A CORPUS-BASED ANALYSIS OF LEXICAL VERBS IN L2 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING WRITING

Radina Mohamad Deli¹⁺ --- Chuah Kee Man² --- Nur Tahirah Razali³

^1,2,3Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia.

Keywords:Corpus, Lexical verbs, Verb forms, Professional engineering writing

ARTICLE HISTORY: Received:3 April 2019 Revised:6 May 2019 Accepted:13 June 2019 Published:28 August 2019.

Contribution/ Originality:This study is one of the very few studies that have investigated L2 professional engineering writing with a focus on lexical verbs using the corpus methodology.

1. INTRODUCTION

Over the last few decades, corpus-based research on professional discourse has been widespread due to the advancement of corpus technology and heightened interest in the language of professionalism. Business, engineering and legal communication, among others have been sparking interest because of the ever-increasing importance of these fields in today’s world and the accompanying crucial communication transactions taking place in the professional setting. On a large scale, a number of corpora have been progressively developed to represent professional English in general such as the PERC Professional English Research Consortium (2008-2016) with a total of 17-million words gathered from academic journal texts from various fields, and the Cambridge Business English Corpus, a huge 200-million word collection of British and American business language both in spoken and written forms. For the engineering field, a few language corpora have been built and amongst the most notable and comprehensive are the Hong Kong Engineering Corpus (Cheng, 2010) and the Hong Kong Corpus of Surveying and Construction Engineering (HKCSCE). These are examples of extensive corpora dealing with written Engineering English as used by professionals. The former is a massive collection of texts from Hong Kong’s engineering sector with a total of 9,224,384 words while the latter is one of its many subs that focus on surveying and construction engineering texts which comprises 5,707,871 words. These were mainly developed to empower professionals-in-training to be familiar with the kinds of writing used in the industry. A more specific instance of a professional language corpus containing a considerably smaller number of words of 400,000 would be the Guangzhou Petroleum English Corpus or GPEC (Qi-bo, 1989) which was created to investigate the features of petroleum English as used in Guangzhou. In the Malaysian context, at least one professional engineering corpus has been developed namely the Corpus of Engineering Written Industrial Communication or the COREWIC (Manvender et al., 2012) which compiled engineering work procedures from three Malaysian companies in the petroleum industry totalling 65, 612 words.

Comparatively, more corpus-based research has been done on academic engineering language involving textbooks or reference books (see (Mudraya, 2006; Ng et al., 2013; Shamsudin et al., 2013)) and students’ language production (see (Winder et al., 2017; Radina and Chuah, 2019)). An overarching theme for these research is the need for corpus-mediated language pedagogy and interventions for teaching and learning in engineering studies. This is particularly true in the case of second language education where English is commonly used in teaching the engineering syllabus. The need for such research has largely been prompted by the changing needs of the industry in the 21st century where engineers are expected to be equipped with both technical knowledge and language competence. Having good English communication skills is an important aspect of an engineer’s profession and a deficiency in this aspect “undermines the image of an engineer” (Shikha as cited in Sheth (2015)).

One language skill that is not normally associated with engineering and is often underrated by students in the field is writing. Despite this common notion, writing, however, is a skill that is highly sought after by employers, alongside other communication and soft skills. In fact, professional engineers are required to produce different kinds of writing including project proposals, writing emails, reports, and presentation slides, among others (Rajprasit et al., 2014). Unfortunately, some studies have cited writing as an inadequacy for novice engineers in both English native-speaking countries (Koehne, 1995) and non-native speaking countries (See (Yusoff and Samah, 2013; Rajprasit et al., 2014)).

Unlike the huge amount of interest shown towards corpus research on academic engineering writing, the attention given to professional writing has remained minimal. Several studies examined passives and objectivity in workplace engineering texts (McKenna, 1997; Ding, 2001; Conrad and Pfeiffer, 2011; Conrad, 2018) but were conducted mainly within the monolingual English context. Conrad (2018) in particular explored the passivity and impersonal style of writing by students and practitioners in the civil engineering field. Practitioner reports, journal articles and student reports were analyzed and compared using the multimodal analysis approach. Results showed a high occurrence for passives used in the three types of writing. Aside from the focus on passive structures, the number of studies looking into workplace or professional engineering writing has been minimal. Furthermore, investigations on language features of professional engineering writing in the context of English as second language have been very limited. In one particular study, Manvender et al. (2012) used various computer-assisted corpus analyses (CACA) including move analysis, sentence level linguistic structural analysis as well as verb form analysis to investigate their COREWIC corpus to demonstrate how these can aid researchers in conducting descriptive linguistic analyses.

One important aspect in technical writing is verb choice which typically involve the selection of certain lexical verbs over others (see Last (2019)). Despite its importance, lexical verbs have remained an underexplored linguistic element in studies involving engineering texts that are either academic or professional in nature. Lexical verbs refer to main verbs that typically express action, state, and in academic writing, they are mainly responsible for helping to convey some major functions in academic discourse like explaining cause and effects, contrasting and summarising (Granger and Paquot, 2009). Consequently, the lack of knowledge of English Academic Purpose (EAP) verbs is seen as a serious limitation for learners that hinders the expression of thought in all their nuances and expected style (Granger and Paquot, 2009). The same, thus, can be said about the use of lexical verbs for professional or technical purposes. In fact, the choice of verbs may be more crucial in workplace writing as it often involve real-life circumstances, for example communicating specific, clear and accurate information to clients, and maintaining business relationships. 

Therefore, this study aims to examine the use of English verbs in the L2 writing of professional engineers. The objectives are as follows:

1) To identify frequently used lexical verbs in written engineering texts,
2) Determine whether these frequent verbs are highly relevant for engineering, and
3) Determine whether the verbs are technical or non-technical in nature.

2. METHODOLOGY

A total of 20 sets of texts written by professional engineers within the fields of mechanical, electrical and electronic engineering were collected as part of an ongoing corpus project involving writings by Malaysian student and professional engineers in specific engineering fields. These scripts comprised of memos, official reports, and unofficial ‘pass down’ instructions. The ‘pass down’ instructions are work instructions written by engineers for their peers during work shift handover. These written texts were contributed by non-native English speaking Malaysian engineers who are currently working for various Malaysian-based local and overseas companies. The texts which are either in word or PDF format were converted to plain text for annotation. In order to protect privacy and confidentiality, names of individuals and companies were removed and replaced with initials. Some abbreviations, formulae, as well as complex and repetitive numbers were also eliminated to avoid complexities in the analysis. The data was annotated using the CLAWS4 software part-of-speech (POS) tagger. The POS-tagging for the lexical verbs are shown in Table 1.

Table-1. List of tagging for lexical verb forms.

Using the Word List tool in AntConc 3.5.7 software, frequencies of the lexical verbs by verb forms in total was calculated. In addition, lists of the most frequent lexical verbs in each verb form were generated using the Cluster/n-gram tool. The top 5 lexical verbs for each form were then discussed in detail with the help of the Concordance tool that produces collocation lines for words. The frequent verbs will then be compared to an existing word list namely the Academic Keyword List (Paquot, 2010) and the Hong Kong Engineering Corpus (HKEC) (Cheng, 2010). The former contains potential academic words which are found to be infrequent in other kinds of texts, and thus may be used to refer to activities characteristic of academic words. The HKEC, on the other hand, comprises a massive collection of texts from Hong Kong’s engineering sector with a total of 9,224,384 words. Finally, the verbs that figured prominently within the study’s corpus as well as the HKEC will then be characterised based on a measure or degree of ‘technicalness’ (Nation as cited in Menon and Mukundan (2010)). Cowan (1974) and Nation (2001) proposed similar categorisations of the lexis of science which can be summarized as follows (Menon and Mukundan, 2010):

1. Highly technical words – these are words which appear rarely outside its particular field such as ‘epithelial’ and ‘chromosome’ in the science and medical fields.
2. Sub-technical words – these are ‘context independent’ words (Cowan, 1974) which occur with high frequency across disciplines but the majority of their uses with a specific meaning are related to this field. The specialized meaning it has in this field is readily understood outside the field, such as the word ‘memory’ in the computing field (Nation, 2001).
3. Semi-technical words – these are words which have one or more general English language meanings and which in technical contexts take on extended meanings.
4. Non-technical words – these are words which are common and have little specialization of meaning, for example ‘hospital’ and ‘judge’.

3. RESULTS AND FINDINGS

The frequency analysis done on the corpus revealed that it contained a total of 47985 tokens and 3214 word types. Based on verb form analysis, there was a total of 2436 lexical verbs found in the corpus. All six verb forms were used in the practitioners’ writing and Table 2 shows the frequency of each verb form. The verb form with the highest number of occurrences is the base form with 811 counts whilst the form with the lowest occurrence is the singular simple present tense with 134 verbs.

Table-2. Frequency of lexical verb forms.

In the present study, verbs in the base form were not used predominantly following a subject in active sentences such as in ‘the machines check for errors’. Instead, the base form was mainly used in the imperative form suggestive of language used for instruction as evidenced in the following sentence ‘Check if the structure is intact’. The prevalence of the base form as used in the imperative came from the pass down instructions written by engineers to their peers or subordinates which made up about 40% of the texts collected.
The frequency of the base form at 811 is comparatively higher than that of the past participle, the second most common verb form with only 572 occurrences. This finding is not in line with the findings of Manvender et al. (2012) in which the past participle was found to be highest in their COREWIC corpus containing engineering work procedures. In addition, although other studies on workplace engineering texts did not directly quantify and compare verb forms, the use of passive structures has also been shown to be prevalent which would naturally be reflected through the use of the past participle (e.g. (McKenna, 1997; Ding, 2001)). Nevertheless, in one study done by Conrad (2018) which compared student and practitioner writing in civil engineering, although the use of passives was predominant in general, it was found to be higher in the academic setting.

The most infrequent verb form found in the texts is the simple present singular ‘-s’ form with 134 counts. As expected, the use of this verb form may correlate with the use of the active structure which has been found to be uncommon in professional engineering writing. In one corpus study of academic writing involving undergraduates’ essay writings in the argumentative genre, the use of the singular ‘-s’ form was found to be predominant to reflect writer’s attitude and voice when making arguments (Kanestion et al., 2016). Thus, it can be assumed that the infrequent use of the ‘-s’ singular verb form may correlate with the style of writing commonly employed in workplace engineering writing which is often claimed to be objective or impersonal (see (Ding, 2001; Conrad, 2018)). Table 3 shows the top five verbs for each verb form. The verbs refer, check, use, proceed and make were ranked in the top five for the base form. As shown in Table 4, the verb refer, was used typically in reference to appendix, tables and images which is very characteristic of workplace writing especially for the purpose of giving instructions to work colleagues as well as for aiding customers or clients in their reading. The word check and proceed were used mainly for instructing engineers in task execution as exemplified in Table 5 and 6. The verb use similarly served this function. Use and proceed are both listed in the top 200 words of the HKEC signifying their importance in work-related texts. The verbs refer and check, however, were found to have low occurrences in the HKEC. The two words, nonetheless, were found to be significant in instruction-based texts found in the current study. Finally, make which is a general verb commonly used in general English was shown to appear frequently as the phrasal verb make sure as seen in Table 7. This verb, however, is not listed as frequent in the HKEC. A synonym of ensure, the top most occuring verb in the infinitive form, the phrase make sure serves the function of instructing and emphasizing on engineering-related tasks.Out of the five verbs, only refer and use are listed in the AKL and are often shown to be characteristic of academic writing.

Table-3. Top five verbs in each verb form based on frequency.

Table-4. Collocations lines for refer.

Table-5. Collocations lines for check.

Table-6. Collocations lines for proceed.

Table-7. Collocations lines for make.

One interesting thing to note is the predominance of the verb use in the practitioners’ writing which appeared in the top five list for four verb forms: ranked fifth for the infinitive form (VVI), third for base form (VVO) and the past participle (VVN), and first for the ‘-ing’ form (VVG). Table 8 shows the collocations for the verb use in the four verb forms. In line with this finding, the verbs used, use, and using are ranked in the top 200 word list for the HKEC. This word list, however, consisted of all parts of speech, and was not analysed and computed based on verb form. This means that the total count of the word used for instance may also include the adjectival form of the word, while the count for use may include both the noun and verb forms of the word. Nonetheless, the finding from this small corpus can be taken as evidence to show the relevance of the verb use in professional engineering writing especially for the purpose of explaining that something such as a tool or a skill is being utilized for a particular task or purpose.

Table-8. Collocations lines for use, used, using and to use.

The top five verbs for the past participle form are required, followed by based, used, released and shown. The verb required is often used to explain the need for something when executing certain tasks as in sentences 3 and 4 in Table 9. It was also used to indicate a necessity to follow a particular rule as in examples 1 and 2. The verb required is ranked at number 98 in the HKEC’s top 200 word list which shows the importance of this verb in authentic engineering writing. As for the verb based which commonly collocates with the preposition on as shown in Table 10, it was used mainly to illustrate that certain objects or processes are the basis for running other processes or doing certain actions as in 3 and 4. It was also used to explain how or why something comes to be as in 1 and 2. In the HKEC, based was not listed in the top 200 but figured prominently with 5000 occurrences and therefore will be considered as a verb with high relevance in professional engineering writing. The verb released is ranked fourth and was mainly used in the context of indicating that relevant machines and tools have undergone and passed certain procedures, and thus allowed to operate as before as illustrated in sentence 2 and 3 of Table 11. Finally, for the word shown, ranked fifth, it was commonly used with reference to a type of graphic as seen in sentences 1 and 2 in Table 12. Released and shown, however, are not listed in the top 200 list in the HKEC. In the academic domain, all the verbs except released are commonly used in academic writing and are listed as part of the AKL.

Table-9. Collocation lines for required.

Table-10. Collocation lines for based.

Table-11. Collocation lines for released.

Table-12. Collocation lines for shown.

For the infinitive form, the four most used verbs are to ensure, to include, to check and to provide, followed by to use which is ranked fifth in frequency. Based on the collocation results as shown in Table 13, these words were used to indicate task purpose and in certain circumstances to specify ‘precautionary’ measures normally taken by engineers when executing tasks. Out of the four verbs, only provide is listed in the top 200 of the HKEC word list. Since the three other words did not appear in the top 200 word-list, a frequency check was done through the HKEC search page. Ensure and include have a frequency of more than 4000 respectively and can be considered as frequent since words in HKEC that are ranked 177 to 200 also have a range between 4000 to 5000. Check can be considered less frequent since it only appeared in the writings approximately 2000 times. Additionally, all these verbs are listed as academic verbs in the AKL except for check.

Table-13. Collocation lines for ensure, include, check and provide.

For the ‘-ing’ participle verb form, using, causing, running, shaking and following are in the top five. While some verbs are used in the present continuous form as in sentences 2, 3 and 4 for running in Table 14, for others, the root verbs, are conjugated with ‘-ing’ to form a gerund instead as shown in sentence 1 ‘Running the genset…’ in the same table. Gerunds function as nouns and can in certain circumstances serve as a subject. The verb causing in particular was used mostly in a clausal manner to explain the effect or results of other simultaneous actions indicative of the explanatory nature of engineering texts as seen in Table 14, while running explains whether something, usually equipment, is working. Table 15 shows that shaking is a specific verb used to indicate the condition of machines or tools that go up and down or side to side rapidly and continuously. Finally, following as shown in the collocation lines in Table 16 served mostly as a gerund to explain something is done with reference to something else. Out of the five commonly occurring verbs, however, only using and following figured prominently in the HKEC. As for the AKL, only the verb lemmas use and cause are included.

Table-14. Collocation lines for causing and running.

Table-15. Collocation lines for shaking.

Table-16. Collocation lines for following.

Table-17. Collocation lines for found, closed, failed and passed.

As for the past tense form, found had the highest occurrence, followed by closed, failed, passed and forecasted. Found and failed were mainly used to indicate a problem or issue which occurred during task execution, while closed and passed are specific verbs used mainly in the pass down instructions to indicatethat a case, procedure or problem have been solved. Collocation lines for these verbs are shown in Table 17. As for the verb forecasted, it was commonly used for reviewing calculations of certain units relevant to engineering as shown in Table 18. All five verbs had low occurrences in the HKEC word list with forecasted ranked lowest amongst the five appearing only 10 times in the corpus. Of the five verbs, however, only the verb lemma fail is listed as an academic verb in the AKL.

Table-18. Collocation lines for forecasted.

Finally, for the least occurring verb form, which is the singular simple present tense, five verbs that were found to be most common are shows, increases, needs, moves, and depends. Shows which had a frequency of 14 were typically used to relate the discourse to a visual such as in sentences 1 and 4 in Table 19. It was also used in relation to or to explain numbers and figures as in sentences 2 and 3. Similarly, increases have a numeric function as shown in Table 20. Table 21 shows that the verb needs refer to the action of requiring something in task execution. Table 22 shows how the verb moves was used to indicate change or progress such as in sentences 1 and 2, as well as physical movement such as in sentences 3 and 4. Finally, for depends, which is characteristically followed by the preposition on was usedto illustrate reliance of a condition or a process on something as illustrated in Table 23. Despite seemingly being important in the writings of engineers in this particular study for their explanatory functions, the five lexical verbs were not listed in the top 200 in the HKEC list, and were found to have low frequencies. In the academic domain, however, show and increase have been found to be prevalent.

Table-19. Collocation lines for shows.

Table-20. Collocation lines for increases.

Table-21. Collocation lines for needs.

Tabl-22. Collocation lines for moves.

Table-23. Collocation lines for depends.

For this study, lexical verbs that are highly relevant for the engineering field refer to verbs with high frequency within the corpus and within the HKEC list. Of all the 30 lexical verbs, only eleven verbs can be considered as highly relevant for engineering. They are use, proceed, required, based, used, to ensure, to include, to provide, to use, following and using. Table 24 shows the lexical verbs that are highly relevant to engineering as well as those that show an overlap with the academic vocabulary in the AKL. Based on Cowan (1974) and Nation (2001) categorisations, none of the eleven highly relevant verbs can be considered as technical, sub-technical or semi-technical. These verbs, therefore, are non-technical verbs as they were used in the general sense without specialised meaning when used in the context of the present study.

Table-24. Distribution of top 5 lexical verbs in each form between the HKEC, AKL and relevance for engineering.

Evidently, ten out of eleven English lexical verbs also figured prominently in the AKL causing an overlap between the two. This is an important finding because this shows that academic verbs that are considered crucial for tertiary learning are in line with those verbs that are commonly used in authentic workplace writing particularly in the context of second language writing. At least, in the case of engineering writing as investigated in this small-scale study. It is important to note, however, the results and findings of the study are limited to a small number of texts from the industry and may not be representative of writing in the field.

4. CONCLUSION

In the present study, the most common form of lexical verb found in professional engineering writing is the base form while the third person singular present verb form was the least occurring form. The prevalence of the base form was reflective of the extensive use of imperatives for ‘pass down’ instructions while the low usage of the singular form may correlate with the infrequent use of active forms. In many studies of workplace engineering texts, it is not uncommon for passivity as signified by the frequent use of the past participle to be the centre of the discussion. As revealed by this small corpus, although the past participle was not at the top of the list, it was ranked second in occurrence. Lexical verbs that figured prominently in the texts include refer, check, shown, required, based and ensure among others. One lexical verb worthy of mention is use in four of its forms namely the base form, the infinitive, the past tense and the continuous ‘-ing’ tense. More importantly, use, used and using are listed in the top 200 in the HKEC word list which shows their relevance in workplace writing. Of all the 30 lexical verbs in the top 5 for each verb form, only 11 can be considered as highly relevant for engineering. None of these verbs, however, fit the characteristics of technical, semi-technical or sub-technical vocabulary. In fact, they are non-technical verbs that were used in a general context without field-specific or specialised meaning but were highly relevant for engineering writing. Ironically, almost all of these verbs also figured prominently in the AKL list as characteristic of academic vocabulary. What this finding suggests is that academic verbs that are considered crucial for tertiary learning are consistent with those verbs that are used in authentic workplace writing especially in the context of second language writing. It is hoped that this study can aid students, teachers and novice practitioners in their choice of vocabulary particularly verbs for the written discourse of academic or professional engineering.

REFERENCES

Cheng, W., 2010. Hong Kong engineering corpus: Empowering professionals-in-training to learn the language of their profession. In M. C. Campoy-Cubillo, B. Bellés-Fortuño, & M. L. Gea-Valor (Eds.), Corpus-Based approaches to English language teaching. London & New York: Continuum. pp: 67-78.

Conrad, S., 2018. The use of passives and impersonal style in civil engineering writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 32(1): 38-76.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651917729864.

Conrad, S. and T.J. Pfeiffer, 2011. Preliminary analysis of student and workplace writing in civil engineering. Paper Presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC.

Cowan, J.R., 1974. Lexical and syntactic research for the design of EFL reading materials. TESOL Quarterly, 8(4): 389-399.Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/3585470.

Ding, D., 2001. Object-centered—how engineering writing embodies objects: A study of four engineering documents. Technical Communication, 48(3): 297-308.

Granger, S. and M. Paquot, 2009. Lexical verbs in academic discourse: A corpus-driven study of learner use. In Charles, M., Pecorari D., and Hunston S., Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse. London and New York: Continuum. pp: 193-214.

Kanestion, A., M.K.S. Singh, S. Shamsudin, H. Isam, N. Kaur and G.P. Singh, 2016. Lexical verbs in Malaysian University English test argumentative essays: A corpus-based structural analysis. International Review of Management and Marketing, 6(8S): 13-17.

Koehne, E., 1995. Practitioner and student recommendations for an engineering curriculum. Journal of Engineering Education, 84(3): 241-248.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.1995.tb00173.x.

Last, S., 2019. Technical writing essentials: Introduction to professional communications in the technical fields. Victoria, BC: BCcampus.

Manvender, K., H. Yasmin and S. Shamsudin, 2012. A computer-assisted corpus analysis (CACA) of professional discourse. Sino-US English Teaching, 9(6): 1236-1245.

McKenna, B., 1997. How engineers write: An empirical study of engineering report writing. Applied Linguistics, 18(2): 189-211.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.2.189.

Menon, S. and J. Mukundan, 2010. Analysing collocational patterns of semi-technical words in science textbooks. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 18(2): 241-258.

Mudraya, O., 2006. Engineering English: A lexical frequency instructional model. English for Specific Purposes, 25(2): 235-256.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.05.002.

Nation, I.S.P., 2001. Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ng, Y.J., Y.L. Lee, S.T. Chong, N. Sahiddan, A. Philip, N.H.N. Azmi and M.A.A. Tarmizi, 2013. Development of the engineering technology word list for vocational schools in Malaysia. International Education Research, 1(1): 43 - 59.Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.12735/ier.v1i1p43.

Paquot, M., 2010. Academic vocabulary in learner writing: From extraction to analysis. London & New York: Continuum.

Qi-bo, Z., 1989. A quantitative look at the Guangzhou petroleum English corpus. ICAME Journal, 13: 28–38.

Radina, M.D. and K.M. Chuah, 2019. A preliminary corpus-based investigation of English lexical verbs in L2 professional engineering writing. Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference on  Business, Humanities and Education. Kota Bharu, Malaysia: Academic Inspired Network. pp: 1-11.

Rajprasit, K., P. Pratoomrat, T. Wang, S. Kulsiri and S. Hemchua, 2014. Use of the English language prior to and during employment: Experiences and needs of Thai novice engineers. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 16(1): 27-33.

Shamsudin, S., N. Husin and A.A. Manan, 2013. Exploring fundamental engineering word list for engineering students: A literature review. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70: 1275-1281.Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.187.

Sheth, T.D., 2015. Communication skill: A prerequisite for engineers. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 3(7): 51-54.

Winder, R.V.P., J. MacKinnon, S.Y. Li, B. Lin, C. Heah, L.M. Da Costa and F. Bond, 2017. NTUCLE: Developing a corpus of learner English to provide writing support for engineering students. 4th Workshop on NLP Techniques for Educational Applications (NLPTEA 2017).

Yusoff, M. and S.A.A. Samah, 2013. Exploring the engineering communicative challenges amongst novice engineers. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4): 59-64.