH WR ORRN DW WKH QXPEHU RI WLPHV WKDW WKH VXEMHFWV FKRVH D SOXUDO YHUE IRUP LV WR GHWHUPLQH KRZ RIWHQ WKH\ LQWHUSUHWHG WKH DPELJXRXV QRPLQDO DV D VXEMHFW QRPLQDO 7KH UHVXOW ZDV D WZRZD\ LQWHUDFWLRQ RI VH[ DQG DJH ZKLFK LV VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO 7KH PDLQ HIIHFW RI VH[ ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO +RZHYHU WKH PDLQ HIIHFW RI DJH ZDV VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO RI VLJQLILn FDQFH 7KH VFRUHV IRU WKH QRPLQ£LV LQ WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV DUH WKH VDPH DV WKH VFRUHV IRU WKH DJHE\VH[ LQWHUDFWLRQ IRU YHUEV LQ DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV 7KHUHIRUH 7DEOH DQG )LJXUH DUH DSSOLFDEOH KHUH DQG ZLOO QRW EH UHSHDWHG

PAGE 78

&+$37(5 ,9 ',6&866,21 %HFDXVH RI WKH VLJQLILFDQW WKUHHZD\ LQWHUDFWLRQV LW LV LPSRVVLEOH WR GUDZ DQ\ FOHDU FRQFOXVLRQV DERXW WKH GDWD 7KHUH DUH KRZHYHU VRPH WUHQGV ZKLFK FDQ EH GLVFXVVHG 9HUEV LQ XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV :KHQ WKH FRUUHFW UHn VSRQVH ZDV DUH WKH VXEMHFWV KDG WKH IHZHVW SUREOHPV 7KH KLJKHVW SHUFHQWDJH RI HUURUV ZLWK DUH ZDV SHUFHQW IRU WKH WHQ\HDUROG PDOHV 3HUIRUPDQFH ZLWK WKLV YHUE IRUP ZDV DOVR WKH PRVW FRQVLVWHQW 7KHUH ZDV FRQVLGHUDEO\ OHVV IOXFWXDWLRQ LQ WKH VFRUHV IRU WKLV YHUE IRUP WKDQ IRU WKH RWKHUV )RU DOO IRXU YHUE IRUPV WKH QXPEHU RI HUURUV IRU WKH WZHOYH\HDU ROGV DQG DGXOWV ZDV VPDOOHU WKDQ WKH QXPEHU RI HUURUV IRU WKH VHYHQ\HDU ROGV 7KH JUHDWHVW DPRXQW RI LPn SURYHPHQW RFFXUUHG ZLWK WKH YHUE IRUPV ORRN DQG Le 7KH OHDVW DPRXQW RI LPSURYHPHQW RFFXUUHG ZLWK ORRNV %HWZHHQ WKH DJHV RI VHYHQ DQG HOHYHQ WKH VXEMHFWVn SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH WZR SOXUDO IRUPV ORRN DQG DUH QHYHU RYHUn ODSSHG DV WKHUH ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH HUURUV ZLWK ORRN DW WKH DJHV RI VHYHQ HLJKW DQG QLQH DQG IRU WKH WHQ\HDUROG PDOHV :LWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI WKH WZHOYH\HDUROG IHPDOH VXEn MHFWVn SHUIRUPDQFH ZLWK ORRN DOO WKH WZHOYH\HDU ROGV DQG DGXOWV KDG DOPRVW LGHQWLFDO VFRUHV RQ ORRN DQG DUH DQG WKRVH

PAGE 79

VFRUHV ZHUH HTXDO WR SHUFHQW IRU WKH WZHOYH\HDU ROGV DQG YHU\ FORVH WR SHUFHQW IRU WKH DGXOWV &RQVHTXHQWO\ WKH WZHOYH\HDUROG DQG DGXOW VXEMHFWV KDG IHZHU SUREOHPV ZKHQ WKH FRUUHFW DQVZHU ZDV D SOXUDO YHUE IRUP 1RPLQ£LV LQ XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV 7KLV SHUVSHFWLYH RQ WKH GDWD DOVR LQGLFDWHV WKDW WKHUH FDQ EH QR DXWRPDWLF FRQn FOXVLRQV 7KH VHYHQ\HDUROG VXEMHFWV SHUIRUPHG EHWWHU WKDQ WKH HLJKW\HDU ROGV LQ DOO FDVHV H[FHSW IRU WKH PDOHV ZLWK VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV $IWHU WKH DJH RI HLJKW SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH REMHFW QRPLQ£LV ZDV KLJKO\ LQFRQVLVWHQW IRU ERWK PDOHV DQG IHPDOHV )HPDOHV EHJDQ WR LPSURYH DIWHU WKH DJH RI HLJKW ZLWK VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV DQG WKH\ FRQWLQXHG WR GR VR DOO WKH ZD\ WR DGXOWV 0DOHV GLG ZRUVH DV QLQH\HDU ROGV ZLWK VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV EXW DIWHU WKDW WKH\ VWHDGLO\ LPSURYHG $W WKH DJH RI WZHOYH WKH\ KDG SHUFHQW LQFRUUHFW ZLWK VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV DQG DV DGXOWV WKHLU VFRUH RI SHUFHQW LQFRUUHFW ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW IURP SHUFHQW 7KH DGXOWVn SHUn IRUPDQFHV RQ REMHFW QRPLQ£LV RI SHUFHQW LQFRUUHFW IRU PDOHV DQG SHUFHQW LQFRUUHFW IRU IHPDOHV DOWKRXJK KLJKHU WKDQ WKDW RI WKH VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV ZHUH QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW $OO RI WKH VXEMHFWV VHHPHG WR DFTXLUH WKH DELOLW\ WR KDQGOH VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV HDUOLHU DQG PRUH FRPSOHWHO\ WKDQ WKH\ GLG REMHFW QRPLQ£LV 9HUEV DQG QRPLQ£LV LQ DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV 7KH VFRUHV LQ WKLV FDWHJRU\ DUH WKH QXPEHU RI WLPHV WKDW VXEMHFWV FKRVH D SOXUDO YHUE IRUP DUH RU ORRNf LQ WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV RU LQ RWKHU ZRUGV KRZ PDQ\ WLPHV WKH\ LQWHUSUHWHG WKH QRPLQ£LV

PAGE 80

LQ WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV DV VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV %HWZHHQ WKH DJHV RI VHYHQ DQG HOHYHQ WKH VXEMHFWV LQWHUSUHWHG WKH QRPLQ£LV LQ WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV DV VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV SHUFHQW WR SHUFHQW PRUH RIWHQ IRU WKRVH VHQWHQFHV ZLWK ORRN WKDQ IRU WKRVH ZLWK EH $W WKH DJH RI WZHOYH DQG DV DGXOWV VXEMHFWV LQWHUSUHWHG WKH QRPLQ£LV ZLWK EH DV VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV PRUH RIWHQ WKDQ WKRVH ZLWK ORRN 7KXV WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI DJH DQG YHUE ZDV VLJQLILFDQW $V DGXOWV WKH VXEMHFWVn SHUIRUPDQFHV ZLWK ERWK YHUEV ZHUH QHDUO\ LGHQWLFDO 7KH VFRUHV IRU ORRN ZHUH KLJK IRU DOO DJHV DQG ILQLVKHG DW SHUFHQW 7KH VFRUHV IRU EH ZHUH DV ORZ DV SHUFHQW DQG SHUFHQW IRU WKH VHYHQ DQG HLJKW\HDU ROGV UHVSHFWLYHO\ DQG ILQLVKHG DW SHUn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n WHQFHV WKH\ GLG QRW LQGLFDWH WKDW WKH\ SHUFHLYHG WKH DPELJXLW\ LQ WKRVH VHQWHQFHV WKDW ZHUH DPELJXRXV 2QH VXEMHFW D WZHQW\ WZR\HDUROG IHPDOH VHOHFWHG RQH YHUE IRU HDFK VHQWHQFH EXW QRWHG LQFRUUHFWO\f DW WKH ERWWRP RI WKH WHVW IRUP WKDW DOO RI WKH VHQWHQFHV ZHUH DPELJXRXV DQG WKHUHIRUH DOO RI WKH

PAGE 81

YHUE IRUPV ZHUH DSSURSULDWH $OO RWKHU VXEMHFWV VHOHFWHG RQO\ RQH YHUE IRUP IRU HDFK VHQWHQFH ,W LV KRZHYHU TXLWH SRVVLEOH WKDW WKH LQVWUXFWLRQVf§n&LUFOH WKH FRUUHFW YHUE IRUP LQ HDFK VHQWHQFHnLQIOXHQFHG WKH VXEMHFWVn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e ZDV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU WKH SUREn OHPV RI WKH VXEMHFWV LQ WKH ILUVW VHULHV RI H[SHULPHQWV ,I WKH VXEMHFWV KDG DV PDQ\ RU PRUH SUREOHPV ZLWK ORRN DV ZLWK EH WKHQ WKHLU SUREOHPV PXVW UHVLGH ZLWK WKH V\QWDFWLF LQn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

PAGE 82

7$%/( 3HUFHQW RI ,QFRUUHFW 5HVSRQVHV IRU WKH 0DLQ 9HUEV %H DQG /RRN $JH %HD /RRN 1RWH $OO VFRUHV DUH URXQGHG RII WR WKH QHDUHVW RQH KDOI SHUFHQWDJH SRLQW D7KH VFRUHV IRU %H UHSUHVHQW WKH FROODSVLQJ RI WKH VFRUHV IRU WKH YHUE IRUPV LV DQG DUH IRU ERWK PDOHV DQG IHPDOHV \B '7KH VFRUHV IRU /RRN DUH WKH FROODSVHG VFRUHV IRU ORRNV DQG ORRN IRU ERWK PDOHV DQG IHPDOHV

PAGE 83

f f %V f /RRN )LJXUH 3HUFHQW RI LQFRUUHFW UHVSRQVHV IRU WKH PDLQ YHUEV %H DQG /RRN

PAGE 84

%HFDXVH RI WKLV VLJQLILFDQFH FROODSVLQJ YHUEV DQG VH[HV LV QRW OHJLWLPDWH VWDWLVWLFDO SURFHGXUH +RZHYHU KDYLQJ RQH VFRUH IRU WKH PDLQ YHUEV PDNHV FRPSDULVRQ RI WKRVH YHUEV HDVLHU 6R NHHSLQJ LQ PLQG WKDW WKLV LV D YLRODWLRQ RI VWDWLVWLFDO SURFHGXUH DQG WKDW DV D UHVXOW LW REVFXUHV D ODUJH DPRXQW RI LQIRUPDWLRQ WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ ZLOO EH FRQVLGHUHG LQ FROODSVHG IRUP 6HYHQ\HDU ROGV KDG QHDUO\ HTXDO WURXEOH ZLWK EH DQG ORRN ZLWK DQ DYHUDJH RI SHUFHQW DQG SHUFHQW LQn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n MHFWV EHJDQ WR UHVROYH WKHLU SUREOHPV HDUOLHU ZLWK ORRN WKDQ ZLWK EH VLQFH WKHLU VFRUHV LPSURYHG IURP WKH DJH RI HLJKW RQZDUG ZKHUHDV WKH\ GLG QRW LPSURYH FRQVLVWHQWO\ ZLWK EH XQWLO DIWHU WKH DJH RI WHQ

PAGE 85

2YHUDOO WKH VXEMHFWVn SHUIRUPDQFHV ZLWK EH DQG ORRN ZHUH TXLWH VLPLODU 7KHUH VHHPV WR EH QR HYLGHQFH WKDW WKH VHPDQWLFDOO\ HPSW\ QDWXUH RI EH ZDV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU WKH SUREOHPV ZKLFK WKH VXEMHFWV KDG LQ WKLV V\QWDFWLF FRQn WH[W 7KH WKLUG DUHD XQGHU LQYHVWLJDWLRQ ZDV KRZ WKH VXEMHFWV ZRXOG KDQGOH WKH VLQJXODU DQG SOXUDO YHUE IRUPV ,W ZDV VXJJHVWHG WKDW LI WKH VXEMHFWV KDG SUREOHPV LQ WKHLU FKRLFH RI YHUE IRUP WKH\ ZRXOG FKRRVH WKH SOXUDO YHUE IRUP PRUH RIWHQ EHFDXVH LQ HYHU\ VHQWHQFH UHJDUGOHVV RI LWV SKUDVH VWUXFWXUH D SOXUDO QRXQ RFFXUUHG LPPHGLDWHO\ EHIRUH WKH YHUE 7KHUH DUH WZR ZD\V WR GHWHUPLQH KRZ WKH VXEMHFWV KDQGOHG VLQJXODU DQG SOXUDO PDUNHUV 7KH ILUVW ZD\ ZDV WR ORRN DW WKH VXEMHFWVn SHUIRUPDQFH ZLWK QRPLQ£LV LQ WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV )LJXUH UHSUHVHQWV WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ SUHVHQWHG HDUOLHU DV )LJXUH ZLWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ WKDW WKH YDULDEOH VH[ KDV EHHQ FROODSVHG $JDLQ WKH FROODSVLQJ LV D YLRODn WLRQ RI VWDWLVWLFDO SURFHGXUH EHFDXVH RI D VLJQLILFDQW WKUHH ZD\ LQWHUDFWLRQ RI VH[ DJH DQG QRPLQDO EXW LW SURYLGHV D FOHDUHU FRPSDULVRQ RI WKH QRPLQ£LV )LJXUH DQG 7DEOH LQGLFDWH WKDW IRU HYHU\ DJH H[FHSW QLQH WKH VXEMHFWV KDG PRUH SUREOHPV ZLWK REMHFW QRPLQ£LV WKDQ ZLWK VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV 7KLV PHDQV WKDW WKH VXEMHFWV FKRVH SOXUDO YHUE IRUPV ZKHQ WKH\ VKRXOG KDYH FKRVHQ VLQJXODU IRUPV PRUH RIWHQ WKDQ WKH\ FKRVH VLQJXODU ZKHQ WKH\ VKRXOG KDYH FKRVHQ SOXUDO (LJKW \HDU ROGV PDGH WKH PRVW HUURUV LQ FKRLFH RI SOXUDO IRUP

PAGE 86

7$%/( 3HUFHQW RI ,QFRUUHFW 5HVSRQVHV RQ 6XEMHFW DQG 2EMHFW 1RPLQ£LV $JH 6XEMHFW 1RPLQ£LV 2EMHFW 1RPLQ£LV 1RWH $OO VFRUHV DUH URXQGHG RII WR WKH QHDUHVW RQH KDOI SHUFHQWDJH SRLQW 7KH YDULDEOH VH[ KDV EHHQ FROODSVHG

PAGE 87

3(5&(17 ,1&255(&7 H } 6XEMHFW 1RPLQ£LV f r 2EMHFW 1RPLQ£LV )LJXUH 3HUFHQW RI LQFRUUHFW UHVSRQVHV RQ VXEMHFW DQG REMHFW QRPLQ£LV

PAGE 88

$GXOWV PDGH WKH IHZHVW HUURUV ZLWK ERWK VLQJXODU DQG SOXUDO IRUPV 7KH VHFRQG SHUVSHFWLYH RQ VLQJXODU DQG SOXUDO PDUNHUV LV LQ WKH VXEMHFWVn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

PAGE 89

7$%/( 3HUFHQW RI &KRLFHV RI 3OXUDO 9HUE )RUPV LQ WKH $PELJXRXV 6HQWHQFHV $JH 3OXUDO 9HUE )RUPV 1RWH $OO VFRUHV DUH URXQGHG RII WR WKH QHDUHVW RQH KDOI SHUFHQWDJH SRLQW %RWK VH[ DQG YHUE KDYH EHHQ FROODSVHG

PAGE 90

3(5&(17 2) &+2,&(6 2) 3/85$/ 9(5% )2506 f 3OXUDO 9HUE )RUPV )LJXUH 3HUFHQW RI FKRLFHV RI SOXUDO YHUE IRUPV LQ WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV

PAGE 91

PD\ EH HPSOR\LQJ D VWUDWHJ\ RI FKRRVLQJ D SOXUDO YHUE IRUP WR DJUHH ZLWK WKH SOXUDO QRXQ WKDW SUHFHGHV WKH YHUE UDWKHU WKDQ DQDO\]LQJ WKH VWUXFWXUH RI WKH QRPLQDO 7KH VHFRQG SRVVLEOH H[SODQDWLRQ LV WKDW WKH VXEMHFWV FKRVH D SOXUDO YHUE IRUP EHFDXVH WKH\ LQWHUSUHWHG WKH QRPLQDO DV D VXEMHFW QRPLQDO 7KH VWUXFWXUH RI D VXEMHFW QRPLQDO LV nVLPSOHUn WKDQ WKDW RI DQ REMHFW QRPLQDO 7KH SUREOHP RI OLQJXLVWLF VLPSOLFLW\ LV VWLOO XQVROYHG KRZHYHU LQ WKLV FDVH WKHUH DUH VHYHUDO UHDVRQV WR EHOLHYH WKDW WKH PHDQLQJ RI D VXEMHFW QRPLQDO LV PRUH UHDGLO\ DSSDUHQW WKDQ WKDW RI DQ REMHFW QRPLQDO )LUVW WKH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH VXEMHFW QRPLQDO GRHV QRW UHTXLUH DQ\ LQIRUPDWLRQ ZKLFK LV QRW DYDLODEOH RQ WKH VXUIDFH 9LVLWLQJ UHODWLYHV LQ WKH VHQVH RI nUHODWLYHV WKDW DUH YLVLWLQJn KDV ORVW QR FRQWHQW LQ WKH GHULYDWLRQ VLQFH WKDW DQG DUH DUH QRW FRQWHQW ZRUGV 9LVLWLQJ UHODn WLYHV LQ WKH VHQVH RI nVRPHRQH LV YLVLWLQJ UHODWLYHVn ORVHV WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ FDUULHG E\ WKH VXEMHFW RI YLVLWLQJ $OWKRXJK WKDW VXEMHFW PD\ EH XQVSHFLILHG LW LV VWLOO LPSOLHG E\ WKH VWUXFWXUH $OVR WKH VXEMHFW RI YLVLWLQJ PD\ EH VSHFLILHG E\ WKH FRQWH[W RI WKH VHQWHQFH RU LQ WKH PDQQHU RI n9LVLWLQJ UHODWLYHV LV ERULQJ WR -DQHn LQ ZKLFK -DQH DSSHDUV RYHUWO\ LQ WKH VHQWHQFH DV ZHOO DV EHLQJ WKH GHOHWHG VXEMHFW RI YLVLWLQJ &RQVHTXHQWO\ WKH OLVWHQHU PXVW VXSSO\ LQIRUPDn WLRQ LQ RUGHU WR LQWHUSUHW DQ REMHFW QRPLQDO EXW DOO RI WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ LV DYDLODEOH LQ D VXEMHFW QRPLQDO

PAGE 92

6HFRQGO\ DOWKRXJK WKH VXEMHFW QRPLQDO LV GHULYHG IURP D GHHSVWUXFWXUH VHQWHQFH LW UHVHPEOHV RWKHU DGMHFWLYH QRXQ FRPELQDWLRQV 7KH WHVW VHQWHQFHV ZLWK VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV DV WKHLU VXEMHFWV KDYH WKH PRUH FRPPRQ FRPSRVLWLRQ RI DGMHFWLYH QRXQ YHUE DGMHFWLYH ZKHUHDV WKH VHQWHQFHV ZKLFK KDYH REMHFW QRPLQ£LV DV WKHLU VXEMHFWV KDYH WKH FRPn SRVLWLRQ RI _YHUE REMHFWf YHUE DGMHFWLYH 7KXV WKH VXEMHFW OLVWHQHU PXVW DQDO\]H WKH VWUXFWXUH RI DQ REMHFW QRPLQDO LQ RUGHU WR XQGHUVWDQG LW ZKHUHDV LW LV SRVVLEOH WR LQWHUSUHW D VXEMHFW QRPLQDO RQ WKH EDVLV RI LWV OH[LFDO FRQWHQW ,I LQ IDFW WKH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI D QRPLQDO DV D VXEMHFW QRPLQDO LV PRUH UHDGLO\ DYDLODEOH WR WKH VXEMHFWV WKLV ZRXOG H[SODLQ ZK\ VXEMHFWV LQWHUSUHWHG WKH QRPLQ£LV DV VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV PRUH IUHTXHQWO\ WKDQ DV REMHFW QRPLQ£LV DQG WKHUHIRUH ZK\ WKH\ FKRVH SOXUDO YHUE IRUPV PRUH RIWHQ )LJXUHV DQG VHHP WR KDYH VRPH FRQWUDGLFWRU\ LQGLn FDWLRQV $V WKH VXEMHFWV JHW ROGHU WKH\ FKRRVH D SOXUDO YHUE IRUPLQWHUSUHW D QRPLQDO DV D VXEMHFW QRPLQDO PRUH RIWHQ LI WKH VHQWHQFH LV DPELJXRXV +RZHYHU DV VXEMHFWV JHW ROGHU WKH\ PDNH IHZHU HUURUV RI FKRRVLQJ SOXUDO IRUPV LQWHUSUHW REMHFW QRPLQ£LV DV VXEMHFW QRPLQ£LV OHVV RIWHQ LQ WKH XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV ,W PD\ EH WKDW DV WKH\ JHW ROGHU WKH VXEMHFWV UHO\ KHDYLO\ RQ WKH VWUDWHJ\ LQ WKH DPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV RU SRVVLEO\ ZKHQ WKHUH LV QR UHDVRQ QRW WR GR VR WKH\ LQWHUn SUHW WKH QRPLQDO DV D VXEMHFW QRPLQDO $QG IRU WKH

PAGE 93

XQDPELJXRXV VHQWHQFHV WKH VXEMHFWVn SHUIRUPDQFHV PD\ LPSURYH EHFDXVH DV WKH\ EHFRPH ROGHU WKH VXEMHFWV DFTXLUH D EHWWHU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH VWUXFWXUH RI WKH REMHFW QRPLQDO DV ZHOO DV LWV UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK WKH YHUE ,W PD\ LQ IDFW EH WKH FDVH WKDW WKH VXEMHFWV DFWXDOO\ DFTXLUH 3UR 'HOHWLRQ 7UDQVn IRUPDWLRQf§RQH WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ ZKLFK LV QHFHVVDU\ IRU WKH GHULYDWLRQ RI DQ REMHFW QRPLQDOf§GXULQJ WKH DJH VSDQ WKDW ZDV WHVWHG LQ WKH H[SHULPHQW 7KH QXPHURXV HUURUV LQ VXEMHFWYHUE DJUHHPHQW PDNH LW HYLGHQW WKDW DW OHDVW WKURXJK WKH DJH RI WZHOYH WKH VXEn MHFWV GR QRW IXOO\ XQGHUVWDQG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH QRPLQDO W\SH DQG WKH QXPEHU RI WKH YHUE 7KLV WR VRPH GHJUHH H[SODLQV ZK\ PDQ\ RI WKH VXEMHFWV LQ WKH ILUVW VHULHV RI H[SHULPHQWV IDLOHG WR DWWHQG WR WKH YHUE Le RU DUH LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ WKH PHDQLQJ RI WKH QRPLQ£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n0RYLQJ KRXVHV LV GDQJHURXVn DQG n0RYLQJ KRXVHV DUH GDQJHURXVn VKRXOG EH DYDLODEOH WR DOO

PAGE 94

QDWLYH VSHDNHUV EHFDXVH LW UHSUHVHQWV D GLIIHUHQFH LQ PHDQLQJ +RZHYHU QRW DOO VXEMHFWV GHPRQVWUDWHG D FRPSUHKHQVLRQ RI WKLV GLIIHUHQFH &RXOG LW EH WKDW WKLV GLVWLQFWLRQ LV DYDLOn DEOH RQO\ WR WKRVH VSHDNHUV ZKR KDYH OHDUQHG WKH UXOHV RI VXEMHFWYHUE DJUHHPHQW DQG IRU SHRSOH VXFK DV OLQJXLVWV ZKR DUH KLJKO\ FRQVFLRXV RI WKH QXDQFHV RI WKHLU ODQJXDJH" $On WKRXJK HGXFDWLRQ ZDV QRW D YDULDEOH WKDW ZDV FRQWUROOHG LQ WKHVH H[SHULPHQWV LW LV VDIH WR VD\ WKDW HGXFDWLRQ LV QRW D GHWHUPLQLQJ IDFWRU 1XPHURXV VWXGLHV KDYH VKRZQ WKDW DWWHPSWV WR LPSRVH D UXOH RQWR D VSHDNHUnV JUDPPDU EHIRUH WKH VSHDNHU UHDFKHV WKH QRUPDO VWDJH RI DFTXLVLWLRQ IRU WKDW UXOH FRQIXVHV WKH VSHDNHU UDWKHU WKDQ VSHHGLQJ XS WKH DFTXLVLWLRQ SURFHVV 0F1HLOO DQG %UDLQH f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

PAGE 95

RQ WKH V\QWDFWLF LQIRUPDWLRQ RI WKH YHUE WR HQIRUFH D FKRLFH EHWZHHQ WKH WZR PHDQLQJV )RU WKLV UHDVRQ PDQ\ RI WKH VXEn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n0RYLQJ KRXVHV LV GDQJHURXVn WKH VXEMHFWV ZRXOG FRPSUHKHQG WZR GLIIHUHQW PHDQLQJV DQG ZRXOG EH IRUFHG WR JXHVV ZKLFK PHDQLQJ WKH VSHDNHU KDG LQWHQGHG +RZHYHU WKLV ZRXOG QRW LQ IDFW EH D SUREOHP 7KH FRQWH[W RI D FRQYHUVDWLRQ ZRXOG SURYLGH HQRXJK LQIRUPDWLRQ VR WKDW QR FKRLFH ZRXOG KDYH WR EH PDGH 7KH FRQGLWLRQV ZKLFK RFFXUUHG LQ WKH WHVW VLWXDWLRQ DQG ZKLFK RFFXU LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI D FRQYHUVDWLRQ PD\ GLIIHU LQ WKDW LQ D FRQYHUVDWLRQ WKH VXEMHFWV GR QRW QHHG WR FRPSDUH

PAGE 96

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f ,W ZDV DOVR WKH FDVH WKDW WKH VXEMHFWV FKRVH DUH DQG ORRNV PRUH RIWHQ WKDQ WKH\ FKRVH LVB DQG ORRN ,W LV SRVVLEOH WKDW WKH VXEMHFWV UHVSRQGHG LQ WKLV PDQQHU EHFDXVH RI D UHFHQF\ HIIHFW RI VHOHFWLQJ WKH YHUE IRUP ZKLFK WKH\ HQFRXQWHUHG ODVW )RU WKLV UHDVRQ LW LV VXJJHVWHG WKDW LQ DQ\ IXWXUH VWXG\ RI WKLV W\SH WKH RUGHU RI WKH YHUE IRUPV QRW EH WKH VDPH WKURXJKRXW WKH WHVW 2QH RI WKH WHVW VHQWHQFHV LQ H[SHULPHQW VL[ ZDV n0DNLQJ FRRNLHV LVDUH ORRNVORRN IXQn $OWKRXJK WKH FRUUHFW YHUE IRUPV IRU WKLV VHQWHQFH DUH LV DQG ORRNV LW LV SRVVLEOH WKDW n0DNLQJ FRRNLHV ORRN IXQn LV D JUDPPDWLFDO SKUDVH DV LQ WKH VHQWHQFH n0RWKHU DOZD\V PDNHV PDNLQJ FRRNLHV ORRN IXQn $OWKRXJK n0DNLQJ FRRNLHV ORRN IXQn LV QRW JUDPPDWLFDO DV D VHQWHQFH LW DQG RWKHU SKUDVHV ZKLFK PD\ EH LQWHUSUHWHG DV

PAGE 97

JUDPPDWLFDO SDUWV RI VHQWHQFHV FRXOG SUHVHQW VRPH SUREOHPV LQ VLPLODU WHVW GHVLJQV 7KLV VWXG\ LQGLFDWHV WKDW D VWXG\ RI DPELJXLW\ RU RWKHU VWXGLHV EDVHG LQ WKH WKHRU\ RI WUDQVIRUPDWLRQV PXVW FRQVLGHU QRW MXVW D VHW RI WUDQVIRUPDWLRQV EXW DOVR WKH VSHFLILF OH[LFDO LWHPVf§IRU H[DPSOH WKH YHUE IRUPVf§ZKLFK DUH LQn FOXGHG LQ WKH VWXG\

PAGE 98

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n DPELJXDWH WKH QRPLQDO 7KLV EHKDYLRU ZDV DOVR XQH[SHFWHG 5RJHU %URZQ f KDV VKRZQ WKDW E\ 6WDJH 9 ZKLFK RFFXUUHG LQ WKH FKLOGUHQ KH VWXGLHG E\ WKH WLPH WKH\ ZHUH \HDUV ROG FKLOGUHQ KDYH UHDFKHG WKH FULWHULRQ RI SHUFHQW FRUUHFW XVDJH RI WKH FRSXOD DQG RI WKH WKLUGSHUVRQ VLQJXODU PRUSKHPH

PAGE 99

e 7KXV VLPSOH VXEMHFWYHUE DJUHHPHQW LV DFTXLUHG YHU\ HDUO\ E\ VSHDNHUV RI (QJOLVK $SSDUHQWO\ VXEMHFWYHUE DJUHHPHQW LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI VHQWHQFHV VXFK DV E DQG F ZDV QRW DFTXLUHG DW VXFK DQ HDUO\ VWDJH 7KLV ZDV WHVWHG LQ H[SHULPHQW VL[ ZKHUH LW ZDV VKRZQ WKDW VXEMHFWV DV ROG DV WZHOYH \HDUV KDG SUREOHPV ZLWK VXEMHFWYHUE DJUHHPHQW HVSHFLDOO\ LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI REMHFW QRPLQ£LV DV LQ VHQWHQFH E 7KHVH SUREOHPV GR QRW LQWHUIHUH ZLWK FRPPXQLFDWLRQ VLPSO\ EHFDXVH WKH FRQWH[W RI D FRQYHUVDn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

PAGE 100

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

PAGE 101

7KH VKRRWLQJ RI WKH ,QGLDQ ZDV EDG ,W ZDV EDG WKDW WKH ,QGLDQ ZDV VKRW 7KH ,QGLDQ ZDV D EDG VKRRWHU 9LVLWLQJ UHODWLYHV FDQ EH ERULQJ 9LVLWLQJ UHODWLYHV LV ERULQJ 9LVLWLQJ UHODWLYHV DUH ERULQJ :DONLQJ GRJV FDQ EH H[FLWLQJ :DONLQJ GRJV LV H[FLWLQJ :DONLQJ GRJV DUH H[FLWLQJ 7KH SROLFH VWRSSHG ILJKWLQJ RQ FDPSXV 7KH SROLFH HQGHG ILJKWLQJ RQ FDPSXV 7KH SROLFH TXLW ILJKWLQJ RQ FDPSXV 0RYLQJ KRXVHV FDQ EH IULJKWHQLQJ 0RYLQJ KRXVHV LV IULJKWHQLQJ 0RYLQJ KRXVHV DUH IULJKWHQLQJ

PAGE 102

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

PAGE 103

, OLNH SOD\LQJ JURZQXSV OLNH JURZQXSV WKDW DUH SOD\LQJ OLNH WR SOD\ JURZQXSV 7KH SROLFH VWRSSHG ILJKWLQJ RQ FDPSXV 7KH SROLFH HQGHG ILJKWLQJ RQ FDPSXV 7KH SROLFH TXLW ILJKWLQJ RQ FDPSXV 7KH VKRRWLQJ RI WKH ,QGLDQ ZDV EDG ,W ZDV EDG WKDW WKH ,QGLDQ ZDV VKRW 7KH ,QGLDQ ZDV D EDG VKRRWHU +H ZDQWV WR VWRS VPRNLQJ +H ZDQWV WR SUHYHQW VPRNLQJ +H ZDQWV WR TXLW VPRNLQJ

PAGE 104

$33(1',; & 3,&785(6 )25 (;3(5,0(176 7+528*+ 9

PAGE 105

QU r‘

PAGE 109

m0DLO } }rfr , -// E I J U }L 0 PX Q /;8

PAGE 110

727

PAGE 115

&M-

PAGE 119

WB f§M =' 7&A ;! k f§ 2 2 R}

PAGE 120

$33(1',; 6(17(1&(6 )25 (;3(5,0(17 9, 1DPH $JH 6H[ 'LUHFWLRQVf§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

PAGE 121

3OD\LQJ JURZQXSV ORRNORRNV VLOO\ 5RDULQJ OLRQV ORRNORRNV VFDU\ 0DNLQJ FRRNLHV ORRNORRNV IXQ 5RDULQJ OLRQV LVDUH VFDU\ )O\LQJ NLWHV LVDUH IXQ

PAGE 122

5()(5(1&(6 %UDLQH 0DUWLQ '6 2Q WZR W\SHV RI PRGHOV RI WKH LQWHUQDOL]DWLRQ RI JUDPPDUV 7KH RQWRJHQHVLV RI JUDPPDU HG E\ 'DQ 6ORYLQ 1HZ
PAGE 123

%,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ +\WD 0HGHUHU ZDV ERUQ LQ 9DOGRVWD *HRUJLD RQ )HEUXDU\ 6KH UHFHLYHG WKH GHJUHH RI %DFKHORU RI $UWV LQ SV\FKRORJ\ IURP 1HZFRPE &ROOHJH LQ 1HZ 2UOHDQV /RXLVLDQD LQ DQG KHU 0DVWHU RI $UWV LQ /LQJXLVWLFV IURP WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD LQ +HU LQWHUHVWV LQFOXGH PXVLF SK\VLFDO DQWKURSRORJ\ DQG DQLPDOV 6KH LV D PHPEHU RI WKH 1DWLRQDO :LOGOLIH )HGHUDWLRQ DQG 'HIHQGHUV RI :LOGOLIH DQG LV DFWLYHO\ SXUVXLQJ OHJLVODWLRQ IRU WKH SUHVHUYDWLRQ RI ZLOGOLIH DQG WKH KXPDQH WUHDWPHQW RI DOO DQLPDOV

PAGE 124

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

PAGE 125

7KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZDV VXEPLWWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH )DFXOW\ RI WKH 3URJUDP LQ /LQJXLVWLFV LQ WKH &ROOHJH RI /LEHUDO $UWV DQG 6FLHQFHV DQG WR WKH *UDGXDWH &RXQFLO DQG ZDV DFFHSWHG DV SDUWLDO IXOILOOPHQW RI WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 'HFHPEHU 'HDQ *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO

PAGE 126

81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EU8DLLLD5_HK2F2M INGEST_TIME 2017-07-13T15:08:26Z PACKAGE AA00003482_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES