USS Missouri (BB-63) in World War II

Ordered on June 20, 1940,  USS  Missouri  (BB-63) was the fourth ship of the  Iowa-class of battleships.   Overview Nation: United StatesType: BattleshipShipyard: New York Navy YardLaid Down: January 6, 1941Launched: January 29, 1944Commissioned: June 11, 1944Fate: Museum Ship at Pearl Harbor, HI Specifications Displacement: 45,000 tonsLength: 887 ft., 3 in.Beam: 108 ft. 2 in.Draft: 28 ft. 11 in.Speed: 33 knotsComplement: 2,700 men Armament (1944) Guns 9 x 16 in. (406 mm) 50 cal. Mark 7 guns (3 turrets of 3 guns each)20 Ãâ€" 5 in. (127 mm) 38 cal. Mark 12 guns80 x 40 mm 56 cal. anti-aircraft guns49 x 20 mm 70 cal. anti-aircraft guns Design Construction Intended as fast battleships capable of serving as escorts for the new Essex-class aircraft carriers then being designed, the Iowas were longer and faster than the earlier North Carolina and South Dakota-classes. Laid down at the New York Navy Yard on January 6, 1941, work on Missouri proceeded through the early years of World War II. As the importance of aircraft carriers increased, the US Navy shifted its building priorities to those Essex-class ships then under construction. As a result, Missouri was not launched until January 29, 1944. Christened by Margaret Truman, the daughter of then-Senator Harry Truman of Missouri, the ship moved to the fitting out piers for completion. Missouris armament centered on nine Mark 7 16 guns which were mounted in three triple turrets. These were supplemented by 20 5 guns, 80 40mm Bofors anti-aircraft guns, and 49 20mm Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns. Completed by mid-1944, the battleship was commissioned on June 11 with Captain William M. Callaghan in command. It was the last battleship commissioned by the US Navy. Joining the Fleet Steaming out of New York, Missouri completed its sea trials and then conducted battle training in the Chesapeake Bay. This done, the battleship departed Norfolk on November 11, 1944, and, after a stop in San Francisco to be fitted out as fleet flagship, arrived at Pearl Harbor on December 24. Assigned to Vice Admiral Marc Mitschers Task Force 58, Missouri soon departed for Ulithi where it was attached to the screening force for the carrier USS Lexington (CV-16). In February 1945, Missouri sailed with TF58 when it began launching airstrikes against the Japanese home islands. Turning south, the battleship arrived off Iwo Jima where it provided direct fire support for the landings on February 19. Re-assigned to protect USS Yorktown (CV-10), Missouri and TF58 returned to the waters off Japan in early March where the battleship downed four Japanese aircraft. Later that month, Missouri struck at targets on Okinawa in support of Allied operations on the island. While offshore, the ship was struck by a Japanese kamikaze, however, the damage inflicted was largely superficial. Transferred to Admiral William Bull Halseys Third Fleet, Missouri became the admirals flagship on May 18. Japanese Surrender Moving north, the battleship again struck targets on Okinawa before Halseys ships shifted their attention to Kyushu, Japan. Enduring a typhoon, Third Fleet spent June and July hitting targets across Japan, with aircraft striking the Inland Sea and the surface ships bombarding shore targets. With the surrender of Japan, Missouri entered Tokyo Bay with other Allied ships on August 29. Selected to host the surrender ceremony, Allied commanders, led by Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz and General Douglas MacArthur received the Japanese delegation aboard Missouri on September 2, 1945. Postwar With the surrender concluded, Halsey transferred his flag to South Dakota and Missouri was ordered to aid in bringing home American servicemen as part of Operation Magic Carpet. Completing this mission, the ship transited the Panama Canal and took part in Navy Day celebrations in New York where it was boarded by President Harry S. Truman. Following a brief refit in early 1946, the ship undertook a goodwill tour of the Mediterranean before sailing to Rio de Janeiro in August 1947, to bring the Truman family back to the US after the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Hemisphere Peace and Security. Korean War At Trumans personal request, the battleship was not deactivated along with the other Iowa-class ships as a part of the postwar downsizing of the navy. Following a grounding incident in 1950, Missouri was sent to the Far East to aid United Nations troops in Korea. Fulfilling a shore bombardment role, the battleship also aided in screening US carriers in the area. In December 1950, Missouri moved into position to provide naval gunfire support during the evacuation of Hungnam. Returning to the US for a refit in early 1951, it resumed its duties off Korea in October 1952. After five months in the war zone, Missouri sailed for Norfolk. In the summer of 1953, the battleship served as the flagship for the US Naval Academys midshipman training cruise. Sailing to Lisbon and Cherbourg, the voyage was the only time the four Iowa-class battleships cruised together. Reactivation Modernization Upon its return, Missouri was prepared for mothballs and was placed in storage at Bremerton, WA in February 1955. In the 1980s, the ship and its sisters received new life as part of the Reagan Administrations 600-ship navy initiative. Recalled from the reserve fleet, Missouri underwent a massive overhaul which saw the installation of four MK 141 quad cell missile launchers, eight Armored Box Launchers for Tomahawk cruise missiles, and four Phalanx CIWS guns. In addition, the ship was fitted with the latest electronics and combat control systems. The ship was formally recommissioned on May 10, 1986, in San Francisco, CA. Gulf War The next year, it traveled to the Persian Gulf to aid in Operation Earnest Will where it escorted re-flagged Kuwaiti oil tankers through the Straits of Hormuz. After several routine assignments, the ship returned to the Middle East in January 1991 and played an active role in Operation Desert Storm. Arriving in the Persian Gulf on January 3, Missouri joined coalition naval forces. With the beginning of Operation Desert Storm on January 17, the battleship commenced launching Tomahawk cruise missiles at Iraqi targets. Twelve days later, Missouri moved inshore and used its 16 guns to shell an Iraqi command and control facility near the Saudi Arabia-Kuwait border. Over the next several days,  the battleship, along with its sister, USS Wisconsin (BB-64) attacked Iraqi beach defenses as well as targets near Khafji. Moving north on February 23, Missouri continued striking targets ashore as part of the coalition amphibious feint against the Kuwaiti coast.  In the course of the operation, the Iraqis fired two HY-2 Silkworm missiles at the battleship, neither of which found their target. As military operations ashore moved out of range of Missouris guns, the battleship commenced patrolling the northern Persian Gulf. Remaining on station through the armistice of February 28, it finally departed the region on March 21.  Following stops in Australia, Missouri arrived at Pearl Harbor the following month and played a role in the ceremonies honoring the 50th anniversary of the Japanese attack that December. Final Days With the conclusion of the Cold War and the end of the threat posed by the Soviet Union, Missouri was decommissioned at Long Beach, CA on March 31, 1992. Returned to Bremerton, the battleship was struck from the Naval Vessel Register three years later. Though groups in Puget Sound desired to keep Missouri there as a museum ship, the US Navy elected to have the battleship placed in Pearl Harbor where it would serve as a symbol of the end of World War II. Towed to Hawaii in 1998, it was moored next to Ford Island and the remains of USS Arizona (BB-39). A year later, Missouri it opened as a museum ship. Sources Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships: USS MissouriBattleship Missouri MemorialHistorynet: USS Missouri

Opedipus, a tragic hero Essay example - 1708 Words

Outline Thesis Statement: Oedipus is the embodiment of Aristotle’s characterization of a tragic hero through his ability to preserve his virtue and wisdom, despite his flaws and predicament. Introduction I. Sophocles’ Oedipus: A Tragic Hero A. Definition of a tragic hero B. Oedipus Character as it relates II. Tragedy A. Language of Tragedy B. Tragedy as it affects the audience III. Plot A. Aristotle’s idea of a tragic plot B. Significance of the plot IV. Virtue and Morality A. Identifying with Oedipus’ character B. Oedipus obtains virtue and wisdom through poor judgment Conclusion Oedipus, a Tragic Hero Sophocles’ Oedipus is one of the most well-known tragic heroes in the history of drama. His strange†¦show more content†¦Ã¢â‚¬Å"Aristotle believes that the language must be sweet in tragedy. The level of language used by different characters should differ to depict the social stands of the characters† (Adade-Yeboah, Ahenkora, Amankwa, 2012 pg. 1). Additionally, he focuses on meaningful language reflected throughout the entire play, and stresses that tragedy must be taken seriously. Aristotle presents that there is a complex relationship between tragedy and emotions. For him, it is expressed through pity and fear. Konstan argues: The idea that the object of pity does not deserve his fate is present in the definition Aristotle offers in the Rhetoric; in the Poetics, however, Aristotle exploits the concept of similarity in order to explain the terror that tragedy induces. If the characters on stage are enough like ourselves-the context indicates that the sense is morally similar-then we will experience their fear as our own. (Konstan, 1999, pg. 1) Unquestionably, the audience reacts to the sequence of events in the play; feeling pity for Oedipus about his fate and the predicament he faces. Aristotle praises a brilliant arrangement that makes the play more attractive and creates higher expectations: The putting together of the separate actions is very crucial. The beauty of the plot therefore lies in the arrangements which must have magnitude and not be a matter of chance. Indeed, the subtle manipulation of theShow MoreRelatedIncest, Murder, And Suicide1424 Words   |  6 PagesIncest, murder, and suicide; many readers regard Oedipus the King as a story of a tragic hero unable to alter his course of fate. Fate is defined as â€Å"a power that is believed to control what happens in the future† (Merriam-Webster). It is believed in Greek Mythology â€Å"that many aspects of a person’s life were determined by the three mythical women known as Fates. These were three sister goddesses that appeared in Greek and Roman mythology and were believed to have â€Å"spun out† a child’s destiny at birth

Challenges Facing Managers in Change Process Free Essays

string(34) " overloaded with that task alone\." There are change management models and research still relevant for the 21st Century. The problem however is not with their relevance or their worth, the problem and challenge facing organizational leaders, organizational development experts and researchers relate to the speed and complexity of change required today. (Mildred Golden Pryor, Sonia Taneja, John Humphreys, Donna Anderson, Liza Singleton – Challenges facing change management 2008). We will write a custom essay sample on Challenges Facing Managers in Change Process or any similar topic only for you Order Now Today, change is constant and organization leaders who anticipate change rapidly and responsibly are successful. However, organizational leaders who anticipate change and invent the future are even more successful because those who invent the game are the leaders in their industry, however there are other organizations that are just followers and adapt to change while there are those that do not even survive. According to MTD Training of 2010, in business, change means moving from one way of doing things to another way of doing them. Not every change has to be managed; every organization will need to make a decision about whether or not to employ change management strategies based, in part on how much risk would be associated with not doing so. Change management is an approach to transitioning individuals, teams, and organizations to a desired future state. It is to make something different. You can cause something to change, or you can bring change upon yourself. (Mildred et al, 2008) The process of change impacts on the whole organization and on all individuals working there. Change processes majorly influence: what the organization does, the way the organization does things, the way all business units of the organization communicate and share information, (Problems in Managing Change, Oliver Recklies). This is the manager’s challenge to make things work. Human resource management has an important role in any change process. Change always needs people: for developing objectives, for identifying the need for change, for developing solutions and for implementing these solutions. Technology can support and influence change, but it can never replace people. Still people are to operate the machines, make and implement decisions, not technology or machines. Another challenge of managing change is that there is no chance to ‘undo’ mistakes once they were made. If you allocate resources in an inefficient way, you still have the option to provide additional resources in order to achieve your objective, but there might be wasted resources due to misallocation. If you once failed to make your employees participate in the change process, motivate them into accepting the changes, you will hardly be able to motivate them again. The figure below shows clearly the complexity and scope of change management: Managing change is a challenge that involves coordinating different areas in the organization and the Human Resource has to help employees own the changes alongside quality management, project management, corporate development and usually with a lot to do in Information Technology to have a new, changed organization. Planning and managing change, both cultural and technological, is one of the most challenging elements of a manager’s job (Prosci, Neutralizing change threats in the New Year, 2008). Despite these challenges, managers need to be aware that organizations change in a number of dimensions that often relate to one another and can take any direction in the organization. These dimensions include †¢Extent of planning: Although experts differ about how much change can be planned, managers still need to take steps to set up conditions that permit and even encourage change to occur. Degree of change: Changes may be incremental (relatively small, involving fine?tuning processes and behaviors within just one system or level of the organization) or quantum (significant change altering how a company operates). †¢Degree of learning: This dimension relates to the degree to which organizational members are actively involved in learning how to plan and implement change while helping s olve an existing problem. †¢Target of change: Organizational change programs can vary with respect to the hierarchical level or functional area of which the change is targeted. Some changes are designed to influence top management and assist them in becoming stronger leaders. Other change programs may involve basic learning, such as customer services techniques for lower level employees. †¢Organization’s structure: If it is very stiff and bureaucratic, there may be a need for emphasis on policies, procedures, and rules. Some organizations are very stiff and bureaucratic and may need to â€Å"loosen up. † Other organizations may suffer from lack of organization structure. They may need to emphasize policies, procedures, and rules. Regardless of which forces that cause organizations to see the need for change, organizational leaders, including managers, continue to struggle to maintain or increase their company’ competitive advantage as rapid changes occur from both the external and internal environments. One of the challenges managers face is successfully implementing initiatives that will lead to change and reactions to the fairness of the change implementation, specifically whether the implementation process was handled fairly or not. Cobb et al – 1995) A 2007 benchmarking study â€Å"Best Practices in Change Management† identified poor support and alignment with middle management as one of the big challenges in managing change. This followed other factors considered as obstacles to change including; ineffective sponsorship and resistance from employees. Managers may resist change and this implies not effectively supporting their employees through change. One of the main culprits for thi s obstacle is the manager dilemma. The manager dilemma is a result of two forces at work on managers and supervisors during times of organizational change. First, managers and supervisors are themselves being impacted by the change and they must embrace, internalize and adopt the change to their own work. Second, they must support their employees during the change as well, helping them to embrace and adopt the new solution. During changes in the organization, the managers are often wearing both the â€Å"agent of change† hat and the â€Å"recipient of change† hat. Add to these challenges the fact that middle and front-line managers are critical to sustaining the day-to-day operations of the business and often feel overloaded with that task alone. You read "Challenges Facing Managers in Change Process" in category "Papers" This could lead to unprofessional management of stakeholders affected by change. Project teams, support functions (like communication, Human Resource, training and development groups) and senior leaders often only wear the â€Å"agent of change† hat, while front-line employees and those who ultimately adopt the change wear only the â€Å"recipient of change† hat. Managers and supervisors wear both hats and the result being that they have the most difficult role in times of change. Unfortunately, their duel role is often overlooked and neglected to the detriment of project and employee well-being. Workload and speed of change process becomes too big for the manager. Resistance to change is a very big challenge to managers, this is due to reasons like the proposed change ppearing to violate values/ethics or culture generally, the inertia may already exist in the system and change is not easily blended in, the proposed changes may represent uncertainty in different dimensions, there may also be a misunderstanding of proposed changes, fear of loss usually on the side of stake holders, threat of security of organizational members or employees in terms of their jobs, also when personal antagonism exists among group members, when there is lack of confidence in the change sponsor(s) or the change agent(s), lack of participation among team members, fa ilure to see the need for change, when timing is very poor, when there is a disruption of social relationships, at times the proposed change could also upset power balances, resistance may also be due to informal organizational pressure against the change, sometimes a belief that the change is a form of criticism about the way things have been done could cause resistance and sometimes there is a perception that benefits may result if there is a strong resistance to change. Resistance may be a very big challenge that the manager alone may not be able to handle alone. Sometimes managers delegate the whole responsibility to manage the change to employees and only expect to get progress reports from them; this usually may become a very big challenge if things do not go as planned or if the employee does not understand the whole change. The employee does not actually have a responsibility to manage change, the employee’s responsibility is to do their best, which is different for every person and depends on a wide variety of factors like health, maturity, stability, experience, personality, motivation, etc. Responsibility for managing change is with management and executives of the organization and they must manage the change in a way that employees can cope with it. The manager has a responsibility to facilitate and enable change, and all that is implied within that statement, especially to understand the situation from an objective standpoint which may mean to ‘step back’, and be non-judgemental, and then to help people understand reasons, aims, and ways of responding positively according to employees’ own situations and capabilities. Increasingly the manager’s role is to interpret, communicate and enable and not to instruct and impose, which nobody really responds to well. Some managers are misunderstood when they introduce change; this is also a challenge that might lead to conflict with employees. Using expressions like mindset change’, and ‘changing people’s mindsets’ or ‘changing attitudes’, often indicates a tendency towards imposed or enforced change and it implies strongly that the organization believes that its people currently have the ‘wrong’ mindset, whi ch is never the case. If people are not approaching their tasks or the organization effectively, then the organization has the wrong mindset, not the people. Change such as new structures, policies, targets, acquisitions, disposals, re-locations, etc. , all create new systems and environments, which need to be explained to people as early as possible, so that people’s involvement in validating and refining the changes themselves can be obtained. Management may lack the necessary training, empathy and facilitative capability which are priority areas since managers are crucial to the change process, it becomes a bigger challenge if managers merely convey and implement policies from above without knowing much about them and because people and teams need to be empowered to find their own solutions and responses, with facilitation and support from managers, and tolerance and compassion from the leaders and executives, management and leadership style and behaviour are more important than clever process and policy. Employees need to be able to trust the organization and it becomes the manager’s challenge to ensure there is trust between. Managers must agree and work with these ideas, or change is likely to be very painful, and the best people might be lost in the process. In some situations, when people are confronted with the need or opportunity to change, especially when it’s ‘enforced’, as they may see it, by the organization, they can become emotional and so can the managers who try to manage the change. This challenge may require diffusing the emotional feelings, taking a step back and encouraging objectivity, to enable sensible and constructive dialogue. This is the managers’ and trainers’ challenge to find a solution with help of analogies to assist themselves and other staff to look at change in a more detached way. Just as the state of ‘unconscious incompetence’, needs to be developed into ‘conscious competence’ to provide a basis for training, so is a person’s subjective emotion need to be developed into objectivity before beginning to help them handle change. Some managers are not patience and tolerant enough when managing change and yet it is a challenge where the manager is required to help people in these situations to see things differently, bit by bit. This sort of gradual staged change can be found everywhere in the living world. Strong resistance to change is often rooted in deeply conditioned or historically reinforced feelings that require a lot of patience and tolerance towards the people to whom change is being introduced to, the managers ought to have these qualities if they are to manage the change process effectively. It was discovered that people who easily welcome change are not generally the best at being able to work reliably, dependably and follow processes. The reliability/dependability capabilities are directly opposite character traits to mobility or adaptability capabilities. Managers may face the challenge of such people to ensure they can be reliable. Certain industries and disciplines have a high concentration of staff who need a strong reliability/dependability personality profile, for example, health services and nursing, administration, public sector and government departments, utilities and services; these sectors will tend to have many staff with character profiles who find change difficult and as a manager, to help them into change is your challenge. Age is another factor. Erik Erikson’s Psychosocial Theory helps to understanding that people’s priorities and motivations are different depending on their stage of life. The manager needs to understand people’s needs, at different age levels to better be able to manage change, however, this can be a very big challenge for managers especially dealing with older people who are usually rigid and do not believe anything other than what they already know. People’s strengths and weaknesses differ and not everyone welcomes change. It requires time to understand the people you are dealing with, and how and why they feel like they do, before you take action, but the manager may not have that time especially if they are faced with such a rapidly changing world, where a delay might give competitors a chance to override and gain a very big competitive edge. This may be a challenge that requires high skill level and competence for the manager. Managers today have a challenge of fast changing environments where by planning, implementing and managing change in a fast-changing environment is increasingly the situation in which most organizations now work. Dynamic environments such as these require dynamic processes, people, systems and culture, especially for managing change successfully, effectively optimizing organizational response to market opportunities and threats. Some organizations may not have capacity to be dynamic due to different reasons and therefore managers face the bigger challenge. In his book, Change management, 2010, Prof. Dr. Olaf Passeheim identified a challenge due to technological changes today. The International and dynamic situation of the global market has created a big need for change, and this has created a challenge of deregulations which have increased the competitive pressure and minimized monopoly power. Managers today work in such very rapid environment where the organization itself might not be in a position to go with the pace, for example, telecommunication companies like MTN, if it does not have financial capacity to afford the required equipments and software that go with the trend or the required skills to operate them. In any case, the manager has to find a way, or lose the game, an impact that may last and could permanently damage the company. Economic ups and downs are a big challenge, they have such a huge impact on organizations and markets for example, the most recent financial crisis that led to cutbacks and reduced employment, managers face the challenge of neutralizing the situation and making necessary change decisions to cope with the situation. (Passeheim – Change Management 2010) Changes in an organization where workforce is never static for example due to changes in gender, age, education, in and out employees create challenges for managers to go with changes because there will always be a need to redesign work, jobs and working groups, to ensure matching job requirements and skills. High financial costs of replacing, upgrading or buying new equipments which the organization may not be in position to procure, this will delay change process for a cost restrictive business. New systems may also fail and the organization is forced to sell the new equipments at reduced prices, pay employees for redundancy or dismiss them with a package because computers replaced them, training that comes with a cost, managers may have to resist implementation of any changes to cut on the costs involved, a decision that might challenge his capacity as a manager. Lack of analysis of strategic and operative challenge in changing the organization, some managers might blindly decide to make changes without analyzing the weight it holds. Some managers consider strategic plans unimportant and in a way ignore what the operative system is like, changes that are not strategically planned may become disastrous as things are only done as they come, operations may be guess work and yet change is something to be handled with care. There may be some unprofessional use of methods in change process as a result. Insufficient problem awareness, if the manager is trying to go through a change process, but does not exactly know the current problems that may have led to the need for change, it will be a very big challenge for him to make the right and appropriate decisions to implement the changes. Insufficient communication in the organization, if departments and employees do not freely and regularly communicate and even the manager is not interactive enough with employees, yet they ought to know what goes on around, change might come as a surprise for many who may not know why it came, many might resist it or just follow blindly and this could greatly compromising quality. Lack of control by managers, it is a challenge if the manager does not have control over employees, operations, systems due to several factors like limitation from superiors or lack of control skills. In such situation, the manager will find it difficult to even bring about change in the organization. Managing through Change – MTD Training and ventus publishing 2010, suggests other challenges that managers are likely to face in the change process, these include thus: ?Key staff may leave Market place changes may make your new initiative more urgent or less important ?Budget cuts may put a freeze on resources that u are dependant upon for implementation of change ?Legal regulations or requirements might change requiring an adoption to your plan ?Consumer response may fail to meet expectations requiring to reconsider your choice ?Competitors may act in ways that require you to revisit your objectives or vision ?Unexpected technology barrier may arise ?Costs, time, requirements or staff hour requirements may begin to exceed estimates. As manager, facing the above discussed challenges, one may have to scale back, expand or abort the change and any expected outcomes. Flexible is an essential requirement if the company is to survive in a competitive world today. How to cite Challenges Facing Managers in Change Process, Essays

Hills Like White Elephants The Symbolism of the S Essay Example For Students

Hills Like White Elephants: The Symbolism of the S Essay ettingHills Like White Elephants: The Symbolism of the SettingIn Ernest Hemingways story Hills Like White Elephants an American couple issitting at a table in a train station in Spain. They are discussing beer,travel, and whether or not to have an abortion. The train station and itssurroundings are symbolic in this story. The station itself represents thechoice on whether or not to have the abortion. There is a set of tracks oneither side of the station, each representing one of the choices. On one side ofthe station, the tracks run through a lush, green landscape full of grainfieldsand trees. A wide river runs lazily in the foreground of some tall mountains. It is almost like a paradise. This side of the station symbolizes the choice ofgoing through with the abortion. As it is now they travel all around the world,drinking and staying in hotels, and seeing all the beautiful places in the world. They have no responsibilities or schedules in their life. With an abortion,they could continue their party- and fun-filled, although meaningless existence. The other side of the station is dry and barren of plantlife. The ground looksas if there has been no rain for quite some time. There are hills in thedistance that have a whitish color as the sun radiates on them. The woman said,They look like white elephants.(343) White elephants are known to symbolizeunexpected gifts, which is certainly what the baby would be should they choosenot to have the abortion. The barrenness of the land refers the tame lifesettling down and having the responsibilities of parenthoodthat they wouldhave to start living when the baby came; a life that would be duller but wouldhave a purpose. The bead curtain represents the fact that once they choose aside, to have the baby or not, they cannot change their minds and then switchsides. Once the decision has been made, it will affect their lives forever. The man wants to have the abortion so they can continue to have the luxuriesthey enjoy now. On the other hand, the woman is tired of the wilder life andwants the baby and to settle down. Works CitedHemingway, Ernest. Hills Like White Elephants Literature and the WritingProcess. Eds. Elizabeth McMahan, Susan X Day, and Robert Funk. 4th ed. UpperSaddle River: Prentice, 1996. 343-46. English