(RE)EXAMINING POLITENESS CONCEPTS AND CONTENTIONS: IMPLICATIONS ON FILIPINO BRAND OF POLITENESS

Abstract

Efforts have been made to characterize the Philippine brand of linguistic politeness but literature on the subject (including language power) remains scarce. In response, this paper (re)examines key concepts and contentions in politeness theory and attempts to draw pertinent conclusions in the way politeness in language is demonstrated in Filipino context. Discourse on politeness, spanning from its infancy (from Gricean maxims and Lakoff’s politeness rules with references to Goffman’s face) to its blossoming years courtesy of Brown and Levinson is revisited as well as the ensuing arguments on the subject. Some implications particularly the universalness claims regarding politeness, as it is juxtaposed with Filipino politeness, are then drawn. A significant observation is that local experiences and practices contradict the universalness claim of western type of politeness. Uncovered are novel vistas on Filipino politeness as reflected in day-to-day and workplace situations. Finally, ingrained in the Filipino is a self-centered, multifaceted brand of politeness that is both face-saving and designed toward achieving material or non-material gain such as work security.

Full text

IJHS, e-ISSN 2597-4718, p-ISSN 2597-470X, Vol. 6, No. 1, September 2022, pp. 51-67
International Journal of Humanity Studies
http://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/IJHS
Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
51
(RE)EXAMINING POLITENESS CONCEPTS AND CONTENTIONS:
IMPLICATIONS ON FILIPINO BRAND OF POLITENESS
Rafael Ibe Santos
University of Asia and the Pacific and University of the Philippines
correspondence: rafael.santos@uap.asia
https://doi.org/10.24071/ijhs.v6i1.4723
received 6 June 2022; accepted 16 September 2022
Abstract
Efforts have been made to characterize the Philippine brand of linguistic politeness
but literature on the subject (including language power) remains scarce. In response,
this paper (re)examines key concepts and contentions in politeness theory and
attempts to draw pertinent conclusions in the way politeness in language is
demonstrated in Filipino context. Discourse on politeness, spanning from its
infancy (from Gricean maxims and Lakoff’s politeness rules with references to
Goffman’s face) to its blossoming years’ courtesy of Brown and Levinson is
revisited as well as the ensuing arguments on the subject. Some implications
particularly the universalness claims regarding politeness, as it is juxtaposed with
Filipino politeness, are then drawn. A significant observation is that local
experiences and practices contradict the universalness claim of western type of
politeness. Uncovered are novel vistas on Filipino politeness as reflected in day-to-
day and workplace situations. Finally, ingrained in the Filipino is a self-centered,
multifaceted brand of politeness that is both face-saving and designed toward
achieving material or non-material gain such as work security.
Keywords: face threatening acts, Filipino politeness, politeness, positive/negative
face
Introduction
To assess the uniqueness of Filipino brand/s of politeness, it is crucial to
revisit seminal works on the subject during its infancy and discussions that ensued
thereafter. Indeed, all works relating to politeness inevitably have to consult Brown
and Levinson’s influential work on the subject beginning with their 1978 essay
titled “Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena” which was
republished as a monograph in 1987 titled Politeness: Some universals in language
usage. As Meier (2004) correctly puts it, “It seems...that no matter where one arrives
with politeness, one must begin with Brown and Levinson (cited in Arendholz,
2013, p. 58). Studies on politeness have always tended to lean toward western
perspectives given the abundance of literature coming from trans-Atlantic
researchers; no wonder politeness has been described as “one of the marshiest fields
within pragmatics” (p. 54). A look at Filipino politeness is therefore a welcome
addition to literature on Asian politeness concepts.

IJHS, e-ISSN 2597-4718, p-ISSN 2597-470X, Vol. 6, No. 1, September 2022, pp. 51-67
52
For several decades now, the study of politeness has never ceased to attract
tremendous attention in pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and communication, leading
to the politeness theory formulation. This concept, although a lot is credited to
Brown and Levinson (1978 & 1987), finds its roots in Robin Lakoff’s (1973) rules
of politeness in conversation, which is also influenced by cooperative principle of
Paul Grice (1965). Politeness is broadly defined as a way “to adapt” oneself “to
different situations [and to behave] according to the expectations of the place”
(Blum-Kulka, 2005, cited in Arendholz, 2013, p. 55). Applied in the context of
social interactions, this characterization underscores observance of standards and
conventions not necessarily for the sake of those rules but for the benefit of the
interlocutors or perhaps the community involved. As Leihitu and Triprihatmini
(2021) have correctly noted, politeness is of paramount issue in communication. It
is tacit that being polite warrants appropriateness in both linguistic choices and
para-linguistic behaviors such as tone of voice, pitch, and other non-verbal cues
(Brown & Levinson, 1987) underpinning the avoidance of an offense (Lakoff,
1973). Stephen (2013) provides another perspective when dealing with politeness,
describing it as “a means for courteous intercourse over contentious” issues,
especially in highly formalized contexts like diplomacy (p. 1).
In their groundbreaking work, Brown and Levinson provide extensive
discourse on politeness. Key features of their theory are the positive and negative
faces, face threatening acts, strategies of politeness or ways of doing FTA’s, and
factors that affect or govern the use of such strategies. The face notion is a borrowed
idea from Goffman (1960) although the Chinese are said to have had this concept a
long time ago (Chang, 2008). According to Goffman, this represents one’s public
self-image which is intentionally projected in social interactions, and it can be lost.
An essential issue in language use and communication is underscored here—that
there is more to conversations than mere exchanges of ideas. For Goffman, how
individuals are being viewed or perceived is an important component of interaction
and may even dictate the rules of communication that people are willing to observe.
This paper revisits concepts and theories related to politeness and connects
them with the way it is practiced in everyday life and in the workplace in the
Philippines. Implications are then offered to highlight the uniqueness of the Filipino
brand of politeness and the need to reconsider methodological approaches in
politeness studies in Asian/Filipino contexts.
Theory
Re(examining) Cooperative Principle, Face, and Face Threatening Acts
According to Grice (1975), interactants are inclined to focus on the success
of their communication by ensuring constant cooperation with each other, the very
essence of his concept of cooperative principle (CP). The goal of such collaboration
is to arrive at the same understanding or meaning between two interactants. As CP
implies, communicators often desire to be on the same page, so they achieve their
purposes. Additionally, this form of teamwork is pursued to avoid threatening or
interfering in the personal rights, autonomy and wishes of the other speaker. CP is
summed up in these words: “Make your conversational contribution such as is
required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the
talk exchange in which you are engaged” (p. 45).

IJHS, e-ISSN 2597-4718, p-ISSN 2597-470X, Vol. 6, No. 1, September 2022, pp. 51-67
53
Grice lists four maxims under his CP: quality, quantity, relation, and manner.
Quality refers to truthfulness in conversation while quantity demands conversers to
be as informative as required and avoid saying more or less. The relation maxim
emphasizes on the relevance of information supplied, avoiding non-essential details
in interaction, while the maxim of manner refrains from ambiguity, that is, both
parties ensure clarity of the message and its meaning. Being truthful, informative,
relevant, and clear is posited to be key to success in communication and also relates
to the practice of politeness. The CP also seems to connect with the face concept.
Grice believes that maintaining or projecting a good self-image entails truthfulness
and giving of adequate information or non-obscuration of facts. One’s responses
must also be relevant to the issues raised. Finally, based on Grice’s fourth maxim
interactants must be clear, direct, and straightforward to protect one’s face.
Lakoff (1973) also built on the preceding concepts, proposing the rules Don’t
impose, give options, and e friendly. Being polite in Lakoff’s standpoint is
avoidance of offense—the speaker making sure that their fellow interlocutor is
pleased in their exchange. Compliance to these rules of conversation, as Lakoff
labelled them, accounts to what she calls as pragmatic competence. These
guidelines underscore the central role of politeness in social interactions. Although
indebted to Grice, Lakoff veers away from the latter’s emphasis on the pursuit of
clarity in discourse, insisting that in dialogues, the sharing of ideas “is secondary to
merely reaffirming and strengthening relationships” (Arendholz, 2013, p.
297). Conversely, sameness of meaning--achieved through cooperation and
negotiation between two communicators as per Grice--is inferior to sensitivity to
the sensibilities of interactants. In Lakoff’s view, the transfer of a message and
success in communication in general, although considered critical, are not as
paramount as that of politeness. Observing the rules of politeness, as per Arendholz,
“inevitably leads to the breaching of the rules of conversation, which is ultimately
the reason why the CP is violated fairly regularly” (p. 58). This again relates to the
concept of face.
The face notion is a borrowed idea from Goffman (1960), who believes that
people are in the business of creating and maintaining a wholesome identity. This
public self-image is intentionally projected whenever one is involved in social
interactions, and it can be lost. Goffman raises an essential issue in language use
and communication—that there is more to conversations than mere exchanges of
ideas. For Goffman, how an individual is being viewed or perceived is an important
component of interaction and may even dictate the rules of communication that he
or she is willing to observe. Echoing Goffman’s viewpoint, Brown and Levinson
theorize that human beings are predisposed to keeping a good face, thereby ensuring
that they subscribe to social conventions and people’s expectations; otherwise, they
destroy the wholesome public self-image that they want to project or maintain.
The face consists of two categories called positive face and negative face. A
person’s positive face is defined as "the want of every member that his (or her)
wants be desirable to at least some other executors" (Brown & Levinson, 1987,
p. 62). Alternatively, this face is the “positive consistent self-image or personality”
that is maintained and claimed by individuals (p. 61). From a cultural or
psychological position, it represents one’s longing for appreciation and approval of
the projected identity. As for the negative face, it is described as a person’s desire
for their actions to be unimpeded, meaning, that the rights to personal space and

IJHS, e-ISSN 2597-4718, p-ISSN 2597-470X, Vol. 6, No. 1, September 2022, pp. 51-67
54
non-distraction are respected, because doing otherwise would be damaging to one’s
face or image. This means liberty to act and the absence of any forms of imposition
from other adult members of society. If positive face expects affirmation, therefore,
by putting the burden on the shoulder of the other party or the rest of the community
to be accepting, negative face goes farther and requires more, necessitating non-
interference. The latter focuses on independence and autonomy while the former
anticipates connection and accommodation into a group or community.
In 1987, Brown simplified the face concepts, equating positive face with
one’s desire to be liked. Yearning to be related to or be ratified by others also
constitutes this face category and doing the opposite could be construed as face-
threatening. Negative face was simplified to mean the want of a person to be free
from imposition, and any impingement will be tantamount to making FTA. Here,
the positive and negative FTAs are delineated, the first constituting a negative
injurious act by ignoring someone, and the second representing a negative FTA
which is imposed upon others. According to Brown and Levinson, politeness is a
universal characteristic of every language; it happens across all cultures. It is
believed that people, regardless of their cultural backgrounds, follow politeness
rules in the use of their language. This politeness is connected to the preservation
of one’s face, which is also thought to be universal. In short, communicators choose
certain politeness strategies just so they protect their self-image. It is their
assumption that many speech acts are injurious to this self-image because they are
contrary to the face wants of either the speaker or the hearer or both, hence, they
are avoided. In short, an FTA is an utterance (verbal or paraverbal) or behavior
(including non-verbal cues) that is incongruent with the desires of the other. FTAs
that affect the addressee’s positive face include bad news, expression of
disapproval, making complaints, airing some criticisms, and hurling some
accusations. A hearer’s positive face can also be threatened by the expression of
factual and/or violent emotions, mention of taboo topics, and instances of
interruptions. The negative face of the hearer can be threatened via confessions,
apologies, orders, promises, and compliments. The speaker’s positive face can be
threatened, and this happens through his or her expression of apologies, acceptance
of a compliment, breakdown of physical or emotional control, instances of self-
humiliation, making confessions, etc. FTAs that may be damaging to the speaker’s
personal freedom include the expression of thanks, acceptance of thanks, offers,
and compliments, as well as apologies, excuses, etc.
The Varying Degrees of Politeness in Brown and Levinson
Politeness is exhibited in varying degrees, from least polite to most polite.
The level of politeness is connected to, if not determined by, the extent of directness
of the utterance. Brown and Levinson’s works denote that the more direct the
interlocution, the lesser the degree of politeness; and the less direct the statement,
the greater the degree of politeness shown. In other words, a less direct language is
interpreted as polite or politer while a direct or very direct utterance is construed as
impolite or the least polite. The politeness strategies, known as bald-on-record,
positive politeness, negative politeness, and off-record politeness, are paralleled
with the degree of politeness, level of (in)directness, and degree of closeness or
quality of relationship as shown in the tables below.

IJHS, e-ISSN 2597-4718, p-ISSN 2597-470X, Vol. 6, No. 1, September 2022, pp. 51-67
55
Table 1. Politeness Strategies and Degree of Politeness
Politeness Strategy
Degree of Politeness
Off Record Politeness
Most polite
Negative Politeness
Very polite
Positive Politeness
Moderately polite
Bald-on record
Least polite
Table 2. Politeness Strategies and Level of (In)Directness
Politeness Strategy
Degree of Politeness
Off Record Politeness
Indirect to very indirect
Negative Politeness
Less direct
Positive Politeness
More direct than negative
politeness
Bald-on record
Most direct
Table 3. Politeness Strategies and Degree of Closeness or Quality of Relationship
Politeness Strategy
Closeness/Quality of Relationship
Off Record Politeness
Very distant socially
Negative Politeness
Socially distant
Positive Politeness
Close
Bald-on record
Very close/Intimate
Off-record politeness
To avoid any hints of imposition, demands, or even requests on the part of the
person being spoken to, off-record politeness is employed. For this to happen, the
speaker utilizes an indirect or even very indirect language. Examples include giving
hints, use of ambiguity or vagueness, irony, sarcasm or joking, resorting to
metaphorical language, understating or overstating, contradicting,
overgeneralizing, and giving incomplete utterances. This level of politeness is often
used in interactions between individuals whose relationships, if they even exist, are
formal and limited to their functions, say, in business or academe. Thus, it is
possible, say, for students to use hedges, apologies, and other indirect phrases, to
articulate themselves such as when make requests (Castro, 2018).
Negative politeness
Another strategy is negative politeness, also characterized by indirectness, but
the relationship between the interlocutors may be closer in contrast to those who
employ off-record politeness. Within this category, impositions, if they must be
made, are minimized or trivialized, and the hearer’s sense of space and privacy is
taken into utmost consideration. Utterances may be awkward due to the social
distance between the interactants. Use of question hedge, giving deference by use
of address forms, indicating some reluctance, sounding apologetic, and pluralizing
second person pronouns are some of the forms of negative politeness usage.
Positive Politeness
Positive politeness is described as the desire to belong to a community. This
strategy can be demonstrated through such sub-strategies as avoiding disagreement,
assuming agreement with the hearer, attending to their needs or situations, and
hedging one’s opinion which may be found offensive. There are other sub-strategies

IJHS, e-ISSN 2597-4718, p-ISSN 2597-470X, Vol. 6, No. 1, September 2022, pp. 51-67
56
under positive politeness such as noticing or attending to the needs or preferences
of others, exaggerating approval, interest, or sympathy, and seeking agreement by
choosing favorable topics. A person who resorts to positive politeness may raise or
assert a common ground in a dialogue, opt for the use of in-group identity markers
such as address forms in a particular ethnic group and use of jargons, and avoid
disagreement examples of which include hedging opinions, white lies, token
agreement, and pseudo- agreement. Giving of gifts to hearer in the form of goods
is another sub-strategy. At times this is shown through sympathy, understanding,
and cooperation. Other forms of politeness strategies include using jokes, making
offers or promises, being optimistic, asserting or presupposing speaker’s knowledge
of and concern for hearer’s wants, including both speaker and hearer in the activity,
giving or asking for reasons, and assuming or asserting reciprocity.
Bald-on Record
Considered as the most direct approach, bald-on-record is also regarded as
the least polite because face-saving is not a concern. In short, interactants are not
focused on their identities and are unperturbed by any instance of directness. It is
typical in this strategy to do away with linguistic hedges as well as apologies. In
fact, offense is often a non-issue because of the intimacy between the speaker and
the hearer as in the case of family members, a married couple, best friends, etc.
Consider the direct statement, “Add some salt”. The sentence may indicate an
intimate relationship between two parties so that redress is unwarranted. In similar
scenarios, the chances of being threatened are slim if not totally absent, thus, choice
of words is for functional reason and the emphasis is on semantics.
Brown and Levinson provide situations and specific examples wherein the
bald on-record strategy is applied. These include offers, welcomes, and situations
where the threat is minimized implicitly, task-oriented acts, situations with no threat
minimization, urgency or desperation, and when efficiency is necessary. Other
examples are showing little or no desire to maintain someone's face, and when
doing the face-threatening act is in the interest of the other person. In bald on-
record, there are no attempts whatsoever to elaborate or supply more than what is
expected.
Ensuing Contentions: Politeness Principle, Conversation Contract, and
Impoliteness
Leech (1983 & 2003), though relying on the politeness strategies, takes a
slightly different direction in elucidating the politeness phenomenon. Rather than
the usual dependence on Brown and Levinsonian idea of politeness, he postulates
what he calls the Politeness Principle (PP). He reasons that politeness, as previously
characterized, has no equivalent terms in other cultures, despite the assertion of its
being universally applicable. Leech also argues that his PP is more useful since it
can account for certain phenomena in pragmatics not addressed by Brown and
Levinson. The PP is divided into six interpersonal maxims, namely, tact, generosity,
approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy. Each of these principles consists
of two sub-maxims.
The tact maxim is composed of impositives and commissives, the former
referring to expressions that intend to minimize cost to others while the latter are
those that maximize benefit to the other interlocutor. The sentence, “I wonder if I

IJHS, e-ISSN 2597-4718, p-ISSN 2597-470X, Vol. 6, No. 1, September 2022, pp. 51-67
57
could disturb you for a moment” is an example of tact impossitives that are the
equivalent of negative politeness, which uses minimal impositions upon others.
Tact commissives are comparable to positive politeness which seeks to attend to
others’ needs or interests. The example, “Let me give you another drink” illustrates
this maxim. Under generosity maxim, one minimizes benefit to self (impositives)
and maximizes cost to self (commissives). This is demonstrated through one’s
selflessness by giving more weight to the needs and welfare of others. Approbation
maxim—composed of expressive and assertive—aims to minimize dispraise of
others and desires to maximize dispraise of self. Said differently, the preferred route
in interaction within the confines of this maxim is the expression of approval toward
others while lessening or avoiding any show of self-preference.
Agreement maxim (in assertive), as Leech explains, is a means to minimize
disagreement between self and others or maximize agreement between self and
others. Efforts are made to maintain solidarity or cohesion, although it does not
mean that disagreements are totally avoided. Instead, there is a desire to focus on
agreeing rather than on opposing. Under sympathy maxim (in assertive), one
minimizes antipathy between self and others or maximize sympathy between self
and others. Simply stated, attempts are made to express compassion, and showing
lack of concern or being unaffected by the situation is avoided or at least minimized.
Fraser (1990) goes even farther than Leech, offering his conversational
contract view. Unlike Brown and Levinson, Fraser does not subscribe to the idea of
intentionality in politeness. It is his belief that politeness becomes a default setting
in interactions where conversers are governed by what he calls the conversational
contract (CC), which binds interactants into a polite exchange. Fraser emphasizes
the need to collaborate with a fellow rational participant for the purpose of
achieving a mutual objective. Calling this “conversational mitigation” Fraser, 1980,
p. 341), he adds, “During the course of conversation, there is always the possibility
for an ongoing renegotiation of this conversational contract, an ongoing
readjustment of just what rights and what obligations each has towards the other”
(Fraser, 1980, p. 343).
According to Fraser, politeness, as a matter of norm, is presumed to be present
in conversations even when interlocutors do not assert or expect it. Common among
normal human beings is the desire to cooperate instead of violating norms. Further,
politeness is characterized in a number of ways. First, to be polite one must abide
by the relationships rules and avoid any infractions of the hearer’s rights and
obligations. Politeness is thus expected to exist in every conversation even though
participants do not necessarily recognize someone as being polite – after all, this
behavior is the norm. Culpepper (2011), of course, disagrees, arguing that
depending in the power relations involved, some interactants, particularly those
possessing greater influence would resort to impoliteness.
As shown in the preceding sections, there is an abundance of politeness
concepts and contentions as well as studies on the subject (Walkinshaw (2007),
with Grice starting the ball rolling without perhaps knowing it, with his cooperative
principle, providing a significant groundwork for Lakoff’s politeness rules. (One
might argue, though, that the sociological discussions on face is the origin of
politeness phenomenon, which may be so). Consequently, the latter’s rules of
conversation created a snowball effect, sparking further interest on politeness from
social science experts and academics, notably America’s Brown and Britain’s

IJHS, e-ISSN 2597-4718, p-ISSN 2597-470X, Vol. 6, No. 1, September 2022, pp. 51-67
58
Levinson who broadened the ongoing discourse and debates on the subject. This
paper now turns to politeness concepts in the context of the Philippines, and
whenever necessary, it will attempt to critique its applicability in an oriental milieu.
Theory Application
Understanding The Many Facets of Filipino Politeness
After having presented an overview of the various and arguments regarding
politeness and its derivatives, we now turn to their connections in the practice of
politeness in the Philippines. Efforts have been made to characterize the Philippine
brand of linguistic politeness but literature on the subject (including language
power) has been found lacking (Labor, 2011). Therefore, further discussions on
pragmatic politeness in the local context is not only a welcome addition but is a
matter of necessity.
Different Politeness Approaches in the Philippines
Previous studies suggest that there is no one-size-fits-all formulation for
Filipino politeness, a phenomenon that is as intricate as the myriads of customs,
traditions, and practices found in this Asian archipelago. As Olazo (2012) argues,
politeness among Tagalog speakers (those living in Manila and nearby northern and
southern provinces) can never be equated with those of other regions such as the
Bikolanos of southeastern Philippines. Hence, when dealing with Filipinos,
researchers are faced with multiple variants of politeness distinct from each other
depending on the region. Add to the distinctiveness of the many facets of Filipino
politeness, investigators will be surprised to discover the seeming impoliteness of
people living in the south (the Visayas region and Mindanao), where the dominant
language Cebuano does not use the politeness markers po, opo and oho.
Day-to-Day Politeness: Sociological and Psychological Viewpoints
By nature, Filipinos are an indirect people whether at home or at work. It is
just a way of life. Coming from sociological/anthropological view, Peña and
colleagues (2006), connect the concept of smooth interpersonal relationship, a
phenomenon that governs social behavior and interactions in the Philippine context,
with linguistic politeness. They explain that to be and to remain polite, Filipinos
practice pakikisama or “getting along with others, and ideally getting along ‘well’
with others” (para.1). This is expressed in their dealings with others as seen in
various forms of deference such as the use of respectful language in everyday
interactions in both formal and informal settings and various forms of indirectness.
The educators observe:
In its most basic sense, ‘pakikisama’ means going along with others. Its
basic etymological source is ‘sama’ (to go with). A derived term is
‘kasama’ (companion; together with). In the social interaction context,
‘pakikisama’ means ‘getting along with others’, and ideally getting along
‘well’ with others. The first part of the term ‘paki-’ is also significant since
it also happens to be the Tagalog affix for ‘please’. It’s as if the individual
is being requested to ‘please’ get along well one’s fellow human beings
(para. 1).
In asking for favors, even among close friends and family members, aspects
of pakikisama is very evident. To minimize imposition or the directness for

IJHS, e-ISSN 2597-4718, p-ISSN 2597-470X, Vol. 6, No. 1, September 2022, pp. 51-67
59
example, it is normal for Filipinos to use the prefix paki (please) and is attached to
a request or command term. The word is analogous to putting a big burden on
someone else’s shoulders or causing a major discomfort upon others. The prefix
maki or makiki plus a request word is also used to avoid sounding direct or
demanding (Peña, 2006). To illustrate, if one needs the salt to be passed, the
utterance may be, “Paki-abot (po) ng asin” (Please pass the salt). Note that often,
local interactants would be extra careful that besides using paki, they also insert the
polite marker po, which is reserved for older people and people in authority. As
seen here, this practice is manifested in so many ways in Filipino culture (Yabut, &
Salanga, 2017). This linguistic behavior, as associated with Filipino politeness, has
been noted by other local researchers. De Leon and Parina’s 2016 study paid
attention to how Filipinos complain in Tagalog and in English, and found that in
their local language, participants tended to be indirect with the use of markers and
enclitics. They stress that “Filipino has politeness enclitics, and since a complaint
is considered impolite, devices, such as the use of Filipino enclitics are used to
maintain the polite face of the complainee” (p. 204).
Filipino psychologists Carmen Santiago and Virgilio Enriquez also note the
connection between pakikisama and other related concepts with behavior and
language use. Aside from pakikisama, their model for Filipino psychology of
interaction lists eight categories, namely, pakikitungo (transaction/civility with),
pakikisalamuha (interaction with), pakikilahok (joining/participating with),
pakikibagay (in conformity with/in accord with), pakikipagpalagayan/
pakikipagpalagayang-loob (being in rapport/understanding/ acceptance of),
pakikisangkot (getting involved with), and pakikiisa (being one with) (Aquino,
2004, p. 107).
Formalities, Honorifics, and Politeness Markers
In Philippine sociological perspective, politeness is expressed in several ways
such as the use of more formal terms or word endings that reflect respect in Japanese
and Korean languages (Lee, 2018). Among Filipinos, use of honorifics is common.
Examples are kagalanggalang (honorable), minamahala/mahal (dear or dearest),
and kapita-pitagan (distinguished), addresses usually reserved for government
officials and other titles and honorifics relative to one’s achievements and titles
(Claudio, 2010). In both formal and informal set-up, polite markers such as the
words po and opo are used in many provinces such as Tagalog, Bikol, and
Pampango regions north of Manila where these would be common (Gocheco,
2009). Among Bikolanos, in particular, the use of po and opo almost seem
mandatory or automatic even in government meetings where English is the medium
of communication (Meneses, 2018). Thus, the English-Filipino/Bikolano code-
switching becomes a matter of norm in order to be respectful. The markers are used
when addressing older people like parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, strangers
(usually adults), and others with significant positions in society as indicated by
Meneses (2018).
Still in the same regions, it is normal to hear the polite addresses in the family
like kuya, diko, and sangko for older brothers (koya in Pampango), ate and ditse for
older sisters (atche or atchi in Pampango). Among Bikol speakers, kinship
honorifics manoy and manay are common as an expression of politeness (Olazo,
2012). In the Ilocano-speaking northern Philippines and select areas in Mindanao,

IJHS, e-ISSN 2597-4718, p-ISSN 2597-470X, Vol. 6, No. 1, September 2022, pp. 51-67
60
manong and manang are the equivalent terms for addressing an older brother or a
male stranger and for an older sister or a female stranger, respectively, and are
clearly signs of politeness. The same words are also adopted in many parts of the
country and may be an expression of simple courtesy. As a point of comparison, a
younger sister might say, “Ayabbanac man, manong” which means “Please help
me, older brother” in Ilocano, and in this context, the use of manong is a clear
indication of politeness. In greater Manila area, however, a person who asks a
vendor, “Manong, magkano ito?” (How much is this?), is courteous but intimacy
between the parties is non-existent unlike in the previous example where the use of
manong is reflective of politeness due to the close relations.
Pluralization of Second Person Pronouns
It is also a common practice in the Philippines to pluralize second person
pronouns, not only as a matter of norm, but more importantly as a matter of
politeness, and this is common in many regions such as among the Tagalogs,
Ilocanos, and the Pampangos. In the Tagalog-speaking regions in and around the
National Capital Region and nearby southern provinces, for instance, a shift to the
plural form of the second person pronoun ka (you) to kayo as well as ninyo instead
of the singular mo (a variant of you) is common. The power relations between the
speaker and hearer dictate the use of the plural form. The higher the position of the
addressee, the more polite the approach employed. The more distant third person
plural pronoun sila (they) and nila (them) are also used as a sign of respect.
Interactions between friends wherein bald-on record is employed would include
utterances like, “Kumusta ka?” (How are you?) or the shortened version Kumusta?
instead of the pluralized Kumusta (po) kayo or Kumusta (po) sila? (literally, How
are they?). For instance, instead of asking in a normal polite way, Sino po kayo?
(Who are you?), one uses Sino po sila? (literally, Who are they?), indicating social
distance and superiority of the addressee in terms of position, status, and age. This
is similar to the use of yu (plural of you functioning as object pronoun) in place of
mu which is the singular form in Pampango and in Ilocano (Batang & Sales-Batang,
2010).
Politeness Strategies in the Filipino Workplace Context
Formalities relative to Filipino politeness are also seen in the workplace. In
his book Working with Filipinos (1999), F. Landa Jocano, one of the foremost social
scientists in the country, provides significant insights on the way Filipinos manifest
politeness in both behavior and language in the workplace (Agnir-Paraan, 2018).
Jocano elucidates how local workers process or handle information. In
communicating, Filipinos adopt unique styles, follow certain processes, and employ
techniques proven to aid in achieving their goals. Although coming from
anthropological perspective (as it applies in communication), Jocano has captured
significant aspects of Filipino brand of linguistic politeness.
Jocano lists four communication styles in giving or sharing of knowledge
known as pagbibigay-alam, and these are pahiwatig (to hint/to suggest), pabatid
(to make conscious), and kaalaman (sharing information without hurting). In terms
of process of communication, Jocano finds Filipinos at the workplace employing
certain system called pamamaraan ng pagkakakilala (establishing ways to
communicate) and these include pakikiramdam (feeling each other), pag-uusap

IJHS, e-ISSN 2597-4718, p-ISSN 2597-470X, Vol. 6, No. 1, September 2022, pp. 51-67
61
(talking things over), pagbibigayan (giving way to each other), and pagsasamahan
(consensus leading to group cohesiveness). In terms of communicative techniques,
Filipinos use pagsasangguni (consultation for insights), paghihikayat (to attempt
to persuade), pagkakasundo (agreement), and pagkakaunawa (understanding
leading from agreement). All three strategies under processes, and to some degree,
those under communication techniques, are reflective of linguistic politeness.
Pakikiramdam (feeling each other). This manner of communicating is a very
indirect way of dealing with others in that the speaker refrains from verbalizing any
information, even if it is overdue for transmission or is extremely crucial to be
verbalized, for fear of offending the other party, leading to an unsuccessful
communication. Pakikiramdam does not fit in any of the four politeness strategies
of Brown and Levinson because in this practice, the speaker forsakes verbal
dialogue, and if communication must exist, it is devoid of content that may be
deemed offensive or that may affect future interactions and consequently the
relationships at stake. For instance, a staff who must impose certain rules among
peers, must employ pakikiramdam in various ways, such as determining the proper
timing (e.g. when the workers are in a good mood). The person planning to make
an imposition will refrain from doing so when employees are upset or are
problematic. On a personal level, an employee will not borrow money from a
colleague when the latter is very busy, not in a good mood, upset, or not feeling
well. In short, the speaker knows that their communication will be pointless,
unsuccessful, and even offensive.
Pag-uusap (talking things over). There is more to pag-uusap (conversation or
talk), the second unique process in communication, than its commonly understood
meaning. Sociologically speaking, the word implies an intentional dialoguing in
order to shed light on pertinent matters or explain one’s position, say, on a debatable
issue. The goal is to avoid offense (i.e. a manager sending a reprimand memo) that
can ruin boss-employee relationship. At the very least, pag-uusap is helpful in
avoiding miscommunication and strained relations, the ulterior motive for
politeness in this case—a scenario that results when parties involved are not on the
same level of understanding due to opposing points of view. This also applies in
interpersonal relationships such as between friends, who must rather ‘talk’ things
through and listen to each other to be able to iron out any potential or actual
misconceptions.
Pagbibigayan (giving way to each other). Another communication approach
associated with Filipino politeness called pagbibigayan speaks of the idea of
accommodation, such as paying attention to opinions and even criticisms. This is
reminiscent of Leech’s agreement maxim, which is about propagation of
understanding or cohesiveness or avoidance or minimizing of dissenting
expressions. When pagbibigayan is employed, it is more than just a mere give-and-
take system, but of giving of a listening ear, or attention, of expression of
understanding and solidarity. A table summarizing the use of work-related
communication and politeness strategies as adopted from Jocano is provided. See
Figure 1.
Pagsasamahan (consensus leading to group cohesiveness).The fourth method
is called pagsasamahan, a way of gathering consensus so that cohesiveness is
achieved. Jocano suggests that in a workplace context, employees will attempt to
listen to various perspectives on certain issues to arrive at a unified decision. The

IJHS, e-ISSN 2597-4718, p-ISSN 2597-470X, Vol. 6, No. 1, September 2022, pp. 51-67
62
intent is two-sided. In corporate context, it is to make workers feel included. The
other viewpoint is connected to politeness concepts. In a way, that is being sensitive
and polite because there is an attempt to avoid offense by consulting everyone.
The Self-Serving Form of Politeness: Debunking Brown and Levinson
As already stated, pakikiramdam is uniquely Filipino and/or Asians. It can be
observed that the reason for pakikiramdam as a communication process or as a
politeness strategy) is very self-serving, and in fact, it may be considered as a one-
sided form of politeness. This is a lot different from the idea of politeness as Brown
and Levinson have tended to generalize the concept and in a Western perspective.
Convenience and not Politeness. In the Philippine workplace (or day-to-day)
scenario, the speaker resorts to the method out of convenience or for selfish gain,
not primarily to avoid offense (as Brown and Levinson posit), but prevent two
things from happening. First is embarrassment or shame (hiya or nakakahiya), when
a request or communication is declined (e.g., borrowing cash), which entails losing
one’s face. Second is strained (office or interpersonal) relations, something that
Filipinos dread due to their communal mindset (Reyes, 2015). Because of group-
oriented psyche, Filipinos will do everything to preserve relationships.
Truth or Consequence. It is important to note that even in pag-uusap, the
second method in office communication, one is not totally free unlike in western
setting where one can present all the truth of a matter. Abandoning it and
subscribing to the western way of presenting the facts can also lead to strained
relations. In many instances, those who focus on being straightforward rather than
being sensitive via limited or controlled utterances are disliked, avoided, and
become unpopular; thus, it is preferred to be non-confrontational as much as
possible (Worthington, et al., 2010, cited in Labor, 2011). By the way, one can be
ostracized not only for being direct, but by merely revealing the facts. Regarding
pag-uusap, the word used in this essay is sensitive rather polite because even if one
is polite in confrontations, the very idea of the latter is enough cause of coldness
and even separation. In short, one cannot even unveil the truth to avoid hiya or
shame, an FTA involving the speaker’s face in this case, or nakakahiya
(embarrassing), an FTA involving the hearer. As a case in point, it would not be a
surprise if Filipinos say yes when asked by a western acquaintance if they have
already eaten because they would say so out of hiya. This reminds us of the use of
indirect approaches in various speech acts among Asians. In Indonesia, for
example, the refusal of offers such as drinks or food is done with tact and care to
avoid offense (Wulandari, Hapsari, & Bram, 2018). This holds true among Thais
who are known for their gentle ways and indirectness when making refusals
(Boonkongsaen, 2013). When complaining, Thais are more careful than other
nationalities such as Mexicans and Africans.
Ulterior Motives and Indirectness. It is obvious that in Filipino context—
whether in the workplace or in many situations—politeness is employed because of
ulterior motives. For instance, if a directive on reduced compensation due to an
economic crunch needs to be cascaded, the manager will make attempts to
determine the psychological and emotional status of the staff to ascertain their
readiness for an offensive communication. No one in the Philippines would want to
be a bringer of bad news for in could affect their image (face) and their work
security. Thus, in this scenario, one considers the receivers of information so that

IJHS, e-ISSN 2597-4718, p-ISSN 2597-470X, Vol. 6, No. 1, September 2022, pp. 51-67
63
they are loved, treated well, and/or given good reviews. It is apparent therefore that
the Filipino brand of politeness, as Jocano implies, is a means to achieving material
or non-material gain. In informal situations, such as when a person wants to borrow
cash, it is a matter of norm to makiramdam muna or pakiramdaman muna (to test
the waters first) to ascertain the most appropriate timing for revealing such a face-
threatening act of borrowing money. In Brown and Levinson, the speaker considers
the positive and negative face of the hearer --by avoiding imposition (e.g., the act
of borrowing) -- and not restricting the freedom of the would-be lender. However,
in the Philippines, the speaker goes beyond reduced imposition to non-imposition
to the point of avoiding any communication or an utterance. Sometimes, people
would resort to paligoy-liguy or beating around the bush, a practice that is employed
in communication because it is such an embarrassment to be blunt or be
straightforward (Mulzac, 2007). To reiterate, the intent is not to merely avoid
offense or to save one’s face but to achieve an ulterior or selfish motive. This form
of politeness is uniquely Filipino and Asian.
While researchers may consider this as a form of politeness, this is but a
manifestation of face-saving strategy as Locher and Watts (2005) have suggested,
though a bit broader and unique. They write:
In our understanding, politeness cannot just be equated with FTA-
mitigation because politeness is a discursive concept. This means that
what is polite (or impolite) should not be predicted by analysts. Instead,
researchers should focus on the discursive struggle in which interactants
engage. This reduces politeness to a much smaller part of facework than
was assumed until the present, and it allows for interpretations that
consider behavior to be merely appropriate and neither polite nor impolite.
(p. 9).
The authors add:
We propose that relational work, the “work” individuals invest in
negotiating relationships with others, which includes impolite as well as
polite or merely appropriate behavior, is a useful concept to help
investigate the discursive struggle over politeness (p. 9).
Politeness, therefore, cannot always serve as the standard measuring stick in
conversations and other forms of communication. Additionally, Filipinos would
also avoid Grice’s quantity and quality maxims. They may hide the facts and say
no to a question if saying yes would cause an embarrassment to either or both
interactants. Thus, the Filipino variety of politeness is rooted in self-centeredness
and not altruism, but nevertheless aligns with the communalistic tendencies in order
to belong and avoid ostracism.
This observation surfaced in an unpublished study on politeness and
impoliteness in Filipino language television news interviews. In the study, the
researcher found what he calls a “double-padded Filipino politeness” mixed with
positive politeness and “pseudo off-record impoliteness” combined with “multi-
layered politeness” (Santos, 2020, p. 31). This may as well relate to new
developments that Rahardi talked about in a 2017 research on pragmatic
phenomena or simply, it may be a reflection of the uniqueness of each culture,
something that is exclusive in the Philippines. Indeed, as Correo (2014) and Olazo
(2012) assert, the universalness of politeness as Brown and Levinson claim does
not fully apply in Philippine linguistic context. This phenomenon requires further

IJHS, e-ISSN 2597-4718, p-ISSN 2597-470X, Vol. 6, No. 1, September 2022, pp. 51-67
64
exploration by researchers coming from pragmatics/politeness, communication,
sociolinguistics, and psychology. In the absence of such studies, the researcher sees
and proposes a uniquely multi-layered Filipino linguistic politeness particularly
present in TV news interviews. Additionally, when conducting politeness studies
involving Filipinos, researchers must bear in mind that they are either dealing with
multiple variants of politeness or a uniquely oriental brand of linguistic politeness
not covered by Brown and Levinson.
Conclusion
There obviously are a number of criticisms and challenges to the politeness
theory. For instance, utterances classified under bald-record strategy, which are
characterized by straightforwardness, are being challenged. Goldsmith and
MacGeorge (2000) argue that bald on-record politeness is useful in cases where
giving pieces of advice is of necessity. In such contexts, minimization of FTA’s is
employed implicitly and without manipulation. The tandem even proposes that that
politeness theory be modified. Influential academics also question the tendency to
apply the politeness strategies in non-western contexts (Armaşu, 2012). In addition,
others regard Brown and Levinson’s model as inadequate because it does not take
into account the intercultural differences (Mao, 1994). Redmond (2015) finds
politeness theory to be weak in that it was based on an ideal person, without
considering, among others, the reality of impulsiveness and irrationality. In short,
people do not always plan what to say, and do not take into consideration what
strategies to use in interactions. Redmond suggests that politeness or lack thereof is
simply a natural occurrence, a result of a habit or practice.
As far as Grice is concerned, interactions are a matter of cooperation, and this
is reflected in Filipino workplace communication in an attempt to save face or
maintain a good face. The maintenance of a good image and the group-orientation
among Filipinos are some of the motivating factors in employing all types of
communicative strategies as per Jocano, all of which embodies a Filipino variety of
politeness, and not necessarily of the concepts posited by Brown and Levinson.
Lakoff’s rules of politeness fit rightly in Filipino workplace communication-cum-
politeness. Similarly, Jocano’s formulations are consistent with Leech’s politeness
principle and Fraser’s contention of politeness being a default setting, which is a
reality in Filipino setting, whether at work or anywhere else. In light of the
foregoing and the uniqueness of the Filipino brand of politeness, a modified
politeness theory should be in the offing, perhaps one that fully captures what it
truly means to be linguistically polite. But given the assertion that the Brown and
Levinsonian theory does not fit well in Philippine politeness, it is high time
literature on the subject accommodate, or at least acknowledge, the existence of a
multi-faceted, self-centered variety of politeness that is uniquely Filipino as
reflected in workplace context.
References
Agnir-Paraan, L. C. N. (2019). Filipino communication style as reflected in
politeness strategies in administrative memoranda in the Philippine
workplace. Journal of English Studies and Comparative Literature, 18(2),
18-38.

IJHS, e-ISSN 2597-4718, p-ISSN 2597-470X, Vol. 6, No. 1, September 2022, pp. 51-67
65
Aquino, C. C. (2004). Mula sa Kinaroroonan: "Kapwa, Kapatiran" and "Bayan" in
Philippine Social Science. Asian Journal of Social Science, 32(1), 105-139
Arendholz, J. (2013) (In)Appropriate Online Behavior A pragmatic analysis of
message board relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Armaşu, V. D. (2012). Modern approaches to politeness theory: A cultural context.
Lingua (Language & Culture), 11(1).
Batang, B. & Sales-Batang, R. (2010). Politeness and compliments in selected
Ilocano Radio dramas. Journal of Research, 19(2), 9-23.
Boonkongsaen, N. (2013). Filipinos and Thais saying “no” in English. MANUSYA:
Journal of Humanities Regular, 16(1), 23-40.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language
usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Castro, M. C. S. A. (2018). Identity and self-presentation in letters of request written
by college students. International Journal of Humanity Studies (IJHS), 2(1),
10-21. https://doi.org/10.24071/ijhs.v2i1.1257
Chang, Y. Y. (2008). Cultural “Faces” of Interpersonal Communication in the U.S.
and China. Intercultural Communication Studies, 17(1), 299- 313.
Claudio, L. (2010). The honorable peculiarities of Filipino English. GMA Network
News. Retrieved June 10, 2020 from
https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/opinion/content/200340/thehonorable
-peculiarities-of-filipino-english/story/
Correo, C. (2014). Politeness strategies deployed by Filipinos in asynchronous
computer-mediated discourse 1. Asian Journal of English Language
Studies, 2(2).
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752
De Leon, K. D., & Parina, J. C. M. (2016). A study of Filipino complaints in English
and Tagalog. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies,
22(1), 191-206.
Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 219-
236.
Gocheco, P. M. (2009). The use of politeness marker Po in television mediated
political campaign advertisements in the Philippines. In Bhatia, V. K.,
Cheng, W., Du-Babcock, B., & Lung, J. (Eds.) Language for Professional
Communication: Research, Practice & Training (pp. 71-82). Hong Kong:
City University of Hong Kong & The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Goldsmith, D. J. & MacGeorge, E. L. (2000). The impact of politeness and
relationship on perceived quality of advice about a problem. Human
Communication Research, 26(2), 234–263.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14682958.2000.tb00757.x
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan J. L. (Eds.).
Syntax and semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
Jocano, F. L. (1999). Working with Filipinos: A cross cultural encounter. Quezon
City: Punlad Research House.
Labor, J. S. (2011). A Discourse Analysis of Linguistic (Im)Politeness and
Symbolic Power among Filipino Professoriate. In Andrew J. West, A. J.,

IJHS, e-ISSN 2597-4718, p-ISSN 2597-470X, Vol. 6, No. 1, September 2022, pp. 51-67
66
Getkham, K. & Singhakowinta, J. (eds.). Interdisciplinary Discourses in
Language and Communication (pp. 200-214). Thailand.
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. Language in Society, 2(1), 45-79.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Lee, E. M. (2018). Analysis of politeness strategies in Japanese and Korean
conversations between males. Pragmatics, 28(1), 61-92.
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.00002.lee
Leihitu, S. P. M., & Triprihatmini, V. (2021). A study of politeness strategies used
by Erin Gruwell in Freedom Writers Movie. International Journal of
Humanity Studies (IJHS), 4(2), 221-235.
https://doi.org/10.24071/ijhs.v4i2.3239
Locher, M. A. & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal
of Politeness Research, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9
Mao, L. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal
of Pragmatics, 21(5), 451-486. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-
2166(94)90025-6
Meneses, M. C. E. G. (2018). Codeswitching as a politeness marker in Sangguniang
Panlalawigan regular sessions in Albay. BU R&D Journal, 21(3), 1-11.
Mulzac, K. D. (2007). Cultural dynamics and the church in the Philippines. Journal
of Adventist Mission Studies, 3(2), 1-20.
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1118&co
ntext=jams
Peña, I., Domigpe, J., Idos, R. V., Nacu, J. S., Doming, N. P., Paz, L., & Peñaranda,
O. (2006). Pakikisama: In the spirit of camaraderie. University of California
Consortium for Language Learning & Teaching (UCCLLT). Retrieved
from http://www.language.berkeley.edu/ucfcp/unit4/intro.php
Rahardi, R. K. (2017). Pragmatic phenomena constellation in specific culture
dimension language study. International Journal of Humanity Studies
(IJHS), 1(1), 84-92. https://doi.org/10.24071/ijhs.2017.010109
Redmond, M. V. (2015). Face and politeness theories. Lowa: University of Lowa
Digital Repositories. https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/handle/20.500.12876/23684
Reyes, J. (2015). Loób and Kapwa: An introduction to a Filipino virtue ethics.
Asian Philosophy, 25(2), 148-171.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09552367.2015.1043173
Santos, R. I. (2020). Politeness and impoliteness in Filipino as reflected in
television news interviews. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). College of Arts
and Letters, University of the Philippines-Diliman.
Stephen, M. D. (2013). The most acceptable hypocrisy: Legitimacy and euphemism
at the United Nations security council. Paper presented at the Institute of
Democracy and Human Rights (IDHR), Lunchtime Seminar Series,
University of Sydney. Retrieved on June 11, 2020, from
https://studylib.net/doc/18622271/working-paper---the-university-
ofsydney
Wulandari, A., Hapsari, B. S., & Bram, B. (2018). Communication failures in
Netflix drama series “13 reasons why”: A pragmatic analysis. International
Journal of Humanity Studies (IJHS), 1(2), 264-272.
https://doi.org/10.24071/ijhs.v1i2.1074

IJHS, e-ISSN 2597-4718, p-ISSN 2597-470X, Vol. 6, No. 1, September 2022, pp. 51-67
67
Yabut, H. J. & Salanga, M. G. C. (2017). Ang pangkaraniwang pagpapakahulugan
at behavioral na manipestasyon ng pakikisama (definitions and
manifestations of the indigenous conceptualization of the concept of
pakikisama). DIWA E-Journal, Tomo 5, 93-107.