Bulacan State University

Sarmiento Campus
Education Department
A.Y. 2018-2019

The Effects of Smart-Shaming to the Oral Discourse

As Perceived by Bulacan State University-Sarmiento Campus Students

Submitted by

Dandin, Michelle

Gavina, John Paul

Lacaba, Ma. Jobelyn

Manuel, Ana Mae

Pilongo, Alden Ceasar

Submitted to

Marites Valendez

Language Research Professor

 Chapter I

I. Introduction

Smart-shaming is a negative reaction to intellectual people and intellectual content in

the form of shaming (Rodriguez, 2017). “Edi wow!” (Then wow!), “Ikaw na matalino!”

(You’re the smart one!), and “Ikaw na magaling.” (You know it all.) are some of the

examples of smart-shaming. Hearing these words after stating a well-constructed idea to

your friend leads to various possibilities. Beside the emotions being obstructed by the

dropped statement, the flow of facts and information has been clogged leading to the

limitation of perspective. This trend is labelled as anti-intellectualism or smart-shaming

wherein the speaker is being shamed for knowing a certain ideology that he has shared to

the listener. Totalitarian governments apply and manipulate this movement to repress

political dissent. This repression of the intellect is evident not just in European and

American history but as well in our own during the Spanish colonization.

In the time of social media and the rise of global communication, smart-shaming is

very evident. Give this; it is undeniable that we are in the age of knowledge. The

information and facts are free-flowing in our surroundings through fraud issues are

rampant. In this flow of data, smart-shaming is still in action. How does this affect by

limiting information by these statements?

Hence, the researchers would want to discover how smart-shaming affects the flow of

discourse and find out specifically how it becomes a variable on the image of the

language which may be built during its existence on a discourse of communication.

II. Background of the Study

 Conversation is disputably the most essential and fundamental means of transaction

and interaction humans have. Through communication, people share information and

emotion, solve conflict, build relationships and initiate innovation and growth. Crucially,

conversations involve more than just the autonomous encoding and decoding of linguistic

messages—that is, utterances are not simply a ‘conduit’ for information transmission

between independent speakers and listeners (Cherry, 1956; Reddy, 1979). Clark (1996)

and Garrod (1999) stated that in the vast majority of conversational situations, the

communicative actions of interlocutors are tightly coupled with which a person’s

contribution is shaped by what has been said previously in the discourse and in turn

strongly shape what follows next. This then lead the researchers to hypothesize on what

smart-shaming could do to intellectual discourse.

This phenomenon prevails along with the progression of social media platforms such

as Facebook and Twitter. Philippine Media is another form wherein smart-shaming

became a form of comedy. Given its negative connotation, it is undeniably a problem one

should avoid and dissolve immediately. According to Cuaron. S. and Fortuno, R.C, Anti-

intellectualism is the downgrading of any intellectual display in any form which can be

traced back in history which then resulted to negative effects. Correlating the two

disciplines of language and psychology, the researchers will be trying to understand how

this action can affect communication. In addition, since conversation is a natural day-to-

day activity, we tend to overlook the concepts contributing to discourse. Therefore, the

researchers focused on certain characteristics of discourse to be analysed including

context, conversation analysis, maxims of conversation, politeness and culture for these

are the factors that wholly affect communication.

 Studies correlating smart-shaming to different discipline such as psychology,

culture and political psychology are highlighted more on further readings. This research

aims to discover how smart-shaming statement and actions affect discourse as a

fundamental aspect of language learning and knowledge acquisition. Analyzing

conversation is of significant matter while integrating smart-shaming in the process to

further understand how they affect each other.

Communication involves sharing. Sharing is a gift that people exchange. The

sharing that occurs in communication is not necessarily a totally positive experience. We

must remember that it can also be neutral and even negative. (Estoque, P., & Estoque, V.,

2009)
III. Statement of the Problem
This research study is conducted to identify the effects of smart-shaming to the oral

discourse as perceived by Bulacan State University- Sarmiento Campus students.

Specifically the research aims to answer the following:

1. How the profile of the respondents be described in terms of;
1.1 Age
1.2 Gender
1.3 Religion
1.4 Civil Status
1.5 Language Spoken
1.6 Nationality
2. How does smart-shaming affect the discourse specifically on the following

elements of discourse as perceived by Bulacan State University – Sarmiento

Campus students:
2.1. Context
2.2. Politeness
2.3. Maxims of Communication
3. When do students in Bulacan State University – Sarmiento Campus get smart-

shamed and smart-shame in a discourse?

4. What are the implications of smart-shaming to the oral discourse competency of

Bulacan State University – Sarmiento Campus students?

IV. Purpose Statement
The purpose of this quantitative research is to discuss the effects of smart-shaming to

the oral discourse as perceived by Bulacan State University- Sarmiento Campus students

by analysing students’ response through Grice’s Conversational Maxims Principle,

Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson’s Politeness Theory

V. Research Objectives

This qualitative research aims to accomplish the following:

1. Investigate how smart-shaming affect the oral discourse of Bulacan State

University Campus students.

2. Identify the factors why smart-shaming affect oral discourse.
3. Recommend interventions to resolve or improve outcomes of the experiment.

VI. Assumptions of the Study

The researchers have the following assumptions for the study:
1. Respondents will actively participate with full honesty to the objectives of the

researchers.
2. The quantitative method will produce reliable data.
3. Smart-shaming can yield to both positive and negative effects.

VII. Limitations of the Study

The study imposes weaknesses that may occur and affect the course of study. These

are the following:

1. The quantitative method can yield to results that cannot be used to generalize

conversational situations with integration of smart-shaming.

2. The number of respondents is limited due to their will to participate.
3. The answers of the respondents may not be accurate and true.

VIII. Theoretical Framework

Discourse analysis (DA), or discourse studies, is a general term for a number of
approaches to analyzing written, spoken, signed language use or any significant
semiotic event (Wikipedia, para.1).
According to mentioned statement discourse analysis refers to all semiotic and

pragmatic practices for conveying a communication. In a way it is the attempt to

 study the relationship between language and the context in which it is used, the org.

of language above the sentence level therefore to study the larger linguistic units

( e.g. conversational exchanges or written texts) (Michael & McCarthy, 1991; M.

Stubbs,1983) . Therefore, DA (Discourse Analysis) observes the ways one can

communicate with others in a society and the factors that influence that

communication. Consequently, it considers the varieties of studying written and

spoken discourse as well. There are three very important characteristics of discourse

that it:
a) Concerned with language use beyond the boundaries of a sentence utterance
b) Concerned with the interrelationships between language & society
c) Concerned with the interactive or dialogue properties of everyday
communication.(S. Ziauddin, personal Communication, Summer-15)
So the meaning of a sentence in use, the context of using it, what the speaker really

means and how they say it, users’ personality all need to be considered in analyzing
discourse (Cutting, 2008; Oshima, Oshima & Matsuzawa, 2012).
Study points of Discourse Analysis:
Some particular points that need to be focused on during analysing discourse are of

important matter with the research study. They are:

a) Context: It is mentioned earlier that situation, place, time, environment,

participants, participants’ belief, religion, age, metalinguistic features and personality

all are included in the context of analyzing discourse. Moreover, user’s fear for

maintaining privacy in account, implicature behind a certain status and inferences that

the receiver makes are included here to be considered as well.

b) Maxims/Cooperative Principle: The way the participants are engaged in
conversation, either they maintain or violate the cooperative principles.
c) Politeness Strategy: The way the maintenance of politeness occurs in the

conversation.

IX. Conceptual Framework

 INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Profile of the Conducting Analyzed Data

Respondents Survey
Survey Forms Analysing the
gathered data

X. Significance of the Study

This research determines the effect of smart-shaming to the oral discourse as

perceived by the Bulacan State University- Sarmiento Campus students who belong to a

knowledge transaction facility.

The result of the study will benefit the following:
A. Students
A.1.The students may engage themselves more on meaningful conversations.
A.2.The students may be encouraged to voice out opinion without the fear of

being smart-shamed.
A.3.The students may value education more.

B. Teachers

B.1.The teachers may provide intervention when smart-shaming occurs.

B.2.The teachers may provide sufficient guidance and education to learners.

C. Community

C.1.The community may lessen the use of smart-shaming.

 C.2.The community may be educated on the effects of the action.

C.3.The community may improve their acceptance to intellectualism.

D. Future Researchers

D.1.The future researchers have an established local study regarding the topic.

XI. Definition of Terms:

1. Anti-Intellectualism – It is a negative attitude towards intellectual activities and

those who engage in them.

2. Context – It is the words that are used with a certain word or phrase and that helps

to explain its meaning.

3. Discourse – It is a formal discussion of a topic in speech or writing; it is a

connected series of utterances.

4. Interlocutors – It is a person who is having a conversation with you.
5. Maxims – It is a well-known phrase that expresses a general truth about life or a

rule about behaviour.

6. Politeness – It is a behaviour that is respectful and considerate of other people.
7. Smart-shaming - It is a negative reaction to intellectual people and intellectual

content in the form of shaming.