Discourse Analysis in Communication Part 2

INTRODUCTION

...since life is in many ways a series of conversations, it makes sense to be as good

as we possibly can at something we tend to take for granted ( quoted by Deborah
Cameron from the Guardian, 30 December 1996, in her book entitled Working with
Spoken Discourse, 2001)
Deborah Cameron explains the reason why discourse analysis is valuable. It
actually gives importance to something so familiar and common that people tend to
disregard. However, communication has been said to be the foundation that
cements a society. Without it, society will not exist. Yet, there are more
considerations in studying discourse. It is more than just giving literal meaning to
what is said. People are more complex than that.

There is a saying in Filipino ,

Tulak ng bibig, kabig ng dibdib. Simply put, it means that a speaker may not mean
what s/he says. Therefore, a more critical look at how conversations take place,
may help unravel the complexities in meanings. This is why a study such as this is
important.

Context and Significance

The study analyzes a personal conversation among friends from a coeducational sectarian college. This study is an application of the knowledge gained
from the course, Discourse Analysis in Communication. It intends to provide more
examples for further studies of discourse analysis with focus on pragmatics.

1 A Major Paper in COMA 202 by Maria Lourdes V. Vitales

Discourse Analysis in Communication Part 2

Problematic and Objectives

The study of the luncheon conversation aims to analyse:
1. The conventional and/or intentional meanings of the words in relation
to the source (speaker);
2. The cooperative principle maxim/s (principle of quantity, principle of
quality, and principle of manner) that is/are observed by the
participants in the conversation;
3. The linguistic framework of the utterances;
4. The background knowledge of the situation and the participants;
5. Other relevant information available to and assumed to be the case by
all participants of the conversation.
The general objective of the study is to analyse the intended meanings of the
utterances delivered by each conversant in the event. The specific objectives are:
1. To determine the speaker meaning as either natural (semantic meaning)
or non-natural (intended meaning);
2. To identify the cooperative principles maxims used and/or its violations;
3. To find out how information from one utterance contributes to the
meaning of another (relationship of utterances).

Theoretical Framework
According to Jennifer Thomas (1995) pragmatics is the study of meanings in
interaction (retrieved from the work of Deborah Cameron entitled Working with
Spoken Discourse, 2001). Although Thomas observes that the main focus of
pragmatics is either on the speaker meaning (speakers intent) or utterance
interpretation (hearers perception of the utterance), she believes that making
2 A Major Paper in COMA 202 by Maria Lourdes V. Vitales

Discourse Analysis in Communication Part 2

meaning is a dynamic process, involving the negotiation of meaning between the
speaker and hearer, the context of utterance (physical, social and linguistic) and the
meaning potential of an utterance (1995). Thus, the meaning of an utterance
cannot be determined merely by conventional definition or by speakers intent and
not even by the hearers interpretation.
Gricean pragmatics (Grice, 1957) concentrates on meaning in context yet
also explore the sign-user relationship. Deborah Schiffrin (1994) talks about the
two main concepts of Gricean pragmatics that are relevant to the study: the speaker
meaning and the cooperative principle. There are two distinctions of speaker
meaning: the natural meaning, which is without human intentionality; and the nonnatural meaning (meaning-nn), which may be interpreted as the intentional
communication. According to Grice, the meaning-nn is intended to create some
effects in an audience (recipient) through the recognition of its intention.

The

second, more subtle, intention in the definition of meaning-nn is for the audience to
recognize the speakers communicative intention.

Strawson (1964) further divided

Grices intentions into three: (1) Ss utterance of x to produce a certain response r in

a certain audience A; (2) A to recognize Ss intention (a); (3) As recognition of Ss
intention (a) to function as at least part of As reason for As response r. According
to Schiffrin (1995), communication can only take place only when the three
intentions are activated and the realized.
The study of the concept of implicature is another important part in the study
of this speech event since implicatures also relied on conversational principles. The
concept of implicature refers to the speaker intention that results from the use of
both semantic meanings and conversational principles.

A general principle

3 A Major Paper in COMA 202 by Maria Lourdes V. Vitales

Discourse Analysis in Communication Part 2

proposed by Grice suggests that to make (your) conversational contribution such
as required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of
the talk exchange in which (you) are engaged. This principle is also known as the
cooperative principle (CP). CP is divided into four maxims (Grice, 1975):
Quantity
1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the
purposes of the exchange).
2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
Quality
Try to make your contribution one that is true.
1. Do not say what you believe to be false.
2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
Relation: Be relevant.
Manner
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Be perspicuous.
Avoid obscurity of expression.
Avoid ambiguity.
Be brief ( avoid unnecessary prolixity).
Be orderly.

There can be circumstances when a speaker may violate one or more of the
maxims especially when the speaker says something that may seem false (violating
Maxim of Quality). The hearer may continue to believe that the speaker is observing
the CP protocol and thus will conceive of an interpretation to maintain the assumed
cooperation.
The context of the study of the speech event is based on these
aforementioned concepts of pragmatics.

4 A Major Paper in COMA 202 by Maria Lourdes V. Vitales

Discourse Analysis in Communication Part 2

Conceptual Framework
This study adopts the same Input-Process-Output concept used in the
previous discourse analysis to illustrate the conceptual framework.

Input
Personal Discourse
during Lunch

Process
Record conversation
Transcription of
recorded conversation

Output
Result of the
analyses
Implications

Analysis
Recommenda
tion
Figure 1. The IPO of the discourse analysis using Pragmatics

5 A Major Paper in COMA 202 by Maria Lourdes V. Vitales

Discourse Analysis in Communication Part 2

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
The Opening
The speech event occurred on October 8, 2012, in Mang Inasal Restaurant
situated inside I-Mall in Canlubang, Laguna. It was the birthday of one of the girls
who also happened to secretly record the groups conversation. The friends
surprised the birthday girl with a cake and a luncheon blowout. A lot had already
transpired among the friends prior to the recording of the conversation. However,
since the main objective of the exercise was to record a groups personal
conversation while dining, the recorded event met the requirement that is, the
recording began as soon as the foods were served. The following transcriptions
show the beginning of the lunch conversation:
(1)

JONATHAN: Pare hinging toyo. Yung toyo ha?

(2)

JR:

(3)

BOY 3:

(4)

MANIYA: Dinig ga yon=

Yun dagdag pampa[lasa.

[Yung(XXX)ni kuya next week na bumalik ?

= Oy, bigyan nyo nga tong u lam. [Kahabag-habag

eh? hh

(5)

MYAN:

(6)

GIRL 3:

(7)

JR: Hindi ah ? May Java rice[[

(8)

BOY 3:

(9)

JR:

(10)

[>Bigyan nyo si JR.

[[Humingi ka nga ng kutsil[[yo.

[[may toyo=

Jonathan: = Amen.

The beginning of the conversation(1) JONATHAN:Pare hinging toyo. Yung

toyo ha? is a half

6 A Major Paper in COMA 202 by Maria Lourdes V. Vitales

Discourse Analysis in Communication Part 2

command half request directive which means that the speaker (Jonathan) wish the
recipient to take
action ( Pare hinging toyo) before dismissing the perlocutionary act entirely by
transferring the
request to another person (service crew member) (Yung toyo ha?). There is also a
sense of urgency in
the request, giving the impression that the speaker (Jonathan) cannot wait to have
the toyo. The tone
and the absence of a suffix in the word hingi added to the feeling of urgency. The
second speakers
rejoinder - (2)

JR: Yun dagdag pampa[lasa. - could mean any of the following:

that the second

speaker agrees that toyo (soy sauce) is a good food seasoning; that toyo is a good
appetite enhancer;
that the food needs toyo because it is bland; or that the boy needed more viand
extender. In this case,
and judging by the reaction of the two girl companions,(5) MYAN:
nyo nga tong u

= Oy, bigyan

lam. [Kahabag-habag eh? Hh and (6)

GIRL 3: [>Bigyan nyo si JR., the most
probable interpretation is
the last one. This would mean that the boy is so hungry that he would use toyo as
dagdag (additional) or
substitute viand in case the main viand is not enough. This interpretation is further
supported by JRs
denial that he is kahabag-habag (pitiful) for not having any viand at all. JR pointed
our that the
presence of java rice and toyo are enough to feed his hunger. Jonathans amen
(see line 10) is a
confirmation of JRs statement which means that, for both of them, can already be a
complete meal.
The third male conversant added a seemingly unconnected remark to the
first two: (3) BOY 3:
7 A Major Paper in COMA 202 by Maria Lourdes V. Vitales

Discourse Analysis in Communication Part 2

[Yung(XXX)ni kuya next week na bumalik ? The comment can be considered a
false statement violating
the maxim of quality since it is not probable for a paying customer to wait for
his/her food order for
one week or so. It is also improbable that a member of a service crew would let
his/her customer to wait
longer than is necessary (which is several minutes usually). So, the statement is
more of a dramatic
exaggeration of a certain situation to cover up the feeling of impatience, and
probably annoyance, on
the part of the third speaker.

The Speaker Meaning

The following interpretations differentiate the utterances with natural
meaning from those utterances with non-natural meanings:
Utterances with Natural Meaning
(11)

BOY 4: Pahiram nyan.

(13)

BOY 4: Pahiram ng kutsil[yo.

Utterance #11 is another perlocutionary act requiring an action on the part of
the receiver. The

local word nyan could be translated as that in English. The same request is
repeated in utterance #13
but this time, the word nyan (that) is replaced by kutsilyo (knife). The repetition is
an act of clarification
and reiteration of the first request. There are no other meanings attached to both.

(15)

BOY 3: [ Kilala mo yon nakacostume ?

The speech event happened in a crowded area and the group would
occasionally fall into

8 A Major Paper in COMA 202 by Maria Lourdes V. Vitales

Discourse Analysis in Communication Part 2

separate conversations within the group just like in utterance # 15. The speaker has
the tendency to
introduce topics outside of the circle. In this utterance, the speaker is seemingly
interested with a
particular member of the crowd who is wearing costume and he wants to know if his
recipient is
acquainted with the subject of his inquiry.

(39)

JR: Hoy Jason, pasensiya ka na ha, hindi sayo yung kanin.

(40)

MYAN: Ito-

(41)

MYAN: Pahingi ngang sabaw, Barry.

Another examples of natural meanings are utterances # 39 and 41.
Utterance #39 expresses the

speakers apology to his friend (Jason) because the kanin (rice) is served to him (JR)
by the service crew
member and not to Jason. There is no hidden meaning to the utterance. Similarly,
Myans request for
some sabaw (broth) from Barry is a direct request that cannot be interpreted any
other way. The softer
tone used by Myan indicates a shift from playfulness to the serious business of
eating.

(64)

JONATHAN: Happy Birthday.

(65)

MANIYA: Thank you? (2.5)

An unexpected shift from the usual bantering occurs her. Satisfied with the
meal, Jonathan
greeted the birthday girl and Maniya responded a thank you. Although the reply
may be perfunctory,
as would the case of any other birthday celebrant greeted by happy birthday, the
intended meaning is
9 A Major Paper in COMA 202 by Maria Lourdes V. Vitales

Discourse Analysis in Communication Part 2

clear.

Utterances with Non-natural Meaning

The following excerpt contains many non-natural meanings (meaning-nn):

(20)

ARVI: <Wag kang maingay?! to naman?

(21)

MYAN: Hindihh natatawa ako kay Maniya?! (between laughs)

Arvis attempt (utterance # 20) to silence the Myans long uncontrollable
laughing is a pun -

pretending to be serious but making the attempt to be more hilariously.

(22)

ARVI: Maniya wag ka ngang magjojoke ng ganyan.

(23)

MANIYA: [>Bakit naman?

(24)

MYAN: [Kasi naman ikaw ih?] Nakakainis ka kasi?

(25)

ARVI: Kumakain tayo dito (1.2)(gets glass and hands it to the

member of the service crew for refill)

(26)

BOY 5: >Ha ha disente! (laughs)

(27)

ARVI: (To the member of the service crew) Thank you po.
Again, another mock pretence at decorum from Arvi (utterances # 22, 25
and 27) that rouses the

humor of everyone in the group.

(28)
(29)

JASON: (Words) kakilala namin yon (referring to the member

of the service crew whos serving them)
BOY 4: >Magkakilala ba kayo ni Jason? (loud laughs)

There seems to be an unexpected reaction from the group at Boy 4s question

(utterance # 29).

10 A Major Paper in COMA 202 by Maria Lourdes V. Vitales

Discourse Analysis in Communication Part 2

To a neaby hearer it would seem illogical to laugh at the question; but to the
members of the group, the
question is a secret joke intended for Jason who happens to have a crush on the
male service crew
member. And Arvi, adding more flames to the fire, so to speak, calls the attention
of the said service
crew member.
(30)

ARVI: (to member of the service crew)< Anong course mo, kuya?
Nursing?

(31)

JASON: Hindi. Tourism.

Jason mumbles in the foreground (utterance #31), supplying the information
before the man

questioned could answer.

(32)

ARVI: Ano(.)?Ah(.) Tourism? Pasensiya na, ha?

Arvi rides along the flow of the mock conversation allowing Jason the
chance to eye his

crush.

This obvious attempt did not escape Myans attention who immediately
jokes:

(33)

MYAN: Ah kuya ka? Kuya ka? (addressing Jason)

Myans joke catches up with the others who went on to tease

Jason more, hinting at his gender preference.
(34)

BOY 5: Kuya?! (referring to Jason again)

(35)

ARVI: Ay(.) (to Jason) ate. (To the member of the service crew)
Ang gwapo mo , pards.

Jasons mumbled reply indicates a slight irritation and embarrassment (36).

(36)

JASON: Thank you ka lang.

11 A Major Paper in COMA 202 by Maria Lourdes V. Vitales

Discourse Analysis in Communication Part 2

(37)

ARVI: Thank you kuya ah.

(38)

MYAN: Oy, thank you, ha ha!

The Maxims of Cooperative Principle

This group of college students are obviously fond of using the maxim of
quantity. That is, they
do not

like to elaborate on their statements but rather rely on each others

knowledge of one another

to interpret the meanings of their commonly incomplete statements. Its like saying
that they are so
familiar of each other that they can finish each others sentences.
This group is also fond of violating the maxim of manner except for one
be brief. The maxim of
manner observes the following: (1) avoid obscurity of expression, (2) avoid
ambiguity, (3) being brief,
and (4) being orderly. Examples of the groups violation of the maxim of manner:
(48)

JONATHAN: Hoy (.) Ano ka ba? (ambiguity of meaning)

(49)

BOY 5: >Kung nandito si Jinky, naku ungol aso yon. (obscurity of

expression)

(50)

MYAN: Ang sakit sa tiyan?

(51)

JONATHAN: Naku po buti nga wala na.

(52)

MYAN: (words) kanina pagkadating ko dito, si Ricardoha ha ha

(deliberate disregarding the flow of conversation)
Whether it is a regular occurrence or dictated by the occasion that being a
birthday

celebration the groups conversational behaviour indicates camaraderie and

lightness of the situation
at that moment. According to the girl who recorded the conversation, the same
situation has never
12 A Major Paper in COMA 202 by Maria Lourdes V. Vitales

Discourse Analysis in Communication Part 2

been repeated since the group drifted apart later.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Pragmatics deals with three concepts (meaning, context and communication)

(Shiffrin, 1994). In
any conversation (formal or informal) there are two distinct kinds of meaning
(natural and non-natural).
In the discourse analysis used in this paper, it is observed that non-natural
meanings occur more
often than the natural ones. It could be that the members of the group are too
familiar with each
other that they are confident their friends will be able to decode the intended
meanings of their
utterances without so much difficulty. Based on Strawsons (1964) conditions that
communication can
only occur if the three intentions are acted upon and occurs in a conversation, it
could be said that the
group successfully managed to communicate because each utterance produced
certain response from
the other; the recipient generally recognized the intention of the speaker and the
recipients recognition
of the intended meaning of the speaker formed the basis to the recipients reaction.
There was a
13 A Major Paper in COMA 202 by Maria Lourdes V. Vitales

Discourse Analysis in Communication Part 2

general understanding among the members of the group which is what
communication is all about.
The group observed two maxims of cooperative principles, namely, the
maxim of quantity and
the maxim of manner. In the latters situation where it was more of a violation of the
maxim rather than
the actual observance of it, the group was able to maintain assumed cooperation
by being able to
interpret the utterances in such a way that it would fit the situation.
The relationship of utterances is exhibited in the studied discourse and
yielded the observation
that regardless of the seemingly unconnected utterances of some of the
participants in the
conversation, the members were able to make sense of them and incorporate them
in the overall topic
of the conversation. This could only happen in a situation where people know each
other enough to
justify the inconsistencies.
In summation, it could be said that the proponent was able to analyze the
discourse only
because of the background knowledge of the situation, location and participants.
Otherwise, the
interpretation would have bee erroneous.
Appendix A: Transcription Symbols

The following transcription symbols are based on the Jefferson System named
after its developer, Gail Jefferson (Atkinson and Heritage). More abbreviated
accounts are in the books by Hutchby and Wooffitt, and ten Have. Below are the

14 A Major Paper in COMA 202 by Maria Lourdes V. Vitales

Discourse Analysis in Communication Part 2

transcription

symbols

retrieved

from

http://homepages.lboro.ac.uk/~ssca1/notation.htm:

(.)
(.3), (2.6)
word,word
A: word [word
B:
[word
.hh, hh
wo(h)rd
worwo:rd
(words)

Just noticeable pause

Examples of timed pauses
Onset of noticeable pitch rise or fall (can be difficult to use reliably)
Square brackets aligned across adjacent lines denote the start of
overlapping talk. Some transcribers also use "]" brackets to show where
the overlap stops
in-breath (note the preceding fullstop) and out-breath respectively.
(h) is a try at showing that the word has "laughter" bubbling within it
A dash shows a sharp cut-off
Colons show that the speaker has stretched the preceding sound.
A guess at what might have been said if unclear
Unclear talk. Some transcribers like to represent each syllable of unclear
talk with a dash

( )

The equals sign shows that there is no discernible pause between two
speakers' turns or, if put between two sounds within a single speaker's
turn, shows that they run together

A: word=
B: =word
word, WORD
word
>word word<
<word word>

Underlined sounds are louder, capitals louder still

material between "degree signs" is quiet
Inwards arrows show faster speech, outward slower
Analyst's signal of a significant line
Transcriber's effort at representing something hard, or impossible, to
write phonetically

((sniff))

Appendix B: Transcript (bold font)

Friendly Group Lunch (Oct. 8, 2012)

(1)

JONATHAN: Pare hinging toyo. Yung toyo ha?

(2)

JR:

(3)

BOY 3:

Yun dagdag pampa[lasa.

[Yung(XXX)ni kuya next week na bumalik ?

15 A Major Paper in COMA 202 by Maria Lourdes V. Vitales

Discourse Analysis in Communication Part 2

(4)

MANIYA: Dinig ga yon=

= Oy, bigyan nyo nga tong u lam. [Kahabag-habag
eh? hh

(5)

MYAN:

(6)

GIRL 3:

(7)

JR: Hindi ah ? May Java rice[[

(8)

BOY 3:

(9)

JR:

>[Bigyan nyo si JR.

[[Humingi ka nga ng kutsil[[yo.

[[may toyo=

(10)

Jonathan: = Amen.

(11)

BOY 4: Pahiram nyan.

(12)

BOY 3: Wala na ko?

(13)

BOY 4: Pahiram ng kutsil[yo.

(14)

BOY 2:

(15)

BOY 3:

[Ilan lahat ang [nakain mo na?

[ Kilala mo yon naka
Costume ?

(16)

MYAN: Ang lakas talagang kumain ni JR kahit walang ulam (1.2)

(17)

MYAN: hah hah hah

(17)

MANIYA: >Ay?

(18)

GIRL 3: Napihhhah ha ha ha! (Group laugh)

(19)

JR: Mukhang Malabo to.

(20)

ARVI: <Wag kang maingay?! to naman?

(21)

MYAN: Hindihh natatawa ako kay Maniya?! (between laughs)

(22)

ARVI: Maniya wag ka ngang magjojoke ng ganyan.

(23)

MANIYA: [>Bakit naman?

(24)

MYAN: [Kasi naman ikaw ih?] Nakakainis ka kasi?

(25)
(26)

ARVI: Kumakain tayo dito (1.2)(gets glass and hands it to the

member of the service crew for refill)
BOY 5: >Ha ha disente! (laughs)

16 A Major Paper in COMA 202 by Maria Lourdes V. Vitales

Discourse Analysis in Communication Part 2

(27)

ARVI: (To the member of the service crew) Thank you po.

(28)

JASON: (Words) kakilala namin yon.

(29)

BOY 4: >Magkakilala ba kayo ni Jason? (loud laughs)

(30)

ARVI: (to member of the service crew)< Anong course mo, kuya?
Nursing?

(31)

BOY 6: Hindi. Tourism.

(32)

ARVI: Ano(.)?Ah(.) Tourism? Pasensiya na, ha?

(33)

MYAN: Ah kuya ka? Kuya ka? (referring to waitress)

(34)

BOY 5: Kuya?! (referring to waitress)

(35)

ARVI: Ay(.) ate. Ang gwapo mo , pards. (to waitress)

(36)

BOY 4: Thank you ka lang.

(37)

ARVI: Thank you kuya ah.

(38)

MYAN: Oy, thank you, ha ha!

(39)

JR: Hoy Jason, pasensiya ka na ha, hindi sayo yung kanin.

(40)

MYAN: Ito-

(41)

MYAN: Pahingi ngang sabaw, Barry.

(42)

BOY 3: Halatang halata kayo.

(43)

MYAN: Ito kasi eh! Nakai - ha ha ha

(44)

BOY 3: Hoy ate (.) tawagin mo nga. Kuya, half rice lang.

(45)

MYAN: Ah pahiya na. Pa - hah hah hah

(46)

JONATHAN: May bago akong natutunan. Si Myan pala maingay kapag

nasa kainan. (group laugh)

(47)

BOY 4: Inipon? (group laugh)

(48)

JONATHAN: Hoy (.) Ano ka ba?

(49)

BOY 5: >Kung nandito si Jinky, naku ungol aso yon.

(50)

MYAN: Ang sakit sa tiyan?

(51)

JONATHAN: Naku po buti nga wala na.

17 A Major Paper in COMA 202 by Maria Lourdes V. Vitales

Discourse Analysis in Communication Part 2

(52)

MYAN: (words) kanina pagkadating ko dito, si Ricardoha ha ha

(53)

JONATHAN: Jinky, hi.

(54)

BOY 5: Day, ang bilis maubos ng chicken oil.

(55)

MYAN: Itong si Jonathan pinalagyan hindi naman to bottomless

hhh

simultaneous

(group laugh)
(56)

MYAN: Kaya natawa din ako - hah hah hah

(57)

JONATHAN: Yun na nga yon. Yun yungyun yung technique dun (1)
Isa mu - isa magbo-bottomless tas (words) para
pareparehong bottomless na.

(58)

BOY 4: Eh yung size ng baso?

(59)

JONATHAN: Hindi man halata.

(60)

MYAN: >haaay ang sakit ng tiyan ko.

(61)

BOY 5: Makalamon ba?

(62)

JONATHAN: Hay[nako.

(63)

MYAN:

(64)

JONATHAN: Happy Birthday.

(65)

MANIYA: Thank you? (2.5)

(66)

BOY 5: Hoy?!

(67)

JONATHAN: Di ba kanina pa tayo nakain bago sila Vikko? Pustahan

mauuna pa sila.

(68)

BOY 3: >Nakaapat na daw sya.

(69)

BOY 6: >Eto dalawa lang eh-

(70)

GIRL 3: >Sa Cavite pa lang(words).

(71)

JR: Maganda pala yung ano (.) yung potable plate?

(72)

JONATHAN: Huh?

(73)

JR: Folding plate.

(74)

MANIYA: Huh?

[Ang daming tawa?

18 A Major Paper in COMA 202 by Maria Lourdes V. Vitales

Discourse Analysis in Communication Part 2

(75)

JR: Eto (.) folding plate (.) yung dahon.

(76)

JONATHAN: Ang linis mo rin kumain ano? nakakatuwa.

(77)

JR: Oo naman.

REFERENCES
Cameron, D. (2001). Working with Spoken Discourse (1st ed.) London: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
OKeeffe et. Al. (2011). Introducing Pragmatics in Use (1st ed.) GB: Routledge
Coultas, A. (2003). Language and Social Contexts, (1st ed.) London & New York:
Routledge
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Part II: Approaches to Discourse Analysis, Cambridge,
Massachussetts: Blackwell Publishers

19 A Major Paper in COMA 202 by Maria Lourdes V. Vitales