TAGA LOG R E S P ECT FORMS :

S OC I O L I N G U I S T I C U S E S, O R I G I N S, AND PARALL E L S

J o s eph F . Kess

Tagalog , like the other languages o f the Philippines , be longs t o the Western
Indone s i an grouping o f the Austrone s i an family o f Pac i fic l anguage s . Like many
other language s , it exhibits forms of respectful address in terms o f overtly
shown categories . Such sociolinguistic devices express formally and explicitly
the social relationship between co-locutors in a given interaction . This paper
reviews the se devices in Tagalog , giving an outline of thei r ident i f ication and
thei r classi fication , then moving on to a dis cussion of the two maj or research
themes entertained in this discuss ion , name ly , the possible origins and the
contemporary dimensions of sociolinguistic usage of Tagalog respec t ful address .
The key formal device for showing sociolinguistic di f ferences in Tagalog is found
in the respectful use of enclitic particle and pronominal forms . Two enclitic
parti cles , po and ho , correlate with the use o f the pronouns i kaw/ka you ( s ingular)
and kayo you (plura l ) in showing sociolinguistic d i f ferences in conversational
inte raction . The exact dimensions o f po ( the most respectful ) vs . ho vs . zero
( absence of respectful addres s ) was assessed by a que stionnaire - like inventory
listing sample conve rsational dyads . Approximately thirty sub j ects graciously
filled out a four-page checklis t , indicating whethe r a given dyad required po ,
ho , e i ther , or neither in their usage . The analy s i s of contemporary sociolin­
guistic usage i s based on the responses obtained from the se sub j e cts .
The possible histori cal origins of these sociolingui stic devices in Tagalog
was asses sed by examining the earliest available descriptions o f Tagalog , and
comparing them with later descriptive treatments . Another aspect of the research
deals with the appearance or non-appearance o f such respect forms in the syntax
of some o f the other languages o f the Philippines , as well as related languages
like Chamorro in Guam . This is to ascertain whe the r other languages of the group ,
maj or or minor , employ e i the r the enclitic particles or the pronominal forms as
respect forms in the syntax o f that particular language , and i f so , whether there
is historical attestation of their appearance . It was hoped that in formation on
this point would shed s ome light on the possible extra-fami lial origins of the
sociolinguistic use of enclitic parti cles and pronominal forms in Phi lippine
languages .
On the personal exchange leve l , i t i s obvious that personal encounters
require interactants to observe a variety of linguistic e tiquette strategies , the
most important of which is the proper exchange of address forms . How to address

Amran Halim , Loi s Carrington and S . A . Wurm , eds Papers from the
Third Interna tional Conference on Aus tronesian Lingui stics, vol . 3 :
Accen t on vari ety , 1- 2 5 . Pacific Lingui stics , C-76 , 1982 .
© Joseph F . Ke ss 1

Kess, J.F. "Tagalog respect forms: sociolinguistic uses, origins, and parallels". In Halim, A., Carrington, L. and Wurm, S.A. editors, Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Vol. 3: Accent on variety.
C-76:1-25. Pacific Linguistics, The Australian National University, 1982. DOI:10.15144/PL-C76.1
©1982 Pacific Linguistics and/or the author(s). Online edition licensed 2015 CC BY-SA 4.0, with permission of PL. A sealang.net/CRCL initiative.
2 JOSEPH F . KESS

the other person is a crucial decision in much social interaction , and several
seminal s tudies have addres sed themselves to exactly these considerations in
dealing with the pronouns o f power and solidarity in European languages ( Brown
and Gilman 1960) and the forms of titled address in American English ( Brown and
Ford 1964) .
Interes t in the analysis of respectful address was quickly s timulated by
these early studies by Brown and his colleague s . In a history o f sociolinguistics
sense , Brown and his colleagues ' work represents an important initial contribution
to an understanding of the structured dimens ions of the social setting . Numerous
subsequent studies have inquired into the social psychological implications o f
such forms o f address ( Little and Ge lles 19 7 5 ) , and f o r a varie ty o f social o r
linguistic s e ttings , as f o r example , I talian ( Bate s and Benigni 1975 ) , for Swedish
( Paulston 197 4 , 1975 a , 19 7 5b ) , for Canadian French ( Lambert 196 7 , 1969 ) , for
Hungarian (Hollos 1975 ) , for Rus s i an ( Friedrich 197 2 ; Mayer 1975 ) , for Quaker
speech ( Shipley and Shipley 1969 ) , for S l ovene and Serbo-Croatian ( Ke s s and Juri c i c
19 78a , b ; Juri c i c and Kess 1978) , for Turkish ( Casson and Ozertug 19 7 6 ) , for
Spanish ( Fox 1969 ) , for Japanese (Martin 1964 ) , for Yiddish ( S lobin 196 3 ) , for
Tagalog ( Ke s s 19 7 3 ) , and even for bus iness ( S lobin et al 1968 ) and academic
settings (McIntire 1972 ; B locker 19 7 6 ) .
The Tagalog respect forms are several in number . They have , howeve r , the
dual functions of distinguishing individuals as members of the s ame or di f ferent
groups ( acquainted or unacquainted) as well as designating members o f one ' s own
group as equal or unequal socially for various reasons ( s uperior , inferior , or
equal ) . There are two bas i c ways o f indicating respect in Tagalog . One o f these
i s the use o f the respect particles po and ho as contrasted with their absence
( zero) . This zero is paralle led in the language by the presence of three forms
of the affirmative (yes opo , oho , and 00 ) , corresponding to po , ho and zero ,
respective ly . Thus , respect use in s imple affirmatives is replaced by a special
pair o f affirmatives both meaning yes , but with the secondary feature o f leve l o f
respectful address included . For example , compare o p o yes ( po ) and o h o yes ( ho )
with 0 0 yes . (The negative s imply follows the typical enclitic pattern o f order­
ings , with h i n d i no , not , acting as the first full sentence word . )
Respect particles fall under the heading o f enclitics in Tagalog , usually
appearing a fter the first full word or phrase in the sentence . This initial full
phrase may be e i ther a verbal or adj e ctival predicate or a nominal or prepositional
phrase . There are , of course , other enclitics , and where two or more enclitics
appear , the enclitics are ordered by a fairly rigorous set o f occurrence privi­
leges when other enclitics are also present in the same sentence , such that they
occur in a rigidly predetermined orde r . An example of this ordering with a fuller
range o f enclitics follows , though it is obvious ly unlikely that such a constel­
lation o f enclitics occurs that frequently in Tagalog sentence s .

+ PREDICATE na nga po ba d i n l amang s a n a ± Substantive Topic

In other uses , the po particle (but apparently not the ho) is simply frozen
in such calci fied greeting expres s ions as Tao po Anybody home or He l lo the house
( usually met with T u l oy po kayo Come on in ! ) and in Mano po , May I have your hand?
( a hand to head ritual greeting with much older respected individual s ) . I t is
also interes ting to note that o f the earlie r studies in Tagalog , neither Totanes
( 17 4 5 ) nor the much later Blake ( 19 2 5 ) and Bloomfield ( 19 1 7 ) mention ho ( nor ,
consequently , oho) . Of course , neither do some more contemporary s tudies as , for
e xample , Aspil lera ( 19 69 ) , and though this may have been merely oversight on their
par t , i t does not seem as l ikely . Only more contemporary pedagogical treatments
concentrating on the colloquial spoken seem to make clear mention of the two , for
e xample , Bowen e t al ( 1965 ) . Moreove r , the apparent variation between po and ho
 TAGALOG RESPECT FORMS 3

has only been noted in Bowen et al ( 19 6 5 : 5 ) , where the inherent variab i lity of the
po/ho continuum is noted by indicating that ' though po is usually considered more
formal than ho , some speakers prefer one , some the other , and s ome use both' .
The other sociolinguistic device used to express respect is the use of a
plural pronoun to address an individual person . Commonly , it i s the second
person plural pronoun kayo which is typically use d . Occasional ly , and perhaps
more rare ly now , when the addressee is e specially e s teemed for his e levated
position , Tagalog makes use of the third person plural pronoun s i la in direct
addres s . I t also makes occasional use o f i t a s respectful reference i n the axis
o f conversational re ference to a third person singular third party . S uch con­
ventions are not unknown elsewhe re ( see Martin 196 4 , for an example of this in
Japanese ; Hoppe and Kess 1978 , for one in English ; and Kes s and Juri c i c 19 7 8a ,
for an example in South S lavic) . It does seem to be noticeably lacking in
Spanish , classical or contemporary , if we were thinking o f the latter as a
pos sible origin for such sociolingui stic practices .
Both kayo and s i l a contrast with the s econd person s i ngular pronoun i kaw
( or ka , depending upon sentence pos ition ) . The pronominal system o f Tagalog i s
presented below in a n e f fort t o place pronominal contrasts in focus . Incorpor­
ating the first person plural inclus ive -exclusive distinction , Tagalog pronouns
fall into two categories : ( 1 ) those which refer to the speaker ( S ) , the hearer
( H ) , the speaker plus hearer ( S+H) or some other person (NSH ) , and ( 2 ) those
which refer to e ach of the above plus others ( se e S tockwe ll 1959 ) .

( 1) S imple ( 2 ) Plus Others

S a ko kami

H i kaw/ka kayo

S+H ka t a tayo

NSH s i ya si la

In fact , there are three parallel pronominal paradigms in Tagalog : the ako
paradigm (pre sented above ) , the ko paradigm , and the a k i n paradigm. The se
correspond to the particles a n g , n a n g , and sa , which mark the case functions o f
noun phrases in sentence s . Thus , personal pronouns in Tagalog fall into sets
corresponding to the three sets o f nominal expre s s ions marked by the particles
a n g , n a n g , and s a . The ako , ko , and a k i n pronoun clas ses are as follows .
4 JOSEPH F . KESS

a ng / s i n a n g/ n i s a/kay
Person :

I a ko ko aki n
thou i kaw , ka mo i yo
I and thou kata n a t a, t a kan i ta
he, she s i ya n i ya k a n i ya
we ( e xclusive ) kam i n am i n ami n
we ( i nclus ive ) tayo na t i n at i n
you kayo n i nyo i nyo
they si la ni la kan i l a

The rules a ffecting the respectful use o f the second person s ingular and
plural touch identically upon its manifes tations in all three paradigms .

This paper takes the position that the respect particles co-occur in
principle , though not necessarily in each instance , with the plural pronoun kayo
( s i la i s e xempted from further treatment in this discussion because o f its
special status and relative rarity) . While i t is true that either the particles
or the pronoun may occur alone i t seems that where only one o f them occurs , the
absent form is alleged to be implied by the form which does appear . I t is always
possible to insert the absent respect form without any noticeable grammatical or
lexical change in the content o f the sentence , as for e xample ,
P umun t a na ( po ) ba kayo ? ; P um u n t a na ( h o ) b a kayo?
Did you go ?
On the other hand , solidarity and absence of status dif ferences is expressed by
the reciprocal use of the second person s ingular pronoun i kaw/ka and the non-use
of the respect particles .
The occasions when the singular pronoun i kaw occurs with po , for example ,
are rare and are usually sociolinguistically marked . For examp le , in prayer
addressing God or the saints one notes i kaw and po ( see S chachter and Otanes
19 7 2 ) ; this is not entirely unlike the use of thou , thy , thine in the Early
Modern English version of the Our Father in the King James 1 6 1 1 bible ( ' Hallowed
be thy name ' ) or the Spanish version of the Padre Nuestro ( ' Santifi cado sea t u
nombre ' ) . The Tagalog u s e o f both i kaw , the fami liar pronoun , and the respectful
po represents the best possible compromise between the respectful awe and filial
piety that Christians were to have shown in respect to the deity . The only other
instances in Tagalog whe re such a paired presence ( i kaw-po) occurs is in sarcas­
tically marked speech , as for example , in i kaw po you think you 're so
. . . .

important� but . . .Here one is in disagreement with anothe r ' s pretended great­
.

ness and issues a mocking form o f addres s ; the two are in direct contrast , a
sociolinguistic contradiction in terms . Other forms have been occasionally
designated as used in respectful fashions , but their uses i n this sense are not
entir e ly frequent and are highly restricted . This is said o f t ayo we ( inclusive ) ,
and is used in s i tuations characterised by gaie ty or playfulness or in s i tuations
where the speaker wishes to denote his identi fication with a fami liar hearer who
may find hims e l f in the same s i tuation as the speak e r . It i s not used with
individuals who are e i ther non-solidary or superior to one s e l f ( see Bowen 196 5 : 1 7 5 ) .
 TAGALOG RESPECT FORMS 5

Kin terms typically have respectful address overtone s , s ince they are non­
reciprocal and are embedded in the hierarchically structured fami lial sys tem .
Terms like ama father, i n a mother, ama i n uncle , a l e aunt , i mpo grandmother , and
i n gkong grandfather , may be said to have such dimensions . It is not generally
customary for younger. siblings to use respectful particles with olde r s ib lings ,
but di s tinctive terms for the children of a fami ly unit distinguished by order
of birth and sex do reflect non-reciprocity . For e xample , one notes terms like
kuya and a te for the olde st brother and s ister , d i ko and d i t s e for the second
olde s t , and s a n g ko and s a n s e for the third olde s t . One even has i n s o for spouse
o f the e ldest son and s i yaho for spouse o f the e lde s t daughter .
Given the roots in s a n g ko and s a n s e , one suspects that they may be derived
from some southern Chinese dialect like Hokkie n . Certainly the care in the
di f fe rential naming of olde st to youngest child in the fami ly unit is a Chinese
sociolinguistic practi ce o f long standing . Comparing the roots in Mandarin , one
notes some remarkable s imi laritie s , more than could be possibly due to chance .
Thus , compare
di � second in a counting series with d i ko and d i t s e ; also
ge � e lder brother and
j i e:k€L e lder sister. (See also
zy � e l der sister. ) One also has
san :3- three and the previous roots in s a n gko and s a n s e . Thi s borrowing
seems to have been extended to i n s o and s i yaho ; compare
sao *t e lder brother's wife and j i e e lder sister coupled with
fu f--- husband ( this latter would h ave heard the bi lab i a l fricative
qualities o f fu and trans ferred it as an /h/) . One also has
pO
�i paterna l grandmother for i mpo and
gon g �'- paterna l grandfather for i n gkon g . It is easy to see parts of the
highly respect-marked kin-address system as being borrowed from
some Chinese language .
The similarities are even more striking with Hokkien , a more southerly coastal
language , and one which i s probably the most widespread Chinese language through­
out South-east Asia . It is obvious that the terms and the highly respect-marked
kin-addres s system has been borrowed from some Chinese language .
The use of titled forms of addre ss also exhibit sociolinguis tic dimensions
o f respectful addre s s , e i ther adding to or bes towing a sociolingui stic s tatus on
the individual . For example , terms like A l i n g be fore a female name or Mang
before a male name function in this fashion . So also does pare , where even
anonymous social exchanges can be superimposed on the respectful addres s system .
For example , a buyer may address a street-vendor by using pa re , buddy , pal , Mac ,
a term of non-solidary but seemingly famil iar address . Though the vendor may be
obviously lower in status in general , he becomes for this particular conversation­
al exchange a banter partner in the buying-selling circumstance and the ensuing
ritualised give-and-take ( see Lynch 1962 ) . None o f thi s is particularly
surpri sing , for according to Fox ( 19 5 6 ) , interpersonal r e lationships in the
Phi l ippines , espe cially those between non-kinsmen , are characterised by a marked
self-awarenes s of personal position . It is not expected that one wi l l find
social devices for reducing possible friction and preventing the loss o f s e l f ­
e s teem between non-kin types .
Las tly , one may also see the persistent use of the respect particles by one
of the co-locutors after the other drops it from the conversation as a way of
6 JOSEPH F . KESS

keeping one ' s distance from one with whom one does not wish the social distance
to close ( see Lynch 196 2 ) . Thi s is not unlike the strong-minded individual in
English who ins i s ts on being addressed by ti tle-plus - last-name (Mr Smith) after
an aggress ive salesman has tried to change the conversational tenor by switching
to first names .

Use of the respect particles i s not a pan-Philippine usage , howeve r , and it

i s interesting to speculate on its poss ib l e origins . On the other hand , i t i s
clearly n o t a general Philippine language characteristic , a s the following
discus sion demonstrate s . One pos s ib i l i ty is that it is derived from Spanish
sociolinguistic practices , though thi s i s not eas i ly demonstrate d . Spanish , like
all the languages of Europe , was party to the courtly spread o f the pronouns of
power and solidarity , and by the time o f i ts colonial ministrations in South-east
Asi a this would have been a permanent sociolinguistic fixture in Spanish speech .
The re is l i ttle question that the Spanish colonial regime had a tremendous
impact on Phi l ippine culture , and , as Wol f f ( 19 7 3 ) exempli fies , there is a good
dea l that can be told about the nature of Spanish-Filipino contact by the types
o f Spanish linguistic elements which find themselves in Phi lippine languages .
Though the use of Spanish has practically disappeared from the Phil ippine scene ,
the amount and extent of b i lingualism at one time must have been extremely wide­
spread . One sees thi s both in the numbe r o f Spanish contact vernaculars as we ll
as in the large extent to which Spanish borrowings penetrated the vocabulary core
of Phi lippine language s . Wol f f ( 19 7 3 : 7 3 ) cite s approximately 2 5 per cent o f the
total lexical entries in a Cebuano dictionary as being Spanish in origin . He
notes further that ' in this way Cebuano i s probably representative o f languages
spoken by Christian F i l ipinos ' . The sociolinguistic status o f Spanish must have
always been that of the prestige language and Filipinos who did not master i t
would very likely have been wont to emulate i t . B i lingualism must have been high
in those speech communities which lived directly under strong Spanish influence
and thi s influence must have permeated in some small fashion even the more remote
peripheral areas by ripple e f fect .
That Spanish had a large sociolinguistic influence on the general social
mores of large urban centres in the Philippines i s supported by lexical borrow­
ings in many languages in j ust these areas . For example , sexual more s , master­
servant relationships , superior to inferior exchanges , the reception and treatment
o f guests , many k in terms , and so forth , are often o f Spanish provenience in
languages l ik e Tagalog and Cebuano . I t would not be surpris ing to expect that
many other Spanish sociolinguis tic conventions may have also found the ir way
directly into the Filipino monolingual and b i lingual communities .
Mention of Tagalog forms of respectful address i s seen in the earliest
Spanish treatments o f Tagalog . Totanes ( 17 45 : 17 ) , for example , notes po , but
indicates that there is no need to add kayo (cayo in Totanes ' text , following
Spanish orthographic practice s ) . It may be that the respectful particles were
already in use as a Tagalog device and that only the use o f pronominal forms was
derived from Spanish . The exact extent of the usage is puzzling , and Totanes
presents a very incomplete picture , s uch that we are not sure of whe ther he i s
in fact recording contemporary sociolinguistic usage o r simply seeing Tagalog
through Spanish eyes . He does l i s t (p . 60 ) a verb mag paico ( magpa- i kaw? ) , citing
its gloss as l l amar de tu , presumably the Tagalog equivalent o f the Spanish
tu tear . He also (p . 17 , paragraph 5 9 ) records use o f the second person p lural
for s ingular addres sees in Tagalo g . For example , he makes reference to asking
question s o f an inferior using ca or mo , depending upon the sequence in question .
He also notes the use of cayo ( kayo ) , comparing it to Spanish usage - the use o f
maano cayo? f o r G Como es ta VMd . ? [Vues tra Merced] . I t i s interesting t o note that
the older form maano is used ( c f . paano , how) instead of the contemporary borrowing
 TAGALOG RESPECT FORMS 7

from Spanish , k umu s ta ( from iComo esta ? ) . Thus , the greeting borrowed into
Tagalog wholesale has not yet taken place . Whi le i t is difficult to give a time­
scale for such events , the argument for Spanish origins would have been more
persuas ive had the greeting been K umu s ta kayo , reflectinq the intrusion from
Spanish a l i ttle more convincingly . Totane s ' paragraph (p . 1 7 , paragraph 5 9 ) is
included below for its insights into that e arlier s tage .
59. Con este a na se pregunta el parenteseo , 6 dependencia ,
que uno ti ene con o tro , poni endo (para hablar con poli tical
al que fuere , 6 parcei ere mayor en nominativo , y al otro en
geni tivo . Vg . : (preguntando al superior) Anoca n i tong
ba baye , 1. ba t a ? qu � eres tu de esta muger , 6 de este
muchacho ? Y responde Ama , soy padre . Asaua , soy su mari do ,
Pang i noon , soy su senor , e tc . Anomo i tong tauo? (preguntando
al inferior) Ama , es mi padre . A saua , es mi marido , e tc . ,
aunque tambi en ponen en nomina ti vo a aquel a quien preguntan ,
sin a tencion a mayor 6 menor . Anoca n i tong b a baye ?
(preguntando a un chiqui llo) A nac , soy su hijo . Hablando
asimi smo el inferior a su superior como amo , 6 P . Mini s tro,
e tc . , y como usando nosotros nombres de Usted , 6 de V.
merced , 10 practi can del modo siguiente; en l ugar de las
particulas de i cao , 1 . ca , usan de la particula cayo .
Vg . : ma ano cayo? como esta Vmd . ? C u n cayo , i , h i nd i napa
sa Mayn i l a ? s i Vmd . n o hubi era i do a Mani l a ? y asi del
mi smo modo en todas las locaciones de esta clase : con la
advertenci a , de que al cayo no se Ie ha de anadir la
particula po: con 10 que se parti culari za este comun modo
de hablar, bastante usado en l os mas adverti dos .
By the time turn-of-the-century English descriptions like Blake ' s ( 19 2 5 )
appear , this sociolinguistic practice was already we ll e s tab lishe d , and i s o f
course a fact o f current Tagalog usage . (Note that although Blake ' s comprehen­
sive work , A grammar of the Taga l og language , appeared in 192 5 , his rese arch was
easily begun j us t after the turn o f the century , as attested to by his many
earlier pub lications . )
Languages in contact situations often produce di fferent results , and when
looking at the other languages of the Philippines , this sociolinguistic device
appears rather limited . Rather than all the languages which had intimate and
continuing contact with Spanish having borrowed this practice , the following
picture emerge s . Tagalog is paralle led in its particle or pronominal usage by
those languages which"more or less surround i t , suggesting a sociolinguistic
drift of the practice . Other languages o f the group further north ( e xcept
Ilokano which , as a large and important language , may have had more contact with
e i ther Spanish or Tagalog or both) and further south , are conspicuously lacking
in this device . The same is also large ly true for the languages of the Bisayas
surveyed he re ; this feature has in fact been cited by some ( Lynch 196 2 ) as at
least one characteristic di ffe rentiating Tagalog from the Bisayan languages .
Since only a limited repre sentative sample o f languages was surveye d , i t i s
always pos s ib le that another sample would provide a different picture , though
this is not likely .
To give the specific languages surveyed for this pape r , we may note that in
the Bisayas Cebuano (Wolf f 1966 : 40 ; Bunye 19 7 1 : 10 ) uses titled forms o f addres s .
Motus ( 19 7 1 : 86 ) notes similar respectful titles o f address i n Hiligaynon , but
neither po- like forms nor pronominal deployment .
8 JOSEPH F . KESS

On Luzon , Bikol (Mintz 19 7 1 : 409) has both respect marker po and a se cond
person plural pronoun ( kamO) usage for a s ingular addressee . Most interestingly ,
Mintz ( 19 7 1 : 116) notes that po is generally used in the Naga dialect of Bikol
and dialects north towards Manila , but is rarely heard in the south . It may be
that this reflects the earlier spread of this sociolinguistic device e i ther from
Spanish or through Tagalog from Spanish making a case for the contact limitations
of such sociolinguistic practices derived from Spanish . If this is in fact the
explanation for this situation , one speculates that such geographic constraints
would have been that much more restrictive in an age without mass media .

Mirikitani ( 19 7 2 ) notes the Kapampangan respect form p u a s "a term marking

deference and formal i ty o f speech ( p . 12 ) " , and the distinction between ka you
( s ingular) and kayu you (plura l ) as being one with politeness overtones (p . 2 1 ) .
M . Forman (personal communi cation) has also confirmed this fact for Kapampangan .
Benton ( 19 7 1 : 14 , 8 4 ) also notes the use of the second person plural pronoun
( kay6) as having respectful address overtones in Pangasinan and a respect marker
pa ( p . 1 7 8 ) .
Further north , Bernabe ( 19 7 1 : 9 ) notes the plural pronoun used in I lokano as
a s i gn of respect . L . Reid (pe rsonal communication) also notes no use of respe c t
particles in I locano , b u t notes that there a r e respectful pronouns f o r addres s .
Reid (personal communication) further notes no use of particles or pronouns for
Bontoc nor for Ivatan on the Batanes is lands north of Luzon .
An early study by Scheerer ( 19 0 5 ) notes that the Nabaloi dialect of Igorot
has only re spectful overtones to the use of the first person pronouns inclusive
and exclusive ( s i katayo and s i kame ) . Scheerer ( 19 0 5 : 1 1 3 ) notes that
s i kame will be heard , for instance , in a respectful report
to a superior ; s i ka tayo , on the contrary , in familiar talk
among equals . The same propriety in speaking is found in
I locano , Tagalog , e tc . , but is e specially noteworthy among
Igorot who otherwise addres s everybody , high or low , with
s i kam ( thou ) , after the fashion of the Tyrolese mountaineers .
Scheerer , of course , would h ave been extreme ly conscious of this distinction ,
given the status of Du/Si e e xchanges in German , and so we can take h i s
te stimony as t o its non-appearance in Igorot . This is in keeping with the
sociolinguistic practices of the other northern languages surveyed here .
T . Headland (personal communication) also notes that Dumagat , a Negrito
language of north-eastern Luzon , has neither pronouns nor particles as respectful
addres s device s .
In Mindanao , H . McKaughan (personal communication) notes neither particles
nor pronouns used in respectful address devices for Maranao . Recalling that
Maranao is in Muslim territory , with Marawi City a predominantly Muslim c i ty ,
this absence would be entirely expected i f the provenience of such forms of
respectful address i s ultimately Spanish .
Chamorro , like Palauan , belongs to the Phi lippine subgrouping by reason o f
thei r verb morphology and other characteristi cs . According t o D . Topping
(personal communication ) , Chamorro has neither respect particles nor the respect­
ful deployment o f pronouns like Tagalog . The Marianas were also discovered for
Spain by Mage llan ( chronologically just before the Phi l ippine s ) on his westward
j ourney home while c i rcumnavigating the globe for the first time . There was also
a mission there s ince the 1600 s , and an early and lasting influence on Chamorro
from Spanish was the case unt i l 1898 when Guam went to the United State s .
 TAGALOG RESPECT FORMS 9

The presence and importance of Spanish influence lingui stically is amply

te sti fied to by the Spanish contact vernaculars in the Phi l ippines , languages
like Caviteno , Ermiteno , Davaueno , and Zamboangueno ( se e Whinnom 1956 ; also
McKaughan 1958 , Frake 197 1 ) . In general , much of the vocabulary of the se Spanish
contact creoles is Spanish in origin ( though the grammar is markedly F i l ipino in
structure ) , giving some idea o f the penetration o f Spanish in areas where i t
impinged closely and continuously on Filipino lingui s t i c communities . Not
surpr i singly , these contact vernaculars o ften show the res idue of Spanish socio­
linguistic practices , s ince they were the result o f creolisat ion with Spanish,
from whence much of the original pidgin was derive d .
Thus , M . Forman (personal communication) notes that while there are no
particles in Zamboangueno , the second person pronoun set does have respectful
use s like the Spanish and Tagalog . In discussing the Zamboangueno second person
pronouns singular ? u s te , t u , ?ebos and plural ?u s te de s , bosot ros , and kamo , Frake
( 19 7 1 : 2 2 6 ) also notes the di f ferences in respect usage between the two sets . It
i s d i ff icult t o te ll from Molony ' s ( 19 7 7 : 156- 16 1 ) description whe ther the s ame
thing is happening in Ternateno , though one guesses i t likely to be s imi lar .

In those Phi l ippine languages which make use o f this sociolinguistic device ,
the practi ce seems to run fairly paralle l to that of other languages . In fact ,
claims about sociolinguistic universals in terms of which pronominal respect
forms o f address have been used have been made by S lobin , Mi ller , and Porter
( 19 6 8 ) . They suggest ( 1968 : 2 89 ) that

It is apparently a sociol inguistic universal that the address

term exchanged between intimates ( " familiar pronoun , " first
name , e tc . ) i s the same term used in address ing social
inferiors , and that the term exchanged between nonintimates
( "polite pronoun , " title and last name , e tc . ) i s also used
to address social superiors .
The unive rsality o f such observations is certainly open to question , though those
Phi lippine languages which do use it seem to follow the general pattern . There
is little quarrel with other such suggestions that the greater the status between
individuals the greater i s the probabi l i ty o f non-reciprocal addres s in those
languages which do have such sociolinguistic mechanisms . Howeve r , i t i s certainly
not a pan-Ph i lippine characteristic , and many languages do not use i t or use
other means .
As for Spanish origins , the case i s attractive , but inconclus ive . E i ther the
sociolinguistic device of pronominal deployment was borrowed and assimilated
quickly enough from Spanish to have appeared in Totanes ( 1745 ) or it was already
present . One would have expected other maj o r languages of the grouping to have
also done the same ; I lokano seems to have vestiges of it , but Cebuano and other
Bis ayan languages do not . The case would have been more convincing , had all the
maj or contacted languages had the feature . Those languages surrounding Tagalog
probab ly have it as a result of a ripple e ffect , but the question is whe ther
this has ultimately a Spanish origin again or i s a typological feature spread
from Tagalog itse l f . A plausible gue s s is that the pronominal deployment feature
was borrowed from Spanish and very early ; there i s , however , no immediate way o f
supplying incontrovertible proof for this speCUlation . The respectful enclitic
particles po and ho may have had their own native h istory , and the remainder o f
thi s paper deals with their contemporary sociolinguistic usage pattern .
Turning to the analysis of the respect particles , an earlier preliminary
analysis ( see Kess 19 7 3 ) was made on the basis o f dialogues found in e i ther the
popular l iterature or in teaching materials . At first blush , the first division
10 JOSEPH F . KESS

seemed to be between addressees who are solidary ( +S ) and those who are not ( - S ) .
Solidarity is a continuum between acquaintance and fami liarity . The next
division involves the factors of relative status ( S ) or relative age (A) . The
+SA category requires only one plus . I f the addres see is plus status or plus
re lative age (or both ) , he is considered +SA . I f the addressee is about the same
status and the same age , he i s ±SA ; i f both factors are absent , he is -SA .

In s um , the function of Tagalog respect forms may be represented generally

as below . The first distinction involves the presence ( R) or absence (NR) o f
respect forms . Thus , i f the addres see is +S but -SA or ±SA , respect forms
normally do not occur , whi le the remainder of the categories do require them .

+SA R R +SA

±SA NR R ±SA

-SA NR R -SA

+S -S

This earlier analysis posited a pos s ible third division to account for two
distinct though complementary groupings . Addressees who are +SA and +S , may also
stand in a particularly solidary relationship with the speaker ( though others may
not) . This relationship may be cons idered a secondary degree of solidarity , or ,
for lack of a better term, fami liarity ( F ) . The former ( +SA , +S , +F) may option­
ally receive ho , but the latter ( +SA , -F , +S ) seemed to obligatorily receive po­
for example , an employer or professor one is on good terms with , as opposed to
one with whom the speaker is not . The second distinction between the variation
of po and ho seemed to be a matter of style and the variation dependent on
external factors . For -S and -SA or ±SA addressees the speaker seemed permitted
a stylistic choice between po and ho . For -SA and -S addressees the speaker
seemed permitted two choice s . The first i s between R and NR; the second a
stylistic choice between po and ho , if R is chosen . Such a situation might arise
with addressees who are in a temporary ' service ' re lationship like waiters and
store clerks . Some speakers appeared to punctuate the initial stages of the
exchange with respect forms , and them omit them altogether , as i f there were a
subtle balance between the -SA and -S factors , one momentarily outweighing the
othe r .

Thirdly , o n the + S side , +SA addres sees who were + F seemed to optiona l ly
receive a ho and those who were not a po . There was a distinction between those
-S addressees who exhibited some kind of plus absolute status ( +AS ) , like a
bi shop , and those who did not ( -AS ) . The former appeared to obligatorily receive
po , the latter according to the speaker ' s style , either po or ho , as summa rised
be low .
 TAGALOG RESPECT FORMS 11

+F po po +AS

{PO
+SA --------- ---------- +SA
-F ho -AS
ho

±SA {PO
ho
±SA

-SA ¢ {PO
ho
-SA

+S -S

Despite typical claims to the contrary , it seemed that po and ho were not
j ust in a more to less respectful continuum of usage . The relationship between
the two seems to be also characterised by an i nherent vari ab i lity , and contem­
porary sociolinguistic usage patterns were checked by means o f a detailed
questionnai re . A four-page 1 1S-dyad questionnaire ( derived from an earlier
twenty-page 460-dyad questionnaire) was graciously filled out by twenty-eight
native Tagalog speakers . The dyad exchanges included highly restricted situations
like kin exchanges at the one end of the continuum and less restricted exchanges
like service relationship exchanges at the other . The questionnaire included
situational exchange categories like the following :

(a) k i n terms (kin terms were also varied to obtain the interplay o f
additional factors like age and degree o f acquaintance) :
e . g . son ( child) to father vs . son ( adult) to father; cons iderably
older male cous in to female cousin ( c lose tie s ) vs . considerably
older male cousin to female cous in ( first acquaintance) ;

(b) s i mi la r wo rk s i tuat i o n :
e . g . male salesclerk to older female salesclerk ( first acquaintance)
vs . male salesclerk to older female salesclerk ( long acquaintance);

(c) employer-employee s i tua t i on :

e . g . male salesclerk to s ame age male boss ( first acquaintance) vs .
male sales c l erk to same age male boss ( long acquaintance) ;

(d) employer-employee s i tuat i on + s tatus a s a relati ve :

e . g . male boss to young male employee who is also a relative , while at
work vs . while at fami ly gatherings;

(e) equal s tat us :

e . g . male doctor to male doctor : first acquaintance vs . colleague status;
e . g . nun to nun; first acquaintance vs . long-standing acquaintance vs .
long-standing friendship;

(f) serv i ce rela t i o n s h i ps :

e . g . young female shopkeeper to young male customer : first acquaintance
vs . intermittent customer vs . steady customer;
e . g . young male teacher to young mother visiting the school;

(g) formali sed setti n g s :

e . g . middle-aged host to guest who is less socially prominent than host .
12 JOSEPH F . KESS

Contemporary usage patterns derived from the questionnaire provide the

following picture of primary dimens ions in the deployment of respect particles
(and by extension , probably for pronominal forms as well ) . In the kin setting ,
absolute age merits the greatest degree of respect usage in upward exchanges .
The greatest usage o f po i s seen from grandson to grandfather; from this exchange
it is a descending scale of po to ho usage according to relationship . For example ,
note the following table (P=po; H=ho; E=ei ther; and N=neither) .

grandson ( child) to grandfather P 67% H 4% E 30%

son to father P 46% H 7% E 43% N 4%

niece ( child) to uncle P 14% H 29% E 54% N 4%

It seems that all kin elders receive respectful forms , but the greater the
age for such individuals within the mainstream family l ine , the greater the
percentage of P . This is affirmed by grandfather addressees who receive the
highest percentage of P in the entire questionnaire; the child to old man
exchange , for example , only receives 54% P .

There seems to be little change in upward exchanges as the chi ld becomes an

adult; an adult son or daughter uses almost the same degree of respect as when a
chi l d . The same a l s o appears t o be true for other upward exchanges like aunts or
uncles . There is some movement towards H , but it is not overly s igni ficant . For
example , note the following tab l e .

daughter ( adult) t o father P 43% H 14% E 39% N 4%

son ( child) to father P 46% H 7% E 43% N 4%

niece ( child) to uncle P 14% H 29% E 54% N 4%

nephew (adult) to uncle P 14% H 29% E 50% N 4%

This is in contrast with the intuitive expectations of at least one sub j ect ,
'
who noted that " in general , an adult child (male or female) switches to ho or
' neither ' when talking to his/her parents . It is as i f the child has acquired a
more equal status with the parents " . One explanation may be that some subjects
simply recorded the sociolinguistic practices within their own fami l ial setting ,
and some chose to view the matter of these exchanges in the abstract . Neverthe­
less , the data point in the direction of a minimal degree of movement toward H
in this setting . Moreover , familial kin relationships are not relationships that
can be renegotiated , as for example , the English shift from title -last-name to
first-name; rather , they are fixed and stab l e , unchanging over time , as is the
intimacy of the kin relationship . It is not unexpected that the sociolinguistic
expression of these relationships are also fixed over time , not as sub j ect to
change as are other types of social relationships which may be both renegotiated
and see a movement toward greater intimacy .
 TAGA LOG RESPECT FORMS 13

In the downward direction P and H rarely appear at any age for the addressee .
The only time the enclitics might appear , apparently , is sarcastically , when a
child is being rude , to remind him to use the forms . For examp le , note the
following table .

grandfather to grandson ( child) 96% N

father to son ( child) 9 3% N

uncle to niece ( child) 96% N

uncle to nephew ( adult) 96% N

father to daughter ( adult) 96% N

As e xpected , P/H play a minor role in sibling relationships . Sti l l , recalling

the earlier discussion o f s ibling terms embedded within a ordered hierarchy-by­
birth-order system, it is not surprising to see some use of H in an upward
relationship ( e specially when the age is unstated , and one is possibly dealing
with a wide range o f age separation) . Note , for example , the fol lowing tab le .
Thus , a boy addres sing an older sis ter gives 2 5 % H , 2 l% E , and 5 4 % N , while
receiving 96% N in return .

As one moves further from mains tream fami lial tie s , one finds that othe r
dimensions l ike age take precedence , mirroring other social exchanges . For
- example , note the following table where the ratio o f N response s is tied directly
to age difference .

male cousin to female cousin of same age ( c lose tie s ) 96% N

ma l e cousin t o considerably older female cousin ( c lose tie s ) 37% N

considerably older male cousin to female cousin ( c lose tie s ) 85% N

The fact of an inherent kinship relationship does make for an inherent

acquaintanceship tie . Consequently , one sees les s of its e ffects , and there i s
only a s li ghtly greater tendency t o use respect forms when unacquainted , a s seen
in the following table .

considerably older cousin to cousin

-
( close tie s ) H 14% E 4% N 82%
- ( on first acquaintance) H 14% E 7% N 79%

cousin t o cousin of same age

- ( close tie s ) E 4% N 96%
- ( on first acquaintance) H 4% E 7% N 89%

younger cousin t o considerably older cousin

- ( close tie s ) P 4% H 30% E 30% N 37%
-
( on first acquaintanc e ) P 4% H 29% E 36% N 32%
14 JOSEPH F . KESS

In meeting individuals for the first time , where no social parameters are
mentioned , the overtly discernible variable of age emerges as a powe rful
determinant in P/H usage . Very s imply , the older the addressee is in respect to
the speaker , the greater the respect usage ; the younger , the less its use . For
example , young man to child e licits 96% N while the reverse only 7 % N , a large
gap for a minimal age distance . Similarly , old woman to child e licits 96% N , old
man to young man 89 % N , old man to middle-aged woman 74% N, and old man to old
woman 59% N . Even children are expected , at least i n the abstract , to pay some
heed to the sociolinguistic dimensions o f such exchanges , as seen in the
following .

child to young man P 14% H 32% E 29% N 25%

child to middle-aged woman P 14% H 39% E 39 % N 7%

child to old man P 54% H 14% E 29% N 4%

Sex does not seem to b e a s important a variable , although one does record
some respect usage for same age ( young) male- female co-locutors , poss ibly , as one
sub j ect note d , perhaps as much so as "not to appear fresh or i ll-mannered" , as
for the lack of solidarity variable . For example , a young man to young woman
e licits 3% P , 10 % H , 14% E , and 69% N .

I n similar work settings , age and acquaintance emerge as the primary

dimension s . Thus , the older the addressee , the higher the percentage and type
of respect usage , as evidenced in the following table .

salesclerk to sales clerk of same age ( first acquaintance ) 89 % N

salesclerk to older salesclerk ( first acquaintance ) 0% N

salesclerk to salesclerk of same age ( long acquaintance ) 89% N

salesclerk to older salesclerk ( long acquaintance ) 15% N

On first acquaintance , it is simply age that matters in P/H ass i gnment ; for
example , compare 0% N for younger to older sales clerk exchanges and 64% N for old
to young exchanges . But speakers of the same age are more fami liar in address
( 89 % N) than even older speakers addressing younger sale sclerk colleagues ( 64% N) .
In the case of long acquaintance , both exchange dyads show an equal degree of
fami liarity ( 86 % N) . There also seems to be a tendency towards less use o f the
respect forms when there is a relationship of long acquaintance between co­
locutors of disparate ages . Note , for example , the fol lowing .

younger to older salesclerk ( first acquaintance) P 7% H 6 1% E 32% N 0%

younger to older salesclerk ( long acquaintance ) P 4% H 52% E 30% N 15%
 TAGALOG RESPECT FORMS 15

On the other hand , for same-age dyads in the s imilar work scenario ,
acquaintance does not seem to be as significant a variable as it is elsewhere .
Same-age salesclerks on first acquaintance elicit 4% P , 0% H , 7% E , and 89% N ,
while the same dyad under the long acquaintance condition e l i c its exactly the
same responses .

In the similar work setting where status di fferences do exis t , employee to

employer address also pays heed to the age variable . Thus , if the boss is older ,
the employee uses more respectful forms of addre s s , depending on the age
di screpancy . I f the boss is the same age , there is less of a tendency to use a
respect particle . Similarly , if the boss is younger , there is also less tendency
to use a respect particle . The factor of long acquaintance seems not to make too
much difference here either , and the percentages are almost the s ame for first or
long acquaintanceship relationships . Note , for example , the fol lowing table .

employee to older boss ( first acquaintance ) P 4% H 6 1% E 36% N 0%

employee to boss o f same age ( first acquaintance } P 1 1% H 32% E 36% N 2 1%

employee to younger boss ( first acquaintance) P 11% H 29% E 32% N 29%

employee to boss of same age ( long acquaintance ) P 4% H 44% E 15% N 37%

employee to younger boss ( long acquaintance ) P 7% H 44% E 11% N 37%

In the case o f a n older boss , the age difference remains fixed and there i s
sti l l the like lihood o f respectful address being give n . Compare , for example
37% N to a bos s o f the same age with 0% N to an older bos s , both in the long
acquaintance condition . It would appear that acquaintance is a relevant variable
for an employee address ing a younger or same-age bos s . At first acquaintance
there is a greater tendency to use P or E , while with long acquaintance there is a
greater tendency to use H or N . However , when addressing an older boss the degree
of acquaintance seems almost irre levant , for the age difference is fixed . One may
conclude that age is ultimately a more important variable than acquaintance ,
though acquaintance is the dimension that defines other relationships which are
not already predetermined by a substantial age gap . For example , note the
following table .

employee to bos s of same age ( fi rst acquaintance } P 11% H 32% E 36% N 2 1%

employee to bos s of same age ( long acquaintance ) P 4% H 44% E 15% N 37%

employee to younger boss ( first acquaintance ) P 11% H 29% E 32% N 29%

employee to younger boss ( long acquaintance) P 7% H 44% E 1 1% N 37%

employee to older boss ( first acquaintance ) P 4% H 6 1% E 36% N 0%

employee to older boss ( long acquaintance) P 7% H 59% E 3 3% N 0%

Despite the added dimension of the employee being a kin relative , age remains
the prime factor . Thus , an older relative is less l ike ly to use a respe ct form
to his boss than is a related employee who is younger than the boss . For example ,
the data show that an older related employee e l i cits 79% N to an older bos s at a
 --l
16 JOSEPH F. KESS

fami ly gathering whi le a younger employee elicits only 18% N . Moreover , a bos s is
more likely to use a respect form at work with an older related employee ( 36% N )
than with a younger related one ( 2 3% N ) . This is matched b y the bos s to older
related employee dyad in the family gathering setting with 2 5 % N, as opposed to
the bos s to younger related employee there with 89% N .

The setting itself may exert some pressure on the formality of the exchange ,
such that one sees s lightly less exchange of respect forms at family gatherings
than in the formal settings of the workplace . In general , it seems that a kin
relationship between co-locutors assumes a long acquaintance , and subjects were
wont to treat it as such . It also seems to confer a special dimension to the
relationship entirely congruent with this observation , and one sees somewhat less
use of P ( and consequently more use of H , E , or N ) in the questionnaires than one
sees for other dyadic relationships .

Service relationships again revert to the age variable as the primary

feature . A teacher to parent exchange , for example , is primari ly concerned with
th is feature , such that the older the addressee the more likely the respect forms .
The progression of increasing use of respect forms is easily seen in the fol lowing
trio of exchanges :

young teacher to young father vis iting school P 4% N 46%

young teacher to middle-aged mother visiting school P 11% N 7%

young teacher to old father visiting school P 14% N 0%

Though there i s less likelihood of respect forms in addressing someone

younger , the very role setting itself seems to exert functional-stylistic
pressure to observe the formality of the exchange setting , and one notes a higher
percentage of respect forms than one might otherwise . This has also been observed
elsewhere ( see Kess and Juri c i c on South S lavi c , 19 78a) to a much more dramatic
effect . Note, for example , the following tab le for some indication of how Tagalog
seems to handle this setting for teachers to parents visiting the school .

middle-aged male teacher to old father P 14% H 57% E 29% N 0%

middle-aged female teacher t o middle-aged mother P 8% H 31% E 3 1% N 31%

old male teacher to young mother P 4% H 29% E 14% N 54%

old female teacher to middle-aged fathe r P 4% H 37% E 19% N 4 1%

For other service exchanges like shopkeeper to customer , both age and
acquaintance are relevant variables . The greater the degree of acquaintance in a
service relationship , the greater the likelihood of the one serving to use N . For
example, for same-age young shopkeeper to young customer , the percentage of N use
goes from 5 7 % for first acquaintance to 79% as an intermittent customer and 9 3 % N
for a steady customer . The greatest j ump is obviously between the first acquaint­
ance and intermittent customer conditions , a feature that emerges from other
shopkeeper to customer triads of this type . As expected , age also emerges as a
 TAGALOG RESPECT FORMS 17

criterial feature , such that old and middle-aged shopkeepers are more likely to
use N ( 82% and 64% , respective ly ) to a young cus tomer on first acquaintance , and
so on . However , this dif ference is much smaller when the customer is an inter­
mittent or a steady one . The young shopkeeper is somewhat less likely to use a
re spect form than his older counterparts in the s teady customer condition . For
example , young shopkeepers to intermittent young customers elicit 81% N , middle­
aged shopkeepers to intermittent middle-aged customers 8 2 % M , and old shopkeepers
to intermittent old customers 86% N while the same dyads in the steady customer
condition e licit 9 3 % N , 86% N , and 86% N , respective ly .

The acquaintance variable is superseded by the age variable when present .

Thus , in the case of older customers , younger shopkeepers use almost the same
degree of respect in addressing customers in any of the three conditions .
However , for same-age dyads at the older end of the continuum, acquaintance once
again emerges as an important characteristic . Thus , for example , a steady middle­
aged customer will receive 7 1% N from the same-age middle-aged shopkeeper , while
one who is visiting the store for the first time will receive 2 5 % N ( compare with
2 9 % for a younger intermittent customer) . And at the lower end of the age
continuum, younger shopkeepers are more likely to use N when addressing same-age
steady customers ( 9 3% ) than are middle-aged or old shopkeepers addres sing same­
age steady customers ( 74% and 5 9 % respective ly ) . This seems to be true in general
at the younger end of the age continuum, even for intermittent customers . For
example , younger shopkeepers to same-age intermittent customers proffer 5 7 % N ,
whi le middle-aged and old shopkeepers only proffer 2 9 % and 39% N to same-aged
intermittent cus tomers . This is a lso true of the first acquaintance conditions
as we l l , so that a same-aged customer visiting the s tore for the first time will
more likely receive N if the shopkeeper i s young . Compare , for example , the
percentage of N responses for same-age shopkeeper to customer exchanges for young
( 9 3 % ) , middle-aged ( 25 % ) , and old ( 3 3 % ) under this condition .

When the situation is reversed to cus tomers addressing shopkeepers , the age
factor again emerges as primary . The degree of respectful address increases as
the age difference increases between speaker and addressee . This holds true
regardle s s of degree of frequency of patronage and acquaintance , as seen in the
following table .

young s teady customer to young shopkeeper P 4% H 0% E 4% N9 3%

young steady customer to middle-aged shopkeeper P 4% H48% E4l% N 7 %

young steady customer to old shopkeeper P 14% H50% E 36% N 0 %

young intermittent customer to young shopkeeper P 3% H 7 % E 1 7 % N 7 2 %

young intermittent customer to mid-aged shopkeeper P 7% H57% E29% N 7%

young intermittent customer to old shopkeeper P 2 1% H 4 3 % E 3 6 % N 0 %

young customer to young shopkeeper ( first acquaintance) P 4% H 2 1% E 18% N 5 7 %

young customer to middle-aged shopkeeper ( first acquaintance ) P 7% H 5 2 % E 4 1% N 0 %

Young cus tomer t o old shopkeeper ( first acquaintance ) P 2 5 % H43% E 3 2 % N 0 %

18 JOSEPH F . KESS

In the downward direction , the degree of familiarity does have an e ffect , so

that moving from first-time to intermittent to steady customer status is refle cted
in the degree of N given to younger shopkeepers . Note , for example , the following
table .

middle-aged customer to younger shopkeeper

first acquaintance 63% N

intermittent 86% N

steady 89% N

old customer to younger shopkeeper

first acquaintance 79% N

intermittent 89% N

steady 96% N

This even extends to the upward relationship , but ever so s lightly . There
is j ust a slight shading toward less P and more H or E , when the degree of
fami liarity is increase d , as can be seen in the following trio .

young cus tomer to old shopkeeper ( first acquaintance ) P25% H43% E32%

intermittent young customer to o l d shopkeeper ( first acquaintance ) P 2 1 % H 4 3% E36%

steady young customer to old shopkeeper P14% H50% E 36%

Not surprisingly , there seems to be a s lightly greater tendency for shop­

keepers to use a respect form to customers than vice versa . No doubt buyers are
aware of both the caveat emptor di ctum and the heightened sociolinguistic
persuasiveness of the marketplace , and this is not too surprising a finding .

Turning to urban versus rural settings , one finds in general neighbours in

a rural environment are seen as showing more respect forms than their urban
counterparts . Moreover , the tendency is more marke d for rural speakers in first­
acquaintance situations . Thus , one finds the following comparisons between barrio
and urban settings .

Rural Urban
male neighbour to male neighbour ( first acquaintance ) 32% N 61% N

male neighbour to male neighbour ( long acquaintance ) 71% N 89% N

male neighbour to male neighbour ( long friendship) 82% N 82% N

female neighbour to female neighbour ( fi rst acquaintance ) 29% N 57% N

female neighbour to female ne ighbour ( long acquaintance ) 71% N 86% N

female neighbour to female neighbour ( long friendship) 79% N 86% N

 TAGALOG RESPECT FORMS 19

This also seems to match with observations by at least one s ubj ect , who
noted that in Laguna she ( in her thirti e s ) is addressed as po by the old people ,
presumably because she is ma t a nd a n g dugo o ld b lood, possibly because at some time
in the past her great-grandfather might have been a t e n i en te de l ba r r i o . Not only
is this Jungian consciousness of traditions past more typical of a fixed stable
community , so also are the social positions less privy to change here .
Urbanisation make s for anonymity and less risk in social exchanges as we ll and
consequently more like lihood of change . Still , as noted in the preceding table ,
even in the rural setting , the re is less use of P/H as the degree of acquaintance
increases . This is mirrored in the urban exchanges , where the degree of acquaint­
ance is also translated into differences in the percentage of N response s . Thus ,
an urban male neighbour to a male neighbour e l i cits 6 1% N under the first acquaint­
ance condition and 89% N under the long acquaintance condi tion ; his female
neighbour to female neighbour counterpart similarly e licits 5 7 % N under the first
condition , and 8 2 % N under the second .

In asses s i ng exchanges at an informal party or gathering , the more socially

prominent the addressee the higher the like lihood of respect forms from hos t to
guest . This may be compounded with age di f ferences in the downward relationship
in the absence of this factor , but can be clearly seen in its presence , as seen
in the followin g .

younger hos t t o more socially prominent guest P 15% H 44% E 26% N 15%

younger host to less socially prominent guest P 7% H 19% E 22% N 52%

older host to more socially prominent guest P 1 1% H 37% E 19% N 33%

older host to less socially prominent guest P 4% H 4% E 7% N 85%

For gue st t o host exchanges , the feature of relative age is the critical
feature once aga i n . The younger the guest in relation to the hos t , the highe r
the incidence of respect forms . This seems to run across the feature of social
prominence , and likely takes some precedence over it as the primary variable when
the two are in con flict , as seen in the following tab le .

younger more prominent guest to host P 0% H 19% E 30% N 52%

older more prominent guest to host P 7% H 7% E 0% N 85%

younger less prominent guest to host P 11% H 15% E 22% N 52%

older less prominent guest to host P 7% H 7% E 11% N 74%

Social prominence does n o t seem t o be a n overly important variable for guests

addre s s ing hosts . It would appear that age is the de fining feature , and that
further , the functional stylistic role of the host is one which automatically
draws a certain status from its realisation . Note , for example , the following
table , in which there is only a subtle shift in the responses .
20 JOSEPH F . KESS

more prominent older guest to host P 7% H 7% E 0% N 85%

less prominent older guest to host P 7% H 7% E 11% N 74%

younger more prominent guest to host P 0% H 19% E 30% N 52%

younger less prominent guest to host P 11% H 15% E 22% N 52%

Secondly , hosts are more likely t o use respect forms to more prominent guests
than guests are to hosts . In general , social prominence is a feature more
relevant to the sociolinguistic choices made by hosts to guests than it is for
gue sts to hosts (whose duties are already well defined by the role ) . Age di f fer­
ence s , as a lways , seem to be extremely important ; for the guest addres see social
prominence may also be an extremely highly profiled feature . Note , for example ,
the followin g .

younger host t o more prominent gue s t P 15% H 44% E 26% N 15%

younger guest t o more prominent host P 1 1% H 15% E 22% N 52%

older hos t to more prominent guest P 11% H 3 7% E 19 % N 33%

older guest to mo�e prominent host P 7% H 7% E 1 1% N 74%

In general summation , one concludes that age i s the most important variable
in determining respectful addres s and the forms thereof . The older the addressee
in relation to the speaker , the higher the incidence o f respect forms , while the
inverse sees their absence . A se cond variable is degree of acquaintance , such
that the greater the degree of acquaintance , the less the degree of respe c t . It
does not , however , usually supersede the factor of age . Other factors like
occupational status , social prominence , and service relationships all play a part
in determining the roles of the co-locutors , and this is reflected in the degree
of respectful address use d . Lastly , rural speech i s perceived a s being more
conservative than urban speech in respect to respectful address considerations .

In general , the results also show females as somewhat more formal than males
in their usage practices . There is not a wholesale shift in sociolinguistic
styles , but rather a gradient with women tending to be slightly more polite and
more formal . This is in keeping with sociolinguistic patterns generally reported
e lsewhere .

My attention has also been called to the possibility of differential patterns

even among age groups separated by a mere decade or so (personal communication ,
Teresita V . Ramos ) . For example , at least one questionnaire from a respondent in
his thirties seemed to have d i f ferent patterns of response , using ho and po only
rare ly , to two others from the same subj ect subset in the ir fortie s . H o seems to
be more commonly used by younger speakers , and to the degree that age differences
were noted in our survey , ho seems to be on the increase e specially among young
speake rs ( see also Schachter and Otanes 19 7 2 : 32 4 ) .

Lastly , the data indicate that ho is more frequent than po , which seems to
occur primarily in situations of extreme respect ( for example , young teacher to
old father , grandson to grandfathe r , or young customer to old shopkeeper on first
 TAGALOG RESPECT FORMS 21

acquaintance ) . I t is clear that h o i s on the rise i n general , while po seems to

be in the process of being set aside for special circumstances to show absolute
respect . I t also seems that po is used with really old people regardle s s o f
status . As one sub j ect suggested , " for instance , a young senator wi l l use po to
an old garbage col lector . The old garbage colle ctor will show respect for the
young senator by address ing him as ' Senator ' but may not use po . " In general ,
ho is both more common and is used when po is inappropriate , but there is never­
the less a need to show respect or social distance . When in doubt , one can and
often does use ho . It may be that this is a change in the sociolinguistic
strategies underlying the po / ho usage . Although several subj ects noted that " the
use of po / ho is dying in Manila" , one suspects that it is rather a change in the
re lative we ight and importance attached to the respect particles that may have
accounted for this impre s s ion . Indeed , on the contrary , the data here reported
suggest that the forms of respectful address are alive and we ll in Tagalog speech .

B I B L I OGRAPHY

ASPILLERA , P .

1969 Basi c Tagalog . Rutland , Vt : Charles E . Tuttle Co .

BATES , Elizabeth and Laura BENIGNI

19 7 5 Rules of address i n Italy : a sociolinguistic survey . Language i n

Soci ety 4 : 2 7 1- 2 8 8 .
BENTON , Richard A .

19 7 1 Spoken Pangasinan . Honolulu : University of Hawaii Press .

BERNAB E , Emma et al

19 7 1 Ilokano l essons . Honolulu : University of Hawai i Press .

BLAKE , F . R.

192 5 A grammar of the Tagalog l anguage . American Oriental Series 1 .

New Have n , Connecticut : American Oriental Society .

BLOCKER, Dianne

19 76 And how shal l I address you ? A s tudy of address systems at Indiana

Universi t y . Working Papers in Sociolinguistics 3 3 . Austin , Texas :
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory .

BLOOM FIELD , L .
19 17 Tagalog texts wi th gramma tical ana l ysi s . Universi t y of Ill i nois
Studies i n Languages and Li tera t ure 3 .
BOWEN , J . Donald e t al
196 5 A beginning course i n Tagalog. Los Angeles : University o f California
Pre s s .

BROWN , Roger W .

1965 Social psychology . New York : The Free Press .

22 JOSEPH F . KESS

BROWN , Roger W . and Marguerite FORD

1964 Address in American English . In : De l l Hymes , ed . Language i n cul ture

and soci e ty : a reader in linguis ti cs and anthropol ogy , 2 34-244 . New
York : Harper and Row .

BROWN , Roger W . and Albert GILMAN

1960 The pronouns of power and solidarity . In : Thomas A. Sebeok , ed . S tyle

and l anguage , 2 5 3- 2 76 .
New York : MIT Pres s .

BUNYE , Maria and Elsa P . YAP

19 7 1 Cebuano grammar notes . Honolul u : University of Hawaii Press .

CASSON , Ronald W . and Banu OZERTUG

1976 Respect and address in a Turkish village : a q4antitative sociolinguistic

accoun t . American E thnologi s t 3 : 587-602 .
CONSTANTINO , Ernesto

19 7 1 Tagalog and other major languages o f the Philippines . I n : Thomas A .

Sebeok , e d . Current trends i n linguis tics 8 : 112-154 . The Hague : Mouton .

FORMAN , Michael L .

19 7 1 Kapampangan grammar notes . Honolulu : University of Hawaii Press .

FOX , J .
1969 The pronouns o f addres s in Spanish . Actes du x€ Congress Interna tiona l e
des Lingui stique , 6 85 -69 3 . Bucare st : Academie .
FOX , Robert B .

19 56 The Filipino concept of sel f-esteem. Area handbook on the Phi lippines ,
vol . l : 4 30-436 . Chicago : Human Re lations Area Files .

FRAKE , Charles o .

19 7 1 Lexical origins and semantic structure i n Philippine Creole Span i sh .

I n : De ll Hymes , e d . Pidgini zation and creol i za tion of languages , 2 2 3-
242 . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

FRIEDRICH , Paul .

19 7 2 Social context and semantic feature : the Russian pronominal usage .

I n : John J . Gumperz and Del l Hymes , eds Directions in sociol ingui s ti cs ,
2 70 - 300 . New York : Holt , Rinehart and Winston .

GEERTZ , C l i f ford

196 1 The rel i gion of Java . New York : The Free Press .

GONZALEZ , Mary A .

1965 The I longo kinship system and terminology . Phi lippine Soci ological
Review 13/1 : 2 3 - 3 1 .
HaLLaS , Marida
19 7 5 Comprehension and u s e o f social rul es i n pronoun selection b y Hungarian
chil dren . Working Papers in Sociolinguistics 2 4 . Aus tin , Texas :
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory .
 TAGALOG RESPECT FORMS 23

HOPPE, Ronald A . and Joseph F . KESS

19 78 Sociolinguistic dimensions o f referent choice . In : W. Mei d , e d .
Proceedings o f the XIIth In terna tional Congress o f Lingu i s ti cs , 2 9 7 - 300 .
Innsbruck : Innsbrucker Beitr a ge zur Sprachwis senschaft .

JURI � I t , � e l imir B . and Joseph F . KESS

19 7 8 Sociolinguistic dimensions o f respectful addre s s : a comparative s tudy
o f native and immigrant Croatian . In : Zbigniew Folej ewski et aI , eds
Canadian con tributions to the VIII Interna tional Congress of Slavi s ts
(Zagreb-Ljubljana 1 9 78) , 10 3-116 . Ottawa : Carleton University .
KESS , Joseph F .

19 7 3 Respectful address in Tagalog : a preliminary s tudy . Cahiers

Lingui stique d ' Ottawa , 3 : 1 7- 2 4 .
KESS , Joseph F . and �e l imir B . JURI � I t

19 78a Solidarity , socialism and the South S lavic second person s ingular .
Canadian Slavoni c Papers 2 0/3 : 30 7 - 3 1 3 .

1978b S lovene pronominal addres s forms : rural vs . urban sociolingui s tic

s trategie s . An thropoli gi cal Lingui stics 20 : 2 9 7- 3 1 1 .

LAMBERT , Wallace E .

1967 The use of tu and vous as forms o f address in French Canada : a pilot
study . Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavi or , 6/4 : 6 14 - 6 1 7 .

1969 Some current psycholinguistic rese arch : the tu-vous and l e-la studies .
In : Jan Puhve l , e d . Substance and s tructure of language , 83-9 8 .
Berkeley : University o f Cali fornia Press .

LITTLE , Craig B . and Richard J . GELLES

19 7 5 The social psychological implications o f form address . Sociome try

3 8 : 5 7 3-586 .

LYNCH , Frank , S . J . , et al
196 2 Unders tanding the Phi l i ppines and America : a s tudy o f cul tural themes .
Manila : Institute of Phi lippine Culture .

1962 Lowland Phi l ippine value s : social acceptance . In : Proceedings of the

Fourth Annual Baguio Religious Accul tura tion Conference , 100- 120 .
Man i la : BRAC . Also in : Four Readings on Phil i ppine Values (Ateneo de
Manila Ins titute of Philippine Culture ) .

MANUUD , G . , ed .
196 7 Essays o n Philippine cul tural tradi tion and li tera ture . Quezon City :
Ateneo de Mani l a Pres s .

MARTIN , S amue l E .

1964 Speech levels ir. Japan and Korea . I n : Del l Hyme s , ed . Language i n
cul ture and soci ety , 4 0 7 - 4 15 .
New York : Harper and Row .

MAYER , Gerald L .

1975 The use of ty and vy in Modern Standard Russ i an . Slavic and Eas t
European Journal 19 : 4 3 5-44 2 .
24 JOSEPH F . KESS

McINTIRE , Marina L .

197 2 Terms o f address i n an academic setting . An thropoli gical Lingu i s ti cs

14 : 2 86- 29 1 .

McKAUGHAN , Howard P .

195 8 Review o f Keith Whinnom Spanish con tact vernaculars i n the Phi lippine
Islands . Hispanic Revi ew 26 : 2 5 5- 2 5 7 .
19 7 1 Minor languages of the Philippines . In : Thomas A . Sebeok , ed . Current
trends in linguis tics vol . 8 : 155- 16 7 . The Hague : Mouton .
MINTZ , Malcolm W .

19 7 1a Bikol grammar notes . Honolulu : University of Hawai i Press .

1 9 7 1b Bikol texts . Honolulu : University of Hawaii Press .

MIRIKITANI , Leatrice T .

19 7 2 Kampampangan syn ta x . Honolulu : University o f Hawaii Pres s .

MOLONY , Carol H .

19 7 7 Semantic changes in Chabacano . In : J urgen M . Meisel , ed . Langues en

con tac t : pidgins, cr�oles / Languages in con tact , 15 3- 166 . T Ub ingen :
Gunter Narr .

MaTUS , Cecile L .

19 7 1 Hili ga ynon lessons . Honolulu : University of Hawaii Pres s .

PAL , Agaton P .

1956 The people ' s conception of the world . A Phi lippino barrio : a study of
social organi za tions in rela tion to planned cultural change , Chapter 7
(pp . 3 3 9 - 35 5 ) . Published in the Journal of East Asi a ti c Studies
5 : 3 3 3-486 .

PAULSTON , Christina Bratt

19 74 Language and social class : pronouns of addres s in Swedish . P aper

presented at the Linguistic Society of America 49th Annual Meeting ,
New York , December 19 74 . See 1975b .
19 75a Language universals and sociocultural implications in deviant usage :
personal questions in Swedi sh . S tudia Lingui stica 2 9 : 1- 15 .
19 7 5b Language and social class : pronouns of address i n Swedi sh . Working
Papers in Sociolinguistics 2 9 . Austin , Texas : Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory .

SCHACHTE R , Paul and Fe T . OTANES

19 7 2 Tagalog reference grammar . Los Angeles : University of Cali fornia Pres s .

SCHEERE R , Otto

19 0 5 The Nabaloi dialec t . Man i la : Bureau of Pub l i c Printin g .

SHIPLEY , Eli zabeth F . and Thomas E . SHIPLEY , Jr

1969 Quaker chi l dren ' s use o f thee : a relational analysi s . Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8 : 1 1 2 - 1 17 .
 TAGALOG RESPECT FORMS 25

SLOB I N , 0 . 1 .

196 3 Some aspects of the use of pronouns of address in Y i ddish . Word

19 : 19 3-20 2 .
SLOB I N , 0 . 1 . , S . A . MILLER and L . W . PORTER

1968 Forms of address and social relations in a business organization .

Journal of Personali ty and Social Psychology 8/3 : 2 89-29 3 .
STEEDLEY , Bartlett

195 7 Some aspects o f Tagalog family structure . Ameri can Anthropologis t

59/2 : 2 36-249 .
STOCKWELL , Robert F .

1959 A contrastive analysis of English and Tagalog , Part 2 : Grammar .

University of California , Los Angeles . Unpublished monograph .

TOTANES , S . de

1745 Arte de la l engua tagala . Sampaloc .

TUCKER , Richard G .

1968 Psycholinguistic research in the Phi lippines . Phi l i ppine Journal for
Language Teaching, vol . 5 .

WHINNOM , Keith
19 56 Spanish contact vernaculars in the Phi lippine Islands . Hong Kong :
Hong Kong University Press .

WOLFF , John U .
1966 Beginning Cebuano (part one) . New Haven : Yale University Pres s .

1967 Beginning Cebuano (part two) . New Haven : Yale University Pres s .

19 7 3 - 74 The character of borrowings from Spanish and English in languages o f

the Phi l ippines . Phi lippine Journal of Lingui stics 4-5/1-2 : 72 -8 3 .
Kess, J.F. "Tagalog respect forms: sociolinguistic uses, origins, and parallels". In Halim, A., Carrington, L. and Wurm, S.A. editors, Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Vol. 3: Accent on variety.
C-76:1-25. Pacific Linguistics, The Australian National University, 1982. DOI:10.15144/PL-C76.1
©1982 Pacific Linguistics and/or the author(s). Online edition licensed 2015 CC BY-SA 4.0, with permission of PL. A sealang.net/CRCL initiative.