狠狠撸

Obstacles to the acceptability of English resultative
constructions by Japanese EFL learners and
their over-acceptance of the causative ‘make’
Yohei HIRANO (Graduate School, Hiroshima University)
<yy-mop-1745@hiroshima-u.ac.jp>
BAAL Annual Meeting 2015
14:00-14:30, September 3 (Thu) Aston University

Overview
1. Background:
1.1. Resultative Constructions (RCs) in English and Japanese
1.2. Resultative Constructions (RCs) and Causative ‘make’
2. Research Questions and Hypotheses:
3. Method: Acceptability Judgement Task with Pairs of Pictures.
4. Results: Means and Standard Deviations
5. Analysis: ANOVA / Multiple Comparison
6. Discussion:
7. Conclusion:
? Two Steps
||
①3 types of RCs
↓
②6 types of RCs

1. Background: English Resultative Construction
John painted the wall black.
S + V + O + 《RP》
||
《Resultative Predicate》
Washio (1997) argues that resultative constructions can be
classified into (at least) two types:
① Weak Resultatives:
Verbs do entail some change of state.
② Strong Resultatives:
Verbs do not entail any change of state or any result.

1. Background: Weak Resultative Constructions
in English and Japanese
(1) English
?John crushed the can flat.
?Mike painted the wall black.
Japanese
?John-wa kan-wo petyanko-ni tubusi-ta.
John-TOP can-ACC flat crush-PAST
?Mike-wa kabe-wo kuroku nut-ta
Mike-TOP wall-ACC black paint-PAST
Change-of-State Verbs

1. Background: Strong Resultative Constructions
in English and Japanese
(2)-A English (Transitive Type)
?John hammered the can flat.
Japanese
???/*John-wa kan-wo petyanko-ni tatai-ta.
John-TOP can-ACC flat pound-PAST
(2)-B English (Intransitive Type)
?Ken ran his shoes ragged.
Japanese
?*Ken-wa kutu-wo boroboro-ni hasit-ta
Ken-TOP shoes-ACC ragged run-PAST
Manners / Causes
Change of State
Characteristics of a
satellite-framed language
Talmy (2000)

1. Background: English Resultative Constructions
and Paraphrased Expressions with Causative ‘make’
English Resultative Constructions
(1) Weak
John crushed the can flat.
Mike painted the wall black.
(2)-A Strong-Transitive
John hammered the can (flat).
(2)-B Strong-Intransitive
Ken ran *(his shoes) *(ragged).
Paraphrased expressions with
causative ‘make’
(3)
John made the can flat
by crushing it.
Mike made the wall black
by painting it.
(4)-A
by hammering it.
(4)-B
Ken made his shoes ragged
by running.

1. Background: English Expressions with Causative
‘make’ and their Japanese translations
(3) English
?John made the glass into pieces by breaking it.
?Mike made the wall black by painting it.
Japanese
?John-wa kan-wo tubusi-te petyanko-ni sita.
John-TOP can-ACC crush-by flat make-PAST
?Mike-wa kabe-wo nut-te kuroku sita.
Mike-TOP wall-ACC paint-by black make-PAST

1. Background: English Expressions with Causative
‘make’ and their Japanese translations
(4)-A English
?John made the can flat by hammering it.
Japanese
?John-wa kan-wo tatai-te petyanko-ni sita.
John-TOP can-ACC pound-by flat make-PAST
(4)-B English
?Ken made his shoes ragged by running.
Japanese
?Ken-wa hasit-te kutu-wo boroboro-ni sita.
Ken-TOP run-by shoes-ACC ragged make-PAST

2. Research Questions & Hypotheses
RQ1:
Do the characteristics of the main verbs have any influence
on the acceptability of English resultative constructions by
Japanese EFL learners?
?Change-of-State Verbs or not
?Transitive or Intransitive
RQ2:
Do Japanese EFL learners accept English expressions with
causative ‘make’ more easily than English resultative
constructions?

Hypothesis I:
Japanese EFL learners’ acceptability of (1)
is higher than that of (2)-A and that of (2)-B.
Hypothesis II:
Japanese EFL learners’ acceptability of (2)-A
is higher than that of (2)-B.
Hypothesis III:
Japanese EFL learners’ acceptability of (3), (4)-A, and (4)-B
is higher than that of (1), (2)-A, and (2)-B, respectively.

1. Background: English Resultative Constructions
and Paraphrased Expressions with Causative ‘make’
English Resultative Constructions
(1) Weak
John crushed the can flat.
(2)-A Strong-Transitive
John hammered the can (flat).
(2)-B Strong-Intransitive
Ken ran *(his shoes) *(ragged).
Paraphrased expressions with
causative ‘make’
(3)
by crushing it.
by painting it.
(4)-A
by hammering it.
(4)-B
by running.
Hypothesis IHypothesis IIHypothesis III

3. Method: Participants
?Japanese EFL learners: (n=28)
〔Freshman university students majoring English education〕
〔English proficiency: TOEIC score 475-860 (Ave. 641.79)〕
?English native speakers: (n=10)
〔Faculty members of national university A〕 (n=3)
〔Faculty members of prefectural university B〕 (n=6)
〔Graduate school student of national university A〕 (n=1)

3. Method: Acceptability Judgement Task
with Pairs of Illustrations
(A)Ken crushed the can. As a result, (B)the can became flat.
Ken
can

3. Method: Acceptability Judgement Task
with Pairs of Illustrations
completely
unnatural
fairly
unnatural
slightly
unnatural
unableto
decide
slightly
natural
fairly
natural
completely
natural
← ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― →
(-3) (-2) (-1) (0) (+1) (+2) (+3)
1. Ken crushed the can flat.
2. Ken made the can flat by crushing it.
3. Ken crushed and made the can flat.
4. The can became flat by Ken’s crushing it.
5. The can was crushed flat by Ken.
6. The can was made flat by crushing it by Ken.
Participants responded on a 7 point
scale ((-3)~(+3)) to what degree each
sentence sounds natural as a description
of a series of situations described by the
underlined parts (A) and (B).

APPENDIX:
Test Sentences Included in the Task
John broke the glass into pieces.
Bob bent the wire into a U shape.
Mary melted the butter into liquid.
Mike tore the letter into pieces.
Ken crushed the can flat.
Lucy polished the mirror clean.
Kumi froze the juice solid.
(1): Weak Resultatives

APPENDIX:
John hammered the can flat.
Paul kicked the door open.
John knocked Mike unconscious.
Tom shot the man dead.
Miki watered the tulips flat.
Mike shook his father awake.
The horse dragged the logs smooth.
The earthquake shook
the old house into pieces.
(2)-A: Strong Resultatives [Transitive]

APPENDIX:
Sam sang himself hoarse.
Ken ran himself tired.
Takashi ate himself sick.
Lucy danced herself sweaty.
Ken ran his shoes ragged.
Mike shouted his father awake.
Lucy danced her feet sore.
Tim drank the teapot empty.
(2)-B: Strong Resultatives [Intransitive]

APPENDIX:
John made the glass into pieces
by breaking it.
Bob made the wire into a U shape
by bending it.
Mary made the butter into liquid
by melting it.
Mike made the letter into pieces
by tearing it.
by painting it.
Ken made the can flat
by crushing it.
Lucy made the mirror clean
by polishing it.
Kumi made the juice solid
by freezing it.
(3): Paraphrased Expressions of (1) with causative ‘make’

APPENDIX:
by hammering it.
Paul made the door open
by kicking it.
John made Mike unconscious
by knocking him.
Tom made the man dead
by shooting him.
Miki made the tulips flat
by watering them.
Mike made his father awake
by shaking him.
The horse made the logs smooth
by dragging them.
The earthquake made the old house
into pieces by shaking it.
(4)-A: Paraphrased Expressions of (2)-A with causative ‘make’

APPENDIX:
Sam made himself hoarse
by singing.
Ken made himself tired
by running.
Takashi made himself sick
by eating.
Lucy made herself sweaty
by dancing.
by running.
by shouting.
Lucy made her feet sore
by dancing.
Tim made the teapot empty
by drinking.
(4)-B: Paraphrased Expressions of (2)-B with causative
‘make’

3. Methods: Note
Whether a verb is a “Change-of-State Verb” or not
Levin (1993) The main verbs included in the task.
Weak Resultatives
break, bend, crush, freeze,
melt, paint, polish, tear
Strong Resultatives
(Transitive)
drag, hammer, kick, knock,
shake, shoot, water
(Intransitive)
dance, drink, eat,
sing, run, shout

(1)
Weak
(2)-A
Strong 〔T〕
(2)-B
Strong (I)
(3)
(1)-make
(4)-A
(2)-A-make
(4)-B
(2)-B-make
JLE
(n=28)
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
0.54 -1.45 -2.18 1.48 1.38 1.31
S.D. S.D. S.D. S.D. S.D. S.D.
0.89 0.94 0.92 0.66 0.76 0.67
NSE
(n=10)
2.25 1.84 1.04 0.76 -0.45 1.12
0.65 0.77 1.07 1.01 1.00 0.82

0.54
-1.45
-2.18
1.48 1.38 1.31
2.25
1.84
1.04
0.76
-0.45
1.12
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
(1) (2)-A (2)-B (3) (4)-A (4)-B

5. Analysis: Two-way ANOVA Test
? One between-subject factor (Language)
[2 levels: Japanese?English]
? One within-subject factor (Sentence Type)
[6 levels: (1)?(2)-A?(2)-B?(3)?(4)-A?(4)-B]
?Significant Effect of Language:
F(1, 36) = 26.242, η2 = .062, p<.001
?Significant Effect of Sentence Type:
F(2.09, 75.39) = 29.741, η2 = .141, p<.001
?Significant Interaction
b/w Language and Sentence Type:
F(2.09, 75.39) = 60.55, η2 = .287, p<.001

5. Analysis: Multiple Comparison Test
JLE
(n=28)
(1) > (2)-A (1) > (2)-B (2)-A > (2)-B
(p=.000) (p=.000) (p=.000)
(3) = (4)-A (3) = (4)-B (4)-A = (4)-B
(p=.205) (p=.108) (p=.561)
(1) < (3) (2)-A < (4)-A (2)-B < (4)-B
(p=.000) (p=.000) (p=.000)
NSE
(n=10)
(1) = (2)-A (1) = (2)-B (2)-A = (2)-B
(p=.089) (p=.059) (p=.083)
(3) > (4)-A (3) = (4)-B (4)-A < (4)-B
(p=.000) (p=.056) (p=.000)
(1) > (3) (2)-A > (4)-A (2)-B = (4)-B
(p=.000) (p=.000) (p=.850)
Verification of Hypotheses I & II

Hypothesis I:
Hypothesis II:
Hypothesis III:
Japanese EFL learners’ acceptability of (3), (4)-A, (4)-B
is higher than that of (1), (2)-A, (2)-B, respectively.
? Supported
? Supported

JLE
(n=28)
(1) > (2)-A (1) > (2)-B (2)-A > (2)-B
(p=.000) (p=.000) (p=.000)
(3) = (4)-A (3) = (4)-B (4)-A = (4)-B
(p=.205) (p=.108) (p=.561)
(1) < (3) (2)-A < (4)-A (2)-B < (4)-B
(p=.000) (p=.000) (p=.000)
NSE
(n=10)
(1) = (2)-A (1) = (2)-B (2)-A = (2)-B
(p=.089) (p=.059) (p=.083)
(3) > (4)-A (3) = (4)-B (4)-A < (4)-B
(p=.000) (p=.056) (p=.000)
(1) > (3) (2)-A > (4)-A (2)-B = (4)-B
(p=.000) (p=.000) (p=.850)
Verification of Hypothesis III

Hypothesis I:
Hypothesis II:
Hypothesis III:
Japanese EFL learners’ acceptability of (3), (4)-A, (4)-B
is higher than that of (1), (2)-A, (2)-B, respectively.
? Supported
? Supported
? Supported

JLE
(n=28)
(1) > (2)-A (1) > (2)-B (2)-A > (2)-B
(p=.000) (p=.000) (p=.000)
(3) = (4)-A (3) = (4)-B (4)-A = (4)-B
(p=.205) (p=.108) (p=.561)
(1) < (3) (2)-A < (4)-A (2)-B < (4)-B
(p=.000) (p=.000) (p=.000)
NSE
(n=10)
(1) = (2)-A (1) = (2)-B (2)-A = (2)-B
(p=.089) (p=.059) (p=.083)
(3) > (4)-A (3) = (4)-B (4)-A < (4)-B
(p=.000) (p=.056) (p=.000)
(1) > (3) (2)-A > (4)-A (2)-B = (4)-B
(p=.000) (p=.000) (p=.850)
Comparisons among Causative Expressions

6. Discussion (1)
Hypothesis I: Supported
Whether a main verb is a change-of-state verb or not – i.e.
whether it entails the end state of the event or not - has
influence on the Japanese EFL learners’ acceptability of English
resultative constructions.
Hypothesis II: Supported
Whether a main verb is transitive or intransitive has influence
on the Japanese EFL learners’ acceptability of English resultative
constructions.
Hypothesis III: Supported
Japanese EFL learners tend to depend too much on the
causative ‘make,’ which has been much more explicitly taught
than English resultative constructions at junior high and high
schools in Japan.

ATTENTION
Let’s divide each group
into two subtypes.

ATTENTION
Three things I noticed
while inputting the data.

APPENDIX:
John broke the glass into pieces.
Bob bent the wire into a U shape.
Mary melted the butter into liquid.
Mike tore the letter into pieces.
Ken crushed the can flat.
Lucy polished the mirror clean.
Kumi froze the juice solid.
(1) Weak Resultatives
RP = PP RP = AP
① WT-P ② WT-A

APPENDIX:
John hammered the can flat.
Paul kicked the door open.
John knocked Mike unconscious.
Tom shot the man dead.
Miki watered the tulips flat.
Mike shook his father awake.
The horse dragged the logs smooth.
The earthquake shook
the old house into pieces.
(2)-A Strong Resultatives [Transitive]
Verbs of Contact by Impact
③ ST-I ④ ST-O

APPENDIX:
Sam sang himself hoarse.
Ken ran himself tired.
Takashi ate himself sick.
Lucy danced herself sweaty.
Ken ran his shoes ragged.
Mike shouted his father awake.
Lucy danced her feet sore.
Tim drank the teapot empty.
(2)-B Strong Resultatives [Intransitive]
Reflexives
⑤ SI-R
Fake-objects
⑥ SI-F

APPENDIX:
John made the glass into pieces
by breaking it.
Bob made the wire into a U shape
by bending it.
Mary made the butter into liquid
by melting it.
Mike made the letter into pieces
by tearing it.
by painting it.
Ken made the can flat
by crushing it.
Lucy made the mirror clean
by polishing it.
Kumi made the juice solid
by freezing it.
(3) Paraphrased Sentences of (1) with causative ‘make’
①’ WT-P-M ②’ WT-A-M

APPENDIX:
by hammering it.
Paul made the door open
by kicking it.
John made Mike unconscious
by knocking him.
Tom made the man dead
by shooting him.
Miki made the tulips flat
by watering them.
by shaking him.
The horse made the logs smooth
by dragging them.
The earthquake made the old
house into pieces by shaking it.
(4)-A Paraphrased Sentences of (2)-A with causative ‘make’
③’ ST-I-M ④’ ST-O-M

APPENDIX:
Sam made himself hoarse
by singing.
Ken made himself tired
by running.
Takashi made himself sick
by eating.
Lucy made herself sweaty
by dancing.
by running.
by shouting.
Lucy made her feet sore
by dancing.
Tim made the teapot empty
by drinking.
(4)-B Paraphrased Sentences of (2)-B with causative ‘make’
⑤’ SI-R-M ⑥’ SI-F-M

- Resultative Constructions -
①
WT-P
②
WT-A
③
ST-I
④
ST-O
⑤
SI-R
⑥
SI-F
JLE
(n=28)
1.25 -0.17 -1.28 -1.62 -2.38 -1.97
1.12 1.17 1.12 0.89 0.99 0.96
NSE
(n=10)
2.06 2.45 2.83 0.90 1.79 0.29
0.62 0.80 0.47 1.44 0.83 1.50

- Paraphrased Expressions with Causative ‘make’-
①’
WT-P-M
②’
WT-A-M
③’
ST-I-M
④’
ST-O-M
⑤’
SI-R-M
⑥’
SI-F-M
JLE
(n=28)
1.29 1.67 1.36 1.40 1.02 1.61
0.72 1.17 1.12 0.89 0.99 0.96
NSE
(n=10)
-0.25 1.78 -0.43 -0.45 2.14 0.09
0.62 0.80 0.47 1.44 0.83 1.50

-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
JLE NSE
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
①' ②' ③' ④' ⑤' ⑥'
JLE NSE
Resultative Constructions Causative ‘make’
= (1) = (2)-A = (2)-B = (3) = (4)-A = (4)-B

5. Analysis: Two-way ANOVA Test
? One between-subject factor (Language)
[2 levels: Japanese?English]
? One within-subject factor (Sentence Type)
[6 levels: ①?②?③?④?⑤?⑥]
?Significant Effect of Language:
F(1, 36) = 189.124, η2 = .038, p<.001
?Significant Effect of Sentence Type:
F(3.61, 130) = 30.001, η2 = .164, p<.001
?Significant Interaction
b/w Language and Sentence Type:
F(3.61, 130) = 12.268, η2 = .067, p<.001

JLE
(n=28)
① > ②
WT-P WT-A
③ = ④
ST-I ST-O
⑤ < ⑥
SI-R SI-F
(p=.000) (p=.033) (p=.004)
NSE
(n=10)
① = ②
WT-P WT-A
③ > ④
ST-I ST-O
⑤ > ⑥
SI-R SI-F
(p=.095) (p=.004) (p=.003)
Comparisons between ① WT-P and ② WT-A

6. Discussion (2)
① vs. ②:
The syntactic category of the resultative predicate – whether
it is a preposition phrase or an adjective phrase - has influence
on the Japanese EFL learners’ acceptability of English resultative
constructions.
③ vs. ④:
It does not have much influence on the Japanese EFL learners’
acceptability of English resultative constructions whether a main
verb is a “Verb of Contact by Impact” or not.
⑤ vs. ⑥:
The types of fake-objects - whether it is reflexive or not - has
influence on the Japanese EFL learners’ acceptability of English
resultative constructions.

JLE
(n=28)
① > ②
WT-P WT-A
③ = ④
ST-I ST-O
⑤ < ⑥
SI-R SI-F
(p=.000) (p=.033) (p=.004)
NSE
(n=10)
① = ②
WT-P WT-A
③ > ④
ST-I ST-O
⑤ > ⑥
SI-R SI-F
(p=.095) (p=.004) (p=.003)
Comparisons between ③ ST-I and ④ ST-O

JLE
(n=28)
① > ②
WT-P WT-A
③ = ④
ST-I ST-O
⑤ < ⑥
SI-R SI-F
(p=.000) (p=.033) (p=.004)
NSE
(n=10)
① = ②
WT-P WT-A
③ > ④
ST-I ST-O
⑤ > ⑥
SI-R SI-F
(p=.095) (p=.004) (p=.003)
Comparisons between ⑤ SI-R and ⑥ SI-F

5. Results: Paired T-Test
- Resultatives vs. Causative ‘make’-
① vs. ①’ ② vs. ②’ ③ vs. ③’ ④ vs. ④’ ⑤ vs. ⑤’ ⑥ vs. ⑥’
JLE
(n=28)
t =
-0.143
t =
-6.143
t =
-10.7
t =
-13.119
t =
-13.564
t =
-16.048
p =
0.888
p < .000 p < .000 p < .000 p < .000 p < .000
d =
0.038
d =
1.945
d =
2.594
d =
3.449
d =
3.716
d =
4.284

-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
JLE NSE
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
①' ②' ③' ④' ⑤' ⑥'
JLE NSE
Resultative Constructions Causative ‘make’
= (1) = (2)-A = (2)-B = (3) = (4)-A = (4)-B
Significant DifferenceNo Significat Difference

7. Conclusion
? Obstacles to the acceptability of English resultative
constructions by Japanese EFL learners:
(i) Verbs which do not entail the end state of the event
(ii) Intransitivity of the main verbs
(iii)Adjectival types of resultative predicates
(iv)Reflexive types of fake-objects
? Japanese EFL learners tend to over-accept English
expressions with causative ‘make.’

7. Conclusion: Pedagogical Implication
Talmy (2000)
? English: Satellite-framed language
“Motion” and “Change of State” tend to be expressed
in a satellite element such as PP and AP.
“Manners” and “Causes” tend to be expressed in a verb.
? Japanese: Verb-framed language
“Motion” and “Change of State” tend to be expressed in a verb.
“Manners” and “Causes” tend to be expressed
in a satellite element such as an adverbial phrase.
The characteristics of English as a satellite-framed
language should start to be taught more explicitly to
Japanese EFL learners at the relatively early stage of
learning English.

References (written in English)
Boas, Hans C. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives, Stanford, CSLI Publications.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure,
Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Inagaki, Shunji. 2010. Transfer and learnability in second language argument structure: Motion verbs
with locational/directional PPs in L2 English and Japanese. Saarbrücken: Vdm Verlag.
Jackendoff, Ray 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MIT Press.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago and London, University of Chicago
Press.
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Son, Minjeong and Peter Svenonius. 2008. “Microparameterof cross-linguistic variation: Directed
motion and Resultatives.” In Abner, Natasha and Jason Bishop (Ed.), Proeedings of the 27th
West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 388-396. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
Proceedings Project.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, Cambridge, MIT Press.
Washio, Ryuichi. 1997. “Resultatives, compositionality and language variation.” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 6, 1-49.
Yotsuya, Atsuko et al. 2014. “Crosslinguistic effects in L2 acquisition: Strong/weak resultatives and the
directional/locational interpretation of PPs in L2 English by Japanese speakers.” In Ryan T.
Miller et al. (Ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 2012 Second Language Research Forum, 89-
100.

References (written in Japanese)
Ando, Sadao. 2005 Gendai Eibunpou Kougi [Lectures on Modern English Grammar], Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
Kageyama, Taro. 1996. Doosi-Imiron [Verb Semantics], Kurosio, Tokyo.
Kageyama, Taro. 2001. “Kekka-Koubun [Resultative Construction]” Kageyama Taro (ed.) Nichiei-Taishou
Doosi-no Imi-to Koubun [Meaning and Construction of Verbs], 154-181, Taishukan, Tokyo.
Ono, Naoyuki. 2005. Seisei Goi Imiron [Generative Lexical Semantics], Hitsuji-shobo, Tokyo.
Ono, Naoyuki (ed). 2007. Kekka-Koubun-no Sin-siten [New Perspectives on Resultative Constructions],
Hitsuji-shobo, Tokyo.
Ono, Naoyuki (ed). 2009. Kekka-Koubun-no Taiporojii [Typologies on Resultative Constructions], Hitsuji-
shobo, Tokyo.
Ono, Naoyuki 2012a. “Sateraito-fureimu Genngo-to Doosi-fureimu Gengo [Satillete-framed Languages
and Verb-framed Languages]” Fujita Koji et al. (ed.) Saisin Gengo Riron-wo Eigo Kyouiku-ni
Katsuyou Suru [Exploitation of the Latest Linguistic Theories in English Eucation], Kaitakusha,
Tokyo.
Ono, Naoyuki 2012b. “Kekka-Koubun-no Imiron [Semantics of Resultative Constructions]” Sawada
Harumi (ed.) Koubun-to Imi [Constructions and Meanings], 89-106, Hitsuji-shobo, Tokyo.

Thank You for Your Attention.
Overview
1. Background:
1.1. Resultative Constructions (RCs) in English and Japanese
1.2. Resultative Constructions (RCs) and Causative ‘make’
2. Research Questions and Hypotheses:
3. Method: Acceptability Judgement Task with Pairs of Pictures.
5. Analysis: ANOVA / Multiple Comparison
6. Discussion:
7. Conclusion:

狠狠撸

BAAL2015

Recommended

More Related Content

Recently uploaded (20)

Featured (20)

BAAL2015

Editor's Notes