Tasters of Our Modules
We know it’s hard to tell from a module title what kinds of issue the
module deals with, so below we’ve given you a brief sketch of typical
puzzles that we might try to solve on particular types of module.
Accents and Dialects
It is sadly the case, these days, that many of the traditional dialects
spoken particularly by older people and particularly in rural areas are
dying out. This has meant that individual towns and villages have dialects
which are probably less distinct today than they have ever been. Why do you
think this is?
In their place, however, new dialects are emerging, particularly in those
places where social mobility is high, and where there is a constant flux of
migrants in and out of the community. One set of locations that have
witnessed particularly high mobility are Britain’s New Towns – such as
Milton Keynes, Telford, Welwyn Garden City, Stevenage, Peterborough and so
on. When these New Towns were founded, many migrants came to these
communities from all over the UK and beyond, bringing their local dialects
with them, and they mixed together in these newly formed communities. What
do you think these New Town dialects would now be like? What dialect would
children in the New Towns pick up, and why? Would these dialects be similar
to the old traditional dialects once spoken in rural areas? Why/Why
not?
When we study accents and dialects, and the way that languages
such as English are changing today, we need to collect taped recordings of
people speaking those dialects. Those recordings need to be of a very clear
quality, and to be made of a representative sample of the population that
speaks the dialect, including young people as well as old, women as well as
men, and so on. In order to get the very best examples of the dialect being
spoken, the recordings ideally need to be of relaxed, informal and
conversational speech. Getting hold of such recordings isn’t always as
easy as you might imagine.
Just suppose that your task is to collect some
recordings from the residents of Lower Widdlethwaite, a village in rural
England. How would go about it? What problems would you face?
Consider, for example:
- how you would decide who counts as a relevant speaker;
- how you would find such relevant speakers in the village;
- how you would persuade them to be interviewed by you;
- whether you would actually tell them why you’re recording them;
- how you would get relaxed and informal speech from them, when they’re
being tape-recorded (!);
- what you would talk about to them.
- Would it be easier for you to collect such recordings in your own
town or village? Why/why not?
Conversation Analysis
‘Male, 29, likes Woody Allen, Nigella Lawson, Pulp Fiction and
Guinness, seeks woman to lose sleep over’
The above ‘lonely hearts’
advert shows someone doing the most basic of things: describing himself. But
you’ll see that this man doesn’t give any direct information about
himself at all: just his sex and his age. The rest of the description
consists of a list of his likes. This description is in fact carefully put
together, using our general knowledge about what’s associated with each of
these to give an impression of the man himself. Think how different this
would have been if it had read…
‘Male, 29, likes Julian Clary,
Delia Smith, Star Wars and sherry, seeks woman to lose sleep over’
You can see that even doing something as simple as describing takes some
work – and Conversation Analysis (CA) looks at the work that goes into
doing things with words. Work in CA has shown that we do all sorts of things
in conversation – not just describing, but also changing the subject,
breaking bad news, teasing, complaining, inviting, complimenting, to name
but a few – in strikingly similar ways. For example, the following
exchange actually took place between a patient and a doctor:
| 1 Patient:
|
This chemotherapy – it won’t have any lasting effects on
having kids, |
|
2
|
will it? |
|
3
|
(1 second pause)
|
| 4 Patient:
|
It will? |
|
5 Doctor:
|
I’m afraid so. |
One question we might ask is how the patient, in line 4, is able to guess
that the doctor is about to produce a negative answer to the question she
asks. Now it turns out that silences after questions – often as brief as
half a second – are typically indicators of negative answers coming up
(think of a pause in response to the question ‘Do you like my new haircut?’
or to the invitation ‘Do you feel like coming out tonight?’ and you’ll
see what I mean!). So the patient was able to predict correctly that the
doctor is about to produce a negative answer. The above example shows that
when we look at how people make sense of each other, we see that the words
spoken may only be a small part of what’s understood!
CA also shows that we can’t necessarily rely on what we think words
mean to do specific jobs for us. Take the apparently simple job of agreeing
with an opinion someone has expressed. It sounds like a simple enough thing
to do; it might seem that all you have to do is say ‘Yes’ in response to
what someone’s just said. But look at the following:
| 1 Jane: |
He’s nice, isn’t he. |
| 2 Sue: |
Yes. |
How is it that although ‘Yes’ would appear to mean ‘I agree’, it’s
not really heard as an agreement when it’s said – and in fact, is
actually heard as implicitly disagreeing? Well, by looking at lots of
examples of people agreeing in conversation, CA has discovered that in order
to be heard to be agreeing in English, what people do is take the
description used in the first place and do what’s known as ‘upgrade’
it, which is to make it stronger. So the following will be heard as
an agreement:
| 1 Jane: |
He’s nice, isn’t he. |
| 2 Sue: |
Yes, he’s great. |
In general, then, CA investigates the complex machinery underlying our
ability to use language to do things in the world.
Language and Sex
Do you think the sex of speakers can be identified on the basis of their
speech? See if you can identify the clues which give away the sex of the
relevant speakers in the extracts below.
(1a/b are from Goodwin 1980,1988,1990, and 2a/b from West 1998.)
Extract 1a: interaction between a group of boys)
Child M: All right. Gimme some rubber bands.
Child C: (giving rubber bands to child M) Oh.
Child H: Go downstairs. I don’t care what you say you aren’t-you
ain’t no good so go downstairs.
Child B: (Moves down the steps).
Child M: Gimme the thing.
Child P: Wait a minute. I gotta chop it.
Child M: Come on P. You gonna be with them? Give it to me. I’ll
show you.
Child P: I already had it before you.
Child M: So? I brought them out here. They mine. So I use em when I
feel like it.
Extract 1b: interaction between a group of girls
Child
S: Let’s go around Subs and Suds
Child P: Let’s ask her “Do you have any bottles.”
Child P:
Let’s look around. See what we can find.
Child S: We gonna paint them
and stuff.
Child P: We could go around lookin for more bottles.
Child T: Maybe we can slice them like that.
Child S: Hey maybe tomorrow we can come up here and see if they got some
more.
Extract 2(a): interaction between female doctor and a patient
Doctor A: Let’s talk about your pressure for a minute or
two
Patient: h- h- h-ch-hhhhew! Okay
-------------------------------------------
Patient: So I feel this coming on, and I’m sitting up in a
plane, I’m out somewhere in a car, and I can’t lie down..
Doctor B: Lie down
Extract 2(b): interaction between male doctor and a patient
Doctor B: You can drop your trousers, in fact why don’t you
just take them off
Patient: (leans forward on the examining table, looking at the
doctor)
Doctor B: Take your trousers off.
Patient: I don’t wanna drop my trousers, that’s alright-heh!
Doctor B: You don’t want to…
Patient: No.
-------------------------------------------------
Doctor A: Okay, so, what do you think, maybe we’d just take the
top of your dress off, would that be okay with you?
Patient: Uh, okay, fine, good, yes.
To what extent are these extracts consistent with the view that
males give directives in the form of commands which include the
addressee and exclude the speaker, whereas the directives given by
females are ‘mitigated’ through the use of terms such as ‘let’s’
and ‘gonna’, which include the speaker as well as the addressee in
the proposed action to be undertaken?
Language Research Skills
When researchers want to gather information about language from other
people, rather than just by looking inside their own heads, it is
surprisingly easy to create problems rather than solve them. For example,
suppose we want to know about people’s attitudes to different UK accents
of English. Do people think speakers with something like the standard
so-called RP (‘Received Pronunciation’) accent of BBC English sound more
intelligent than speakers with a Birmingham accent? Do they think they sound
more or less trustworthy? And would older people have different attitudes
from younger? Would men differ from women? Any such project immediately
creates a set of practical problems to solve, such as the following.
Clearly we need people of different ages to ask about their attitudes.
But what people are we going to ask? Possibly it will be people we can
easily get hold of – students on campus, people in the high street, family
and friends back home. But wait a minute… we are asking them about accents…
so we had better check what their own accents are: that might have an
influence on what they think about other people’s accents. Will we just
rely on our own judgment of what their own accent of English is? How else
could we check this and be sure?
Then we need of course to ask their age. That should be straightforward…
but usually researchers don’t ask for people’s exact age… Why? Well,
we want people to be cooperative and some kinds of people might be put off
because they don’t really want people to know their exact age. One student
researcher suggested the following age categories: (i) under 18 years; (ii)
18-21 years; (iii) 21-25 years, (iv) over 25 years. That’s along the lines
that professional researchers do it – but can you spot what has gone
slightly wrong?
Then what about the accents they are judging? Do we just rely on them
being able to imagine an RP or Birmingham accent in their minds as we ask
them? What if they are not too familiar with a Birmingham accent, or
actually confuse it with a Liverpool one? It’s no good if they are not
thinking of the accent we want them to judge. So obviously better play them
a tape of someone speaking in the accent. But then how do you overcome the
problem that they may respond favourably or not to the individual voice
quality of the person speaking, or to whether it is a man or woman speaking,
to what they are talking about, etc. rather than to their accent?
Probably we will get them to rate each accent on scales we are interested
in, such as by asking them to circle a number on a scale like this:
Intelligent
1 2
3 4
5 Unintelligent
That is reasonably professional, but maybe it would be
intuitively easier for people to respond accurately if the numbers were
changed a bit… can you see how?
Finally of course, when we get the results, we have what is
often the biggest puzzle of all… Suppose the average rating of a group of
females we ask puts RP speakers at 2.16 for sounding intelligent, and the
average rating of a comparable group of males puts them at 2.92. Clearly on
the scale above the females think RP speakers sound more intelligent than
males do – at least, in our sample. But is that difference big
enough to make much of? Is it one that is likely to be found again if we
took another sample? Even if in reality males and females had the same
general opinion, when you take samples common sense tells us that you are
unlikely to get exactly the same figure from both: so how big does
the difference in the samples have to be to be convincing? The solution to
that sort of puzzle lies in statistical significance tests. Here in fact an
‘independent t test’ would give you the answer…. But we can’t work
on that here as you haven’t done the research and got any real figures to
process yet! However, this is the kind of issue you might want to research
if you come to Essex.
Lexical and Grammatical Change in the History of English
400 years ago, in the days of William Shakespeare, if you
wanted to warn someone about the dangers of hording gold under their
floorboards, you might say:
Thou know'st not gold's effect
(Petruchio, Taming of the Shrew, I.ii)
These days, you'd probably say:
You don’t know the effect of gold.
So what kind of changes have taken place over the last 400
years?
One type of change is lexical in nature (to do with
the choice of words we use); the pronoun thou has dropped out of use
in present-day English and been replaced by you.
Another type of change is morphological (to do with
the form of words): the ending –st is no longer found on verbs in
present-day English, for the related reason that it was only used when the
subject of the verb was thou, so loss of thou meant loss of
–st as well.
A third type of change is syntactic in nature (to do
with word order). In the present-day English sentence above, the verb know
is positioned after the negative particle n’t, but in its
Shakespearean counterpart the verb know is positioned before
the negative particle not.
A further difference is that the present-day English
sentence involves the use of the so-called auxiliary or ‘helping’ verb do
(to which n’t attaches, forming don’t); but the
corresponding Shakespearean sentence doesn’t involve the use of do.
How are these various changes (e.g. a change in the
position of the verb on the one hand, and use of do on the other)
related? How have Shakespearean do-less questions like:
How esteemst thou me?
(Valentine, Two Gentlemen of Verona, II.i)
come to be replaced by do-questions like:
What d’you think of me?
When did the changes discussed here come about, and what were the factors
causing them?
Psycholinguistics
Psycholinguistics examines the acquisition, storage,
production and comprehension of language, and also addresses the question of
how language may be represented in the brain.
Developmental psycholinguistics investigates how
children acquire their mother tongue, and how this differs from the way
adult learners acquire a foreign language. Do children learn through
imitation, or are they genetically pre-programmed to develop language, as
some researchers have suggested? Does growing up bilingually slow down
children's linguistic development? Why is learning a foreign language so
much harder for adults than children?
Topics in language processing include questions such
as: How do we manage to perceive and recognise speech at the incredibly fast
rate of about 20 speech sounds per second? What do 'slips of the tongue'
such as our queer old Dean (instead of our dear old Queen)
tell us about the way we plan and produce speech? As regards language
comprehension, why is it that most people have difficulty comprehending
sentences like the following:
i. The log floated down the river sank.
ii. The man who hunts ducks out on weekends.
iii. The malt the rat the cat killed ate lay in the house.
Finally, neurolinguistics studies the way language
functions are represented in the brain, and also looks at various types of
language disorder. Typical questions to be addressed here include: Why do
many children have difficulty learning how to read and spell? How come some
children who are severely retarded have little or no difficulty acquiring
language, whereas many of their healthy, perfectly intelligent peers cannot
seem to get the hang of 'correct' grammar, saying things like When the
cup break he get repair? Why do many people who have suffered a stroke
lose their ability to speak normally, or have difficulty remembering the
names of common household objects? Are the two languages of bilinguals
stored in different areas of the brain?
Language Disorders
Some children (who are otherwise normal in all other aspects
of their development) show delayed language development: this type of
disorder (because it is specific to language) is known as Specific
Language Impairment/SLI. Children with SLI often omit inflections on
verbs (saying e.g. play rather than plays or played)
and likewise omit auxiliary verbs (saying Daddy snoring rather that Daddy’s
snoring). They also use the wrong form of pronouns (e.g. saying Him
want one rather than He wants one, using the accusative form him
in place of the nominative form He). But the errors they make aren’t just
random. For example, 4-year-old SLI children say:
He likes me He like
me Him like
me
He’s helping me He helping
me Him helping me
but not the following (the star indicating non-occurring
structures):
*He likes I *Him likes
I *Him likes me
*He like I *Him like I.
*He’s helping I *Him’s
helping I *Him’s helping
me *He helping I
*Him helping I .
The pattern seems to be that they only make pronoun errors
with subjects, not objects; and that errors with subject pronouns only occur
when a verb inflection (like present tense –s) or an auxiliary
(like is/’s) is omitted. What is the nature of the errors made by
SLI children? How are their errors with subject pronouns related to omission
of verb inflections and auxiliaries? What are the causes of these errors? Do
SLI children eventually grow out of these errors? What kind of therapy can
be given to correct these errors, and how successful is it?
Child Language Acquisition
One-year-olds often mispronounce words. But the errors they
make are generally systematic, as the following examples of (italicised)
child attempts to pronounce adult words illustrate:
potato = tato
blue = bue
cat = ca
slide = sie
biscuit = bibi
this = dis
desk = deks
brown = wow
squash = woss
doggy = goggy
telephone = tone
balloon = boon
They tend to shorten words (by reducing the number of
syllables in them); to simplify difficult clusters of two or more consonants
(by omitting one or more of them, or changing their order); to omit
consonants at the end of a syllable or word; to assimilate (i.e. make
identical) one sound to another, or one syllable to another; and to replace
consonants they find hard to pronounce by those they find easier to
pronounce. Which of these processes seem to apply in the case of each of the
examples given above?
By the time of their second birthday, children are already
able to form simple sentences. They love (irritating their parents by)
asking questions. But the way they ask questions is often very different
from the way adults ask questions. A two-year old child’s counterpart to
adult questions like What’s Daddy/he doing? might be:
What Daddy doing? or Daddy doing? or What doing?
It’s not difficult to see what’s happening here. Very
young children typically omit the auxiliary (i)s when they form
questions, and sometimes they also omit question words like what and
subject pronouns like he. But why do they omit these forms?
For example, do they omit ’s because it is a phonetically weak form, hence
difficult to perceive? Or because ’s marks grammatical properties
(tense and agreement) which the child hasn’t acquired at this point? Or
because young children take tense and agreement to be redundant information?
By the time they reach the age of four, children can produce
much more complex questions. But some of their questions look decidedly odd
from an adult perspective – e.g.
What d’you think what Cookie Monster ate?
Here, the question word what appears twice, once at
the front of the ate clause and once at the front of the think
clause. What’s going on here? One answer which linguists have suggested is
that a structure like that above is actually derived from a more basic
structure like:
You think Cookie Monster ate what?
via an operation of wh-movement which involves moving
the wh-word what from the position in which it originates (after ate)
to the front of the overall sentence. It’s been suggested that our brain
processes one clause at a time when it forms complex sentences, and that in
a sentence like that above, we first move what to the front of the
ate clause before moving it to the front of the think clause. The
fact that children produce wh-copying questions with a copy of the wh-word
in the middle of the sentence seems to lend plausibility to this analysis.
But other linguists have suggested a different kind
of explanation, related to a phenomenon found in colloquial English and
illustrated by the following East-Enders style dialogue:
- I reckon that one of Phil’s mates grassed ’im up
- Who d’you reckon what done it?
Here, who originates as the subject of done it
(as in You reckon that who done it?) and moves from there to the
front of the sentence. In doing so, it moves first to the front of the that
clause (thereby causing that to change to what) and from there
on to the front of the overall sentence. This raises the possibility that
the intermediate what in child questions like What d’you think what
Cookie Monster ate is a reflex of that (triggered by what moving
across that).
Second Language Acquisition
English nouns which are countable (e.g. one apple, two
apples, lots of apples) typically have an -s suffix when they are
plural:
| an apple - |
two apple -s |
| a book - |
two book -s |
At the same time there are some singular nouns which already
end in an -s, and to which a longer, syllabic -es is added to
mark plural:
| glass -
|
two glass -es |
| a haggis -
|
two haggis -es |
A German linguist, Henning Wode, studied the development of
his own (native German-speaking) children's knowledge of English plural
forms as they acquired English as a second language during a long stay in an
English-speaking country. He found that to start with they typically used
just one form of a noun for both singular and plural meanings. In some cases
this noun had no final -s, as in the case of his son Heiko's use of egg:
Heiko: How many egg you have? I want two egg.
In other cases the noun had a final -s, but was
equally used to mean both singular and plural. Another of his sons, Lars,
used eggs in this way:
Lars: Who want this eggs? You give me one
eggs.
A bit later both children introduced a contrast in what they
said between egg and eggs. In the case of Heiko, eggs
appeared alongside egg and was used exclusively in plural contexts,
but not all plural contexts; the form egg continued to be used both
in singular and plural contexts. So at this stage Heiko was using egg/eggs
as follows:
|
egg
-
|
singular and plural |
| eggs
-
|
plural |
In the case of Lars, egg appeared alongside eggs, but
when it did he started using the eggs form only in plural contexts, while
the egg form was used both with singular and plural meaning, just like Heiko.
Why do you think there is an initial difference between
Heiko and Lars in the form of egg that each learns?
What happens to Lars's knowledge of nouns like egg
when the two forms egg and eggs come to co-exist in his
grammar for English?
Why might both children not use the plural -s in
every context where the noun has a plural meaning?
Syntax
The following is an extract from the cult TV detective
series Morse. (Opera-loving) Inspector Morse and (burger-loving)
Sergeant Lewis walk into a room and find a dead body lying on a
blood-spattered bed, and the following conversation then takes place:
MORSE: I think he was murdered, Lewis
LEWIS: Who by, sir?
MORSE: By whom, Lewis, by whom. Didn’t they teach grammar at
that comprehensive school of yours?
In correcting Lewis, Morse does two things. Firstly, he uses
a different form of the pronoun (whom rather than who), and
secondly he changes the word order (putting the preposition by before rather
than after the pronoun). Varying the word order and varying the form of the
pronoun gives us the following four possibilities:
(i) By who? (ii) By whom (iii) Who by? (iv) Whom by?
Which of these four would be used by what kind of people in
what kind of styles? Would anyone ever use (iv) – and if not, why
not? What would you use – and what does that tell us about you?!
There’s another dimension to this problem, though. In
reply to Morse’s question, Lewis could equally have said:
What with?
but would not have said:
*What kind of weapon with?
Why not? It looks as if we only use the preposition-last
word order when the question expression is a pronoun like who/what,
not when it’s a phrase like what kind of weapon. So, the
preposition-last order can also occur with the pronoun where, but not
with a phrase like which town – as we see from the following
fictitious dialogue:
MORSE: He received a parcel, Lewis.
LEWIS: Where from, sir?
(but not *Which town from, sir?)
Still, that isn’t the complete answer either, since a
pronoun like which isn’t used in the preposition-last structure –
as we see from the inappropriateness of Lewis’s reply below:
MORSE: She was stabbed with one of these knives, Lewis
LEWIS: *Which with, sir?
So how come we can say Who by? What with? Where from?
but not *Which with? Is this related to the fact that we can also say
What else? Who else? and Where else? but not *Which else?
If so, how?
If only Morse was (I’m sure he’d say that should be were)
still around to help us solve this particular mystery! (Sadly, actor John
Thaw who played Morse died some time ago.)
Phonetics
At a recent BBC reception Prince Charles, the guest of
honour, remarked:
“What a splendid group of *appy and *onest-looking
people!”
after meeting the cast of East Enders.
“Don’t know abaht *honest, guv, but them’s
certainly *appy!”
came the reply.
At first glance it looks as though the Prince has lost an
‘h’ and his companion has gained one. Losing ‘h’s though
can be forgiven because it may surprise you to know that there are very few
of them pronounced in the accent Prince Charles uses: in fact the norm for
him is to delete them. Cockney speakers share this ‘h-deletion’ - *appy
is quite normal for both. But Cockney speakers often do something else too:
they add an ‘h’ where not just Prince Charles, but almost every
other speaker of English deletes it. This happens in words like ‘honest’
or ‘hour’. There’s one word, though, which still confuses a lot
of people: ‘hotel’ – is it ‘a hotel’ (most English
speakers), or is it ‘an *otel’ (a Cockney speaker), or is it even
‘an hotel’ (the Prince again)?
But studying speech isn’t just about how to pronounce
words in this or that accent or the confusions which can occur; it’s just
as much about how any of us manage to say anything at all. Speech is an
extraordinarily complex behaviour and almost all of us are very good at it
– whatever our accent. We work out what we want to say, and then we open
our mouths and out it comes! But ask anyone ‘How did you do that?’,
and they usually can’t say. Suggest to anyone that they have just pulled
into play around 80 muscles to coax a complex aerodynamic system into making
sounds by moving half a dozen or so parts of their anatomy in a coordinated
choreography timed to the nearest 3 thousandths of a second and they might
say: ‘*ow’s tha* – come again?’!
The other side of the coin is perceiving speech, of course.
When a young New York speaker says ‘He’s a ca*, man’, how does
his friend know he means ‘cat’? But when our Cockney speaker says ‘*e’s
go* an old ca* on *is *ead’, how do we know he means ‘cap’
and not ‘cat’?
Phonetics is about the sounds we make in languages
and how we use them; it’s also about how we perceive them and how
communication between people, even if they speak different accents, is a
complex collaboration between them.
Phonology
We all know there is a word brick in English. The
word blick, on the other hand does not exist, yet all native speakers
of English will agree that it could – we could invent a brand of shampoo
and call it ‘Blick’. However, there can never be an English word bnick,
although it’s entirely possible that such a word could exist in some other
language of the world. So why is it not a possible word of English? Perhaps
is has something to do with the fact that the sounds b and n
cannot occur next to each other. This can’t be the explanation, however
– consider drabness. The difference between the sequence bn
in bnick and in drabness is that in the first the two
sounds share the same syllable and in the second they don’t. There are
strict constraints (i.e. restrictions) on what may occur at the beginning of
a syllable in English and these constraints also rule out words such as bwick
and lbick. For a word to be acceptable, it must be possible to break
it down into acceptable syllables. Notice that the word drabness
consists of two syllables drab and ness both of which comply
with the constraints imposed on the English syllable.
In many English dialects there is a tendency to
replace t with what is known as a ‘glottal stop’. This phenomenon
is often described as ‘dropping one’s ts’. This description
would seem to indicate that any orthographic t (i.e. any t which
occur in the written form of a word) may disappear, but, of course, this is
simply not true. Whilst the t of atlas, button
or hat will readily be replaced by most people, it never
occurs in table, cartoon or tattoo.
Instead these ts will be aspirated, that is accompanied by a puff of
air known as ‘aspiration’. The reason for this distribution of t and
the glottal stop is that t is aspirated at the beginning of words and
at the beginning of stressed syllables, and when it is aspirated it cannot
be replaced by a glottal stop. In the study of phonology we find out how we
can determine where stress will be placed in English words and the
relationship between syllables and stress.
Why do small children in the process of language acquisition
produce forms such as keen for clean, boon for spoon?
The first observation we can make is that children, at an early stage in
their acquisition of language simply can’t pronounce consonant clusters
and reduce these clusters to single consonants. This reduction of clusters
results in the systematic loss of l and r – most children
simply cannot pronounce these sounds until well after the age of two and
some take much longer to acquire them. This means that clean will be keen
and cry will be produced as ky. So what happens when one of
these sounds isn’t in a cluster of consonants? Here we find some
variation. One child would produce yike for like whilst
another might say gike, making the sound at the beginning of the word
similar to the one at the end.
Back to index
Last modified on 03 November 2011.