4/29/24, 9:24 PM Turnitin - Originality Report - Speech community

Turnitin Originality
Report
Processed on: 29-Apr-2024 12:45 PM CDT
ID: 2365803920
Word Count: 4541
Submitted: 1

Speech community By basma

mhmood

6% match (Internet
from 01-May-2019)

Similarity by Source
Similarity Index
Internet Sources: 10%
Publications: 1%
10% Student Papers: 3%

https://studylib.net/doc/25194362/-blackwell-textbooks-in-linguistics--ronald-
wardhaugh--ja...

3% match (Internet from 06-Jul-2016)

https://issuu.com/azer02130/docs/companion_to_sociolinguistics

1% match (Internet from 24-Jul-2016)

https://www.scribd.com/document/319062293/The-Routledge-Handbook-of-
Sociolinguistics-Around-the-World

Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research- University of Baghdad-

College of Education-Ibn- Rushd for Social Sciences- English Department
Speech Community Sociolinguistics Submitted by: Mustafa Taha Odeh
Supervised by: Asst. Prof. Baida’a Abbas Al-Zubaidi 2024 1445 Abstract The
study of language use within or between speaker groups is known as
sociolinguistics. Although it can be challenging to define, we must try to be
taken in. There is essentially no upper limit to group membership; but, for
our purposes, a group must consist of at least two individuals. Individuals can
form groups for one or more additional factors, such as those related to
society, religion, politics, culture, family, employment, hobbies, and so forth
Both an individual and a social entity possess language. Therefore, we would
anticipate that some people would behave linguistically similarly to other
people: they may be considered to speak the same language, dialect, or
variety, which would mean they would use the same code. They would belong
to the same speech community in that regard. This idea has been interpreted
differently by sociolinguists. We have the conundrum of wishing to research
speaking groups but not having a precise idea of what constitutes a group.
We will find that defining speech community is challenging for many of the
same reasons that it is challenging to describe concepts like language,
dialect, and variety. Nevertheless, despite some "fuzziness" regarding its
precise properties, this idea has shown to be quite useful in sociolinguistic
research. We need to keep trying to define both languages and groups if we
think there is a relationship between them that is worth investigating. This

file:///C:/Users/Sa E1/Downloads/Turnitin_Originality_Report_2365803920.html 1/8

4/29/24, 9:24 PM Turnitin - Originality Report - Speech community
study examines two alternative approaches to grouping speakers in
sociolinguistics: communities of practice and social networks, together with
several definitions of speech communities. In conclusion, these concepts raise
questions regarding how social groupings could be identified using a
framework for researching social identities to serve as a link between
personal preferences and social classifications. Whatever form they take,
speech communities are part of the "real" world. As a result, we need to look
for an alternative perspective on the speech community—one that is more
beneficial to studies of language in society than one that is required by
theoretical linguistic abstractions. Keywords: Speech community,
sociolinguistics, linguistic theorizing, group membership, variety 1.
Introduction Using Norwich, England, as a case study, Trudgill (1979) offers a
compelling example of variationist sociolinguistics' quick globalization. As a
result, sociolinguists are now focusing on greater systemic issues rather than
fine- grained examinations of insignificant correlations between social and
language variables. The phenomena of diglossia, code-switching, bilingualism,
multilingualism, language and culture, language and power/language and
gender, language shift, and linguistic planning are a few examples. The fact
that many languages appear to be in danger of becoming extinct globally has
made this last topic more important in recent years, as stated by Crystal
(2000). The definition of a "real" speech community, according to Lyons
(1970, p. 326), is "all the people who use a given language (or dialect)." But
it just moves the problem to making the definition of a language (or dialect)
also the definition of a speech community. It is actually very simple to show
that a speech community and a language are not the same thing. For
example, although English is spoken in many parts of the world, we also need
to acknowledge that it is spoken in a wide range of ways in speech
communities that are virtually isolated from one another, such as those
among expatriates in China, New Zealand, and South Africa. As "the study of
language in relation to society," sociolinguistics is defined, which
unintentionally implies that it is a branch of linguistics. Therefore,
sociolinguistics is valuable because it provides insights into the features of
language, either generally or specifically. It is not surprising that linguists
would find linguistic data enlightening; after all, it is hard to imagine another
aspect of a civilization that is as unique or crucial to its operation as its
language. Thus, speech communities, communities of practice, social
networks, individuals, and other divisions are the main subjects of
investigation."The study of society in relation to language" is the succinct
description given by Hudson (1996, p. 4). The definition of a speech group
that is frequently used in sociolinguistics is to state that the speakers in that
community adhere to specific linguistic standards, or that they have a shared
sentiment on language use in that community. Wardhaugh (2010). 2.
Literature Review 2.1 What is Sociolinguistics? “Sociolinguistics is the study of
language in relation to society” ( Hudson ,1996, p.1). As the new millennium
begins, sociolinguistics has matured into a dynamic, confident field of study.
This argument is based on a concern for the empirical realities of linguistic
diversity and a reasonable examination of the origins and effects of this
variation and evolution. It’s evident and inevitable that languages will evolve,
and the uneven pace of that evolution over space and time is what gives rise
to the wide range of human languages. There is a direct line between the
classical objectives of dialectology and philology and the contemporary
interest in variation and change in sociolinguistics. Language variants were
characterized by dialectology and philology, which also traced the evolution of
particular grammatical and lexical features across time (Llamas et al., 2007).
An inherent concern of traditional dialectology predated the development of
sociolinguistics, which was ushered in by the invention of portable recording
devices such as desk-sized tape recorders. By eliminating the need to

file:///C:/Users/Sa E1/Downloads/Turnitin_Originality_Report_2365803920.html 2/8

4/29/24, 9:24 PM Turnitin - Originality Report - Speech community
extrapolate sound-change rules backwards in time or deduce them from
written texts, this allowed scholars to compare accent variation and study
speech more confidently. As a result of technological advancements in
recording and reproducing speech, sociolinguists may now isolate individual
sounds and look for correlations between speakers' age, gender,
socioeconomic status, education level, worldview, politics, and more. New
sociolinguistic methods shed light on the workings of human society and
language in the metropolitan environments where most people in
industrialized nations live, (Llamas et al., 2007). 2.1.1 The Coinage of the
Branch Sociolinguistics Sociolinguistics was first used by Currie (1952) in an
article that set out to examine whether or not there was a connection
between speakers' socioeconomic status and their communication styles.
Currie's paper included no new information, but rather explored the potential
for developing present trends in linguistics, notably in dialectology, into an
entirely new area. Currie correctly predicted a shift away from focusing
mostly on rural areas in dialectology in the United States, in contrast to the
situation in Europe. It's possible that the urban context played a part in
elevating the significance of social interactions. Using data from South
Carolina, McDavid (1948) found racial differences in the use of postvocalic r.
Historically, this wasn't seen as valuable in and of itself, but as McDavid
notes, "a social analysis proved necessary because the data were too
complicated to be described by only a geographical statement." (Hudson,
1996, p.194). This provides significant evidence that the social analysis was
not an original focus of the research; nevertheless, during the subsequent
fifteen years or more, this emphasis altered, (Ball, 2009). Labov's
contributions to the field of linguistics in the 1960s brought sociolinguistics to
the forefront, which led to increased attention and acceptance. Trudgill (1979)
provides a great illustration of the rapid internationalization of variationist
sociolinguistics with its application to the city of Norwich in England. As a
result, sociolinguists are now focusing on greater systemic issues rather than
fine-grained examinations of insignificant correlations between social and
language variables. The phenomena of diglossia, code-switching, bilingualism,
multilingualism, language and culture, language and power/language and
gender, language shift, and linguistic planning are a few examples. The fact
that many languages appear to be in danger of becoming extinct globally has
made this last topic more important in recent years. As stated by Crystal
(2000). 2.1.2 The Borderline Between Sociolinguistics and Sociology The
definition of sociolinguistics, "the study of language in relation to society,"
suggests (inadvertently) that sociolinguistics is a subfield of linguistics.
Consequently, the insights sociolinguistics offers into the characteristics of
language in general or a particular language make it valuable. It makes sense
that linguistic data would be instructive to linguists; after all, it is difficult to
think of another facet of a civilization that is as special or essential to its
functioning as its language. To put it simply, "the study of society in relation
to language" is what language sociology is all about (Hidson, 1996, p. 4). The
distinction between sociolinguistics and the sociology of language largely
comes down to focus, with the former relying on the researcher's background
in language analysis and the latter on whether language or society is the
subject of more interest. Given the significant areas of agreement between
the two, it would seem futile to try and draw a more rigid distinction between
them than is already the case. However, there are some subjects that such a
textbook ought to include but does not, chief among them the so-called
"macro" sociology of language, which studies the macro-level relationships
between languages and societies (Hudson, 1996). Studying this topic is
crucial from a sociological (and political) standpoint since it raises issues
regarding the effects of multilingualism on economic growth and potential
language-related government initiatives. However, the notion of "language X"

file:///C:/Users/Sa E1/Downloads/Turnitin_Originality_Report_2365803920.html 3/8

4/29/24, 9:24 PM Turnitin - Originality Report - Speech community
is usually not examined in these large-scale studies, which renders them less
informative than the small-scale tests (Trudgill, 1979). Everyone in this
society speaks the same language and is fluent in the same grammatical
structures and vocabulary words. They all also pronounce these words the
same way and understand the same range of meanings. That is to say, any
discrepancy from an exact match opens the door to claims regarding the
relationship between language and society, such as "Person A knows
pronunciation M, while Person B knows pronunciation N, for the same word,”
(Wardhaugh, 2010). 2.2 Defining Speech Community Both the individual and
the social entity possess language. As a result, some individuals may behave
linguistically similarly to others and speak the same language, dialect, or
variation—that is, using the same code. They would be regarded as belonging
to the same speech community in that sense. According to Wardhaugh (2010,
p. 63), "The kind of group that sociolinguists have generally attempted to
study is called the speech community." Some linguists have proposed the
possibility of a "ideal" speech community, however this is purely speculative.
This is indeed corroborated by Chomsky's "completely homogeneous speech-
community" (1965, p. 3–4). A "genuine" speech community, according to
Lyons (1970, p. 326), is defined as "all the people who use a given language
(or dialect)." That only changes the question to whether a language's (or a
dialect's) definition also includes the definition of a speech community.
Speakers use social, cultural, political, and ethnic characteristics, to name a
few, along with linguistic characteristics to build group identity and
distinctiveness from one another. In search of a meaningful understanding of
the "speech community," we must consider criteria beyond language, or at
the very least, in addition to linguistic ones. Labov (1992, p.120) maintains
that, “One approach to defining a speech community often taken in
sociolinguistics is to say that the speakers in such a community share some
kind of common feeling about linguistic behavior in that community, that is,
they observe certain linguistic norms.” The speech community is characterized
by adhering to a set of common standards rather than clearly agreed upon in
the usage of language components. This can be observed in overt forms of
evaluative conduct as well as in the consistency of abstract patterns of
variation that are invariant (Hudson, 1996). This definition places more
emphasis on giving specific speech patterns shared social meanings than it
does on speech community members speaking in cohesion. According to
Milroy (1987, p.13), this viewpoint has the following consequences: For
example, New Yorkers are seen as belonging to a single speech group since
they all view the post-vocalic [r] as prestigious, irrespective of social status.
They also agree that a great deal of other linguistic elements are relevant to
society. Speakers of Southern British English cannot be considered to belong
to the same speech group as individuals in New York because they do not
attach the same social meanings to words like (r); instead, the highest
prestige accent in Southern England (RP) is non-rhotic." Thus, according to
this view, what creates a speech community is not so much how an individual
speaks as it is how an individual assesses other speaking styles. However,
this is not a useful definition for research purposes, as the values of certain
speech patterns are even less obvious than linguistic patterns. Therefore,
even though the concept of shared norms is significant, it is difficult to
establish speech communities with distinct boundaries. Since a community's
distinctive rules may or may not be linguistic in nature, the concept of the
speech community is therefore somewhat vague. These norms cover
judgments of language use behaviors as well as particular language
characteristics and the social meanings and values associated with them. In
relation to a specific speech community. The idea stands for people's
knowledge and behaviors in social situations. It is assumed that individuals
behave as though they are operating within a common set of norms, local

file:///C:/Users/Sa E1/Downloads/Turnitin_Originality_Report_2365803920.html 4/8

4/29/24, 9:24 PM Turnitin - Originality Report - Speech community
knowledge, beliefs, and values when they interact through discursive
activities. It is essential to comprehending identification and the portrayal of
ideology that they be aware of these things and are able to discern when they
are being upheld and when the community's ideals are being disregarded,
(Morgan, 2001, p.31). 2.3 Language, Social Structure and Speech Community
Because language and social structure interact so crucially in the formation
of the speech community concept, there are multiple levels of speech
communities that correspond to different types of social groups. Linguistic
forms are classified as dialects, styles, or registers by Gumperz (1971, p.
115). Based on geography, religion, or occupation, the speech community of
English speakers in North America can be further subdivided into smaller
groups with specific guidelines for communication. A single speech community
can include multiple languages and varieties. According to Gumperz (1971,
p.101), there is no inherent reason to define speech communities based on
common language. Gumperz prefers the term "linguistic community" over
"speech community" due to these issues. He defines the phrase as follows: “A
social group which may be either monolingual or multilingual, held together
by frequency of social interaction patterns and set off from the surrounding
areas by weaknesses in the lines of communication. Linguistic communities
may consist of small groups bound together by face-to-face contact or may
cover large regions, depending on the level of abstraction we wish to
achieve.” The relationships that speech groups have with other communities
characterize them. In addition to being socially cohesive within, a community
needs to be kept apart from other communities outside of it. The factors that
influence coherence and divergence change depending on the situation. For
example, a person belongs to one speech community if, at a given time, he
identifies more with North Americans than with Australians; in another
situation, he might make a distinction between the speech norms in his
Canadian speech community and those in the United States. Therefore, the
individual determines what level of speech community is significant with the
use of context and contrast. 2.4 Community of Practice A speech community
is simply a group of people who interact regularly. These communities and
groupings are dynamic in nature, with mutable internal interactions and
frequently porous boundaries. They have to keep creating new versions of
themselves. The middle class, young people, immigrants, women, New
Yorkers, and so on of today are not the people of yesterday, nor will they be
of tomorrow. The group that is selected for identification will also vary
depending on the circumstances: at one-point, religious beliefs may be
significant; at another, geographic origin; and at still another, involvement in
a specific profession or social class. A person may also try to form a
connection with someone because they share a set of characteristics, or even
just one (like being the same gender), or because they don't share a certain
attribute (like not being classified as "White"), (Lippmann, 1992). It seems
that language bonding is no different. In one instance, mastery of a specific
skill When used as a powerful marker, dialect or language can foster a sense
of belonging and solidarity with other people (such as a group of Americans
living overseas); Thus, in a different scenario, not having such a command
might result in being marked as non-RP or non-AAVE user and be excluded
from a community of speakers. Nevertheless, it might not matter if you speak
the same dialect; if the situation calls for you to talk about astrophysics, your
familiarity with its terminology and ideas might be more crucial than your
social or regional dialect. On the other hand, Yoruba speakers might find
themselves in an English-speaking foreign student speech community at a
university in North America or Europe, building a community with speakers of
Japanese and Arabic, (Wardhaugh (2010). The notion that speakers are
involved in several communities of practice is one way sociolinguists attempt
to arrive at this dynamic picture of social groups. "An aggregate of people

file:///C:/Users/Sa E1/Downloads/Turnitin_Originality_Report_2365803920.html 5/8

4/29/24, 9:24 PM Turnitin - Originality Report - Speech community
who come together around mutual engagements in some common endeavor"
is how Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (1998, p. 490) define a community of
practice. As they work together on that project, attitudes, values, behaviors,
commun. As they work together on that project, behaviors such as speaking
and acting patterns, beliefs, values, and power dynamics, to put it simply,
practices, come into being. A community of practice can be defined as both
its members and the actions taken by them to foster a sense of community.
Examples of such communities include factory workers, extended families,
adolescent friendship groups, women's fitness classes, kindergarten
classrooms, and so forth. "We need to focus on communities of practice."
Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (1998) continue, "rather than seeing the
individual as some disconnected entity floating around in social space, or as a
location in a network, or as a member of a particular group or set of groups,
or as a bundle of social characteristics." 2.5 Speech Community as Social
Networks The study of social network demonstrated how sociological social
network theory might be used to sociolinguistics and how language research
may benefit from it. If the individuals you know and interact with also know
and interact with each other, then you are considered to be a part of a thick
social network. The social network is a loose one if they do not. If the
individuals in your multiplex social network are connected to one other not
only via professional relationships but also through extracurricular pursuits,
you are considered to be a part of this social network. (To view schematics of
these various network types, according to Bell (1984). According to Milroy
(1980), groups with dense, multiplex social networks promoted social
cohesion, which in turn helped to uphold linguistic norms, in a number of
working-class neighborhoods of Belfast. The disparities among various places
that were all labeled as "working class" could be explained by the variations
in social networks. They could also explain gender inequalities within fields
with highly differentiated gender roles and occupational patterns. Similar to
how people's speech patterns can alter over their lives, so too are certain
speakers' social networks dynamic and subject to change. Additionally, people
are a part of several networks with varying degrees of power. Many
individuals today use completely new sorts of networking that were made
possible by the recent development of computers, smartphones, and other
devices. A growing body of study has examined how these virtual networks
operate as speech communities. According to Holmes and Meyerhoff (1999),
speaker contact can be used to distinguish between communities of practice
and social networks. People who "have limited or infrequent contact" are
included in the social network model, but "regular and mutually defining
interaction" is necessary for a community of practice. 2.6 Social Identity and
Speech Community In the past, the main focus of sociolinguistic study has
been on characterizing and comprehending variations in speech patterns and
the possible meanings behind them, rather than identification per se.
According to Eckert (1997, p. 64), sociolinguists have long recognized that
speech variation can be used to convey social meaning and "signal important
information about aspects of speakers’ social identity." The primary goal of
the majority of sociolinguistic study has been to understand why people
speak differently from one another (interspeaker variation) and why people's
own speech can occasionally differ from one another (intraspeaker variation).
Since the field's founding in the late 1960s, the primary goal of sociolinguistic
research has been to comprehend the social patterning and significance of
variation, or interspeaker variation. Thus, it should come as no surprise that
sociolinguistic perspectives on identity are closely entwined with studies of
language variation, and scholars often make reference to both identity and
variation when outlining the objectives of the field (Milroy 1987, as cited in
Champers, 1995). The clearest example of this is when people switch
between languages that have distinct social connotations in their

file:///C:/Users/Sa E1/Downloads/Turnitin_Originality_Report_2365803920.html 6/8

4/29/24, 9:24 PM Turnitin - Originality Report - Speech community
communities, a phenomenon known as code-switching. For instance, Dubois
and Horvath (2000) show how, since many young Cajun people do not speak
French, French—once employed as a sign of identity for Cajun people in
Louisiana—is being replaced in the speech of young Cajun people with
French-accented English. These young people are speaking French-accented
English because they are unable to express their Cajun identity in French and
are making do with the language they do have. In addition, social facts "are
not determinants of linguistic facts," even when social facts "bear heavily on
linguistic ones"; correlational investigations are descriptive rather than
explanatory (Johnstone and Bean, 1997: 222). Early variationist research,
according to Mendoza Denton (2002: 475), was just "a statistically motivated
observation-cumulative-description" and provided no explanation at all. But at
the time, this essentialized understanding of identity was the norm. From this
angle, social psychologists such as Tajfel (1974) describe social identity as
follows: “That part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his
knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the
emotional significance attached to that membership”, (Tajfel, 1974, p.69).
2.7 Comparing the Frameworks When comparing the three methods, the
social network and communities of practice models appear to be more
comparable to each other than to the speech communities framework. The
most well-known proponents of these approaches—Eckert for communities of
practice and Milroy for social networks—both support qualitative techniques
for gathering data, and they both used participant observation in their
separate investigations, which were carried out in Detroit and Belfast.
Furthermore, when considering simultaneous speech community membership,
the speech community model does not even consider how group membership
is established; in contrast, both frameworks provide a comprehensive
explanation of this process. When engaging in these social practices, they
mutually define themselves as members of a community of practice, and they
also simultaneously show that they have common social and instrumental
goals, as evidenced by language practices like turning in appropriate
responses to the agenda when called upon. Due to its heterogeneous
character, the speech communities’ concept does not require any mutual
involvement to denote membership or any sharing of social/instrumental
aims. According to Holmes and Meyerhoff (1999), speaker contact can be
used to distinguish between communities of practice and social networks.
Although individuals with "limited or infrequent contact" are included in the
social network approach, a community of practice necessitates "regular and
mutually defining interaction" (1999, p. 179–80). In their analysis of social
networks and communities of practice, Milroy and Gordon (2003) contend
that the main distinctions between the two are in their approaches and areas
of focus. Communities of practice look for the "clusters that form the crucial
loci of linguistic and social practice," whereas social networks look for
connections that are meaningful to an individual (2003, p. 119).
Notwithstanding these variations, Holmes and Meyerhoff (1999: 180) propose
that one avenue for further investigation could involve developing a "metric
for an individual's level of integration into a Cof P," which could subsequently
be contrasted with the classifications established to assess the "various levels
of integration into social networks." This would be a worthwhile and
intriguing area for more research that builds on the advantages of both
frameworks. 3. Conclusion Both an individual and a social entity possess
language. Therefore, we would anticipate that some people would behave
linguistically similarly to other people: they may be considered to speak the
same language, dialect, or variety, which would mean they would use the
same code. They would belong to the same speech community in that regard.
This idea has been interpreted differently by sociolinguists. We have the
conundrum of wishing to research speaking groups but not having a precise

file:///C:/Users/Sa E1/Downloads/Turnitin_Originality_Report_2365803920.html 7/8

4/29/24, 9:24 PM Turnitin - Originality Report - Speech community
idea of what constitutes a group. We will find that defining speech community
is challenging for many of the same reasons that it is challenging to describe
concepts like language, dialect, and variety. Nevertheless, despite some
"fuzziness" regarding its precise properties, this idea has shown to be quite
useful in sociolinguistic research. We need to keep trying to define both
languages and groups if we think there is a relationship between them that is
worth investigating. This study examines two alternative approaches to
grouping speakers in sociolinguistics: communities of practice and social
networks, together with several definitions of speech communities. In
conclusion, these concepts raise questions regarding how social groupings
could be identified using a framework for researching social identities to
serve as a link between personal preferences and social classifications.
References Ball, M. J. (2009). The Routledge Handbook of Sociolinguistics
Around the World. Routledge. Bauer, L. and Holmes, J. (1996). ‘Getting into a
flap! /t/ in New Zealand English’, World Englishes, 15, 115–24 Bell, A. (1984).
‘Language style as audience design’, Language in Society, 13, 145–204
Chambers, J. K. (2002). Sociolinguistic Theory, 2nd edn, Oxford: Blackwell.
Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P. and Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.) (2002). The
Handbook of Language Variation and Change, Oxford: Blackwell Coulmas, F.
(ed.) (1998). The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Duranti, A.
(2006). “Narrating the political self in a campaign for U.S. Congress,”
Language in Society, 35, 467–97. Eckert, P. (2003). “Sociolinguistics and
authenticity: an elephant in the room,” Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7, 392–97
Eckert, P. and Rickford, J. R. (2001). Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, New
York: Cambridge University Press. Holmes, J. (1990). ‘Hedges and boosters in
New Zealand women’s and men’s speech’, Language & Communication, 10,
185–205 Hudson, R. (1996). Sociolinguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. Labov, W. (1963) “The social motivation of a sound change,”
Word, 19: 273– 309. Llamas, C., Mullany, L., & Stockwell, P. (2007). The
Routledge companion to sociolinguistics. Routledge. Milroy, J. and Milroy, L.
(1995) Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and
Standardization, New York: Routledge. Milroy, L. (1987) Language and Social
Networks, 2nd edn, Oxford: Basil Blackwel. Murray, T. E. (2002). “Language
variation and change in the urban Midwest: the case of St. Louis,” Language
Variation and Change, 14, 347–61. Wardhaugh, R. (2010). An introduction to
sociolinguistics. Wiley-Blackwell. Holmes, J., Meyerhoff, M., & Ebooks
Corporation. (2007). The handbook of language and gender. Blackwell.
Trudgill, P. (1974). Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth : Penguin.

file:///C:/Users/Sa E1/Downloads/Turnitin_Originality_Report_2365803920.html 8/8