Pragmatics Reader3.0

Masterseminar Pragmatics
Reader 3.0
Table of Contents
pdf page topic and original paper or chapter

1 table of contents
01 2 Implicature and presupposition
Grundy, ch. 4: Implicit Meaning: Grice’s Theory of Conversational
Implicature
02 18 Syntax-pragmatics interface
Leech,ch. 1.2: Principles of Pragmatics
03 34 Models of text production and comprehension
Cutting, Pragmatics & Discourse, ch.A
04 77 Discourse markers
Aijmer: English Discourse Particles
05 147 Fuzzy signals
Siegel: Like – The Discourse Particle and Semantics
06 184 Mental models in discourse
Lewandowska, Radial categories
07 215 Approximatives in English
Lewin, Hedging: An exploratory study of authors’ and readers’
identification of ‘toning down’ in scientific texts
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*&$$&+,$-.%6*&/
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%#
33%&&43'9&4&4&9(4)*$$*+,$-.%6)*/
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*+$$+,-$./%6*+0
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*+$$+,-$./%6*+,
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*+$$+,-$./%6*+.
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*+$$+&,$-.%6*+,
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*+$$+,-$&.%6*+/
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*+$$+,&$-.%6*#$
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*+$$+,-$./%6*#+
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&$
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*&$$&+,$-.%6*##
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&&
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*&$$&+,$-.%6*#/
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&#
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*&$$&+,$-.%6*#/
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&'
33%((43)9(4(4(9*4+&$$&,-$./%6+#0
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&'
33%((43)9(4(4(9*4+&$$&,-$./%6+#,
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&'
33%((43)9(4(4(9*4+&$$&,-$./%6+#.
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&'
33%((43)9(4(4(9*4+&$$&',$-.%6+#,
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&'
33%((43)9(4(4(9*4+&$$&,-$'.%6+#/
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&'
33%((43)9(4(4(9*4+&$$&,'$-.%6+/$
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&'
33%((43)9(4(4(9*4+&$$&,-$./%6+0&
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%#$
33%&&43'9&4&4&9(4)*$$*+,$-.%6)/#
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%#&
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*&$$&+,$-.%6*//
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%##
33%&&43'9&4&4&9(4)*$$*+,$-.%6)/0
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%#&
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*+$$+,-$./%6*&0
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%#&
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*+$$+,-$./%6*0,
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%#&
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*+$$+,-$./%6*0.
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%#&
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*+$$+&,$-.%6*/,
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%#&
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*+$$+,-$&.%6*/0
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%#&
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*+$$+,&$-.%6*/$
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%#&
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*+$$+,-$./%6*0+
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&$
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*+$$+,-$./%6*0#
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&'
33%((43)9(4(4(9*4+'$$',-$./%6+0&
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&#
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*+$$+,-$./%6*00
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&&
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*+$$+,-$./%6*01
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&'
33%((43)9(4(4(9*4+,$$,-.$/0%6+'-
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&'
33%((43)9(4(4(9*4+,$$,-.$/0%6+1/
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&'
33%((43)9(4(4(9*4+,$$,'-$./%6+0-
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&'
33%((43)9(4(4(9*4+,$$,-.$'/%6+01
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&'
33%((43)9(4(4(9*4+,$$,-'$./%6+0$
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&'
33%((43)9(4(4(9*4+,$$,-.$/0%6+1,
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&$
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*+$$+,-$./%6*0#
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&'
33%((43)9(4(4(9*4+'$$',-$./%6+01
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&#
33%''43(9'4'4'9)4*+$$+,-$./%6*0&
12334567895 2396 34 5492 929993253
9577 ! "92367#$$#%&'
33%((43)9(4(4(9*4+,$$,-.$/0%6+11
012345674589 5 4835

!"#$"%&'!
()*'+,!-.#"/'!0"*1
29613145415 63456412795819
$&0*'!:&;<=">:'>?="
0123432567289 19736 949 227129965269522 72594

49 4484585549 9227254224325559 28
9545425947!"#$%&'()*+&)('
,-258279./054197222572593
,-25967549 559.94349 9.456789:;7<;
52=2==4990522+&&>'
?@ABCBDEFGEHIBJKKGCLCMEI@HIN@HNOPAM@QCL@EHRCLC
9S25T459
U .9718976572345927/2-9822545367VT4599S25'
3''W689279,53679.69797#""!+%))X%Y%Z-'+X[
6827 99.543194522522748982\27'
+'U .971 4.64.2**45927' ]'U .971 4.64.2**^97657244797'
%'_,3649 4 9.69797''092''25927'
U+%]+__'%)__]XX]
(X+`(+*8]+ ]XX]X])XX%
#"a!&X]Y]]])XXWU65'[V+b))++])(bWc[Wd Z43'34325[
e]XX]f1 22S4972'g'
345197 34 252358628945359 31359 95h54
125247i916 i592 3259779 5 1236 97125'
f1 22S4976 9719.,'j'k'2\%>]](j+X]Xlm72584j0122125487
f1 22S497512594j'k'2\]Yb+&j194823194n +&++)*Xb+&jo"
0123456789513976466156
01234567589489
4 95 5579187958
785344489

!895"7958 #
$%$ &'()(*+,-./01*.+2(*)-/3+.4#
$%5 6'+,()(7
$%8 91)3-:+0;)'+<00=>
$%? @-./01*.+2(*)-/3+.(:,2*+A-01.(22*0(/'+.B
$%?%$ C2++/'(/))'+0*DE
$%?%5 F+3+A(:/+)'+0*DE
$%?%8 C/'-G*-:H.-:)+I*()-0:(3(22*0(/'#J
$%K L;1:/)-0:(32+*.2+/)-A+0:,-./01*.+2(*)-/3+.#M
$%K%$ N:,+O-/(3-)D#M
$%K%5 P*(QQ()-/(3-.()-0:(.(/*-)+*-0:0;,-./01*.+2(*)-/3+'00,#B
$%R S0Q0:DQD0*203D.+QD4#T
$%R%$ @+)+*Q-:-:I)'+/0*+Q+(:-:IJ7
$%R%5 U1Q<+*0;;1:/)-0:.J>
$%V 31+.,-.)-:I1-.'-:I<+)W++:2*020.-)-0:(3;1:/)-0:
(:,,-./01*.+;1:/)-0:JX
$%Y Z0*Q(:,;1:/)-0:JX
$%Y%$ Z1:/)-0:(3/31+.JE
$%[ \*0.2+/)-A+(:,*+)*0.2+/)-A+0*-+:)()-0:7X
$%$]6'+;1:/)-0:(3,0Q(-:.0;,-./01*.+2(*)-/3+.7E
$%$$@-./01*.+2(*)-/3+.0:)'+)+O)1(33+A+3M^
$%$$%$ 6'+;*(Q+;1:/)-0:M#
$%$$%5 6'+_1(3-;D-:I;1:/)-0:M>
0111234567897 6
97639563398 97
39976395637566
39976395637775
!39976395633"
#97639563 $56%
&'7 957
'()*+,-.
/012345676089:1;<=> ?
@ 797 ?
26A63678BCD
! 263EE393537 78BCDFG
# HCD3 935397 6I35937F
# HCD397557937 F
# 779335$78BCDF
#! HCD36I $6F
## HCDE7 757633576?
& 26976E6339768 97 78BCD?
& '7E3DJKK3BCD?"
L 269768 97 78BCD?G
L HCD336I353956?%
M HCDE3N3 656E6 3439N7 6
M HCD33E3N6786534737 7479
M OI5337 P953Q937 P7F
R HCD33S69T6E63?
R HCD33S69T6 396
R HCD 793953E6"
R! HCD3393678877%
R# HCD363676 6 6 Q6UE7353956V%
W '7 957
'()*+,-X
/015921;Y162539Z=[89\][ ?
! @ 797 ?
! ^_356I93597557937 "
!! 266I935$78C_""
!# 26976E6338 97 78C_"%
01234567589489
879581387195
533571958959475419734
04929585654!448994"99#4$
%557549456&
' (18754687958
' %44)
' *8+1914131958,
' (8731-71958 4.4874$
'/ * 4958184011
' 24179585523479584567859:;6<9=
> (16949194048945?9<@A
> (1818+959475419734)
B (8437919581375894"9),
B (8417958.4958 )
B (18731-71958.4958 )1
B C58D75009913184184158 )=
B/ (1165335D +813,
E 05713F418217G718843,)
E C401G 1845484,)
E H17G718843,$
E (181 4 0489,=
E/ *774918741848540489,&
I(186104698+,A
I *4187500489
I 18+495479.591958)
*75015824944818;$
(8;18539484 &
587358$
JKLMNOP
QRSTUVSWXSWYZU[\X[WVT]\S^_à $,
/ b8957958$,
/ c6<74*81425175419734@$$
/ 0475404188+1875468795856d6<7$=
// c6<718+1001971319581
0 123456786959
9869249826
29864468269
1552436967
668!6!5567"
# $5%529!64595 &2'5(
) 29!6*5!64595 +
) 2955&52,58*529*53 +
- 2995%2*5!64595 .
- 2995895 .
/ 29!526901
236984690(
3456789:
;<=>?@ABCD=EFGHIJHK 0L
$5%50L
MNONP29QR!567S0
15865&5299%297986967NONP0.
MNONP29%2&&2824269.1
T9%8845 679869.
15%2&&2824!6!5567UVWNONP."
668752567NONP.0
364468269 .X
# MNONP295 R!5X1
) 1579869 67NONPX
- Y*5924NONPX"
- MNONP229Q2, 5Z6SX"
- [52\45*54NONPX+
- MNONP299&352!!6&269X
- T5824&!5869X0
- MNONP29 547\5!2X.
/ ]^58*5NONPXX
/ MNONP296Z9699%XX
/ $5%9% 69%6!969 "1
/ MNO672986&&69%69"1"
/ MNONP2295%2*5!64595 25%R"1L
2 6*5!64595 9 53_T136! "1
MNONP29àbcNP"10
3698469"1X
01234567589489

!"#$%&$'((#$!) *++
,-. /89051279358*++
,-4 19455067415450137520481093734*+9
,-: 0151813814;3713396*+<
,-= 015181501>>193713319358*+<
,-? 0747504>4183851817504628793585604640489@A813915 *+B
,-?-. 58901389589742456915 **C
,-, 068456915 **+
,-,-. 074650>181628793585604640489@A81381093734**+
,-,-4 D3;41181 4>3@A;414;804 358 **9
,-,-: E4640489@A81391518175>853935813396**F
,-G H385239377324959746287935856974915**B
,-G-. 5335719358 **B
,-G-4 I05513780584093456974915*JC
,-G-: 04;99684181 573133675813935841K10319358*J*
,-L 074628793585604640489@A813915 *J9
,-M NOP@915 *J9
,-M-. 074Q75870493R19358S62879358*J9
,-M-4 07438948366385Q1814K40697385S915*9C
,-.T074UV@915*99
,-.T-.07491511818805;3>1950*99
,-.T-4074915119489193K484 74154*99
,-.. 04193K42456974915*9<
,-.4 58732358*9B
W
XYZ($[\]^_`]aab *c+
G-. /89051279358*c+
G-4 0394031650974137520481093734defgdhhi*c*
G-: Nefgdhhi181501>>193713319358*c9
G-= NefgdhhijkOldefjVmdhhi*cc
G-? D287935813381371950*cF
G-?-. 0741390322935856defgdhhi*cF
G-?-4 074604n2487656defgdhhi*co
G-?-: 074805513780584093456defgdhhi*F*
011 234567897 6
2697 3 636398 97 78!
" #3397 3 63$6
% &3783577 '
( #36534737 )*
+ #333$6784,69-363537 )
.7 957 )/
.0123456
789:;<=>89 ))
?@A@B@9:@= CD
EFG@>9H@I 'D
J<KL@:M>9H@I '!
01234564748936 7695394
!
"#"$%&'& $$(#!)*
+,-"#
!) .#$
$,(/#(0,12$()*
-$$+(.!#,3$
$-$$--)-+"-$(
4#"$$!$)*"#
!$$.
"$$!$!#,!"#)
5,"!!"$!((
6-7--))8,4!"$+$-
#"!,+!(
#.)*,!.
$$"!!$$")9+.!
#$$,-:$##$(-)-
#!$-)):++;$)
<:#$-$,)()5)%%=>)
012 3456789 78 8768

! "#$%$&%
' 4 47( 4)*
+, 8()744 47
-.- )58 /888
0 48
1 /66
2 78
3 646
12 /66578
21 785/66
12 /66678
21 786/66
789 )58 /( 8
: (7/8764;8
5 478764;8
< =5> 64594 47;8
?*8?6*86 46;;7458;9
==>> 74 @;9487(68;9
ABB> 48;C 474 8D996/E
BFG B4)G
B2G B G
HBI 47 88;C8
J 8;C7)47* 4C4D4
K%LM&%N$&%$M&&O!M
P9(8774/@74 498;C4Q8746)8.8;C5*-=:5:4745
87*6F4)5)>F8Q4)8;C5:P9Q894(48(55
7R)D795) 98 76)784(D498;C8=8S4(@
4)T447CUVVW/@ 74/@74( 974)747) 6Q8>:
XYP9;747;68 4)6*74594)745 /9Q@;6898@89874

T48Z@=UVV[>4)B7\@=UVV]>:
01234567897 73
!
"#$%
"& !
'$!%!"
# !$
!$" %!$((')*++
,-./ %"
%)0 #! "
01234567
89 9
!"#!! "$
%%!"&""'("$"
")""*+!&,"-.!"$&
!)"!'!&".!"!/)".!")"0
""!"'"%" "!"""
%)")&1-2,"!))))0
)"!"2&!/"!%"/"""/"
%"'3!")%%" ""0
/"%%!""$%!)&)""%")'
4"5&"267777*897:
;<; =>??@ AA@B? C@AD

EFGG)HIJ"K"/LM)NOG"P)" $&

) ) "
0
!"/-%&Q6777R:'7S"!")
" "")"T")"!) "$"%!
)"!"%)))'&!)")&%
)"T'U0)"$"%"
!")"!!!))"!"
""" )%"-'Q$"
% "$"%"")"!"'
;VP)""6"2W%":!!)%)"
!$&%)))"!!"'P$"!"$!)
%"6":"&%)"!"&!"!""
)"%"""6'X%777Y*7R:)+&!
!%" "% &)"$)!)),-0
"!""""" "%!!"" ",6U)Z["%\]]]*\1
'^"777_*\7:'`!2Za"$!)%+)"!%2,"%"
+&!"!)&)$"%!)"!
!%&,6`!2Za"$777R*\:'
0 12345678569 65946
666574523565969552 5255 45946
7 2569 6 59465654467 445234 56
52 95246532462569 6 6 !26"#$$%&'$(& )
944 752 537
7 7 6
44537 2 6
2 2 *3
+ 7 76537
3 266 ,- 6.7
367 46 2
2 /5 6
6 44 44
0 6 675977 2 6 695 77 95 19526
52945237 62 569 65942 2 2 6 6
544 47 377 562 67 3 9256 9!97
#$$$&))$34522#$$5&)$32262#$$6&789 42#$$:896 #$$$&$7)(
8569 659467 2359456759776 64529466
657 25/ 43295242359 56; 7466
257 6229 3 2 4359462596767 97 6
7<7 5=942463594427545 4 25236
52359295265245237 6 6 4526757
7 37 29 7 74>
8569 6 59466 56264 4 26295252366532
66527 9 2595295455237 7 652 52 7
29 27 656 5 692>494 6<756 62 27
569 65946 25234669 526 49 9752569 6
525952349 6 ?95292 2@526#$$6&#7%(7
457523596 52569 624656725262596
<7 / 29 569 65946667 7 652
7 4233A42 3#$$B&#6'( 23 52629327 656 'B3BBB
64 7 @22@2C 637569 6 56 46
52945233 5236372634356(99 2 $%D 44 9466
2632529392657 7436 9466 24 2
0E0 6544 >42759569 659464522 #$$5&7)(356645374
5F 2522 6 2 675977 955469744252527
45
012345672841 9
3 341461 151461 6246231812 87328772438
34828415 35238137416172841155728
87463 3287 3 5831234 435813435 812 16
76 42 3 16 343287 6 22271 47825
82 32 3314223465 28628617284182 622
241423287 1 15 246 823438281
5831274122 3484 71774612432836286172841
8282462628812 18142 3287
634 428 734615723824476 4142 245
1524447436 8168287 71 312 5!182841155 73828414
587463 3287 15741238622446361532158142235481
81587463 "7436 81682873478 286166812 2654
587463 3287 81587463 188113#434333 12726
34317 153485 2 4432618224 2652 582386284115$
617284143287 81 218 22237233 1281583123823
5 73828414587463 3287 37287872841 818
7431516 278128 36 587463 3287 82
32378841 8142812 8123728414324 828343
2 3324615321542 583123242 2233250141
128 36 587463 3287 81743372431426 2228
5248615321581" 23672631561728415 73828414
587463 3287 82343 6 643313 154656318
346158124 74358182587463 3287 815831216
%&''1())*+,$-.
/01 2345676
7436 6 5245 738 587463 3287 24 3 15 33 1
228 4158312222 "621287 41523 142 24
98937436 52 16 5812 3317 8232632 23813
1 %:74636();<.43 8 52435 7813 6781238 %:78381
();=.#341%();>.6 34 52728 14 628143862328
634 "4?1 1@%());.2654587463 3287 81A317881B68228
32321B6128228 "37127436 2658 C1%());.474352
5 73828414 728414D7411728 @8158728413 1238 822 6 812 CC#15
344 534362841 4283 181 3 62015582841 6 552342
#436 4:41" 3871E18%#:"E.
0 12345678569 65946
94496 522926 247 629 52 56292
5464452956257 52 267 222 6
!21234567" #926566 3747454452 6565
$ 6%&&& 6529452352 49992$ 652472
92$ 65256966524592 6 97"6 4'(#7 6 6
"766# 32 44946 526 9596695656966523
$5 5967 9 6469252692$ 6526 2 47
242 3522766 9792 66 52) 29
756954 46"3 66 669 56#7 9 6426564 7
24656 4236 976 26566549 5752 6
5237766 759459456523 47*+
7625 22952946 95235952472 9446
7 9 5236524 7 ',-&62',.&625294 62
4233 9 2 5T 29255267 6 625235
6 97"ML6# $54452 4567 "!$$52U 5',N&#
D $ 7 6267 49 2599 6256697 467$
2 6C447 6 62527 222 67$ 2
52$653 $27 37569 65946 692526 6G2
3 6 7 V62266W594594G7$97
/012345656 6527 53524
/783 /39:; <=>13?@A:39:;
BC 1"6 55 6# 6''K'L6('K'L6M'K- ML
BC 1"2 26 55 6# 6L'K.6%NK''6-( '(
11DEF1 6.'KM6N'KL6,'KM '&
8G! H!!GEF 6%'K.6-'6-MK%6'&N '(
HIG 6'&'K.6--6'''6''MK% '(
J1CJ18 6''(6'('K- .
4 N.
BC 1O99 92$ 6526P6'KM 6 55 64 9 P6L%NK''6-( 2 2
6 55 6
11DEF1O472 94465294523 6636 27 26 5239752 "6,M#
8G! H!!GEFO 45956966526252 $56
HIG O 459 2 9 2"39 256 26 6$2626 996526#
J1CJ18O 459 52"36 2649 6 6664 62Q362
455946 976#
"!$$5 4',N(2R 2S!$$5',,& 552452 52 27 6FI
197 476 235$29 495235 6954527 9 6G27 9 6972
2576 22 #
012345672841 9
34 2 4154161543682382215234 2 1723431
436 128 53120 4 5 74 384182
4337125234 2 4364415412 13 7 7!!"!!!
435" 87 74 852#$$%"242872634 43287 &
' 6581(1"811428"154 28 633881&)*1531#$$+,-%
* 3.42 4154161543682 73 6344587231738
2841/.326318512805'&341& '43331257412816
4633 87 &41&' 8123 3582 '&2 8213)'7.71
181118. 1.#$$-" 4652 4154161543624265&
587463 3.382 7411728 61728412345657"89:48:"0
5785524. 2 424 2317382841& '481435324' '24
. 43 528534458722 12 344587& '481765"43
81217"241 6182"64 58;31212"714 827"43
<&243445872317382841
=>? @ABCDEFGHBIFJGGK
*1&7436812828414 8168287 14 141&85387 155285
8143 2841'462223115363828 '6.42846 741824
838726584 728414 3287412 '84 2 41541615
4364/4.1L18
23#34852 243 43265&812 5874633287812
74153242 '44. 1&2873 43. 87 083448'5
412 8387M 8128414 587463 3287 41738287
62841442 343.813287337 155874631&8 42
8 432123432&4 587463 328782 83815M8782& 83432&
M81222 &381.524228265"62841"2&4.31542 3
58 18414 2 74 618728418262841N43432 37128123281
3 287828412 43& 3587&71546384 4587463
3287465' 501515 42 836465' 325242 181
4 2 3287028' 36522 1&4 2 343284 587463
328715 78&2 83 628617284182&71' M8153624
3 2878284143414813 28782841
OP/432 43 314364 41541 1316 743681765
.334 2158;312'4346441541"331281 346#%Q#+"154784
7414 87346#Q 7*1531R!!#
0 12345678569 65946
7 569 65946695 979 5659 62423 3 2
976296 75 29527 222 6
7 65952 492! 652"#$%&$'()*+),,&-)&.754 7 6
565 ! 5 23 6232 6/$0(594653244523
7656"7 7592952. 26552"7 142952.567 59
7 27 9552 565235677 594 7 4!
544 569663544 3 7*$076 49 2523
759756569 62952 27 14252 6244!492 5!
7 49265 67 52 59526$-2)-27529526656
9 659466532459675( 2 4 52 9456952
7 597 594646 1 66 52452!4! 226 ! 6
626 6 95!523252 52"7 68.957 3 7
6595! 594:;#&"7 <.(3 5 5452 652 145252356
6 1 667 6 8652!4! 2 =9256 7 594 6 52
3 252
7 62> !3 !5254 735235946
759752 9 ??526657527 65523252 492! 652
75 522952567 ! =95!@$%&$'ABC*+$' 5696652
7 2 2962436"3)*+),,&-)&.527 >DE&;),,F76
7 !52542952 65324793 62 19526"7
G.3544 52 75256=95! 75929525565H94
56523567 7 735235946
7 I !566 7 5696652 569 65946527
952397 624 66 52523 4 6
JKL MNOPQRSOTUVSWNPXTOVYZUST[NQROVUUSQVP\TO
7 52 652624233 252569 6527 469 7642
529 65259462 23762569 65946]2 656
7! !5 642466 569 6 5946763 2
525!5 45946525= 242336"397 ^_I(^___(2``^(
462^_I<(975=52^_IG(a 22?^__<(a6 ^__`(^___(b262^__I(
cdef,,562 45752756 b ! 2 29544 0f,,6529
75656 2 7 665569 65946 46 ]55 g5 2h22 32
" 79 523. 5696652 7 252322952 0f,,529265! 69
5!
012345672841 9
67 3 81 153125873418726584
587463!3287"68581#412 184283#3$$28715$1287
71# 55524463 14%5#*4 2 61728414 587463 !3287
&#'381241(36#422)"
+87463 !32873 334$ 245,1 756 242 58-.
76284 #13881#73458/3122!4 587463 !328715734
1#6#&15341*)01( 78#132 12481765 282$
26585%82812 3634!145328 43761#684.754!3#$287
!3287615%82812 1#4.$ 38714587463 $3 3623582841
&1531011531481765474117286&789:;<=<>8=<?@:
154.754!3#$287A!38416&BC<DEF8@GE8H81287
I4263!3881#8%41%2587463!328735481#"461515
1 461522214241 81#5,1828414 2 23$JK7L8@=7<CD=G<=3.
$8156158!6254361235"423337343283!63!4M&1
01*7743581#24N441&*012&$45!328734 68 81
283$ 181#2213 3243 $24,2MO4% 343$#3$$3
82224"4622 $ 181#1561728414587463!3287N36826
!!34724587463!32873812524" 46158158746318
&#P738/381*214$ 24544#877413284118&O6811
61!6"851581584#6 #$ 243&Q341R81! 772
243317 24374317."52438& 2 438%81'
3243872367263243&S11 (4$!411574$!622841.
24384 32841&T1422)!48125462"4% 714#81
1%818#2"462587463 !3287"3#3581#2$#3$$28785
& (36#422)"'3812411'3
(%481U61282438!348581#1184 $ 1246285 2
54$81412A3! 77224315317243P! 772243
VW$41# 326584 8$!43217XY87&*746524" $ 128415& O11
0N4338%8176581#2 2!3.!3#$287M3 Z2$1&)015N441
&*O11MA218 438%81765N31733741587463!3287%
337%82812 1#4.$ 387123582841&O11Q4T3441)&281
15'[[1&0281N873&7$ 462244224" 2 1812477461281
28%43
9W015582841%43 418158856!3287$5876!34!328%87737238
587463!328781#13246#2$" !3125!78,7!34!3284 2
587463!3287&O 8150)02\ 41 $38741731242 12634
2 !14$ 141% 3 A$8181#] 8822 81312!34!3284 446 14%643
!34!3284587463!3287781#13^M
0 12345678569 65946
7 7 6 569 65946429 7 76 2
594452 25496 5356 2599 2 7569 6
5946 523575232 47 9 25952
97552652 523 ! 2569 6 5946"#$%&'9252 6
52 25452569 6594 697"9( 2#$$)*+,'
-./.- 9797
07 6 569 659466 62 695 76
5 6 6 9796 16 979 546"22 662#$&)'8569 6
59467 46 29265 544952 95259523596
"34386' 55237 544952 9 6532447 6229 "9
4 42#$$&27 2967 '5 36 2544952 9
695496 736 26 5967568 7 66 77
6727 6! 56 54523754 7497
569 6 594 :;<=>?5467 @4575 26336677
6! 1562!52344 6265545 7 7 756 29 "A 2B
C5262#$%&*#,+'5 35235946 695452 66529 7 2
5 2 6 9 7 45D52 452666356:;<=>?929
526299 6663 6652329527 25237 7 6
235 96976955956 59"A 2BC5262#$%&*#&#'
326 9797 "2 65296 59'45425265 7 E
29 52566@ 2549275 2569 65946 4 26
7597922 2 6 57527 256 7 65234 29
-./.F 4297
32 4 !6 359 4 246523569 65946" 4
5946'95565G94 97 6 216 59 24 2 2 722
1 285462 27 7 *
32 9552952 4 !6 7 594 ! 7 24656
4594696 59 24 4663 6 285462
"4 42#$$&*H#I'
2854626 4297 546 26 5965675292 6E
526! 6 526529546 756465 7 32
57 9797 7 6 45652 77 9 26! 26 2
7 656 75665925295463 252352 952"7 9 5
52954 7 42952954'
012345672841 9
01 8 46 3287487 157413 2841387 3652 2
181317 15 36128112637413 2841711425385
2368143 487014353246153215 4!81317 3!43"5462
81357413 28414115 24 " 58281728412!1! 28 85
15! 28418#858#8725$ 2387333524 7413 2841
141%741128418#87263628133528213412 84
2413 &8 66561532744#328#38178#'4!3
81 47 2741128411814 !4353232 12 33
88224 "81317!852381! 288#87253877412
41264()*+*,-+*.
00 6/*0123435601)7238)*019()*+*,-+*9:+2;*0 73281
7482258326421814!43524828127
2 2 88138 741<6174 44! 34 881 1=18 %
1>62! 80 852 2 8 1=18 115 852 2 83
054142! 1224 2 20 ?@0A812 435 12 28244! 34
881 1=18 12 283246 0 73281815872515
48#87252 2288 4387.BB
012#83824387?#3315$841622 281"2!1236726343
8124128412367263 15#3 2878123#322841 7411284185
3 2878581435324 78822#347 817 4>"43C.BB.
D E62 2126381" 2!18124128412367263 15#3 287
8123#322841 743 287854 168254#
73281 2367263! 446172841! 2468528123#322841#347
28#628173281#34#32847412&2157412&26F72
?#33G$841CH.IHJ
?#3315$841 54#52387185 8124 6%4!1243
4 #3 28768241741828#38178#?#33G$841CH01283
7418284533 36##4524!43"4622F724 1!8143 %
2841 81227"346154 &8281 6#2841 K34 2 #7
746182 3 7418281834112 152343 6#2841
462! 28 182242423?#33G$841CH.BL #34
43 33824 72 7412&2431622317 24 6#2841181
224 "74337281317 4622#"3181M41853
K3423881N!O15
>"43CC.IJ
01 2345678967 7657
634 5 58 48667 58 36368
766377 !"#$667 35658 %6555 7
863 346&38 357763 8&6363
8 3'() * 75 586763 63 77637
8&5(5 +,,-.+'
/886 367 37638636587776&
6565( 5&3-
012342567891767:;347
2& 7376& 3663 3678763
67 %3 655&3'
<=>6573+,?-@,
/8 3&763545 5&367534637863658
3377 4366&A 78 5&687558 4366&A
3 6&46&3 3$84675&3'
/87 87767 B336363 37673%688
6365 5&3'< 73565674663486363
77 7CD 637865686336363
8774'<=>6573+,?$5 +,E$>7+,,$F
++.$373++,'G 6373$H8IJ7763855%6345$
5 +,E-,,$7&746888 3363%38
577463784 3 8 5 4366&3&6 3375678
8634 3-
<8756'* 7$8 %7756'
K8IJ7773 36346367887 6636387 3
36735363 863 63638B7346&387C
7638867 3363%375663438 634756'
<73878&67367 8 8(777C
6373776634834663 34663 84 377C
63735678 3('G 5$L766373776437
764355634 8888 3 8&6 7 3M
%88 8 37 8 35673M 673 8
75&,3 3 86363 863634 3(F
++.-NNO'
PQR357&57678&67 7767 7657 5&3C8 65
63&6%'S'373OO37 865763373=G86OOO'
012345672841 99
6 6582817284171 5 2 1 1287 1745574172
1574622841347563 3485818123672841 2442 72
42 8123322841 465347 501254 681223287
18143 18132841 2 744184812814315 1287
2658 413287!"1816823353287 8123672841 432
334153 2481232 16748161824 782812
763312587463 03287 #3 12812"8262 $%&'()
181"32321#87433 3128 181* 4+3441 ,--./01!
012433317 87418535814812352432 1
347 81 3432157412#26 372"828142 6338812223 3
587463 3287 728174123812412 81233228414 348
32878142 725812 7412#23 827465 6 524
788222 33812332284156681176 2841831243
12432222224774612432587463 3287 35481812
812372841/
81 4 2 876 2841 22381876 2841/9882224
2631 3 26 78:7365 72841!312812837412#2"2
246"7743581242 872124 7413284118"2631 3
8123325812241 43566811"61685";<!
3 1634 8168287157412#267243 3 341 5524
#81587463 3287874 1 43142!2 634 7243
81765 482841812 587463 152#22 - 2 8=42 587463
618243872 587463 3287 74
44741765 28 72841"317243 677 61 585
314587463 328754 3583312347 223682524
#812235481816212872#2152 6374 141
3287151421423>4343"2 476 41 81 #12841 1
22423341 436812"674821 " 1725
?@*4A783381 ,-BC/D;,!/4 24 4637 4 18115 2367263E 8=42

587463 618215356151276 E822477461214241431335672841
812 1814 8158856363"62432 FGHIJKI4 363813287637
32824238 #725
01 2345678967 7657
0 86637634635 8
8663776735767 4 67 7657
3 635577!365533537"868# 367
5#$8663%&'()*%+,-63!663867663 8767 7
657586535767 8 3.763"8688 )
/ .501 3818.636 7 35767 23
3456780!779 35767 233:3680!763;37"
7 7 35767 <6==0>?:@3ABC82<@ 3#634 7
35767 78D0>?:03E208563786"3" 3736337
35767 E20>6F7?E603:368087 6737
35767 82<083 63 67 76 35767 82<3:368@
38 436G63 3 6H73437 35767 H655
558#7,$8663%&'()*%I+
J35 8 38663 776786867 7#7
$67 7657+7 66363 337 83
7866357 0637 0.8347 0
63 6373663" #388 57633
3 87 337 7#363 376%L63"83 33577
67 7$537 5#,8663%&'()IK+, 967 7#78H
63.653633 7 3.5 637"6863"8683
367 37 )
MNO#763.85 63 3 3"68636746345 5 3.7,
167863.65363 #7"868678# 373634"8
8 7)#7 78 3.5 637"6863"8683
367 3764363,$8663%&'()*%P+
0QRS855"634.53637 H6$ /7$%&&&)&*K+)

TUVWXYZ[\]^_`W^`_\0"868 a788367 8 3H763563 834
$83 854655+378"78758663 3#63438"87
5363758 8b
cW^deZ]^_`W^`_\0"868 a787!3 787"868 "68638
67 7b
fY_^dWdgY^deZh_Yi\je_k0"868a78"63"86887#738735
33 87"557 6363" 37b3
lZme_iY^deZ]^Y^\0"868 a78 34634 436G633343#3"54
3#3"5476H5H7 H8 7 867 7b
012345672841 9
43 815232328781274435812432
6223171547641238432222267443581278381
!"#$%&874633287741238'62242812(3284145874631524
58746374317'762)3444321416774435812
783818'85*(1385225874633287465'5738'5
1581541583121+4587463881(,4-+3
78381.8156728+/4(87816.347'1738287850536
637382878478381.-4344-"
1 234'452181(15588281(27458746333
142'12872438)4+581&3456789:;7<=>;?<;7@*3()8156728+
24544-571142'72524544A281558733
521828414274411245874637431715'34533-43
22'377411728+3841158142323872524725
6'2053"B!
C7743581(24D34412E43F-478381.458222243287
1428418132876322+14231426G7812)81515
5215D3441H"% *3124564442
'22314-1243287142841345874631)8674+72
71( -87-717224'3+12241)-315-)
58746332874776381783I46235!HC142358317822
0+1)526172841425874633287412-4734+2
22615812334124'7435-8222++-8778381
374(18J5
486-87+142378+56G781222128418178381.-43
33445)15222)-8738432127624261728414587463
328778381.265)832387252481(222)15328763
(346448123+8--82C3871K-81218('4634454
L858155414277461243258238'6284145874633287
4+3583122)422
99MN434352857382878478381.45N33O053
P115'4+,11"$H
01 2345678967 7657
0 !"#!!!
00 $3%&656'
(3)*+,,-./-+03%813'2 %78%4116567%633657
3%26347846%44235365363%8 3&.
6 637% 5376346388 59:67;<;36577846%4
4237 8 5365 367=8 59:67;3%663 3 376>
63?3%8 3&;8556347@45657 583%9;867325%4 58
2 5%;<*A3)+,,-./-/0
(3)B75363586763 5%67 73657746%4634 367
34 5% 63%&656'<CD 63%&67 363 8373 571
36'638611%67663>>83%B3%C363%&67 376%% 4
56346765 1835 178675363B*E 87+,,+.F+F0<G %7;3877
3%411657 7 3463%&% 8737 3%88;
73653%13 5%6137637 587387663;33671673
7 8763' 363'3%:*6%72%7880
36 5 7387*<4<7826347'138'H5<E 87+,,+.F+I0<81
5A37 65%613763763%&%4'%67 736577 656%36';<4<
56378637*563%78630;4 36%36'*577;43%;40;3% 37 3
75 58 6'*<4<3 577 >7 '638JJK0<
L325%4 5863%&653 367 55&65617678 5
56346763% 5 5 1333%C63%&657325%46785 728
5344M676633%7 656N63635B*E 87+,,+.F+F0<)'1 A634
C633% 5563467655' 3O4 %76637;C6B3A67465% 377 6>
63742336 55 173%36 56%3667;56378637;637;
7373%8567B*E 87+,,+.F+I0<J77 436N%6785863%&6>
56'35'7 56383 77 571363%5&658343%4116>
56763<$3%&6556378 3&3473781 3%78
5 58411656763 52 %7;38773% 5757 7
63 %67 73657*5<863+<P</0<QRS87;5 6373;%A53%
5 1 %66 13 5%A463 5 2%7>5 7634&5%67 7
3654'3 7763A5A634363 7 56763%&653365638
6363<$6757 63%&%:3%63376'A6813 5%613763
C328671 13B*E 87+,,+.F+,0<
D87 6> 5 53A6 31367 13637363 11 3663<
967 7365773656388'%6735'%6137637 58673A6 3>
1373 586536357>3<D8%67 73657655728
012345672841 9
31153324 173 88782618 5412328
341461432282658153!!"#$%&%'()*87* 3 +4+8782
17*43 42* 622317812* 7412+2!
,5-8728.656 4358183 41232841/ 1*43 2 53
228265810 3-81261 173 +87825 -1417-517412+241
463382635411361 33-122841- 128.6 51 +8.6!,
32876-1417828/1317*/1731288782 12-1417-1
6128- 12.68136183812-3863562+2/ 85481223
81233-2-74 -*87612228265274 1283561-141782
263! 3115
3 36247411284182841/2342487817154 2) 1
587463 3 23 15)4354374123672841!! 2) 1587463
3287 15 228265 41)82*) 38143 4782841 2) 1
7412+267243!!2+224158168287 12!
0244)2*2587463 3287 3 14267*58531234 42*3
816828774567* 341461)*87*3.683 62128 46124
8131781 4 2*835745817!33867!,8 3414612*4 3
7418284812/8!!* 33821432*8174132841 1562*
*248123322841!8* 12284142* 2+2814284822812*3
) 828124 587435623.6831 728 8123322841347
09622* 331741*438734146108142822812*3) 828124
587435/62*24 845 42* * 33/42* 7*61814 2+2
15 74 432878142822812*3) 828124 587435/62*24
845 3242* 743*1841347!:;<
=*158746332873 124382*4365)3414/8213 4*
58>762481 2 8*81 74*31281233228414587463!?53<
345 587463328758824342* 46152374 2*46328841
2!012* 6.6122282) *4)12*22* 3444 33
9@AB18*2312841C3581345872875412328/1*43873414613 8 1
+878217*43 42* 622317812* 7412+241 74658 2* 12873312
22841812* +8741!D874633287/412* 42*3*15/17*432* 622317887824
2*471142 84.6842* 812316183 42* 2+2/ 6262 8123325
7414812* 2282651574 1242* 3!
432* 2388782 15 +8782 17*43/ 4E2 17!E2 1
51182841844)316223178+8782417*435248234482841741212F)*8
22* 28 /463 228265 15481841 3 887824 17*43581587463 242*
7412+223E2 17!
01 2345678967 7657
63483 67 7743756785635673
8376333 8768867 76573
37 3766537 87367 886 3
363763735344776763 4366536346
! 7 676345 354 863"65 6767 7
65767 33363 5#76673 863"6
56 66 3 3783 67 7657#75633637
3 5678 $% &683'55534663 5634676
7 8 36577867 338 6 3 37 587
637663 86(8663"656)
0*+*, - 6567637 663 67 7658
-656763367 7657&7 8 8)763
4656763 .73 385633 3/30 63
86867 6 7568 363738 36 777
15563432 /3345$4%67 7657 56363
3467465675378 3 5343 8
7878 36 758677 6637763463
3 867 76577 7 87788 343
74 465676338 8 63 3
46533635 67
24656763738 77&85"6567 877
8 48'3 763 6386485 37635 5 3"7
357786347363 8546536373 34
6567 363 5465673637)84
/33950$- 656763 73 37 637738 36553
68 3655 37 675344766 36755637#
/33450/0# 65"5678563 3 55:;
63 3"7763 6:;<=:>;? @84/3305/88
56357633565A 573365A67 7
6573 875 46567638 84/339
8868 36747 36557<=BCCB84/33953
D=BCCB 646355 37 63 7&63463 8 565
0EF1 5363535 8G 33&967 7657 56573

565735587.)2 77579$%%/
012345672841 9
28 287 54828712175382 2828745
181 7328136422 !"#$%&2232812415'()**)
82 741232861728417823+,-%&6.557681828
5874633/3'()**) 18181481 4328411573872841
425874638121236422 !"$% 61858372841541234
22438 24127813453245874633287$8334321517
243736828734482841$238432634473281 2215
81587281 22826581587463826284136422 !"01$15362810
18173432878187171538136422 !"0$%
&883812372841243378171812223672636543
3418423456$3372438755874633287"
88 24127812435 32878728414253815
31224/165263181828744112 87 423415
24238434233274123862841158123456743742631
744112%&63 9":9$
01:$426318182856841822435328782841817
8242 741241&74812462234481581 2747/
81237581 2631158123456712631744112"
:$ &;82<= >15?2281@
ABCD%=805412/14 2382"73E
281@
=43F/1E4@
43= >2GE72@
6282=>32422G82
H;G=IEJ@
=0E81582@G
&;<=>E324222281 412>7/@
1%K%0:!L$
I235874633287312712422434 32878
2841764283463776% 441MN67 $
3652228287312287O-3'(P 5453486Q72G
R3G-3S-7412762346 318428176%4
812 3287828414O-3'(P828652225828172841
9TU8H381241 9$43434254124587463328781
3287828413728%
01 2345678967 7657
363 5737 63 57877 775
8563 57 53 5563!"""#$ 834 363467
57 3 65%8&3865'()*87873637+6365
&65763 853447
967 7&6576355378,5 -56-. 3/3637012324#5
56-63 577'()*#5733+65764)*78#56&6+7700*#
63/6370#$676363677673 3/37868
7 8577 67 7-797!"":#367/377 8
764)*78;4)*78124270<#868, 3-7.688
& 5! 3634 3 377& 87677497
!"":=!>"# ?
%8&7 36635(65763(680@A0)BC()AD4()E(0C2D0@F
(<232)()E97 !"":=!GH#87 863 36867 7&657
3 5357766463467 7&658837 6
3 57$3773!">?#I + 85J656763 ,6 3.
63.-37+63 636&63 346344656763
8&87K +6635 667 877363&46 834
8688 37 63 36367,48 &63465
6763.677634K &&!""!=!L:#
%8 4 67 7&65767676337 533635
4 37 846567537%8 3 5 6373555
8 66 465676373M833!"GL#$ 634
M833546567636777 66883 876433
465675377/ 7 & 733
648563463857967 7&6577 557&
86 &6&85&7663638 3$ 634 K37358
636346535J6567=
%8 738 7 -7 34656638 363
363736 564 63777/ 663 576&58667
3563 37856346778+-3376 763763736
55&6&855377 8767 7-7N 685637
-6346367636335J653465675
78 5- 865&776563654 ,67 7
67.K373!""G=LL?#
0OP 3-737,5J65J&776378688+8&73
635363457&663433677453& 53634764356348867
774673637 3377&876774.97!"":=!>"#
012345672841 9
434 32 6172841828414587463 328734 34482841
1812422615812334161!"#814 3287$
8284132321328782841%
&4' 32 38178153473814 58132878$
284115328782841%( 38178438217 812223
8231312328418)2' 143 156172841812 8243*4
587463 3287&43!++#%028862325'12 243
1814,-.854' 5)*2 18142 5874633287%*3$
81774612432 7222453*34315 181#717482
'821' 3*3&43!++#%/1 82 5 4 1240123
'87713)4234828414374146172841155874633287
5481 617(364228!9#%"#81 42 811428
6401235874633287812345678134325 7152462!
"# /150:;<=> ? B22744%@
5481 61 !++A#
9CD EFGFHIGIFJKFLIMNGIO
/35*2 P32 1746123'82587463 32874'222*
16)3458Q3121436172841'8754142 24) 74*325%
( 34)82*87458746314 1%01R341'435
( 34)382*8745874631*881222 28245P1 2
18143587463 6172841#4'4354374123672841'87 24
122414 6 41824'1)6281 78158856741228 82S682
5828172156182)7446381%R341"!+#
( 23582841'*4581'822 628617284182*45874633287
8441**%(88878*813 16)34 181743341$
581242 58Q3127412281'872 587463328747763 181
88#%&4' 3T218#'3181223 812 3454
628617284182*81728*2 6)724*81225874633287
3 68 12781 18115331281848728181%
5712*82) 143744124444361823*'43517 4$
41514812434375874633287 1818188#% A
9DUV1012315328782841 4/1531+WW#%
9XUV12 86 4 18188 % 1818188 &11!8Q#%
01 2345678967 7657
87 8 7634536343 3363567
67 76577557 8 7638534458 4887
33634 67 783 367 6 573
!"#$%96&3636567756373'655768 48
35(767 7 )*++%,573-7./"$744763675 765
86763 )*++087 77663-3 3155(
3663 58756636386 5 3174477026
63 636337-"04463654 368)*++35(6 (
47663638688 3673-,57356'6%% .
66&37563675 563467653448686776'5
7 6'836347 67 7657%73869'6-7 4
36375736758 3634863363736 5
)*++675 637357633058'-736 337869'6
:;% < 3 87 33773 1563867 7=
3363 6373577 8657 38'767 435
8 ( 3663%
> ?58 8757 76867 765)*++57878
6736377=8664 555(36
637 63(3'7'7 37634536346533=8 6=
5 867%@63%/%$%
8 3634786883'3 73 ''753(
435 7(%7678 6 578867 8 5
ABC83663 )*++67'6365448 (58 (687665667
'867 78 67638688 33763545677'5678 34 3
3 5338 (%8663734463 636546886
634 3 373634%8(6355( 634 D 6-7167
63 1669864637%
83634767 76573'36706547467- 57868
87 77 47663)*++ 76638688673
EF%64766367370767 776'5536387-
,573./"!3 3'7363776'5 573676'6%5%:%
AGC967 7657''36 (3670 177634 514636347
6365 7-869'6:;"?$:%8736 337634 83634
67 765717787-76 88 3 876635
6375%83634 )*++35 6373' 37
73-3 67756867
8676755 66655("H8676755648I H86767 (I
786345787'76
869'6:;"?;#
012345672841 9
812 3284182 12 18142 328715826172841
412 2 26158123 34144811102343 33
458581882573828413 587463 328771 58!312
617284187332524 34242 4374381 446
"1242# 282176 22 3287815 5 58312
1873142 32234328762223232181
441461558732238461332582381781$
8# 8412346831743 2184134 34242
%11&''(()*
+4 8122587463 3287 24 6,, 18115
22143
-8. 347/4822 818821 524158187 181
8787441244864 32876222 28 4
4373281815238174 181878142 4841882
77461281432 18121282581 3287637412 243
%11885*
012 74 332 6 284122 74 4824
33352444104185312381 %4*3 2 2 43
18142 53152 3287 18142 3287%523182841643
248771* 35- 74 3458113 77 #3
8623852 96284123438126512465 68585
%4* : 26;8124;48124<8124<=44#>$
2;4?1626512643812=6512>
2 ;746123@A46581=72>
@;A6858,>
;B7A6C26<<A782>$
288;2 3<5A481>$
@;B1A4C@<A6281#>
22;288685878@< @A43282>
826; 64328281.8D/81616812@<A726623B%%24**;A81
82>C>
%&&E!!F(*
9GH- 3817844 511%&''(((*85655 245878188676

82881215524# 2 1634 181582817284128186%7I3441&''4JJ
5453281886*
00 12345678569 65946
7 66527567 2 6 4 5 7 45235697 6
57 7 52 5262 569 6 594 9 !44
"##$%"&"'(262"##)%)#*7 65545 27 2523656
7 954577 46
+2566 75979 6 5275692295256,77 7 2 52
4667 4 659 7 5 66266 7 569 6 -
42. 252377 4 7 2 2. 52629.7
/ 297569 6 - 027 !95 0. 77 &"767 4
76 52352 2 27 6 62592 -1 (26256
94 275652%,27 452357 66 7 6
5.22 5 7 2 6 3 665261(262"##)%)#*425
97 259447 6692 56523567 27 656 7 9231272
7 2 659 923494 6.7 66 7 2 569456
2 625237 2523 569 65946
7 46 569 65946446 75523594 56
27 -2 359456527.89:;2<=;9<>>? 7
62569 659467 569 6594@>>9 4 47
7 377 2529929,75656 44&1&*47 376297 25944556
2 26 24 4 7 22 12 A29529 5
45267597 5 6297 2594492 5756 5944%
B2 7 6.7547 6297 2593677 9 452
552 594.2 54552 29*.7 43 7
52 445 5.2544 25 64. A2952
69545C52+54"##)%&&$*
+445946922 4 22 64 59467 2
2523249 2952 7597 63 92 59%
D665252 645- E@?.F.GH.26 52 !9526.59462
72 5I9652242336J 2KL5262"#)M%&N#*
4523 .569 65946 46 65676 2523692
4 97 7 52 5. 346 326526
75656954577 597 259 435945652
0OP/ 2970Q45,3 1*

00PDR5C59-"#MS*2D462"#)T* 697224656 @>>J 4523 "#)#*
6956.@>>6- 75975662 2 6577 7 9756
252376 226 7 49527 54495252
012345672841 9
3287828418187 328761728413538534 3448
2841181873281 215412843287 381788
54126 4325274318142 328787
1814!82 43"#$%&8323872843'7688155828412482
8121881181587463 328715!())74177217*
18187832524211353
+,-,+ .2381812743181
58/3126172841413741802362442246 265
4 3287812837412'2.234 12634776338178142
146245238121814361728414587463 32871182
374364' 238281463122242805
128774387413412743372462841274636 34445678
9:4813 4812462*22654258238628411561728414
587463 328762748158224342215
22658158238628418445 347563435874381181*34855
4281835;1414622181428258238625"62
<==$&>?@A258238628414181682 36 44243
422821:481334B458C3
1814 328763587463 32878'23352452381
152743181431318142587463 3287
83237214284102713432841242244871814
2587463 3287*8271'3581 347563237D237%A&
@438512878227436172841676338 7D238 E
:85274318123431524374185874636172841
43617284143 328763 3287
74361728414587463 328785F15812342828
54814122'264381233413838;222743
6172841 436172841 344543587463 3287824434515
23435414244587463 3287858281723442358
7463 32878121287F5587284138482262
2434142324524515732811801 32876315
2477;46257436172841'812528127436
334423245877165248521184
587463 3287
01 2345678967 7657
67 736378 53637 8866758
67 765677665 363 8 67 7657
8367 765875773 3786785 7 376367
3634 ! "##3$ 638767 77538636347
636! %5 778 8 63%6 772%368
7676& 5 67634678 8 8!67 765778 5
3 '8 36387736 7()*6+6(,-./012/348
633$! "##35 655737 65*/3!
87( 873 35 6348 5 73
3768 34 380
*/3 787 9:76)67 03)6380 5;
:<7=
8%369)8%3)3:<7(=
89 5:4<=
>78 86)7?@A6)7B8365036)%75
) 5 0<78;634=
8 78%)8 < 6=
*,C,,C,DC23
E$67 7636%5 67787()763 7 36
63 63F9676763 8 "##35 G"## 3%787663
7%63 8 837 67378 58 63668
63 363
*.3 7 97H %3698%3)37(9 54
> 556)7365 36%75 5 78634
74477 43868 36563 67363 (8
37663363 63!36 430
*I3 7 97H %3698%3)37(9 54
> 36)7365 36%75 5 78634
4867 736378 557 3637 8836563
7337633 85344J573*,-IC0./3787! 6373
82345678 "##3K6336785 % 57633634388
3 3678868345 8 8L3 8 77
537565 "##857 7785 5375
012345672841 9
142 358746332878118 7174142 8212588414
481215 18123362841765" 633881263141215823125
812418 82 343! # 23128418124 142 31626
2312 143$ %12 78 5 412 84 8116
& 1$ 1 2 743 61728414412 2'26 2487
7 13288 734(7 372382841)12 8734*6172841,
18182824343 3%2 %3+3438412346 2 587463
& 28287%818-1438$42 4378.7/3 28761728410
2 282 47825$822 81588563287*$ 682 2(
16+123441344,5"6435738812 617284145874633287
41587312& .15 3 16342367 -.3+*4821
3%3*-82+*7411728*-6+245738 $ 25874633287
354818116 $ 87 3 82 324478.743244131554142
8.28124 2'41413 1348956& 41 5245876 4$ 1
61728412 3 3 1524587648 678.728414587463
3287412 2'26438123341
:;<;9 =6346172841
& 7114282 243 21587312617284143.2 1
58731261728415812 815'87126345874633287*2 3814
5.18263882242 1634485828172841$ 7137418>
1? 341348"5"6288161728413@683 221284124 4$-463
7413284133248336826+1? 341348"5"64324-2 3 23
81 7743517 $82 $ 87 74618728412%7 1A2 1348,53B"6
? 34174352 34481 4$ 164 2 3 3$82
22812 1634484181817 5
01 14242 31234*41 71 % 4$ 15873124181
2 3 3 817 ? 1682 38116342 *34681
732814181242 3 3828414 74412 )1 23872
9CD43181232815876841412 85284143445743 18143587463
3287* E74636134445,6*87 313448615? 3411348"5F96
9GD?4&83>87%+1349F61842 5873172$ 1H48 15
9D?A2 1+1344,53B658281728412$ 12 -287+ 152 -4+2 4 1
816828757382841234415828168 2$ 15874636172841-$ 87 82 842
12812 7 37238>28414 3287+ 152 -7412'2(4615 7266+23441
1344,544*3BB6
01 2345678967 7657
6363 8 57873 363477867765
737 63665 7 74653867 65 376637
76345 7 8 76 55 5 67634 373
354 8534786 3 635
!"573#$%&'(&)
*778 3634763 8778688376345 78 7
67634 3785637365367 77 33635+
6763665 43675 637788 753
75633 5 !"573#$%&',$)-7873463
6 7763786365 67 67 7657346+
567635. 55636348 7 3363567-7
75 336356763! 4656763) 35 8
67 7363 /0117 737!286363#$%4)567
834 73!64#$%&) 75/73766376435!"8,)
8 3 78877667 756346778 3 56 8 3
683 95 77: 865 -373,
;
!,<<#';=)74477 6373867 7657!385
6373555)466763365 777'
>88463 8 373634 46778634
5663763536347?363738776436346 5363
36 5 76367 46633
83867 8 7873 7 6 5776 63 8 77
633657@77 33635677377 86554 8
63878838 6387 877483 3
634638363535767A 588376348/011
6787663 88 4987663:733 88
/01137 3 3:76+37:6657 8
3637 867 7657 63777878
8 377 8363535767!B 3#$$='#<#C57 373
#$$%'%%)8366376+376 3638 78 3
6333756373634 38 35634 6 5
67 765!DE5#$$#',,<)
01F88 8776395 77: B 3!#$$='$%)B 374477

75 35763467 765789763634:967 7
363:39577:6 3 337
012345672841 9

!"#$41!!524"774612%432&!%"722&"258$7463$!'"3287#!$"3!7"2!(438"##)
*6#28%6172841"#+,!-58$7463$!'"3287#!$%6#.#-&"2/$2*"101234516783!%!3$
24"$2&!9618:6!1!$$;7382!3841;%4358$7463$!'"3287#!$08+!+&"<81(2&!58$7463$!
'"3287#!%6172841"$2&!$4#!%61728418+01$2!"5958$7463$!'"3287#!$"3!7&"3=
"72!38$!5>)7"2!(438"#&!2!34(!1!82)0?"@@"1!##"AB433"4CCC843-&"2-!
746#556>9546>#!*!"181(;D2&!)&"<!41!43*43!6$!$8174**41-82&42&!3
(3"**"287"#7"2!(438!$!+(+"5<!3>$43741E6147H2841$07%+"#$4F344112265G75
9$4=7"##!5734$$=7"2!(438"#'4#)%6172841"#82);8+
I&!7"2!(438"#*6#28%6172841"#82)4%58$7463$!'"3287#!$7"1>!5!$738>!5
*43!'3!78$!#)812!3*$4%2&!839J082!*8=%61728413"284;K8+!+58$7463$!%617=
2841813!#"284124(3"**"287"#%6172841!L'3!$$!581'!37!120M2!1$23N*
122C51O18+I&!9J=<"#6!;%43$4*!%3!:6!12J=82!*$812&!P41541=P615
Q43'6$3"1(!5%34* 1CCR %4382!*$-&87&-!3!"#-")$"1"#)$!5412&!
58$7463$!#!<!#0!+(+ST82482!*$-82&"<!3)#4-J=82!* 3"2840SUVSWXYZK
VZX[\]^_`8+I&!*4$2812!3!$281(!#!*!12$"3!2&4$!812&!*855#!3"1(!+aZ__K%43
81$2"17!K$&4-!5"J=82!*3"2844%3OR"15X]bT[66R+P!1c01223516H8%4615
2&"2G4+OR4%2&!6$!$4 %\V[W\__`0812&!PPQ8-!3!'34'4$82841"#6$!$K8+!+"
J=82!*3"2844%6H+GR+ 43
01435!32458$281(68$&>!2-!!12&!"5<!3>"152&!58$7463$!'"3287#!-!6$!
$'!78"#7#6!$4381587"243$+d34$45)"1574##47"2841"3!&!#'%6#$8(1"#$242&!
812!15!5812!3'3!2"2841+,6172841"#81587"243$"3!"#$48*'432"122458$281(68$&
58e!3!12%6172841$4%2&!58$7463$!'"3287#!+
f gh
i%43*"#"''34"7&8$7#4$!#)"$$478"2!5-82&2&!"22!*'2245!.1!"$'!78"#
-435=7#"$$4%58$7463$!'"3287#!$07%+/$2*"1123451G2Kj-87c)1236K<"1?""3
122OD7%+"#$4M2!1$23N*;$-4357#"$$9J08$7463$!882!*$122C8+,43*"##)"15
9kQ%+P!1c;$92&!l$&"3!5*!"181(m'4$82841;0P!1c122356C8+P!1c*"c!$"58$28172841
>!2-!!19'34'4$82841*"3c!3$;-&87&&"<!'34'4$82841"#*!"181("15958$7463$!*"3c!3$;
-&87&&"<!'3"(*"287*!"181(+
9fkI&!5"2"74*!%34*M2!1$23N*0122C51O48+
01 2345678967 7657
7 558773 76345 7 67 36 55
3634867 577737 337577 65
466577635 34653 76 66
6554665 5 !78 3 ! 7655
7 633 8 " 5 !76755#6576633
76635566 538 76635 33
8733!$ 8 6 5 !3 637737 %
386485583878 38)7 676
37 68 378573&'()*&+'! '
$ 8357,763 66676 3 756788 7
87 7638363 67 765
-.1.- $363557
967 7657756 77,8688 53634,3
7868636343634 38 3#/ 8 5636356
67 765773 7 7 5763 3663
7 873 5634676 3 3#5 573636347
636347467 0155 &''2!$ #58 3#5
636 77 87 55 633 77767888365
6764 736%373778 376767 73
6578 33637 367 768 486 78 7
736 47663! 765#654 55 637!375676 4
#!"38557"78555 463 658 5 7
67 765777363557 4636867 7657
78 567634678 7867663638 3
-.1.-.-56789:;7<=>;?68@<7>AB=976?69A
8673 8 37 8736 86 67 7
657676863733/456333 5678)!C83
5776676 3 436D333 7663553774
3 57 7634 77*
0EFG8 73 &''H*''!"875363 83663

46657755637 576777 863IJ"675 6373
8234567873 558 367533 863467657K 7655
7 633 8 L,
012345672841 9
8288 32822218 453448 12443 8
28414226334482841142841 7143 58146343
3 31537418523332 !4258"#$%%&'$$()
01*5815+3 1 453287 47762 475,855-5.
212-32-1823152 7415141-182315715
7385412 127287/438101824828414587463
3287 462852 12128#312367263812,33412-5. #
2 712443 3 363$%%1)
01+431 1215281581+2) 45262231781828587463
32874657581 1272874828418124224234
34 1283438282 1241217236726381+2)
843 23 28723 ,87 3246852553 .372841
24284622485.522$%(('6&7)
018284828418438 43212433341026172841
76245874633287 226843 19:;875 1217
81231828135874633287*7415828312,3 28
782841482841.63$%%1'6%<)8178271335521548124
3 28782841341=612823 3 2871581237284115
877465142=67851 128182 714187
121781231482841
6357382741282612)81233412-581 12728723
,28123 4 12878 3532524812372841.63
$%%1'>6?)0 1281233412-5375222 38141
312,12728722.2631741236728416182@63$%%1'6%1)0244
127287227 12 # 233412-581237284115226
223728843 826432,32323.81274132841 8172
#35414215241152 34 24622'
A233412-5B34"72 4 2812474 6254142482
#324 6738244132876312728734"72228 3 C
288124118163$%%1'>$>)
D835828,2268123281.E83211$%%6'%1) 81782741281 2
2 42 1217,24812453263432 .@7/85
$%(7'>()D2 8418 432127417281 4#116
382714385,6282 .74 8128414376234
3 841)D2 8 4782582316 3478-76172841
248123456724876248743331215243228 85242
37581741220271652#324 3#714426324
01 2345678967 7657
6336 76876 86833676
43636 3556!"#$%
& 85'(87587 4366347%86 366' 87
8 7 87 $)37 788 3*63
868855634 367 7767655 8'7
86363 778 76634 43665'3+ 636355'
36346 ,-. /!$%
967 76573 '7576637638 3 3634
3863 637 7)87-638 305$( 7)637
"
637-61376637638337)657- 8 48763
873052. /#$%
3 867 765767 7763867 ,45674889(:;<6;=$3(
6373(63738655' 0355'(36856561363
3634(733(57( 3(3 3677305 3763
. /!"$%
855634*567,3 65'63 5 37638
7,7.367 7784 8673%745674889 78
3 3667 37 738 48 3)83 3863,7
6-$%>8 3 3*63783634(45674889
777)73-636634636'3) -
$ .?@8AB+3CA
?A8-7A@3 8-7@3 -7'B4D77C
@+55'C
.?@3DC
8@4E3F%BD65563+67C
%/G#HGI$
477 874JK6L46:;<6;=6LMJNO8/$5'7 353 3
3 36%
PQRQPQST87:6U<MJN4JK5;88;546M;J:
8 55 6373 37 67 765768 8537
775634676 5786363 863637%
01VO%386163-7IW$ 7 8 ),-%>3386163-77'7 ,7 3
3638 367 7373355%
0PV>8,3 438303533865657373
'8746578%
012345672841 9
7743581 24 1524634236127481284182
8124!87823"#$%&#''24(1&#)*!+,-.&%
/*!#-/*!15"#$0*!1017481
8412461581748128418(34 15 5&"5"65&"-#1
7722254142815732817447284171476242
61728414!3287194381217:6332;<;=<)362227222
71142!375>",-5"246288!4882#-541232
22618(#-8817418212822812345672841416112878!25
24!87714?74636!;;;=@'43558284136121
41 2737238287!34!3284587463!328787A142
378A514622128418128232638283B762381C7447284182
423!32871943*!D873E?1(4F;G;461522/@H44
)<6223178173445876841154358132741A328417412815
6!248A58F312!3287812631I4!1811
01815762348A58F312587463!32877433!41581
248A58F312228742172281 8358458768411?!(3581
75874J62741522853523581 KL.&M.N.5
O5,-P5,.M517!3287AQ443I4581 617284182!(38
281(81 413612=
R 1561ST24U1
01S2T422V15ST62232UWU1
ST8535UI
5RS1T4246CU
0S2T81(0C1U
S82C*!4C32841C841X=2T2(8154VS7T4!*UWU
SV!84YT4!87WVT487WVC2T287W
=TAUI
0CST6382CC236U
2281ST12C7U
SAT32Z5[\233SA32=!4!24=4]
246465CA1YT2474C6187282U
@1<);^'G
_62381 15245828168534 7447284181782!2
8!4321234762461728411
01 2345678967 7657
0!""#
$86%63&'()*+,-).3 /8/67 7065187 82 34 3
0 7/6 3 744436 7773/3555/67078083 5465
/ 6394:80 7/7 3/67 706578763637; 63577/6/
58 488677<6376345 =4634 3568638 3708
773876763276463480 7/6 57 386 3/7707&44406
7863.764355/67/67 706574> ?<058@ 354&-AA'.?<B
63/0 7/63/?53 75868 5/6 7//67634678653
/6%3/67 733637 3$5/678C!&169.4D3 578 B
3 3C!568 8/67 706575865 8 750 7/64
E3 075634676785 = 30 7/755775475656863/5?653/
7736 7/67&F68<33-AA'+'(,.4:876636735 4/ 557
8346343/826566567 337 66/70=3 0 <=76077665
?<6383G37568586826 70 7/63 700 48
568/67 706574$226=&'()A.6386765 3H =575 =
80 7/7 38/67 70653/3 3/83 637388857
8648 563653H 3/52534@ 52 $226=3 3/3
/6763 563653<36343/633634:878/670063B
634 7577<</ 067I 5634 58 7447718568H 378634
4786336355783/5< 70 6657?087<3 <7 3
633638582 37673573 3/63558 <06737 38677 9
&I 5634'()(+,,-.4
I 5634 J3/76 05 78/67 7763 68/6%3
6531355H93/3557/ /HK+
$007363// 07673/85 37 73/3 < <35=6344L
<78377F9576/53M&F/39536 3 355/7M.@8
363/78 5/8256N/5/7865700 063 86<76/534
I 637 77F55M$6/53M&F828 73/863475=6 M.7
!O!P86<76/534&I 5634'()(+,,,.
$6<65 / 6373 3/63806&QRS3/63!" TS!"
TRT!P3/ 3678538233635 56374
U 2 07778 5/6635//< 3480 7/6 57 8
63063 38<7744:87 568/67 706576380B
3 3J5/3/35J587<336377&8./67 706574&$3B
7V<'((A8W < :655'((X.4
Y3 8 7634B0633 80 7/6 35776767 5 =0 7/6
08763486445888/67 706567703 364> ?<058
012345672841 99
2 587463 1271 5828168 5344587342 243
53 1828 32 241 61823 3!""#74123252
4481 1217
$41 2%&'3338215
$41 2(4'3338215
% 2326 81#1544 574&8587463
3287 )47681587*#7+8373,-821!./#0 3163
4 62 81 282543 712 2 32 3874332841
2 1587463 3287 226 15167 3 3 +837315-821
4615&431 &222!342 1 4)587463 *741282625
167 3 3 ./#421235 6 2/6#222 3 17 43
174241 84338 73823841817 38142 32
241 61827 13!/2 28 5861727338 241 8 2 587463
3287 54 142
+837315-82133852883396178 12 81 28:
252 587463 3287 ;<< 4624/=587463 24>1 4;<<&2 3
81 241 6182 .6#? 3 62 43;<<3 741@3 50213
"=!=# 4461522;<<5167 6 4212881.342 7
81 282581212342 -41541:-615A436
BCDCBCEF;GHHIJ;KLM;NOPH;M
Q1 2652 58238628414587463 3287 81 3 58R312
3828 421281 7 158138281& 71142 63 22 58743
151 2 6172841 418158856587463 3287 S15 3
&2 58R317 7126172841 1128410774358124T83
""6#&587463 3287 ;<<&KIU#15 5 PMHV#3737:
2382874814374132841152 41 7413284115 8
743 412 58 1841 4814 1215R72'4343&2122 8
3 41 42 42843212816828776 41823445&7447:
2841 15 23672636172841242 587463 617284143287 ( 3
14146 587463 3287 1 5828168 52122
T032 6/.# 4 5&4381217&22POWJ<I 6 582
58R3123961781 7 1581382811522POWJ<I4339612
9XY0774358124+85,+1=6/6"#&)8Z[835675&82 1 2 41814
1 2 812 74132841*01A 23/&0 4222 3287 666123 5
4321 42 1 # 8 2 28 586172733852 167 6
01 2345678967 7657
63 565 57366768638 6363 !"7
3637567655356672345678#8733 7
$%& 38 8 837 '383 !"63735344
868 8 65 634(7
)57857863 8867 563*3
63 5 3763367 7657+,6* -.//0173-./2
3373-../48563 7897665 76367 77633
*: 3 543654* 5 8 74
67 7657( 35467; *763457 6
8 6763 3 586387 5 436<63 867 7
(65467 *57 778 787 5365
3 5648;8676=3*>638'33 7
67 7657)37? +-..@A-B.6 33 7 6763458
35554 67 67 7657577'363 3 54
+3 668363654+638C33DC34 76388
4 67 3638 3 54768 5336343
436<63, 67 7657683 436<63436357577
'363 3 5483636543 *6 7 73*63488
3 548*3533+)37?-..@A-526
#857 6=37*36366 57# 463
;5867 7659E!!7867665465865
8F6366 7G+4789H89EIEJ6 363 3 547
KLMLKLNOP8%JE QJ&P!EQ7R&87E%7&
S7 8 367 7657874 55* 67 7D3D
6355 63+173-..5A-@T6U3 67 7783637
67 7657V73636867 7 367
S #655+-..BA5@W687744788836 57X3 36Y
78 5*378*76 3635767 7367 7F76637
87 87 663 7367 73 >7 5
856 78G#8673 *83 36784653
736 57+43373-../A--/383786
#853 67 7657677 6*63 563 83
36 765567 7657867*8(53*47
7F6*57*656G68 37673 367 *
634638733+(53*4-./WA/T6#8F5 7377G 7*656
8636656567764355 7655*3 36* 3+Z63
7635563663*7
012345672841 9
14
467481546228!"
####$%#
&328771!434!4587812'325812(4481'622317
82462241618246153436!!81 )*
) 1435850322+(34
),,
01 )-2!78!127287!226!4(232878!142.3!!534!4587
/23-08124128417461'!!12. 63 223*#$,
58!7463!3287878!812'325812(4481'241618271
!23!!58(43!8!8!346835*
# 5!75481'6(34643124542
622!375889*!28!822*(881'81
7:9;14<24'47=242>(5881'
78982!789433
233>(4634617!
4(>;7545<4358175812+4>3
$ ?@%?,
A8!7463!3287!(838'!388262142!48'!3"!6B72
538!8=CDEFGFH43IFGFHJCFKFLL-87!6''!2!2227411728418!
'13=21232871526223178281234567!213'
2,M*,M
NOPONOQRSLTDUHLFVWHJSTKFLWIXXSLTDUHLFLJHUTJUHF
!Y26!4812!462-041!46374(58Z7628158!7463!1!8!8!22
622317!3(43 72!2358[312!4(!2372841-8771
3483378743535&38!3'82326387!8\!
221'6'!3!58[312(6172841!-62!6758!76!!841!58[3'3281
24(!2372841872344! Y26! 2,#*@,(
A8!7463!1!8!!24548272!-4!15.71'!!!3'3
6182!8=231!72841 Y81783]646235 2M?6413!28414!
24548224743'18\28414(622317!1543'18\258!7463!
81828281'-741281681'432381281'1.71' 7(Y26! 2,#*@2
A1581'41283(617284181258!7463!-2715!7385!3!41!!-
(44"6!-7=711!&!!281237286182-10.71' '
46!284151!3!4617-8!!2367263741!8!281'4(6242343(4634!
01 2345678967 7657
7 646355 7 3578 6563636356 58
6736336343576367 735767!"#76$"
% 73767 6336366634& ' 86347(")3
337 *763+ &56368 *7 &&3!
7&3"#8 4 !7377635767 7657")3$+,-
77737363! &63638634& '3&63.
78/8340
$ 7")863(81'423481'4 865
573
5687
8"9:9;
%36& 3 !& '678!55.& '") 765563
*763;37 /8347 76435 3 !337")3+,-
!36377<!55.7643510
24588==466341837"
63
5687
8"8>8;>$
% (8335& '73 376363 63638 3'7635
?")39+7 67,-676377<(83351! 8 3
7(87@36785(6340
9 558163A633A 81
A88A
4634 56323453"7&555
3B33
8"8>;>9
967 7657868 38 37637 !& '3
63'5'8!363 !3'67.C.'673 8+38'7 8&363477
/5363+D76@63 7 ! 7663E 30"
F,G+! /&5+63 73/53 &&3630
H 856757"
51 8 77"
571! &06557.
536=86 7
5557
012345672841 9
76
467465 142685
46
81 245
82 46258812
!"#$!
%&' ()*+,-./01-234)-/)*+,-./01-*)0-3/2/0*355
661728417587463 832873 43812581245837284181222
84812 42 7935242 83843587463 15:4335242 6874;81
; 01"7<=>>>??@86581893A5738828414:175;87
884812; 12245322128412422 ; ; 34:2 74;;822 85
" AB 15CDE2F28G2
2 22368283F15
15 85 F449
23 23HC5DIE24J83;112K
8J84812; 12K22L 1;5
MNM#OP
QR348728L ;3933 2212841223S2887114617 1
84812812 5876841712488774382;4182
T 7174;83U32 3L127412V2:431812 :6172841
4:?W82 837581587463XW873723828732348728LQY234
8728L ;39381372841153:44 5 1 V812841743
2841743Z628[72841\Z623; ; 352223 3 24 V231
5L8315;392 655171 8186;82841 ; 14:?WS
76:4481?W7412811 V81284143432841
U \B0 246223 324 V231
5FL83
AB]]
\B]22465 ] ^ F864; 4546512
82
4
99_S 3 2 23;65 `19UU"O744894628348728L 15
32348728L ;393
01 2345678967 7657
3 8 35677
3563 35344
7
7
!"#$%"&
' 5( ))5)6* 56667 7(65763 3635
5777(3634 3888(63)+7 7 )8!,3
8 8 836-) 75 7 6)(6 5 67 7(65763
-7 88 86-63 636363867 767( 7(6
7(6 )8!
./.0123456789:6;<=:>;96?:4=9?7:5@?3A;@897<3?
B37367(776-676 ) 7)56786343 - 4 67 67C
7(657!D373#EEFGH3867 7763 7-( (7
3 -67F
I -(-3 87686356346767J87 -+767
565 3(83 -3 3J3-(63438763 -
334 6763867-63I 76-(57-7(- 753478
67565 37377)8) 8363 63665- (8-7J3)
58686-778 5)635638577 -+7!
B373 KK$FLL
'3 35767 7(6573 -+7-3635
6763637!'8735)3 -- 3 67634678 63-M 3C
637 67 7(657!D 634N4KKKF$EJ
9O7P967 7-+7Q8)3-M (663(4-67367 7
357677638( )5663 R86S63T74 3)+634K$L) +
365UVWXYZ[W\]^[_\[WJ638687835`6 (4-6
-+77 87ab_cYdJef\^cJgZhJYiJhi\c!O 35887)3
33)6 8-6363F
!87-+7876435563786(7)3 577jR86S63KKE
-78- k67 7667l865m7 K$$J KKG 5578-
k67 7-+7l!
)! 8(4-6-+787(6-6563(7353637J7 8
784634J 3C+634 77J!4!d\nnJab_cYd
012345672841 9
43 78381158746333587287815 81
2 2153287812!"!#$21%&'37418(2 628)
*61728411263 4*587463 3287+3*33812423 3 2381
7743517,8!2, 87746187284127-4317.482115
01/4/ 12# 012 312774612587463 32873 815 524
'
22826524328781215242 2 2#
085150137418(28351 2*61728412+852 2 2615
8123341#3 852841*61728414*16 87417315,822
331228414*741212,8212 *61728412216 4*+8145678
4 2812085901:":;<6425*34=3441%%#04, /3
28*6172841>63812 573828414*587463 3287#1?8/12
328/ 74*12874334482841741212813287332
13*46285 2 34482841744112246@ 2538/
58734187*34822A381241:!#
.3287,8218123341*61728412875874633287 3
228265* 8115 /62841#B87463 32873 655
381617328121533)438125242 33*43741>3)
2841#C23 4*8123341*61728413 3287 381
34143372841242 37581622317 15+771181#!%.287
5874633287714+ 1581234**7154821#
08522 26*617284187417315,822 2 26346372
3*437328174317#3 26 18183/17242 7412 2
242 3758115*44,812 2152 7412 24*8262841085
%%!#04, /3241 2 *61728414*587463 32878141
16 141 1 5434+741728414*2 2 2674411221
085641 224/+4152 /4*2 1217242 2367263
4*2 12835874632A381241:!#
3 8123341152 2654813 142626 768/ 72)
438+622 2 26158123341*6172841465+ 142128
1814*2 3287,877174)47763812 587463 587463
3287322 28 8142812 746187284115 3841
4*2 3222826515 428417*#D1531"&&#E141 4*
9FG3 3 234*-4317 8817417315,827626332381215,82
143#$21 76263 15587463 813+151828,823*317 2428
3 232232873287/ 587463)381*61728412$21%&'#
9HG436*681/12434**617284115*341326584*328733
A381241:!*#
01 2345678967 7657
83637637 67 736763467838
637 3363 865 3 !"#8 7
58 48$%& 38'63735363(86767 357 363 563
8 33 65)5363"
*+**,-./012.34526-/73.0869363:615773;37
<67435548 367634678367 7657
363634 38455 5 55'5867 7"= 634>86?63(
3'763677736555 5534(6"" 3 3@@ 3767(3
67 7657 3688A7 373634 8 83
8 3'763 385 55'5">86?63BCDE!"F 5
67 78 77 35 5 83"G'6 7587H 57
43677867 763 H63 38 5'3 3
363854 3)867 7
I 7H 436J78 363 63 63685'378
67 8563 4363"#8675'3 3 3638
36 3) 3'763 776776435)56657
K88673A(7888655578'6 7355634
7 8 3'763A"L3HBDM!
L3HB!763763)3634867 7 57447
>86?63 H63 367 7657363634 38455
835'5"N5567 7H7 57665 8 4
K7A868>6356OP 58C!636Q63 577@ 67 7
36557$%&RST$3UVWSR">7BMBE!"#845567@
7H776L3HX$Y&XY(S%&TZTU([RV\\(V$]V^T$RX\\Y(
X]R_X\\Y3&SXRT\[T"F '(367 76573638 38
5 53 3845567 75'5"<3873 H<6555H
KA8367 76587455 833633 7
56Q 67 7Ma657685 5 83363>''6H
BCM`P573BE!"
bcd<677765878F373 5576753H7!3 77H7

6367655 5 83 3'67 3@637 7573634
6?347 )63 83F373BB!"
012345672841 9
371445 558284161728417681
5624 2741281872 322878222
8!481!24!8" 1#3 7287477633238 $43
46153812587463%
&'5446 3(4")
4'*4)
81!'23*41)
+'(8")
24'5*4!)
2,3'1*"3,2341 ,8"24,54!)
-./012/ '1*4)'2,!8"46 1(,)
2345361453'3(712,)
'342,7462541%(612)
34'83"5)
'93,:415;( 1)
48'9,< 43 =%>8381!741?2(8261,7)@
15 7'743581!2493%;*( 1)
'84)
' 81 (72)
@746!'2341 ,8"242%5*4!)
ABCDEAC
142381!68287767447763381!822587463328782@58472841%
F &'142G432414723(*4)@
4'43 23%154623881<*3283)
='2*H" )
'2151743283?4623I1!3242631
%*81)@
AJBEBK
LL #36172841
:87463328782 36172841 315514212812372841
!4442622453233,221284124 2318284143 3 812
741"32841346281M71726782628413N2 3
67412344"3741"3284123672632 8!"%14282 81!
5"12!4 14181!2623"846622317,2416346
726FJOC%FOK
01 2345678967 7657
7 7883 854653 636753
7 665776435563487!36553673 7"#
6375678 83$%&845'(7)
* 675+,77 77 8676368788+78 5
3 753637!3,63 35+7863
655 63+% %8%55-634 3&.8+6387 %
3#+#3 8763&7%
/ -0 8673 5 %7 7 6537764355634786%73
7638 307637655+6%-6357-868 763$#
5634676 3 436605+ 63 37 % 83 786%763
6'3%3635637%&1 23 3$56263 74
563373763.$ 6 363 667.67486'63
)7746356 (6 58)8 78 435
3+ %-868980 78&
:;<=>?@??@?@A%3637 %67 7657
BC;D>EFGHIJKGL
& *634376637&4&6786%7,63 6343-7%86,3634
3 57634 30763
3& 93 6343- 36366 7
& 93 6343$5363,M76N63,4 3
O& 93 634 57634647763 78#7, 3#7
8& 5%# 63
7& 93 634678
7786%66-+48+767% 8636&
P 3706 763 7600563%!37-557
M637% -7 3-05363867 7&938$5
%363563-8% 3 4362543 %6'3
%3637-868764355+765 63663 57
30763, 764353766376786%7, 37638503 %
M337&* 067 7657376435 307#
63563 5 3 363467 77
.5&&% 7765 5776N63 %%7&
6576347,% $5,6 3 36763 30763&9333,
QR675837663% 863+ %86548 35763
%8583 30763-6857634%363845'(7)&
012345672841 9
050581324463
223
0000043242462
2!826"#2841
#38$!2
%"81
&'
&'
%#3"8$!2
$445()3*33#153
%(("
+,-.+/0.
1234 56#772#344#704324 24622!826#28418#93
344#823#25(2!42!3#32812!741:3#2841 #93% ##1
81:82#284124742!2!41741:3#2841 2!37481$6172841456
;<# ,8#1<#34#3#584587684181=!87!415876
2!86=!2!3>4$$81$3:124347482281$738?4@@3AB
24$2!3=82!2!C6284181:822!42!3#93242#92!2631D
, =2!587E4:352!#2812!#F438247#<#722!
3G:"3H!#15
2!#282!3#D3#2!3IG$3"#2321517434247482
738#D$#81
"#232!5(1>4$$5
2!#1=!12!!"#512
1=14=G=!#25446#1(>"4$$5
J,,K0/.
;<#42487!828185#2631#33C612%1<#8 .=!356
86524744L#37581$2487#15#2!2!=#432!8123456728414
42!81$1=M!<#8#1<73234 #3#5845876841=!3
#93=8#746143M!2487!#2454=82!2!37125#2!4 2!
74612=81(342!3
. = 467#141(#D=!4341
#41$#463G(3"42!3#34615
#1514="6551
2!#2!#8D$"41
&'
#8823"81$
00 12345678569 65946
565372523
545372523
!
"2 7 #52$ 26552%%652&!'(7 )*++52 $ 962 5,
6 -%# .5652,5$447 6 154 26626/
&! 0 ( 44523 642391%459$6
154 26626462537237$24535
7152 $
.0( 4467 676 56
0 673752# 4$1 !!2273!!7
.072$722 717, 5 2
(7 153794489:2/, 6969664525
756( 4$22
!
; 2 $ $56523567( 21# 652$59523265526 6756!
( 26%5962$1# 64$52352 $53 6652 52 %2
52-%# 6# %9# (7 7 527 92, 6522$ 922
9 2$(5765324452352 %526527 92, 6524<(/
326666523(7 72(= 527 92, 652'6%# 6# %52152$
24(7$569 6 256 65443523 2> 6544=723523? '65( '
(5523 91%4$ 27 =7 65$ 52 %523$569 6 256
425@-97 A/&B!
327 44(523 C1%4'$569 6%59456 6$(727 6%# 56
61 6 67 52 %52D7 %5976 265$9#$
7 1 252 %($ $154#"2$. 7,5239E !" 7 52 %2
52'6%# " 52675164352($67 =6526672$FGHIJ++K
295266= 2%%%%%523 17 1$$$% 27594!95,5
9#7 954 23523=7537 4,495,5425@-97 A/&!/
&! "08L:36%%66522
56$7M$$6154#
.081:222
1# N6%525656
"0944
7 9371
27 7%
B B!
012345672841 9
01 3435845876841215876278341435
22828781224674655844341234615
!""#$%865&23&4358'3841(026172841
)6*33230&4334534+418,-7 ./012324
8'141281243122877412
4 5164788&6282*527241*61'7
42541*61'7
5149223152812*8241*61'788
50928142424181286658177
46553:64&&;'37
4825:78
<(3<<=0.
-874337284138832442324812336284115335&
5874633287(01 0$>32423238123362
8&7622238843874?
0 @450*541*22810*5647
2356887
.(01<=2
A874633287342146153&4358372712
33432171'33438145
/ B452328763155854681968157C88C
155D857
EFG8405541*21283
&74 C886'C
B48464'87;157C(C
8750246'263467
546
.(1 1=3
HIHHIJ KL6881'6172841
012L6881'617284158746332878'1224L68728418
155&762584'654142)'4*(A874633287L683
7422&'81181'458'3128171'('(L62841=13
8343&433'612K&.(..((01L62841=1371'82
4776343812178234185728 M341./0311581
01 2345678967 7657
7834788776373 3 !""
756#63 $ 7837763%
& 3$'()*355+,
-./'701),
-./'3$%7)3$,
'563%1),
' 7$563638%5)777,
1&'80)5$,
' 72808)65$3,
& ')55,
-./' 35+02) 28,
'8)65$3632,
-./'78634%)$ 57,
1& 8'7),
$6$33')5648,
'5+78 488+%5)65,3
56789:76;
< $634=767 77 5632 $7 3$ 3 3
563$672 $7 3$9672 $7 3$743 3 563
363$67 765!""13 82 $536( 563
688 72=76;667%59>!""6756# 8634 75648
678638 3(7635?
@A 3$ !""863437 $67 7756#7B83
ZA 713$[3 (763343663$67 673
37\]$87135]6341 81 +8763 7$
6323453$3$]7 673688766363\ 53$@A ]7
8532 673* 37566%
; $&' 3$086704)(33,
868 2' 70(75+63%77-./
CDEFGHIHHIJIK 56#23637 2$67 7657
LMDFNOGPQMRSTNURV
; 3$663443*$6743
W X7377637
3$6634 673 37
7 Y67634
012345672841 9
4334 81368312
14 8174215
05412281! 128156"23# 8$3"2
123574822
24%3112 5682&&3782528"'
324%(2"24178"'
)**'+,-./01
23&)4,1"486"232"567"68$33!812231"82841834
&375814%'9 "&!3:587"26512:" 5241"36"2841
462276""48387!2"843 8"%8%'9 124874&38"418"""73'
;678"6"58432 33" 1$224!82"83843 824844 2
&343""84181213328% #3!8158<312"2&")78'78<381*0=>,4,
15? &23,1'
)4,1 @A))21110245 8142376"48
387!2"'
14 B4"2387!2"8"8"162382841
6223B8"31387!2"'
14 31387!2"8"1422"43248
6"2841#46"!"445#81%8%(&""
88"26<
#46!14
01#46C5412C
A C#C
@A28"8"'&322#8&4 35"43248
"26<'
),'0*++/D,1
EFGG"68$3 "218168$53124358"312'012
74123248361228417FGG8"2384381%382841 82 HIJ
)441 @ 4828158146"&4&
K 22"236
L 6201L
8L 2038" 3L238"
K 6276"48
@
"4 32742"
8882C74"2422'
K C 6223"'23"42))"#11C
01 2345678967 7657
864853537
787
!"
#$"%&'"()%*(+,-
./.01234567389:7;24<83=2;>:9>:;24?6@4;25@
967 7A657B6863A735363#CA86 336D7EFGG355
'HH,-C635IA A86 36363867 7J 3(5IK6348
636D7 8 3D763#FGG355'HH,&+(,-" 86
336D73L47D6365757637 86 77J6""7
67MA7763467 7 N3B54#"F633'HH+&'H, 3
OPQRSTEU8'H%+-"V MA5JOPQRST 7 8 N3B54
#L56-EWXPYWZZ[78B787863447LI3MA63JB865\]^P]_
63678N3B54C8757783 A65 L656I#U8'H%+&$K,-"
`38 8 83JabZZ3S]a8D3 3363B68D63656I
58 488II8Dc6D36347"U"F633#'HH+&'H,-JC3 L
A46N7J7 87OdbWSJOeYb\\OTS]aJ[]YTS]a3[]Y\bbJ8D
5D6365f5667gE8BD 87J7 87abZZJ]QJWQJYQJ3ZRTbJ
3 8D3I LD6 7 3363B687 A67 54I"
8667 7A657B68D636536343637847
L 77 3655 63I "h]^P]_77BN3 655 63I
#iB33634i84 3655 63I -67655763#()-
3D763L 87A7663 675 N634 L7&
#()- jBB63"7 &L75&A87
7&A6"kl33655Im!
7!
no 3B867i !
D36!
786AB 8i"
38837 &8
##8I--775i6
Fj
pqrF37637AN7L 7 6 367f37#F3763'HK'-3s7 C A !
677B688363 Ct A 67634 3855736 76436l3 8
7 78I 6I#s7'H%(&'H)-"
012345672841 9
233147178

!"#$287587463$3287%84782582&728812182' 81
558284124(81)541241301 *+,%6153)356285738(81)
3-$3817+34,.4(81238/.626718)2,301
'46214
82.6236718)24,3
0,1284%3'2,
4+(81)818254,3+431%617
( 56,75
15 21+4358113
1534318)2
5515(32+255
89
:$4828414+587463$3287%82$287+617284184+21;-8(%7+
<72841= 36%2283+6172841,'71)1>?#!>@@A81 B
$4%82+6172841242(%88128,7'1828$%751+23246)222
154+226311
B 5726%%'5'4646)224856CD7%%0
54102214(46222726%%'
E8E
FGFHGFI287587463$3287%15$4%821
J781)*$4%821158158372137372382874+3'5'7413
284115323+43814%58126)4+587463$3287%828123$3
41%+6172841 KLL1%%EE81BBMNO#NP152)%82>QR#S>#"NO#NP#STQU*
8785128%,181)%828,$378841*$$34-8,2841*,248)1%
/2$230583243567478%58217(213%+1525530
V4%,E==1EE
02+4%%422"NO#NP152/'141',460AN!WQNX71(5738(5
1)28$4%821232)8012372841%%'/2'74128262%-87%,1+43
2-$38414+1418,$481)*5+3123(%(8463*381)2474,
,61872*$3$8176%263%%'$78Y774112841%'*732815)34+
$4%8210Z,E=1E=01 9*$23[*487323'*4&324
436774334615 !"#"NO#NP8142$324+2478%724+3\62
81)(622+617284124,2272841%4(23681
01 2345678967 7657
863677 3!"#
3!78 $ $8%!86&''(357)67*#
''3!''7 3"
+7, (7 3 $"*"
-'8"'
''7"''
67.3$8 /03$71)8634"
2/322245
, $)6789:7;3!<7=>7?357 + 7!7@766)@56377836A7
!$63487@3!88 578 8
B 7 8 7 878!4777.77.!4 .. 34 3!
+$3CD,E638C 557 @3, 78 .. 33$5!4/F $3G
H)63732IJ22
KLKMLM86!67 7@6573!N 85!634
67@776+588 77 @86!67 7@65783875634
3!@563778)+3345!/86!67 7@65757@
8@533634@ 777@655$838 $68@77 $68 8
@657/3JE7O<7=>7?P5574@638 3)763$86587@67
5 634 8648$ !/Q87@07@533634!6R 5673!63!.63
63.@8767!+@7.7 3+876!7 863 @63
J - 76340$88/347 3077P635#637!63
08634"
3! 3! 730040+44!!#$3"/
63%ST& 88U7 163802755"
F$55816730$5'5 ' #63"
-'V7557'''7"''
2/33W4J
Q88!. !6P!+@86@65 3++737@65563) 75
3)763/X.77@7+ Y73!! .@ .6770$83867
.@ .67 37 63@86 !67 7@65$683+738!/
X.72IJVZ/C37[.87357!76.65 \.@57E$88!67
35366@!E7Y@53370+78 5 8!67 7@657.7
+ !$8807363 88867. ./
C37[.2IIZ25Z/, $)8@86 63@7353637+5678
636.6757 @73/3IE .8]HQ @ 7E8 347@7
012345672841 9
6 18425 287587 8124 28 485382 15
346 81!
"#$% & '342246 ( )022 ( 46 ( 3121546
( 4( 46*14(04651+2 13(82274 2,62
( 125 4 61 1546*14()13815 )4324281-0*14(0)
1546*14()46 67. 62(5446 6776/
"'012(##34%
01"56%) 125181(82144341 1885 57
"56% 8 54 1+22* 462835 2267 ,624324)14( 15 81+
9 82150+44*34615 150+ 2 8* 3 744481
-:617 3;/
"'012(53<=%
041 34 2 587463 3287 34 2>267 "56%)82(465
58?762243 (22 344828417412128)(87 6 2222
(4634 42 7413 2841 287!
@A1>42 6 481233413287 431181634
8"54%)(3BCDEFGDHBCDE 3 81I443453 24681 1423
7411728412 >3 841 7465 6 5 383 3*3"BCDE%43
5 "FGD%7
"54% J(534 K 8546( 3!L 8546( 3422*812 8
4624 !@158* 46*14(82+1421 ( 815
7*462(4 ( 43249 0 1' 2.(10+14230
18* 0)0 10+)0+ 422)0+ 422246 4 28
76 (10+414(1(82' 2381 M
"'012(534%
NOPQRSTUVTWUXYZW[\RZSTU][WR^V\RTZT^_
àa1 5 2 8123 2814 3284122b23 3834 *3+
15 553 +c' -2877411728 /22 24 27 7423)
1( 381 818123728416172841+"àa14$$67=56%!2 287
61728414 32874181242 *3 24 *43741A3 2841
152 3381741A3 2841"b4 +%!
"5<%86232 (28 128381!2 8352d6 2841 1582
3 41 74123862 24434821 15242 8128 72( 12
7413 284182!' 15@ 344*81 287263 2457432283344 7
01 2345678967 7657
867857 6 7
673!6
" 8#7
66755#
#7
$%&'()*$
+87, 77-67 765 .7363/012334 775
78-,365-4/0178094 .7 3:563;<=>?4@A 56#
758634BC3D8%+88 73-7 7634-67 765764355634
583763@A 834 ,365-4770>%
E7, 77@A668 6763463363 7, 3:56348
8 7787565 73-
* F 77655#GH 63I65565:5574684:554668 84
3-H 63I655657467884,7 J8:553-H 63
I655657 578 4843-6!733#4,#K
L6MN,#%
NO+
"53487556374PQO63-7#$RR&8J78638/01780967 3
58-#6 5 737%4%;<=>?43SDT?U/V%+86634 /017809
6680>677656377630>-73556655-65#/017809%
W,"468 677 #3-56-53487,3 J35
-563676J7,7%X#537 /01780978 87 8 Y
3J763567 7#586 63%+87376763 - -#0>
"8 48E%# ,36
7365 36
E ,!J!.65
8
P!7!48678634 77
# ,36
8YZ8Z-73!!56,!7 67!55#
7 67
$%'RM)'
PQO63-76$RR&$([56376565[55775567
E678356,5#8\# ,363-\8 7-87565\#
,36#87, 68 8763 563363-65 3 8
--77686867377# 8 3-73-63 - 5,
012345672841 9
3431542 553 641381 2881432841432 32
28 814353248158722 378241145
465142434477111 58762 3334
32134744 32841812 7413284177113142!83582
2 3587463 328762274 81242 7413284123 63
81232442 33615321581 42 4783284182 1
2 32131524 2 74132841 481 7711465
741853581237284143 2873365!24615381 47832841"
881458174132841 #71 67481 221284115
74 31841 81 2 7114 181587281 3 12156381
2 $$1%&''()*+(,
-.-/012345627896:13;729<=2:>;7
?87463 3287354478481682871623@7743581 24 $$"
1%&''()*+A,!17243 24 741853587 142
1218124774612B673 841 33174787 34"
841152 2 4812372841%2 421 725263,8#
81287152 344812347624301478481682872658CDEFGCFHIDE
JKFGIDL4381217 1232547848168287388771
15823 35242 47844877243 153478721878"
2%?81&'M(?648&''N,O23478481682872658 812825
2 232 8764587463 328781812372841 3458P312
478346 31281%&'Q&)'M,46154381217222 ! 4"712387
R617 SFGIDH 3335855 7 346 8 4784712387
R617%TJUHDJVIWDXFIF, 3 6543 3R6124381"7
3%4311842 3828412 1SFGIDH15TJUHDJV81
@ 38718156238433 7 4Y6 &'M',
Z 8 43217 423 33381543231 3142 1
26585812 [[\817 2 1634 345414214 7423
8244Y4 32 3623442326586 2222 5 3 4
812872 12 382 4812321 26585587463
3287%!2877411728,81410281 $$1%&''()*N*,
58743522!2 438128781732 43]\^2877411728_
58818882 3 6 3`646248182O12 42315a673b
c82%&''M,46152242dIHe15TJUHDJV4 5833R617881
01 2345678967 7657
8 3763736378337347638663
23456785 488 38 637!"!#$$%&
'3563 3763737347833
637( )*68+,,-.+,-&/
967 7657857 37663432-76/0
86 86847 8776767 51/ 0 57 3!
15!83 33876486373577 6577 8
75"#6"7!8653 8767 386 77 5764357/80 57
+,--.++9&/
* 65634676 7558 5631563634867 7
657 738363788/:3813767 6
373;<<+& 74367 765763573
78!3 6 73785737 767 7657
83 57!744763485733 58 43556=3
68 77 653 735637763657/
>?>0@ABCDEFGAB
H83I73! 3 863763 8 67 765767!
6768733378! 83463763467 7
2,
657 3577!6//7 3546557 3 867 763
8688 .
:367 7J356 846657!36886366 5
653 84665774 63 7/K8!67 7
36363737 3546556 !38466577
764357 43647 67 7/L8676736 3363 84J
6657!673 558 7 345577 67J
7 37345 86673 6 867676383638
46 65M3 77 8 7 737765658
67 7 43646367846 6578 35455&363/
I73+,,N.+<<&
OPQR367 7657633873 38778!7/4/!0 57+,-9"STU"V&!

+,--5"#6"7&!+,--"7W"S#5&/
OXQL8 5663 H876 3 3 48+,9,&756364 8
67 7657638+,Y<87/
012345672841 99
18 43212 34324587463 328782838882 15 628
61728418202442221524 1534 158312
372881587 4812242382 87 228265242
622317 15 728 22826524233 242 37581 15
44815874638888281283143 46661 15
361781587463!2 365243232841213"
2473274317"24 48574132841#6 "8 84181 1181
438 24$ 6
0 365223 287828413587715463841
2328418 212 1814587463 3287 15283 628
6172841820128 3728587463 3287713355 87
43587615341 714617284134 34482841 181
24226158123341617284101 38178"2#3 287 4 4
587463 32878145831234 2 4 4%&'()873
42128 181*#783248241"#78345 32 12+51581412
74122*,2 1-../!-0/+1432 3817881525831264
328781424 3121 4622 4 487435
36243 28782841"587463 32873 758122
3814212173 81 344587 38 4828418226
8123281 15322 287232814812432 2 12
8128 482841 3 474182881215815872426223178
32524423 3242228168287 3432845874635$1
7482 826334615384438 43212"2816828715741226
343284587463 32876172841 7624283617284134328
5 34166281181245$12 1587463 3287
1524782 8124617284172438 246587463 32873
4 4615247412381216 345874636172841
37418012 3123 43587463 3287 3 6286172841
8172716172841428281222615812334154 81
72358 18418715247418535 37 15 4821
78$728411 3445428358312 181412226
54 81*3 15 68$3+15 28774117280123 8181
7 23" 43528581282841428372668615321
467428168287 5438123 81817 2387418281
1812741223587463 32877147763 15 34481
617284172438 155738284187716581587284138 15
01 2345678967 7657
83 78 64857638 654
3 6557637 8 7 6536776578
7 67 765763367 7
35! 3!867 7657634!6558
867 7763 67 765763867! 78 5737
36638 3463463657 8 8 373
3637 67 7657"
8767 78#6363 3779$7%67 77&
863 76345 733 3573 35
534486 776344 3 8877 336348
3!3467373673 8 67 67 7
7 3 36363'(8 )***"++,-
./086763466336637 67 77 56

6348!685746778!36313277')**,-
Journal of Semantics 19: 35–71
c Oxford University Press 2002
Like: The Discourse Particle and Semantics

MUFFY E. A. SIEGEL
Temple University
Abstract
Using data from interviews with high school students, I first adduce evidence that
lends support to Schourup’s (1985) claim that the United States English adolescent
hedge like is a discourse particle signalling a possible slight mismatch between
words and meaning. Such a particle would generally be included in a grammar
in a post-compositional pragmatic component, but, surprisingly, like also affects
basic semantic attributes. These include both truth-conditions and the weak/strong
distinction—though only in existential there and sluicing sentences. I argue that the
differential behaviour of like in various constructions selecting weak NP’s stems from
the restricted free variable it introduces, a variable which only there and sluicing
require. This variable is available for binding, quantifier interpretation and other
syntactic-semantic processes, yet is pragmatically conditioned. Indeed, I show that,
due to its formal properties, like can be interpreted only during the assignment of
model-theoretic denotations to expressions, along the lines of Lasersohn’s (1999)
pragmatic haloes. These results support the idea that weak/strong is not a unitary
distinction and suggest that the various components of grammars must be organized
to allow information from pragmatic/discourse elements to affect basic compositional
semantics.
1 INTRODUCTION
Linguists have argued about the components of grammar and their
interactions since the beginning of modern linguistics. Current areas
of controversy include the question of how to include discourse-
related information in a rigorous semantic theory. The major proposed
solution is DRT (Discourse Representation Theory), which provides
a level of Discourse Representation, either as input to formal semantic
interpretation in the style of Kamp and Reyle (1993) or Heim (1982)
or operating in tandem with it, as in dynamic semantics (Groenendijk
and Stokhof 1991, Chierchia 1992, Muskens 1996). It has been hard
to gauge the importance of such a level because a great deal of the
original evidence for DR and dynamic semantics comes from extended
discourse anaphora, specifically donkey sentences and the like, and
E-type pronouns (Evans 1980) often provide an alternate account of
these phenomena that does not necessarily require DR’s or dynamic
36 Like: The Discourse Particle and Semantics
binding. However, more recently accounts of other phenomena whose
analyses require the incorporation into the semantics of discourse-
related information, but are not susceptible to an E-type pronoun
analysis, have begun to accumulate: focus (Rooth 1992, Romero
1998), pseudoclefts (Heycock and Kroch 1999), connectives and ellipsis
(Romero 1998, Hardt 2000), and even ‘pragmatic haloes’ that figure
in semantic interpretation (Lasersohn 1999). In this article, I present
another such phenomenon: A widespread but peculiarly contemporary
use of the word like in the United States has nothing to do with
extended anaphora, is unarguably discourse related, and interacts
crucially with semantic interpretation. In particular, it allows NP’s with
strong determiners to appear in some Definiteness Effect (DE) contexts
that require weak ones,1 namely sluicing and existential there sentences,
by providing a variable which will be available for binding. Moreover,
like can actually change the truth conditions of many sentences in which
it appears. Yet even DRT and dynamic semantics do not provide an
adequate analysis of like’s behaviour. I will claim, therefore, that like
adds to the evidence that there is something wrong with how we view
the interactions of the components of grammar.
The kind of like I will be treating can be described as a sort of
a hedge2 favoured by adolescent girls in the United States, as in
(1), which was produced spontaneously by my daughter at thirteen.
(Throughout this paper, examples which I have actually observed in
spontaneous speech are marked ‘observed’. Although I have learned the
like dialect quite well from my children and students, I have checked
the judgements throughout with my young informants listed in the
Acknowledgements section.)
(1) She isn’t, like, really crazy or anything, but her and her, like, five
buddies did, like, paint their hair a really fake-looking, like, purple
color. (observed)
I am not including as part of this construction another contemporary

nonstandard use of like which can be paraphrased as ‘say’.3 as in (2),
or the much older (and perhaps fictional, according to Schourup 1985)
‘beatnik’ use that would allow (3).
1
The weak/strong distinction was first drawn in Milsark (1974) to distinguish NP’s which could
appear in existential there sentences (weak, largely indefinites) from those which could not (strong,
including definites).
2
I do not mean to suggest here that like behaves precisely like the hedges described in G. Lakoff
(1973) or Prince et al. (1982). See Section 4 for important differences.
3
See Schourup (1985) for arguments that the like that means ‘say’ actually shares a core meaning
with the hedge like.
M. E. A. Siegel 37
(2) She was like ‘Get out of here’.
(3) Like, wow, man.
Rather, the construction I have in mind is solely the one illustrated
in (1). It is sometimes identified as a feature of ‘Val-Talk’ (Demers
and Farmer 1986) and was apparently first noticed by linguists such
as Schourup (1985), Demers and Farmer (1986: p. 183) and Underhill
(1988) among certain young female California speakers 15–20 years
ago. Schourup (1985: p.183) points out that, while the hedge like itself
is relatively new in English, there have been similar usages attested for
centuries and that other languages also use a word meaning ‘like’ as a
similar sort of discourse particle. Nevertheless, this sort of like is still
considered non-standard. Some scholars who investigated it when it
had just appeared in California expected it to disappear again rather
quickly. Underhill, for instance, describes it as becoming archaic in
California in 1988. Contrary to such predictions, like has persisted and
spread in California and all over the country, and many columns in
the mainstream press regularly decry its use (Lewis and Stanton 1996,
Johnson 1998, Mehren 1999, Levey 1999). Yet the ‘Valley Girl’ like
remains widespread and very robust. During a recent oral survey of
honours high school students in a suburban Philadelphia high school,
14 of the 23 respondents (plus the teenaged interviewer) used the hedge
like at least once, and many a good deal more than once (see Figure 1),
even in a tape recorded interview, a format in which it has been found
by Broen and Siegel (1972) that speakers use fewer discourse particles
than they would ordinarily.
In the following sections, I will show that like qualifies as a true
discourse particle, yet has serious semantic effects, and evaluate the
significance of these facts about like’s behaviour. In Section 2, I will
consider previous treatments of like and investigate in more detail like’s
behaviour as a discourse particle. In Section 3, I will explore the
significance of like’s effects on NP’s with strong determiners and on
truth conditions. Section 4 will provide an analysis of the semantics of
like, and Section 5 will be a summary and a discussion of implications
for theories of grammar.
2 LIKE AS A DISCOURSE PARTICLE

Like clearly is not a member of the discourse-related category
most widely treated in formal grammar—the discourse connectives.
Discourse connectives belong to recognized parts of speech and express
relationships among sentences in a discourse, like conjunctions and
adverbials such as but, although, before, because, however, moreover. (see,
for instance, Schiffrin 1987, Redeker 1990, Reiber 1997, Grice 1989,
Bach 1994). Rather, like falls in with words like um, oh, and well, which
started out being called fillers in Maclay and Osgood (1959) and then,
as their meaning and role in the sentence was gradually recognized,
came to be classified as interjections (James 1972), then as subclass of
discourse markers dealing with information from participants (Schiffrin
1987), ‘evincive’ discourse particles (Schourup 1985) and ‘cue words’
(Hirschberg and Litman 1993). In the works cited here and in others,
two facts about these discourse particles become clear: First, they have
no apparent grammatical relation to the sentences in which they appear,
and, second, contrary to prescriptivists’ accusations, they do have a
meaning, in that they seem to convey something about the speaker’s
relation to what is asserted in the sentence. This role of conveying
something about the speaker’s relation to the content of the sentence is
shared not just by interjections such as oh, ah, um, well, and y’know, but
also by some adverbial expressions like frankly, obviously, so to speak, as
it were, loosely speaking (Kay 1979, cited in G. Lakoff 1987) and even,
perhaps, some of the discourse connectives (Grice 1989, Reiber 1997).
This semantic/pragmatic role has variously been described as higher
order speech acts (Grice 1989), mediators between mentality and the
real world (R. Lakoff 1974), part of a participation framework (Schiffrin
1987), tacit performatives (Reiber 1997) or evincive (Schourup 1985).
Like shares both qualities of discourse particles; it has no defined
grammatical role and seems to convey something about the speaker’s
relation to what is asserted in the sentence. First, as (1) and (4)
below indicate (and as Underhill (1988) and Schourup (1985) show
more systematically) like can, like other discourse particles, appear—
surrounded by pauses—pretty much before any constituent and have
scope over that constituent, indicating the lack of a fixed grammatical
role.
(4) They’re, like, representatives of their whole, like, clan, but they
don’t take it, like, really seriously, especially, like, during planting
season.
Second, although speakers may balk at first at defining like, my own
casual research and Schourup’s much more formal study show that
speakers of a dialect that uses the like in question can define it if
they concentrate on the task. The definitions they come up with are
consistent with expressing something about the speaker’s relation to
what is being asserted in the sentence. (5)–(9) include some examples
of students’ generalizations about the meaning of like:
M. E. A. Siegel 39
(5) What I’m about to say is the best way I can come up with to word
what I want to say, but I’m not really sure it’s exactly right (my
older daughter, then 14).
(6) (Schourup’s (111)) Speaker is unsure of how to say what he
means.
(7) (Schourup’s (112)) hesitant to say what you know
(8) (Schourup’s (113)) gives the speaker room for qualification
(9) (Schourup’s (114)) expects the listener to fill in
Based on his data, Schourup comes up with a formulation of like’s
meaning that attempts to subsume all the intuitions in (5)–(9) and
account for observed uses of like:
(10) Schourup’s definition (p. 42):
like is used to express a possible unspecified minor nonequivalence
of what is said and what is meant.
I will be adopting this definition and attempting to formalize it in
Section 3. We will see then that although like is certainly a discourse
particle and its definition allows it to convey the speaker’s non-
committal attitude toward what she is saying, in fact this definition
just as certainly confers upon like the ability to alter important semantic
aspects of sentences in which it appears.
2.1 Previous analyses of like

Aside from Schourup (1985), the only previous detailed published
treatment of like that I know of is Underhill (1988). Underhill analyses
like, not as a discourse particle like oh, ah, um, and well, but as ‘a marker
of new information and focus’ (p. 234). There are, however, several
problems with this analysis. First, since Underhill himself recognizes
that numerical expressions with like are not always focused, he analyses
the use of like with numbers as an entirely separate use from the hedge
like. His claim is that with numbers like is not a focus marker because
it merely means ‘approximately’ or ‘about’; it is not discourse-related
at all. However, like is not exactly a synonym for approximately or about
even with numbers (Schourup 1985, p. 39 ff.); it clearly has different
discourse properties, since utterances with about and with like have
different permissible responses, as in (11) and (12):
(11) He has about six sisters.
a. ?Yes, he has exactly six.
b. Yes, he has about six.
c. No, he has exactly six.
d. #No, he has about six.
(12) He has, like, six sisters.
a. Yes, he has exactly six.
c. ?#No, he has exactly six. (Good only as a sort of prescriptive
correction; speaker shouldn’t have used the word like.)
The facts in (11) and (12) are exactly as predicted, though,
by Schourup’s definition in (10), which has the further virtue of
accounting at once for both what I have been calling the hedge like4
and the so-called approximation like. In (11) the speaker asserts that
he has about (approximately) six sisters, so it is odd for the listener to
try to agree in (11a) that ‘Yes, he has exactly six’ since she is actually
disagreeing with the approximate (11). On the other hand, in (12), if
like is a discourse particle as described by Schourup, the speaker asserts
merely that he has six sisters, adding only a sort of warning to the
listener of some possible minor non-equivalence between six and the
correct number. Consequently, (12a) is a reasonable way to agree with
(12), but (12c) sounds odd as a denial since the speaker in (c) is actually
agreeing with the speaker of (12).
Even when like is not used with numbers, though, it seems to
operate more as the pragmatic discourse-processing particle Schourup
describes, not as a focus marker. Some speakers use like so many
times in fairly short sentences such as (1) and (4), that it is hard
(though perhaps not impossible) to imagine that all those items could be
focused. More definitively, there are plenty of sentences in which like
appears with a constituent that clearly does not bear the main focus.
In (13) for example, HOT PINK MINI-SKIRT is the head of the
focused NP (it is new and attracts the scope of even), while little buttons
(not new and not attracting the scope of even) is marked with like,
apparently because of the speaker’s difficulty in describing the ‘little
buttons’ to her satisfaction. Similarly, in (14) FREE TRIPS TO NEW
YORK is focused and attracts the scope of even, but favourite students is
appropriately marked with like:
4
Underhill divides the hedge like into several functions, too: hedge, unusual notions, questions
and answers
M. E. A. Siegel 41
(13) Nate has terrible taste. He likes ugly clothes with small round
objects sewn on them. Yesterday, he even said I should wear a
HOT PINK MINI-SKIRT with, like, little buttons on it.
(14) That teacher is so unfair. She plays favourites in a big way. She
even gives her, like, favorite students FREE TRIPS TO NEW
YORK (observed).
One has to conclude that if like seems to mark new or focused
material, it is because that is the material that speakers are most likely
to be insecure about describing accurately and therefore will be most
likely to evoke Schourup’s discourse particle. Certainly like’s being a
focus marker cannot explain its ability to interfere with the Definiteness
Effect only in sluicing and existential there constructions or to change
truth conditions (see Section 3 below), while an analysis based on
Schourup’s translation in (10), I shall argue (in Section 4), can.
2.2 Parallels with oh, um

Like, then, does not mark focus. Instead, Schourup demonstrates, like
tends to appear at points of lexical indecision like other discourse
particles. Maclay and Osgood (1959) showed that fillers like um, oh, and
well occur with greater frequency at junctures where possible lexical
variation is the greatest, before like was even commonly used as a
filler. Schourup demonstrates that like similarly occurs with the greatest
frequency in positions of great lexical indecision such as ‘a) preclausally
but after prefatory material; b) before filled and unfilled pauses; and
c) before restarts’ (p. 54) but that like ‘is odd in positions in which
a pause to consider how to continue would be unmotivated.’ These
positions include within idioms, negative polarity items, or multi-word
expressions and before lexically empty or easily formulatable material:
(15) *They were always keeping, like, tabs on me.
(16) *I can’t, like, stand him. (Compare: I can’t, like, appreciate
him.)
(17) *Tony looked the number, like, up.
(18) *She, like, is a dentist. (Compare: She, like, practices
dentistry.)
(19) *I wouldn’t want, like, one. (Compare: I wouldn’t want, like,
a tattoo.)
(20) *A woman, like, who was wearing a fur coat came in.
(Compare: A woman, like, wearing a fur coat came in.)
(21) (Schourup’s (103))
Q: Were you born in Austria?
A: *Like, no.
Similarly, since the subject of a sentence is frequently an established
topic in the discourse and therefore relatively easy to come up with a
description for, like is unusual, but not impossible, as an introduction to
the subject. Sentence-initial like is most often taken to have scope over
the entire sentence, but may be taken as applying to the subject if the
speaker can reasonably be having difficulty introducing it. (22) below,
for instance, seems to be ambiguous. Like can have either subject scope,
in an answer to A, or sentential scope, in an answer to B:
(22) Like, a sort of mini-tornado knocked the tent over.
A. What knocked the tent over?
B. What else went wrong on your camping trip?
Consistently, though, like, like other discourse particles (as well as
modifiers like almost, nearly, virtually (Morzycki 2001)), scopes directly
to the right. It cannot, for instance, be attracted to focus like even. In
(23) the like clearly applies to ‘a teacher who’ as well as to ‘really listens’,
while even in (24) applies only to the focused ‘(really) LISTENS’.
(23) She’s, like, a teacher who really LISTENS. (observed)
(24) She’s even a teacher who really LISTENS.
Also like other discourse particles, like is transparent to belief
contexts and quantifier scope. In (25a) below, the like expresses that
there may be a minor nonequivalence between what is said and
the speaker’s meaning, not Lexi’s or Miriam’s. In (25b), though, the
implicatures associated with even will most likely be attributed Miriam.
This follows the pattern of um, which also has to be the speaker’s
hesitation. Similarly, (26) has all the same readings (with either subjects
or objects taking wide scope) with or without the like’s or um’s, while
in (27), even seems to block the object NP from having wide scope:

um
(25) a. Lexi thought that Miriam said that Xuan, like , plays the
violin.
b. Lexi thought that Miriam said that Xuan even plays the violin,
M. E. A. Siegel 43

um
(26) Every doctor was working on, like , some patient (ambiguous)
(27) Every doctor was even working on some patient. (wide scope
subject only)
2.3 Who uses like and why?

All this suggests strongly that like is a true discourse particle,
pragmatically conditioned and interpreted. In most contexts it does
not seem to interact with the syntax or semantics of the sentence,
and its occurrence is best predicted, not by structural or even lexical
factors, but by processing factors like lexical indecision, and perhaps,
many teachers and journalists (Mehren 1999)—as well as many of my
students—seem to believe, social and psychological factors. Indeed,
Schourup’s translation of like in (10), that it expresses ‘a possible
unspecified minor nonequivalence of what is said and what is meant,’
might be expected to predict that speakers who are insecure about the
accuracy of their assertions would be most likely to use the expression,
by way of apologizing in advance for any errors. It is hard to test this
prediction, as the only large scale evidence about who is likely to use
like is merely anecdotal: United States’ English speakers I have asked
and newspaper columnists (Johnson 1998, Lewis and Stanton 1996)
certainly seem to believe that like use is most prevalent among very
young women, and very young women often seem not to be confident
about their assertions. It is well documented that in general women
make much greater use than men of devices that soften assertions
or requests (R. Lakoff 1975, Tannen 1991), and programs aimed at
eradicating the like treated here from female students’ speech take for
granted that the use of like makes the students sound unconfident and
unintelligent (Mehren 1999). My own small collection of data confirms
that females use like much more than males, but suggests a slightly
different interpretation of this fact: My data show that the use of like
to mark lexical indecision correlates with taking little time to plan an
utterance. While there is no way to know why some speakers may
choose to speak before they have their utterances completely planned,
it is certainly possible that speakers do this when they feel comfortable
and informal, rather than just insecure. Redeker (1990), for instance,
found that all speakers use more such discourse particles when they
are speaking informally with friends than when speaking more formally
with strangers.
I studied tape-recorded interviews of 23 suburban Philadelphia
honours high school students. Each subject was asked ‘What is an
100
Female
80 Male
60
%
40
20
0
0 likes 1–3 likes >5 likes
Figure 1 Percent of subjects using like by gender.
individual?’, a question that does not lend itself to easy answers. In order
to maximize the chances of the students’ using like, the interviews were
conducted in natural high school settings—hallways, classrooms, even
the girls’ locker room—by my 15-year-old daughter, with students
that she knew. Although this introduced some undesirable variables
into the study—some students who were in groups heard the question
minutes before they got to answer it—it turned out to be the best
way to ensure that students would use like as freely as possible.
As Broen and Siegel (1972), Schiffrin (1987) and Redeker (1990)
found, people use far fewer discourse particles in unfamiliar, formal,
or uncomfortable situations, including taped interviews, and Schiffrin
(1987: p. 42) discusses the advantages of holding interviews in groups. I
conducted a few pilot one-on-one interviews in a controlled setting
but abandoned this methodology when it yielded very little use of
like. Figure 1 below shows the use of like in complete responses to the
question ‘What is an individual?’ by gender in the high school survey,
and it confirms the observation that use of like is much more prevalent
among the girls than among the boys.
Although the young men may not use like as much as the young
women, they do know the construction; two of them used it, and
their judgements about sentences with like match those of their female
classmates. We can learn more about who uses like and why by looking
at individual cases. Let’s begin with the two out of eight boys who did
use like, Male 2 and Male 4:
(28) Male 2: There’s, like, a lot of little groups that follow each other
around.
(29) Male 4: What is this [the interview] for?
Female interviewer: Mastriano (name of teacher)
M. E. A. Siegel 45
Male 4: Oh, like, the midterm thing? Like, repeat the question?
Female interviewer: What is an individual?
Male 4: Oh, wait, I got it. . . I’m thinking. . . . All right, I got it!
. . . Um, I think that an individual is someone that’s completely—
Byrne’s got to shut up—I think that an individual is someone
that’s completely autonomous in themselves and has no relations
to anyone else. I’d say that we’re all slaves to conformity within
LM and even myself. It’s sad, no one is an individual, the fact that
we are all influenced by everyone else.
(30) Male 7: Individualism is a lie. Everyone’s basically the same. The
belief that people are individuals, people just make up so they feel
special about themselves . . . Thank you.
Male 2’s use of like (his only one, coming at the start of a fairly
long response) seems pretty typical of any like-user, male or female.
He is just starting a response that probably is not fully planned yet and
may not be sure that he is succeeding in saying exactly what he means.
Similarly, Male 4, the only male to use like more than once, used it only
in initial questions and requests aimed toward clarifying the (female)
interviewer’s position. Once Male 4 understood the circumstances of
the interview, he explicitly demanded time to think and finally gave
a confident and like-less answer, which is fluent except when he has
to demand silence for his performance from his friend Byrne. His
ultimate answer is much like those of the other male respondents,
represented by Male 7, who seemed to delay replying until they had
an answer fully formed as almost a set piece; Male 7’s final ‘thank you’,
for instance, was typical and would seem to indicate the end of some
kind of performance.
The young women patterned similarly, in that the greatest
concentration of like’s appeared toward the beginnings of answers when
the girls couldn’t have been sure yet what they were going to say. Some
girls came close to explicitly glossing their like’s with all the definitions
offered in (5)–(9) as they planned aloud, as in Female 1’s response below
to the question ‘What is an individual?’:
(31) Female 1: someone that doesn’t. . . I don’t know. It’s, like. . . I
get it, um, that, like. . . an individual dresses in their own style.
They don’t care. . . I’m trying to think aloud...An individual is
one who’ll do. . . [Others encourage her to complete her answer]
I can’t, I’m thinking. . . . An individual. . . I’m trying to think of
the words. I know what I’m trying to say. . . who does what they
want, who doesn’t let other people influence them.
Many of the like-users appeared more fluent, though. Female 14,
for instance, who had by far the largest number of like’s, is not a high
school student now at all, but a recent graduate of the high school
where the survey was conducted. During her response to the survey,
partially reproduced below, she was surrounded by younger girls on
a sports team of which she is the beloved former captain and seemed
to feel quite comfortable, that is, comfortable enough to start speaking
without advance planning and to search openly for words during her
response. She holds forth for her admiring audience for a good deal
longer than I have transcribed here and with a great many more like’s:
(32) Female Interviewer: Do you think that, um, people who do hang
with one little clique become less individual?
(33) Female 14: Um, I think that in some cliques they do, where it’s,
like, you have to act in a certain way to hang with them, but I
think in, like, sports it’s different because it’s just people who, like,
all came together because of one common interest, but they’re
different in, like, all other ways, so, like, become in different ways.
But people who became friends because, like, they all had the
same clothes or something, like, they’re not very individual.
The girls who did not use like as much gave signs, like the boys, of
taking time to gather their thoughts, like Female 10 below, or seemed
to be delivering a pre-composed response, like Female 12, who spoke
after listening to two of her friends answer.
(34) Female 10: Miriam, I have to gather my thoughts on this, and I
wanna hear what other people said. . . . An example of not being
an individual was on Hallowe’en when all those girls dressed up
as Hooters waitresses. . .
(35) Female 12: I think that everyone is an individual because everyone
is different, and you can be an individual as part of a group as
long as being part of that group doesn’t cause you to lose sight
of your own personality and your own preferences and your own
expression of yourself. There! That’s pretty good.
Indeed, if we plot the time the students took to start their responses after
hearing the question against the number of like’s in their responses, we
find that more planning time results in a reduction of like’s in the high
school students’ speech, as shown in Figure 2 below.
The negative relationship between like’s and the time before
responding shown Figure 2 is statistically significant at the 10% level.
M. E. A. Siegel 47
Number of likes in response

10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time before responding (seconds)
T
Figure 2 Number of likes versus delay in responding.
Figure 2 includes data only from current high school students who were
allowed to choose when they would respond. It does not include the
college freshman who used more than three times as many like’s as any
of the high school students, although she displayed the expected very
short time before responding (1.9 seconds). It also does not include the
four students (two female and two male) who were forced to wait more
than a minute while they listened to others’ responses, although their
responses were, as predicted, like-less. These findings that high school
students of both genders tend to use like more when they have not
taken enough time to plan their utterances carefully (either because of
unavoidable difficulties in wording or just a feeling that it is OK to wing
it among friends) are consistent with much larger and more rigorous
studies of discourse particles in general, which show that discourse
particles occur more frequently in informal speech. The girls in my
study may have foregone the extra planning time that the boys took
because they viewed the survey situation with a female interviewer as
comfortable and informal. Happily, if girls use like more than boys, it
may indicate as much a gift for intimacy and spontaneity as insecurity.
3 LIKE AND SEMANTICS

Whatever social or psychological circumstances prompt the use of like,
it is quite clear that those circumstances have to do with the real-
time situation of producing and processing the utterances. The ability
of like to appear in just about any position in the sentence that is
characterized by some degree of lexical indecision, its failure to change
the main assertion of a sentence ((11)–(12)), its transparency to belief
contexts and scope ((25)–(27)), as well as its wide variation in frequency
with gender and social situation all suggest strongly that like is merely
a discourse particle, to be dealt with quite separately from the core
semantics of the sentence in which it occurs. Elements that affect only
discourse issues like information packaging are typically assumed to
be treated as merely superficial, even phonological, post-interpretation
effects to be dealt with in a post-composition pragmatic component, or
even on the PF branch of standard grammars. But like does interact
crucially with the core semantics in two ways: Its effects will have
somehow to be available to the mechanisms that supply interpretations
for quantifiers and assign truth conditions.
Like’s first semantic effect is that it seems to have the ability to
weaken strong determiners. That is, in sluicing and in existential there
sentences, two constructions that, it has been claimed, require weak
determinered or indefinite NP’s (Chung et al. 1995, Milsark 1974), like
makes strong determiners acceptable for speakers who use the hedge
like.
Sluicing
(36) a. *They spoke to every student, but we’re still wondering
(exactly) who.
b. They spoke to, like, every student, but we’re still wondering
(exactly) who.
(37) a. *The principal suspended the school bully; we’ll have to wait
to find out (exactly) who.
b. The principal suspended, like, the school bully; we’ll have to
wait to find out (exactly) who.
Existential There
(38) a. *There’s every book under the bed.
b. There’s, like, every book under the bed. (Observed: Speaker
paraphrased this as ‘There are a great many books under the
bed, or the ratio of books under the bed to books in the rest
of the house is relatively high.’)
(39) a. *There’s the school bully on the bus

b. There’s, like, the school bully on the bus. (Observed:
Speaker paraphrased this as ‘There is someone so rough and
domineering that she very likely could, with some accuracy,
be called the school bully; that person is on the bus.’)
M. E. A. Siegel 49
Even more interesting, this weakening is not merely a surface
string phenomenon; affixing like before a strong determiner in other
constructions said to require weak ones or indefinite NP’s does not
weaken the strong determiner.5
Predicate Nominative
(40) a. *Sharla is every doctor.
b. *Sharla is, like, every doctor.
Inalienable Have

the
(41) a. *Gemma has brother.
every
the
b. *Gemma has, like, bother.
every
Floated Each

the
(42) a. *The girls petted dog each.
every
the
b. *The girls petted, like, dog each.
every
If we consider what might distinguish the constructions in which
like has its weakening effect (sluicing and existential there) from those in
which it does not (predicate nominatives, inalienable have, and floated
each) it becomes clear that sluicing and existential there share one impor-
tant semantic trait that the others lack: Many, if not most, proposals for
their semantic analysis require that the translation of the NP which is
subject to the Definiteness Effect be a restricted free variable.
3.1 Like and sluicing

In the case of sluicing, Chung et al. (1995) (CLM) argue that in a
sentence like (43) below the sluicing succeeds because the process
which recycles material from the antecedent in the first clause for an
interpretation of the second can successfully ‘merge’ the interpretation
of who and someone because they are both interpreted as restricted free
variables (Chung et al, p. 251):
5
The Definiteness Effect in predicate nominatives and with inalienable have is described in
Higginbotham (1987); the DE in floated each is from Kamp and Reyle (1993). There are other
constructions listed in Higginbotham as requiring indefinites: support of donkey anaphora, scopal
independence, accessibility to cleft and pseudocleft. I was not able to test the effects of like on
these constructions because my informants and I did not agree with Higginbotham’s original DE
judgements, even without like.
(43) (CLM’s (26)) Joan ate dinner with someone, but I don’t know
WHO (with). [Stress indications mine]
(44) (CLM’s (30a)) *She said she had spoken to everybody, but he
wasn’t sure WHO.
(45) (CLM’s (28a)) ?*I know that Meg’s attracted to Harry, but they
don’t know WHO.
That is, (43) can be interpreted as ‘Joan ate dinner with someone, but I
don’t know who she ate dinner with’ because someone introduces a free
variable around which the property of being an x such that Joan ate
dinner with x can be constructed (CLM, p. 252). On the other hand,
sluicing in (44) fails because
‘such expressions [NP’s with strong quantifiers] denote
generalized quantifiers. Consequently, the IP’s containing
them are quantificationally closed (in the absence of any
other expression which might provide an unbound variable),
and, when recycled, cannot function as the nuclear scope of
the interrogative operator (CLM, p. 253).’
Similarly, sluicing is predicted to fail with a definite NP in the
antecedent slot as in (45), since definites introduce no free variable
around which a property could be built.
Romero (1998) disagrees with this analysis, arguing that focus in the
second clause, rather than the characteristics of the antecedent phrase,
determines the grammaticality of sluiced sentences. She seems to be
correct that focus can affect grammaticality in sluicing: (46) and (47)
do become much better than (44) and (45) with the focus moved away
from the wh-phrase, where CLM’s data consistently has it:
(46) ?She said she had spoken with everybody, but HE wasn’t sure
who.
(47) ?I know that Meg’s attracted to Harry, but THEY don’t know
who.
However, it is not entirely true, as Romero claims, that ‘When the
sluiced wh-word bears focus stress, any kind of DP will be an acceptable
ANT-phrase if and only if it contrasts with the information asked by
the wh-phrase’ (Romero 1998: p. 28). It’s hard to see how the degree
of contrast in the information in (48), (49) and (50) predict the variation
in the acceptability of the antecedent DP’s, since there seems to be the
same amount of contrast in each. All that varies is the weak/strong
classification of the determiner of the antecedent:
M. E. A. Siegel 51
(48) They invited somebody, so we’ll have to find out WHO.
(WEAK)
(49) *They invited everybody, so we’ll have to find out WHO.

(STRONG)
(50) They invited, like, everybody, so we’ll have to find out

WHO. (Observed) (STRONG+LIKE=WEAK)
I will be assuming, then, that, at least for typical sluices with

focus stress on non-contrasting wh- words, CLM are correct that the
antecedent phrase must be translatable as a free variable.
3.2 Like and there

As with sluicing, many analyses of existential there also require that
the NP after there be introduce a free variable suitable for a property
abstraction. First, any analyses that treat there sentences as involving an
actual existential quantificational operator in the tradition of Milsark
(1974) (such as Zucchi (1995) or Grosu and Landman (1998), for
instance) would require that the NP introduce a variable that could
be bound by the quantifier and allow the NP to be ‘interpreted as
a set expression restricting the quantificational operator in the there-
insertion context’ (Grosu and Landman 1998: p. 153) Such analyses
generally use the absence of such a variable in the translations of
strong DP’s to explain the DE. In addition, many writers have adopted
Milsark’s (1974) tradition and translated there be as a predicate like be-
instantiated, which would felicitously apply only to property-like
(or non-particular) expressions, for which a restricted free variable,
representing a set that satisfies the restriction, would qualify. (See, for
instance, Kamp and Reyle 1993, chap. 4; Ladusaw 1994, McNally
1998). Of course, many analyses of there sentences exist which do
not make the claim that the NP after existential there must involve
anything like a free variable (Barwise and Cooper 1981, Williams
1984, Higginbotham 1987, Safir 1987, Diesing 1992); Safir (1987) for
instance, claims that it is the there that is the variable, and that it is bound
by the NP, rather than vice versa. If I argue successfully that the analyses
of there that do require an NP with a free variable can help explain the
behaviour of like economically, I shall also have given indirect evidence
against analyses of there sentences that are inconsistent with the NP
following there’s being interpreted as a restricted free variable.
3.3 Like and truth conditions
In addition to doing the apparently semantic job of weakening
determiners only in certain, semantically defined, constructions, like
also has the property, unusual—if not unheard of—in a discourse
particle, of affecting truth conditions. Under the condition that Henry
actually has five brothers, (51a) below is false, but (51b), with the sole
addition of like, is true:
(51) a. He has six brothers.
b. He has, like, six brothers. (observed)
Indeed, if a non-like speaker responds to (51b) with, ‘No, he has only
five’, a like speaker may answer, ‘Well, I said ‘like’, (observed). We
can observe the same change in truth conditions without involving
numerical values. Under the condition that the couch in question is a
dull brownish mauve, (52a) is false, while (52b) is true.
(52) a. The couch is purple.
b. The couch is, like, purple.
Clearly, like, although it is a discourse particle, has significant semantic
effects on the interpretation of determiners and quantifiers and even on
truth conditions. It will have to have a formal semantic interpretation
computed in tandem with the rest of the sentence’s semantics, although
its occurrence and its interpretations are pragmatically determined.
4 AN ANALYSIS OF LIKE
For now, let us assume that both sluicing and there sentences require
restricted free variables and that like introduces such a variable into
translations of NP’s, even with strong determiners or definite articles.
This is intuitively plausible; very informally, like’s introduction of a
possible minor non-equivalence between what is the case and what
is said seems, indeed, to introduce a variable in meaning. The truth
may be exactly what the speaker has said or something only very
like what she has said. The meaning of expressions with like is, then,
both disjunctive and variable. As an informal first pass at incorporating
Schourup’s meaning for like (10) into a representation that introduces
a restricted free variable, we could consider something like (53) as a
representation of the meaning of like α:
(53) (z : z = α ∨ z = something like α ) where z is a variable of the
same logical type as α .
M. E. A. Siegel 53
(54a), then, could be informally represented as in (54b).
(54) a. Lana hates, like, every coach.

b. hate (Lana, (z: z =every coach ∨z = something like
every coach))
Since like can apply to constituents other than NP’s (see (1) and (4),
or (52) for example), α and the variable z in (53) will have to be able
to range over types other than those that have individuals, kinds, sets
of individuals, or sets of sets as their denotations. This is not a serious
problem since such a range of variables is necessary, anyway, to account
for anaphora involving pro-forms other than pronouns, such as such, so,
and do so. (Carlson 1980, Siegel 1995).
Much more serious is the question of where in the grammar such a
representation as (53) could fit. Since it introduces a variable that needs
to be available for merging and binding in sluicing and existential there
sentences and helps determine the interpretation of quantifiers and truth
conditions, it will have to provide input to semantics proper. But there
is also very strong evidence that like is not to be interpreted as part of
semantics proper. We saw in Section 2 that like is a discourse particle;
its very occurrence, as well as the interpretation of what might count
as ‘something like α in (53), is conditioned by discourse and pragmatic
factors which are not normally a part of compositional semantics.
Moreover, any variable introduced by like is completely invisible to
quantifier scope and belief contexts (see (25)–(27)). So the variable
introduced by like would have to be both present and not present
in the semantics within the usual current organization of grammar.
Moreover, we must concern ourselves with how we are to represent
the ‘something like α in (53) within ordinary formal model theoretical
semantics. Especially if α is a quantified NP like every coach, as in
(54), we cannot expect to build into our logic what other expressions
the speaker may take to be sufficiently similar to a given generalized
quantifier in a particular context. As Seuren et al. (2001) write, ‘keying
[to context] and reference fixation are cognitive processes in a game
of hypothesis and approximation and cannot be part of logical model
theory’ (p. 549).
Since like is a discourse particle, one might expect that DRT would
help in this situation, but it provides no advantage over traditional
compositional semantics. In DRT, an NP like every coach in (54)
would not even form a semantic unit that could have alternative
representations. Rather, every would be represented as a relation
between open propositions, as in (55).
(55)
x y
Lana (x)
y every
x hates y
coach (y) y
We shall return to these important problems with the interaction

of the components of grammar in Section 4.2 after we have explored
some of what is to be gained from an account of like along the lines of
(53).
4.1 Implications of the informal account

First and most obviously, (53) captures the generalization about like’s
meaning that Schourup drew from speakers’ descriptions as in (5)–(9):
Like introduces the possibility of a minor non-equivalence between
what is said and what might have been meant as accurate. However,
(53) does not explicitly include the various particular meanings of like
that the young speakers identified in (5)–(9), the ones that seemed to
report on the speaker’s relation to her assertion, as discourse particles
typically do: not being sure about one’s wording, or hoping the listener
will help supply more precise information. But we can now see that
these apparent higher level speech acts about the speaker’s relation
to her assertion can be characterized as reasons that a speaker might
decide to use a like to warn of a possible mismatch between her words
and what she actually meant to say. Of course, the contextually given
reasons for choosing a particular expression are not generally part of
the grammar; only its common semantic effects are. Further research
will have to show whether discourse particles other than like with the
apparent specialized function of merely commenting on the content of
the sentence also have a semantic core like the one for like suggested in
(53). For now, though, we can assume that the informal representation
of like in (53) is much as it should be.
Although the account of like outlined in (53) is still very rough and
raises serious problems about its place in the grammar, it is important
to note that even the rough account of like in (53) will gain quite
a bit for us aside from explaining how like improves sluicing and
there sentences with strong determiners by introducing a restricted free
variable. First of all, note that the disjunction incorporated in (53)
predicts a paraphrase for like which actually behaves as like does in
M. E. A. Siegel 55
discourse. Compare (11)–(12), repeated below, with (56). Recall that
about in (11), (like approximately, loosely speaking, or roughly), does not
behave like like in (12) because it asserts that the expression it applies to
must be approximate. On the other hand, the disjunctive paraphrase
for like in (56) correctly allows speakers to assert the proposition
expressed by the unmodified sentence, while introducing an alternative
of approximation, so its discourse behaviour correctly mirrors that of
the like sentence (12).
(11) He has about six sisters.
a. ?Yes, he has exactly six.
c. No, he has exactly six.
(12) He has, like, six sisters.
c. ?#No, he has exactly six. (Good only as a sort of prescriptive
correction; speaker shouldn’t have used the word like.)
(56) He has six sisters, or something like six sisters.
c. ?#No, he has exactly six. (Good only as a sort of
prescriptive correction; speaker shouldn’t have introduced
the disjunction.)
The disjunctive translation similarly explains the change in truth
conditions between the (a) and (b) sentences in (51) and (52), repeated
below.
(51) a. He has six brothers.
b. He has, like, six brothers. (Observed.)
(52) a. The couch is purple.
b. The couch is, like, purple.
Naturally, the (b) sentences are true when there are only five brothers
or the couch is brownish mauve, since they mean ‘he has six brothers
or something like six brothers’ and ‘the couch is purple or something
like purple’.
(53), then, correctly predicts the truth-conditional behaviour of like
sentences, as well as explaining why like can help definite NP’s or those
with strong determiners occur in sluicing and there sentences: the like
introduces a necessary restricted free variable. (53) can also help explain
why like doesn’t help strong determinered or definite NP’s sound any
better in predicate nominatives, inalienable have, or floated each (see
(40)–(42)). The explanation is simply this: As many writers have been
arguing from many different points of view (see, for instance, de Jong
1987, Abbott 1997, McNally 1998, Partee 1999, and Musan 1999), the
overlapping weak/strong and definite/indefinite distinctions are not
based on one simple distinction or even two, as was first thought,
but have several different ingredients. These may include, but are
not limited to, the presence or absence of a restricted free variable
(Heim’s (1982) definition of indefiniteness), formal lexical properties
of determiners (Barwise and Cooper 1981, Keenan 1987), syntactic
differences (Reuland 1985, Safir 1987, Diesing 1992), differences
in information status such as existential presuppositions and hearer-
novelty/familiarity (Rando and Napoli 1978, Woisetschlaeger 1983,
Holmback 1984, Ward and Birner 1995, Zucchi 1995), and differences
in time (in)dependence (Ladusaw 1994, Musan 1999). Different
constructions may select for different ingredients, producing the well-
known variations among what DE constructions actually allow. So,
while like helps definite NP’s and those with strong determiners fit
into sluicing and there contexts, it can do nothing for definite/strong
NP’s in contexts that select for an ingredient of indefiniteness/weakness
other than a restricted free variable. Predicate nominatives, for instance,
clearly do NOT require or even allow the introduction of a variable,
although they may have the form of an indefinite NP:
(57) Sharla is a doctor.
In (57) one cannot even use ‘a doctor’ as a basis for property abstraction.
It makes no sense to talk about the x’s such that Sharla is them. Rather,
the predicate nominative is, itself, a predicate.
Similarly, sentences with inalienable have, while they can correctly
be said to require weak or indefinite NP’s, do not require merely a
restricted free variable, but one that is free of existential presuppositions
about the reference set (Partee 1999):
(58) Gemma has a brother.

M. E. A. Siegel 57
(59) *Gemma has every brother.
(60) *Gemma has, like, every brother.
Once again in (58), property abstraction on the direct object produces
a strange result. (58) does not mean that a brother is among the x’s
such that Gemma has them, (although it might if brother were replaced
by book so the have lost its inalienable quality). This is because the
lexical meaning of inalienable have dictates that there is no set of pre-
existing brothers of which someone can ‘have’ some proportion of
them. Having a brother is entirely relational; Gemma’s brother isn’t
a brother without her (or another sibling). Hence, the oddity of (59) is
due, not to the absence of a free variable, but to the presuppositional
or proportional nature of every (Milsark 1974, 1977, Keenan 1987,
McNally 1998). Like definite NP’s, phrases with every presuppose
an already familiar, non-empty set, and this is inconsistent with the
presentational semantics of inalienable have, as described in detail in
Partee (1999). The sentence is no better with like in (60) because like has
no effect on this ingredient of strong expressions; it merely introduces
a restricted free variable. Indeed, sentences with like, such as (38b),
repeated below, still keep the presupposition that there is some non-
empty, presupposed set of books that the every quantifies over.
(38) b. There’s, like, every book under the bed. (Observed: Speaker
paraphrased this as ‘There are a great many books under the
bed, or the ratio of books under the bed to books in the rest
of the house is relatively high.’)
The floated each examples work a little differently, but to the same
effect. In sentences like (61)–(63), there is no semantic reason that the
NP in the DE position could not be represented as a restricted free
variable.
(61) The girls petted a dog each.
(62) *The girls petted every dog each.
(63) *The girls petted, like, every dog each.
(61) can actually mean that a dog was among the x’s that the girls each
petted, and there are syntactic variations of the sentences, even versions
with every, that sound just fine:
(64) The girls each petted every dog.
This can be explained if we adopt Kamp and Reyle’s (1993, p.
449) analysis of floated each: that the each floated at the ends of the
sentences in (61)–(63) is actually a constituent of the object NP and
must be licensed by the determiner of that NP. Classically weak
determiners such as a and some have the lexical property of licensing
the each; traditionally strong determiners like every and the definite
the do not. This would predict that floated each sentences, unlike
existential there, sluicing, predicate nominatives, and inalienable have,
would show no flexibility whatever about allowing NP’s with the
‘wrong’ determiners, and this is borne out. While it is well known that
other DE constructions can occasionally be forced to permit so-called
strong determiners just as long as they are in special lexical contexts
that satisfy their semantic requirements (Woisetschlaeger 1983, Abbott
1997, McNally 1998), I haven’t been able to find any way of forcing
floated each to accept every:
(65) There’s every kind of cheese on the table. (OK because
quantification over kinds makes NP non-particular enough
for a context that wants a variable (McNally 1998).)
(66) Sharla is everything I ever wanted in a doctor. (Quantified
NP is still somehow predicational enough for the predicate
nominative construction.)
(67) Gemma has the brother I always wanted. (Context builds up
the presupposed non-empty set of brothers that would make
the use of the felicitous.)
(68) *The girls petted every kind of dog I ever wanted each.
4.2 A more formal account of like

We’ve now established that like allows NP’s with strong determiners
to occur only in those constructions that select for the non-
particular, free variable aspect of indefiniteness/weakness, because it
introduces a restricted free variable into the translations of otherwise
strong expressions. It has no effect in constructions that require
indefinite/weak phrases for reasons other than the variable they
introduce. We now need to get more rigorous about how the account
suggested in (53) will actually fit in the grammar. As noted in Section 4,
even though the variable introduced in (53) participates in binding and
affects quantifier interpretation and even truth conditions, it cannot
be properly introduced in either traditional compositional semantics
M. E. A. Siegel 59
or DRT, as like’s occurrence and its interpretation are dictated by
discourse-processing events. Happily, when we say that the meaning of
like α can be either α or something like α , we do not actually seem to
mean that like is translated this way in a model theoretic representation,
as the speaker’s attitude and the context figure so prominently in what
will count as ‘like α . What we really seem to mean—and this is entirely
consistent with the definitions of like in (5)–(10), is that like affects not
semantic translations, but the fixing of reference relative to a model and
context. That is, α denotes either the denotation of α or something
like the denotation of α. Indeed, there has been some previous
work on meanings involving ‘something like’ the actual denotation
of the expression being translated. Sperber and Wilson (1986) claim
that even without expressions like like, we normally engage in ‘loose
talk’, wherein there is only a general expectation of ‘an interpretive
resemblance between the proposition expressed by the utterance and
the thought that the speaker intends to convey’. (p. 170) Similarly, Hart
(2000) shows that speakers routinely use a heuristic of ‘rounding’. From
this point of view it seems that like, which also signals ‘a possible minor
nonequivalence of what is said and what is meant’ could be merely a
marking for this more general process in the assignment of denotations
within a model. Of course, since sentences with like are marked, we
would expect the probability of a minor non-equivalence to be greater
in them than in like-less sentences. Grice’s maxim of quantity would
predict that speakers would not use the expression like unnecessarily,
so the part of the assignment of denotations that differs from that of
like-less sentences is the one most likely to be intended.
To formalize the general phenomenon of loose talk, Lasersohn
(1999) develops a theory of ‘pragmatic slack’ somewhat similar to
Sperber and Wilson’s, (1986), but within a compositional, model
theoretic semantics. He points out that (69) and (70) would ordinarily
be accepted as ‘close enough’ to the truth for practical purposes’ (p.
522) if Mary arrived at 15 seconds after three or if a few night owls
remained awake in the town:
(69) (Lasersohn’s (1)) Mary arrived at three o’clock.
(70) (Lasersohn’s (3)) The townspeople are asleep.
This leads to the suggestion that (69) and (70) actually mean something
like (71) and (72), respectively.
(71) Mary arrived at about three o’clock.
(72) (Lasersohn’s (5)) More-or-less all of the townspeople are asleep.
However, (69) and (70) actually behave differently from these proposed
paraphrases in (71) and (72), just as sentences with like behave
differently from their proposed paraphrases with about in (11) and (12).
In particular, Lasersohn points out that whatever mechanism supplies
the ‘slack’ allowed in (69) and (70) does not actually change the basic
truth conditions of the sentences the way the expressions used in the
paraphrases do. (73) and (74) are contradictory, while (75) and (76) are
not.6
(73) Mary arrived at three o’clock; she actually arrived at 3:01.
CONTRADICTORY
(74) (Lasersohn’s (6))
Although the townspeople are asleep, some of them are awake.
CONTRADICTORY
(75) Mary arrived at about three o’clock; she actually arrived at 3:01.
NOT CONTRADICTORY
Although more or less all the townspeople are asleep, some of
them are awake. NOT CONTRADICTORY
(69) and (70) are more exact than (71) and (72), but they are not
completely exact either. Lasersohn observes that, while (69) and (70)
do not share the meanings of (71) and (72), they also do not mean the
same as (77) and (78), which allow even less leeway than (69) and (70).
(77) is not true if Mary arrives at 3:01, and (78) is not true if a few
townspeople are still awake.
Mary arrived at exactly three o’clock.
All the townspeople are asleep.
Lasersohn’s explanation of this puzzling behaviour is that a sentence
like (70) ‘allows exceptions not because its truth conditions explicitly
allow for exceptions—the contradictoriness of (6) [my (74)] shows that
they don’t—but because in most situations, one may speak a little bit
loosely’. (p. 523) Lasersohn proposes that, in addition to the denotation
relative to a model which is normally assigned to each expression in the
6
Lasersohn attributes this point to Kroch (1974).
M. E. A. Siegel 61
language, there is also assigned to each expression a ‘pragmatic halo’.
This is a set of objects made up of the denotation itself and other objects
of the same logical type as the denotation, assigned by the context. Each
of the other objects in the halo differs from the actual denotation in
some minimal way which is ignorable for practical purposes in the given
context. The objects in the halo may be totally or partially ordered
according to their closeness to the denotation, thus avoiding a need to
employ fuzzy logic, which Lasersohn explicitly rejects (pp. 545–6). In
an appendix, Lasersohn formalizes halo assignment like this:
Relative to a given context C, each basic expression α is assigned a partially

ordered set HC (α), ≤α,C , the halo of α. HC (α) is understood to be the set of
objects which differ from [[α]]MC only in ways which are pragmatically ignorable
in C; ≤αC , is an ordering of HC (α) according to similarity to [[α]]MC . We require
that [[α]]MC HC (α). (That is, the denotation of an expression is always included
in its halo.) In addition, all elements of HC (α) must be of the same logical type as
[[α]]MC . Furthermore, we require that [[α]]MC be the unique element y such that
for all x HC (α), y ≤α,C x. (The denotation of an expression is the centrepoint
of the halo.) (p. 548)
Lasersohn suggests that the Gricean maxim of quantity might

explain the existence of these haloes; they allow us to avoid making
the information we give unnecessarily precise. We do not have to
give times to the minute, for instance, when it does not matter
whether Mary arrived at precisely 3:00 or at 3:02. (73) and (74) sound
contradictory, then, because any slack ordinarily allowed in the first
clauses must be ignorable in context. However, the second clauses
suggest that these particular contexts require more precision than would
be required by the first clauses alone. Perhaps in (73) Mary had to catch
a 3:01 train, or the speaker in (74) was preparing to attack the town
and wanted no witnesses. Such considerations will force us to interpret
the first clause in (73), for instance, more like ‘Mary arrived at exactly
three o’clock’, thus making the second clause sound contradictory.
Lasersohn goes on to point out that certain expressions like very,
exactly and perfectly (SLACK REGULATORS) serve the purpose of
narrowing the pragmatic haloes, while HEDGES like roughly or loosely
speaking serve to replace the ordinary denotation of an expression with its
halo, from which the ordinary denotation has been excluded. So loosely
speaking β means something slightly different from β, but different in
a way that is ignorable for practical purposes in the immediate context.
Hedges, then, are predicted to have an effect on a truth-conditions,
and they do.. As Lasersohn points out, (79) is not true if John actually
is king.
Loosely speaking, John is king.
We saw in Section 3.3 that like also affects truth values, though
it does not pattern exactly with the hedges. I am proposing that like
performs yet another operation on an expression’s denotation and its
halo, different from those proposed for slack regulators or hedges:7
(53) suggests that like has the effect of replacing the denotation of an
expression with the disjunction of its denotation and each element of
its halo. That is, the condition from (53) that like α can be represented
as a free variable z which is restricted to range over α or something
like α might be put into effect as in (80).
(80) If [[α]]MC represents the denotation of α relative to model M

and context C, and vi is a variable over denotations of the same
type as [[α]] , then [[like α]]
logical MC MC is (v : v = [[α]]MC ∨
i i
vi HC (α)).
This assignment correctly predicts the sort of discourse behaviour on

the part of like illustrated in (12) in Section 2, above. There, responding
speakers could agree with the like sentences with exact versions of the
sentence without like (12a) OR with sentences containing about (12b),
but neither form of the sentences made a felicitous denial (12c and
d), just as would be predicted by the disjunctive translation in (80).
Similarly, (80) predicts that like will behave uniquely—neither like
the like-less sentences nor like the sentences with hedges like about—
when placed in sentences like those in (73)–(76), Lasersohn’s data on
contradictions. It does. If we conjoin our sentences containing like with
sentences that would contradict the assertion of the sentence without
like, the like sentences do not produce contradictions where their likeless
7
An anonymous reviewer notes that, to the degree that they are acceptable, some hedges seem,
like like, to improve sluicing examples with universal quantifiers:
(i.)? They spoke to roughly/loosely speaking every student, but we’re still wondering exactly who.
However, many speakers, especially young like users, are uncomfortable with such sentences, seeing
this kind of hedging of a universal quantifier as contradictory, and most people reject examples in
which every is hedged in there sentences:
(ii.) #There’s roughly/loosely speaking every book under the bed.
These hedges also cannot occur with definite descriptions, as like does in examples such as (37) and
(39):
(iii.) *They suspended roughly/loosely speaking the school bully.
The hedges even exhibit different truth conditions from like (see (86) and (87)). I won’t provide an
explanation of the behaviour of the hedges here, but it seems clear that, whatever the explanation,
it is not the same as that for the behaviour of like, which occurs so easily almost anywhere and
consistently improves both sluicing and there sentences with strong NPs.
M. E. A. Siegel 63
counterparts do (see (73) and (75)) because their representations include
a disjunction of the denotation of the expression to which like applies
and the elements in that expression’s halo.
(81) Mary arrived at three o’clock; she actually arrived at 3:01.

CONTRADICTORY
(82) Mary arrived at, like, 3:00; she actually arrived at 3:01.
NOT CONTRADICTORY
(83) All the townspeople are asleep, but a few are awake.
CONTRADICTORY
(84) Like, all the townspeople are asleep, but a few are awake.
NOT CONTRADICTORY

About
(85) Loosely speaking , all the townspeople are asleep, but a few
Roughly
are awake.
NOT CONTRADICTORY
(85) shows that Lasersohn’s hedges resemble like in that they do

not produce contradictions in such contexts, either. But like doesn’t
generally pattern exactly with Lasersohn’s hedges; the hedges all act
like about in (11), since they assert that there is definitely a minor non-
equivalence between the expression and the actual denotation as in
(86), with no disjunctive possibility of accuracy, as with like (87):
(86) Mary arrived at roughly 3:00.

a. #Yes, she arrived at exactly 3:00.
b. No, she arrived at exactly 3:00.
c. Yes, she arrived a few minutes later.
(87) Mary arrived at, like, 3:00.

a. Yes, she arrived at exactly 3:00.
b. #No, she arrived at exactly 3:00.
c. Yes, she arrived a few minutes later.
5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
We have seen, then, that like shows a somewhat surprising combination

of characteristics. It is, first of all, indisputably a discourse particle.
It can occur grammatically anywhere in a sentence; the felicity of
its placement is predicted only by the location of relatively high
degrees of lexical indecision on the part of the speaker, whether it be
due to unavoidable difficulty finding precise wording or the lack of
complete planning before beginning a sentence. In this it fully parallels
other discourse particles and might be expected to be accounted for,
if at all, in a post-compositional pragmatic component. Most such
particles need be given no compositional, truth-functional account,
as they do not affect truth conditions or other basic semantic values.
However, like differs from most other discourse particles in that it
seems to interact crucially with the compositional semantics of the
sentences in which it occurs. In particular, it renders NP’s with strong
determiners grammatical in sluicing and existential there constructions,
and loosens truth conditions in the direction of a hedge like about
((81)–(85)), while nevertheless—unlike the true hedges—allowing the
sentence to continue to be taken as asserting the proposition associated
with it without the like (87). These behaviours indicate that like does
require a semantic account. Since Schourup’s informal description of
the meaning of like (that it introduces a possible minor non-equivalence
between what is said and what is meant) would seem intuitively
to introduce a variable over possible similar denotations, and since
both sluicing and existential there constructions have both often been
analysed as requiring a restricted free variable in the DE positions, I
have suggested that one semantic effect of the use of like is to introduce
a restricted free variable. If this is the correct explanation for why
like causes definite NP’s and those with strong determiners to become
acceptable in sluicing and there, but not in other DE contexts, it has
several implications.
First, it lends support to analyses of sluicing and there that involve
requirements for a free variable. (Of course, there could be two
different explanations for like’s effect on these two constructions, but in
the absence of strong evidence in that direction, it seems more sensible
to assume the mechanism is the same for both constructions.) Second, it
confirms the findings of other studies that the weak/strong distinction
(or even the indefinite/definite distinction) is not a single distinction,
but a group of related properties (de Jong 1987, Higginbotham 1987,
Abbott 1997, McNally 1998, Musan 1999). We have seen in the
present study that the weak/strong distinction is not entirely due to the
M. E. A. Siegel 65
distinction between quantificationally closed or proportional phrases
versus ones with cardinal or free variable readings (Milsark 1974, 1977),
since like seems to modify that characteristic, yet has an effect in
only two constructions. Similarly, though, the weak/strong distinction
cannot be entirely due to any other single factor that has been proposed:
It is not produced only by the inherent properties of the individual
determiners as in Barwise and Cooper (1981) or Keenan (1987), since
like, a non-determiner, can ‘weaken’ strong determiners, but only in
certain constructions. In fact, It is not even possible to use the test for
strong/weak determiners proposed in Barwise and Cooper (1981) to
ascertain whether or not like operates on determiners to weaken them.
That test requires that you take a sentence of the form D N is a N/are
Ns. If it is judged automatically valid, the determiner is positive strong;
if contradictory, the determiner is negative strong; and if the truth of the
sentence is judged to be contingent on the particular interpretation, the
determiner is weak. But for reasons discussed in Section 2.2 in relation
to example (22), it is difficult to get like to apply to a determiner or DP
in subject position at all. In (88), a version of the test sentence for like
every, like will be interpreted as having sentence scope, not scope over
every or even every gnu.
(88) Like, every gnu is a gnu.
To the extent that people can make judgements about (88), most think
that it still expresses an automatically valid proposition, like Every gnu
is a gnu, but with the added possibility that this is not the proposition
that accords perfectly with the speaker’s meaning. We cannot tell what
effect like may be having on every here.
However, if the strong/weak distinction does not reside in the
properties of the determiners themselves, it also cannot reside entirely
in the syntactic (LF) properties of the sentence as Reuland (1985), Safir
(1987), and Diesing (1992), for instance, suggest. Syntactic mechanisms
for accounting for the weak/strong distinction involve differences
in level of adjunction, just as accounts of quantifier scope do. Yet,
we saw in (26) and (27) that like does not affect quantifier scope;
therefore it cannot be expected to require NP lowering in subjects, for
instance, or block Quantifier Raising in objects to render them weak, as
would be expected in Diesing’s theory. But the weak/strong distinction
also cannot be entirely tied to informational status of the discourse
objects introduced. Rando and Napoli (1978), Woisetschlaeger (1983),
Holmback (1984), Ward and Birner (1995), and Zucchi (1995) suggest
that the ability to appear in DE slots has to do with being introduced as
relatively new to the hearer, that is, without existential presuppositions.
But we can see that like does not make older discourse referents
seem newer; it cannot, for instance, improve bad DE sentences where
the crucial requirement is newness, like inalienable have sentences (see
(41)). Yet it weakens definite NP’s or those with strong determiners
in other constructions, like the central existential there and sluicing.
Finally, weakness of quantified phrases cannot always rest on the time
dependence triggered by quantification over stages, nor strength rest
on the time independence triggered by quantification over individuals,
as the analyses in Ladusaw (1994) and Musan (1999) suggest. Like
improves sluicing examples with ‘strong’ quantifiers whether their
accompanying predicates are individual level (‘knows French’) or stage
level (‘was ill’):

(89) *In my school, every teacher knows French ; we just have
was ill
to find out exactly which ones.

(90) In my school, like, every teacher knows French ; we just
was ill
have to find out exactly which ones.
As we consider each of these factors as sole explanations for the
weak/strong distinction, we see that the behaviour of like confounds
them all in one way or another. For each factor, either like has no
effect on it, failing to explain the improvement in there and sluicing, or
like does have an effect on that factor, but it has that effect in all DE
contexts and thus should make strong phrases fit anywhere if that factor
were definitive.
However, the most direct implication of this study of like is
that it is possible for a mere discourse particle whose effect can be
accounted for only in the assignment of denotations to expressions in
a model to affect the core semantics of a sentence, including quantifier
interpretation, binding of variables, and truth conditions. Thus, like
adds to the mounting evidence that information usually associated with
discourse must be incorporated as part of semantics. It cannot be left
to a separate, post-composition pragmatic component or, in standard
syntactic theories, a PF branch separate from LF. Furthermore, since
its association with ongoing discourse is due to its function as a real-
time marker of lexical indecision, not, for instance, extra-sentential
anaphoric binding, it cannot be given the kind of E-type pronoun
analysis that has been offered for instances of discourse anaphora like
donkey sentences (Evans 1980).
The mechanism of the account I have suggested for like making
use of Lasersohn’s (1999) pragmatic haloes could be added to
M. E. A. Siegel 67
any compositional semantics. Syntactically, like could be introduced
syncategorematically or given a variable category, say γ /γ , that will
always map an expression of a given category into another of the same
category. However, our interpretation of like does involve pragmatic
haloes, and Lasersohn observes (p. 547) that the interpretation of
pragmatic haloes in general requires a move to a dynamic semantics.
He includes in this category any model that allows the context to
be recalculated as each new expression is added, either on the model
of standard DRT (Heim 1982, Kamp and Reyle 1993) or dynamic
Montague Grammar (Groenendijk and Stokhof 1991, Chierchia 1992,
Muskens 1996). Certainly like requires this kind of accruing context
for a complete and correct interpretation. Out of context, the halo of
ordered, minor variations we would supply for ‘health’ in (91) below
would probably include things like ‘well-being, energy, vigour,’ or
possibly, given that the sentence was uttered by a high school student,
courses similar to a course in health: ‘biology, gym, nutrition.’
(91) I don’t have, like, health today. (observed)
In fact, though, (91) was uttered as part of the discourse in (92).
(92) I didn’t get to do any homework in school. I don’t have, like,
health today. (observed)
According to the speaker, the intended halo to be evoked by like in
(91) included exclusively courses in which she has a chance to do other
homework, such as ‘math (because it’s so easy), orchestra when we have
substitutes (because they don’t do anything), chemistry lab (because we
always finish early).’ But the listener learns this only from the preceding
discourse in (92).
Similarly, in an example such as (33) from the high school
interviews, repeated in part in (93) below, few listeners would
immediately guess the intended halo of ‘sports’ in ‘like sports’.
(93) . . . I think in, like, sports, it’s different because it’s just people
who, like, all came together because of one common interest.
Consequently, the speaker almost immediately mentions explicitly that
she intends the halo of ‘sports’ to consist of school activities in which
students come together because of ‘one common interest,’ including
perhaps the school theatre group, the chess team or cheerleading,
along with, or even instead of, some regular sports. That is, like
sports still means, as predicted by (80), the kind of activity known
as sports or the kinds of activities like sports, but for pragmatically
ignorable differences8 . Only a dynamic semantics in which each new
expression serves to update the discourse representation of the next
could account for this. Of course, as noted in Lasersohn, (footnote,
p. 547) the problems of formalizing this kind of passing along of
contextual information are difficult and have hardly been tackled even
in dynamic semantic theories that incorporate context change.
Even more dauntingly, neither dynamic semantics nor traditional
DRT solves the problem of how variables introduced by like in
the assignments of denotations to expressions within a model could
possibly interact with core semantic processes such as variable binding
and quantifier interpretation. And yet they do. The existence of an
expression like like, a discourse particle which interacts with basic
semantic interpretation, suggests strongly the need for a re-examination
of the interactions of the components of grammar in linguistic theory.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I could not have written this paper without the help of many experts
on the use of like: my daughters Miriam Bowring and Andrea Bowring
and friends and neighbors Cathleen Campbell, Jane Cullina, Dana
Edelstein, Hannah Greene, Ben Kane, Jenna Kay, Talia Lerner, Kevin
McGuinness, Emily Powell, Leslie Powell, Lindsay Powell, Dan Shank
and other Lower Merion High School students. I would especially like
to thank Miriam Bowring for collecting the field like data, Andrea
Bowring for technical assistance, Kitty Bancroft and William Wisdom
for other helpful data, Susan Wells and Robert Caserio of the Temple
English department for their interest and support, and Joe Bowring
for statistical and technical help. I am grateful to Fern Zalin for her
expert reference work and to members of the Philadelphia Semantics
Society—Ted Fernald, Shizhe Huang, Louis Mangione, and Maribel
8
An anonymous reviewer has pointed out that the ‘like, sports’ expression in (93)/(33) conveys
an impression of universal quantification. That is, ‘in, like, sports’ could mean ‘in sports or in any x
similar to sports’, where the variable x is not free, as (80) would predict, but bound by a universal
quantifier. I believe, however, that the feeling of universal quantification here comes from the generic
use of the bare plural sports, not from the use of like. It’s been convincingly argued by Carlson (1980)
and others that generic plurals do not actually contain a universal quantifier, but are the names of
kinds of things. That alone would account for the fact that the speaker seems to be claiming that
anything that’s a sport (or like a sport) will be different; that is just what the kind-name sports means
by itself. Like can still be seen to improve sluicing examples with such bare plural generics:
(i.) *We know that in sports it’s different, so we have to find out in (exactly) which kind of activity
it’s different.
(ii.) We know that in, like, sports it’s different, so we have to find out in (exactly) which kind of
activity it’s different.
M. E. A. Siegel 69
Romero—for help on a much earlier version of this work. Many thanks
to Emmon Bach, Christine Brisson, Jeffrey Kaplan, Louis Mangione,
Sally McConnell-Ginet, Ellen Prince, Judith Weiner and anonymous
reviewers for comments on later drafts and to Anthony Kroch for
helpful discussions. Any remaining errors are my own.
MUFFY E. A. SIEGEL Received: 07.07.01

Department of English 022-29 Final version received: 15.11.01
Temple University
1114 Berks Street
Philadelphia, PA 19122,
e-mail: siegelm@astro.temple.edu
REFERENCES
Abbott, B. (1997) ‘Definiteness and exis- Grice, P. (1989) Studies in the Ways
tentials’. Language 73(1):103–108. of Words. Harvard University Press.
Bach, K. (1994) ‘Conversational implica- Cambridge, MA.
ture’. Mind and Language 9:124–162. Groenendijk, J. & Stokhof, M. (1991)
Barwise, J. & Cooper, R. (1981) ‘Gener- ‘Dynamic predicate logic’. Linguistics
alized quantifiers and natural language’. and Philosophy 14:39–100.
Linguistics and Philosophy 4:159–219. Grosu, A. & Landman, F. (1998) ‘Strange
Brennan, S. E. & Williams, M. (1995) relatives of the third kind’. Natural
‘The feeling of another’s knowing: Language Semantics 6:125–170.
prosody and filled pauses as cues to Hardt, D. (2000) ‘Notes on ellipsis
listeners about the metacognitive states and discourse’. Presentation before the
of speakers’. Journal of Memory and Philadelphia Semantics Society.
Language 34:383–398. Hart, M. (2000) ‘Understanding Com-
Broen, P. & Siegel, G. M. (1972) ‘Vari- plex Idealized Cognitive Models by
ations in normal speech disfluencies’. the Use of a Total Overlay Structure’,
Language and Speech 5:219–231. PhD dissertation, Temple University.
Carlson, G. (1980) Reference to Kinds in Heim, I. (1982) ‘The Semantics of Def-
English. Garland. New York. inite and Indefinite Noun Phrases in
Chierchia, G. (1992) ‘Anaphora and English’, PhD dissertation, University
dynamic binding’. Linguistics and Phi- of Massachusetts, Amherst.
losophy 15:111–184. Heycock, C. & Kroch, A. (1999) ‘Pseu-
Chung, S., Ladusaw, W., & McCloskey, docleft connectedness: implications for
J. (1995) ‘Sluicing and logical form’. the LF interface level’. Linguistic Inquiry
Natural Language Semantics 3:239–282. 30:365–398.
Diesing, M. (1992) Indefinites. MIT Higginbotham, J. (1987) ‘Indefiniteness
Press. Cambridge, MA. and Predication’. In E. J. Reuland
Demers, R. & Farmer, A. (1986) A & A. G. B. ter Meulen (eds), The
Linguistics Workbook. MIT Press. Cam- Representation of (In)definiteness. MIT
bridge. Press. Cambridge, Mass., 43–70.
Evans, G. (1980) ‘Pronouns’. Linguistic Hirschberg, J. & Litman, D. (1993)
Theory 11:337–362. ‘Empirical studies on the disambigua-
tion of Cue phrases’. Computational Syntax and Semantics 1, Department
Linguistics 19:501–529. of Linguistics, University of Califor-
Holmback, H. (1984) ‘An interpretive nia, Berkeley.
solution to the definiteness effect prob- Lakoff, R. (1975) Language and Women’s
lem’. Linguistic Analysis 13:195–215. Place. Harper. New York.
James, D. (1972) ‘Some aspects of the Lasersohn, P. (1999) ‘Pragmatic haloes’.
syntax and semantics of interjections’. Language 75:522–551.
Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting. Levey, B. (1999) ‘It’s, like, an answer
In P. Peranteau et al. (ed.), Chicago to like addiction’. The Washington Post
Linguistic Society. Chicago, 162–173. Sep 13, C10.
Johnson, K. (1998) ‘Today’s Kids Lewis, P. & Stanton, R. (1996) ‘The
Are, Like, Killing the Language. hot semantic questions of the late 20th
Yeah, Right’. The New York Times century’. The Philadelphia Inquirer July
Aug 9, p. 9. 1, p. A7.
de Jong, F. (1987) ‘The Compositional Maclay, H. & Osgood, C. E. (1959)
Nature of (In)definiteness’. In E. J. ‘Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous
Reuland & A. G. B. ter Meulen (eds), English speech’. Word 15:19–44.
The Representation of (In)definiteness. McNally, L. (1998) ‘Existential sen-
MIT Press. Cambridge, Mass., 270– tences without existential Quantifica-
285. tion’. Linguistics and Philosophy 21:353–
Kamp, H. & Reyle, U. (1993) From 392.
Discourse to Logic. Kluwer. Dordrecht. Mehren, E. (1999) ‘Colleges, like, focus
Kay, P. (1979) ‘The Role of Cog- on speech’. The Los Angeles Times,
nitive Schemata in Word Meaning: March 22, 1.
Hedges Revisited’. Department of Milsark, G. (1974) ‘Existential Sentences
Linguistics, University of California. in English’, PhD dissertation, MIT.
Berkeley. Milsark, G. (1977) ‘Toward an explana-
Keenan, E. L. (1987) ‘A Semantic Def- tion of certain peculiarities of the exis-
inition of ‘Indefinite NP”. In E. J. tential construction in English’. Lin-
Reuland & A. G. B. ter Meulen (eds), guistic Analysis 3:1–30.
The Representation of (In)definiteness. Morzycki, M. (2001) ‘Almost and Its Kin,
MIT Press. Cambridge, Mass., 286– Across Categories’, SALT XI, New
318. York University.
Kroch, A. (1974) ‘The Semantics of Musan, R. (1999) ‘Temporal inter-
Scope in English’, PhD dissertation, pretation and information-status of
MIT. noun phrases’. Linguistics and Philosophy
Ladusaw, W. (1994) ‘Thetic and cat- 22:621–661.
egorial, stage and individual, weak Muskens, R. (1996) ‘Combining Mon-
and strong’. In M. Harvey & L. tague semantics and discourse rep-
Santelmann (eds), SALT IV. Cornell resentation’. Linguistics and Philosophy
University. Ithaca, NY, 220–229. 19:143–186.
Lakoff, G. (1973) ‘Hedges’. Journal of Partee, B. (1999) ‘Weak NP’s in HAVE
Philosophical Logic 2:458–508. sentences’. In J. Gerbady, M. Marx,
Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, Fire, and Dan- M. de Rijke & Y. Venema (eds), JFAK
gerous Things. University of Chicago [a Liber Amicorum for Johan van
Press, Chicago. Bentham on the occasion of his 50th
Lakoff, R. (1974) ‘Linguistic Theory and birthday], CD-rom. University of
the Real World’, Berkeley Studies in Amsterdam. Amsterdam, Accessible at:
M. E. A. Siegel 71
http://turing.wins.uva.nl/∼j50/cdrom/ Safir, K. (1987) ‘What explains the
Prince, E., Frader, J., & Bosk, C. (1982) definiteness effect?’. In E. J. Reuland
‘On hedging in physician—physician & A. G. B. ter Meulen (eds), 71–97.
discourse’. In R. DiPietro (ed.), Lin- Schiffrin, D. (1987) Discourse Markers.
guistics and the Professions: Proceedings of Cambridge University Press. Cam-
the Second Annual Delaware Symposium bridge.
on Language Studies. Ablex, Norwood, Schourup, L. (1985) Common Discourse
NJ, 83–97. Particles. Garland. New York.
Rando, E. & Napoli, D. J. (1978) Seuren, P. A. M., Capretta, V., &
‘Definites in There-sentences’. Language Geuvers, H. (2001) ‘The logic and
54. mathematics of occasion sentences’.
Redeker, G. (1990) ‘Ideational and prag- Linguistics and Philosophy 24:531–595.
matic markers of discourse structure’. Siegel, M. E. A. (1995) ‘Such: binding
Journal of Pragmatics 14:367–381. and the pro-adjective’. Linguistics and
Reiber, S. (1997) ‘Conventional implica- Philosophy 17:481–498.
tures as tacit performatives’. Linguistics Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986) ‘Loose
and Philosophy 20:51–72. talk’. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian
Reuland, E. J. (1985) ‘Representation at Society 87. 153–171.
the level of logical form and the def- Tannen, D. (1991) You Just Don’t Under-
initeness effect’. In J. Gueron, H.-G. stand. Ballantine Books. New York.
Obenauer & J.-Y. Pollack (eds), Gram-
Underhill, R. (1988) ‘Like is, like, focus’.
matical Representation. Foris. Dordrecht,
American Speech 63:234–246.
327–362.
Reuland, E. J. & ter Meulen, A. G. B. Ward, G. & Birner, B. (1995) ‘Defi-
(eds.) (1987) The Representation of niteness and the English existential’.
(In)definiteness. MIT Press. Cambridge, Language 71:722–742.
Mass. Williams, E. (1984) ‘There-insertion’.
Romero, M. (1998) ‘Focus and Recon- Linguistic Inquiry 15:131–154.
struction Effects in WH-Phrases’, Woisetschlaeger, E. (1983) ‘On the ques-
PhD dissertation, University of Mas- tion of definiteness in ‘An Old Man’s
sachusetts, Amherst. Book”. Linguistic Inquiry 14:137–154.
Rooth, M. (1992) ‘A theory of focus Zucchi, A. (1995) ‘The ingredients of
interpretation’. Natural Language definiteness and the definiteness effect’.
Semantics 1:75–116. Natural Language Semantics 3:33–78.
01234567
9
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
9 9

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

!"#$%!&"'(')#
*+,-./0123.40-
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
56789:;7<8=:9>6?@<76:@AB;768<76@8C=7DE7?F6A@6G>@G7F=:;77HF=:76I789@
?FE7D=F:J89D7A@:7?<7@6F6G=7HBD7==7?CJ:;7=@<7K8D?98D<LM7A@:7?67==89
<7@6F6G=F=68:@67K?F=I8E7DJF6AF6G>F=:FI=LN;@:=8<7K8D?=;@E7<8D7:;@6
867<7@6F6G@6?:;@::;7=7<7@6F6G=@D7D7A@:7?K@=OD=:8C=7DE7?F6@6IF76:
PD77I7Q=77R7DAFI;@6?SA@DT7UVVWXLN;7:7D<YYB8AJ=7<JZZK@=OD=:F6:D8?>I7?F6
6F67:776:;[I76:>DJ=7<@6:FI=CJ\D7]@AQU^VWX@=B@D:89;F==:>?J86<7@6F6G
I;@6G7_@O7A?89=:>?JK;FI;BD8EF?7?@<@8̀DF<B7:>=98D:;7=:>?J89=7<@6:FI=
Q=77R7DAFI;@6?SA@DT7a:;F=E8A><7aI;@B:7DbbXLc6:;7:K76:F7:;I76:>DJa:;7
F6:7D7=:F6B8AJ=7<JK@=>67E76Lc6:;7OD=:;@A989:;7I76:>DJa=:D>I:>D@AF=<
F6:D8?>I7?@=;F9:9D8<?F@I;D86FI=7<@6:FI=:8@=J6I;D86FI=7<@6:FI9D@<7K8DT
KF:;B=JI;8A8GFI@A@6?=8IF8A8GFI@AGD8>6?F6G=C>:?F?68:=:>?JB8AJ=7<JF6[
:76=FE7AJLc6:;7=7I86?;@A989:;7I76:>DJaND@6=98D<@:F86@AP767D@:FE7PD@<<@Df
BD@I:FI@AAJ?76F7?:;77HF=:76I789B8AJ=7<J86:;78D7:FI@AGD8>6?=Qd8=:@AUVeVXa
BD8EF?F6GF6=:7@?AF=:=89F?76:FI@AQ;8<86J<FIXK8D?98D<=KF:;:;7FDB@D:AJ
8E7DA@BBF6G97@:>D7<@:DFI7=L\JI86:D@=:a86789:;7<@8̀D?F=:F6G>F=;F6G97@:>D7=
89S8G6F:FE7gF6G>F=:FI=@=F:7<7DG7?F6:;7UV^h=F=BD7IF=7AJ:;7D767K7?F6:7D7=:
GHI JKLJKLKMNOKPQROSTKUVRWKSXYXZT
012344056071853739606 53707661315 054023156
018!163071831"965 !6175#545"61!93159081937183101836
39361 5$!610%5 7937!35&071547394!76'!11 45$521"965 073
3102373"40403680706$!6136 9068361 "61!931501 018!1$!610%&
23107((71806456"521) 7010#5*07!061026140561 $!610251 5349054 "07076
9051831 +15"857,99 377865 06375-2599571 #54#05 185
5#59" 571 907!0610265 3710264 0167075155718&2571!450770761 185
095 185157105182571!4 8 613151831"965 06185"0#1 65&
371023739606((.
/856"520%2"546"5210#51357 ) 7010#5*07!0610260718561! "9&
65 061 37395"965 363 4 231540310771852!465 1806
283"154 099"456571 !4531!456183134524!2039 418527010#5907!06102
3""43283701645931071 "965 18505-00901 53707185"411"5&
1854510239 159 65 37102614!21!4518543039651 59371856285 3102
751 4 59 0992729!5 "45657107 3$4 "572!561076 4) 7010#5
*07!06102636 59936"46"52163734536 "66095 !1!4545653428 718565
311546
30#57185 054375 185 31540391 5276054501 !950 "66095
1 5-83!611851"0231837"965 430396516376285 3102751 46!1
373115 "1 0995 351 "4565716 5 307 531!456 27010#5907!06102
1854007 018455457251 1856565 37102066!56) 7010#5*07!06102607 321
836557"490%20761!0765 371022!5610764#5718!8293660239"965
45546%461 3991 95-06) 7010#5907!061021 96 3501"660951 654#5
"965 025521607"87 9 4"89376713-5/3945 9&
65 02 463!707185937!35!65075349280798 07937!355#59&
" 571655/ 36599 63707937!353 56/85"857 57 7 "&
965 396 322!716 4345317! 54 23656 8061402392837507937!35
5-"93070767284702#340310736456!91074 03284702283758! 54!6
628934683#55 "9 5185) 7010#5*07!061026"3430 370163""43281
"965 1 68 1850452107 95-02392837507937!356555+ 551654
9'*5 37 63&/ 3626')!2576='355435416.':937
37; 28':556999'854902837)9345699<85 37>6.907806
61! ?@AB#54632466937!356!6561855-3 "956 18565 371026 ?@AB07
4790681 "61!93151855-0615725 27752107651557 4071544593157566
1857! 54!6"965 022830765#057107070#0!39937!356+!2861!05657&
2 "366181850328470237672847020 57D6076C5653428 7"965
37"411"5607) 7010#5*07!061026065-15760#5) 7010#5*07!061026 "576
3 89575 #0613 718565066!56 8545 0106366! 51831185455-0617 29534
!73405651557907!061023757229"502 537076371831!734056
51557231540563459!445E 5-3219185756) 7010#5*07!061026
"4255F
opqrsturvowpxpxrotsvyz{wy{|yq}yxt~pw|ts
0123456785976 6
7474537

!"#$#%#$&"&'(#)*!+*),%#,#*-##.
&'$&/''$/"'*0#12''#**%# 345$&#%
"'**)67'8/0"'&'!'$##1' 4*)#$&"& '*
0'&&!'$345$&#%"'**)67*,"5#%/##,)$&,
*9'-:;;<2/,))&-:;;<2/'*=,*5'->??:2'*#*!**$&,""'.
@*A'!*'*+'#1->???2/'!5*##* $#)'$/$##.
'$/'*$*),$',#*),#$&"&%#"!'),*67*4'".
*'#*#%#0' &#*# *'$& '""'**)
*#"*'B0' '#5#*'%%* "'**)*# '$%.!*
"' 6
CDEDFGHIJKLMNOFHPQ
')*##$&"& ##5&R,*-:;S?2' ' TUVWXYZ
[V\]Z^_ỲYaTbTZZ^WcYVbYbdV\dYbecfTcUVWX`Tbg^gVcfcWh^TbXaT\Z^Vacf^ZT_^
Wâ^W^bc6R,*i#0'!'),"'**)-66/"'**)'',*"'1
%#''*')#&*#*2#*# '$#)'$6j%0#ZchX^bc
0#$&"50*''*)k"'$,*i'*k%"'$,*i/*
0#,$5#5$/'#*)# /# ,%,$$&, **-:2l'/%#
'*&)!*,*/#*$&#*#%'*)0#,$5'$'5$6'010'*
#%-:2#0/#0!/' ZchX^bc!'),#,*"'1''*#$&"
0)' # *#*50*k"'$,*i'*k%"'$,*i6
-:2 j)'!5##1 #',* 5, *# #',*6
7*'$&@*) ',#%%#" [VWc/#* #'*/9'-:;;<B>>;2
#0''/##$&"50* 0#'*)k'5#i
'*k'* &#%%#80*iB
->2 m'*"'*'#-*'5# $25, *# '#-026
7->2#0/R,*i #*# " #"*'50*#$&"&
'*#"#*&"&/)!* ' 0#'*)#%[VWc'#"#*&"#,67"$'
4'"$0 0#\Yefc#!5&R,*-:;S?B:>;2'$#'#$&.
"&B
-<2 %'$) -*# '!&25, *# $) -'126
R,*-:;S?B:>;2#*$,'kk'*'"5),#,",'\Yefc"'&5'#*
$'$&,#%!'#,#5n-,''1%'2'*$'$&%'$#%"6ij*
'/'"5),&*!#$!'*) ' '&"#$#)'$$&,*$'l 0#
'*)'#"#*&"' '*#$&"6j*%'/*#*50*
jkl mnomnonpqrnsturvwnxyuznv{|{}w
01234563789 161363 79877988 7798
7 779788 7 78979 8
! 99"!!797 161364" 7 8
987 778 !78877!879
8 7"878 7787#97 88
!779$78!78887 88779
89788 778 779%787&'()*$+)*,
8-7 $
."7 878/055" 778 7
8789!98988788 #788
87878 1!8!!278 7778
8530 953014510 778-8 8 77!530
77976 9!!78!9 79
8987#78789 78789888
!7#878 7!77888
7 87" 78 987 #98
78 77 78 7! 8!777#78
78!87!97 77878 778
78788 :;22&8761! 786! 887
9"7" 7!,"78!898!8787897
889878 898
<8787 78787 77 78 !77
!898=7&'((*$'+>?@>,77&'()(,789A78&B>>+, 8-7
87"89 77 779 9
7 !8798 7!78!777&'()(,88 C8
30D0;23/45112789/50D0;214/55356A78&B>>+$B*E,88 98
F1250GHI789F1250G 7I789=78J52144GI789G7IK778
98 978H-788" L7798
988 7898$788 77 7
!8797 97 79"789"8"- 8
8 78798 7
MNMNOPQRSTUVSWXSYZ[\SUVSX]OQWX
< 89978 7 87!79^789
.79&'(*@,789779_!&'()E,7 78! 87!
`8877a 5 0123456;5a10b4305D45b;1545/555c/53
054D2/; 3d5De63/;5516:;3/;1"7 8-7 95f0;05$
&g, h<!789 988- 977!97
i ! 89b;4450/3/;1"_!978 7798
&!97 , 78-!89789 ! 71!8
9778787887$
cdefghifjckdldlfchgjmnokmopmeqmlhrdkphg stu
012 3456789699 95 67 6
02 456789699 995 57 6
6 012 6 9 6 !""#$%&%!'(0
9 5 676 9 5
2 79 7) * 9 602
9599 96 9 5 6 999
9 59 9 9 59 "' '
959+
0,2 -95976 9969 7
) 5979 5990$#""!(. 995
6 99 /9596 $#""!(. 9997 7 9
"' ' 2 6 9051
2 99$#""!(. 5999973&.4#
5 6 699 9 9
567689:;:<=>?>@=AB8:C?
D7 9 999#E(!%!'(&F 99 6
989G#%&HIJ"!K"6 996 679 !LM'$#%I&(&"!(.F#
#E(!%!'(!"(### %'&KK'4(%L'$!%"M#&(!(.-9 /6 96
* 995 90N06D6 OPQ29 9
6 99 9997695/ 6 9 7
9- 6999 997695/ 6 9
95/95 6 6 996 679
R9 9 6 9SF&%'T"S$'UF#M7V5 6W90OPPP+OX2
9 69 Y99)799 9 9
96/ 9 6/5
Z 9 56 9 999959 5 9
[ 9 995 *5\*7
7 996 99 77 6 9 959[^
*9 67] 90OPPQ295775969-95
69 99 569 9/959#.._65 67
5998_ 6 7795 56676
986909 V àaQ+``P2 '._ 9 9Y91
980 626_ 9 9Y9 980 1
9 6 62) 69 69 '. 91
967 9 9 9 G!$b&!"& '.U4%('%&
'.957W 09) 6/ 9
9969 6959 9 6
VWW XJRXJRJKLYJPMQYZ[J\OQIJZ]^]_[
01234251067389906 67 2110696006 27 2 016
7 3 716967 4 6351 5 11 61811 2 2606012
03 6 66269 2 869201 4 6 65 5351 5269
286112 6 009
!"#$%#!
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
18106 272 023 2606010370126060023110606
5 5' ((0600231106))01819 7281 4 40331
32 6 2 28 6106 429217 2076 4* 931 2607
1878 01671125+ 120606 507237670672 ,
0231878 0118 20-906 3340612 6.
/ 691700672 0126235072335 1 290061 8 2 2 9
72 5 1021290023233,,66 6 66 201 87
4*06 031 51573530680107126926 352118 1 272,
012307238699 6001 10064 07 019695260 )1
111106210 31 70023281064 07 2330612671111106
700232 08 1 2 2833269 08239 101676210
217635 6289222 21 6282372 012 2623269 81
16 93072335062 2664 07 71 026231878'317
2694 015678.879:7;+
290062376706<7 906 0112 6 011 0 19
21 =32110723 576714 07 21 29236 01506 031 5
920627*2600805'>01356?;@A3256?5@B7* C5D67E56DF@=262
567?+11 206 6 01 27671 2 96006231878 06 G 161 2
5 679 67112526918706 7690061 02307206H 2 ,
3 767 (27 3)726 06 906 1 =32110723 5212
7 3 62316206 2 017 1921 281'1 2607
2*1+187 21IJKLJMNKO269PQOIJRRSLM'1 T2-269H956D9+16 01
1706140339017811 425064 07 =600B0680107193925,
219767061 26071878 2122061 =32110723 54
21071 16 9 2*6. 0960720620815 71269
93 6 2290231 931 26071878 212607 9386,
93506 5 71U2694 07 2 12 0 2301351 07
1 1 26061 092 011706161268 29900623
011817676065072305269290231 1
a_`fcbgfha]_i_ifabchjd^]j^\j`kjibl_]\bc mno
0121345656789 96
!"!#"$
%!%%%"!&'(
%%)*+,-,./
01%&2)&!%34$$)
#"%4!&0
)01%&)"&0
01%&)()$!&!
'"!(.)"0
01%&2)!$$)""$
&$""5!$!!"
4%%&&0
6"45!"07"'.44
&&$$)%$)&/$$$)!&
)$%$$)!&08!(
)"%&9:;'+,<,.4!=>?@A?>A>BC
)2$%!)&
"!$%%$$)09:;"
!"$DE;2%$'F+,G++,GH.
"%&4!%5!
&"&$"0!"%?>IJKLKMN
BN=NBNJ?NO>KJLCPP)2$%;;OB>L>LQONC$%4!
&$$)0$$)%%%
%&$$)2%$($)%
&!2$%& "!$%"!2$%
$$$&&R04&
&&$$)%($)S'+,<T.!$!
5=UVVQCNLLWN>BQ4")X+
%"&$$)%&0
Y!!$!%"&
%%%%$$)%&$44!!"
0Z$&5[\]^4&)")
%%&"&)"4"&
!$)2$%!&0Z$&
"_`âb]c_d4&)"
&&$$)%"&)
!%/2&)&e
')./$)"!%$)4&"0
'.').)44$$)'2$%").
!%/$$$)$%$$$$
)%"$)"0'.5(""
!&$$)%""044)!
XYZ T[VT[V[\]^[_W`âb[cdè[afgfhb
012334021567849483 20296 48 5678494848963 86063322853
7046892994963432241216 20296 9689290296 4356786516334451
92896012334021 561 567849483654093839625 2348165630494808
343948 4854452118606332285489137046896296396567849489263
96 201396 29421563049483 63948348943546094866739
1296549484134996839648!"#$285%486!"#!&'$968
48301 ( 30!)#$285 963499683964836592920806930
23*26+0158 96256,2961567865200 548 996012334021 561839625
96663 300296 46326 612965296021165-./0123454/61.784
924163612806481632:;12<=4<08 50/01.30<281.550>8.<0;766663
20123332636 960220964394038 86 4066433704689
012336634002363089239492943021165483046806/;7;<=4<08
81.55450220964?653693 5430696348186063322854891370468904
9642@ 196940012334702948263062940211663689652322996866
483928069660296 463AB285C543125466899 61248 3693
69463A:D3EB35<EC<FG366H6652 !)I$J663 01233A326
86 694901233B403263 86 694901233K668901233
A285C268 0 8022096439403H 0 80 6028936456894765
2110296 663366695 !L 962821343 :.07<2859411 6
!LI 9654303348 810/6$M8 961486 04940430806848 96K12334021
N6 296 O26806285J2 143!!!$432330429654996 16 28
21940492852821940486680634923920089 8430494,6 28219404948
**N P 23 Q44043++%486!"#$300633112 65929966438
968216282194038969405439480948929 1585614696K12334021N6
9411601629290220964394030$2855$2692116129654943604361
96236806 2012334021567849482334821650$929162539 25678494848
963 241636128063234854029655$60288 97852369 62963
32652114539294337046899 54394843453 8 8453968
56784948 *45+411269 92696 201396 61248 3693
629639296205630460123363 453808923949966R21639468
669664961162369 0 8629631469620992921145326
8 6 3$996369 0 8 62963438 937046899 54394843
453 96360476314669416323223966 5094633964348165$
00 8 629636689962648918 9543948094668 96
0296 2321641102 6390921649489656784948 *45+928
9662963929263265 8123369 453M856682 8 9662963
929268 90 89 211453364116 6 6,689928 9638 9211
45326483948 9644$2858 9211453028S948 96 3940
2859604068$939411248 483 648 2169S26321468962963 96
0296 TUVW636648 96 53929966166893 2241 63612806
5678494886658 902 6,216493662963 013963 6296326
64 9289 9656304948 960296 928 963
defghijgkdlememgdihknoplnpqnfrnmiselqih tuv
012134564789 45 7999595
96 99
!"!#$%!"&&'!$ ()*+ ,+$'-!) +).+/+0)!!( 1!)2
03!"!"45+6"03$!)7 "#89:;%6 "+2''$,") +/'""!'
$<)!!+)"""3$+")+"3/< + ",'!" )+)++$+.6&++-&2,"$
)3 +/'.!'0+!"4=()!) '""!'*+$'6 ,") +/"!)0'
$<)!!+)!)*"+/)""-)$"3/<!)!,3"!"03'/3 +/
'.!'0+!">!)/6!)+" ""? - &+'-"*!6!/&+'-"*!
0+-!"+)!($+/"+) ))+, $@3'-$"!,$,-* )"+/
"!)0'$<)!!+)6)!)""!'-<" $"!&!+)+/#%* )!+)$,+(4
A!"* )"!"!#%!"+)'-)+)$!!+)'/3+/'.!'* )!)0
?)!&&'!"+BCDE+/ &+'-"*!$!)0"+/'.!'!*4F+ &+'-"*!
'.!'!*CGCHEIJB6!"!#%"!*&'-+!)!$"?! $<)!!+)'"
+/&+'-"*-?"!)+$3$ '!4
K3)?,+3!"!#$%?)? '++L&+'-"*!'.!'!*
"?+'6)$)++/ &+'-"*!$!)0""&'-MN) +/ *+"
/3!/3'!)"!0"+/+0)!!( 1!)03!"!"!" +0)!!+) $<)!!+)'
"33 +/&+'-"*!'.!'!*!""!*!'+ $<)!!+)'"33 +/
"!)0'* )!)04O)? '++L '!+)"!&,? )$!//)* )!)0"+/
'.!'!*6? '!L'-+ )+3) "* &)+* ) -&!'+/
"!)0'* )!)0"4F++) !)06 *-, $*!+)&+,'*"P!*-)+
, "-+$?"&'!) ,? )+) * )!)0)$ +4#A!"!"!)'!)6
+/+3"6?!?? "!$ '!,+3 '!+)"!&,? ) $!//)
&+'-"*-""4%F+)+6+) * )!)0*--*+"33'? !0)
+"6!) ")"!$!'-+!)$!'-'!" ,"!"+/+* )!)0"4
N,"(6/+!)")6QRST*!0, 3"$* &+!''-+!)$!)!&')
#"!)UVRVCWXRDGRJYBSQRSTCZZSICDEBT[SI\XEBHBGX%4A* &+!'.)"!+)
/+* ],!+'+0!'"&!"^$!)0?+3'$!)'-, '"""'!)) '
""34A!"!"3 /+*'+0!'&+!)+/(!?#+ .) * &+!'
$!)0!""*)! .)"!+)+/ /+* %6/+*&"-+'+0!'&+!)+/(!?
#+ .) * &+!'$!)0!"'""'!L'-+, &*))'-"+$
!) * )''.!+)+/ ')030 3"%6)$/+*"!"!'&+!)+/(!?#+
.) * &+!'$!)0!"'""+**+)) '!'+)%4
A +0)!!+) "* "33'!"!"&&'-+"!)0'
* )!)0"'"+&&'-+&+'-"*!""+/* )!)0"!" ,"!"/+ SCTRCJGBX
*+$'+/+)&3'"334_+$!)0+`'!,#899a%6 "!//+*"!)0'
* )!)0"+&+'-"*!'3""+/* )!)0"!)+$3" "+)$"0 +/
$('+&* )+/&++-& +-4A <""06$3,,$ GXCWTCSTYBSGRIW+/
&++-& +-,-`'!,6!)(+'("* *,"+/+) 0+-)$3"&")"
)RWXSCDCXBVISRCJ&"&!(4A "+)$"0 #CWBbXBWTBTYBSGRIW6!)`'!,^"
&')%&")"""+/RWXBSDCXBVISRCJZIJcGB\c)$!)(+'("* *,"+/*+
)+) 0+-4
RST UV-UV-VW,XVYZ)X[\V]*)(V[^_^`\
0123456567859 5 859 7115754 76
6314 4 176 56241 15751575
316235 !46567!554!"!1
!1221#6151575531441!1 75364 7
54 56 66156#"677621751267
615531511575 51 !692545345
156 1456$45!1$464$1!5155%!1&63
76346 6
'42! $ 1656$531()*+,-51 !175"6
6 615441 5313$354 1 1!4 1
'4 1$1$7!661553176 !172
3615562531$21516666567221676
7!46 5626!175531'262441516717
441 ./01/2340526478/95:4.1;/914<859 =>356"54!
#115671575"66 6!?4 1@ 1515
354 1317 56 71 45664426 1632!
1$5615765A5!56221$4 1@1B5859 !1!
5??61$ 1!1!$ 531!175C676 6
615441516 !17514615441$51?4 57@
$66551541456 @@DE
#456!1!1 15751221565151F7859
=>5 =
5C157512217531!6 631!16560
6155676 6615253151 61!1656$
5676 !1!1 253156!1757 14615
2531#6 6615531561575 5156 5!1
!56154 76 61644 6C253
156655163541456 656 1
#6 66152531513491G/950615441
5161!1756 151151
C6"!1651 235671564!635967
364 7$!1!65$45!15$464$567
45345677 526 1! 696
6155676 6615531441
#6! 1575531F564556163154!56
1156!6563253567221##11567@349H5.$"
677 6276 64 16I21!566$5667175!
4"66 14!1! I21!56221J 1$6#1
1567221$27157552K737615531441L575
1221$5 17859 $!1 7 6 163513246
5356 M1546 366567456L5755317
6 4NO5891G52P"6 2715Q657$31"6
!456$!1 776 151 364 7551
abcdefgdhaibjbjdafehklmikmnkcokjfpbinfe qrs
01234567288952784 61 1403424034034864275 146
04427284 !"# $%&14897664'954(02 9 67 2562(8249640#67
914 950#'2)*48+(+2(()03486,8-14)5979 09'+81 4.48 19 42(6)
608245+39*/4864()#*+ 214 19 14'675842405600447 42(6640%1+81
82040201427(601345672758727514923274048(2006,4
89706+48+(+4:*9+758249)26270288956792900%&1426270#
19 44#24792*62)44719+114)2479345682*(4%&14)24'96245
275897026745*)14847 2(0+*8249);23(2+06*(44<3(27269709 1434631:
42(4<4706970827*439654523904696%
=72556697 9(4<682(89784300+8120>2742900275?948040!"$#
>+1#275>79 (454#(67+60688249640(64>79+70275>4*0275(67+6068
8970+86970(645124*447019 7 93900400239()04'682562(0+8+4%
@9 6702784#92752 A$5608+004014 2562(0+8+490148249)902':
'2682(820467BC481275019 0145)72'6872+490148249) 61 1482:
49)'4'*40# 1681474 *9102*(427574 5)72'682((627840%=7028#20
2900!";DEF$7940#672897664()*20452''2#2((2''2 >>6((*42
2562(8249)9087755# 14442818970+86973260289:
7664'954(16818122846C40'42767$ 6189 4039756720348090(67:
+606809'%G40+ 14393904092889+7 09 14149)902''2682(897:
0+8697067 4'09024742(149)900)'*9(68'954(0# 168124+7540995
20>>32667090'954(09009' 61914897664'954(0DE"$%>>H 2''2682(
8970+86970#6729000 9567#>>249276C4562399)34149)#+0672:
562(()0+8+458970+86972(8249640I!D$%
JKJKLMMNONPQRSTUROVWUXPYZWPOPO[\N]RSNO[
&14424144'9416709'47697 42567399)3682(6); 41249(99
6791409+84090399)3682(6)# 412494<2'674144(26970163*4 44714
H4424 00!$812284606802$^5$#275 4124902)09'41672*9+ 14
233(68269790399)34149)9+065414(4<682(42('67 16816 2096672(()
544(9345%
&9*467 61#6604742(() 24709 2745 12 145600447 399)34
40048047+'424567812284606802$^5$'2)124560044709+840%& 9'2/9
4<3(272697002759+%
@60#399)3440048027525647846732 68+(2$'2)40+(09' 14028 12
89784300+7869720'472(404478439670%_147 489'42890074 31479':
472# 4475 967434 14'67 4'0904<60678249640044H44240 "09
274<475455608+0069767 4'09040,86478)27589766448979')$%&1404824:
96401470+7869720=542(6C45B97664`954(0#202900!"$82((014'-14)
24#0990342#14)25068*) 1681 4'420+474 9*/4802754470%=7148204
90835#147#56004475444090'28167827*49*0445*4 44727=542(6C45
B97664`954(404 67 926479*/489 447 275 1432 68+(2 9*/48275
@AB CDECDEDFGHDIJKHLMDNOKPDLQRQSM
010234523607827093 7608703 3 288230 8!
!030 3703602 80"# 2$%8!!"&236078'2310! 0(
)8%93 38010 03)002 250 0*8'2310+808! 76082
36078270938! 7608990!8232703836098904
,07829838397 3 2181078'231007828 203283600204
* 30'800-33!!002301028 08!360010)007810038 0 80
736283604.02.008102/ 102&0 2122&&68)0
!823270363360 010 8!360 88'7 '022203 9 23 2 2
3-828 097688'7 73363 800233628360730'8
010 800 74007 0037400/876 2+01&56,76
3618 07693054539070 33600 7010363730'800-63
- 3828!907010 30 82'730'8 0 0 2 2 (
3828!907010 30 82'!!0023730'804776360!0308!
76 7(010730'806106'6701 308360 0'88907388!
)603608 0362' 082'38360730'882834+80'020 3609838390
730'80 23608702 2810 330 9338 - 0701 32
8360)838'89362'38'0360276 ) 363360 0 08! 730'8
0 - )362360730'8 2 - )360'38
8360730'804
$0328)3238) 7800- 23828!3600 38269 03)002!0(
309488)2':0003")0 8010363360!0309
02832070780-3021063608283 ) 78(8774260028) 782(
0223602'373030829838397 3363360767303702(
030 810 09838397 30!!073363 00-63021878 (
2382 21 0-7 30 2 61010!!0023870478360
!8!030 030 37 0 30 82'3)8 02824;236082062
7673037 273%0238 778233600!00230-30282 3730
8! 730'8452937 360610 88% 3360 0 08! 730'86360
80100907310363283 0 08! 730'8 004 2090023(
31020!8363730'8 23633600!0023 8208! 730'8 0283
) 030 2304;236083606236003)8 907328204 3 2282(
7030200782360230282 010)60036002382 360362360
0!0023 37308! 730'8021'048820362'28270302068)
92360!733633600282'002382230 8!2070 2!7023
3330!8 9838397 782709348283603607302'8! 022'363
397 8!! 00 270 2 03 9036328301002'
373 04 983232 80138272 0 0)360'
3836078 982023238)6763680 022' 0 2 045!!823270
8206 ! 00 2700 382698!360!8 7..**<<=3602360
70.* 2*<610'030373 )0'633627. 2<=4
26078270938!9838397 3268330! 9838397 7300820
2)67636078270938!282703020 228204 30360823602302(
82 8823600-30282 0109 >8327310804?82703020
bcdefgheibjckckebgfilmnjlnoldplkgqcjogf rsr
()*+,-./.(0,1)2345676784,,99,:7;)3<70,251=7=)+5,+)7263;024;
>?@>ABCDAEFFG CA@>ABCDAEFFG
HIJKLMNMOMNMJKPQRRMSMRT HIJKLMRMSMRIOUMJUMUT
VWXY&Z[\ ]^ 0551563 ]^ 4675013
6405175576017514 640515 31 5 56 50160173 04
6775078 351 3 753 565 41561
5085 046576
V_[`%aWWW`` ]^7703167785 ]^65153
5 7031345 6 5563 753 5!10703160175 6
59045400407 3 155661
6!0517770756
01234256785590675153 5 7031345 61 785590454004073

75305631540701234256785 7787 7530568250175146775
13744 5 5635016787440780178531 0563 785 753155
825546776763 5 5 35 5174781378567530563751 31
60673 3 0117355631 5 45666405175085
85 06701703157551131 065751566785590675153 5 70313
45 61 13154077855906751531017514677501234201 75304
3525665085 3664660!56078785 0670170315755110175160314
5657025808433"67785651656345904075 1 7850 5!107031 1 1
59751603145657025808433"677855551704153 4070313
45904075 37873 101 0204651653 787075 85 3664660!7031
57551378545217 0670170316785 06701703157551131 0657515661
13154071 785 06701703157551101751603141 159751603145
657025 0546730 516031431574 3 37370407557601
8087853 87506706 5170315 5355 875 017850 7454
7031680645#$685 70445565176785655470316806
%8750670 04467756785597516031413154073 65 170 67
75663 5 5 563 7535 357043 3564051755651770256
3785 75378137856%8750670 016717075601751603141315407
78550163 45904075 3 6570783153 35 35 6566
31 5 5085450165 17013 785 5174 3676405175016
%8750670 1056767851370313 5975160314131 0657515667855
5770316778531 3 753&1 8750670 5565176
0175160314131 065751566785 5!10703145 7031345904753056
5345 70851 565 0167785 46604505 517787 5!1070316
7"57853 36573155667707567875'301746!051773 540 07785
75301 3176707837856
opq rstrstsuvwsxyzw{|s}~zs{|
01234567893 58

!"#
""$ %&'#%(#")*$"+
,%%$ &,-."##/%" /
01)
234356789:;<=;75;>=8?:=@
.&A/ $ ""
&$ &,/& $ #"B"C
D%$ $ E.#
$ $#"#F"&+
#%&+""/$
""!/"$ %& ,
+$#"#" #!)G"
%%B"$HIJKLMNOPMLQHRSTUJVNQHQSN/$%&
$+++%")
.B"$#"$F""$
$ )W%%"$&
/ / & B"
"$! #).XSNSYJXR%$ A
" F).A
$FA#/ ! F/& A
" $ #+&
%# $ ) Z
[ISXSNRXR#%$!A
-\]^_àb1/&#$ A
++%)(! #
$ $#"- A1/"+#]A
$"- ,1/ +-"$+A
"1)'#%#"-)#)/(#,_``_cd_``bc
."##_``bcef_``g1%"$&#" $%$+
hSPRYJXR ).XSNSYJXR
+&,"+f"-_ì`1/&,"&(,$$j
-_ìk1+" ). /+f"/
#"$%$+&! l m+A
/ " $ #m$#$
#!"-))/# 1).n#"
""-G&_ìb$ %&1 ,A
%+&-+1 -+1# $ $
TGRhOLXhNTMGIGIhTLONJHUMJUKJRFJILQGMKLO ijk
01234536789 8907391272 18 21 84444781627,-72 14
4042388472 7213!490120431 7"#$%$&'()(*+
!44744478970!129076 4237792360!70120431 1214 +
.931 7883!4 970!129036 1 3!4 18/87267473!4627 96168
6433!733!4 94039121 4 72390 4481 42391 3!40120434313!4
7370376133012 4434*72 21390447+240,1,2 8 184
66788 44811 3!4 14789423313!484789423424+ 32!94 9278
73908492 !90!!4374964 93!272 70*72 317043792453423 93!413
0*6* 442363!44942041 184 72 9423954 !73!4
078866721427 92 4 4442041 4745403739121 184 9072784//14
493!4 1214 901!1 12 90700162389:8;*+<9=6395073912921843!44
1923311 !90!74 43!11819078+.9376!793939!7431 14
7247394663!44921 42378012240391243442 47292//*3!727 19394
663!44741 40122403912//*+24012 93947127843176 43!733!4 7=193
1074788923!4 9 841701239266 3!401239266 3!73943442718634
1214 72 79078!1 12 *73!43 !72733!44534 4+>2 527888927
69390494204?$# 184 9762 723+ ,@
!9 14213 472!1 443!737334 33170016231 184 9234
1 7928401 12360364747423923!4012939489269390 7 4 1+
A71 0;*B6 720*B6 7272 A71 00*72 14404238
C7242* 1939 9870125673912789 740!4 73162 48943!44877
3912!943442 184 9042444B6 72A71 72 624
13!4 9069121 3!432797204<13!49*+!40!4 76 148
4443!49D437830125673912701 944 184 904241 3!47 4
84590781 +E2 48923!4 47292160!1 970144319 740!4 7
60!7FGHIJKHLMNOGPMFLNQGJRNRKHSNPTN72 UGVH72 9 740!4 7
3721 73912+.63!4 14A71 0;WW* 1143!733!444593273678
4873912!97 129 740!4 772 3!733!44 139734 184 +57 84
!4492086 43!40!4 73721 7391243442XPRIKTRL72 XJOO0!4 71
3!44873912!9 434423!49 740!4 7TJIY72 LHUGZTJIY44B422433
;8[6134 92A71 0;*
* 27 784 $\(#3!4!988+TJIY*
* 27 894$\(#3!4!988+LHUGZTJIY*
<1 44 !4473!479078 1214 193912 4427273703 929 78
4 723904442373912 17 401234536789]4 424784241 !90! 184 90
923720474 494 01234536787 7390*012379234129394A9269390
34231 442 3!494 3!73 184 904241 1248459078934 1 923448734
43+^!447 1214 76 47 929 78271 4 723904442373912417
29394A9269390342 3171790! 1 1444237391292 !90!470!8459078
472929727004 1923317)(%_$#`148734 0734194+a797843012393634
124341 2431633!4&'b(cd%e')(%_$#`c$f(g7 44814 A72704
0;*72 44234 92 437989263!9186 40!734W*1412434
cde fghfghgijkgElmknogpBmqgnrsrto
01234526737832915 7005258355 9032379878393459573478 5
837853922578 3432552353985559028127351
15 18 5289522478257835 57 5545 71 79853558
9895 38 8 95 38 345825575885289378352 90
85734529299737981378352 9088 8 955832730345257
8323 45343952245345925 982535257873 9573734
34533523 700525834752247 5590345853928 1402592345
58737983539095 852525 524092 45 1178
2535 585 551 !!"#$%3789353 5234914453452925
45372578855 987390 587379878352 90855 28
107583 98 73798&7834531 23759078345 4537 85392
953477 52378893 345 5' 934589555 3125
345 4537853927 87452598952947 337(590
25875)*+,-92./0#883125 91835 09278 1482948
9345292 345359271379818 5278781737587889345278 90
359271379878937589858 092&23452345 3592713798 295 7
87 253753773934092878 7718 092781737 $2
395 18 52399 78 987375352 785985839034558590
52918 275 53558 5837 8 237 737859858390345
58590 52918 275 53558 57988 83&5589354#8 55345
34579034558 957831259078173758788 5837 5 273798
8 98973833452555379890 3273 749395355858 9578
7817375878 525 3934525553798902798791 98957
294393458359034595973798556552523 !!"#' 9$7278
393472944998958 1585 092 9837811 45
598345 9837811 558 98390392092135 1!!"#67#
3452558590 1178 458 77#34525375 98531 738590
14 450293453213125'395855908874499814
783459/:;<=>:+)/:?8 0*@.0A/:; 85 7 395 115 3455
58325845 BCDEF 45133457838373798 25 12995072
73830295493452934 985318 029345978390759059
23798G1585 9 5 HH353795IIHH237#55832978II
92HH95IIJ585!KK#983459345248 7895 5878 47425893
5 583258451434558 52 73783798055L5#78345887492
M-N?.:-13495 453758787253755 58325845 8 592
375 95
OPQPRSTUVWXYZ[\]^]UW]_]Y[V[XSYVàSWTV[_
8345 91259034525791 5545 9529 34255 7005258395 90
57 5837 32131253432512258378(987375b781737634595278
53920725585#9534527 53958 345 4537853
defghijgkdlememgdihknoplnpqnfrnmiselqih tuu
JKLMNOPQRQSTOUVONWXYYKZL[O\[\NM]\MNOU^\TO]X\OLUN_àbc
0123415678917710 6626206077102661421 16

266415678016476762214617710 46 1!"#
8$ 464%62167&'()
8$753210 * 26
8+761365 %54 1
,8$21365654 76677612276
,8$1 014
-6.'(!/01123)(4)5."(/77265%62678262 65214 66262
#8892771 4%61 5 56 66262:
;365+4 5<8-6%67646 262661 7
124266464%621612661%25 6267812
1466 616166121 5 6128-66%
6764626 216516621 6%16626626126
666664789 21 12772626665%46
1=6 >5248-65626 21 41,627?626 6626
0626661,62744771 662117662166128
-6!0"0/)(45."(/0 21565 @31AB562%65 626,1
6892764764%61 5 60123124 AC5:
D31251 175%62 851628-6%67646 2576
262661 26646 12661612?66261 665%
4612671 77 3 56101 6265 661 1 1628
E 6!"64762626665%626788777 32146627%1>
71 7265 1662627265 2641,65%461274 728
-641,1 77 3 164618E 66FGF G5F,G6
H* I6514 07664612%6 566F,G0175
cde ?GA?GAGfgHGDBCHEhGiICjGEkJklh
NOPQRSTUVUWXYZ[\RY]\RS^RS[SX\Y\O_X_`YRYaOYb[S\
012340546784239 94042294239 4031692323474027 476409

1604342701391962095297 7234109760419 67 234149
62012462340727291 6202047234124702340727291 64649669
21240739234894723404394234424697 62312481124078
239642016464104 0740191107 92
34!"#$%&'!(#&)*+,$*-#.964609549 42195/1 140012341221
51096201297 681547 9 23470 7671862 012391232
01234122:1700122;<1610122;=3740122:1723406345169
4484269 2346348129 4270 874 81548419 670848540671
12470>69 2340191 642874234644484261047 424584167
041297 1 9 6521662481299629297 96819219454244 27 967
9 69 67634812971297 1 9 67424697 =348129929746234
041297 63954244 165709124 7411640709124 749 121
7 789139401033412470?@AB7096214966348129923041027
AC?@DEFGAACHCEIA@JK17234024675906524697 7 2347234031
97461029163481299216689 231223465642780969 07596610
07615159060187 7234067 62922462340727291 42407234
12470?@ABL23465642780969 3946961 424697 07823120727
24<39467 721 9239234072729165642522347 42394
1 54644 161 424697 051647 1041297 63976989109272340727
29164640> 234618437675976709976209314 9
M04964541642344184974669891092234041297 967 4710291
634812992
GHIJKLMJNGOHPHPJGLKNQRSOQSTQIUQPLVHOTLK WXY
./01234565789:3;<=/9>3=?@2A<89@;B/>/>0=:32<C/<D83=;@C3D<>C
=:3@E32D<FF/>083=8;@C3D
01234456789115751 8416 1 73517269 37344925

841344797365 2344165357364 1871931569
1 8417637234411 76 88913717771 1 7351726991891
15773653 41766 3517161948835 17 918911577365 571934
517269918911577365!57193451726989115773656"91#$91353
3 1 732379197671543891157135"91#%&7189676781 1
34911 45191891157736535"91#%3 5 54369135335"91
#$7 319411469549377527389115713571934517269
89115773656"91#$' 1 7351726991891157736535715 768791
674114 771 173 1'53569 49189115773653569 4357115177
3761567171786983465157365 813"44114681691 73
51726935117364 1871967141143571 1 73
517269 57191473653817211571 37466431"91#(219171
46217411489115771 34911 451 5436"91#% 5219171
31941146991865 237"91#$
!7234414197157771918911577365469 7 91567356 87341
797196 65319157 817 6 1 573 79791 3 13571
89136 81&7161948835 17 91891157736514 893 93423771
))75919365**68967678343735+41319*719 1934179189115
7736532144371697117151193656896767834372341711 73
517269918911577365 71916537365777141146 797151 7
23716931 916518743,136571744-1341
_à bcdbcdcefgchijgklcmnjockpqprl
0123456748797 4 6
!!"#!!#
"!!$"$"$!$%
$$&!!$$#$!'
%$"("!'$)"$"
"#)"$*
$#$#'!$$
("$$ $")+"$!'
$$,$("#")#$"''"
,$+$$"$$-"$$
"#))!"$"*!'"""
$"
.#&!("!#)"$$!#"
$$")+ /##0"
1"23425(""!"$$ !#, #
$'!6$!78("!/6$!2339:
(!6$!233;5#)"$"" '"
"! !0"$ !"$$,%
+"$" !"!!$$"%
$$/ $62333:6 $2333
" !<$$("#"("!%("!#
$=5("!$$ "$#"#
"'$$""$%
$
1$#" $"$"%
>>?@AB@CDDECF@B@GH?@IJKLHJB?@!$$%
$/##9MM25$$ !!N%
"'"-"N#COPCKBEC@JFJB?@
@CLK?QB?A?GBHFACRBSC@HC$!)$/9MMT5#'
$"#$#"%' /UV&5
"$"1 !!$"
UV&$'!,$'/8&W234X#233256
'$!" "$ $#")"$
'"$/!#Y?KPLIZB@GLBIJBHIECJ[?S\
?A?G]: ))*%($!*233X5#*! $$
""$$$ '!$
("#"^* $"$"CIJFQ\
ABI[B@GH?G@BJBRCKCFABJ]*$"" $%
$$#)",
'$$$"'!!$=
$#"#**
$.#"''!$$,
bcdefgheibjckckebgfilmnjlnoldplkgqcjogf rst
0122345647829 9299252419219!"#$%&
45'!()*&+!"$!!041,5-.829/00192293,74''45'534982/001
429226,15291(!"(7)*&.925,5,56292845'9445'
9,720 :9,51457212'19,564181.,71.292342'5211;2.225
.9'145'125257214',::292532<231:6945349,=;=2451:,29497,743
73129,564543=1,11,,349,=>'6251,5<3<,56417432;2.225??7@3223=
',::2925AA45'??4;1323=,'25,743AA45'4772@4;,3,=>'62514292492431
42@1122=2B9478,56275,C21'229,52.492@921254,5@2@32
,5,,433=47721142.9'@97211,5632<2341.23341,@945@1=736,743
D5',56GH15143,2572,53,294345'553,29431210122E,94 FE,9445'E9
/001 E2294291E95'23429145'I48240 J12K!"!!"L&&9429
454526@29,25432@,9,743275,C2M;,6,=45'@3=12=4<2431;225
4272529:425,5:(+*!+!""%*&&.1'=.9'12512145'
@9@12'231:1245,7466,5602694=15 45'.9'12512',14B
;,64,5026N12><18= O529'7943',11294,551=124,7@B
3=12=34@440/000121&!&(!"7+$+"+%L',14;,642@3=12,7.9'
7;,54,5145'@9@1214@9;4;,3,1,7'23:912327,562',545
245,5642@9212572:232251:1=5795=,5',4795=45'',4795=,5
1=5795=>1,D21212:7&+(!""%*&(7+$+"+%L,5765,,<23,56,1,7
4543=12101224=32945'P<451/0010 :927572@:4@9,49=12512,52,9
4543=1,1:@9@1,,543@3=12=259,72';=(+&&Q"!%*!%(+!&+&45'
R!!+&1',21
S.2<29575<,57,562<,'257241=2;225:97,56524'2C47=
:',::29252'1,5'229,5,5627@3265492:4@92',545@9,B
49=91457,5,561251245'.21,334<2D5'.,7@49,7349,514572
:4326,743:99226473=751414',1,571251245'.,7:2.T4
,14@49,439:33B1@27,D74,54@@947@3=12=T414,629765,,<2
9243,=P<25641.24<2927253=;22592,5'2';=4=32945'P<451??433
3,56,1,74543=1,1,11226251;>27,<2AAF929,6912'145'31
492522'2',5565,,<23,56,1,7112792??92@3,74;,3,=:D5',5614@9292CB
,1,2:945=292,7433=9,6911'=AA0/0010J
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZUVWXY
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
42@9@12:21245,7'2179,@,5,573'2',52493=49451:94,543
E94490122[4\45''9 ]1.414775:94;,6,=T,5212512:
5==T012226^+_&R$ 7_!""N143 ]1/829212497291.,,52
625294,<2:942.98,5<21,642'25492:2326,7545'326,74374269,21012226
,3392 0??4269449:7%45'_!`%AA94'242@1451.292
C21,5757295,562141:.9'245,5610N29329 0O4=;252'4
45,52921,51245,7126,12'1,'23,56,1,7192124972911,'23,56,1,71@,52'
41,65,D74593221'=:@3=12=745;9,56,33,54222745,11:
45765,,507:I9.545'a,8.18, 1
\]^ F_HF_H_àb_cIdbef_ghdi_ejkjlf
012345673893 6 43 9 345 6 396638 979364 3
6 3354 9616 3354 9693 438 9 489
6 973 6 369 9 1 7879 4 679966367967954
4547 367793469364 ! "94#$%$0&&'(6 86784 95
38 ) 68 4*+,-.79 9 38 554 3593438 89 4979494
638964939495676363364 1/ 78799 43 9!0&&#0
0(38 3 64 4 43495338 6974 75399364 86511967954
3446 386 984 636684 8936924 9
9 8 9 46 92497396 793496 38 ) 68 4
34*.45 867869 638 7 34 1"8 6367364 3 9 9
546938 9 679479 9465478,59346 34966
3865736 93679194639738 9:736 ;<-.6 <;<-.*<59455434
;<-.6<;<-.35=>?438 4 @=>34@ 344 63899959 49 44 9
42 6 3496954 6 393363438 38638341A78
95 9;<-.4@=>34@64 5464593947693 6389 4:73 6386 4
74 7539496 99 79 939!B 94 29"49720&&0(3
93674745 3954! C3:42#$$#DC3:429E49#$$$D
C3:429E464 #$$$(12 438795 3693 6474
753979346789FGHIJ 8678 979 9636464543435679
7934 789594 4463848 9 94 3456589
7934 597895 64436781
'1K 678"49192 !#$$%(5437944 786 843 4
9438:42789380L8438 3978 9 9ME7987964
683D4L89338 893386 8 96346 962M"8 491
N19463976 866543934424 69784 67543435 9367O 93
!#$$P(5454349:479493677895663976 71
)76 768953474 3973656765 038 56765 4644586
!94697 4549844 (938 56765 454343567963 86789
O 9384 6 9 479 36738 373939663474 753
63838 639 4963 974649364 9 639386Q6 995396631
R1"8 44 6345679 95 43849786 14636 B663670
79347896647966 S959 !B924#$%PDT93434#$$'(9A849
!C9 9L449 #$$$(D469793466 378!O 93O4 99
E929#$$N(69!64 #$U%DB924#$%P(9) 68!A 3#$%P(D979
3466 23969 9234 69 !L6269V6#$$R(9 78!V 4 #$$P(
378!W 89 #$$0(C43!A499A690&&'(149!1990&&#(9C468
!B 94 29"4972#$$R#$$U(D7499 55736!X9224#$$RDK
9 #$$U(D96 6874: 7364!V 6 #$$%(D9955463646 ) 68
!B6 #$%#DV 2463#$%UDB924#$%PDE9 #$%#DB9972#$%P#$$#DA78
#$%%D6 #$$'DA999X67 #$$R(9 78!W9 46#$$#(378!172 #$$#
#$$R(C468!Y96#$$&DY 4 26#$$&(91 78X699438A96799
!S99#$$&(D9:73695466 ) 68!"94#$$0#$$U(93674
T 49 679 7443!T97B9#$$0(D6 369793466 L929Z789
!94#$$$(D6 699K9893!"0&&'(D996499367979346
78979!S99#$$&(4963!A 3#$$&(9596!W 89 #$$0(1
T99L98!0&&&(7439698634438 747534543435679639636
63671
U1V674 764 6 92 4 893 9!0&&#( 84796389366367
94679763699[937953 38 6367364 3 54!9663(9
PQRSTUVSWPXQYQYSPUTWZ[\XZ\]ZR^ZYU_QX]UT à`
0123454667890 4 48364684684 9 459195181 48 15844845 1
7 459451
4413845415 182969547 45946 495 956 1184
6524544661815 956345 98694 52 9!45 64"45695##
$9596416977964 9796415!4748404 5 4869 4 516%
1"16## 4845415 41!68106%925 06## 48454981 636695&644
'48 15 (18)4*++,
!93 -9 4146129& 4789309796441566-16 63664
5 486924548152363595615 925 04785746'35!482$.'988)
$./966$4848+69-6 4514031963 181 124548104615 15
78979646 14045 932 153!489842318 4615!4 45 4&694415526&
4045 932 9 014 51)9#6$64564&18435784 1!4!24548183461954
1 4693 5641 !419354 98!984674 925 04785746548152-
1018499 483595615 785746
+4416914815 20156*++,398 49547 9178996454##151!681&
78184155297954514815 2015618234981!16195964 151669
79645(925 045236615 78979641 0 5254!4-445- 19356161
656456495045 95144 56415 498&15 1954"3154845478934
9555498 4738796499135 48615 52##+6
(4789-5$,&1515 8979926&039464"1746915231246- 48444#
49846145 4445-164"45 4 9904814#&!3 59 04048611 67894666
840345197154 !1662552904818)52 9 64"45 4 9815 4795
646 45 89774
*89-4048&9140*++,84461 6595!4-445796415 95964
:;<;=>?@AB 4 6745646- 47964151665 416496711784796 9565
C5 95238974151523124615 18234612156796 52195615 !1641552##(8 5
6917964796 95- D 56941646D 94619-9815151665 4869
461476992178 049547&##9468963 84641848616/1)901
*++,&- 9182346981597964##04-9954731683384
,444-15 9-6)15191644)*++EE+$1 49564034549748-6#6AFGH
?;I;?JGK;?9 41516697964 46617963149 44"64549 4 45 1
6415 &495964936&404- 14851049547315487841956& 52 36&
51& 4815249796451523124748-6#69469569515 - 4
9318 4669548552 4 06959-98)!4-445523615 9 48925 04
13469 4 5 1 46415 847846451956748-6 7963146 1041784 145
182345 68338415 184!164 956415 78 046 135 484 42045 932
1521)48#615 748-6#6946184925 04946& 4844851 9 4845
841 46C5!9 9467964 4650904841454669645646L 4&9-40485
1521)48#654-98)94& 463!63 52641&93641322#648,&91
6 18925 041814816 65615 1956&5 4-9540494& 4-91840315
104 4845D 463748641#847846456135 18523641552&- 4 4
5615 1956&- 188415526 484546&184954731551384##
EC1!45484652 9594 163 7894664615!4944 5 495545
95618 438466469543811019516956815561619581 48 15834
66461L 554*+++E*ME,3 6646&161L 554$4"7156&15
41- 0919565-98 9!51986842046 49!5195><GAN;=O><K1615
4"174171&##1L 554616& 4-98 ><GAN;=84038461935 593515
O><K 61166593589-4048&- 45 4645486958954 - 671831895
!5195& 667966!4984840415 548784195!84152O><K161935 5935
~
0123456789687 12626 753 3569 83 3569586528856263 18
9886 1854 526356958 38126!"#$%54&12668
'('#9234)338318383856248*86326884326 83 184833 ++)31 ,
38 $01838569322545383 38 58544)6897 384622826)233
26 83 -./012/3.4055062 8'(789 978 ''78:123)8
4158(#$;)56#2635648565<8338 =6231218732683
48,9652485263261241 18385624,365424)6426 55245
463)42638*833897 5384>? 2635569385624834627)83 18
38242688526 269229)5875386383$
7$@23 16 26 153826)2332153)4)523518156546228
754)692635648: 28'(# A25'(B'((#53 5)89 15 18923,
264267888638 5691 6 2355 8 9888$
B$925''C#) 59 18++598935286481 18323124135315++35286
85626331)95537854258926225886186 18 58264527821
468*)526526$DDD654 34627)26 98883 3528648588$$4686,
26528E)86452252 569 24529255699)"F"C#$
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMGHIHGHJKHL
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
?23 8$'(!$NOP2.5QRP/PS.0T.UV03/./RP$=9$W65156;5683$X8$Y*9 563$
3$Z2648 6[WFZ2648 6\62832 Z833$
;8668]529:$'C7$^Q/3R/P5Q.0R1P.U_`R3OQ0PQ.3/3.aVPb3
/0/3c2/3.RP5/32$A696FA656$
;826;86]86623=$;8898569Z88d$X586$'C!$e0323QRP.UNfPR/RQR/
2R3c2/3.$[8g F?459824Z833$
;826;86569Z5)h5$'B'$i322.R.0/P05aNOP3013jP0R3/bPj.R1/3.$;8,
88F\62832 :52625Z833$
;282341%5689$'("$k85623418)69 6<8)88X85l3865268*2523418
=2618286$@6X)9X)<245569& 56% 341893$m/P012O1`Pf10^Pn
5/3TBo''$;826F? 59828,p85$
;56?69853$"$Z 38 26 188*246569269234)38$@6;228[8241q5<28
0 99p255d856569]529]$:58893$e.RbP5barRPs3tRPQ//P0.U
5P3`353R`1`PBCo'"$;826F% ) 6989) 8$
;56?69853569Z88h 41893$'''$u3/.032RP5/322.`3/3.$;826F
% ) 6989) 8$
;8v5%2418$('C$_3PPw5/3x1Pa^23P2PP3̀3c2/3.$Z523Fd54188$
;6:842d$'("$Z 38 8526569)6426 93$%56)342]8,
586 ?61[ 186@26 23\62832$
;6:842d$569k568 X$&2 32$'("$Z 38 8*245415685694))5
25648$y (FCo('$
;)56:5)925$'($k zjP0$%? 18323\62832 :526255;888$
Z)72318953NOP/.0b.UzjP0ae.RbP5b{P5/32{/OP/012/10P.U/OPRPs32.$
[8g F95569'((#
;)56:5)925$''$&152318265256481 18323|-.`3/3jP}3`13/32F
7CoBB$
;)56:5)925$$A21 87356938 $}`1`P^23P2P"F77oC($
lmnopqrosltmumuolqpsvwxtvxyvnzvuq{mtyqp |}~
012345678952 5756 13 5836 9356 959616
645997 5116 8199756 ! "59#$566"527 7%&'()*+*,-
.(/0(123&45+01(5678&349&)1(:&4;35,942)<5+(6/0(41()4=6&035942)<5+5/2=*6>*31(?)(*+
(61&++(/&6)&@AABCD56!578EF!1356#524566
0G 7H56IDDD$" "693" 96FJ 6 14959 266
! "59051956 2K566 # 44 17 7L4*/&-.*4&>,5>&+45;+*6/0*/&MCBC
56178EF8N2G956
851657O2 9A$" 94 6564 5""123"935956599563253
6E91 HE17 7%5/()*+954(1(:(4,MDB 178$F 1 6 N1PQ1
2G9" 5RRSG16 263 1! 5" 21"93" E659 115"7TT
U3V&6616(4IPWIXFIB@X
8557J236 YI83667"1756 8152&&Z5/6(1(:&%(6/0(41()4WFCBM
8557J236 YIDD "1 " 6815:*[*-4 14\6Y2G1826
56 015]5557 785+24&,2(6)5/6(1(:&+(6/0(41()4WB@E4154FH"6
06^54 6
82967565IDD_&,*61()+&*947`3*,&-4<(;1(6/*6>)56)&910*+.+&6>(6/(6,&*6(6/
)564130)1(56854G1 3F854G1 3 S61N1
82967565IDD@J91"9356 153459563253 41"66615
a56 b561G17 7U'9&3(,&61*+83*/,*1()4ABIDM05637S#F
N59315 !54 9956
8 7E6"6NIN9456 " 1221959c9d511(6/<*,%(6/0(41()
Z(3)0+*3FCBMC
817 9954632 6 56 4 65911656Z5/6(1(:&%(6/0(41()4
FCBAW
8127bE956M%&'()*+4&,*61()4854G1 3F854G1 3 S61N1
8267Y2G1$" 456559166b2"FE36e
9632 1N"b 1567S61E6 1
8267Y2G1CQ54 914G956 6" b2"55916>55356
+*6/4Z5/6(1(:&%(6/0(41()4MFWBIDA
8267Y2G1 1544559K56 6" J639"16RT56 R1T6
051G51556 5e$45KK7 7Z5/6(1(:&9&349&)1(:&456+*6/0*/&CBM
Q1562154!56FN1563f 1953
b 567N5297bN9456 366%(6/0*ACFWICBM
b167O6gWb 632"5956 4 6595 66259531G
4 56J639"16681695]96e GG97 7h<&4&,*61()45;
93&954(1(5647`35,,&61*+935)&44(6/156*103*++*6/0*/&935)&44(6/AWBA0196F
!26 121
b67OG1! Ma2695%(6/0*IFD@BIC
b17E66IDDWi263"916T56 529T2 c3215 9563253FY 4e
1565129215956 96326j26\6013a 19"7]5K $ 7f4595
Y 1456756 b5 b89517 785+24&,27`+&'(.+&9*11&3645;,&*6(6/(6,(6>*6>
+*6/0*/&WABWI0196F!26 121
b26G517 13IDD$51536 565994754G32756 532e
6Z5/6(1(:&%(6/0(41()4IFB@
Q994178"519HAD$" 3154451<(11(6/56 .3&*V(6/6O 1EH5G56
N1O6G5247 7k&*>(6/4(6U6/+(4<13*64;53,*1(56*+/3*,,*3IDBWW
59"547!EF 6656 8456
Q994178"519HIQ154 4566632 #157 7%(6/0(41()4(6
1<&,536(6/)*+,BWA29FY56"6
wxy z{|z{|{}~{{{
01223456789526 0536 96 63 1 4651
!"#$%&'''()
024*7+1,-9655646.1612645161/ , 069 1 227-62 &
3336541645111
04457655*6 789##:9;<=>:9:8=$>99?9:#=@:#:9:@$:A#B
9$$C51947DE&F 5.665G56
H665657115,IJ66 5* K164114 L:>:@!"#$9&
'I(
H665657115,G54M6 M54N263 4M544*M69645*OA9#$9'I&
I(%'
H665657115,P-96262145M91256364M544*M12M42*63*43. 5
-49Q11767RA98:#:#?89S!#9>A9#$$#A:T#:('P
544&+4266
H665657115,UV 66 WMQQ267M42*63*W.516 X:A#BOA9#$9)&''U(I'
H665657115,+6M566142453 1411.663 1 Y:>OA9#$'&
'()
H665657115,IZ$=:$8:#:#?89"#$9;[$:#\#:#:=9#:$>>]$:>:A?
J245&82564G56
H665657115,736H5462657G665C,63 )^=9#$#:@>]$>B_
#:;RA`"A`$:#]#C6521&a446H5*65
H1457+ 962ID651K51.6 2165226&-9656 2166
9*M4961 X:A#BOA9#$9I&U('P%
H1457+96274N2H5'PPU454*14.65 14&3216675426746266
4C5116b652197cQ16-47V13 2F653 71 .11 825,676 7<:>?9"?;
Y>]\>8##9:@"A">AA'I(UC6521&a446H5*65
H42N6576626'-961965663 1 4536556&-96 6496
d2191511.64514 X:A#BOA9#$9U&UI(I)
H42N6576626d X:9#$#:9;[$:9#$#:A""88:$=#:A"#
9#$#8914&D1.651*48914G56
F61657d2645ed2645+49fIgg042WW4245 56 966.624M3644245
36 ZB>:8"#><9?$=:>:A?)&))I(
F61657d2645ed2645+49fI'D1.65 21424531 36345*L:>:@
h]8"#><9?$=:>:A?U&P('P
F65217424 !:"ij-9601194k14,l343 216E15k221m
6365-4131,1I'F621,1&343 216E15k2216365 j0119
5165563416*l
F65,4.17666%OAA98#>$:A#:;[ #9$8>?9#?:@#=
88:9#:9hA>9=8 3N516&8 3N516D1.651*G56
F6n4749I^=$:A#B9?9#":@#=Y$=B\63 653&49C6k31
F7d663II^T>#>@:>iT::>:A?;^=$>99o$#::@9$:##9#b6n
p45,&6631G56
755 6 P-965126n45,4 533 12645*q1661
*31 556X:A#BOA9#$9&'%(
67-9646 a 'PPUa4463*.65 M42*63*4FN658*,67+66r
115.67 49+ -*24576 7X:A#B88:$=9#:>]$>9"#$9U(''
C6521&a446H5*65
E 21Q7+43 P^=8A"#$9`9"#$99?#]:@#=hA>9=9#$9s#=
t#=#u$:"8>"#9#=<:>9=9#$9s#=gTvu$:"8>"#9;[$:#9#B9#?
Hr,&/*n1n4D1n65*6Hr,164
tuvwxyzw{t|u}u}wtyx{~|~~v~}yu|yx
01234567789541 5677 887627276816122687 !"
#$%&$
096'674(687)6$*!+,-./!0 123-3-41!56-!+32.!*!-*!*7!8.97:17":766
; <672176 6716
073638=>4813: $:78282?61 6@<1966A1!2*0B-0.!*.63C
-2*-.D!..*-.9*&"E%&$
F1>84(687)6G#H3,!IJ2!I00!23*-K.*5HK-9-!32.!*2!D!7L3--K!
,.0M1)8"; <672 8M1)8:76
F1>84(687)6$6<1716?826"N1'27127618 '16 8 1)6O
61P63.-.D!..*-.9*"%#Q
F1>84(687)641 R17>58 8 G$S!-1K32*T!7.D!L4M1)8"; <6728
M1)8:76
F1>84(687)641 U8921V 08W<66G#68)2<686981)676762
671 X )9 N Y8782 Z8991 1 [18\ 4646 7-27,30!7*.
7!0-K3K-E%&&M1)8"; <6728M1)8:76
F1)1>674]8 19 ^ G#_30-.3*3`93.-.D!2,,2a894bK!32!-.9712!2!/C
.*.-!*c21874M"c2187 ; <672 :76
F1)1>674]8 19 ^ _30-.3*3`93.-.D!2,,2a89&4d!*92.1-.D!117.C
9-.3 c21874M"c2187 ; <672 :76
F1?1214R171&$$$61@28 1 869)896e19>8=96)6"87?O'16
<62)128 82612?896 :Y 672128 4; <672 8X '7)
F17664c26?641 X7R17)89M8 6?21 8)2<666N X7
R17)891 c26?6 F1766464639!1-*5632!2!0.*%GM1'7)64R"
RN:76
F67674 76 6$:896 48 <628 19241 262727682696e8
63.-.D!..*-.9*"&$#%Q
F67674 76 6&$$:896 67<128 191fe6N g7)226[6794U1368 4
a191Z67141 Y1< Y M917>6464A374*!,45_7!8.L7!1--!2*3`,!.
.,.007!&#%&g679"R828 6(7267
F6=1 8=>1O8133>4g17'171&M8)2<61 267128198 28)86O
121)6N (2670699671 1 R169Y R8776464d.9K234T.-K.
*49K2345!K.*-324093.-.3&&G%E$71>721R1":6267F1)a6791)
F6=1 8=>1O8133>4g17'171E^879<6=1 <67'1966N g71hg017
1 Z67 01164646 7-2!*I.0!373.!*I0-K!0.9-.3245B-0.!*.K3323`
0.*7Di*-&&%EW')6"R1e[6667a6791)
F6=1 8=>1O8133>4g17'171d!1-K3`!-.35j93.-.D!*!,-.9*-04
k8V3V"k8V3V; <672 :76
F6=1 8=>1O8133>4g17'171#F6e1961) 91)1)687?871N
g17'171F6=1 8=>1O8133>1 :127>516R691464Aj6lmn5A29-.97
117.9-.3*.7!932132&%Ek8V3V"k8V3V; <672 :76
F6=1 8=>1O8133>4g17'171&$$&:896 "]6617628898) 1 6O
1N g17'171F6=1 8=>1O8133>1 019176=346463.-.D!
7..*-.9*-304G%71>721R1":6267F1)a6791)
F6=1 8=>1O8133>4g17'171&$$Q]6<6=8bK!!8.93C!949731!0..-!2`9!4
626 ' g672:6626763.-.D!..*-.9*E"Q$%
F 674c1 G96e8o6121198X )9<67'O?172968 2728 =2
p;1 ;: :Y 672128 4; <6728M1987112c1 Y6)8q:'96 1
j7!8.93C*!,-.974*.*3`r7.*KD!2LC12-.97!93*-29-.3*F;:1?674 8$
7674(671 "F)2)6 826; <672 87674Gs
qrr stustutvwxtyz{x|}t~{t|}
012345067849 778165761657696181616881
!"#$%&!&('%)*+,"!-(*.)/%-0*"!-123451
012345067849 976149761497636812648 44679174178188494
484688969869:6848 ;41869<76565=*.%"!0*.*+!$,>#?*@
A0**+B"*"0*.C?%,.-*?C,.+*,>#0,"/0*!#"1DD5E:18683F4GH16I
669J694
07365K78 LMN O)*""0P#?*#%**+$(/0*(*.%"!0*.*+948 6 <
9186I4178 6GQ793R4968 7896
F40495;769 4S97918676386G248479767Q7794679
6T7178 U(%%*!)*!$%?V?,?+P1131M5
F4918865W9148 R726117848 6G144679174178 88;7694R7991485
S96 348548 F146H77848565X*+("!##0!+?%Y0!?* D542 I
6943K78W68Z418
F4918865W91484OOOR7886178148 484664981888F146W497[48
<74886\669565="0+]^0"./?.,"?&,0*+(0+452 <48Q795R3R<08
14178
F48469I945F491844OOO_?*.%`%?!?!PV*!$?%Y(%/V%"#$*a/0*!-
S9483Q94F4183669048J694
F4971591548 <626804968656 U?*#V!"@U?%%0.*+"R49165F3
F8E96
F4775b7 1K424866869441c693 7Q648146791648
6G147948174178 X*+("!#"13M5M1
F69T15R4978W548 64879;7 R46791741787Q84947Z6)**(0,
deC?&`"P#$?,?+P1435 D
H6645;786 M4f,&B,0*+(0+B0*.>V%*#6GQ793W41W43[6
H6915W9116548 g4T1g R4936 M7634698186481848 2469818
179h"!?%?+%0V$0X*+("!#04231D5D
H6915W9116548 g4T1 g R49364OO17648 i6G1113889717848
7T69T16[ 88W9116H6915j4716E7 5J1446948548 g4T1g R4936565
`?,P"/P@k,>^,V0!!%*"?&/0**+*/*.0*.,0*+(0+151OW69183F778 6
l969
H6915W91165j4716E7 548 g4T1g R4936 E6Q81787Q2767Z736
48 91 6186G14 6T67268U0$%".V"P#$?,?+@U(%%*!V"P#$?,?+P?&#?+]
*!?* M31215
H6915W91165j4716E7 548 g4T1 gR49364OO169182469848 6T7T18
27616364m111787Q+!6[668Q7948 6864988W9116H6915j4716
E7 5J1446948548 g4T1 g R4936565`?,P"/P@k,>^,V0!!%*"?&
/0**+*/*.0*.,0*+(0+1115DMW69183F778 6l969
H6915W91165j4716E7 5J1446948548 g4T1 g R493664OO1
`?,P"/P@k,>^,V0!!%*"?&/0**+*/*.0*.,0*+(0+W69183F778 6
l969
H6[485K78 ne@)#?+*!e,*+("!#"!(.PW69183F778 6l969
H131Q79175\131 E6648187Q66811T6346 186481996
48 6481486U?+*!eX*+("!#"43254OD
H799135H64; a/?!#V%*#V,"*"/0*!#!$?%P6943K78W68Z418
H8695l67QQ96 Mo$V%0+/0!#"?&%&%*#W771878388 1484p81T691
01811R
669785g4816H548 [49 <1 68646m47Q2977266794
46797Q7862U?+*!?* 31D5D
tuvwxyzw{t|u}u}wtyx{~|~~v~}yu|yx
01234567158619 21 13199212214512849514
5461449 991219 991590 419 15!2!9"455646
#$%&'()*+',-+,&+,./+-*+0(1&)*+2+*3445678345139:9;49!13 9
04523 456<1= >?@4A=45BC1.+,9D45E8:1B19 0445
D49B13646F1)G+,.-+,#,.&+-H*(),-I'(J)*+',)&.()JJ)(?>612136
89799
021KL 5859M+21N+)&'./1-5644@5197875B49 19126O9
P1E4
0126012QR9 4528919 451229 5549<1= 8D4B42
19 19S5 8194646T'G1(,-*/G+1-+,#,.&+-HUF1)G+,.-+,*(),-I'(J)*+',)&
.()JJ)(6>L924A 2SS6O:905494P122
0 4!=E86:134@449451=424V9W'J%/*)*+',)&X+,./+-*+0->97?67
0 4!=E86:134619 ;5193 5;514=95 99Y4V1243199
94V9:1340 4!=E819 ;5193 5;514=646X1$+0)&-1J),*+0-UZH1
%('C&1J'I%'&3-1J367VS59 21549 9054
0 4!=E86:134619 045544; 229841245919 21228438
9:1340 4!=E819 ;5193 5;514=646X1$+0)&-1J),*+0-UZH1%('C&1J'I
%'&3-1J36Q4VS59 21549 9054
[ 946 2215 "1953195@A 31S43539 2215 "195319
[ 946M('J)&'.+0)&%'+,*'I2+1\4?67Q 13B5 4689P15=15 R9=458054
[ 946 2215 "195319Q?]'(G),G'C^10* 13B5 4689@054
D1E=1615914??ZH11$*1,*'I*H1&+*1()&UT1*)%H'(_%'&3-1J3),G*H1'(+1-'I0',01%*-
P 9 3 226R`913 2219
D1EE6:15951 A44S549a99bZH1c1\W'/(),*9>6K?
D1= 6<5619 <1= P19145K8584458S58349L= 494S53
P4B54AW'.,+*+21X+,./+-*+0-9>6?Q
D1=96d142619 21 1Y41E4???028438989=45=4A9d142D1=919 21 1
Y41E646e'&3-1J3UZH1'(1*+0)&),G0'J%/*)*+',)&)%%(')0H1-64VS59
VS5 R9=458054
D18960125@48 8D@4319198439ffAAA32191
Ef542f1135f113532
D6L24195>O15121454W'.,+*+21e-30H'&'.3794K65?
D6L24195619 15289;45=>5a13 285443B2194W'.,+*+21e-30H'&'.3>9
5>6Q?5
D6:9<Ke'(*()3+,.),)&'.3 13B5 49 13B5 4R9=458054
D E1896;58 1K54155449A5S53199@414S54
V4 A592S0154g19 D494g<5=49646ZH1/C+h/+*3'IJ1*)%H'(4?67
8345139:9;49!13 9
D E1896;58 1K05846431619 514585549 4949
@414S)-iX+,./+-*+0-4>9Q6Q4
D 26 1524Kj,J','-1J3Uk-*/G3+,&+,./+-*+0-1J),*+0-82B198914R9=458
SO4Ad5E054
19 516<3 94EK129 1919 19l4228 1B 4 3193 9 9
85428 5SW'.,+*+21X+,./+-*+0-9Q6>K
19516<3 94E619 1228D45O4A5E191284S54912341999 5
559A43 9m429 l5421914 45lbW'.,+*+21X+,./+-*+0-Q9K6?
3 6P19:n5W'**).1/,GW'o_+G1)_-*)(*2-oC1.+,UN+1p)*1.'(+-+1(/,.)&-
q(/,G%(+,r+%1+,1(G+II1(1,r+1(*1,s1G1/*/,.-C1-0H(1+C/,.@nB94991VO434845
"4521
pqr stustutvwxtyz{x|}t~{t|}
0123456789 6 2 6 6 3446 9 89 6 0123456767
!"#$%&'(%)"*"+',-."&'(/$"$"&#*0*"("'*"+',&*$"1&%',$
23435637 869:9;<6=66 >6498
0123456789 6 2626=69 8?&@#A93 9 B 842C6C
8129 D686 9 E8 983 5F9GH767I,"J%A&*'K&%'$&1"%&*
J#,"$$'('*&(A&("2432E64 9:3 6D 36
096 904L97383M552=986126=99 12661626L6719689626196
26N38366L67"'+&# 376O31F67866PQ L679 R2 8 6947
67I('%'S"&JJ#&,)"$%*"+',&*$"1&%',$M42MME64 9:3 6D 36
0T6667BL6U626 6V 469 6;9= 9 264F=643 64 89
6=91CC6 Q2449 9 <9= W3 767IA*%A#&*1"*$'
*&(A&("&%)A()%324XXO9=7 869O9=7 86Y L6N6
0T6667BL65Z#1"%[1*([%J#&(1&%',$-."%&J)#',&*&,A*%A#&*&$J",%$\
$"1&%',$%#A,%A#"O9=7 869O9=7 86Y L6N6
6947R2 8 ]'(A'$%',,&%"(#'K&%'-^#%%[J"$'*'(A'$%',%)"#[H; 9
O496 N6_M 6 7à2 6 7M552b
6947R2 8 MH4C746=9 c61L6 18 L689==9 I('%'S"]'(A'$%',$
2942X
6947R2 8 X^$$"$$'S"$'d(*'$)-e"+J*#&%'',('%'S"(#&11&#H; 9
H; Y L6N6
6947R2 8 M552O8 L6=64C46= E 86<64127f9566 7
>=9496=979 Q9L Q O49F6767^*[$"1[-Z*"+'g*"J&%%"#$\1"&'('
1'&*&(A&("243E64 9:3 6D 36
6947R2 879 876B:91h9376`]&(A&("&%)",('%'S",$%#A&*\
%)"#*E64 9:3 6D 36
6=96447: 12964MZ'#$%S"#g$-e,&$"$%A[\"&#*[(#&11&%',&*"S"*J1"%
O9=7 869O9=7 86Y L6N6
69387B459762O4Mi=CC 946;3949 6;C6L6=69 89
0=66=91GC98=919C6189==919459 6 Nh62=9 9
j9FL:94F64767^"#$J",%'S"$)'$%#',&**'(A'$%',$M3`4U=6 9=9R2
E6c9=
63887Q9L Uk,&#",# 3 78669459 79 O8 L6D 9==9 01
Q6h9169 8364406=4 767^#,""'($\%)"eA&*.""%'(\%)"^&,'l,
]'(A'$%',$I\"#","25U4M5B38669Q6C9=6h 8317Y L6
H 68
63887Q9L 2=7837C46=79 L98366I('%'S"]'(A'$%',$39MU245
63887Q9L h 8316L 616 C46= 26= 9 6C 6 449=
O9 Q= 6F09 9I('%'S"]'(A'$%',$592324X
63887Q9L M552626<9T94L670mn$&91963 C46= 376O31F67
866PQ L679 R2 8 694767I('%'S"&JJ#&,)"$%*"+',&*$"1&%',$2M24XM
E64 9:3 6D 36
63 67:9F5C6126 L9 9162C26I('%'S"]'(A'$%',$9M3U4``
6467 6979 >L9 BL9M552861 6 8C6C 94C46= 6TF9
626196S"# E 86<64127f9566 7>=9496=979 Q9L Q
O49F6767^*[$"1[-Z*"+'g*"J&%%"#$\1"&'('1'&*&(A&("`4`
E64 9:3 6D 36
Y44=9 706C26 ò)"J#','J*"$\$"1&%',$H; 9E94E491FT644
>9 6467O493 6kJ&%'&*J#"J$'%'$-e,&$"$%A[\#1Z#",)O21989Y L6
O2198N6
abcdefgdhaibjbjdafehklmikmnkcokjfpbinfe qrs
01234554267891612 151 519 22545244254154
!542511218"5#45944"9412215152$%&'()*%+,-.%'/)(0
1)(2&)2-34536
01234554267891612 151 51745!#814424" 5#48458
"41!4292: 4;<9!2646=(0-'>?)(0@(2A%'0)(0>-(?-(B-
35CD" E5#F12
04#14264331"253142G5#H%2(@?@I-1@(2&@>?@B>JJ65C3
K4LM16221NH%(B-O?&)*)()*/>@>)(0*-P@B%2')OQ/226 9 191
KM26G1 3612 G41#FNK#42RRSS9412RR94SST45225#4
124"19524H%2(@?@I-1@(2&@>?@B>45N
K55425426U NJVQ@*%>%OQ@B)*@(I->?@2)?@%(>W12:79294D"
;1;1M4
X14#6U"54NYLL845Z(+%'.)?@%()(0H%(?'%*JJ5NJ
X1546[ 12366J38498 424158\ 92F4578M426]424^G42612
[#2]W18646H%2(@?@I-)OO'%)BQ->?%*-P@B)*>-.)(?@B>CC5C;42 52
4: 854
XM862 612 [4 8<1MN95854512 #5"15#4992[#2
91646_/(?)P)(0_-.)(?@B>C5J4E4`M14934
Journal of English for Academic Purposes
4 (2005) 163–178
www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap
Hedging: an exploratory study of authors’

and readers’ identification of ‘toning down’
in scientific texts
Beverly A. Lewin*
Division of Foreign Languages, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Israel
Abstract
In preparing students for their future discourse communities, the EAP/ESP literature has shown
interest in the role of hedges in scientific literature. This interest has resulted in several studies that
define and classify hedges, and hypothesize about their purpose. With these as our theoretical basis,
we are led to ask “What is the relation to actual practice?” To paraphrase [R. Markkanen &
H. Schroder (Eds.) (1997). Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic
phenomenon in academic texts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.], a hedge exists when it is mutually
recognized by author and reader.
This article represents a very tentative attempt to explore this conceptual space. In Study I, I asked
authors to identify hedges in their own texts, and their motivation for using them. In Study II, I
presented three of these texts to EAP students (PhD candidates), requesting them to identify the
hedges. There are three main findings. Firstly, the authors’ choices of hedges did not coincide with
definitions previously reported in the literature. Secondly, the authors did not cite politeness as a
general motivation for hedging. Thirdly, there was a great divergence between readers’ and authors’
identifications; in general, readers identified many more instances of hedges than were intended by
the authors. If validated on a larger scale, these findings have implications for instruction in reading
and writing scientific articles.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Hedging; Toning down; Scientific texts; English for Academic Purposes
* Tel.: C972-3-640-7846; fax: C972-3-640-6458.

E-mail address: lewinb@post.tau.ac.il.
1475-1585/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2004.08.001
164 B.A. Lewin / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 163–178
1. Introduction
A recent focus in applied linguistics has been on hedging as a salient characteristic of

scientific writing, reversing previous notions of scientific writing as totally objective (e.g.,
review of literature in Crompton, 1997; Hyland, 1998a; Markkanen & Schroder, 1989,
1997). Actually, the recommendation to hedge claims can be traced back to one of the
earliest rhetoricians of scientific reports, Robert Boyle (c. 1650) who saw hedging as one
of the many stylistic devices to project both personal honesty and modesty (Shapin, 1984,
cited in Swales, 1990).
The concept of hedging has implications for the field of English for Special Purposes
(ESP). Hyland (1998a) emphasizes the scarcity of appropriate material on hedging in
current ESP textbooks. The central questions that remain concern the definition of hedge
(Crompton, 1997, 1998; Salager-Meyer, 1998, 2000) and confirmation of its purpose. These
questions have been argued by linguists on the basis of text analysis alone. However, little
attention has been paid to the claim that “[a] text does not contain hedges per se but gets them
through the author-reader interaction” (Markkanen & Schroder, 1997: 9). Therefore, we
need a greater understanding of authors’ intentions and how readers receive them. To put it
very simply, who is to decide when a hedge is a hedge—the linguist, the author, or the
reader? In a few cases, analysts have sought clarification of hedged propositions from
experts in the same academic field as the authors of the text, but they have not consulted the
actual authors of the texts themselves. Hyland (1998a,b) has made significant strides in
trying to bridge the gap between theory and practice by interviewing authors. However,
while these studies include comments by authors about their texts in general, there is only
one example in which an author discusses the hedging in one of his own texts.
Secondly, readers have received only a little more attention, principally by Crismore
and Vande Kopple (1997a,b), in a series of studies, and Hyland (2000), which lead to two
opposing conclusions. Crismore and Vande Kopple’s subjects were ninth graders in a
Midwestern US school who were asked to read two versions of the same passages. The
experimental group read a hedged version, while the control group read an unhedged
version. The findings showed that the attitudes of the students who read the hedged version
became more positive toward the content of the passage even if they had originally been
quite negative. The authors’ (Crismore & Vande Kopple, 1997a: 235) explanation for the
change in attitude is that expressions of modality “explicitly signal hearers and readers that
they have room to judge the propositions for themselves. Hedges, then, stimulate a
personal interaction between a producer and a receiver of language in that they signal that
the truth of the material is tentative and the receiver has room to evaluate and judge for
him/herself.” Also, the hedges had an effect on retention (measured by multiple choice
comprehension tests). Students who read the hedged version of the passages learned more
than the students in the control condition.
At the other extreme are the findings presented by Hyland (2000) who studied
whether readers were at all aware of hedges (rather than whether hedges affected their
attitudes or comprehension). In fact, he found evidence that some students did not even
notice markers of epistemic modality and those who did, did not consider the hedges
when directly asked about the certainty of the author about a proposition. The
difference between the studies by Crismore and Vande Kopple and Hyland may be
B.A. Lewin / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 163–178 165
attributed to many of the variables in the experiment; for instance, while the readers in
the first set of studies were native speakers of English in junior high school, the readers
in the second study were non-native speakers of English, undergraduates at a Hong
Kong university, majoring in English.
The next step in this research would be to compare linguists’ judgments of the form and
function of hedging and the authors’ judgments in regard to their choices and motivation in
their own texts. The second step would be to ascertain if EAP readers recognize the hedges
cited by the authors. In other words, do EAP readers read the intentions of the author?
First, I will briefly review some of the recent literature devoted to linguists’ conceptions
of hedging. The two major issues are:
A. form: how can we define hedges? What lexicogrammatical criteria can be applied?
B. function: what is the author’s motivation for using hedges?
2. Linguists’ conceptions of hedging
2.1. The question of form
Hedging, appropriately, is a concept that evades definition. Since the extensive

literature on the topic has been thoroughly reviewed in Hyland (1998a), I will provide only
a brief summary. The consensus among current analysts in general is represented by
Hyland’s (1998a: 1) view of hedging as the expression of “lack of complete commitment
to the truth value of an accompanying proposition” regardless of whether the author is
actually committed. Therefore, the most commonly accepted type of realizations of a
hedge are those that select an epistemic modality structure, e.g., “a possible interpretation
of this finding may be that.”
If we define a hedge as any device that qualifies the speaker’s commitment to the
truth of the proposition he/she utters, almost any linguistic item or expression can be
interpreted as a hedge. In addition to epistemic modality, at least 50 other types of
structures have also been categorized as hedging (Markkanen & Schroder, 1997). To
make matters even more confusing, in some cases, the literature gives equal weight to
opposing options:
1. both certainty and uncertainty—“I’m sure the earth is round” as well as “I’m not
sure the earth is round” (e.g., Halliday, 1985; Skelton, 1997; while Hyland, 1998a,b,
considers expressions of certainty as boosters rather than hedges);
2. attribution—whether the agent is realized or deleted in a passive construction; both
personalization (“I argue that smoking causes cancer”) and depersonalization (as in
“the findings suggest that smoking causes cancer”) (e.g., Crismore & Vande Kopple,
1997b; Namsaraev, 1997; cf the unhedged form: “Smoking causes cancer”)
3. approximators—structures that blur distinctions of quantity and frequency, such as
“approximately” (Dubois, 1987; Hyland, 1996; Myers, 1989; Prince, Frader, &
Bosak, 1982; Salager-Meyer, 1994).
4. qualification—the term I will use to refer to Brown and Levinson’s (1987: 145)
definition of hedges as structures that span the continuum between all and no cases,
i.e., a hedge “modifies the degree of membership of a predicate or noun phrase in a
set; it says of that membership that it is partial or that it is more true and complete
than perhaps might be expected” (italics in original text; bold font added by author).
This definition would include strengtheners such as “these proteins become
completely X” and weakeners such as “these proteins become, at least partially, X.”
A more functional position is represented by Crompton (1997), who proposes the

following test for determining whether or not a proposition is hedged. Crompton asks,
“Can the proposition be restated in such a way that it is not changed but that the author’s
commitment to it is greater than at present? If yes, then the proposition is hedged. (The
hedges are any language items in the original which would need to be changed to increase
commitment)” (Crompton, 1997: 281). He then applies this test to the following structures
characterized by others (above) as hedges (italics):
1. Little information exists on the frequency and severity of the disorder.

2. [X] poisoning is usually a clinical diagnosis.
Crompton concludes that removing the hedges would not increase the author’s
commitment but would alter the propositional content, as the following show:
1. information exists on the frequency and severity of the disorder.

2. [X] poisoning is a clinical diagnosis.
In contrast, he would classify statements such as “I suggest that pigs fly” as hedged,
because commitment can be strengthened by deleting “I suggest”, while the basic
proposition is unchanged.
2.2. The question of function
Basing their work on studies of everyday communication, researchers in academic texts

have attributed motivation for expressing either fuzziness or uncertainty to a desire to
dilute assertions, driven by exigencies of politeness, protection, or politics (Markkanan &
Schroder, 1997). In scientific genres, the need to appear modest is also recognized as a
prime motivation for hedging (Myers, 1989; Nikula, 1997).
The function of hedging in a specific scientific genre (rather than academic writing in
general) is proposed by Dubois (1987). In biomedical conference presentations, fuzziness,
in the form of imprecise numerical expressions, serves to background previous theories,
especially those the author believes are erroneous. For instance, the statement “the
standard measurement is considered to be. about twelve” foregrounds the author’s own
precise statements of measurement (Dubois, 1987: 538).
Although hedging clearly derives from interpersonal considerations, the exact
motivation is still cloudy. On the one hand, hedging in academic texts can be seen as a
purely rhetorical strategy. Hedges allow for a more active role for the reader: “meaning
negotiations and reformulations for both speaker and hearer” (Nikula, 1997: 193), while
categorical assertions imply an assurance in the certainty of arguments that require no
feedback, relegating readers to a passive role (Hyland, 1996: 446).
On the other hand, Myers (1989) suggests a much deeper interpersonal exigency when
scientific texts are considered. If we accept the theory that a new claim is, in some sense,
an effrontery to the audience because it disturbs the status quo, or as often happens, seeks
to redress a wrong committed by a previous researcher, a politeness strategy is called for.
One must frame one’s claims as tentative until accepted by the entire discourse community
for whom the findings are relevant.
In sum, linguists have classified certain forms as hedges and postulated about the
motivation for hedging. While there is consensus about some areas, others are still the
subject of disagreement.
3. Authors’ conceptions of hedging—Study I
The purpose of the first study was to ascertain the forms that authors identify as hedges
in their own texts.
3.1. Method
Volunteers were recruited through an e-mail discussion group for academicians and
through personal contact. The resulting sample was composed of twelve men and two
women, of whom, nine were native speakers of (US) English. Professionally, thirteen
respondents were senior faculty members and one was a senior member of a research
institution. The academic fields were divided between physical sciences (neuroscience,
medicine, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, atmospheric science, and geophysics), and
social sciences (sociology and educational psychology).
The volunteers received the following instructions by e-mail or regular mail:
1. Please select one of your published articles that is based on empirical research. (See
Appendix for list of journals in which the articles were published);
2. Underline or highlight the places in the Introduction and Discussion sections where
you toned down or limited the generalizability of your claims. Within these, circle the
language (word, phrase or sentence) that accomplishes this;
3. On a separate sheet of paper, indicate why you limited or toned down each claim.
Three points should be noted regarding the wording of the task. I used the phrase tone
down instead of hedge because the scientists I interviewed in a pilot study interpreted
hedge only in the pejorative sense of evading responsibility. In other words, had I asked
“Where did you hedge in this article (i.e., the article chosen by the participant for
analysis)?”, I am confident that the common response would have been “I never hedge”.
Secondly, I directed the authors to analyze their own propositions only, not those that
related to reported literature. Therefore, “Jones suggests that X is true” would not be
included, but “I suggest that X is true” would be. Finally, I did not give authors any list or
hint as to what to consider as an instance of toning down.
3.2. Findings
3.2.1. Heightening claims

Even though the sample was self-selected for people who were willing to be frank about
their motivation, the first finding was surprising. Four authors, three of whom were native
speakers of English, stated that instead of toning down their claims, they sometimes toned
them up (although one person realized she had done it unintentionally). The term toned up
was initiated by the authors. Below I present two of the many instances provided by each
of the authors. The actual quote from the published article (A) is followed by the author’s
comments (B):
In the first example, the author not only tones up his claim but does so by means of
understatement, regarded by linguists (Hubler, 1983) as a hedge, the very opposite of
toning up.
Author 1, male, non-native speaker, theoretical physics
(A) “At this point it is still hard to say how seriously all this [i.e., the author’s conclusions]
can be taken, but there may be a grain of truth in it.” (Discussion section)
(B) “This is NOT toning down; this is a classical example of persuasion and advertising
by understatement. That’s what it was meant to be.”
Author 2, male, native speaker, psychology
(A) “[X] and [Y] are generally seen as two intertwined kinds of knowledge. We
untangle them, re-explore them, and then re-twine them with somewhat different
relations. In short, we propose to change the traditional ways of understanding their
relations.” (Introduction section)
(B) “I did not try to tone down anything I wrote. In fact, I did my best to emphasize the
differences between my model and others’ model of the topic under discussion. I
presented an alternative to the conventional view and in order to make the differences
clear, I stretched them to their limits without distorting the positions of those who
hold the conventional view and without distorting my own views.”
3.3. Linguistic structures chosen as downtoners
When they did indicate a toning down of their claims, the respondents selected some
traditional hedges (i. e., designated in previous research, such as epistemic modality) and
some non-traditional hedges. To collate the former data, I classified all the traditional
hedges that were actually realized in the respondents’ texts and tabulated whether
respondents then identified them as downtoners.
The findings show variations in the way that the respondents regarded traditional
hedges. Although they used modality in various forms copiously, (as in “may synthesize”),
respondents did not include 50% of the occurrences as downtoners. The second category,
attribution, consists of any device that shows that the reality in the proposition has
somehow been mediated by human cognition, evaluation, or judgment, (“I think that X is
true” rather than “X is true”). While personal attribution was used by eight authors, only
one person labeled it a downtoner. More strikingly, the authors, unlike linguists, did not
consider that granting cognition to an inanimate actor (as in “the findings suggest”) was a
downtoner. However, some (but not all) authors who used them regarded as hedges items
in the category qualification including strengtheners and weakeners, i.e., those structures
that span the continuum between all and no cases.
When we turn to the discourse stratum, we see that a few authors identified particular
moves as downtoners on the basis of their function only. For example, the following
move, in which the author justifies her procedure, was considered a hedge because its
function is to avert potential criticism, even though no specific hedging structure is
realized: “In the interest of presenting the mapping sentence with maximum accuracy, the
revised percentages were included.” When a specific hedge structure was realized,
respondents also identified downtoners on the basis of function; that is, they considered
the entire assertion as a hedge, rather than specific words or phrases within them.
Furthermore, strong (such as 1) as well as weak claims (such as 2) were considered
downtoners:
1. “The observation. strongly supports the contention”

2. “. even if the association is not particularly strong.”
In addition to the traditional hedges, authors selected techniques for toning down that
have not been mentioned in the literature. The first technique is invisible to the observer;
only the author knows that s/he chose silence (i.e., refrained from stating a claim) or from
using a stronger evaluation. In the following example, the author identifies “good” as a
downtoner, because she refrained from using “excellent”: “These results constitute good
evidence of the content aspect of the construct validity. of the scale.”
Another reported technique to tone down claims was to select definite articles or
demonstratives, in order to limit the generalizability of the results to the study. This is
illustrated by Author 3, who used the phrase ”these kindergarten actors” to limit her claims
to the phenomena she observed, but in other places, unconsciously lapsed into generic
nouns such as “teachers’ accounts showed that the schedule was both the basis for the
work they were doing and the criterion for evaluating their performance. Children’s
accounts, on the other hand.” (discussion section). According to the author, generic
nouns imply that her conclusions generalize to all teachers or children.
3.4. Motivation authors acknowledge for hedging
Each respondent was asked why s/he used each downtoner; thus, a different motivation
could be ascribed to each hedge in a particular text The respondents did not ascribe their
use of uncertainty to considerations of politeness, modesty, or immediate audience
considerations, (although one can assume that everyone is ultimately constrained by the
anticipated reaction to their claims). Instead, the respondents indicated that uncertainty
was a more honest reflection of reality, by saying, for instance, “not enough evidence” or
“to limit the generalization”. These reasons seem to imply that the author is not trying to
say less than s/he believes but is trying to say only what s/he believes.
Only one author selected uncertainty on the basis of modesty; he used a modal (“may
serve as a prototype”) and lexical verb (“suggest a new approach”) “so as not to exaggerate
the importance of the finding.”
When we consider structures other than modality, we find that two methods of toning
down were related to saving one’s own face: passivization and qualification. Respondents
intentionally used passivization to avoid naming the agents. Equally, they qualified their
claims (italics below) for reasons of self-protection, as in the following example:
“It is possible to assess [X] with a relatively simple set of test items.” Author’s
comment—“Some might not consider them absolutely simple.”
4. Readers’ conception of hedges—Study II
The purpose of the second study was to see if readers identified as hedges the structures
chosen by the authors. Participants were 63 students enrolled in an EAP course in scientific
writing for PhD candidates. I presented a text in medicine, social science, or exact sciences
to a group of students in each field. The readers saw an unmarked text and were asked to
underline words/phrases/statements by which they thought the author had toned down his/
her claims. This task was performed as part of a typical lesson, to introduce the topic of
“toning down”, which had not been taught in this class. (It is unlikely that the students had
encountered hedging, per se, in their previous education).
Students were not informed of the research purpose of the task nor were they given
examples of what I meant by toning down.
4.1. Findings
In general, the authors’ and readers’ responses did not match the structures identified as
hedges by linguists (traditional hedges). In each text, there was more agreement between
readers and linguists than between authors and linguists. As an example, Table 1, shows
the relevant parts of one text, from the introduction to a sociology research report that was
presented to 31 social science students. There was no difference in fonts or visual cues in
the original version but for the sake of illustration, I have highlighted the hedges indicated
by each group in bold.
The first column shows, in context, structures that have been defined previously as
hedges in the literature, comprising the total realized hedges in the text. The second
column represents the structures that the author identified as his toning down while the
third column shows structures that the readers thought represented toning down by the
author.
4.1.1. Readers vs. linguists

We can interpret Table 1 as showing that readers identified 50% of the traditional
hedges or that they did not identify 50% of the hedges. Another difference between
Table 1
Identification of hedges by linguists, authors and readers in Text 1
Linguists Author Readers

The present paper seeks to – The present paper seeks to
reevaluate explanations for this reevaluate explanations for this
apparently unusual situation apparently unusual situation
We suggest that previous expla- – We suggest that previous expla-
nations . are sociologically nations . are sociologically
incomplete. To anticipate, we incomplete. To anticipate, we
shall show that . shall show that .
We shall argue that Israel’s high – We shall argue that Israel’s high
fertility needs to be explained [by fertility needs to be explained [by
nationalism]. nationalism].
This nationalism, of course, is not This nationalism, of course, is not –
a homogeneous sentiment. a homogeneous sentiment.
In general, we can see that as the In general, we can see that as the In general, we can see that as the
standard of living increases, fer- standard of living increases, fer- standard of living increases, fer-
tility tends to decline, even if the tility tends to decline, even if the tility tends to decline, even if the
association is not particularly association is not particularly association is not particularly
strong . strong . strong .
The first [framework] argues The first [framework] argues that –
that the reason for Israel’s high the reason for Israel’s high
fertility lies in the social origins of fertility lies in the social origins of
what is still, essentially, a popu- what is still, essentially, a popu-
lation in the process of modern- lation in the process of modern-
ization . ization .
Approximately, one-sixth of the – –
population .
Implicitly, this argument – Implicitly, this argument
suggests that . suggests that .
[Phenomena x and y] are almost – –
certainly attributable to .
the readers of Text 1 and linguists was that the readers added a structure to the list of
traditional hedges: “sociologically incomplete” (see sentence 2).
4.1.2. Authors vs. linguists

The most striking contrast is between the identifications by authors and by linguists, as
discussed in Study I. In all three texts, the authors identified as toning down very few of the
structures commonly accepted as hedges in the literature. For example, in Text 1 (see
Table 1) the author identified as toning down only 3 of the 16 traditional hedges he actually
used. For instance, he did not point out “suggest” (a lexical verb of uncertainty) as a hedge
nor did he consider attribution (“we”) personalized or depersonalized (“the first
framework”) as hedging.
4.1.3. Readers vs. authors

In all three texts, the divergence is greater between readers and authors than between
readers and linguists. Compared to the authors, the readers identified many more structures
as toning down, out of the total realized in the text. At least four readers in each group
recognized more of the traditional hedges than did the authors, e.g., epistemic modality in
all its forms—adjectives, adverbs, nouns, modal verbs—as well as attribution, certainty as
well as uncertainty, attribution, and qualification as instances of toning down. There were
mixed results and no unanimous agreement on any one instance of toning down. In the two
texts not shown, some approximators were recognized as downtoners and some were
ignored. However, in Text 1, expressions of imprecise quantities (e.g., “approximately”)
were not considered as toning down by either readers or the author.
In two texts, the readers recognized some but not all of the authors’ hedges. The text
shown in Table 1 represents the most extreme of the three in that almost no readers
recognized the author’s hedges (“of course”Z0; “essentially”Z1; “even if”Z2).
5. Discussion
In this exploratory study, I have examined the degree to which traditional hedges, i.e. as
defined by linguists, play a part in practice for actual authors and EAP readers. The general
finding is that the authors’ account of hedges and hedging diverged greatly from that of
linguists, while the readers’ views were more consonant with the linguists’ interpretation.
Thus, there was great divergence between the authors’ hedging intentions and the readers’
recognition of these intentions. A corollary of this is the possibility that the readers read
some claims as more hedged than the author intended, at the same time missing some of
the intended hedges in other claims. A plausible explanation for the discrepancy between
authors and readers is that the authors viewed hedging as a structure deliberately selected
to perform the function of toning down, while the readers held a formal view, which
selected structures that fit the traditional classifications such as modality.
For one, the authors considered very few of the traditional hedges they actually used as
downtoners; for instance, they did not cite attribution (whether personalized or
depersonalized) as a hedge and recognized epistemic modality in only half the instances.
It may be that attribution and modalized propositions have become institutionalized in the
register for research reports and therefore, the unmarked form. Perhaps the authors
regarded a structure as a hedge only if it were optional (intentional). For instance,
attribution (“we”) is obligatory in some of the assertions in the text segment shown above
(“we shall show” compared to “we suggest”) and modality is obligatory in realizing a
claim (Dubois, 1997: 16). The difference between a fact and a hypothesis or even a
generalization from that fact is the selection of a hedge, as the second sentence illustrates:
“The analyses reveal that extra-community employment is more limited among women
than men. Women’s tendency to settle for local jobs may be seen as .” (Text 2 [emphasis
added by author])
While most authors discarded some traditional hedges, two authors added new
categories: the inclusion of the definite article—“The teachers’ [in this study] accounts
showed” instead of “Teachers’ accounts”—and understatements, which the literature
considers as uptoners (Hubler, 1983).
The more specific findings question some common assumptions in the literature, and
strengthen others. For one, some authors emphasized that they sometimes toned up their
claims as well as, or perhaps, instead of, toned them down. Moreover, authors did not
acknowledge politeness as the motivation for expressions of uncertainty, which raises
questions about Myers’ ascription of hedging in general to politeness theory. These
questions are consistent with the view expressed by Hyland (1998a: 69), which rejects
“politeness as an adequate explanation for the use of hedging in science.” One can also ask
whether a theory of motivation based on conversational encounters is applicable to the
arena of scientific writing, where so many personal elements might compete with the need
to be polite. In the real world, scientists worry about their positions and prestige, the need
to get grants, be promoted, and so on, which might drive their needs to enhance, rather than
mitigate, their research work. The politeness explanation also ignores the agonistic side of
scientific writing that aims to refute other researchers. If face is involved at all, it is just as
likely protection or even enhancement of the author’s face as deference to the face of the
audience that may be the motivation. Conflict avoidance, in the guise of politeness, may
not be the top priority. In fact, in Tannen’s (1999: 268) opinion, “the standard way of
writing an academic paper is to position your work in opposition to someone else’s, which
you prove wrong.” In general, the finding that politeness was not the dominant motivation
for hedging seems in accord with these realities.
Furthermore, each type of hedge was attributed to a different motivation rather than to a
common motivation. Thus, uncertainty, realized by modality, was, in the authors’ view, a
reflection of the truth, rather than a conscious toning down of a claim. Uncertainty was
expressed when a categorical assertion would not be an honest representation of the data. This
interpretation is in accord with Banks (1994) and Salager-Meyer (1994). Instead of saying
less than they mean, scientists are actually saying precisely what they mean. Their reluctance
to express unqualified claims is not always in deference to interpersonal considerations.
Other findings also indicate that some authors apparently had a functional definition of
a downtoner in mind; they looked beyond specific lexico-grammatical forms to the
discourse stratum and identified complete assertions as downtoners (e.g., “even if the
association is not particularly strong .”). In some cases, these assertions were downtoners
in function only, realizing no hedging form. Therefore, a definition of hedges, which
recognizes only specific forms realized within a proposition, such as Crompton’s (1997) is
incomplete. The definition should also include hedges realized through discourse
structures (moves), when the intent is to strengthen or weaken claims. The inclusion of
hedges on the discourse stratum has been posited by Hyland (1998a), Lewin (1998) and
Lewin, Fine and Young (2001). For instance, in one type of genre structure (move) in
discussion sections of research text, authors raise potential counterclaims and respond to
these counterclaims by either accepting responsibility for a limitation or by dismissing the
counterclaim, as in: “However, an inspection failed to support the latter [alternative]
interpretation” (Text 3). In this example, as in examples provided by some authors in the
present study, the act of hedging is accomplished without realizing a specific
lexicogrammatical hedging structure. In sum, a possible conclusion from the findings of
Study I is that the realization of a hedge in a claim is not always intended for the purposes
of reducing commitment and reducing commitment can be accomplished without realizing
a specific lexicogrammatical hedge.
As far as readers’ reactions are concerned, the readers in Study II generally
noticed hedges per se but were not always aware of the author’s intended hedges.
Crismore and Vande Kopple’s (1997a,b) readers not only noticed hedges but were affected
by them. In contrast, Hyland’s (2000) readers often did not notice hedges and when they
did, were rarely affected by them. The differences in the design of these studies make them
difficult to compare. For one, the participants in the Crismore and Vande Kopple studies
were L1 readers, while those in Hyland’s study were L2 students. In the two studies
involving L2 readers, the participants in the present study were highly sophisticated PhD
students, whereas the readers in Hyland’s study were undergraduates who failed to
recognize words such as “speculate”. Similarly, the goals differed. My intention was to
compare the readers’ and authors’ definitions of hedges, while the purpose of the other two
studies was to determine the cognitive or affective influence of hedges, which necessitated
different methods. I asked readers directly to indicate hedges, while the other two studies
indirectly tested whether readers processed them. I have no data as to whether my readers
later processed the hedges in making decisions about the certainty of the claims. However,
there is some congruence in the fact that hedges were often invisible to Hyland’s students
and that authors in Study I intended only some of their realized hedges as hedges. Both
findings are consistent with the explanation that hedges in scientific claims are the norm or
even obligatory and, therefore, are not given special attention. Further support for this
explanation that readers attend to the unusual is Hyland’s (2000) finding that his students
had much less trouble in recognizing and processing of markers of certainty (such as
“definitely”), which occur only 33% as often as hedges in scientific articles (Hyland,
1998b).
5.1. Limitations
Since the findings are based on a small sample of authors and readers, no
generalizations can be made but they point to new directions for inquiry on a larger
scale. Furthermore, authors and readers were not asked about hedging but about toning
down. However, previous research has agreed that toning down is one strategy for
hedging. At the minimum, therefore, these findings indicate awareness of at least one set of
the total class of hedges. In addition, some responses seemed to reflect awareness of
hedging, rather than toning down, e.g., “of course” (see above).The third possible
limitation is that the authors were not totally frank about or even aware of their
motivations. But the authors’ sample was self-selected for people willing to reveal their
motivation. Secondly, some of their responses (toning up) were not in the direction of
social desirability. Thirdly, authors carefully discriminated among different kinds of
motivation, which indicates a desire to be accurate.
Study II involved a greater number of participants but did not inquire about their
reasoning. It is possible that the readers found more hedges in the research task than they
would have in their ordinary reading because the task required them to focus on this
element, or that they focused on form because the task took place in an EAP writing class.
The fact that patterns emerged showed that there were some guiding principles in readers’
minds as to what constitutes a hedge. Thus, we know what these readers regard as a hedge,
although we do not know if they regard all the indicated hedges as equally salient. In any
event, this limitation could explain identifying too many hedges but would not account for
one of the main findings—that the readers overlooked some of the authors’ intended
hedges.
5.2. Implications
This study has implications for research in linguistics and for EAP There is great
inconsistency in the definition of hedge as reported in the literature, which I have only
alluded to here. Perhaps a valid way to ascertain which structures are hedges in practice
would be closer collaboration with authors, in which they analyze their own texts and
identify specific hedges. Furthermore, such findings would have to guide our instruction of
EAP students in reading and in writing scientific papers. Hyland (2000: 191) remarks that
“40% of responses marked [statements] as one or more category higher (i.e. more certain)
than my own classifications.” This again highlights the dissonance between the possible
intentions of the author, the perceptions of the reader, and the theoretical judgments of
linguists.
Furthermore, it seems reasonable to disengage the concept of hedge from hedging, with
the former referred to as downtoner. This would release it from its pejorative emotional
baggage and allow it to be taught as a necessary signal for certain types of speech acts. For
instance, a choice of an inanimate agent, such as “the findings” or “the data” as the subject
of “suggest” seems to be so accepted that “we suggest” would constitute a glaring
deviation. Hedging, on the other hand, could be reserved for the optional use of
downtoners; (see below) or for moves that perform the function of hedging. The extent to
which any syntactic or lexical structure is obligatory or optional could be assessed by
studying its pattern of occurrence within a data bank of millions of actual texts (Hunston &
Thompson, 2000).
The results indicate that EAP readers may be reading many more hedges into the text
than the author intended. The distinctions made above may help students to distinguish
between intentional hedges and hedges that are inherent in the speech act. They can be
advised to consider modality as a signal to distinguish a fact from a non-fact (generality,
claim, or hypothesis).
Although the definition of hedge is still amorphous, it is clear that hedging is an
important aspect of scientific writing. Moreover, analysts agree that hedges make a text
more reader- friendly since they allow for negotiation between the writer and the reader.
Hence, students do have to learn which kinds of assertions should be hedged, e.g.,
criticisms of others’ work, and which should be strengthened, and the concomitant
lexicogrammatical structures to accomplish these functions.
We now understand that rhetorical strategies are culturally bound and must be
explicitly taught to EAP students. Research into other cultures (e.g., Finnish students,
Ventola, 1997) has claimed that EAP students have difficulty with hedging techniques,
either because their L1 discourse conventions do not include hedging, or because they just
have not been taught a wide variety of techniques in English. My experience with novice
L2 writers shows that they may not realize that certain claims should be mitigated, e.g. the
following text from a student’s introduction: “Our research is focused on the investigation
of vorticity dynamics in a homogenous and isotropic flow and that is the reason why so
many people are interested in our research.” In this case, the writer should tone down
a claim that the English speaker would consider rather immodest (cf “that may be the
reason our research has generated some interest”).
This study suggests that teaching students to modify all claims and observe
politeness as a general constraint does not necessarily reflect the actual practices of
the scientific community. Scientists also tone up their claims. We have to explain the
actual norms of science, because an overemphasis on hedging may influence students to
be overly cautious, which would have serious impact on their careers. In order to
understand toning up we also need much more feedback from authors. Moreover, both
Study I and Study II represented a very heterogeneous group of disciplines. Future
studies should compare authors’ intentions and readers’ perceptions in various
academic disciplines.
Appendix. Journals in which respondents’ articles appeared
1. Educational Psychology
2. European Journal of Population
3. Geophysical Research Letters
4. Journal of Geophysical Research
5. Molecular Crystallography Liquid Crystals
6. Molecular Reproduction and Development
7. Philosophical Magazine [Chemistry!]
8. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (Biochemistry)
9. Sociological Studies of Child Development
10. Teaching and Teacher Education
11. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences
12. The American Journal of Anatomy
13. The Journal of Neuroscience
14. Theory and Society
References
Banks, D. (1994). Hedges and how to trim them. In M. Brekke, T. Andersen, T. Dahl, & J. Myking (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 9th European symposium on LSP: Vol II. Applications and Implications of current LSP
research. (pp. 587–592). Bergen: Fagbok for laget.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Crismore, A., & Vande Kopple, W. J. (1997a). The effects of hedges and gender on the attitudes of readers in the
United States toward material in a science textbook. In A. Dusak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic
discourse (pp. 223–247). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Crismore, A., & Vande Kopple, W. J. (1997b). Hedges and readers: Effects on attitudes and learning. In
R. Markkanen, & H. Schroder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic
phenomenon in academic texts. (pp. 83–114). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes,
16, 271–287.
Crompton, P. (1998). Identifying hedges. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 303–311.
Dubois, B. L. (1987). Something on the order of around forty to forty four: Imprecise numerical expressions in
biomedical slide talks. Language and Society, 16, 527–541.
Dubois, B. L. (1997). The biomedical discussion section in context. London: Ablex.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Hubler, H. (1983). Understatements and hedges in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17,
433–454.
Hyland, K. (1998a). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (1998b). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18, 349–382.
Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility. Language Awareness, 9, 179–197.
Lewin, B. A. (1998). Hedging: Form and function in scientific research texts. In I. Fortanet, S. Posteguillo,
J. C. Palmer, & J. F. Coll (Eds.), Genre studies in English for academic purposes. (pp. 89–104). Castello:
Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.
Lewin, B. A., Fine, J., & Young, L. (2001). Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social science
research texts. London: Continuum.
Markkanen, R., & Schroder, H. (1989). Hedging as a translation problem in scientific texts. In C. Lauren, &
H. Nordman (Eds.), Special languages: From human thinking to thinking machines. Clevedon: Multlingual
Matters.
Markkanen, R., & Schroder, H. (Eds.). (1997). Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic
phenomenon in academic texts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1–35.
Namsaraev, V. (1997). Hedging in Russian academic writing in sociological texts. In R. Markkanen, &
H. Schroder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in
academic texts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Nikula, T. (1997). Interlanguage view on hedging. In R. Markkanen, & H. Schroder (Eds.), Hedging and
discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts. (pp. 188–208). Walter
de Gruyter: Berlin.
Prince, E., Frader, J., & Bosak, C. (1982). On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In R. J. Di Pietro (Ed.),
Linguistics and the professions. (pp. 83–97). New Jersey: Ablex.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse.
English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149–170.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1998). Language is not a physical object. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 295–302.
Salager-Meyer, F. (2000). Procrustes’ recipe: Hedging and positivism. English for Specific Purposes, 19,
175–187.
Shapin, S. (1984). Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle’s literary technology. Social Studies of Science, 14,
481–520.
Skelton, J. (1997). The representation of truth in academic medical writing. Applied Linguistics, 18(2),
121–137.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, D. (1999). The argument culture. New York: Ballantine Books.
Ventola, E. (1997). Modalization: Probability - an exploration into its role in academic writing. In A. Dusak (Ed.),
Culture and styles of academic discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Example texts
1. Anson, J., & Meir, A. (1996). Religiosity, nationalism and fertility in Israel. European Journal of Population,
12, 1–25.
2. Ladd, G. W., & Price, J. M. (1987). Predicting children’s social and school adjustment following the transition
from preschool to kindergarten. Child Development, 58, 1168–1189.
3. Semyonov, M., & Lewin-Epstein, N. (1991). Suburban labor markets, urban labor markets, and gender
inequality in earnings. The Sociological Quarterly, 32(4), 611–620.
Beverly A. Lewin teaches scientific writing to doctoral students in various fields. Her research focuses on
discourse analysis, especially of scientific texts. Recent publications include: (With Jonathan Fine & Lynne
Young): (2001) Expository discourse: a genre-based approach to social science research texts. London:
Continuum; and (With Yonatan Donner): (2002) Communication in internet message boards. English Today,
71(18), 29–37.

Pragmatics Reader3.0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pragmatics Reader3.0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Masterseminar Pragmatics

pdf page topic and original paper or chapter

XYP9;747;68 4)6*74594)745 /9Q@;6898@89874

;<; =>??@ AA@B? C@AD

?@*4A783381 ,-BC/D;,!/4 24 4637 4 18115 2367263E 8=42

0QRS855"634.53637 H6$ /7$%&&&)&*K+)

0EF1 5363535 8G 33&967 7657 56573

9GH- 3817844 511%&''(((*85655 245878188676

0OP/ 2970Q45,3 1*

01F88 8776395 77: B 3!#$$='$%)B 374477

0EFG8 73 &''H*''!"875363 83663 

bcd<677765878F373 5576753H7!3 77H7

OPQR367 7657633873 38778!7/4/!0 57+,-9"STU"V&!

./086763466336637 67 77 56 

Like: The Discourse Particle and Semantics

I am not including as part of this construction another contemporary

2 LIKE AS A DISCOURSE PARTICLE

2.1 Previous analyses of like

2.2 Parallels with oh, um

2.3 Who uses like and why?

Figure 1 Percent of subjects using like by gender.

Number of likes in response

Figure 2 Number of likes versus delay in responding.

3 LIKE AND SEMANTICS

(39) a. *There’s the school bully on the bus

3.1 Like and sluicing

(49) *They invited everybody, so we’ll have to find out WHO.

(50) They invited, like, everybody, so we’ll have to find out

I will be assuming, then, that, at least for typical sluices with

3.2 Like and there

(54) a. Lana hates, like, every coach.

We shall return to these important problems with the interaction

4.1 Implications of the informal account

(57) Sharla is a doctor.

(58) Gemma has a brother.

4.2 A more formal account of like

Relative to a given context C, each basic expression α is assigned a partially

Lasersohn suggests that the Gricean maxim of quantity might

(80) If [[α]]MC represents the denotation of α relative to model M

This assignment correctly predicts the sort of discourse behaviour on

(81) Mary arrived at three o’clock; she actually arrived at 3:01.

(85) shows that Lasersohn’s hedges resemble like in that they do

(86) Mary arrived at roughly 3:00.

(87) Mary arrived at, like, 3:00.

We have seen, then, that like shows a somewhat surprising combination

MUFFY E. A. SIEGEL Received: 07.07.01

01234256785590675153 5 7031345 61 785590454004073

0123415678917710 6626206077102661421 16

012340546784239 94042294239 4031692323474027 476409

01234456789115751 8416 1 73517269 37344925

Hedging: an exploratory study of authors’

* Tel.: C972-3-640-7846; fax: C972-3-640-6458.

A recent focus in applied linguistics has been on hedging as a salient characteristic of

2. Linguists’ conceptions of hedging

2.1. The question of form

Hedging, appropriately, is a concept that evades definition. Since the extensive

A more functional position is represented by Crompton (1997), who proposes the

1. Little information exists on the frequency and severity of the disorder.

1. information exists on the frequency and severity of the disorder.

2.2. The question of function

Basing their work on studies of everyday communication, researchers in academic texts

3. Authors’ conceptions of hedging—Study I

3.2.1. Heightening claims

XYP9;747;68 4)6*74594)745 /9Q@;6898@89874

;<; =>??@ AA@B? C@AD

?@*4A783381 ,-BC/D;,!/4 24 4637 4 18115 2367263E 8=42

0QRS855"634.53637 H6$ /7$%&&&)&*K+)

0EF1 5363535 8G 33&967 7657 56573

9GH- 3817844 511%&''(((*85655 245878188676

0OP/ 2970Q45,3 1*

01F88 8776395 77: B 3!#$$='$%)B 374477

0EFG8 73 &''H*''!"875363 83663

bcd<677765878F373 5576753H7!3 77H7

OPQR367 7657633873 38778!7/4/!0 57+,-9"STU"V&!

./086763466336637 67 77 56

01234256785590675153 5 7031345 61 785590454004073

0123415678917710 6626206077102661421 16

012340546784239 94042294239 4031692323474027 476409

01234456789115751 8416 1 73517269 37344925