4.2 death the last does not conform to his

4.

2 Analysis of Data 4.2.1 Features of Military discourse  4.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,80
Delivery
4,90
Support
4,70
Price
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
4,70
Writers Experience
4,70
Delivery
4,60
Support
4,60
Price
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,50
Delivery
4,40
Support
4,10
Price
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

2.1.1 Use of explicit and implicit meaning             This analysis of General Prawit’s answer given to the media shows that he employs both explicit and implicit meanings in the statement of the interviews. For example, when he was asked about how to protect pre-cadets from being abused by their senior from the punishment and training ritual the future, his explicitly answer was given in order to express his thoughts as follow: Deputy Prime Minister: “Then, they don’t have to enroll into the school; don’t become soldiers; we only want those who are willing.”            In contrast, in response to the media’s question about the military school’s culture of punishments and hazing, the next extract shows General Prawit uses implicit meaning.

General Prawit: It was usual in the Armed Forces Academies Preparatory School (AFAPS) for pre-cadets to be subjected to corporal punishment or “som” when they did something wrong and I used to be punished until I went unconscious, but I survived the ritual.            According to this statement, General Prawit uses of implicit meaning to allow his audiences infer that the death of Pakahong caused by the heart failure disease not because of the punishment or hazing. His use of implicit meaning such as “I used to be punished until I went unconscious, but I survived the ritual” allows the audiences to make an inference that Pakapong’s death the last does not conform to his believe. The implicit meaning employed by General Prawit depicts his idea of being a cadet student (AFAPS) must accept this ritual of punishment and hazing. He also links this linguistic feature to his experience of the same punishment where the word ‘som'(????) or a corporal punishment can be seen as a normal type of punishment for cadet students at AFAPS.4.2.

1.2 Modality             According to Halliday (1985), features of modality can be said as significant techniques that use for expressing argument and opinion because they allow speakers to express their ideas with different degrees of certainty. Moreover, the modality features are also used to express the speaker’s attitudes toward what his or her commitments are, and also present judgments of the speakers towards to topic is being address (Halliday, 1985).             The analysis of the Prime Minister, General Prayut’s discourse feature in the following example only focuses on modality in his interview given to media. The modalities found in the interviews include uses of modals and adverb.

Prime Minister Prayut: The training must be done in a way that will not cause loss of life.            The extract above illustrates the use of “must” and “will” are found in the Prime Minister’s interview. When the Prime Minister was asked about General Prawit’s remark on training and punishment of the Armed Forces Academies Preparatory School (AFAPS). By using the modal “must” and “will”, the Prime Minister as the leader of the government and also the representative of Thai people, to convey his feeling of sympathy to the loss of Pakapong’s family as well as indicates the Prime Minister’s commitment to solve this problem to avoid any similar incident to happen again.

            In the next extract, the used of modal verbs “would” and “might” by the Prime Minister was unsure about his answer given to the media of his opinion in the training and punishment which led to the death of Pakapong and he said. Prime Minister Prayut:  If the training were ordinary, the armed forces would get ordinary people who are not tough.            However, the use of the modal verb “might” in the example below suggests that the Prime Minister was trying to reduce negative feedback of Thai people towards General Prawit’s remark on Pakapong’s death. Additionally, the used of “might” in the statement also use as an avoidance of the full responsibility that should be taken by General Prawit, and it is also indicate that he spoke on behalf on General Prawit’s friend.

            Using of adverb is also considered as one of modality features. This use of adverb “maybe” exemplified in this example shows the meanings of what speaker’s said and the speaker’s intentions through this interview discourse. In the same example, the Prime Minister used the adverb “maybe” suggests the refusal of General Prawit’s intentional remark towards Pakapong’s family and indicate his certainty of the that General Prawit’s negative answer given to the media.Prime Minister Prayut: Gen Prawit, (who is also the Defense Minister), was not intentional and might feel upset when he made such remarks. The media maybe also ask questions that upset him.             Regarding the extracts, the speaker’s position can be depicted through the use of modalities that are found in the extracts. These modal verbs and adverb are expressing obligation, degrees of certainty and commitment of the Prime Minister, General Prayut towards the topics are being addressed.