The Life and Works of Jose Rizal

Metacognitive Reading Report # 5

Name: NEBRIDA, Aizen G. Date: 01/08/19

Anderson: Why Counting Counts – El Filibusterismo

1. Three (3) Things that I significantly learned from the readings

The first important thing I learned from the article is that there are words in El
Filibusterismo that appeared less or more than in Noli Me Tangere. According to
the writer, the term criollo or criolla is not used anymore by Jose Rizal in El
Filibusterismo. Also, Jose Rizal used a new term but with the same definition in
EL Filibusterismo which he did not use in the Noli Me Tangere. Another term is
mulato, a new racial mix, it is alternative to custodio. The term Naturales is same
as indios. This word can be read frequently in Noli Me Tangere and can be seen
also in El Filibusterismo but not as frequent as you can see in Noli Me Tangere.

I have also learned from the reading is that Rizal seems love to travel in
different countries but not interested exploring the different places in the
Philippines. Rizal uses idiom words in his novels because he thought that Filipinos
do not have any single language. According to Simoun in El Filibusterismo,
Spanish will never be accepted as a language in the Philippines because true man
being loyal to his country’s language is protecting and preserving the security of
the Philippines.
 Lastly, even though the two novels of Jose Rizal were written in Spanish
language, Rizal still used Filipino words to express his nationality and love for his
country. There are more Filipino words that he used in the El Filibusterismo than
in Noli Me Tangere. There are 196 Filipino terms that can be read in El
Filibusterismo while a total of 127 words in Noli Me Tangere. Also, the El
Filibusterismo is shorter than the Noli Me Tangere because Jose Rizal used less
words and did not include any more about the disgusting acts of the Catholic
church.

2. Three (3) Things that are still unclear to me

It is not clear to me how this study aims to change the political and the use of
native language. Also, I don’t clearly understand the shifting nature of Rizal’s
intended readership and the geographical location of the birth of a Filipino identity
in the modern sense.
Another thing that is unclear to me is that there are more Filipino terms in El
Filibusterismo than in Noli Me Tangere though, Noli Me Tangere was published
first and the target readers are the Filipinos.

I don’t know about the part wherein the writer mentioned that El Filibusterismo
is shorter than Noli Me Tangere. It was mentioned in the reading that there are
words which appeared in Noli Me Tangere and eventually disappeared in El
Filibusterismo. The terms which he used in his first novel did not have the same
appearance in the El Filibusterismo and many words are altered by him or simply
he used the synonym of it.
 3. I used to think that….

The article took the arduous task of counting the occurrence of particular
linguistic terms—racial or ethnic terms, political vocabulary among others—in the
two novels. This microscopic approach sought to turn away from one that relies on
‘selective and often tendentious short quotations from the novels in order to force
their author into particular politics’. As an alternative, Anderson looked at
contexts: the characters using the terms, the interlocutors and the context of the
conversations.
4. Three (3) questions that I want to ask about the readings

Some questions are coming to my mind while studying the article. First I want
to ask how seemingly trivial details can prompt us to tease out less simplistic
reflections on Rizal’s work. What is the reason why Rizal used more Filipino terms
in El Filibusterismo than in Noli Me Tangere? And; Why Rizal did not much travel
the different places in the Philippines? Because we know that he explored many
different countries.