| { |
| "paper_id": "Y95-1029", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T13:38:51.658029Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "Preferred Clause Structure in Mandarin Spoken and Written Discourse", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Shu-Mei", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Liu", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": "", |
| "institution": "Academia Sinica Taipei", |
| "location": { |
| "country": "Taiwan" |
| } |
| }, |
| "email": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "Y95-1029", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "This paper studies the preferred clause structure in Mandarin. Tao's [I] pioneering work proposed the following \"preferred clause structure in conversational Mandarin\":", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction'", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(1) The preferred clause structure in conversational Mandarin: i) in the form of XV, where ii) V is a verb on the lower extreme of the transitivity scale, and iii)X is a pronoun on A in low transitives, a full noun on the 0 role in high transitives, and the only argument in non-transitives Several crucial theoretical issues remain to be solved in the above definition. The fundamental issue is if there is a preferred clause structure for Mandarin in general. A more immediate question is if there is any contrast between the preferred structures of spoken and written discourse, and if the contrast can be explained. In other words, if we find the same tendencies in written discourse, Tao's \"preferred clause structure of conversational Mandarin\" can be expanded as the \"preferred clause structure of Mandarin.\" If the result is opposite, it indicates that these tendencies are not characteristics of Mandarin in general; rather, they might be spoken features distinguishing spoken modes from written ones ([2] , [3] ). This paper thus will focus on the comparison between the preferred clause structure of spoken discourse and that of written discourse.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 1010, |
| "end": 1014, |
| "text": "([2]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1017, |
| "end": 1020, |
| "text": "[3]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction'", |
| "sec_num": "1." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Two sets of data are examined in this study: one spoken, and the other one written. The spoken data is about five minutes of daily conversation held between three female graduate students in Taiwan, and the written one comes from randomly selected seven pages (p. 107-113) of a lyric prose entitled Yanzhi Pendi 011Mkiti2l, written by (Ilan Zhen [Ettil] . Both of them are calculated in .terms of clausal units ( [4] ). The spoken data comprises 277 clauses, and the written, 278.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 346, |
| "end": 353, |
| "text": "[Ettil]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 413, |
| "end": 416, |
| "text": "[4]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Database and Methodology", |
| "sec_num": "2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Each clause is coded in terms of clause types, grammatical roles and the status of arguments. The status of arguments is either Overt) or Z(ero), leading one of the three grammatical roles: S(ubject), A(gent), and O(bject). Five clause types are introduced: high transitivity clauses (HTR), low transitivity clauses (LTR), intransitive clauses (INT), stative clauses (STA), and copular clauses (COP). All of them but two have their coding principles following Tao's [1] A low in potency 0 totally affected 0 not affected 0 highly individuated 0 nonindividuated therefore, we, borrowing Hopper and Thompson's [5] parameters of transitivity, define HTR as clauses which have feature A (two or more participants) and at least another five high transitivity features in the parameters listed in Table 1 . LTR, on the contrary, -are clauses which have feature A but contain fewer than five other high transitivity features. In this way, we have clear criteria distinguishing HTR from LTR. Yet, this is only for convinience of coding, and one must bear in mind the continuum nature of the transitivity of clauses. Being a general constraint on information flow, One Lexical Argument Constraint is expected to be observed in both spoken and written discourses. Our data, be it written or spoken, support this expectation. Table 2 indicates that over half of non-transitive clauses have their only argument overt 2. The same tendency is observed in all types of transitive clauses except spoken LTR clauses ( Table 3 ). The percentage of Ov+Z is LOWER than that of Ov+Ov in spoken LTR clauses. Does that mean that One Lexical Argument Constraint does not hold in Mandarin discourse? Our answer is NO. In next section, we will show that there exists one special type of verbs in LTR which yields the superficial violation of One Lexical Argument Constraint. xiang 'think,' and juede 'feel,' etc, called cognition-utterance (CU) verbs in Givon [8] . They are special in two ways: Firstly, most of the CU verbs have both A and 0 arguments overt, yielding the superficial violation of One Lexical Artignent Constraint in spoken LTR clauses. In fact, if we exclude CU verbs from our counts, the tendency of One Lexical Argument manifests itself again. Givon [8] , in studying the binding strength of verb complement clauses, states that CU verbs stand in the lower position of the binding hierarchy and actually behave in some way rather like an adverbial-subordinate clause. This possibly explains the peculiarity of CU verbs. Secondly, CU verbs have epistemic use which typically occur in spoken context, and can be considered as a spoken feature. Observing the metalinguistic use of ni 'you,' Biq [9] mentions that with 1st-or 2nd-person subjects, the Mandarin verbs shuo 'speak,' xiang 'think,' and kan 'see' (which are CU verbs, in our classification) can function epistemically to express the speaker's emphasis on his/her upcoming speech. This makes it more plausible that they function like an adverbial clause. In addition, the occurrence of CU and the frequency of CU's taking Ov+Ov arguments are higher in spoken discourse than in written ones (Table 4, 5 and 6 ). They can thus be regarded as a spoken feature. Table 7 shows a surprising high frequency of our HTR clauses. It indicates that Tao's claim in this respect isn't true in Mandarin discourse. In fact, it can't even be a tendency of spoken discourse, as the frequency of HTR ranks highest in one spoken corpus (ours) but lowest in another one (Tao's) . Apparently, neither Mandarin clause structure nor language modes is the factor determining the preference or dispreference of certain clause types. HTR and LTR show different tendencies in their selecting sole overt arguments in Tao's data. However, our LTR, as well as HTR, tends to pick an overt 0 as its sole argument instead of an overt A (Table 6 ). Yet, we believe this result to be reasonable and natural. In Mandarin A tends to occur in preverbal position, identified with given information whereas 0 tends to occur in postverbal position, associated with new information. It is thus natural that 0, the one bringing new information, should be selected first if there is only one overt role. This explains why HTR clauses in both Tao's and our data have Os as their sole overt arguments, and we find no reason why LTR should not observe the same tendency.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 466, |
| "end": 469, |
| "text": "[1]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 608, |
| "end": 611, |
| "text": "[5]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1934, |
| "end": 1937, |
| "text": "[8]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 2245, |
| "end": 2248, |
| "text": "[8]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 2687, |
| "end": 2690, |
| "text": "[9]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 3502, |
| "end": 3509, |
| "text": "(Tao's)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 791, |
| "end": 798, |
| "text": "Table 1", |
| "ref_id": "TABREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1315, |
| "end": 1322, |
| "text": "Table 2", |
| "ref_id": "TABREF2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1501, |
| "end": 1508, |
| "text": "Table 3", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 3142, |
| "end": 3159, |
| "text": "(Table 4, 5 and 6", |
| "ref_id": "TABREF3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 3210, |
| "end": 3217, |
| "text": "Table 7", |
| "ref_id": "TABREF6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 3855, |
| "end": 3863, |
| "text": "(Table 6", |
| "ref_id": "TABREF5" |
| } |
| ], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Database and Methodology", |
| "sec_num": "2." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Let us summarize our findings: (1) The -preferred clause structure of Mandarin IS XV, and One Lexical Argument Constraint is generally observed in Mandarin Chinese. (2) CU verbs, leading an adverbial clause with epistemic use, should be viewed as a spoken feature. (3) Neither Mandarin clause structure nor language modes determines the preference/dispreference of certain clause types. (4) 0 role tends to be the sole overt argument not only in HTR clauses but also in LTR clauses.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Conclusions and Implications", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "There are two important implications in this study: First, our finding XV as the preferred clause structure in Mandarin supports Du Bois's ( [6] , [7] ) claim that the concept of basic word order (SVO, SOV, etc) is invalid and misleading. Second, following the researches of Chafe [2] and Chang [3] , we find another spoken feature in our study of the contrast between spoken and written discourses: The high occurrence of CU verbs tallys with the interactive, situated, and irnrnediated characteristics of spoken language.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 141, |
| "end": 144, |
| "text": "[6]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 147, |
| "end": 150, |
| "text": "[7]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 281, |
| "end": 284, |
| "text": "[2]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 295, |
| "end": 298, |
| "text": "[3]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Conclusions and Implications", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Notes . 1 I would like to thank Prof. Chu-Ren Huang, Prof. Hong-Yin Tao, Prof Vincent Chang and Joy Wu for their comments and advisements.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 86, |
| "end": 95, |
| "text": "Chang and", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Conclusions and Implications", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "2 Here we don't explain statistics in detail. Important figures are printed in bold-face or italics.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Conclusions and Implications", |
| "sec_num": "4." |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "The Discourse and Grammar Interface: Preferred Clause Structure in Mandarin Conversation", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "H Y", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Tao", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1994, |
| "venue": "JCLTA", |
| "volume": "29", |
| "issue": "3", |
| "pages": "1--34", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "H Y Tao. The Discourse and Grammar Interface: Preferred Clause Structure in Mandarin Conversation. JCLTA 29 (3): 1-34. 1994.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF1": { |
| "ref_id": "b1", |
| "title": "Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "W", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Chafe", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1987, |
| "venue": "Coherence and Grounding in Discourse", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "21--51", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "W Chafe. Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow. In Russel Tomlin, ed., Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, 21-51, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1987.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF2": { |
| "ref_id": "b2", |
| "title": "Spoken or Written?: A Case Study of Written Features in Oral Texts", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "H H", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Chang", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1995, |
| "venue": "Paper presented at International Conference on New Technology in Teaching and Learning Chinese", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "H H Chang. Spoken or Written?: A Case Study of Written Features in Oral Texts. Paper presented at International Conference on New Technology in Teaching and Learning Chinese. April 28-30, 1995, Sanfrancisco.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF3": { |
| "ref_id": "b3", |
| "title": "Information Flow in Mandarin Chinese Discourse", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "K", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Chui", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1994, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "K Chui. Information Flow in Mandarin Chinese Discourse. Ph.D. Dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University, 1994.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF5": { |
| "ref_id": "b5", |
| "title": "Competing Motivations", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "J W Du", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Bois", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1985, |
| "venue": "The Discourse Basis of Ergativity", |
| "volume": "63", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "805--855", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "J W Du Bois. Competing Motivations. In J Haiman, ed., Iconicity in Syntax, 343-365. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1985. [7] ---. The Discourse Basis of Ergativity. Language 63: 805-855. 1987.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF6": { |
| "ref_id": "b6", |
| "title": "The Binding Hierarchy and the Typology of Complements", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "T", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Giv", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "I", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "On", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1980, |
| "venue": "Studies in Language", |
| "volume": "4", |
| "issue": "3", |
| "pages": "333--377", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "T Giv I on. The Binding Hierarchy and the Typology of Complements. Studies in Language 4 (3): 333-377. 1980.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF7": { |
| "ref_id": "b7", |
| "title": "The Multiple Uses of the Second Person Pronoun Ni in Conversational Mandarin", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Y", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Biq", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1991, |
| "venue": "Journal of Pragmatics", |
| "volume": "16", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "307--321", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Y 0 Biq. The Multiple Uses of the Second Person Pronoun Ni in Conversational Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics 16: 307-321. 1991.", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "TABREF1": { |
| "num": null, |
| "html": null, |
| "text": "Parameters of transitivity glopper and Thompson 1980: 252) High Low 3. Results and Discussion The preferred clause structure in Mandarin conversation illustrated in (1) implies three important tendencies: First, One Lexical Argument Constraint ([6], [7]) is observed. Second, high transitivity clauses are disfavored. Finally, with one argument omitted, HTR and LTR behave efferently in selecting their sole overt arguments. This section presents the results of our analysis and examines the three tendencies respectively. 3.1 One Argument per Clause?", |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table/>" |
| }, |
| "TABREF2": { |
| "num": null, |
| "html": null, |
| "text": "Distribution of argument types in non-transitive clauses", |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td>N</td><td>INT</td><td colspan=\"2\">% N</td><td>STA</td><td>TOTAL ----% N %</td></tr><tr><td>SPOKEN</td><td>Ov</td><td>30</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">58% 17</td><td>52% 47</td><td>55%</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>22</td><td/><td>42%</td><td>16</td><td>48% 38</td><td>45%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>TOTAL</td><td>52</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">100% 33</td><td>100% 85</td><td>100%</td></tr><tr><td>WRI1 I EN</td><td>Ov</td><td>39</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">57% 12</td><td>48% 51</td><td>54%</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>30</td><td/><td>43%</td><td>13</td><td>52% 43</td><td>46%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>TOTAL</td><td>69</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">100% 25</td><td>100% 94</td><td>100% n\u2022 nnnnn\u2022 n\u2022</td></tr></table>" |
| }, |
| "TABREF3": { |
| "num": null, |
| "html": null, |
| "text": "", |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">of argument types in LTR clauses</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">NON-CU N</td><td colspan=\"2\">% N</td><td>CU</td><td>ALL=LTR % N</td><td>%</td></tr><tr><td>SPOKEN</td><td>Ov + Ov</td><td>21</td><td colspan=\"3\">44% 26</td><td/><td>70% 47</td><td>55%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Ov + Z</td><td>23</td><td colspan=\"3\">48% 11</td><td/><td>30% 34</td><td>40%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Z+ Z</td><td>4</td><td/><td>8%</td><td>0</td><td/><td>0%</td><td>4</td><td>5%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>TOTAL</td><td>48</td><td colspan=\"3\">100% 37</td><td/><td>100% 85</td><td>100%</td></tr><tr><td>WRITTEN</td><td>Ov + Ov</td><td>30</td><td colspan=\"3\">35% 14</td><td/><td>58% 44</td><td>40%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Ov + Z</td><td>52</td><td colspan=\"3\">61% 10</td><td/><td>42% 62</td><td>57%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Z+ Z</td><td>3</td><td/><td>4%</td><td>0</td><td/><td>0%</td><td>3</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>TOTAL</td><td>85</td><td colspan=\"3\">100% 24</td><td/><td>100% 109</td><td>100%</td></tr></table>" |
| }, |
| "TABREF4": { |
| "num": null, |
| "html": null, |
| "text": "", |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Cos nition utterance(CUl verbs in LTR clauses</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>LTR</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>NON-CU</td><td/><td>CU</td><td/><td>ALL</td></tr><tr><td/><td>N</td><td>%</td><td>N</td><td>%</td><td>N</td></tr><tr><td>SPOKEN</td><td>48</td><td>56%</td><td>37</td><td>44%</td><td>85</td></tr><tr><td>WRITTEN</td><td>85</td><td>78%</td><td>24</td><td>22%</td><td>109,</td></tr></table>" |
| }, |
| "TABREF5": { |
| "num": null, |
| "html": null, |
| "text": "", |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td>The agent argument of CU verbs</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>SPOKEN</td><td/><td>WRITTEN</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>N</td><td>%</td><td>N</td><td>%</td></tr><tr><td>1st</td><td>30</td><td>81%</td><td>14</td><td>58%</td></tr><tr><td>2nd</td><td>0</td><td>0%</td><td>2</td><td>8%</td></tr><tr><td>3rd full NP</td><td>5 2</td><td>14% 5%</td><td>5 3</td><td>21% 13%</td></tr><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>37</td><td>100%</td><td>24</td><td>100%</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">3.3 High Transitivity Disfavored?</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">Contrary to Tao's low frequency of HTR (6.9%),</td><td/><td/></tr></table>" |
| }, |
| "TABREF6": { |
| "num": null, |
| "html": null, |
| "text": "Distribution of each clause woes in spoken and written discourse", |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td colspan=\"2\">WRITTEN</td><td/><td/><td>SPOKEN</td><td/></tr><tr><td>Clause Type</td><td colspan=\"2\">Number</td><td>Percentage</td><td/><td>Number</td><td>Percentage</td></tr><tr><td>HTR</td><td colspan=\"2\">53</td><td>19.1 %</td><td/><td>87</td><td>31.4%</td></tr><tr><td>LTR</td><td colspan=\"2\">109</td><td>39.2%</td><td/><td>85</td><td>30.7%,</td></tr><tr><td>INT</td><td colspan=\"2\">69</td><td/><td/><td/><td>18.8%</td></tr><tr><td>STA</td><td colspan=\"2\">25</td><td/><td/><td/><td>11.9%</td></tr><tr><td>COP</td><td>22</td><td/><td>7.9%</td><td/><td>20</td><td>7.2%</td></tr><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>278</td><td/><td>100.0%</td><td/><td>277</td><td>100.0%,</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"6\">3.4 Overt A in Low Transitives and Overt 0 in High Transitives?</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Table 6. Overt arLument forms on. A and 0 roles</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">HTR</td><td>LTR</td><td colspan=\"2\">TOTAL</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>N</td><td colspan=\"2\">% N</td><td>% N</td><td>%</td></tr><tr><td>SPOKEN</td><td>A</td><td>7</td><td colspan=\"2\">18% 12</td><td>35% 19</td><td>26%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>0</td><td>32</td><td colspan=\"2\">82% 22</td><td>65% 54</td><td>74%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>TATOAL</td><td colspan=\"3\">39 100% 34</td><td>100% 73</td><td>73%</td></tr><tr><td>WRI1 EN</td><td>A</td><td>3</td><td>11%</td><td>7</td><td>11% 10</td><td>11%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>0</td><td>25</td><td colspan=\"2\">89% 55</td><td>89% 80</td><td>89%</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">TOTAL 1.N.NIMIIMIMONMINYINNIIMIMMINONNMOMMIONIMINNIMINNWIM</td><td>28</td><td colspan=\"4\">100% 62 IIMINMMINNININISM\u202201110n1.1101:1\u202210,11\u2022IMMOI:ONNOIHMIN\u2022110=001.11MMINMIUMON=BINSINN.a. 100% 90 100%</td></tr></table>" |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
