The Woman of Otto Jespersen

Chin W. Kim (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)

Kim, Chin W. 2004. The Woman of Otto Jespersen. English Language and Linguistics 18, 187-201. This is a critical essay on Otto Jespersens chapter titled The Woman in his early major monograph: Language: Its Nature, Development, and Origin (1922). In this 18-page chapter, Jespersen(=J) expresses his views on the differences in language between men and women, which have become the fodder of much criticism during the years of the feminist movement in the 60s and the 70s. I critically review both Js and his critics arguments. While I will come to Js defense by arguing that much of the later criticism was misguided when viewed from the context of his time, I will also chide him for having been a naive scholar in developing his arguments and in presenting the prima facie evidence for them. I argue that language differences in gender derive from the social order of sex, just as the honorifics system derives from a social order of class, and therefore that it is understandable that Js writings reflect the language use of his time. At the same time, I criticize J for his careless attitude about putative evidence. Usually a very insightful and meticulous linguist, J inexplicably slips into impressionistic, introspective, and self-justifying mode of scholarship. Key words: Jespersen, gender, honorifics system, women

In one of Jespersens early major monographs called: Language:

Its Nature, Development and Origin (1922), there is a chapter

titled: The Woman (Chapter 13, pp. 237-254).1 In this 18-page chapter, Jespersen (OJ henceforth) expresses his views on the differences in languages between men and women, which have become the fodder of much criticism during the years of the feminist movement in the 60s and the 70s. While
1

In a book called The Philosophy of Grammar that appeared two years later, theres also a chapter titled Sex and Gender (Chapter, 17, pp. 226-243). But gender here refers to a grammatical category (masculine, feminine, neuter) on a par with Number and Person. Note that in contemporary literature, gender refers to the social behavior and relations between men and women, as in gender studies, language and gender, etc., not to the grammatical gender.

I will come to OJs defense by arguing that much of the criticism is misguided when viewed in the context of his time, I will also chide him for having been a nave scholar in developing his arguments and in presenting the prima facie evidence for them. In section I, after surveying OJs list of causes for the distinctive traits in womens language, I will review, and defend, Js apparent insensitivity with which he describes the language used by women. In section II, I will criticize OJ for his moralistic attitude and impressionistic arguments about the womens language. In section III, I discuss briefly, by way of concluding remarks, the relation between the social order of sex and its encoding in language. Two things characterize OJs chapter on the woman. The first is the fact that the data OJ cites are not direct observations about womens spoken speech, but are on the whole textual and written sources from books, magazines, articles, plays, etc. They range from anonymous authors to famous writers such Shakespeare and Jonathan Swift, from an ancient author such as Cicero of the 1st century B. C. to contemporary writers such as Oscar Wilde and Thomas Hardy, and from second-hand reports to Chinese and French proverbs. Secondly, OJs statements and arguments in the chapter are often impressionistic moralistic at and introspective, It is even that condescending one finds and most times. these

objectionable and disappointing and distasteful. I will later have occasions to cite several examples of this.

I.
OJ lists half a dozen historical factors and natural causes that have led to a linguistic divergence between men and women:

(1) a. Extermination of men by an invading tribe2 b. Taboo among women3 c. Womens like of euphemism4 d. Womens lower rank in society5 e. Womens polite and less assertive speech6 f. Womens fondness of hyperbole7 g. Womens conservatism8 Regardless of whether the particular examples OJ cites are weak, suspect, or downright wrong, its not difficult to agree with the observations and arguments that OJ makes. Indeed, we should admire him for his astute and pioneering observations. Not many people were interested in the gender and language issues in early 20th century.9 What one might criticize OJ for
2

...when the Caribs came to occupy the islands these were inhabited by an Arawak tribe which they exterminated completely, with the exception of the women, whom they married. Now, these women kept their own language and taught it to their daughters... (p. 237) With the Zulus a wife is not allowed to mention the name of her father-in-law and of his brothers, and if a similar word or even a similar syllable occurs... she must substitute something else of a similar meaning. (p. 239) There can be no doubt that women exercise a great and universal influence on linguistic development through their instinctive shrinking from coarse and gross expressions and their preference for refined and veiled and indirect expressions. (p. 246) Women use only the lower stratum of speech because the social position of women is inferior to the rank of men with no share in the higher culture. (p. 242) Japanese women make a much more frequent use than men of the prefixes of politeness o-, go- and mi-. (p. 243) [citing E. R. Edwards:Etude de phonetique de la langue japonaise, Leibzig, 1903] Note also the following recent speech by a spontaneous, candid, hands-on, and earthy lady --- Teresa Heinz Kerry: My belief --- and I maybe am very wrong --- is that women, generally speaking, do not want to have abortions. With the exception of people who are mindless, most women wouldnt want to. (Italics added; Newsweek:May, 2, 2004, p. 36.) the fondness of women for hyperbole will very often lead to adverbs of intensity (p. 250) e.g., awfully pretty, terribly nice, so lovely, vastly little (= very) [quoting Lord Chesterfield, The World, Dec 5, 1754] Women are more conservative than men, and they do nothing more than keep to the traditional language while innovations are due to the initiative of men. (p. 242) Men become the chief renovators of language.(p. 247) Js contemporaries, e.g., Henry Sweet (1845-1912), George Curme (1860-1948), J. R. Firth (1890-1960), have not dealt with the gender issues in language.

is his insensitive (= politically incorrect), condescending and derogatory remarks about the womens language. In the following are some examples. Ive highlighted the words at issue in bold italics. (2) the two languages are two strata of the same language, one higher, more solemn, stiff and archaic, and another lower, more natural and familiar, and this easy, or perhaps we should say slipshod, style is the only one recognized for ordinary women. (p. 242) (3) Men will certainly with great justice object that there is a danger of the language becoming languid and insipid if we are always to content ourselves with womens expressions. (p. 247) (4) ... the science of language has very few votaries among women. (p. 249) (5) women more often than men break off without finishing their sentences, because they start talking without having thought out what they are going to say. (p. 250) (6) the highest linguistic genius and the lowest degree of linguistic imbecility are very rarely found among women. The great orators, the most famous literary artists, have been men; (p. 253) One cannot help but cringe at OJs expressions characterizing womens language such as easy slipshod style (p. 242), languid and

insipid (p. 247), smaller vocabulary (p. 248, p. 253), hyperbolic (p.
250), stop-short (p. 251), etc. As distasteful and disdainful these words and phrases are, I think there is room to understand and perhaps forgive OJ when viewed in the context of his time. To put the reader in a historical perspective, 1920s was a time when the regulation of

sex was still in the domain of religion and court; it was only beginning to be shifted to the domain of medicine and science. Even heterosexuality, let alone homosexuality, was considered a perversion when a sexual act between a man and a woman was done not for the sake of reproduction but just for the pleasure of it. 1920 was the year when the 19th Amendment was ratified in the U. S. to give women the voting right, the property right, and the right to participate in political affairs on an equal basis with men. It is the same year in which D. H. Lawrences Women in Love appeared, which is regarded as the first modern fiction that broke down the sexual taboos in Victorian novels. In the novel a man and a woman search for a way to freedom in love in order to achieve an equilibrium as the stars balancing each other (p. 164). His bolder and more famous novel, Lady Chatterlays Lover, was first published in 1928 in Florence, Italy, to which Lawrence was banished. It is difficult for us to believe today, living in the permissive society in the age of free information, that the novel was banned and confiscated in London, and that the unexpurgated version did not appear in the United Kingdom until 1960! The world of OJ in the 1920s was still a world of oligarchy and androcracy. The womens liberation movement and the civil rights movement were still 50 years away. This bit of history is relevant and significant because many things we take for granted today such as racial equality, womens rights, human rights, etc. were outside of what Peter Singer, an American philosopher, called the expanding circle of empathy and human morality in his 1981 book titled The

Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology (New York: Farrar,

Straus and Giroux). His basic idea is that in the history of humankind, social and moral progress has been made over millennia by slowly and constantly enlarging the spheres of empathy. To wit, many practices that were common throughout

history and prehistory, e.g., cannibalism, genocide,10 slavery, torture, rape as the spoils of war, legal possession of women, religious persecution, etc. have gradually and largely vanished from many parts of the world as the circle expanded. Today, some people are expanding the circle further to include animals, the environment, etc., although many still think nothing of hunting down wild animals, boiling shrimps alive, cutting live fish to make sashimi, etc. Note how genocide and rape as spoils of war were taken for granted in biblical times. Israelites marching to the promised land from Egypt routinely slaughtered entire cities, or kept women and children as slaves, and took possession of cattle and other properties as spoils of war: (7) And we captured all his [=King Sihons] cities and utterly destroyed every city, men, women, and children; we left no survivors. (Deut. 2:34) (8) Now go and completely destroy the entire Amalekite nation men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys. (1 Samuel 15:3) (9) then all the people who are found in it [=a city] shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. ... you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women, the children, the cattle, and everything else in the city, you shall take as booty for yourselves, and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies. (Deut. 20:11, 13-14) We have come a long way11 even as the final goal is still far

10

Genocide has not disappeared entirely from the face of the earth. If Holocaust is a distant memory, one should recall that in mere three months from April to June 1994, the Hutus in Rwanda slaughtered 800,000 Tutsis. Today, in Darfur, Sudan, the same atrocity is being repeated. 11 Certainly a long way from the days when women werent even counted in census; cf: So the king(=David) said to Joab, take a census of all the people in the land so that I

away, for today, such acts are viewed as atrocities beyond comprehension. Yet it was only in recent years that womens place was relocated from outside the circle of empathy to inside. At the turn of the last century, it was considered acceptable to speak of women as the fairer but weaker sex, just as it was not at all out of line to speak of primitive languages of savage people, as OJ himself does many times in the chapter on the origin of language in the same book.12 Thus, it is unfair to accuse J of being a sexist on the ground that he used some of what is now considered sexist vocabulary, just as its unfair to accuse a man calling African Americans negroes in 1920 of being a racist when it was a common practice of the time. If there was neither automobiles nor trains, not to mention airplanes, in the age of OJ, can we fault him for traveling in a horse-driven carriage? Thus I find it not too difficult to understand and even forgive OJs attitudes and views about the womens language. Indeed, I believe that OJ was not a sexist or a male chauvinist. I think the following remarks in his Philosophy of Grammar that appeared two years later support this view. (10) It is often desirable, and even necessary, in speaking of living beings to have words which say nothing about sex and are equally applicable to male and female beings. (1924:231) (11) In speaking of France, we may say I do not approve of her policy:
may know how many people there are. Joab reported the number of people to the king. There were 800,000 men of military age in Israel and 500,000 in Judah. (2 Samuel 24:2, 9; also 1 Chronicles 21:2-5. Emphasis mine.) 12 Note the following phrases and passages, for example: As for the languages of contemporary savages, we may take them as typical of more primitive languages than those of civilized nations. (p. 417) the language of savage or primitive races (p. 426) What is here said about the languages of wild tribes [which] have retained many primeval traits is in exact keeping with everything that recent study of primitive man has brought to light. (p. 427)

in this case France is viewed as a personal agent, are (still!) men. (1924:235; Italics added)13

the sex-indicating

pronoun is in the feminine in spite of the fact that the political leaders

OJ does see the changing world, and with a foresight concludes the chapter on The Woman with the following remark: (12) great social changes are going on in our times which may eventually modify even the linguistic relations of the two sexes. (p. 254) What OJ is saying is that, with the expanding circle of morality and empathy, the woman will become included inside the circle, and that the language will get to reflect this change in due course. OJ may not have been an initiator or a champion of the feminist movement, but neither was he a male chauvinist, not anymore than he was a racist.

II.
What I find it difficult to understand and unforgivable is callousness and carelessness with which OJ presents putative evidence for the difference between mens and womens languages. Usually a very insightful and meticulous scholar, OJ inexplicably lapses into shallow sentimentalism, and unscientific selfjustifying interpretation of a fragment of data. Let me cite a few
13

Note that J could have stated the above sentence without (still!) and/or without the exclamation point, but the fact that he did is an indication that J felt that it was not a natural or desirable state of affairs, but a lamentable and deplorable state, for political leaders to be all men. Compare the following pair of sentences: (a) She adores her husband. (b) She still adores her husband! Sentence(a) is a neutral declarative statement, while sentence (b) conveys the speakers emotion about the situation that the sentence describes. The connotation here is that the wife should no longer adore the husband, perhaps because he beats and cheats her. If this interpretation is correct, what OJ is saying above is that political leaders should not be all men anymore.

examples. (13) the vocabulary of a woman as a rule is much less extensive than that of a man. (p. 248); their vocabulary is smaller and more central [=basic] than that of men (p. 253) For the evidence that women have a less extensive vocabulary than men, OJ cites an experiment by American Professor named Jastrow, who asked 25 male and 25 female students to write down as rapidly as possible 100 words. The result showed that while men used 1,375 different words, their female class-mates used only 1,123. Of 1,266 unique words used, 29.8% were male, only 20.8% female. (p. 248) I dont see how this constitutes evidence that a womans vocabulary is smaller than mans. Taken at face-value, what this may show is that a mans vocabulary is more scattered than a womans, not necessarily that his vocabulary is larger. For example, a woman may have 100 words in each of 10 categories (e.g., color, food, clothing, kinship, etc.), while a man may have 50 words in each of 20 categories. Thus claiming that the size of vocabulary of women is not only smaller but also more basic that that of men, OJ recommends that a foreign language learner read first the novels written by female authors of the target language. In another place, OJ argues that plays on words like pun, rime, and alliteration are decidedly more present in men than in women, and then gives the following as an explanation for it:

(14) men take greater interest in words as such and in their acoustic properties, while women pay less attention to that side of words and merely take them as they are ... Thus it comes that some men are

confirmed punsters, while women are generally slow to see any point in a pun and scarcely ever perpetrate one themselves.

Woman is

linguistically quicker than man: quicker to learn, quicker to hear, and quicker to answer. A man is slower: he hesitates, he chews the cud to make sure of the taste of words, and thereby comes to discover similarities with and differences from other words, both in sound and in sense, thus preparing himself for the appropriate use of the fittest noun or adjective. (p. 249) This claim is highly suspect. OJ does not give or cite any statistical data showing this tendency. Neither is there evidence showing that mens speaking is like smoking cigars as they chew the cud to make sure of the taste of the words (p. 249), while women start talking without having thought out what they are going to say (p. 250). In sentences, OJ claims that women speak with a concatenation of simple sentences while mens sentences are complex with dependent and embedded clauses: (15) If we compare long periods as constructed by men and by women, we shall in the former find many more instances of intricate or involute structures with clause within clause, a relative clause in the middle of a conditional clause or vice versa, with subordination and sub-subordination, while the typical form of long feminine periods is that of co-ordination, one sentence or clause being added to another on the same plane ... we may say that men are fond of hypotaxis and women of parataxis. Or we may use the simile that a male period is often like a set of Chinese boxes, one within another, while a feminine period is like a set of pearls joined together on a string of ands and similar words. (p. 251-2)

Again OJ presents no corporeal evidence; the only one he gives

is a scene from a Danish comedy in which a boy slyly observes that his sister used and then 15 times in less than two and a half minutes (p. 252). Since the young girl was relating to her brother what had happened to her at a ball, one wonders how else she would have narrated a sequence of events in the story. If the boy was relating what happened at a soccer game, would he have used fewer ands and thens but more embedded sentences like a set of Chinese boxes? Finally, OJ states that women speak and read with greater rapidity and volubility: (16) Not only were they [=women] able to read more quickly than the men, but they were able to give a better account of the paragraph as a whole. ... But this rapidity was no proof of intellectual power, and some of the slowest readers were highly distinguished men. With quick reader it is as though every statement were admitted immediately and without inspection to fill the vacant chambers of the mind, while with the slow reader every statement undergoes an instinctive process of cross-examination; every new fact seems to stir up the accumulated stores of facts among which it intrudes, and so impedes rapidity of mental action. (p. 252) The support for this at best impressionistic statement by OJ is a quote from Jonathan Swift: people come faster out of a church when it is almost empty than when a crowd is at the door (p. 253). Implication here is that women have vacant chambers of the mind (p. 252). Another example of OJs impressionistic statement is found in his explanation of the trilled [r] in womens speech. OJ writes: (17) the old loud trilled point sound is natural and justified when life is chiefly carried on out-of-doors, but indoor life prefers less noisy speech habits, and the more refined this domestic life is, the more all kinds of

noises and even speech sounds will be toned down. ... Now we find that women are not infrequently mentioned in connexion with this reduction of the trilled [r]. (p. 244) It is no wonder that McCawley (1993: xvi) was prompted to say in the introduction to the New Edition of OJs Progress in

Language (1894) that Jespersen makes generalizations ... about

which agree. he is grossly ignorant, and here the usually high intellectual level of his writing drops precipitously. I can only

III.
Sex is genetically coded.14 While there is no a priori reason that different genetic codes entail distinctive behaviors, its a proven fact that they do. For example, identical twins think, feel, and act so alike that its as if they are linked by telepathy.15 We also know that a genetically coded nature cannot be altered by a socio-cultural nurture. The following famous case study is instructive. An eight-month-old boy lost his penis in a botched circumcision. His parents consulted a noted sex researcher who advised them to let the doctors castrate the baby and build him an artificial vagina. The parents followed this advice, and raised him as a girl without telling him what had happened. The experts had expected this case to prove that babies are born neuter and acquire a sex from the way they are raised, but it was revealed that from a young age,

14 15

Pinker (2002:346-350) lists a dozen kinds of evidence for such genetic differences. Pinker cites a remarkable real-life example: the identical twins separated at birth who both grew up to be captains of their volunteer fire departments, both twirled their necklaces when answering questions, both told the researcher picking them up at the airport (separately) that a wheel bearing in his car needed to be replaced. (Pinker 2002:375).

Brenda (ne Bruce) felt she was a boy trapped in a girls body. According to Pinker, (18) She ripped off frilly dresses, rejected dolls in favor of guns, preferred to play with boys, and even insisted on urinating standing up. At fourteen she was so miserable that she decided either to live her life as a male or to end it, and her father finally told her the truth. She underwent a new set of operations, assumed a male identity, and today is happily married to a woman. (Pinker 2002:349) In addition to the biological separation, boys and girls are socio-culturally separated from birth: girls are wrapped in pink while boys are wrapped in blue; girls bedroom curtains have flower patterns while boys curtains are striped; girls clothes are frilled and laced while boys are plain and ragged; girls are given dolls and houses for toys while boys are given trucks and guns, etc. Indeed, in many societies, the crossing of the gender roles is prohibited.16 One can thus say that Simone de Beauvoir (1908-86), a French existentialist writer, and the author of Le Deuxieme

Sexe (The Second Sex) (1949), was only half-right (and

half-wrong) when she said that women are not born; they are made. They are first born, then made. It is natural to assume that the genetically coded traits give rise to distinctive behaviors. Since language reflects society, it is also natural to assume that inevitably these behavioral differences are linguistically coded. Hence linguistic differences between genders. One telling example of behavior-language correspondence is what Mannings (1997) examination of a corpus of 211 million

16

The Bible is unambiguous and quite emphatic here: A woman mustnot wear mens clothing, nor a man wear womens clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this. (Deut. 22:5)

English words showed. Although verbs such as kiss, embrace, caress, make love, etc. can be reciprocally stated as in they kissed, they embraced, they made love, etc., the overwhelming majority had the structure of the form: he kissed her, he embraced her, he made love to her, etc.17 Language differences in gender derive from the social order of sex, just as the honorifics system found in Korean and Japanese derives from the social order of class. The difference between the two is that while sex is biologically coded, class is not. There is nothing in the genes to stipulate that some people be born as royalty while some others as serfs. One might society argue and from this it fact has that no one should abolish in the a honorifics system, because it is a shameful vestige of a feudal because justifiable As Prof. existence Kim contemporary egalitarian society. Kyungil

exclaims, Nation lives when Confucianism dies ( Seoul: Bada Press. 1999). But no matter how undesirable the language recalling the despicable past is, we cannot yet do away with the honorifics system. Sometime in the future, hopefully less distant than one might think, changing social ethics will be accompanied by concomitant linguistic changes. The same is true with the language of gender. Yes, it is undesirable and unnecessary to have language uses that reflect the different statuses of men and women in society, but until the coming of the egalitarian unisex society, we will have to live with the remaining differences in the language of gender. Should Jespersen be condemned? Certainly, but not so much for his callous remarks about womens language as his cavalier attitude and unscientific arguments about language. Much ink has been spilt on the subject; many slings and arrows

17

From these examples, Manning says bluntly: Men fuck women. Subject. Verb. Object. Period. (Cited in Cameron & Kulick 2003:30)

have been hurled at each other; much acrimony and animosity have been expressed. Are we better off now? What advantages has one side gained over the other? Whats wrong with being different: biologically, behaviorally, and linguistically? Must we ask as Professor Higgins does in My Fair Lady, why cant women be more like men? I for one would rather live in a world where both harmony and discord, order and chaos, light and darkness, love and hatred, agony and ecstasy, pain and pleasure, Cain and Abel, life and death, and men and women coexist with all the problems that these antitheses entail than live in a universe of unicoded, unisexed, unicolor unicorns. The Woman of Otto Jespersen was not so much despised as disposed by the Man; its not so much that Mans words defiled Womans stature as that each exiled the other to the island of antipathy. The Woman in Otto Jespersen is a sad chapter after all in the annals of anthro-linguistics.18

18

Is it desirable to abolish or eliminate these gender differences in language? I would answer that it is neither desirable nor undesirable. Why not leave them alone and letevolution take its course? In a future sexless society, perhaps it makes sense to do away with he and she and replace them with a new sexless personal pronoun, te or se, as has been proposed. However, I dont see the point of doing it now. I dont see either why polysemy and hyponymy in certain word paradigms should be disallowed. Just as animal can refer to all moving creatures including humans or have a narrower meaning of mammal, and just as dog can mean a male dog, a bitch, or a puppy, why cant a man mean either a human being or a male being? Is it really confusing or insulting to women to say: Man is by nature a political animal (Aristotle: Politics i.2) Man delights not me (Shakespeare: Hamlet II, ii) Ditto with the so-called unmarked adjectives and nouns. If we cannot say: I dont knowhow tall he is, because tall can mean either neutral height or tall height, how else can we say it? Should we abandon such nouns as height, depth, length, thickness, etc., because their morphological forms are associated with the high end of each dimension? Should we replace these words with the vertical dimension, horizontal dimension, etc.? Is it really better to say: I dont know where he stands vertically?

References
Cameron, Deborah and Don Kulick. 2003. Language and Sexuality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Eckert, Penelope and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 2003. Language and Gender. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. New York, NY: Norton & Co. . 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London, UK: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. . 1938/1982. Growth and Structure of the English Language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, Robin. 1975. Language and Womans Place. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Malmkjaer, K. 2002. Language and gender. K. Malmkjaer (ed.). The Linguistic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., 302-307. London: Routledge. Manning, Elizabeth. 1997. Kissing and cuddling: The reciprocity of romantic sexual activity. eith Harvey & Celia Shalom (eds.). Language and Desire: Encoding Sex, Romance and Intimacy, 43-59. London: Routledge. McCawley, James D. 1992a. The biological side of Otte Jespersens linguistic thought. Historiographia Linguistica 19, 97-110. . 1992b. Introduction to Reprint of Jespersen: The Philosophy of Grammar(London: Allen& Unwin, 1924), i-ix. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. . 1993. Introduction to New Edition of Jespersen: Progress in Language. (London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1894), ix-xvii. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Mesthrie, Rajend et al (eds.). 2002. Introducing Sociolinguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [Chapter 7: Gender and language use, pp.216-247.] Pinker, Steven. 2002. The Blank State. New York, NY: Viking Penguin. Singer, Peter. 1981. Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology. New York:

Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Tannen, Deborah. 1994. Gender and Discourse. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Thorn, Barrieand Nancy Henley, eds. 1975. Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Department of Linguistics 4080 Foreign Language Building 707 South Mathews Avenue, MC-168 Urbana, IL 61801, USA 1-217-333-3563, cwkim@uiuc.edu

Received: October 30, 2004 Accepted: November 30, 2004