September 22, 2003

What is a Reading Error?

William Labov and Bettina Baker

University of Pennsylvania

Abstract

Early efforts to apply knowledge of dialect differences to reading stressed the importance of the distinction between differences in pronunciation and mistakes in reading. This report develops a method of estimating the probability that a possible error in pronunciation is a true reading error by observing the semantic impact of the given pronunciation on the childπs reading of the text that follows.

A diagnostic oral reading test was administered to 579 children who were 1 to 2 years behind grade level in reading in Philadelphia and California elementary schools. Subjects were African American, White, and Latino. For twelve types of possible dialect-related pronunciation, error rates in the following finite clause were calculated for correct readings, incorrect readings, and possible errors.

Possible errors involving final consonant clusters showed following error rates similar to correct readings for most readers; but for Latinos who learned to read in Spanish first, they behaved like true errors. For the copula and irregular past tense items, possible errors behaved like incorrect readings for all groups.

The likelihood that a possible error was a dialect pronunciation and not a reading error was compared with the frequency of the same form in spontaneous speech. For verbal {s}, the r-correlation was 0.855: the more often the verbal {s} was omitted in speech, the more likely that an omission in reading was actually a correct reading. The r-correlation for possessive {s} was ≠0.734. The difference can be linked to the semantic information conveyed by the two inflections.

The following report is an answer to the question posed in the title, based on the results of a study of the errors made by 579 struggling readers in inner city schools in Philadelphia and California.[1] The discussion will provide evidence to support a general answer to the question of how to define a reading error and a method for determining the answer in any specific case. It will also demonstrate differences in the profiles of reading errors of different groups who come to the task of reading English with different dialects and language backgrounds. The focus of the research is to discover the most efficient way of improving decoding skills for speakers of non-standard dialects of English and other languages. An essential step in this program is to distinguish readersπ systematic differences in pronunciation or grammar from errors in decoding the meaning of the printed text.

Semantic shadows of reading errors

In the first few years of the acquisition of literacy, the main channel for appraising the a readerπs progress is oral rather than silent reading. As the reader produces successive words and phrases, the teacherπs first responsibility is to detect reading errors from the oral channel. This channel carries information about the readerπs ability to decode the printed text -- information coded in the spoken format that is the output of the readerπs phonetics, phonology and morphology. This output is related to the text in a complex way, as a set of a one-to-many and many-to-one relations. Many different spellings are pronounced in the same way, and what first seems to be a correct reading may have been the selection of an irrelevant homonym: Thus (1) may bemight be accepted by the teacher as a correct reading

(1) Text: The sun came up.

Reading: The sun son came up

.

But if the sequence in (1) were followed by additional information, as shown in (2) follows, the teacher will would realize that the child hads selected a wrong homonym, son for sun.

(2) Text: The sun came up; it was going to be a hot day.

Reading: The son came up; he was going to be hot.

A reading error can be defined as the selection of the wrong word in a printed textãthat is, not the word intended by the writer of the text. A question of some importance is how broadly such differences incorrect selections affect the over-all interpretation of the text. As readers improve in fluency, the number of errors in function words may rise in an innocuous manner, since, for example, the substitution of the indefinite for the definite article rarely affects the broader interpretation of meaning in a detectable manner. In the course of this report, we will develop a generalized method for tracing the semantic consequences of a possible reading error.

The reading error åsonπ for sun need not have produced an error in the following text that followed in (2), and the readerπs misunderstanding might have been hidden until some later over-all assessment of comprehension was made. However, we can argue that a true reading error raises the probability of an error in the following text. The reading error can be said to cast a semantic shadow over the following text. We will use the term semantic shadow as a technical term in the analysis, and, in the course of the report, develop a generalized method for deciding what is a reading error by measuring the semantic shadows cast by the potential error.

The determination of what is a reading error is an essential step in measuring readersπ progress in mastering alphabetic relations. A comparison of the reading patterns of different groups cannot be made accurately without a satisfactory answer to this question. It has an equal and obvious importance for the construction of methods of intervention. Efforts to improve reading should plainly be concentrated on the types of words and constructions where errors in deciphering the text are maximal.

Potential errors and clear errors

We can begin by examining some actual cases of potential reading errors, drawn from the diagnostic reading test used by the Urban Minorities Reading Project [UMRP]. The reading text incorporates the full range of orthographic and linguistic structures that have been shown to create decoding problems for beginning readers (Labov et al, 1998) in order to create a profile of the readerπs knowledge of complex alphabetic relations. The full text of the reading, ≥Ray and His Cat Come Back≤ [RCCB] is given in Appendix A.

Tutors administering the test are instructed to write down any deviation from the standard full pronunciation of the printed text, whether or not they believe it is a reading error.[2] Since we do not know in advance of analysis whether such a deviation is a reading error, we will refer to any notation written by the tutor that is not obviously a failure to identify the intended word as a potential error rather than an error. An example of a clear error can be seen in (3) below.

(3) Reader: Tyreke J., 8 years old, 3^rd grade, African- American, Philadelphia.

Text: My blood began to boil.

Reading: My boat began to bill.

The reading blood => boat for blood in (3) is a clear error and so is boil => bill for boil. In both cases initial and final consonants are read correctly; the errors concern the initial cluster and the vowel pairs oo and oi. The second error bill for=> boil is in the semantic shadow of the first error. It seems clear that if blood were correctly decoded, and the reader knew the idiom involved, there would have been a higher likelihood of a correct reading of boil. In what follows, we will produce evidence to justify that inference.

Examples (4) and (5), are cases of potential errors.

(4) Reader: Filores J., 8 years old, 3^rd grade, African- American, Philadelphia.

Text: I played it cool and took a sip of my coke.

Reading: I play it cool and took a sip of my coke.

The potential error played=>play for played in (4) is a common type of error found in our data and has a number of possible explanations. It may be a failure to decipher the past tense signal ≠ed, and indeed such readings of past tense forms as present tense are extremely frequent. On the other hand, it may represent a phonological deletion of the final /d/, though this is not as common for single consonants as in played as compared to consonant clusters in words like served. In any case, this potential error does not cast a strong semantic shadow: none of the ten words that follow the reading play are misread, and it therefore seems likely that the reader understood the sentence. The likelihood that the past tense meaning was understood is increased by the fact that took, the past tense form of take is preserved in (4).

(5) Reader: Raheem G., 11, 4^th grade, Latino who learned to read in English first, Philadelphia.

Text: His teeth are as sharp as the edge of my knife.

Reading: His teef are as sharp as the edge of my knee.

The potential error teeth=>teef for teeth in (5) incorporates a well known dialect feature of African American Vernacular English [AAVE]: the realization of syllable final ≠th as final ≠f (Labov et al, 1968; Rickford, 1999). Members of the Philadelphia Latino community who have intimate contacts with the black community share many of these features (Poplack, 1978). It is probable that the reader understood the second word as åteeth.π Yet, there remains a certain amount of doubt, since the reader may have decoded teeth as /tiyf/ but not made a firm connection with the meaning åteeth.π In the semantic shadow of this potential error there is a clear reading error, knife=>knee for knife, which we suggest would be less likely if åteethπ had been understood. The question remains, was this second reading error influenced in any way by the initial deviation?

An eight-year old student in the second grade read a sentence with three errors recorded as in (6) [dk = ådonπt knowπ]:

(6) Reader: Maleek N., 8, 2^nd grade, African-American, Philadelphia

Text: I told you all about Ray and his bad cat

Reading: I tolπ you all about [dk] and has bad cat.

At first glance, it seems that the reading tolπ is a phonological deletion, not a misunderstanding of told as toll. On the other hand, it is still possible that it represents an incomplete effort at decoding told and that the reader has not arrived at the meaning of åinform someone in the past.π The likelihood that this is so is increased by two following errors on words that are relatively easy to decode, the proper name Ray and the function word his. In (6) there are two clear errors realized in the semantic shadow cast by the potential reading error tolπ.

Potential error types

Homonym pairs like son/sun create a problem for the teacher more than for the reader, since these words are homophones but not homographs. The problem is shared equally by reader and teacher for homograph/homophones like ring åsurround/sound outπ, cool ånot warm/admirableπ, and tire åauto tire/fatigue.π The main problem that we will confront here is the result of variations in the pronunciation of a given spelling that creates new homophones. The simplification of final consonant clusters (Labov 1966, 1972; Guy 1980) is a process that affects the speech of all users of English, though it occurs with higher frequency in non-standard dialects. Speakers of nonstandard and standard dialects generally show the same patterns of simplification, but at different frequencies.

Thus for all speakers, the final cluster of find is frequently reduced so that it is pronounced like fine. The range of such reductions are indicated in (67):

(67) find ‡ /fayn/ = fine

told ‡ /towl/ = toll

mist ‡ /mis/ = miss

rift ‡ /rif/ = riff

The same process affects the clusters formed by the regular past tense ≠ed suffix, though at a lower frequency:

(78) dined ‡ /dayn/ = dine

rolled ‡ /rowl/ = roll, role

missed ‡ /mis/ = miss

laughed ‡ /lÊf/ = laugh

The potential loss of meaning of the reductions in (78) is the same for all itemsãthe loss of the past tense meaning.[3]

Consonant cluster simplification occurs primarily with final clusters that have the same voicing throughout : / -nd, -lb, -ld, -st, -ft, -pt, -kt, -vd,/ etc. It Simplification is much less common with clusters that have different voicing, where the first consonant is voiced and the second voiceless, as in /-kt, -nt, -mp, -lk, nk/. In this report, will be concerned with the first type, which are commonly referred to as homovoiced clusters.

Since the question of dialect effectsimpact on reading comprehension was first raised, it has generally been generally agreed that it is important to distinguish reading errors from differences in pronunciation (Goodman, 1965; Labov, 1965). However, it has not been generally pointed outrecognized that these dialect differences are potential errors. When a reader says /fayn/ for find, we may be dealing with a colloquial pronunciation of the right word, or a misreading that has identified the wrong word, fine.

Though consonant cluster simplification occurs in all spoken dialects, the higher frequencies in non-standard dialects, particularly AAVE, made this a particularly important issue for efforts to raise reading levels in inner city, low-economic income areas. TAccordingly, the Urban Minorities Reading ProjectUMRP made this variableconsonant cluster simplification a central focus in testing as well as in intervention methods. The RCCB text used as a reading diagnostic contains the following words with homovoiced clusters:

(89) told, old, find, kind, around, worst, thirst, spend, stand, hand, ground, last, risk

Reading errors, clear and potential, were entered by hand by tutors in the field and later checked against audio recordings of the test procedures. All items were then entered into a computer program [RX] (Labov, 2000), which automatically analyzes automatically the orthographic structures responsible for errors, and constructs reading error profiles that reflect the readerπs knowledge of alphabetic relations for each type of onset, nucleus and syllable coda, as well as the various grammatical suffixes involved.

Dialect types

A dialect type is defined as a phonological or grammatical feature that varies with a readerπs language background. Twelve dialect types were identified in the text:

a. words with final homovoiced consonant clusters in the base form: 13 items

b. words with final homovoiced clusters formed by addition of the regular past tense suffix ≠ed (sneaked, grabbed, served, jumpedä): 15 items.

c. other ≠ed words with regular past tense suffix ≠ed that does not form a consonant cluster (started, stared, played, tried, poured): 5 items

d. words with the possessive suffix ≠s (Rayπs, catπs, Cindyπs, Mattπs): 4 items

e. words with the contracted copula ås (Hereπs, itπs whatπs, thatπs): 8 items

f. words with the 3^rd singular verbal -s suffix (wants, stays, likes): 3 items

g. words with the plural suffix -s: 5 items

h. irregular past tense forms (gave, flew, didnπt, saidä): 24 items

i. words with initial ch- (chips, chin, chooseä) 5 items

j. words with initial sh- (shame, show, sharp, shake) 4 items

k. the words brought and bought: 2 items

l. the word sneaked

The rationale for dialect types (a-c) are set out above. Types (d-f) are forms of the suffix or clitic ≠s, which are frequently absent in African American Vernacular English [AAVE] (Labov et al, 1968); Labov, 1972b; Wolfram, 1969;, Rickford, 1999; Baugh, 1983;, Weldon, 1994). The grammar of AAVE shows the absence of subject-verb agreement marked by verbal ≠s, the absence of the attributive possessive ≠s, and the variable occurrence of the contracted form of the copula ≠s. Type (g), the plural suffix, is added as a control item for the effect of dialect, since AAVE preserves plural {s}.[4] Type (h) is a similar control item, since AAVE uses irregular past forms consistently, with some lexical deviations from the standard usage.[5]

Dialect types (i-j) relate to potential errors common with Latino readers. It is regularly reported that speakers of English with Spanish language background alternate the palatal affricate and fricatives in choose, chips, shame, etc. (Wald, 1981). The primary tendency is to substitute the sh- form for ch-, but the reverse occurs as well. Therefore, it is an open question as to whether the reading Itπs a chameä represents a reading error or the readerπs pronunciation of the correct word, åshame.π

Studies of Latino English (Wolfram, 1974; Bayley, 1994; Santa Ana, 1992; Fought, 2003) also have noted variation in types (a-h), but with distributions that differ from AAVE. The study of the speech of the UMRP subjects to be givenpresented below will instantiate these differences.

Item (k) bears on the tendency of speakers of AAVE to alternate br- and b- in the two words listed, so that brought may be pronounced with an initial [b] and bought with [br].

Dialect type (j) is added as a second control type. In many American dialects, the word sneaked has a non-standard form snuck, and this form is common among the readers in our sample. It is evident that the reading snuck is not a potential error in the sense defined above, but a correct reading. In order for the reader to produce snuck, he or she must decode sneaked accurately, locate the word that corresponds to the meaning åsneakedπ, and produce the phonological representation that we spell snuck. The semantic shadow produced by snuck should be equal to that cast by the correct reading sneaked; that is, null.

A dialect item is defined as an occurrence of a dialect type as a particular word in the text.

Measuring semantic shadows by with the RX program

The examples of errors and potential errors given above show that no clear resolution of the problem of deciding what is a reading error can be made from the study of individual cases. We are dealing with probabilities, which must be established from the readings of large number of subjects. Such data is available: the RCCB text was used with 579 subjects in the first year of the Urban Minorities Reading ProjectUMRP. The reading deviations and errors noted by tutors were entered into the RX program, which analyzes each such entry according to the orthographic and linguistic features that were decoded correctly, or incorrectly, nor or not at all. The program produces a profile of reading errors showing rates of success in decoding 27 different categories of the onset, nucleus and coda, and the major grammatical suffixes. In order to pursue the question of defining reading errors, additional routines were written into the RX program to perform the following functions:

a. Identify dialect items: mark each dialect item in the text as a site of potential errors according to its dialect type.

b. Measure error span: count the number of words from the dialect item to the end of the clause that marks the completion of the major semantic unit in which the word is interpreted.

c. Classify errors: determine for each occurrence of a dialect item whether it was read with no error, a potential error, or a clear error.

d. Enumerate following errors: count ew the number of clear or potential errors in the error span that follows each dialect item (following errors).

e. Calculate means: obtain the average of following errors for correct readings, potential errors, and clear errors by error type and characteristics of the subject population.

f. Establish significance: calculate chi-square for correct readings vs. clear errors, correct readings vs. potential errors, and potential errors vs. clear errors.

Following error frequencies for correct readings vs. clear errors

Figure 1 shows the mean frequencies of following errors by dialect type for dialect items that were read correctly, and for those items that were not. The difference between frequencies for clear errors and correct readings are significant at the p < .0001 level for all dialect types. There is considerable variation in the frequencies of following errors for these dialect types, especially for those following incorrect readings. It is maximal for the verbal ≠s and possessive ≠s suffixes, and minimal for the regular ≠ed clusters. This suggests that the non-pronunciation of these grammatical suffixes by readers may indeed interfere with the comprehension of texts more than failure to pronounce the final consonants of intact morphemes.[6]

Figure 1. Frequency of following errors for correct and incorrect readings of dialect items for all subjects by phonological or grammatical type [N=579]

Before proceeding to analyze the data, it is necessary to confront the fact that the frequency of the errors following the dialect items can be attributed to two distinct causes. Following errors can be caused by semantic shadows: the consequences of failing to interpret correctly the dialect item. On the other hand, it is self evident that poor readers will make more errors in both cases, and better readers will make fewer errors. The effect of overall decoding skill cannot be separated from the effect of misreading a particular item.

This ambiguity will not affect the results of this analysis, since our purpose is to find a decision procedure for classifying the potential errors. That is, we want to know for any given dialect type whether the semantic shadow resembles that of correct readings (that is, a null effect), like that of the clear errors, or intermediate (significantly different from both).

Figure 2 adds the frequencies of following errors for the items of interest: possible errors. The dashed line generally follows an intermediate position, suggesting that sometimes the potential errors do behave like errors and sometimes they do not. This is not true for four of the twelve dialect items. Misreadings of irregular past tense forms show the same semantic shadow as clear errors by exchanging these fricatives. On the other hand, readings of words with initial digraphs ch- and sh- by exchanging these fricatives behave like correct readings, indicating that these pronunciations are innocuous to the reading process.

Figure 2. Frequency of following errors for correct readings, potential errors and clear errors in readings of dialect items for all subjects by phonological or grammatical type (N=579). Empty symbols represent those that are not significantly different by chi-square test.

The intermediate position of other dialect items does not necessarily mean that they behave in an intermediate way. We may be dealing with an aggregation of social groups with different approaches to the reading process, depending on their language and dialect backgrounds. The fact that the initial digraphs ch- and sh- behave in such an extreme way for all groups in Figure 2 may be due to the fact that this behavior is concentrated in the Latino groupssubjects, and is rare in others. If a particular potential error is common in some groups, it may be in fact be a correct reading, since it reflects the native pronunciation of those speakers, while it may behave in exactly the opposite way for those whose home language does not include it. Thus the absence of -s in knows may not reflect the failure to recognize the meaning of the word on the part of speakers of AAVE, while it that may do so forbe the case for Euro-American readers.

Looking more closely at Figure 2, one can see that the {ed} suffix frequencies of p;otential errors are closer to those of correct readings than to the error line. The level of following errors for potential copula errors, on the other hand, is very close to the level for clear errors, even though it is significantly different from that level. Finally, the br- type behaves almost exactly like ch- and sh-, indicating that the exchange of brought and bought is most likely to be a fluctuation of pronunciation rather than a

misreading.

The control item sneaked/snuck can now be examined in the light of this differential behavior of potential errors. The oral reading snuck can only be the result of a correct understanding of the meaning of sneaked and a translation into the alternate form. There were 11 occurrences of snuck for sneaked in the data base we have been examining. The total span for following errors was 110, and in this span, 9 other errors occurred. The frequency of following errors is .08, not significantly different from the .06 figure for other correct readings, and significantly different from the level for true errors at .13 (chi-square = 17.8, p < .00001). The case of sneaked/snuck therefore confirms the logic of the analysis for the more problematic cases.

Differentiation in reading patterns by ethnicity and language

The major goal of the UMRP project is to determine whether differences in the home language of children is are associated with differences in patterns of reading acquisition, and if so, to determine how these differences can be used to raise reading levels. The analysis to follow shows how the examination of reading errors through their semantic shadows contributes to this goal.

Four ethnic/language groups formed the subject pool for the UMRP study: African- Americans, Euro-Americans, Latinos who had learned to read in English first, and Latinos who had learned to read in Spanish first. Subjects were drawn from low-income schools in Philadelphia and in California.[7] There were sizeable regional differences in reading levels, and this report will therefore present data on eight groups: four ethnic/language groups from Philadelphia and four from California.

Figure 3 presents the same data as in Figure 2, for two groups of California subjects: 79 African Americans, and 83 Latino subjects who had learned to read in Spanish first. The latter is the group with the strongest Spanish language influence of the Spanish language; many of these subjects were born in Mexico and were strongly dominant in Spanish.

Figure 3. Frequency of following errors for correct readings, potential errors and clear errors in readings of dialect items for California subjects. AC = African American [N=79]. SC = Latino subjects who learned to read in Spanish first (N=83)

The frequencies of following errors are quite similar for correct readings for the two groups, and for clear errors as well. For the first seven dialect items, the values for correct readings are almost identical. A much wider range of variation is seen for the potential errors. This is partly the result of sample size: the pool of tokens of potential errors is much smaller than that for correct and clear errors. But sample size does not account for the opposing patterns of the potential errors for the two groups.

Following the course of the dashed lines, from left to right, one can see that for both African Americans (gray squares) and Latinos (gray circles) behave as if past tense and copula errors behave as if they were true errors. Verbal {s} is intermediate for both. But possessive {s} is treatedbehaves in a radically different manner by in the two groups. For Latinos, omission of the possessive in reading leads to the same low level of following errors as correct readings; for African Americans the level is quite high. The situation reverses with the plural, which behaves like clear errors for Latinos, but like correct readings for African- Americans.

The next three dialect items show an extreme opposition of the two groups. Consonant clusters, {ed} clusters, and other {ed} types are at the level of clear errors for the Latinos, and at the level of correct readings for African Americans. Figure 3 confirms other indications that African- Americans, like most native speakers of English, have the underlying forms of these words that are present in their cognitive representations, even if they do not articulate the full form in speech. However, Latinos who have learned to read in Spanish first do not appear to have control of the same underlying forms. When they pronounce find as /fayn/, it is less likely to be a token of the underlying form /faynd/. The same situation applies to the forms that incorporate the regular suffix {ed}, sometimes to form a consonant cluster (served), and sometimes to form a one-consonant coda (played), and sometimes to form a separate syllable with an epenthetic vowel (started).

Finally, the last two dialect types show clear identification of potential errors with correct readings. Both groups have data for br-; there is data for ch- only from Latinos. It is evident, on the whole, that these are features of pronunciation and not reading errors.

The conclusions to be drawn from the study of following error frequencies do not bear upon any individual utterance. For most dialect types, the data is not large enough to give a decisive answer for any individual. The information drawn from Figure 3 applies to groups of struggling readers with a common dialect or language background, information that can serve as a basis for instructional methods and a pedagogical focus.

For each language/ethnic group, a dialect item can be classified as equivalent to a correct response (C), equivalent to a wrong response (W), or intermediate (I). These classifications are entered into Table 1. If no potential errors of this type were made by the group, the cell is left blank. If the number of potential errors was less than 5, the classification is entered in parentheses. If the chi-square value for following errors for the dialect type was significantly different from the opposing classification at the .01 level, but not significantly different from the given classification, an asterisk is added. These are the entries to be weighted most heavily in our interpretation of the results.

The areas of strongest group differences are shown in black outline. At left, the potential errors with verbal {s} (reading stay for stays) are clearly equivalent to a wrong reading for the groups with a strong Spanish background and for the wWhites from Philadelphia. It is intermediate for African Americans and for Latinos from Philadelphia who learned to read in Spanish first. These readers have no verbal {s} marker in their underlying systems. For them, the omission of verbal {s} in reading is equivalent to their normal production of this form, just as snuck reflects the correct reading of snuckedsneaked. For the others, there is a strong suggestion that failure to pronounce the {s} in oral reading reflects a difficulty in identifying the verb and its meaning.

The four following columns reflect the pattern shown in Figure 3. For the group with the strongest Spanish influence, the Latinos from California who learned to read in Spanish first, omission of the final consonant, the {ed}, or the plural is equivalent to reading the word wrong. In the case of root clusters, but not {ed}, this is also true for Latinos from Philadelphia who learned to read in Spanish first, but not for {ed}. For all other groups, no cells appear where this potential error is significantly identified with a wrong reading. For African Americans, the predominant pattern is clear identification with a correct reading. Both groups of Latinos who learned to read in English first show intermediate or non-significant alignment with correct readings.

The following column, for potential errors with possessive {s}, again differentiates Latinos from others. For whites Whites and African Americans, omission of the possessive {s} is equivalent to a wrong reading. (Numbers of such items for whites Whites from California were too small to be significant). This is not the case with Latinos who learned to read in English readers[8].

No strong group differences emerge from the final five columns, but rather there is a consensus for all groups. It seems quite clear that omission of the contracted copula {s} is equivalent to a wrong reading for all groups, and the same is true for the use of present for irregular past. The reverse is true for the three right hand columns. There is no indication that these readings are equivalent to wrong readings, and for most groups, they are aligned with the following error frequencies for correct readings.

Table 1. Identification of error status by language/ethnic group and dialect type

• = percent following errors significantly different from the opposing status. (E) = learned to read in English first. (S) = learned to read in Spanish first.

Verbal {s}

_CC1

KKL {ed}

Oth {ed}

Plur {s}

Pos {s}

Cop-ula

Irreg past

br-

ch-

sh-

AA: Cal

I

C*

C

C*

I

W*

W*

W

C*

AA: Phila

I

C*

C*

I

I

W*

W*

I

C*

White: Cal

(W)

C

C

(W)

W*

W

I

White: Phila

W*

I

C*

I

I

W*

W*

W*

C*

Latino(E): Cal

W*

I

I

W

I

W

W*

W*

I

C*