Phonological Awareness on Consonant Sounds of the Grade 11

Students of Our Lady of the Pillar College-San Manuel, Inc.

A Research Study in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirement in Phonology and Applied

Linguistics for Communication

Norman S. Mina, Jr.

Hillary Joy M. Rufino

April 2021
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

There are several skills involved in learning and speaking a

second language (L2), such as grammar, vocabulary, and

pragmatics, but pronunciation appears to be the most difficult,

particularly for adult learners, because it requires intricate

coordination of a set of cognitive and physiological skills

(Celce-Murcia, Brinton, Goodwin, & Griner, 2010). Farser (2000)

emphasizes the importance of pronunciation to L2 learners,

stating that learners with proper pronunciation are more likely

to be understood even if their knowledge of grammar or vocabulary

is weak. In contrast, learners with poor pronunciation will be

misunderstood even if their understanding of grammar or

vocabulary is strong. According to Gilakjani (2012), learners'

self-confidence will be undermined, and their social interactions

will be limited if they have poor pronunciation. According to

MacIntyre (2007), some learners may be unwilling to communicate

with native speakers even when they have the opportunity due to

the situation's stress and anxiety, which is especially true for

learners with poor, unintelligible, or incomprehensible

pronunciation. 
 The intelligence and comprehensibility of L2 pronunciation

are essential for adult learners pursuing higher education. Many

university classes worldwide require students to have strong oral

communication skills; they must participate in classroom

discussions, work in groups, and give lectures (Murphy, 1991). As

a result, accurate pronunciation is one of the most critical

indicators of language proficiency (Ali & Segaran, 2013; Galaczi,

Post, Li & Graham, 2011). 

Accentedness is a prominent feature of L2 speech (Park,

2015), which means that non-native speakers' speech sounds

foreign or unfamiliar to native speakers. Accentedness refers to

the degree to which an utterance's pronunciation differs from a

standard pattern of native speakers' words (Derwing & Munro,

2005). Cross-linguistic transfer (Gass & Selinker, 2008;

Navehebrahim, 2012), the age of L2 learning (Hurford 1991; Long,

1990), motivation (Gatbonton, Trofimovich & Magid, 2005;

Gilakjani, 2012), attitude (Elliot, 1995), and instruction are

all potential influences on the foreign accent (Derwing, Munro, &

Wiebe, 1998; Lord, 2005). According to research, speech

deviations from standard pronunciation do not achieve the

expected level of intelligibility and comprehensibility (Munro &

Derwing, 1995; Tsurutani, 2012). As a result, teaching acceptable

pronunciation should be one of the priorities in L2, although it

has yet to find its rightful place on L2 syllabi and classroom

environments (Baker & Murphy, 2011; Derwing & Munro, 2005;

Gilner, 2008). 

Previous research in the Philippines has revealed that some

phonological features of American General English (AGE) are not

present in Filipino English (PE), causing some Filipino English

learners to make consonant production errors. The labiodental

fricatives /f/ (voiceless) and /v/ (voiced) are consonant

categories that do not exist in the Filipino sound system

(voiced). Filipino English speakers voice these as bilabial stops

/b/ (voiceless) and /b/ (voiced). However, it is not uniform in

the Philippines because/f/ and/v/ are present in specific

Philippine languages such as Ibanag (for example, /bavi/

‘pig', /inafi/ ‘boiled rice'). Other consonants that are present

in General America but not in Filipino English are the

interdental or continuing fricatives/ (voiceless) and/

(voiceless), which are pronounced/t/ and/d/ in PE (Tayao, 2004).

Researchers believe that determining the type of error made by

students when teaching pronunciation aids teachers in identifying

and correcting this error.

This study aims to look into the consonant sounds of the

English Language wherein the students of Grade 11 of Our Lady of

the Pillar College- San Manuel, Inc. are having difficulty in

pronunciation. 
Theoretical Framework

The constructivism thinks that a child should be an active

participant in leaning process. It is also believed by Jean

Piaget that children learn best when they are able to interact in

their environment with peers and adults.  A constructivist

approach in the classroom may include time to play, explore,

experiment, and use the language.  This approach is an extremely

valid one to take when teaching phonemic awareness and

phonics.  For children to understand phonemic awareness, the

alphabetic principle and gain phonics knowledge, they need

exposure to language and text and time to explore and experiment

with their use of language.  Constructivist theory and best

practices for teaching phonemic awareness agree that child should

use “curiosity, inquisitiveness and spontaneity to help

themselves learn” (Morrow, 2009).

From the concept of constructivism, the researchers

proceeded to describe the phonemic awareness of the learners as

it is a basis to the study.

Paradigm of the Study

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Profile of the  Identification

respondents  Survey of which
consonant
 Grade level  Checklist sounds are
 Strand correctly
 Age  Interview recognized and
 Sex produced by the
 Data learners.
Recognized and
 Identification
produced Consonant Interpretation
of which
Sound
 Data analysis consonant
 Consonant sounds are
sounds incorrectly
produced recognized and
correctly and produced by the
incorrectly learners.
 Possible
Ways of learning reasons for
the consonant correct and
sounds in their incorrect
younger years recognition and
Problems in production of
consonant sound consonant
production and the sounds
possible cause/s

Figure 1. The Paradigm of the Research

The figure above shows the input, process, and output model

of the study. The input consists of the profile of the students,

the consonant sounds produced, the ways of learning the consonant

sounds, and the problems in consonant sounds. These will be

needed as variables to come up with the output. The process

involves the use of survey, checklist, and interview.

Furthermore, during the process, the statistical analysis of

getting the percentage will be used. In the output, the result of

the study will be the identification of the correctly recognized

and produced consonant sounds, incorrectly recognized and

produced consonant sounds, and the possible reasons for the

outcome.

Statement of the Problem

This study attempts to describe the phonemic awareness on

consonant sounds of the Grade 11 students of Our Lady of the

Pillar College- San Manuel, Inc.

Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the Grade 11 students in terms of the

following?

a. strand

b. sex

c. age

2. What consonant sounds will the Grade 11 students recognize

and produce correctly?

 3. What consonant sounds will the Grade 11 students recognize

and produce incorrectly?

4. How did the Grade 11 students learn the consonant sounds in

their younger years?

5. What consonant sounds do the Grade 11 students have problems

in recognizing and producing and the possible cause?

Significance of the Study

The phonemic awareness is a major concern of the individuals

in the academe. It is also vital for the following reasons

according to Reading Rockets (2021):

 Phoneme awareness facilitates growth in printed word

recognition. Even before a student learns to read, we can

predict with a high level of accuracy whether that student

will be a good reader or a poor reader by the end of third

grade and beyond (Good, Simmons, and Kame'enui, 2001;

Torgesen, 1998, 2004).

 Readers with phonological processing weaknesses also tend to

be the poorest spellers (Cassar, Treiman, Moats, Pollo, &

Kessler, 2005).
  Instruction in speech-sound awareness reduces and alleviates

reading and spelling difficulties (Adams, Foorman, Lundberg,

& Beeler, 1998; Gillon, 2004; NICHD, 2000; Rath, 2001).

 People who can take apart words into sounds, recognize their

identity, and put them together again have the foundation

skill for using the alphabetic principle (Liberman,

Shankweiler, & Liberman, 1989; Troia, 2004). Without phoneme

awareness, students may be mystified by the print system and

how it represents the spoken word.

Hopefully, this study will be beneficial and useful to a

number of people in the academe.

Students or the L2 learners will be more aware of the phonemes

specifically the consonant sounds to help them be more effective

readers and speakers.

Teachers will be able to facilitate the teaching-learning

process with high account to develop the phonemic awareness of

the learners especially in their difficulties.

School administrators will be able to utilize the result of

this study to further develop programs and activities to improve

the phonemic awareness of the learners.

Future researchers will be interested to conduct similar or

related studies to this one.

Scope and Limitation

This study entitled “The Phonemic Awareness on Consonant

Sounds of Grade 11 Students of the Our lady of the Pillar

College- San Manuel, Incorporated, San Manuel, Isabela” aimed to

describe the phonemic awareness of the learners.

Thirty (30) Grade 11 students were purposively selected as

respondents of the study. The conduct of the survey and interview

were done virtually, hence, issues on reliability and validity

are identified as limitations of this study.

Definition of Terms

The terms are defined operationally in order to have a

better understanding of the problem to be studied.

 Phonemic Awareness: This is the ability to recognize and to

produce sounds from written words to spoken words.

 Consonant sound checklist: This is a researcher-made

checklist consisting of words possessing the consonant

sounds of English. Each consonant sound is present in at

least three words in the checklist.

 CHAPTER II

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter of the research presents the procedures and

methodology of the study. The research design, respondents,

sampling procedures, research locale, and instrumentation,

procedures for the data gathering and data analysis employed by

the researcher are discussed.

Research Design

In this design, the researchers used qualitative research,

specifically, survey method because information will be collected

from a group of Grade 11 students to describe the phonemic

awareness of the population of which the participants belong.

A cross-sectional survey is used. This is collecting

information from a sample that has been drawn from a

predetermined population. Furthermore, the information was

collected at one-point in time. (Frankel, J.R., Wallen, N.E, &

Hyun, H.H., 2013).

Respondents

The respondents of the study were 30 Grade 11 students of

Our Lady of the Pillar College- San Manuel, Inc. and were chosen

using the purposive sampling. In this way, the researchers used

their judgment to select the sample that they believe, based on

prior information, will provide the data that they need (Frankel,

J.R., Wallen, N.E, & Hyun, H.H., 2013). Since, the researchers

will conduct a virtual survey, they considered the factor that

not all students have internet access and good internet

connectivity, therefore, members of the sample are those who are

can meet these demands.

Research Instruments

Questionnaire

The first part of part of the instrument is the profile of

the students answering the following: name (optional); grade

level; strand; age; and sex.

In the second part, the researchers made a list of words

bearing the consonant sounds of English which they call

“Consonant Sounds Checklist.” The participants will read each

word and the researchers will check if they produced the sounds
properly. The checklist will be scored based on the pronounced

and mispronounced sounds.

Interview

In order to describe better the phonological awareness of

the Grade 11 Students, they were interviewed using structured

questions after completing the questionnaire and checklist. The

answers will be used to interpret the data.

Data Collection

The researchers conducted a virtual survey and interview

wherein thirty (30) participants were one-by-one asked to

accomplish the profile section of the survey. Afterwards, they

were instructed in the second part to read each word. The

researchers checked if the consonant sounds were produced

properly or not. They tallied the scores for data interpretation

and analysis.

Moreover, the researchers interviewed each participant

virtually. The interview was structured in order to have all

participants respond to the same questions and to ensure

objectivity. The interview was recorded for further analysis.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

To analyze the profile of the participants, frequency

distribution and percentage were used.

In order to determine their phonological awareness on

consonant sounds, the percentage is computed for each consonant

sound.
 CHAPTER III

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The interpretation and analysis of the data gathered is

presented in this chapter. The questions asked in the first

chapter are to be answered as the discussion of this chapter

progresses. Moreover, the researches and literatures reviewed

will be used to enrich the discussion for the interpretation of

the data collected.

Table 1. Frequency Distribution and Percentage of the

Respondents’ Sex

Sex Frequency Percentage

Male 6 28.57 %

Female 15 71.43 %

Total 21 100 %
 The table above shows the profile of the respondents. With

the total of 21 participants, it is evident that there are more

females which is 71.43 % than males which is 28.57 %.

Table 2. Frequency Distribution and Percentage

of the Respondents’ Strand

Percenta
Sex Frequency
ge

ABM (Accountancy, Business, Management) 2 9.52 %

HUMSS (Humanities, Social Sciences) 1 4.76 %

STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering,

18 85.71 %
Mathematics)

Total 21 100 %

In this table, 85.71 % of the respondents belong to the STEM

(Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) since most of

them have stable internet connectivity as preferred in the

purposive sampling done by the researchers.

 Table 3. Frequency Distribution and Percentage of the

Respondents’ Age

Sex Frequency Percentage

16 years old 8 38.09 %

17 years old 11 52.38 %

18 years old 2 9.52 %

Total 21 100 %

The table presents the age of the respondents wherein the

average age of the Grade 11- Senior High School students of the

Our Lady of the Pillar College-San Manuel, Inc. is 17 years old.

This age level is considered adolescent age.

 Table 4. The Result of the Consonant Sound Checklist

Consonan Word No. of No. of Manner of

t Sound students students Articulation
mispronounce successfull each
d the sound y Misarticulate
(%) pronounced d Sound
the sound Belongs
(%)
/b/ best 0 21 (100%) -
about 0 21 (100%) -
robber 0 21 (100%) -
/p/ public 0 21 (100%) -
improper 0 21 (100%) -
appear 0 21 (100%) -
/t/ task 0 21 (100%) -
attend 0 21 (100%) -
private 1 (4.76%) PLOSIVE
/d/ dear 0 21 (100%) -
ended 0 21 (100%) -
hidden 0 21 (100%) -
/k/ koala 0 21 (100%) -
technique 0 21 (100%) -
chord 0 21 (100%) -
/g/ gum 0 21 (100%) -
struggle 0 21 (100%) -
spaghetti 0 21 (100%) -
/f/ false 0 21 (100%) -
afford 0 21 (100%) -
nephew 5 (23.81%) FRICATIVE
/v/ verse 0 21 (100%) -
strove 3 (14.29%) FRICATIVE
explosive 6 (28.57%) FRICATIVE
/θ/ through 7 (33.33%) FRICATIVE
bath 7 (33.33%) FRICATIVE
healthy 6 (28.57%) FRICATIVE
/ð/ these 1 (4.76%) FRICATIVE
rhythm 11 (52.38%) FRICATIVE
brother 0 21 (100%) -
/s/ cease 2 (9.52%) FRICATIVE
glass 0 21 (100%) -
 license 0 21 (100%) -
/z/ zealous 0 21 (100%) -
dessert 21 (100%) -
cheese 20 (95.24%) -
/ʃ/ sheer 0 21 (100%) FRICATIVE
infectious 1 (4.76%) FRICATIVE
parachute 4 (19.05%) FRICATIVE
/ʒ/ television 21 (100%) FRICATIVE
measure 20 (95.24%) FRICATIVE
luxury 20 (95.24%) FRICATIVE
/ʧ/ chuckle 0 21 (100%) -
preach 0 21 (100%) -
kitchen 0 21 (100%) -
/ʤ/ journey 0 21 (100%) -
surgeon 2 (9.52%) AFFRICATE
grudge 1 (4.76%) AFFRICATE
/h/ hemisphere 0 21 (100%) -
whole 0 21 (100%) -
behavior 0 21 (100%) -
/m/ mince 0 21 (100%) -
commerce 0 21 (100%) -
somewhere 0 21 (100%) -
/n/ night 0 21 (100%) -
knot 0 21 (100%) -
gnome 5 (23.81%) NASAL
/ɧ/ tong 0 21 (100%) -
lengthy 0 21 (100%) -
banquet 10 (47.62%) NASAL
/l/ ladder 0 21 (100%) -
valley 0 21 (100%) -
belittle 0 21 (100%) -
/r/ radio 0 21 (100%) -
earring 0 21 (100%) -
feather 0 21 (100%) -
/w/ wagon 0 21 (100%) -
between 0 21 (100%) -
wheelbarro 0 21 (100%) -
w
/y/ yuletide 0 21 (100%) -
tyrant 0 21 (100%) -
memory 0 21 (100%) -
 Out of the 24 consonant sounds of the English language, the

students have no difficulty in pronouncing these 12 nouns:

/b/, /p/, /d/, /k/, /g/, /ʧ/, /h/, /m/, /l/, /r/, /w/, /y/. One

(1) student mispronounced the /t/ in the word ‘private’. Five (5)

students or equivalent to 23.81% of the sample mispronounced the

word ‘nephew’, wherein the respondents tend to substitute /f/

with the plosive /p/. Nine (9) respondents were troubled on the

word ‘explosive’ and ‘stove’, substituting the sound /b/ to the

sound of /v/. 20 (students) tends to substitute /θ/ with /t/ in

the following words: through, bath, and healthy. Some respondents

also mispronounced ‘these’ and ‘rhythm’, substituting /ð/ with

/d/.

The consonant sounds that the respondents are having

difficulty in pronouncing are the sound /z/ in the words:

‘dessert’ and ‘cheese’ and /ʒ/ in the words: ‘television’,

‘measure’, and luxury. 21 students substituted /z/ with /s/ in

the word ‘dessert’ and 20 students substituted /z/ with /s/ in

the word ‘cheese’. 21 students substituted /ʒ/ with /ʃ/ in the

word ‘television’ and 20 students substituted /ʒ/ with /ʃ/ in the

words: ‘measure’ and ‘luxury’.

This is related to the research according to Tayao (2004)

that there some phonological features of American General English

(AGE) are not present in Filipino English (PE). This is causing

some Filipino English learners to make consonant production

errors. In this study, fricatives such as /f/, /v/, /ð/, and /ʒ/

are the sounds that the respondents mostly mispronounced.

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this chapter, conclusions drawn from the result of the

investigation as well as recommendation for other researches and

studies are presented.

Summary

Based from the analysis of the data collected, the researchers

were able to obtain the following:

1. Most of the respondents were female, aged 17 years old, and

from the STEM strand.

 2. The Grade 11 students correctly recognized and produced the

following sounds: /b/; /p/; /d/; /k/; /g/; /ʧ/; /h/; /m/;

/l/; /r/; /w/; and /y/.

3. Grade 11 students incorrectly recognized and produced the

following sounds: /t/; /f/; /v/; /θ/; /ð/; /s/; /z/; /ʒ/;

/ʤ/; /n/; and /ɧ/.

4. Most Grade 11 students learned the consonant through their

parents who model the sounds and through formal instructions

where the teacher teach each sound.

5. Most of the Grade 11 students were aware that they have

problems in recognizing and producing the /s/ and /z/ sounds

because of lack of practice.

Conclusion

Based on the study's findings, the following conclusions

were reached: The consonant sounds recognized and produced by the

respondents with ease are /b/, /p/, /d/, /t/, /k/, /g/, /s/, /ʤ/,

/ʧ/, /h/, /m/, /l/, /r/, /w/, and /y/.

/f/, /v/, /θ/, /ð/, /ʃ/, are the fricatives which the

respondents are slightly having difficulty in producing followed

by the nasal /n/, /ɧ/ sound. The fricative /ʒ/ is the most

frequently mispronounced consonant sound by respondents in terms

of articulation, followed by the fricative /z/.

Recommendation
 Because most students fail to articulate these sounds

correctly, English teachers must teach the alveolar and

labiodental fricatives alongside the consonant sounds. Language

teachers should also encourage students to participate in

practice exercises that improve their ability to produce

consonant sounds. It is also necessary to provide additional

reading materials and activities for aspiring teachers in order

to improve their consonant sound production. Provide training and

development activities to help Education students improve their

pronunciation skills. These will help students' phonological

awareness, especially since they will be teaching these sounds to

future students.

March 11, 2021

MARIJOE M. PIMENTEL, M.A.Ed.

School Principal
Our Lady of the Pillar College- San Manuel, Inc.
San Manuel, Isabela

Madam:

Greetings in the Name of the Lord.

We are currently conducting a study entitled “Phonological

Awareness on Consonant Sounds of Grade 11 Students of Our Lady of
the Pillar College-San Manuel, Inc.” as part of our requirement
in our subject in masteral- Phonology and Applied Linguistics for
Communication.

In connection with this, we would like to ask permission from

your humble office to conduct the said study in your institution.
If given permission, 30 students are needed to participate in the
study.

Your approval to this request will help us to be successful in

our endeavor.

Thank you and may God bless you.

Yours respectfully,

NORMAN S. MINA, JR. (sgd.)

Student

HILLARY JOY M. RUFINO (sgd.)

Student

Noted by:

FELMA MELAD MANLIGOY (sgd.)

Adviser
Our Lady of the Pillar College- Cauayan City
Cauayan City, Isabela

The researchers from the Our Lady of the Pillar College-

Cauayan City is conducting a research entitled “Phonemic
Awareness on Consonant Sounds of Grade 11-Students of Our Lady of
the Pillar College- San Manuel, Inc.” Hence, this contains a
survey questionnaire of your profile, a checklist on the
consonant sounds in the English, and interview guide. Please
answer this with utmost veracity. All information gleaned will be
for the purpose of this study only. Thank you!

Survey Questionnaire
Provide the information being asked.
Name (optional): _______________________________________________
Grade level: _____________________ Strand: _____________________
Sex: _____________________________ Age: ________________________

Consonant Sounds Checklist

Here is a list of words. Please wait for the researcher to

facilitate you in your reading.

Consonant
Words Pronounced Mispronounced
sounds
/b/ best
about
robber
/p/ public
improper
appear
/t/ task
attend
private
/d/ dear
ended
hidden
/k/ koala
technique
chord
/g/ gum
struggle
spaghetti
/f/ false
afford
nephew
/v/ verse
strove
explosive
through
/θ/
bath
healthy
these
/ð/
rhythm
brother
/s/ cease
 glass
license
/z/ zealous
dessert
cheese
/ʃ/ sheer
infectious
parachute
/ʒ/ television
measure
luxury
/ʧ/ chuckle
preach
kitchen
/ʤ/ journey
surgeon
grudge
/h/ hemisphere
whole
behavior
/m/ mince
commerce
somewhere
/n/ night
knot
gnome
/ɧ/ tong
lengthy
banquet
/l/ ladder
valley
belittle
/r/ radio
earring
feather
/w/ wagon
between
wheelbarrow
/y/ yuletide
tyrant
memory

Interview
Please answer all questions in English. This interview will be

recorded.

1. How did you learn the consonant sounds in your younger

years?

2. What consonant sounds do you have problems ever since? What

might

Bibliography

Ali, A. Z. M. & Segaran, K. (2013). 3D talking-head mobile app: A

conceptual framework for English pronunciation learning

among non-Native speakers. English Language Teaching, 6(8),

66–76. doi:10.5539/elt.v6n8p66

Baker, A., & Murphy, J. (2011). Knowledge base of pronunciation

teaching: Staking out the territory. TESL Canada Journal,

28(2), 29–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v28i2.1071

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M., & Griner, B.

 (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A reference for teachers of

English to speakers of other languages (2nd ed.). New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press.

Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, intelligibility,

and comprehensibility: Evidence from four L1s. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 20, 1–16.

Frankel, J.R., Wallen, N.E, & Hyun, H.H. (2013). How to design

and evaluate research in education (8th edition). McGraw

Hill Education.

Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition:

An Introductory Course. New York: Routledge.

Gatbonton, E., Trofimovich, P., & Magid, M. (2005). Learners'

ethnic group affiliation and L2 pronunciation accuracy: a

sociolinguistic investigation. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 489–512.

Gilakjani, A.P. (2012). A study of factors affecting EFL

learners'

English pronunciation learning and the strategies for

instruction. International Journal of Humanities and Social

Science, 2(3), 119–128.

Hurford, J. R. (1991) The evolution of the critical period for

language acquisition, Cognition, 40, 159–201.

MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second

language: Understanding the decision to speak as a

volitional process. Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 564–576.

doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00623.x

Moats, L. & Tolman, C. (2021). Why phonological awareness is

important for reading and spelling. Reading Rockets.

Retrieved from https://www.readingrockets.org/article/why-

phonological-awareness-important-reading-and-

spelling#:~:text=Phoneme%20awareness%20facilitates%20growth

%20in,Torgesen%2C%201998%2C%202004)

Morrow, L.M. (2009). Literacy development in the early years:

Helping children read and write (6th ed.). Boston, MA:

Allyn and Bacon.

Piske, T. (2008). Phonetic awareness, phonetic sensitivity, and

the second language learner. In J. Cenoz & N. H. Hornberger

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed.),

 Vol. 6: Knowledge about language (pp. 155–166). New York:

Springer.

Tayao, M. G. (2004, February). The evolving study of Philippine

English phonology. Retrieved from World Englishes:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-

971X.2004.00336.x