Stressing the stress
No. This is not about the stress that’s often the cause of my blog updates. That’s a given and often unavoidable fact. This is the type of stress a communicologist, or according to Enj, a "cunning linguist", is concerned about.
The evaluation I had earlier with language consultant Martin gave me the opportunity to inquire as to why "stress", a speech communication or language acquisition jargon that refers to one of the four aspects of accent, seems to be the focus of the new language training manual we are using. I had to open that discussion as all of the previous trainings I attended and handled had either articulation or grammar as the important aspect to focus on or in aid of language acquisition, particularly English as a second language.
Martin explained that the focus on stress is actually something new in the field of English language acquisition. Stressing the correct syllable in a word or the correct word in a phrase is of primary importance as it paves the way for a clearer understanding or delivery of the intended meaning. An example I often use in class is the sentence "I love you". Stressing "I" in the phrase places emphasis on who loves somebody. Stressing "love" gives the receiver the idea that the message is really about love. And finally stressing "you" provides the message that the "love" is particularly directed to the person being addressed.
Another excellent idea that Martin came up with that is related to accent is "PREP" which stands for "Point-to-Reason-to-Example-to-Point". I don’t know if he just came up with the said idea but if he really just did, it’s an excellent one as it is actually based on a theory about efficiently stating one’s answer or standpoint about a topic. It was during my UP Law Aptitude Exam (LAE) review when I first encountered something similar to this idea. According to my tutor, an efficient way of answering both written and oral topics is to first answer a question head on without any flowery word to use as an introduction. The introduction should be your direct standpoint about an issue. Martin’s "reason-example" part is actually an expounding of your points. Martin’s "going back to the point" is the conclusion.
Pretty neat, huh?
And of course it doesn’t hurt at all that my efforts for today’s class facilitation was noticed by both Cecilia and Martin. For that I’m rewarding myself with two pairs of shoes. Haha. 
