Speech Act Comprehension and Production Skills: A Scale Development Study

Öz

Language with its verbal and non-verbal components is a social phenomenon that has a significant impact on an individual's cognitive, academic, and socio-emotional development. Therefore, it can provide critical indicators for the social and emotional development of individuals, whether they are typically developing, have special needs, or are gifted. In this study, a performance-based scale was developed to evaluate the indirect speech act comprehension and production skills of children aged 8-14 years, based on speech acts, face, and politeness theories. As a result of the study, the Speech Act Comprehension and Production Skills Scale (SCPSS) was created, consisting of two forms. Each form includes two factors, comprehension and production, and nine items. Content, construct, and discriminant validity, as well as reliability analyses, were conducted for each form. The findings of the study demonstrated that both forms of the developed scale could be used to evaluate children's indirect speech act comprehension and production skills.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Listening and speaking
• indirect speech acts
• speech act comprehension
• speech act production
• scale development
• validity
• reliability

Sözeylem Anlama ve Üretim Becerisi: Bir Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışması

Öz

Dil sözel ve sözel olmayan öğeleriyle bireyin bilişsel, akademik ve sosyal-duygusal gelişiminde önemli etkiye sahip sosyal bir olgudur. Dolayısıyla hem tipik hem özel gereksinimli hem de özel yetenekli bireylerin sosyal ve duygusal gelişimlerine ilişkin kritik göstergeler sunabilmektedir. Bu çalışmada, sözeylem, yüz ve incelik kuramlarına dayalı olarak 8-14 yaş aralığındaki çocukların dolaylı sözeylem anlama ve üretme becerilerinin değerlendirilmesi için performansa dayalı bir ölçek geliştirilmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda Sözeylem Anlama ve Üretim Becerisi Ölçeği (SAÜBÖ) iki formdan oluşmuştur. Her bir formda anlama ve üretim olmak üzere iki faktör ve dokuzar madde yer almıştır. Her bir formun içerik, yapı ve ayırt edicilik geçerliliği ile güvenilirlik analizleri yapılmış ve çalışma bulguları geliştirilen ölçeğin her iki formunun da çocuklarda dolaylı sözeylem anlama ve üretme becerilerini değerlendirmede kullanılabileceğini göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dinleme ve konuşma
• dolaylı sözeylemler
• sözeylem anlama
• sözeylem üretme
• ölçek geliştirme
• geçerlilik
• güvenilirlik

Kaynakça

1. Ackerman, B. P. (1978). Children’s understanding of speech acts in unconventional directive frames. Child Development, 49, 311-318. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128692
2. Adams, C. (2002). Practitioner review: The assessment of language pragmatics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43(8), 973-987. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00226
3. Adams, C., Lockton, E., Freed, J., Gaile, J., Earl, G., McBean, K., Nash, M., Green, J., Vail, A., & Law, J. (2012). The social communication intervention project: A randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of speech and language therapy for school-age children who have pragmatic and social communication problems with or without autism spectrum disorder. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 47(3), 233-244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00146.x
4. Akin-Bulbul, I., & Ozdemir, S. (2024). Evaluation of the social attention hypothesis: Do children with autism prefer to see objects rather than people?. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 1-16. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-024-06596-9
5. Akin-Bulbul, I., & Ozdemir, S. (2023). Imitation performance in children with autism and the role of visual attention in imitation. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 53(12), 4604-4617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-022-05726-5
6. Aktaş, B. (2020). Test of pragmatic language -2 (TOPL-2) Türkçeye uyarlama çalışması (Doktora tezi). Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Bolu.
7. Alev, G. (2011). Pragmatik dil becerileri envanterinin Türkçe standart çalışması (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi) Anadolu Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
8. Altunkol, F. (2011). Üniversite öğrencilerinin bilişsel esneklik algılanan stres düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana.

9. Angeleri, R., & Airenti, G. (2014). The development of joke and irony understanding: A study with 3- to 6-year-old children. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(2), 133-146. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000011
10. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Ayre, C., & Scally A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(1), 79-86. http://doi.org/10.1177/0748175613513808
12. Bacanlı, H. (1997). Sosyal ilişkilerde benlik kendini ayarlamanın psikolojisi. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları Eğitim Dizisi, 14. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
13. Bacanlı, E. (2006). Türkçedeki dolaylılık işaretleyicilerinin pragmatik anlamları. Journal of Modern Turkish Studies, 3(1), 35-47.
14. Bingöl, U. (2019). Bir kavram ve bir edebî tür: İroni ve roman. Mecmua, (8), 125-134. https://doi.org/10.32579/mecmua.601399
15. Bishop, D. (2013). Children’s communication checklist (CCC-2). In F. R. Volkmar (Ed.), Encyclopedia of autism spectrum disorders (pp. 614-618). New York: Springer Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1698-3_1929
16. Bohn, M., Tessler, M. H., Kordt, C., Hausmann, T., & Frank, M. C. (2023). An individual differences perspective on pragmatic abilities in the preschool years. Developmental Science, 26(6), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13401
17. Bohn, M., Tessler, M. H., Merrick, M., & Frank, M. C. (2022). Predicting pragmatic cue integration in adults' and children's inferences about novel word meanings. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 151(11), 2927–2942. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001216
18. Botting, N., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2000). Social and behavioural difficulties in children with language impairment. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 16(2), 105-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/026565900001600201
19. Botting, N., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2008). The role of language, social cognition, and social skill in the functional social outcomes of young adolescents with and without a history of SLI. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 26(2), 281-300. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151007X235891
20. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press.
22. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
23. Chapelle, C. A. (Ed.). (2012). The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431
24. Chapman, S. (2013). Grice, conversational implicature and philosophy. In A. Capone, F. LoPiparo, & M. Carapezza (Eds.), Perspectives on pragmatics and philosophy (Vol 1) (pp. 153-188). http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01011-3_7
25. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
26. Cohen, A. D. (2010). Approaches to assessing pragmatic ability. In N. Ishihara & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet (pp. 264-317). London: Pearson Press.
27. Conti-Ramsden, G., & Botting, N. (2004). Social difficulties and victimization in children with SLI at 11 years of age. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research: JSLHR, 47(1), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2004/013)
28. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). California: SAGE Publishing.
29. Creusere, M. A. (1999). Theories of adults’ understanding and use of irony and sarcasm: Applications to and evidence from research with children. Developmental Review, 19(2), 213–262. http://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1998.0474
30. Demir, C ve Karakaş Yıldırım, Ö. (2019) Türkçede metaforlar ve metaforik anlatımlar. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21(4), 1085-1096.
31. DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2022). Scale development: Theory and applications (5th ed.). California: SAGE Publishing.
32. Düver, E. (2006). 5-7 yaş grubu normal gelişim gösteren ve özel gereksinimi olan çocukların dil kullanım (pragmatik) becerilerinin karşılaştırılması (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi), Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
33. Eson, M. E., & Shapiro, A. S. (1982). When "Don’t" means ‘Do’: Pragmatic and cognitive development in understanding an indirect imperative. First Language, 3(8), 83-91. https://doi.org/10.1177/014272378200300801
34. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. California: SAGE Publishing.
35. Fuchs, J. (2023). 40 years of research into children’s irony comprehension. Pragmatics & Cognition, 30(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.22015.fuc
36. George, D. & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (11.0 Update-4th ed.). USA: Allyn & Bacon.
37. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York City: Pantheon Books.
38. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol 3) (pp. 41-58). Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003
39. Guilford, J.P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
40. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action (Vol 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. USA: Beacon Press.
41. Happé, F. (1993). Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism: A test of relevance theory. Cognition, 48(1), 101-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(93)90026-R
42. Harris, C.R. (2015). Language arts for gifted students. In: Vidergor, H.E., Harris, C.R. (Eds.), Applied practice for educators of gifted and able learners. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-004-8_17
43. Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But... Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
44. Helland, W. A., Aaland, E., Furebotn, K. L., Nilsen, J., Pettersen, H., Roe, A. L., Wathne, A. K. S., & Morken, F. (2024). Investigating pragmatic abilities in 5- to 7-year-old Norwegian children: A study using the Pragma test. First Language, 44(3), 264-281. https://doi.org/10.1177/01427237241239114
45. Helland, W. A., Lundervold, A. J., Heimann, M., & Posserud, M. B. (2014). Stable associations between behavioral problems and language impairments across childhood: The importance of pragmatic language problems. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(5), 943–951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.02.016
46. Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development, 74(5), 1368–1378. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00612
47. Holtgraves, T. M. (2013). Language as social action: Social psychology and language use. London: Psychology Press.
48. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7CF7R
49. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
50. İnan, İ. (2012). Dil felsefesi. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi.
51. İyi̇gün, E. (2021). Erken çocuklukta dil kullanım envanteri (LUI): Pragmatik Dil Gelişimi Değerlendirmesi'nin Türkçe uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması (Doktora tezi). Anadolu Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
52. Kokkinaki, T., Delafield-Butt, J., Nagy, E., & Trevarthen, C. (2023). Editorial: Intersubjectivity: Recent advances in theory, research, and practice. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1220161
53. Karakaya, S., & Alparslan, Z. N. (2022). Sample size in reliability studies: A practical guide based on Cronbach's alpha. Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. http://doi.org/10.5455/pbs.20220127074618
54. Kaufman, J. C., & Glăveanu, V. P. (2019). A review of creativity theories: What questions are we trying to answer? In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (2nd ed., pp. 27-43). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316979839.004
55. Keçeli-Kaysılı, B. (2006). Otizmli çocukların dil özelliklerinin kullanım açısından incelenmesi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
56. Kiper, J., Gwon, Y., & Wilson, R. A. (2020). How propaganda works: Nationalism, revenge and empathy in Serbia. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 20(5), 403-431. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12340091
57. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
58. Koğar, E. Y., Demirdüzen, E., Gelbal, S., & Inal, H. (2016). Cronbach’s coefficient alpha: A meta-analysis study. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 32(1), 18-32. http://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2016017219
59. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
60. Leaper, C., & Smith, T. E. (2004). A meta-analytic review of gender variations in children's language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Developmental Psychology, 40(6), 993-1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.993
61. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
62. Li, J., Peng, P., Ma, X. e., Ding, N., & Zhao, J. (2023). How does family socioeconomic status influence children’s reading ability? Evidence from meta-analytic structural equation modeling. Educational Psychology Review, 35(4), 119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09834-1
63. Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 54(3), 519-530. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/57.3.519
64. McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276-282. https:/doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031
65. McTear, M., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (1992). Pragmatic disability in children. London: Whurr.
66. Owens, R. E. (2020). Language development: An introduction (8th Edition ed.). Boston: Pearson.
67. Ozdemir, S., Akin-Bulbul, I., Kok, I., & Ozdemir, S. (2022). Development of a visual attention based decision support system for autism spectrum disorder screening. International Journal of Psychophysiology: Official Journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology, 173, 69-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2022.01.004
68. Ozdemir, S., Akin-Bulbul, I., & Yildiz, E. (2024a). Visual attention in joint attention bids: A comparison between toddlers with autism spectrum disorder and typically developing toddlers. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-023-06224-y
69. Özdemir, S., Akın Bülbül I., Suna, H. E., & Akkuş, Ş. K. (2024b). An examination of eye tracking in videos and 3D animations in children with ASD and TD children. Education and Science, 49(217), 21- 43. https://doi.org/10.15390/eb.2023.11750
70. Öztürk, D., Aydoğan, S., Kök, İ., Akın Bülbül, I., Özdemir, S., & Akay, D. (2024). Linguistic summarization of visual attention and developmental functioning of young children with autism spectrum disorder. Health Information Science and Systems, 12(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13755-024-00297-4
71. Pace, A., Luo, R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2017). Identifying pathways between socioeconomic status and language development. Annual Review of Linguistics, 3(1), 285-308. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-034226
72. Phelps-Terasaki, D., & Phelps-Gunn, T. (2007). Test of Pragmatic Language-Second Edition (TOPL-2). Texas: Pro-Ed.
73. Padilla, M. A., & Divers, J. (2016). A comparison of composite reliability estimators: Coefficient omega confidence intervals in the current literature. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(3), 436-453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164415593776
74. Piaget, J. (1954). The origins of intelligence in children. New York City: Norton.
75. Plucker, J. A., Makel, M. C., & Qian, M. (2019). Assessment of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 44-68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316979839.005
76. Pollio, M. R., & Pollio, H. R. (1974). The development of figurative language in children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 3(3), 185-201. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01069237
77. Prutting, C. A., & Kirchner, D. M. (1987). A clinical appraisal of the pragmatic aspects of language. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52(2), 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.5202.105
78. Rice, M. L., Sell, M. A., & Hadley, P. A. (1990). The Social Interactive Coding System (SICS): An on-line, clinically relevant descriptive tool. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 21(1), 2-14. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461.2101.02
79. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
80. Schuberth, F., Henseler, J., & Dijkstra, T. K. (2018). Confirmatory composite analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02541
81. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
82. Searle, J. R. (1975). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In K. Gunderson (Ed.), Language, mind and knowledge (pp. 344–369). Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
83. Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
84. Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D. (2009). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
85. Shapiro, E. R. (1980). The development of children’s comprehension of teacher directives in natural and controlled contexts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). State University of New York at Albany.
86. Spector, C. (1996). Children’s comprehension of idioms in the context of humour. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 27(4), 307–313. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461.2704.307
87. Şen, S., & Yıldırım, İ. (2019). Eğitimde araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Nobel Yayın.
88. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). London: Pearson Publishing.
89. Tager-Flusberg, H. (2016). Risk factors associated with language in autism spectrum disorder: Clues to underlying mechanisms. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59(1), 143-154. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-15-0146
90. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. Ballantine Books.
91. Taylor, C. L., Glaveanu, V. P., Kaufman, A. B., & Kaufman, J. C. (2019). Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg & W. E. Pickren (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the intellectual history of psychology (pp. 250-266). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108290876.010
92. Tezel, D. (2015). Erken çocuklukta günlük iletişim becerilerinin pragmatik profillerinin değerlendirilmesi (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Türkiye.
93. Trevarthen, C., Delafield-Butt, J. (2017). Intersubjectivity in the imagination and feelings of the infant: Implications for education in the early years. In White, E.J., Dalli, C. (eds) Under-three-year-olds in policy and practice. policy and pedagogy with under-three-year-olds: Cross-disciplinary insights and innovations. United States: Springer Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2275-3_2
94. Tomasello, M. (2019). Becoming human: A theory of ontogeny. Belknap: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674988651
95. Trevarthen, C., & Delafield-Butt, J. (2017). Intersubjectivity in the imagination and feelings of the infant: Implications for education in the early years. In E. J. White & C. Dalli (Eds.), Under-three year olds in policy and practice (pp. 17-38). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2275-3_2
96. Trizano-Hermosilla, I., & Alvarado, J. M. (2016). Best alternatives to Cronbach’s alpha reliability in realistic conditions: Congeneric and asymmetrical measurements. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00769
97. Ünal, Ş. (2014). İletişim Becerileri Kontrol Listesi-II’nin (CCC-2) Türkçe’ye uyarlama çalışması (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi) Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, Türkiye.
98. Vaske, J. J., Beaman, J., & Sponarski, C. C. (2016). Rethinking internal consistency in Cronbach’s alpha. Leisure Sciences, 39(2), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2015.1127189
99. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
100. Wilson, F. R., Pan, W., & Schumsky, D. A. (2012). Recalculation of the critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 45, 197–210. http://doi.org/10.1177/0748175612440286
101. Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York: Basic Books.
102. Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806-838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127
103. Yakut, R. E. (2019). A cross-cultural pragmatics approach to speech acts in American English and Turkish: The case of refusals in TV series (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Erciyes University Institute of Social Sciences, Kayseri.
104. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
105. Yule, G. (2020). The study of language (7th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.