Sabado, Oktubre 19, 2013

CHEKHOV’S LEXICON IN SHADOWING THE ABSURD IN THE “THE WIFE” AND “A DREARY STORY”

Prologue:

Anton Chekhov is “one of the most popular great Russian writers” (Asiado, 2008); his prolific pen made him known in the world, and his works are constant part of Literature textbooks and courses. According to Boyd (2004), his works are:

…extremely interesting but somehow ancillary and complimentary to his main achievement. And this Russian conception of his work has some validity: Chekhov, whatever his standing as a playwright, is quite probably the best short story writer ever.

His writings placed him in the ranks of the world’s literary cannon. Like certain great pieces of music, his stories repay constant reading and revisiting; renowned and critically acclaimed.

Chekhov’s stories, aside from being classics, are unexpected to reveal postmodern ideas since he was born in late 19^th Century—the peak of Modernism. But strangely, his stories: “The Wife” and “A Dreary Story” provide traces of postmodern ideas, especially absurdity. Such was validated by William Boyd’s (2010) narrations:

Chekhov’s personal world was a godless one: despite his orthodox religious upbringing, he asserted, in 1892, that ‘I have no religion now’. But intelligent people who believed in God seemed baffling to him. ‘I squandered away my faith long ago and never fail to be puzzled by an intellectual who is also a believer.’

Boyd further added that Chekhov as a writer was “secular, refusing to pass judgment, cognizant of the absurdities of our muddled, bizarre lives and the complex tragi-comedy that is the human condition.”

This paper employs the postmodern approach in deconstructing two of the longest fictions of Anton Chekhov entitled “The Wife” and “A Dreary Story”. The reading of the texts is centered in identifying intriguing lexical items used by the author; and the interpretation of meaning is anchored in the postmodern perspective of “absurdity”. In doing so, the researcher endeavored in identifying lexical items that contribute in establishing the ideas of postmodernism.

The Texts

“The Wife” is composed of seven chapters which tell about Pavel Andreitch’s search for peace of mind, and for the answers to plenty of his questions in life. He is described by his wife as educated, honest, high principled, rich; but in effect, he becomes suffocating, oppressing, insulting and humiliating. In his quest to find himself and the real meaning of his existence, he gave up all his wealth and belongings, almost literally everything that he posses in order to help the peasants who were under famine. He was uncertain of what will happen in the future, that he might grow old and poor; but he worried not. He found happiness in such action, he found pleasure seeing his wife doing good things for others in the expense of his own money and properties, and very selflessly, he said towards the end of the story, when his wife was looking for what more she can give for the starving peasant: “…there will soon be nothing of our property left and we shall be poor; but that does not trouble me, and I smile at her gaily.”

“A Dreary Story” is a composed of six chapters told through the Stream of Consciousness of an old professor named Nikolay Stepanovitch, a dying medical professor, who recounts at length his final months, his night fears and insomnia, his impatience with colleagues and weariness with family matters. Alarmed by his own indifference to his daughter's decision to run away with a man which he does not like, he registers that indifference as “a paralysis of the soul, a premature death,” and discovers within himself only a bundle of peevish desires. Towards the end of the story, his intimate friend named Katya, a prostrated stage actress, becomes bitterly disappointed because she asks for Nikolay’s advice but he cannot give an answer. Having discovered the meaninglessness of life, he becomes useless to the living.

Basic Tenets of Postmodernism

According to Feyerabend “The only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths.” This argument seems to question the organized body of knowledge that has been established by history and human experience. Since the 1960s, when different thinkers started questioning the validity of human Subject, leading to the rise of theories such as “phenomenology” and sociological outlooks toward liberal and subjective thinking; the birth of a new perspective now known as “postmodernism” has arise. Fackerell (2007) asserts that “Postmodernism arms us with a method of calling everything into question and promoting a new cultural agenda.”

Postmodern is the time when people could do away with theologies that has been the basis of human life throughout the history of mankind. It dismantles the premodern’s belief in god, and the modern’s belief in science. Copan (2007) further explains that god was excluded as the foundation of making sense of reality and human experience; as well as science; postmodernism is “critical of any view that claims to be neutral, unbiased, or rational.” According to Fackerell (2007), “Postmodernists can accept any god or God (or goddess) as long as this being takes his place obediently within the grid…Any claims of supreme authority is unacceptable” Copan (2007) further asserts that “we cannot speak of any universal truth, reason, or morality. We just have fragmented perspectives.” Furthermore, eNotes (2009) supports these claims, as it describes the social and political ferments of the 1960s to “indicate a profound distrust in historical and cultural traditions, as well as modernist notions of progress, objectivity, and reason.” Moreover, it added that in literature, “postmodernism represents the rejection of the modernist tenets of rational, historical, and scientific thought in favor of self-conscious, ironic, and experimental works.”

The article entitled “On Truth and Reality” (Haselhurts & Howie, 2010) published by spaceandmotion.com states that “The current postmodern belief is that a correct description of Reality is impossible.” This extreme skepticism which is popularized by proponents such as: Friedrich Nietzsche, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn , produced the following postmodern assumptions (spaceandmotion.com, 2010):

All truth is limited, approximate, and is constantly evolving.
No theory can ever be proved true - we can only show that a theory is false.
No theory can ever explain all things consistently.
There is always a separation between our mind and ideas of things and the thing in itself.
Physical reality is not deterministic.
Science concepts are mental constructs.
Metaphysics is empty of content.
Absolute and certain truth that explains all things is unobtainable.

The Theory of the Absurd

The picture we present of the reality is the product of the stories we tell. Since the stories we create are different and multiple, so is the world (multiple), as well. Accordingly, the realities that exist about the world will be incomplete, and non-shared, as well. The world is ‘made’ not ‘found’” (Parker, 1997).

According to Sajjadi (2007), “There is no fixed, unique and universal reality or truth so that one can analyze and evaluate good or bad deeds, right and wrong, the good and the evil, ugly and beautiful by recourse to it.” Thus, Postmodernism proposed a method of deconstruction that restored the fundamental difference of things, a singular elevation of difference thoroughgoing subjectivism, whereas objectivity was sacrificed to personal subjective responses (Heartfied, 2002). Martin Esslin mentions Ionesco's parallel concept of the absurdity: "Absurd is that which is devoid of purpose. ...Cut off from his religious, metaphysical, and transcendental roots, man is lost; all his actions become senseless, absurd, useless.”

In “The Myth of Sisyphus” by Alfred Camus (1942), he introduced the problem of human absurdity and how it arises. Through Sisyphus—the absurd hero, he describes the characteristics of human basic ontological categories as the feelings of "denseness" and "the strangeness of the world", which are the feelings of the Absurdity of man in a world where the decline of religious belief has deprived man of his certainties. “Absurdity does not reside in the world itself, or in a human being, but in a tension which is produced by their mutual indifference. Human existence is in its essence completely different from the existence of things outside the human subject” (Navratilova, 2010).

The “Theatre of the Absurd” (Esslin, 1962) is another movement that supports postmodern thinking. “The playwrights loosely grouped under the label of the ‘absurd’ attempt to convey their sense of bewilderment, anxiety, and wonder in the face of an inexplicable universe” (Crabb, 2010). Theater of the Absurd is surreal, illogical, conflictless and plotless. The dialogue often seemed to be complete gibberish. They, in a sense, attempt to reestablish man’s communion with the universe. Dr. Jan Culik, as cited by Crabb, says:

Absurd Theatre can be seen as an attempt to restore the importance of myth and ritual to our age, by making man aware of the ultimate realities of his condition, by instilling in him again the lost sense of cosmic wonder and primeval anguish. The Absurd Theatre hopes to achieve this by shocking man out of an existence that has become trite, mechanical and complacent. It is felt that there is mystical experience in confronting the limits of human condition.

According to eNotes.com (2009), in literature, postmodernism represents the rejection of the modernist tenets of rational, historical, and scientific thought in favor of self-conscious, ironic, and experimental works.

Shadows of Absurdity in “The Wife” and “A Dreary Story”

Irony and absurdity are some of the ideas of postmodernism. These were manifested many times in “the Wife’ and “A Dreary Story”. In postmodern literature, according to eNotes.com “the authors abandon the concept of an ordered universe, linear narratives, and traditional forms to suggest the malleability of truth and question the nature of reality itself, dispensing with the idea of a universal ordering scheme in favor of artifice, temporality and a reliance on irony.”

In “The Wife” and “A Dreary Story”, Chekhov evidently depicted irony and absurdity through some noticeable lexical choices. Notably, his style of writing manifested many ironic and contradicting statements which somehow support the theory of the absurd. In doing so, Chekhov employed oxymoron, defined by TheFreeDictionary (2011) as “a rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined”. To Dictionary.com (2011), it is “a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect. The following are example of oxymoron excerpted from the text:

STATEMENT 1: STATEMENT 2:

talking about serious things never speaks seriously

given me such enjoyment as lecturing at lectures I feel nothing but torture

talking about serious things never speaks seriously.

I will never go I know I shall go

I am master here the word "master" had no meaning.

Katya listens and laughs…strange laugh I grow depressed …and cry…

Furthermore, observe the contradiction between the underlined phrases and sentences, and his constant use of words with opposing meaning (notice the highlighted words) in following excerpts:

No kind of sport, no kind of game or diversion, has ever given me such enjoyment as lecturing. Only at lectures have I been able to abandon myself entirely to passion, and have understood that inspiration is not an invention of the poets, but exists in real life… That was in old times. Now at lectures I feel nothing but torture… There is a dryness in my mouth, my voice grows husky, my head begins to go round…(A Dreary Story)

The underlined statements realize the idea of “temporality”; as highlighted by the transition in time connoted by the opposition between the phrase “old times” and the word “now”. People cannot really say what will happen in the future. All truth is limited, approximate, and is constantly evolving. What is true today may be falsified tomorrow because nothing is permanent. There are conflicts between meanings in both statements and undeniably, lexical items which connote opposite meaning “enjoyment” and “torture” take an important role in building up this idea.

He is always talking about serious things, but he never speaks seriously. His judgments are always harsh and railing, but, thanks to his soft, even, jesting tone, the harshness and abuse do not jar upon the ear…(A Dreary Story)

And I vow to myself that I will never go to Katya's again, though I know I shall go next evening. (A Dreary Story)

In item-two, the prominence of oxymoron manifests the confusing effect connoted by the meaning of each underlined statements, which is also the same effect created by the opposing pronouncements in the underlined statements in item-three. These were further reinforced by Chekhov’s preference of lexical items with opposing meaning such as the oxymoron in item-two: “talking about serious things” and “never speaks seriously”; apparently, the lexical relation between the words talking and speaks by means of synonymy made the bridge between the two statements of the oxymoron, while the contradiction was highlighted by the word never (the effect of these lexical items is realized by rephrasing the statements to: serious things-never seriously). Moreover, the anomaly on Chekhov’s choice of lexical items is obvious in the proceeding sentence of item-two where he used the opposing words harsh and soft. Furthermore, these ironic statements in effect support the postmodern claim of “…the malleability of truth and question the nature of reality itself, dispensing with the idea of a universal ordering scheme in favor of artifice, temporality and a reliance on irony.” Such appears to be further realized in the oxymoron in item-three: “I will never go” and “I know I shall go”.

By and large, the opposition between the words “enjoyment” and “torture”; “harsh” and “soft”; “never go” and “shall go” also prove the postmodern idea that language “is more an act of conflict…” , that language cannot be a defining factor for determining the truth.

"After all, why am I so troubled?" I thought. "What force draws me to the starving peasants like a butterfly to a flame? I don't know them, I don't understand them; I have never seen them and I don't like them. Why this uneasiness?" (The Wife)

According to eNotes.com (2009), “language is inherently unable to convey any semblance of the external world, and that verbal communication is more an act of conflict than an expression of rational meaning.” The same idea is conveyed in item-four whereas somebody is troubled and uneasy for people, whom he doesn’t know, don’t understand, have never seen, and don’t like. All these are absurd. The effect of negation brought about by the auxiliary verbs: doesn’t and don’t, and the adverb never was successfully employed by Chekhov in advancing the idea of absurdity.

According to Haselhurts & Howie, (2010) our language is too imprecise, our senses too limited and deceptive to ever absolutely describe Reality. Thus, according to Feyerabend “The only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths.” Furthermore, some absurdities are also depicted in the following excerpts:

And she thought it funny that the students fought and I made them go down on their knees, and she laughed. She was a gentle, patient, good child. It happened not infrequently that I saw something taken away from her, saw her punished without reason, or her curiosity repressed; at such times a look of sadness was mixed with the invariable expression of trustfulness on her face -- that was all. (A Dreary Story)
"Excuse us for troubling you, Natalie. We are discussing a very important matter, and we had the happy thought that we might take advantage of your good advice, which you will not refuse to give us. Please sit down."…Natalya Gavrilovna looked at me inquiringly and shrugged her shoulders as though to say, "What do I know about it?" (The Wife)

The underlined statements above depict confusing ideas. In item-five, how could a person who is gentle, patient and good; will find it funny that students fight? Such is absurd. In a conventional pattern of behavior, someone gentle, patent and good is expected to think in a manner that aligns to these behaviors. Notably, although the discourse is coherent, the build up of Chekhov’s lexical choices contributes more to the absurdity of language that “…verbal communication is more an act of conflict than an expression of rational meaning.” (realized with his set of vocabulary as he started with affirmative words: funny, laughed, gentle, patient, and good; and as he ended with downbeat words: punished, repressed, and sadness). Postmodernists open a man’s mind to unconventional ideas by showing those which are least expected. According to Crabb (2006) postmodernists “achieve this by shocking man out of an existence that has become trite, mechanical and complacent.” In item-six, the contradiction connoted by the positive statement “take advantage of your good advise”, (affirmation highlighted by words advantage and good); and the negative revelation of the proceeding statement “…inquiringly…What do I know about it?”(negation highlighted by the word inquiringly which connotes an act of not knowing or asking question—further supported by an interrogative sentence, made heavier by the word what) made unconventional thinking prominent in the text. Life has been made predictable, postmodernism offers new things to ponder. A woman who thinks she doesn’t know about the matter is expected to give good advice. In conventional reality, one cannot give what he doesn’t have.

Furthermore, some evidences of the absurd are also noticeable in the following:

My wife's face wears a look of triumph and affected dignity, and her habitual expression of anxiety. (A Dreary Story)

I listened and thought: "I am master here; if I like, I can in a moment turn out all that fine crew." But I knew that all that was nonsense, that I could not turn out any one, and the word "master" had no meaning. One may think oneself master, married, rich, a kammer-junker, as much as one likes, and at the same time not know what it means. (The Wife)

In item-seven, Chekhov’s choice of lexical items again depicts absurdity; the highlighted words and their conventional sense manifest absurd implication. Expectedly, upon hearing such statement, one might ask, “How could you be triumphant and dignified when you are anxious?” To answer such question is futile since according to “On Truth and Reality” (Haselhurts & Howie, 2010): “Absolute and certain truth that explains all things is unobtainable.” In item-eight, Chekhov made an obvious series of paring words with somehow associated opposite meanings to the word “master”: master-nonsense, master-no meaning, master-not know; such pairs if used to define the word master will create unconventional meaning, something frustrating—something absurd. This idea of opposing meanings is carried out when Camus (1942) says, “When the images of earth cling too tightly to memory, when the call of happiness becomes too insistent, it happens that melancholy arises in man's heart: this is the rock's victory, this is the rock itself.” Thus, to Fackerell, (2007) “The mind can be fooled. How could we know that our thinking patterns are reliable?”

Finally, Chekhov also manifested absurd behaviors which are evident in the following:

Katya listens and laughs. She has a strange laugh; she catches her breath in rhythmically regular gasps, very much as though she were playing the accordion, and nothing in her face is laughing but her nostrils. I grow depressed and don't know what to say. Beside myself, I fire up, leap up from my seat, and cry…(A Dreary Story)

…being very cold, burst out with, "Scoundrels, these Germans!"I behave badly with Pyotr Ignatyevitch, and only when he is going away, and from the window I catch a glimpse of his grey hat behind the garden-fence, I want to call out and say, "Forgive me, my dear fellow!" (A Dreary Story)

The situations depicted in above items illustrate irony; what has been said and done are different from what is really meant. In item-nine, ironic behavior was highlighted by extracting the contradicting words: laughs-depressed and laugh-cry. In item-ten, the opposing sense of the words: scoundrels which connotes a villain, and the phrase dear fellow which connotes someone loved; in addition to the contradicting sense of the negative phrase behave badly, and the positive intention of the statement forgive me highlights human instability of thoughts. According to Haselhurts & Howie, (2010) our language is too imprecise, our senses too limited and deceptive to ever absolutely describe reality.

Looking at the behaviors manifested by the characters in both texts, and paying attention to how the author somehow utilized lexical items to signal an ideological stance, Chekhov was able to present evidences of human confusion and uncertainty. He make the characters portray the so called “human’s limited and deceptive senses” by showing ironic responses. Navratilova in “The Absurdity of Samuel Beckett” says,

It is not concerned with the representation of events, the narration of fates, or the adventures of characters. It is instead interested in the presentation of an individual's basic situation. It presents individual human being's intuition of his basic situation as he experiences it.

Conclusion

“The ideas of those who think that they have some kind of objective truth or reality now need to be firmly suppressed!” (Fackerell, 2007). To Camus:

If I were a tree among trees, a cat among animals, this life would have a meaning, or rather this problem would not arise, for I should belong to this world. I should be this world to which I am now opposed by my whole consciousness and my whole insistence upon familiarity. This ridiculous reason is what sets me in opposition to all creation.

The world becomes alien and the human being becomes a stranger in it, he feels isolated and limited. This is what is absurd. We do not know and cannot know the truth. Furthermore, Fackerell (2007) asserts, “Postmodernist no longer believe in the existence of the objective truth.” Human is now left with a question which will remain unanswered. Notice the last words in the ending of both text:

My wife often comes up to me and looks about my rooms uneasily, as though looking for what more she can give to the starving peasants "to justify her existence," and I see that, thanks to her, there will soon be nothing of our property left and we shall be poor; but that does not trouble me, and I smile at her gaily. What will happen in the future I don't know. (The Wife)

"Let us have lunch, Katya," I say.

"No, thank you," she answers coldly. Another minute passes in silence. "I don't like Harkov," I ; "it's so grey here -- such a grey town."

"Yes, perhaps. . . . It's ugly. I am here not for long, passing through. I am going on today."

"Where?"
"To the Crimea . . . that is, to the Caucasus."

"Oh! For long?"

"I don't know." (A Dreary Story)

Chekhov ended both text with the statement: “I don’t know.” This is the statement that best depicts absurdity. Crabb (2006) in explaining postmodernism, talked about “The Myth of Sysiphus” by Albert Camus, and further concludes: “Camus argued that humanity had to resign itself to recognizing that a fully satisfying rational explanation of the universe was beyond its reach; in that sense, the world must ultimately be seen as absurd.”

Anton Chekhov in “The Wife” and in “A Dreary Story”, through the anomaly in his lexical choices by indiscriminate usage of oxymoron, irony and lexical contradictions, manifested several shadows of the Absurd—such is a genuine characteristic of Postmodernism.

References:

Asiado, T. (2008). Anton Chekhov biography: Russian short story writer and playwright,

known for Uncle Vanya. Retrieved at:

http://www.suite101.com/content/anton-chekhov-brief-biography-a40721.

Crabb, J. P. (2006) Theatre of the Absurd. Retrieved at:

http://www.theatredatabase.com/20th_century/theatre_of_the_absurd.html

Camus, A. (1942). The Myth of Sysiphus. Retrieved at: http://dbanach.com/sisyphus.htm

Copan, P. (2007). What Is Postmodernism? Retrieved at:

http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2950205/k.7A9C/What_is_Postmodernism.htm

eNotes.com. (2009). Postmodernism introduction. Retrieved at:

http://www.enotes.com/twentieth-century-criticism/postmodernism/introduction

Fackerell, M. (2007). Postmodernism and the Death of Truth. Retrieved at:

http://www.christian-faith.com/forjesus/postmodernism-and-death-truth

Haselhurst, G. & Howie, K. (2010). On Truth & Reality. Retrieved at:

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Postmodernism.htm

Heartfield, J. (2002). Postmodernism and the ‘Death of the Subject.

Retrieved at: http://marxistsfr.org/reference/subject/philosophy/index.htm.

Navratilova, E. The absurdity of Samuel Beckett Retrieved on September, 2010 at

http://www.samuel-beckett.net/Absurdity.htm

DIRECT VS INDERECT FEEDBACK IN LOCAL ISSUES: Revisiting a Common Practice in Giving Feedback

INTRODUCTION:

Giving feedback on students’ essays has been a usual practice among every Filipino language teachers. It almost became part of the system, a daily routine which everyone usually takes for granted. What do we check when we give corrective feedback on our students’ composition? Why do we give feedback? How can we do this task properly? Is there a standardized procedure in giving feedback? These are some of the questions that must be clarified and answered by a language teachers as responsible members of the academe.

One proponent that seems to be against giving feedback is John Truscott. In his paper entitled “Teacher Written Feedback...(2007)” he presented the following conclusions:

The best estimate is that correction has small harmful effect on students,
We can be 95% confident that if it actually has any benefits, they are very small.

Such statements would make one think and doubt the practice of giving feedback, as Truscott presented several other papers which manifested aligning findings. Ferris (2003) made a comparison between groups of writing students who received corrections and that of students who did not; and found out that it does not offer information on absolute gains made by correction group. Kepner (1991) “found little or no value for correction.” Sheppard (1992) concluded that correction was not only ineffective, but also probably harmful to students…” Fazio (2001) found out that students who are given feedback declined in accuracy while those which did not receive feedback had clearly the smallest decline. Bitchener, Young and Cameron (2005) found out that the non correction group was slightly better than the correction only group. These findings are quite intriguing. But before fully believing these claims, the other side of the coin must also be considered.

Guenette, quoting FathMan and Whalley (1990) said, “The control group receiving feedback on formal and feedback on content gains in formal accuracy”. Ashwell (2000), Fathman & Whalley (1990), and Ferris and Roberts (2001) said “There are significant effects for the correction group.” Chandler (2003) found out that the accuracy of students who were required to correct their errors before submitting their next assignments improved over the semester and increased on a measure of fluency. If these are truth, then why are there many contradicting findings? According to Guennete (2007), differences in research design and methodology of each study are the root of the different results obtained, which we must not be confused. She also explained that “various dimensions of feedback have shown that conflicting results might be attributed to some or all the extraneous variables…” Teachers must then be aware that there is no “corrective feedback recipe”. She noted the following factors as possible references for the success or failure of corrective feedback:

the classroom context
the type of error students make
their level of proficiency
the type of writing they are asked to do
the collection of other variables that are as of yet unknown

With this in mind, how should a language teacher properly give feedback on our students’ papers? Ashwell (2000) suggested that improvement in content quality and formal accuracy, one has to direct his attention to helping students understand how the feedback is intended to affect their writing and why it is given in the way it is. But sometimes, the problem in this matter does not lie on the students, but with us the teachers, who sometimes lose tract.

According to Montgomery and Baker (2007) “Teachers generally give little feedback on global issues, such as organization, and a large amount of feedback on local issues such as grammar and mechanics, throughout the writing process.” These findings in his research, if compared in the Philippine’s teaching-writing practices are also evident and true. Many language teachers will not deny their tendency to look at the students’ grammar errors, spelling errors, format, etc. when checking their students’ papers; usually, less attention is given on the students’ ideas and content and on how they organize them, should it then be concluded that writing teachers are doing the right thing? Several studies have revealed that providing feedback on local issues “does not help learners make fewer local errors than thus providing no feedback” (Montgomery and Baker, 2007). Truscott (1996), Kepner (1991) and Sheppard (1992) as cited by Montgomery and Baker even suggested in their studies that correcting local errors may actually lead to more errors committed by students. On the other hand, it should not be implied that giving local feedback is wrong or should not be practiced, as Fathman and Whalley (1990), and Ashwell (2000) said, as reflected in the paper of Guenette (2007), that students receiving both feedback in form and content showed gains in formal accuracy.

The discussions presented earlier shows that there is still an unsettled argument between the experts and scholars over the issue of giving feedback. But considering both party’s opinions, based on the evidences presented in their arguments, it can be concluded that there must be balance on the part of the teacher in terms of giving local and global feedback on students’ composition. In light of this, considering balance between the local and the global issues when giving feedback, the proponent of this paper conducted an investigation in a more specific aspect. Since it is a fact that plenty of Filipino writing teachers are focusing more on the local issues, a question on the kind of local feedback given by the teacher was raised in this paper.

There are two kinds of local feedback: direct and indirect. According to Ferris (2002) as mentioned by Rianto (2010), “direct feedback is a technique of correcting students’ error by giving explicit written feedback. While, indirect feedback is when the teacher/tutor alerts students to error using general comments, but gives students the opportunity to fix errors themselves.” Lee (2005), also mentioned by Rianto (2010), explains that direct feedback is provided when the correct form is written on student’s paper whereas indirect feedback is provided if the teacher indicates the location of the error indirectly on the paper by underlining, highlighting or circling, or indirectly by indicating in the margins that there is an error on that line but without providing the correct form.

This paper attempts to provide an in depth concept of the use of direct and indirect feedback in correcting local issues, with an assumption that teachers are already/will be applying balance between the content (local issues) and the form (global issues) to improve students’ writing skills and the quality of their writing inputs. This paper attempted to answer the following questions:

1. Which between direct and indirect feedback produce more benefits on students’ composition and writing skills?

2. What is the implication of the kind of feedback given by the teacher on the student’s writing experience?

3. Which between direct and indirect is a better method when providing feedback on local issues?

METHODS:

The study employed the “Process-Writing” proposed by Malicsi (2003), who divided the writing process into three major activities: Prewriting, Fastwriting and Postwriting. The first major writing activity which is Prewriting starts by generating ideas through introspection, observation, experiment, review, interview or brainstorming; followed by structuring ideas done by writing an outline which covers: classification of ideas, ranking and sequencing. The second major writing activity is Fastwriting which is composed of drafting, done through “fastwrite” or writing as fast as possible in order to set down ideas in full, connected sentences; and redrafting which is done by replacing “scafs” (non-English words and phrases used while drafting) with the English expressions required by the topic. The final writing activity is Postwriting which is divided into two phases: the first is evaluating (global issue) or finding out if the draft communicates ideas and intentions effectively, and the finally editing (local issue), which is done by spotting the errors and correcting them.

This paper is focused and limited in studying the final phase of Postwriting which is editing. The respondents of the study is composed of two students who were randomly selected from an ENGL02 Class (Communication Skills 2) in which students are required to submit a composition as part of the course requirements. These respondents were given freewill to choose a topic based on their interest in order to motivate them to be more productive in the writing activity. They went through the “Process Writing” which was facilitated by researcher; beginning from Prewriting, and following all the activities until they produced their first draft (D1), which marks the beginning of the Postwriting Stage. At this point, the researcher evaluated the D1 of each respondent and provided them with feedbacks focused on formal organizations (Mongomery and Baker, 2007) in order to improve the global aspects of their compositions—resulting to the second draft (D2). After revising their paper and considering the form-focused feedback, each of the respondents turned in their D2 for editing. At this point the researcher utilized two forms of local feedback (Ferris, 2002; Lee, 2005; Rianto, 2010), wherein Respondent A was given direct feedback while Respondent B was given indirect feedback and then both of them were asked to do their final revisions (D3).

The D3 submitted by the respondents after receiving the content-based feedback were then compared to D2 on the basis of accuracy (if they were able to correct the errors spot by the teacher) in order to determine the effects of direct and indirect feedback on student’s final written output and writing skills. Their behaviors in applying the feedbacks (whether they conform or deviate with the corrections) were also taken into consideration as part of the interpretation of data. Interviews among each respondent were also conducted in order to find out the benefits and the implication of the kind of feedback provided by the researcher on student’s writing skills.

DISCUSSION:

Generally, both D3 submitted by the respondents did not achieve perfection since several errors which were given feedback by the researcher were overlooked, as reflected in the details of the table bellow. It should be noted that such phenomenon happened because both respondents admitted that they overlooked several items when asked why those feedback items were disregarded/not corrected). But if none of those feedbacks were overlooked, the composition made by Respondent A, under direct feedback would have been more promising since the errors are not only spotted but are already given the correct form. The following table presents the summary of the researcher’s interpretation upon comparing D2 and D3 of both the respondents:

RESPONDENT	SPOTTED ERRORS	CORRECTION ATTEMPTS	ACCURATE ATTEMPTS	INACCURATE ATTEMPTS	OVERLOOKED ITEMS
A	29	22	22	0	7
B	19	15	10	5	4

Respondent A represents the student who received the direct feedback while respondent B is the student who received the indirect feedback. The table shows that Respondent A committed 29 errors in his D2 but attempted to correct only 22 or 76% of the total errors as reflected in D3 and left out or disregarded the remaining 7 or 24% of the total errors identified by the researcher. Out of this 22 attempts to correct the errors based on the direct feedback provided by the researcher, Respondent A successfully corrected 22 which means that 100% of all his attempts to correct errors based on direct feedback is accurate.

On the other hand, Respondent B committed 19 errors in his D2 but attempted to correct only 15 or 79% of the total errors as reflected in D3 and left out or disregarded the remaining 4 or 21% of the total errors identified by the researcher. Out of this 15 attempts to correct the errors based on the indirect feedback provided by the researcher, Respondent B successfully corrected only 10 items which means that only 67% of his attempts to correct errors based on the indirect feedback are accurate while the remaining 5 attempts of 33% is inaccurate.

Comparing the results for the two respondents in terms of the percentage of successful attempts in correcting errors based of the kind of feedback that they have received, it is quite obvious that Respondent A got a relatively higher percentage by perfecting (100%) all the errors that he attempted to correct through the direct feedback given by the researcher against the 67% success rate of Respondent B who attempted to correct errors through indirect feedback. It should also be noted that Respondent B incurred 33% failure in correcting errors through indirect feedback. The result was justified during the interview, when they were asked why such result was achieved. Respondent A answered: “Kasi po andun na yung tamang dapat gawin. So, madali na po kasi ia-aply ko na lang yung correction nyo.” Such is true, since direct feedback was given by providing the correct form on student’s paper (Lee, 2005). The answer of Respondent B to the same question: “Eh mahirap po kasi ang grammar tapos nalilito pa ako dun sa iba kasi hindi ko sure kung tama ang naiisip kong revision tapos yung iba po hindi ko talaga alam kung anung gagawin ko.” also validates the result since indirect feedback is done by only alerting the student to errors using general comments, but gives students the opportunity to fix errors themselves (Ferris, 2002). Since the respondent is admitting the limitation of his knowledge in content, basically in grammar, it is really realistic that he fails to correct some of the errors spotted by the researcher’s indirect feedback.

Respondent B was also asked if he was confident of the corrections he made while considering the signals provided by the indirect feedback during his final revision. He answered: Yung iba po sure ako, kasi madali lang. Like yung capitalization saka yung spelling. Kaso yung iba po wala talaga akong idea. Nakakalito sir! Saka hindi ko po talaga alam, yung iba po hinulaan ko lang kung tatama. On the other hand, Respondent A’s answer to the same question was full of confidence: “OO nman sir! Andun na po kasi yung sagot eh, isusulat ko na lang.” These answers still align with the nature of each kind of feedbacks; hence it will really be easier to apply the corrections given through direct feedback, since the answer is already provided, while it will be difficult to apply the corrections through indirect feedback since only hint to the answer is provided.

When asked of what they have gained from their experience of receiving the kind of content feedback assigned to them during the final revision, several notable findings were revealed. Based on the answers of Respondent A during the exchange of questions and answers, and follow-up questions, the following benefits were gained from direct feedback:

· The conduct of revising is faster and easier

· There is confidence and certainty in the corrections being made

· First hand comparison between the correct and incorrect usage and the rules governing content are realized while applying the revisions

· Certain degree of awareness on the errors and the proper corrections are achieved

On the other hand, Respondent B also revealed several benefits form indirect feedback:

· Development of critical thinking/analysis

· Development of independent mind and resourcefulness

· The feeling of self satisfaction and pride when successful correction of errors are made

CONCLUSIONS:

The following questions posted at the beginning of this paper are now given specific answers:

1. Which between direct and indirect feedback produce more benefits on students’ composition and writing skills?

This study found out that a composition which is revised through direct feedback has more potential to be successful since direct feedback corrects error by giving explicit written feedback (Ferris, 2002).
In terms of the benefits which a student gain from receiving either direct or indirect feedback, it has been clear based on the answers of both respondents during the interview, that both kind of feedback provides their own set of benefits which could be helpful in developing student’s writing skills.

2. What is the implication of the kind of feedback given by the teacher on the student’s writing experience?

By giving direct feedback, the teacher assures that as long as the student attend to all the corrections that are given, there is larger tendency to succeed in coming up with a better final written output. As reflected in the discussion portion of this paper, Respondent A was able to perform 100% accuracy in his entire attempt to correct errors which were given direct feedback.
By giving indirect feedback, the teacher creates an opportunity to safeguard the development of his student’s writing skills and language proficiency, and a venue to assess which aspect of the language has to be improved in order to help the student in developing his writing skills. Such as reflected in the discussion portion of this paper; whereas out of 15 attempts to correct errors which were identified through indirect feedback, only 10 or 67% was successful and the remaining 5 or 33% is a failure. Considering this result, the teacher may now reflect of the items which were unsuccessfully corrected and develop a plan on how to help the student in developing the necessary knowledge to correct them.

3. Which between direct and indirect is a better method when providing feedback on local issues?

Both direct and indirect feedbacks are effective depending on the teacher’s intention of using them; and considering the benefits they provide for the students, it is also the teacher’s prerogative of which between the two should be prioritized. But in choosing which one to utilize, teachers should may keep what Guennete (2007) said: “There is no corrective feedback recipe. The success or failure of corrective feedback will depend on the classroom context, the type of error students make, their level of proficiency, the type of writing they are asked to do and the collection of other variables that are as of yet unknown.”

REFERENCES:

Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response in a multiple draft composition: is content

feedback follwed by form feedback the best method? Tokyo: Komazawa Junior

College.

Guenette, T. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of

feedback in writing. DLSU: Journal of Second Language Writing.

Maliksi, J. (2003). The ELP writing manual Second Edition. QC: The Classic Foundation.

Mongomery, J. L. and Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: student perceptions, teacher

self-assessment and actual teacher performance. USA: Brigham Young University.

Rianto, S. (2010). Using indirect feedback in correcting student writing. Retrieved from

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37323534/Indirect-Feedback-in-Writing on August 2010.

Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learner’s ability to write accurately. DLSU:

Journal of Second Language Writing.

Good VS Evil in the First SONA of President Noynoy Aquino: A Critical Discourse Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The Philippines is a diverse country that has been shaped throughout the course of history. It has been colonized by several imperial forces which contributed on the development and evolution of its culture. After its independence, it has been governed by several leaders with different styles of government. It has gone through several reforms from the First Philippine Republic under President Emillo Aguinaldo; to the Commonwealth Government under President Manuel L. Quezon; and a series of several other republics, until the birth of the Fifth Philippine republic under President Corazon Aquino.

The Fifth Republic is currently on its progress, now under the leadership of President Corazaon Aquino’s son, Benigno (Noynoy) Aquino, III. Upon his sit in the office, the people have started to collectively anticipate great reform in the country’s government. The Filipino people have been hoping for the birth of a leader who will guide the country on its way to progress. In every election, people are wishing for a new leader who will bring justice for the crimes of history and who will put the nation on the right track. President Noynoy seems to bring new hope.

In the article, “Corruption in the Philippines” by taclobanhotels.com, the country’s situation is reported this way:

In the early 1960’s the Philippines was an economic power. In fact, during the era, the archipelago nation boasted one of the largest economies in Asia, behind only Japan.

Today, while it remains an important part of ASEAN, and the world community at large, it’s safe to say that those glory days are long over. When most outsiders think of the Philippines today, it is political instability, economic struggle, crime and corruption that often come to mind.

True to say, President Noynoy Aquino is now facing a great challenge of giving rebirth to a nation that has long been striving, not only for a change, but also for uprightness. Along with this, the country’s economy needs to grow and cope with other nations in order to compete in the growing globalization.

In the first State of the Nation Address (SONA) of President Noynoy, he declares that he will lead the country to the straight path. This SONA made a great impact among Filipinos. The stand of the president was made clear and the public begin to embrace a new hope through his inspiration. This paper focuses on the discourse of the president in the said SONA.

According to Fairclough (2000), as mentioned by McGregor (2004) discourse is shaped and constrained by culture and social structures such as class, status, age, ethnic identity, and gender. The words and language being used help shape and constrain people’s identities, relationships, and systems of knowledge and beliefs. Basically, aside form his leadership style by example; his discourse during his first SONA and all other speeches is one of the reasons why the President becomes plausible.

This paper analyzes the discourse of President Aquino in his first SONA, employing the principles of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). According to van Dijk (1993), the primary interest and motivation of CDA are the pressing social issues which are better understand through discourse analysis. Furthermore he says:

The core of critical discourse analysis…description, explanation and critique of the ways dominant discourses (indirectly) influence such socially shared knowledge, attitudes and ideologies, namely through their role in the manufacture of concrete models.… how specific discourse structures determine specific mental processes, or facilitate the formation of specific social representations.

Through discourse, a description of something that is happening in a larger social context replete with a complex set of power relations. Van Dijk’s analysis of several modes of discourse access reveals a parallel relationship between social power and discourse access: “the more discourse genres, contexts, participants, audience, scope and text characteristics they (may) actively control or influence, the more powerful social groups, institutions or elites are.” He proposed that the power and dominance of groups are determined by their capacity to control discourse or the access to it.

According to van Dijk, “Critical Discourse Analysis is specifically interested in power abuse, that is, in breaches of laws, rules and principles of democracy, equality and justice by those who wield power.” In addition McGregor (2004) asserts:

CDA focuses on how social relations, identity, knowledge, and power are constructed through written and spoken texts in communities, schools, the media, and the political arena (Luke, 1997). Discourse always involves power and ideologies, is connected to the past and the current context (is historical), and can be interpreted differently by people because they have different backgrounds, knowledge, and power positions—therefore, the “right” interpretation does not exist whereas a more or less plausible or adequate interpretation is likely (Fairclough, 2002; Wodak & Ludwig, 1999).

Furthermore, this paper focuses on analyzing the power relations (between the current and the previous government) in the discourse of President Anquino in his first SONA. Specifically, it aims to identify argumentations proposed by Noynoy; classify rhetorical figures utilized to emphasize negative and positive actions (of the previous and current government); and describe the lexical style of the president in his discourse.

METHOD

This CDA of President Noynoy’s discourse in his first SONA utilizes three “persuasive moves” identified by van Dijk (1993) to analyze “statements that directly entail negative evaluations of them, or positive ones of us.” The current administration of Noynoy is tagged as the “us”: who holds more social power and discourse access; while the previous Arroyo Administration is tagged as the “them”: who is the target/subject of current discourse.

The approach of Noynoy in establishing “power and dominance” is analyzed through his persuasive moves. The analysis is done by pointing out these moves which include: Argumentation (the negative evaluation follows from the facts); rhetorical figures (hyperbolic enhancement of “their” negative actions and “our” positive actions; euphemisms, denials, understatements of “our” negative actions); and lexical style (choice of words that imply negative or positive evaluations). Furthermore, each identified persuasive moves were subjected to the researcher’s evaluation and interpretation.

DISCUSSION

Argumentation

It should be noted that “…specific discourse structures determine specific mental processes, or facilitate the formation of specific social representations” (van Dijk, 1993. This principle is highlighted in Noynoy’s discourse. The first half of his SONA focused on enumerating the negative actions of the previous administration. In doing so, he utilized argumentations to expose the wrong actions and decisions of his subject. This was done in order to build an idea that he is on the good side and his subject is the one on the bad side. Notably, he followed van Dijk’s proposition of this move by first, presenting facts and explanation, followed by a clear pronouncement of his negative evaluation. Such is true in the following:

TABLE 1: Discourse Argumentations

	Facts:	Negative Evaluation:
1.	Sa kabilang banda ay ang pag-una sa pansariling interes. Ang pagpapaalipin sa pulitikal na konsiderasyon, at pagsasakripisyo ng kapakanan ng taumbayan.	Ito po ang baluktot na daan.
2	Ibinigay po ang pondo ng Pampanga sa buwan ng eleksyon, pitong buwan pagkatapos ng Ondoy at Pepeng. Paano kung bumagyo bukas? Inubos na ang pondo nito para sa bagyong nangyari noong isang taon pa.	Pagbabayaran ng kinabukasan ang kasakiman ng nakaraan.
3	Tumukoy ang DPWH ng dalawandaan apatnapu’t anim na priority safety projects na popondohan ng Motor Vehicle Users Charge. Mangangailangan po ito ng budget na 425 million pesos. Ang pinondohan po, dalawampu’t walong proyekto lang. Kinalimutan po ang dalawandaan at labing walong proyekto at pinalitan ng pitumpung proyekto na wala naman sa plano. Ang hininging 425 million pesos, naging 480 million pesos pa, lumaki lalo dahil sa mga proyektong sa piling-piling mga benepisyaryo lang napunta.	Mga proyekto po itong walang saysay, hindi pinag-aralan at hindi pinaghandaan, kaya parang kabuteng sumusulpot.
4	Noong 2001 hanggang 2004, pinilit ng gobyerno ang NAPOCOR na magbenta ng kuryente nang palugi para hindi tumaas ang presyo.	Tila ang dahilan: pinaghahandaan na nila ang eleksyon.
5	Ganito rin po ang nangyari sa MRT. Sinubukan na namang bilhin ang ating pagmamahal. Pinilit ang operator na panatilihing mababa ang pamasahe. Hindi tuloy nagampanan ang garantiyang ibinigay sa operator na mababawi nila ang kanilang puhunan. Dahil dito, inutusan ang Landbank at Development Bank of the Philippines na bilhin ang MRT.	Ang pera ng taumbayan, ipinagpalit sa isang naluluging operasyon.

Noticeably, all argumentations done in the discourse are geared against the previous administration. No negative evaluation and facts against Noynoy’s administration appeared throughout the discourse. Notably, the president managed to control the social cognition of his listeners, he successfully established a bad image of is subject in the perception of the people, and he was able to reinforce all his claims and conclusions by presenting clear facts that directly lead to the build up of his negative evaluations. Accordingly, van Dijk (1993) stressed out:

Ultimately, the management of modes of access is geared towards this access to the public mind, which we conceptualize in terms of social cognition. Socially shared representations of societal arrangements, groups and relations, as well as mental operations such as interpretation, thinking and arguing, inferencing and learning, among others, together define what we understand by social cognition (Farr and Moscovici, 1984; Fiske and Taylor, 1991; Wyer and Srull, 1984). Discourse, communication and (other) forms of action and interaction are monitored by social cognition (Van Dijk, 1989a). The same is true for our understanding of social events or of social institutions and power relations.

Rhetorical Figures

Noynoy used hyperbole, defined by Random House (1973) as “an obvious and intentional exaggeration”, many times throughout his speech. He utilized this figure of speech for two reasons: first, to highlight the mistakes and evils of his subject; and second, to establish the good of his administration. Furthermore, he also employed euphemism, defined by Random House (1973) as “the substitution of a mild, indirect or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh or blunt.” He employed euphemism to create a positive impression, and to show that the current problems of his administration are under control and that solutions are at hand.

TABLE 2: Discourse Hyperboles

HYPERBOLE	CRITICAL ANALYSIS
1. Matagal pong naligaw ang pamahalaan sa daang baluktot. Araw-araw po, lalong lumilinaw sa akin ang lawak ng problemang ating namana. Damang-dama ko ang bigat ng aking responsibilidad. (Them)	The statement highlighted the evil in “them” by over generalizing the previous government, as well as all the other governments that existed before Noynoy’s administration, given the fact that not everyone in previous government/s is corrupted.
2. Sulyap lamang po ito; hindi pa ito ang lahat ng problemang haharapin natin. Inilihim at sadyang iniligaw ang sambayanan sa totoong kalagayan ng ating bansa. (Them)	Although the statement starts with a tone of euphemism, it actually adds up to the heavy weight of the statement that the previous administration intentionally cheated the people.
3. Umupo ka lang sa Board of Trustees at Board Committee meeting, katorse mil na. Aabot ng nobenta’y otso mil ito kada buwan. May grocery incentive pa sila na otsenta mil kada taon. Hindi lang iyon: may mid-year bonus, productivity bonus, anniversary bonus, year-end bonus, at Financial Assistance. May Christmas bonus na, may Additional Christmas Package pa. Kada isa sa mga ito, nobenta’y otso mil. (Them)	The statement is based on facts that supplies details of big digits, making it appear to be exaggerated. The actual highlight of “them’s” evil really appears not on the digits but on the exaggerated construction, intention, and manner of its delivery especially by saying “Umupo ka lang sa Board of Trustees…” making it appear to be so easy to become a part of its Board of Trustees and Board of Committee, while in fact it is not.
4. Hindi pa nailalabas ang Special Allotment Release Order ay pirmado na ang mga kontrata. (Them)	The speaker has pronounced such heavy statement in order to reinforce the negative image of the Arroyo government
5. Pero ang desisyon ay ibinatay sa maling pulitika, at hindi sa pangangailangan ng taumbayan. Ang taumbayan, matapos pinagsakripisyo ay lalo pang pinahirapan. (Them)	The discourse focused on the decisions made by previous government highlighting that those are purely based on personal and political agenda of its leaders, although, in enumerable cases, people’s welfare has been considered as well.
6. Sa administrasyon po natin, walang kota-kota, walang tongpats, ang pera ng taumbayan ay gagastusin para sa taumbayan lamang. (Us)	The statement impresses the listeners too much although the promise it offers is somehow difficult to become a reality, especially among the ranks of government employees with low compensation.
7. Pananagutin natin ang mga mamamatay-tao. Pananagutin din natin ang mga corrupt sa gobyerno. (Us)	Although the statement does not offer specific action plans to make its promise of justice a reality, it still creates a positive impression by giving a guarantee that the government will execute the criminals

TABLE3: Discourse Euphemisms

EUPHEMISM	CRITICAL INTERPRETATION
1. Hindi naman sila agad maaalis sa puwesto dahil kabilang sila sa mga Midnight Appointees ni dating Pangulong Arroyo. (Us)	Noynoy tried to get the sympathy of the opposition by impliedly saying that he will not right away remove President Arroyo’s midnight appointees. He made it light by saying “hindi naman…agad…” But still, he will.
2. Singkuwenta porsyento po ng mga insidente ng extralegal killings ang patungo na sa kanilang resolusyon. Ang natitira pong kalahati ay hindi natin tatantanan ang pag-usig hanggang makamit ang katarungan. (Us)	The short coming is covered up by focusing on the 50% of cases that are about to be resolved (but the fact remains that they are not yet fully resolved). The obvious fact that 50% of extralegal killings remain unresolved, and that there is no certainty that the status of resolutions will reach 100% is also covered up by a promise that they will never stop until justice is served.
3. Kahit gaano po kalaki ang kakulangan para mapunan ang mga listahan ng ating pangangailangan, ganado pa rin ako dahil marami nang nagpakita ng panibagong interes at kumpyansa sa Pilipinas. (Us)	The big problem is made lighter by the motivation that the president is getting from interest and confidence of investors to the Philippines.
4. Ito ang magiging solusyon: mga Public-Private Partnerships. Kahit wala pa pong pirmahang nangyayari dito, masasabi kong maganda ang magiging bunga ng maraming usapin ukol dito. (Us)	None of the Public-Private Partnerships have their contracts signed, but Noynoy keeps a positive outlook and already interpreted the possibility of these partnerships as the solution to the problem.
5. Kung maisasaayos natin ang ating food supply chain sa tulong ng pribadong sektor, sa halip na mag-angkat tayo ay maari na sana tayong mangarap na mag-supply sa pandaigdigang merkado. (Us)	Impliedly, our food supply chain is not yet organized. He hides this by highlighting his vision that with the help of private sectors, we could dream of exporting our goods rather than the actual scenario that we are importing from the global market.
6. Kung maitatayo ang minumungkahi sa ating railway system, bababa ang presyo ng bilihin. (Us)	The statement only presents a possibility of a railway system, there is no certainty yet that the plan will materialized but the possibility of lower prices for goods is already boasted.
8. Nananawagan ako sa ating mga LGUs. Habang naghahanap tayo ng paraan para gawing mas mabilis ang pagbubukas ng mga negosyo, pag-aralan din sana nila ang kanilang mga proseso. (Us)	The solution in making faster business processing is not yet found, but the administration is finding it. He also made the problem appear lighter by summoning help form LGUs.
9. Parating na po ang panahon na hindi na natin kailangang mamili sa pagitan ng seguridad ng ating mamamayan o sa kinabukasan ng inyong mga anak. (Us)	As of now, we are choosing between security of people and future of children, this was made light by asserting that this will soon be over.
10. Magkakapondo na po para maipatupad ang mga plano natin sa edukasyon. (Us)	Currently, the country does not have enough funds for education. This was given positive view by highlighting the idea that soon the government will have funds.
11. Kung ang mga gobyernong lokal ay nakikiramay na sa ating mga adhikain, ang Kongreso namang pinanggalingan ko, siguro naman maasahan ko din. (Us)	There are opposition members in congress who might be criticizing or opposing his leadership but he assumed that he could count on them in order to hide the bigger picture of the problem

Lexical Style

The discourse of the president manifested a wide range of vocabulary that effectively contributed in the development of his discourse objectives. In attacking the Arroyo Administration, several heavy and emotionally loaded words and phrases have been utilized in order to highlight the negative image of the Arroyo Government. These are noticeable in the following utterances:

Inilihim at sadyang iniligaw ang sambayanan sa totoong kalagayan ng ating bansa.

Pagbabayaran ng kinabukasan ang kasakiman ng nakaraan.

Mga proyekto po itong walang saysay, hindi pinag-aralan at hindi pinaghandaan, kaya parang kabuteng sumusulpot.

Ang pera ng taumbayan, ipinagpalit sa isang naluluging operasyon.

Kasuklam-suklam ang kalakarang ito.

Narinig po ninyo kung paano nilustay ang kaban ng bayan.

The president also manifested a distinct lexical choice in addressing his subject. Notably, he uses the adjectives: nila and sila in addressing the previous administration, especially when he talks about their actions that are related to anomalies and corruption. Although, both Noynoy and Gloria are part of the government, who experienced presidency in their respective terms (Gloria Arroyo in the past and Noynoy Aquino at the present), in effect, Noynoy’s lexical choices enables him to establish a clear distance that separates the current administration from the previous. These are obvious in the following excerpts:

sobra pa rin ang binili nila.

Pero hindi lang naman po ito ang sahod nila; may mga additional allowances at benefits pa sila…

…ang lahat ng mga bonuses at allowances na nakuha nila.

…nagpautos silang maglabas ng 3.5 billion pesos para sa rehabilitasyon ng mga nasalanta nina Ondoy at Pepeng.

The president’s lexical choice in addressing himself is also notable. Oftentimes, he does not use the singular forms of first person pronouns, but instead he preferred using the plural forms such as tayo, atin and natin. This creates an effect that the people are with him, and all his actions are collectively done and decided, instead of making it appear to be personal. Remarkably, the effect of Noynoy’s choice of pronouns in the tone and appeal of his discourse will be appreciated more if each of these pronouns will be converted to its conventional form (singular-first person) based on the discourse context. Notice the changes of tone and appeal as the researcher performs paraphrasing (focused on pronouns) in the following:

TABLE 4: The Effect of Using Plural Forms VS Singular Forms of Pronouns

ORIGINAL	PARAPHRASED
Sa administrasyon po natin…	Sa administrasyon ko po…
…nakikiramay na sa ating mga adhikain…	…nakikiramay na sa aking mga adhikain….
…sa ating mga kaibigan sa media…	…sa aking mga kaibigan sa media…
…taumbayan ang nagdala sa ating kinalalagyan ngayon.	…taumbayan ang ngadala sa aking kinalalagyan ngayon.
Marami na pong nag-alok at nagmungkahi sa atin…	Marami na pong nag-alok at nagmungkahi sa akin…
Meron pa po tayong natuklasan…	Meron pa po akong natuklasan…
…una sa ating plataporma…	…una sa aking plataporma…
Pabibilisin natin ang proseso…	Pabibilisin ko ang proseso…

Moreover, the president also appeals for the support of the public through his choice of pronouns. He makes the listeners realize that they are participants in every decisions, plans and actions of the government. He makes them involved. The tone of each statement emphasizes the idea of collective ownership; that although there are leaders and government officials, the spirit of democracy still prevails in every action of the Aquino Government. The following utterances manifest a sense of partnership and collaboration enjoined by the people and by the government:

Government assets and properties: (pronouns imply joint ownership)

Ang mayroon lamang tayo: tatlumpu’t dalawang barko.

Mayroon po tayong 36,000 nautical miles ng baybayin.

Government status: (pronouns imply partnership and mutual involvement)

Napakarami po ng ating pangangailangan…

Ito po ang punto ng tinatawag nating zero-based approach sa ating budget…

Makukuha natin ang kailangan natin, hindi tayo gagastos, kikita pa tayo.

Magkakapondo na po para maipatupad ang mga plano natin sa edukasyon.

Government actions: (pronouns imply collaborative actions)

Heto naman po ang ilang halimbawa ng mga hakbang na ginagawa natin.

Maipapatayo na po ang imprastrukturang kailangan natin para palaguin ang turismo.

Madadagdagan natin ang mga classroom…

Maipapatupad ang plano natin sa PhilHealth.

Ipasa na po natin ang National Land Use Bill.

Sa agrikultura, makapagtatayo na tayo ng mga grains terminals…

Nagsimula nang mabuo ang ating Truth Commission…

Kung maisasaayos natin ang ating food supply chain…

CONCLUSION

Indeed, President Noynoy Aquino though his discourse in his first SONA is able to construct the social cognition that clearly dictates the good in his government and the evil in the previous administration.

His negative evaluations against the Arroyo Government is made valid in his discouse through the facts he presented to back up his claims; thus making his negative evaluations acceptable and believable. In his rhetorical figures, he effectively utilized hyperbole in highlighting the evil of the previous government and the good of the current; while the euphemisms covered up for the short comings and problems of the current government. Furthermore, the lexical style of the president enables him to construct a positive image of the current government. By separating the “them” from the “us”, he is able to reinforce his power and dominance. And finally, by involving the public in the plans, actions and decisions of the government, he is able to establish partnership with the people, and to promote the spirit of democracy in his discourse.

References:

McGregor, S. L. T. (2003). Critical discourse analysis--a primer. Retrieved at:

http://www.kon.org/archives/forum/15-1/mcgregorcda.html#option

Van Dijk, T. A. Critical discourse analysis. Retrieved at:

http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Critical%20discourse%20analysis.pdf