What’s the problem with interpretation?
Sometimes, a communicator may have DIFFERENT INTENTIONS in his expressions/statements that are not bad at all, but you, because of your bias, maybe because you were enemies by other issue before that is different from the present issue, or maybe because he is not your choice in politics/elections, have a FORCED MEANING by your own about his expressions/statements. The problem that will come into play now is the SLANTING.
Slanting — the process of selecting knowledge (facts and ideas), words, and emphasis to achieve the intention of the communicator.
Newman P. Birk & Genevieve B. Birk, Understanding and Using English (New York,
1958), p. 51.
For our example, we will take up this related blog:
Sabi ng Commission on Human Rights, hayan umamin si Duterte
(Filipino translation of our blog)
Sabi niya kasi, ‘hindi ako nagnakaw, ang kasalanan ko lang ay yung extra-judicial killing’.
Huwag muna nating pag-usapan kung totoo ang extrajudicial killing at kung sino ang die-hard Dutertian. Nagkataon lang na sikat si Duterte. Sinasamantala nating may matutunan sa mga isyu niya.Tanga daw siya dahil sabi niya, di siya nagnakaw, ang kasalanan niya lang ay iyong extrajudicial killing. Kaya sabi ng nagkaso sa kaniya, hayan umamin siya. Ganito po: Noong ako’y bata pa, nagreklamo ako sa ate ko dahil pinagalitan ako na hindi raw ako naghugas ng mga plato at nagwalis. Sagot ko, “GRABE NAMAN, ANG KASALANAN KO LANG AY DI AKO NAGPAKAIN NG ALAGANG BIIK.“ Di nangahulugan na umamin ako. Ang point ko ay iyon lang di pagpakain ng biik na ikinagalit ng nanay ang problema, reklamo o isyung kinakaharap ko sa pamilya namin na siyang gusto kong harapin , pag-usapan at patunayang hindi ako sangkot. Nainis ako’t may idinagdag pa si Ate.
Sa Argumentation & Debate, may tinatawag na Qualifying the Point of Reference. May pananalita o terms kasi na iba ang sentido (sense) ng pagkakagamit ng communicator sa sense ng pagkaintindi ng listener. I-qualify means uriin at tiyakin kung ano (in what sense) ang pakahulugang nais palabasin ng communicator. Sabi kasi ng authors na sina Newman P. Birk & Genevieve B. Birk, ang pananalita ay may “slanting” — the process of selecting knowledge (facts and ideas), words, and emphasis to achieve the intention of the communicator. Kung magtatatalak ka sa isyung ang sangkot na pananalita o terms ay iba sa sense o intention ng communicator, malalabag mo ang logic at ang kasalanan mo ay FALLACY OF SELF-SERVING MEANING. Inilagay mo sa bibig ng ibang tao ang sarili mong pagkaunawa’t salita. Kasi dati ka nang may bias na gusto mo siyang idiin. Ang punto ni Duterte ay iyon lang ang kasalanan na pinupukol sa kaniya thru the legal process. Bueno, kung later ay umamin nga talaga siya, then, iaatras namin itong blog/comment ko and we will stand corrected here sa pagdepensa namin sa kaniya. Pero in the meantime, alam na ninyo kung estupido nga talaga si Duterte.
The Commission on Human Rights asserted that there he goes, Duterte made an admission!
(English translation of our blog)
The CHR’s reaction followed after Duterte said, “I did not steal, my only sin is the extra-judicial killing.” (In this article, we would like to appeal that let’s not talk about whether or not extra-judicial killing is true and who are the die-hard Dutertians. It’s just so incidental that Duterte is famous. So, we take this opportunity to learn from his issues. Lately, he is thought to be stupid because he purportedly admitted that although he did not steal yet he admits that his only sin is the extrajudicial killing. Now, did he really own up to the EJK?
Here, consider this reasoning: When I was a child I complained to my eldest sister for berating me that I did not wash the dishes and did not sweep the yard. I retorted: “How gross of you, sister! My only sin is that I did not feed the pigs. Now it did not mean that I owned up to the fault of not having fed the pigs. My point is that the non-feeding of the pigs for which our mother got mad at me is the only problem, complaint, protest or issue that I was facing with the family that I really wanted to face, talk about and prove that I was not involved. I got irritated that my sister added some more issues.
In Argumentation and Debate, there is that so-called Qualifying the Point of Reference. Be noted that there are statements, words or terms whose sense of usage by the communicator is different from the sense of comprehension of the listener. To qualify means to determine the sense of meaning that the communicator would like to impart or convey. That is because according to authors Newman P. Birk and Genevieve B. Birk, a statement, speech or expression has a slanting – the process of selecting knowledge (facts and ideas) words, and emphasis to achieve the intention of the communicator. Now if you rant on the issue involving a speech or statement different from the sense or intention in meaning of the communicator, you will violate logic and your fault in the process is the fallacy of self-serving meaning. You, in the process, is putting in the mouth of another people your own words and understanding. That is because you have, in the first place, your own bias by which you would want the other fellow to be nailed. Duterte’s point is that THAT (EJK) IS THE ONLY SIN BING HURLED AGAIST HIM THRU THE LEGAL PROCESS. That’s the logical point!
Note: Well, if later from today, he will finally admit or own up to the sin or crime of EJK, then we will withdraw this blog/comment and will stand corrected in our defense of his statement. But in the meantime, the question is, is Duterte really stupid for admitting guilt? Using logic, you now know the answer!