Foreign language teaching and pronunciation — Aspects of the Nigerian situation

S.vsremVol. 8, pp.245-255 0 Pergamon Press Lid. 1980. Primed in Great Britain

FOREIGN

0346-251X/80/1001-0245/$02.00/0

LANGUAGE TEACHING AND PRONUNCIATION ASPECTS OF THE NIGERIAN SITUATION AMECHI

-

IHENACHO

Department of Modern Languages, University of Ibadan Cette etude Porte sur l’enseignement des langues Ctrangtres dans le contexte particulier du Nigeria, et tire ses exemples surtout de l’anglais. Elle insiste sur un usage plus pratique des analyses contrastives et des analyses des erreurs, base sur la distinction entre (1) erreurs qui ne sont pas susceptibles de causer un manque de comprehension, (2) erreurs pouvant causer un manque de comprehension, et (3) erreurs qui vont sftrement causer un malentendu. Les exemples don& couvrent les faits purement phonologiques ainsi que les elements suprasegmentaux; et quelques implications pedagogiques sont egalement signaltes. I. Although it is now generally agreed that none of the language skills should be completely neglected at any stage of foreign-language learning, even at the very beginning, considerable emphasis continues to be laid, deservedly, on the acquisition of ‘interactive communicative competence’, that is, by the development of the audio-oral skills, listening/hearing and speaking. A large body of literature exists on the prime importance of spoken language.Rivers (1968), drawing on the dichotomic nature of communication (emitter receiver), insists that ‘since language is a means of communication, it is not enough for our students to learn words, phrases, grammatical features, if they will not be able to produce these in a way which makes their utterance comprehensible to a native speaker of the language’. l Pre-eminence should be given to the systematic study of sounds as the basis of speech (Huebener, 1959), while a clear distinction between the auditive and articulatory aspects and the importance to be accorded to either (Calbris, 1971) would considerably enhance learning. Accordingly, Titone (1977) suggests a model of time allocation for the four skills at the three levels of language learning: Skills

Level I

Level II

Level III

Listening Speaking Reading Writing

50% 30070

30% 20070 40070 10%

20% 20070 40070 20070

15%

5070

245

244

AMECHI IHENACHO

The corollary to the suggestion put forward in the above model is, of course, that no matter what purpose one may have for wishing to learn a foreign language, the bid to acquire interactive communicative competence in that language should be a prerequisite, and would be expected to enhance the acquisition of the target skill. If teaching of the spoken language is to be accorded priority in foreign language teaching, what aspect of it should be given more attention? Some people feel that, for reasons of interpersonal comprehension, the teacher must be very exigent as far as the mastery of the phonology of the foreign language is concerned, but less so with the prosody (Malmberg, 1971; Evans, 1977). Another school stresses the prime importance of prosody (Tiffen, 1969, 1974; Calbris, 1971; Fashola, 1976). The fact, of course, is that most aspects of prosody are not lexically significant, as are the phonemes of the particular language; on the other hand, some intonation contours and stress patterns are lexically significant and must be learned early in language acquisition. Again, Rivers (1968) summarises it all thus: ‘If communication skills are an objective of the language course, then true communication beyond the confines of the classroom must be the ultimate aim. This involves the acquisition of an accent in which they phonemic distinctions are respected and the stress and intonation make the meaning clear’. z. To our mind, it is the failure to respect the phonological distinctions that, more than any other consideration, bedevils the spoken English taught, learned and practised in Nigeria. As a matter of fact, overwhelming evidence confirms the gross inadequacy of English spoken at most levels and in most situations in Nigeria - and this is without prejudice to the judiciousness or otherwise of the various reasons advanced for this inadequacy: nationalism and consequent low motivation, need for the institutionalization, then standardization, of a local variety of English in Nigeria (Banjo, 1976), and other sociolinguistic and psychopedagogical reasons.” This evidence abounds, firstly, in the form of a large body of literature, for example, Strevens (1969), Bamgbose (1971), Tiffen (1969, 1974), Banjo (1976), etc.; secondly, in almost any utterance that one may wish to isolate and analyse, in both the audio (television, radio) and visual (dailies, magazines and even certain learned journals) media of communication; and thirdly, the native speaker’s reaction to the Nigerian speaker’s speech or reception (in Nigeria, as well as in the United Kingdom or the United States of America). There is also a lot of evidence to show that the failure to respect phonological distinctions in French accounts to a large extent for the inadequacy of communicative competence acquired by Nigerians learning t’hat language. Even though existing literature has here and there highlighted most of the essential problems in both English and French, and given abundant indications to teachers on how best to tackle them, its impact so far does not seem to be very impressive from the point of view of results registered. It may be that some of the analyses of the problems, as well as some of the indications, are much too fragmentary to be used systematically by teachers who themselves do not often have enough time to carry out their own analyses. It may also be that some of the analyses are much too thorough, thus leaving teachers who are unable to choose the most important features and who, therefore, attempt to teach everything, to discover that they do not, in fact, achieve any progress. Again, it may be that some advocate the type of procedure

FL TEACHING AND PRONUNCIATION

247

suggested by Calbris (197 1) for phonetic correlation, whereby a deformed pronunciation may be corrected, not by insisting on the correct pronunciation (as the learner may be ‘deaf to the sound in question, on account of its nearness to some other sound in his mother tongue), but by attempting to pronounceanother sound that is in direct contrast to the sound that appears in the learner’s deformed pronunciation. The dangers inherent in such a procedure can, no doubt, only complicate the problem. It may be that in our particular context we now need to go beyond the analysis whereby deformed pronunciation is classified into types that may lead to lack of understanding and those that will not ordinarily cause lack of understanding. 4 We may thus need to add a third type, that is the type of deformed pronunciation that is most likely to cause misunderstanding. In this discussion, then, we hope to attempt to review the teaching of English pronunciation to Nigerians and suggest what we make bold to term a more pragmatic use of contrastive and error analyses, based on the above tripartite classification of deformed pronunciation. As we may not dispose of enough space to consider both English and French, we shall concentrate on English and only give examples from French now and then. II.

For a more pragmatic use of contrastive

phonology

and error analysis

Contrastive phonology and error analysis constitute very valuable methods of working for foreign-language teachers. The reproach often levelled against the former is that it does not take into account the heterogeneity of the linguistic backgrounds of learners grouped together in one class, or that it is teacher- or teaching-oriented, to the exclusion of the learning process and the learner (Cintas & Valdman, 1974). Error analysis, on the other hand, attacks the problem directly from the learner’s actual performance, and can provide rapid solutions without teachers and learners having to wait for the production of complete descriptions needed for contrastive analysis. Nevertheless, error analysis cannot substitute contrastive analysis altogether (Strevens, 1965). As for studies in interlanguage (Selinker, 1972) and approximative systems of communication (Nemser, 1971), we may leave them out here, because of our concern for the pragmatic, and because it is still not quite sure whether those notions, for all the invaluable help they may render in the designing of instructional material and teaching strategies, imply a simplified or even pidginised variety of the target language (Cintas & Valdman, 1974). Contrary to what is generally thought of contrastive phonology, it does not end with the study of possible linguistic interference from the learner’s mother tongue, which is supposed to account for not more than 33% of learner’s errors (Richards & Simpson, 1974P; it does have a definitely positive aspect also; it can specify those areas in which Ll and L2 speech habits overlap, those aspects of Ll that are identical with, or very similar to, parallel aspects of L2, and so do not need to receive intensive attention. The economy of learning implied here is not to be underrated, and does, in fact, belie previous tenets (Tiffen, 1969; Huebener, 1959) according to which ‘To learn a new language means simply to acquire another set of speech habits (...)‘. a This theory of economy of learning applies to the learning of any additional language, but it is of particular significance to a Nigerian learning French. Contrastive phonology will have the positive effect of discovering for him that, if the absence of certain sounds and speech habits from his mother tongue has made the acquisition of English pronunciation

248

AMECHI

IHENACHO

particularly difficult for him, on the other hand, recognition of the similarity between his mother tongue and French as far as the particular sounds and speech habits are concerned will considerably enhance his learning of spoken French. For example, the purity of phonemes is a characteristic that many Nigerian languages have in common with French, while English, with which Nigerians have been in contact for a long time, abounds in diphthongs and even triphthongs. Thus, whether a Nigerian has learned to pronounce /gou houm/ correctly or has not been able to go beyond */go horn/, he is bound to be more apt than the Englishman or the American in pronouncing in French: sautez plus

haut

- /sate ply o/, as opposed to * /soutei ply ou/.

In the same way, as many Nigerian languages are not characterised by aspiration of the voiceless stops’, as English is, many Nigerian learners of French will feel more at ease with the purity of French consonant phonemes and less apt to assimilate French tape ( = [tap]) to English tap ( = lthaepl). Contrastive phonology will also set out all those phonological elements and speech habits which, by virtue of their difference from one language to the other, call for more serious attention from the learner. Thus the Nigerian learner of English may be expected to have some problem with the English sound 181, for example, which does not seem to exist in the phonological system of any of the Nigerian languages that have already been described to a reasonable extent. Eventually, one of the following may result from the Nigerian learner’s attempt to acquire that English sound: a) he may acquire it easily, quickly and perfectly, in spite of predictions by contrastive phonology (high motivation - special effort, interest in something totally different and new -, good teaching, talent . . .?); b) he may assimilate it to either /s/ or /t/, both of which exist in his Ll, and obtain deformations like: /sin/ ( = sin) or /tin/ (= tin), where he should pronounce /&n/ (= thin); c) he may get confused in the process of acquiring the sound, and produce forms like */Bef9/ or */tefO/ where he should pronounce /Oeft/. (We are probably quite familiar with cases of the substitution of */dat/ or */daQ/ or */aaO/ for /i)aet/, or of */gap/ for /taep/.) d) his deformed pronunciation in (b) and (c)may even become ‘fossilised’ (Selinker, 1972). Whichever of the above happens, our reaction as teachers should be to determine in which of the three categories mentioned earlier the deformed pronunciation may be grouped, in order to know what amount of our precious teaching time (or of the learner’s precious learning time) to give to its correction. Such an exercise involves, precisely, error analysis. It may be recalled in passing that it is errors, not mistakes (cf. Tinkler,* 1976; Titone, 1977, for the distinction) that are analysed. And errors are analysed, not only for immediate use (correcting deformed usage), but also in order to determine ‘what a pupil’s competence in L2 at a particular point in his learning career is, so that a comparison between the pupil’s present competence and required terminal competence can be made’. B

FL TEACHING AND PRONUNCIATION

249

We shall now attempt to discuss in more detail, and in relation to our three categories, some of the difficulties that learners encounter and some learners’ errors observed here and there. We may perhaps give prosody a fair chance, and start by attempting to classify some aspects of it. III. The relative importance

of errors of pronunciation

of English

Prosody Here we may consider whether a misapplication of certain aspects like rhythm, juncture, stress and intonation will or will not lead to a lack of understanding of the message, or whether it will definitely lead to misunderstanding. (And let us mention at once that, by implication, a mispronunciation will not lead to misunderstanding unless it is lexically significant.) Rhythm Although Nigerian.languages differ from English in this respect (the former being ‘syllable-timed’, like French, while the latter is ‘stress-timed’), there is no doubt that failing to give the same time to each stress group in English will not ordinarily lead to misunderstanding, as this is not lexically significant. At worst, it may lead to a lack of understanding on the part of a native speaker of English. Juncture Here, the examples often quoted in most books (even French books on contrastive phonology) are the pair: and night + rate nitrate Now, how many Nigerian learners of English will usually come in contact with expressions in which those two groups are commutable in the same context, that is, where they have identical distribution? Moreover, night rate may carry two stresses, while nitrate will carry only one, on the first syllable. Stress Whether we say *‘commi’ttee,

*i’magi’nation,

as one may often hear in Nigeria, or com’mittee,

imagi’nation,

is not of much consequence. The difference, though showing evidence of a ‘foreign accent’, is not lexically significant, and correction of the deformation should not constitute a priority. The only cases in which stress may be lexically significant are those listed by Tiffen (1967) under ‘Short word-groups’ and ‘Nouns and verbs’ (p. 34), but a misapplication of it will not automatically cause misunderstanding. Tiffen’s examples are apt in illustrating the possibility of confusion: ‘running ‘stream and ‘running track; but a native speaker of English who hears a Nigerian say: *‘running stream or *‘running ‘track is not likely to misunderstand ‘constantly go together’.

him, since, precisely,

the groups contain

words that

250

AMECHIIHENACHO

As for two-syllabled words that function as a noun when the stress is on the first syllable and as a verb when the stress is on the second syllable, it is true that one may hear the Nigerian speaker interchange the pattern in some cases, but certainly not in most cases: one may, for example, hear trans’fer, de’crease, per’mit, con’fine used as nouns, or record used as vrb, but one will not hear present, import, progress, etc., pronounced with the wrong stress, whether as noun or as verb. Let us take Tiffen’s example again: i) ii)

A number of West African countries e.x’porr cocoa; Cocoa is a very important ‘export of West Africa;

one is not likely to hear a Nigerian pronounce often hear:

‘export in (i) or ex’port in (ii). But one may

*He has asked for a trans’fer. Still, for such a mispronunciation to cause misunderstanding, the two opposing terms (here: ‘transfer and trans’fer) have to be commutable, which they cannot be in this context, as a result of their specific functions in the sentence. Intonation Here the only possibility of misunderstanding lies in producing a completed declarative statement with a rising tone, or producing with a falling tone a question that is neither introduced by a question word nor based on the inversion of subject and verb (including the form in do + subject + verb). For example: ‘John ‘came to ‘school today . -

* .

(Tiffen’s example)

is to be distinguished from: ‘John ‘came to ‘school today?

Contrary to Tiffen’s’affirmation which seems to limit intonaton in tonal West African languages to words, intonation is also very much associated with sentences in these languages. In fact, the use of the falling tone for ‘completed sentence’ and the rising tone for ‘uncompleted sentence’ (including interrogation without question word) also characterises many West African languages. What we are saying is not that the distinctions are not necessary or valid. They are very necessary and valid. But we must remember, too, that there are also textbooks, and methods, which overtly or covertly take these problems into consideration in their design (Strevens, 1969); that some very important distinctions are often learned more effortlessly than we may imagine; and that more often than not, we are concerned with remedial work in the teaching of English in Nigeria, and so we must select items that merit priority and give them due emphasis, while not neglecting other items altogether.

FL TEACHING AND PRONUNCIATION

251

Phonology Vowelsounds The major problem here is the non-recognition of the distinctive features of a host of minimal (or near minimal) pairs that can be constituted from lists like the following:

bad, bade, bard, bead, bed, bid, bide, bird, board, bode, booed, bowed, bud; cat, Kate, cart, kit, kite, coat, cot, court, cut, curt; fail, fall, feel, fell, fill, file, foil, fool, foul, full, furl; . . . But, of course, it is not just any pair that needs to be taken up and taught or distinguished. There is really no point in seeking, for instance, to distinguish between -coat and - cot /kout/ /kct/, when it is clear that Nigerians do not confuse the former sound with any known sound in English, but only fail to pronounce it properly as a diphthong. In other words, this error is not lexically significant, and will not lead to lack of understanding, nor to misunderstanding. If, however, we are concerned with a diphthong like /ei/, then there is a possibility of some Nigerians confusing it with /e/. (Some Nigerian languages rather have the distinction /e/f /E/, as in French.) Thus confusion between gate and get may lead to lack of understanding. But again, it can only lead to misunderstanding if gate and get are commutable in the particular context, which is doubtful, since they are not likely to perform the same grammatical function. We may thus suggest a list of some of the English vowel sounds that are most often confused by Nigerians: A:/ f /i/ /a/ f /a:/ /u:/ f /u/ /3/ f /A/ /a:/ f /e/ /a~/ f /a:/ /3:/ # /D/ # / ‘a:/ f /A/ /ua/ f /3:a/ /&a/ f /ia/ /ei/ f /e/

eg. eg. eg. eg. eg. eg. eg. eg. eg. eg.

bead f bid hot f hurt fool # full cot f cut bird f bed ban f barn court f cot # curt # cut poor f pour dare f dear fail # fell, etc.

These and similar groups of vowel sounds need closer attention than others that Nigerians are not often prone to confuse or mispronounce. But, again, even among these, a clear distinction between cases that will not ordinarily lead to lack of understanding and those that will definitely cause misunderstanding will enhance the teaching process. Let us take the pair /a / f /a:/, for example. In the words cot and curt those two sounds, if confused, are not likely to cause misunderstanding, since they will not ordinarily be commutable in the same context. But if we take the pair hot and hurt, which can commutate in I’m hot and I’m hurt,

252

AMECHI IHENACHO

a clear indication of the misunderstanding that would result from a confusion of the two sounds will not only make the learner more easily aware of the error, but also motivate him more; it will enhance learning and facilitate teaching. Another type of mispronunciation of English vowel sounds is the addition of some phoneme or the other, due mainly to the difference in the syllabic structures of English and the Nigerian languages. This has usually been pointed out in relevant literature; but, of course, it will not ordinarily lead to misunderstanding. Consonantsounds Here too, most cases of mispronunciation are caused by non recognition of some of the oppositions that constitute the distinctive features of the phonemes. One of the major oppositions neutralised or confused by some Nigerian speakers is the opposition voiced f voiceless. A classical example is the one between /v/ and /f/, which we have known to change our sovereign motherlande to: our suffering motherland. Another opposition is /z/ f /s/. Now, when you hear a member of the academic staff here say [ais + ausisl are not well constructed, you will probably conclude that he is making a grammatical mistake; he is not; he actually believes that he is saying Bi:z + hauzi:zl . . . (= these houses f

* this houses).

We have already seen the case of /d/ and /Cl/. These are confused, not usually with each other, but with /d/,/z/ and /t/,/s/ respectively. Yet another opposition is often neutralised. In the following example: I shall come and / Jeik/ you up, there is no doubt that non-recognition of the opposition / / f /t / leads, this time, not to lack of understanding, but, in fact, to misunderstanding. Another source of error, which may have nothing to do with mother tongue habits, is the truncation or introduction of one consonant phoneme or the other, as illustrated by the following examples from Nigerian Television: -

associatiozof

-

banni$ll

...

forms of industria\ll/actions

.. .

- /bo. w;: hapns/ (= but what happens?). We shall not go into details to specify the mother tongue of the Nigerian speakers whose errors are illustrated. But it would appear that the truncation or addition of the phoneme/h/

FL TEACHING AND PRONUNCIATION

253

(indiscriminate?) is mainly a characteristic of some Yoruba speakers of English. For example, the same person, during the same broadcast on Nigerian Television, Ibadan, pronounced WHO (World Health Organisation) as follows: a). */u:/ (instead of /hu:/ - WHO); b). */da:blju: eitJ ho/ (instead of /dAblju: eit.f ou/ - WHO) Again, as in preceding cases, it is worthwhile to distinguish what will lead to lack of understanding from what will not ordinarily lead to lack of understanding, and both from what is definitely going to lead to misunderstanding. IV. The logical conclusion to this type of analysis (and by which we also wish to conclude this discussion) is a statement of its specific significance in the business of language teaching. It will not be a question of taking up each item and suggesting how best the teacher can tackle it. It is a question, rather, of suggesting, in the first place, that it is possibleand worthwhile to identify, and make a finite list of, the major problems that Nigerians encounter in learning English; but that will only be possible within the framework of a more exhaustive study. Secondly, as we have attempted to illustrate here and there, it will be very useful to classify the errors identified in error analysis (or the potential errors identified by contrastive studies) into: - those that will not ordinarily lead to lack of understanding, - those that may lead to lack of understanding, and - those that will definitely lead to misunderstanding. All this implies that the teacher must be versed in the phonology of the language he is teaching, and must have at least a good working knowledge of the phonological systems of the mother tongues of most of the learners. With such knowledge, the teacher will be able to use already prepared material profitably; he will also be able to make his own analysis of the learners’ errors. It is in this sense that a good teacher is superior to all textbooks and methods. The procedure to be adopted in teaching the sounds or in correcting mispronunciation, as well as the levels at which to use particular strategies have been sufficiently dealt with (Rebouillet, 1971; Tiffen 1969; Titone, 1977, inter alia). We may only emphasise the need to carry out a great deal of audition exercises and then also a great deal of repetition exercises. For the former, the teacher’s knowledge of contrastive phonology (including prosody) will be invaluable in the working out of suitable discrimination drills or in the use of such drills that have already been prepared. For the latter, the teacher will also find his knowledge of contrastive phonology very useful in the creation and use of materials for imitation drills, and knowledge of articulatory phonetics very valuable in correcting mispronunciation. Nothing is as revealing and motivating for a learner of the sounds /0/ and lb/, for instance, as being asked to place the tip of his tongue between his top and lower sets of teeth and attempt simultaneously to pronounce /t/and /d/respectively. And as both drills are expected to help the learner acquire the sounds taught as a reflex, it is essential that they are carried out with considerable briskness. Again, Tiffen (1969) has ably given the recipe (suggested speed and periodicity and other modalities). Finally, all we have been saying would only constitute a futile addition to existing literature if we do not emphasise the fact that we have now come to a stage where those who know these facts must make a definite effort

254

AMECHI

IHENACHO

1) to set the example (cfBanjo, 1976), and 2) to strive to see to it that their knowledge and effort are reflected in the performance of the students they turn out, who, themselves, often become teachers. In that way, the vicious circle that is threatening the teaching of second and foreign languages in Nigeria - whereby the inadequacy of the performance of future teachers graduating from the universities and teachers’ colleges results in the inadequacy of the performance of students entering these institutions - will stand a chance of being broken. NOTES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

’ cf. W. M. Rivers: Teaching foreign-language skills, p. 112. 2 cf. id., p. 133. 3 Without prejudice, too, to what is referred to, in WAEC circles as ‘Educated West African usage’, even though this may have less to do with the phonological level than with the other levels. 4 cf. English pronunciation: a manual for teachers, pp. 7-8. ‘cf. I.S.B., Vol. 1 No. 1, Jan. 1976: affirmation in the editorial that contrastive studies ‘appear to have failed to have useful predictive powers’, p. 6. 0 cf. Huebener: How to teach foreign languages effectively, p. 4. ’ Certain dialects of Igbo (eg. Owerri, Ohuhu) are so characterised. 8 T. Tinkler: ‘Interlanguage and error analysis - some simple questions and answers for teacher-trainers’, in I.S.B., op. cit., p. 119. s From former Nigerian national anthem. REFERENCES

Alsed Newsletter 12, UNESCO. BANJO, A. 1976 University and standardization Journal of Modern Languages vol. I, Jan.

of the English language, in West African

BAMGBOSE, A. 1977 The English language in Nigeria, in Spencer, J. (ed.) The English language in West Africa Longmans. CALBRIS, G. 1971 La prononciation et ia correction phonetique, Guide pbdagogique de franpis langue &rang&e Hachette.

in Rebouillet, A. (ed.)

CINTAS, P. F. & Valdman, A. 1974 Les apports’de l’analyse contrastive et de l’analyse des erreurs a l’elucidation des mtcanismes d’apprentissage du franqais langue seconde. Projets d’atelier et bibliographie, in Colloque de la FIPF Bulletin de la FIPF 10-l 1. English Language Services Inc. 1968. English pronunciation: Macmillan.

a manualfor

teachers Collier-

EVANS, H. G. J. 1977-78 Keynote address delivered to the 2nd Congress of the West African Modern Languages Association, Accra, Dee-Jan. FASHOLA, J. B. 1976 Oral competence at the university: a critical appraisal of the Nigerian situation WAJML 1, Jan. HIRSCH,

R. 1954 Audio-visual

HUEBENER, Press.

aids in language teaching Georgetown

University Press.

T. 1959 How to teach foreign languages effectively New York University

255

FL TEACHING; AND PRONUNCIATION

Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 1976 vol. 1/ 1, Jan. MALMBERG, France.

B. 1972 Les nouvelles tendances de la linguistique Presses Universitaire de

MARCHAND, F. 1975 Manuel de linguistique appliquee Tome 2 La phonetique applications Delagrave, Paris. MARTINET, London.

A. 1964 Elements of general linguistics (Trans. E. Palmer) Faber & Faber,

NEMSER, W. 1971 Approximative POTTIER,

et ses

systems of foreign language learners IRAL 9.

B. (ed.) 1975 Comprendre la linguistique Marabout Universitk

RIVERS, W. M. 1968 Teaching foreign language skills University of Chicago Press. SELINKER,

L. 1972 Interlanguage

IRAL

10.

STREVENS, P. 1965 Papers in language and language teaching OUP. TIFFEN, B. 1969 A language in common - a guide to English language teaching in schools and colleges Longman. TIFFEN, B. 1974 The intelligibility of Nigerian English, PhD Thesis, University of London. TITONE, R. 1977 L ‘enseignement dune multiculturel English edition, UNESCO.

seconde

langue

en milieu

plurilingue/