SOCIOLINGUISTIC CENTRIFUGE: A SEMANTIC ANALYSIS ON THE USE OF

“FILIPINO TABOOS” LANGUAGE

A Sociolinguistic Research

Presented to

the Institute of Graduate Studies

University of Rizal System – Morong

In Partial Fulfilment

of the Requirements for

Master of Arts in Teaching English

TERESA B. ADOLFO

ANDREA VERNICE L. MACALINO

RAFAEL O. TORRES

May 2018
 INTRODUCTION

Language is an essential means of communication through which we can express our

views, emotions and attitudes. Henceforth, language can be seen as an integral part of human

social interaction since it strengthens their relationships. According to Horton and Hunt

(1980), language is a set of sounds with a particular meaning attached to each sound. Another

definition is that, language is purely human and non - instinctive method of communicating

ideas, emotions, and drives by means of a system of voluntarily produced symbols (Santico &

Panopio, p.28). It is not only a collection of sounds and utterances; it involves a set of rules

regarding pronunciation, grammar and semantics used in speech.

The language of a group of people reflects the stage of development of their culture;

the richness of terms in any language reflects the present pre-occupation of the particular

society. Languages in industrialized societies constantly change and are enriched by new

words as the people adapt to their advancing technology and other changes in their way of

life. As the society changes and so as the language. Because of this, scholars all over the

world have been studying the intricacies of language to arrive to a particular reason to answer

some questions brought about by these changes in language. These studies brought forth the

discipline called linguistics. Generally, linguistics is the study of language and of the way

languages work. It is the study of human speech including the units, nature, structure, and

modification of language.

Many linguists acknowledge the importance of the role of language in the society.

Thus, they explore the relationship between language and society. In this regard, the term

sociolinguistics comes into view which was introduced by Peter Trudgill (1995) as “a

relatively new sub discipline within linguistics. Sociolinguistics as a separate field of study

was developed in the last quarter of the 20th century. The word sociolinguistics was
apparently coined already in 1939 in the title of an article by Thomas C. Hodson,

‘Sociolinguistics in India’ in Man in India (1939). It becomes an important area of the

language field in relation with society. This is an interdisciplinary field of research which

developed through the interaction of linguistics with a number of other academic disciplines.

It has strong connections with culture through the study of the role language plays in the

formation of social groups and institutions. Sociolinguistics covers a very broad area, which,

as Meyerhoff (2006) puts it, “can be confusing if you are coming new to the field”. Hence, it

is important to have a clear concept about it through the different definitions given by famous

scholars in the field.

Spolsky (2010) defines sociolinguistics as the study of the link between language and

society, of language variation, and of attitudes about language. Another definition came from

Bell (1976) which states that, sociolinguistics is a branch of anthropological linguistics that

examines how language and culture are related, and how language is used in different social

context. In a definition given by Hudson (1996), he stated that sociolinguistics is a study of

the relationship between language and social factor such as class, age, gender and ethnicity.

Hudson believes that there is a close connection between language and society because one

cannot segregate language from society.

In studying the relationship of language and society, it is crucial to give

considerations to the words or expressions that can be considered as taboos in a particular

culture. Taboos are words, expressions, sentences and topics which are banned to be uttered

or discussed in public. Taboos exist in all languages and cultures, although each society has

its own norms and taboos. They are also related to the cultural beliefs of the society.

Meaning, there are taboos which are universal and others are culture - specific. Farberow

(1963) defines taboos as primarily backward - oriented, for being essentially forbidding and
prohibiting, they tend to preserve the past and to control the impingement of the future on the

present. Of course, not all taboos are old. New ones constantly appear, taking various shapes

and forms as the substance of the culture evolves, but they all serve the same. In addition,

Laitenin (2009) states that taboos are the result of cultural norms and historical practices

shared by the members of a given speech community. For this reason, some expressions, that

are considered taboo in a society, are not necessarily forbidden in another community. For

instance, in English speaking communities, there are certain words that can be considered as

taboos but when widely and openly spoken in public; most people in their society may not

care. But in some other communities who speak the same language that can be an issue. This

goes to show the differences in their cultural norms with regards to their views of the

different taboos.

Taboo languages come in many forms like topics about sex, religion, death, curses,

etc. These languages evolve over time. Just like any other languages, Filipino language has

its own words or expressions that can be considered as taboos. And if one is going to look

back to the history of these taboos, it can be greatly noticed the change on how the society

accepts the utterances of these words especially on how people perceive the Filipino taboos in

todays’ society.

With regards to this, this paper will look at how Filipinos utter taboos, particularly

Filipino curses and what they mean when they utter such words. The researchers believe that

when people comprehend the manner and the semantic aspect of the Filipino curses, it will

help them in understanding deeper the statement of a person and thus lessens conflicts

brought by the impact of these curses.

 Theoretical Framework

Lexical semantics is an academic discipline concerned with the meaning of words.

Lexical semanticists are interested in what words mean, why they mean what they mean, how

they are represented in speakers’ minds and how they are used in text and discourse. Outside

linguistics proper, lexical semantics overlaps with disciplines such as philosophy,

psychology, anthropology, computer science, and pedagogy. Within linguistics, it crucially

overlaps with what is traditionally referred to as lexicology, which is the over – all study of

the vocabularies of languages, encompassing topics such as morphology and etymology and

social, regional, dialectal aspects of the vocabulary.

In the study, student’s lexicon in the second language will be checked on how rich is

their vocabulary and how familiar is the word being used in the context. A word have a lot of

meanings, but a word can represent an exact meaning and refers to only one idea based on

how it is used in the context. (Geeraerts, 2010)

Furthermore, a piece of language conveys its dictionary meaning, connotations

beyond the dictionary meaning, information about the social context of language use,

speaker’s feelings and attitudes rubbing off of one meaning on the another meaning of the

same word when it has two meanings and meaning because of habit occurrence. Broadly

speaking, “meaning” means the sum total of communicated through language. Words,

phrases, and sentences have meanings which are studies in semantics.

Geoffrey Leech in his “Semantic – A Study of Meaning” (1974) breaks down

meaning into seven types or ingredients giving primacy to conceptual meaning. The

following are as follows:

(1) Conceptual or denotative meaning is also called logical or cognitive meaning. It is

the basic propositional meaning which corresponds to the primary dictionary definition. Such

a meaning is stylistically neutral and objective as opposed to other kinds of associative

meanings. The aim of conceptual meaning is to provide an appropriate semantic

representation to a sentence or statement.

(2) Connotative meaning is the communicative value of an expression over and above

its purely conceptual content. It is something that goes beyond mere referent of a word and

hints at its attributes in the real world. It is something more than the dictionary meaning. It is

also regarded as incidental, comparatively unstable, in determinant, open ended, variable

according to age, culture and individual, whereas conceptual meaning is not like that. It can

be codified in terms of limited symbols.

(3) Social meaning is conveyed by the piece of language about the social context of

its use. The decoding of a text is dependent on our knowledge of stylistics and other

variations of language. We recognize some words or pronunciation as being dialectical as

telling us something about the regional or social origin of the speaker. Social meaning is

related to the situation in which an utterance is used. It is concerned with the social

circumstances of the use of a linguistic expression. For example, some dialectic words inform

us about the regional and social background of the speaker. In the same way, some stylistic

usages let us know something of the social relationship between speaker and the hearer.

Moreover, the illocutionary force of an utterance can have social meaning too. According to

the social situation, a sentence may be uttered as request, an apology, a warning, a threat, or

etc.

(4) Affective or emotive meaning refers to emotive association or effects of words

evoked in the reader and listener. It is what is conveyed about the personal feelings or attitude

towards the listener. In affective meaning, language is used to express personal feelings or

attitude to the listener or to the subject matter of his discourse.

(5) Reflected meaning and collocative meaning involve interconnection. At the lexical

level of language, reflected meaning arises when a word has more than one conceptual
meaning or multiple conceptual meaning. It is also found in taboo words. Such examples are

terms like erection, intercourse, ejaculation. The word “intercourse” immediately reminds us

of its association with sex (sexual intercourse). The sexual association of the word drives

away its innocent sense. Thus, we can see that reflected meaning has great importance in the

study of semantics.

(6) Collocative meaning is the meaning which a word acquires in the company of

certain words. Words collocate or co – occur with certain words only. It refers to associations

of a word because of its usual or habitual co – occurrence with certain types of words. The

words “pretty” and “handsome” indicate “good looking”. However, they slightly differ from

each other because of collocation or co – occurrence.

(7) Thematic meaning refers to what is communicated by the way in which a speaker

or a writer organizes the message in terms of ordering focus and emphasis. Various parts of

the sentence also can be used as subject, object, or complement to show prominence. It is

done through focus, theme (topic), or emotive emphasis. Thematic meaning helps us to

understand the message and its implications properly.

Consequently, in every society there are things which are believed to be not

appropriate if spoken on public occasions. A large number of words are therefore taken as

silly, vulgar or obscene when used in communication. These words are “taboos”. According

to Wardhaugh (2002), taboo is the prohibition or avoidance in any society of behaviour

believed to be harmful to its members in that it would cause them anxiety, embarrassment, or

shame. Consequently, so far as language is concerned, certain things are not to be said or

certain objects can be referred to only in certain circumstances, for example only by certain

people, or through deliberate circumlocution, i.e. euphemistically. Tabooed subjects can vary

widely: sex, death, illness, excretion, bodily functions, religious matters, discrimination, four

– letter words, and the supernatural. But quite often they extend to other aspects of social life.
 A remarkable variety of linguistic forms can be considered as cursing and swearing.

There are the complex and sophisticated expressions that may be found in religious, legal,

and other formal contexts. At the same time, there are many daily examples of taboo

language that express such emotions as hatred, frustration, and surprise. The most common

speech comprise single words or short phrases, conveying different levels of intensity and

attracting different degrees of social approval. English examples range from the mild such as

heck and dash, to the harshest one, fuck.

In these social contexts swearing can become a dominant linguistic feature, with

sentences often containing taboo words. Sex, excretion, and supernatural power are the main

sources of swear words. Half of them relate to words referring to body parts and functions

that societies considered taboo, such as merd, ball, and other four-letter words. Another half

deals with the names of gods, devils, etc. like God, Dear Lord, By the holy sacrament,

Heavens, and Hell.

In order to erase the harshness of taboo words, people have created euphemisms,

words supplanted language considered too unpleasant. Robert Burchfield (1985), the editor of

The Oxford English Dictionary, once observed that “a language without euphemisms would

be a defective instrument of communication.” So is taboo without euphemisms.

Statement of the Problem

The thrust of this study is to find out the lexical semantics of various “Filipino

taboos” languages through a conversational analysis from the people on the streets.

Moreover, it seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What are the most common “taboos” used by Filipinos?

2. In what instances Filipinos are able to utter these languages?

3. What kind of lexical meanings are conveyed from the most common used taboos in various

conversations by Filipinos who are on the streets?

 Significance of the Study

The study of meanings of “Filipino taboos” language is such a great platform to give

students, teachers, or even common citizens a broad understanding of these utterances as they

encounter it in daily conversations. If one has knowledge on the variations of meanings based

from how lexicons are used in different contexts, confusion would not arise and thus proper

communication takes place. These taboos are certainly not a good thing to be acquired by the

millennial learners. Thus, the role of the teachers in this matter is very important and so as

students should be able to observe a higher degree of sensitivity towards others through

proper and inoffensive utterances and actions. This is to teach them that we live in just one

environment and every deed that we do has an impact to other people.

Definition of Terms

This study makes use of certain key terms which recur throughout the study. For

clarification purposes, these terms are defined for better understanding.

Semantics. In linguistics, it is the subfield that is devoted to the study of meaning, as

inherent at the levels of words, phrases, sentences, and larger units of discourse (termed texts,

or narratives). It is also closely linked to the subjects of representation, reference and

denotation. (Wikipedia)

Sociolinguistics. It is the study of the social uses of language, and the most

productive studies in the four decades of sociolinguistic research have emanated from

determining the social evaluation of linguistic variants (Chambers, 2002). Moreover, it is also

the descriptive study of the effect of any and all aspects of society, including cultural norms,

expectations, and context, on the way language is used, and society’s effect on language.

(Wikipedia)
 Taboo. This word is borrowed from Tongan, a language spoken by Polynesians in the

Pacific archipelago, where any sacred or humble things are forbidden to touch or even to talk

about. (Gu, 2002)

Tagalog Profanity. It refers to a wide range of offensive, blasphemous, and taboo

words or expressions in the Tagalog language of the Philippines. Due to Filipino culture,

expressions which may sound benign when translated back to English can cause great

offense; while some expressions English speakers might take great offense to can sound

benign to a Tagalog speaker.

Review of Related Literature and Studies

Ingilan (2016) concluded in his journal entitled “Lexicalization of Profanity in Tausug

and Kagan languages, Mindanao, Philippines”, Islam plays an immense role of the

lexicalization of some profanities in the languages of Bahasa Sug and Kagan, respectively.

Such influence of lexicalized profanity is reflected in the incorporation of loanwords and

religious terms coming from Arabic language. Religion plays a major role in the culture of

the Tausug and Kagan societies. In fact, it functions as an identity marker of the Tausug and

Kagan.

The Tausug and Kagans although separated by language are all the same Filipino

Austronesians and Muslims. Both societies also consider that profanity is bad which gives

emphasis to the similarity of accepted moral concepts of the two groups. Moreover, profanity

does not include only sex and religion as many studies have found. Hence, profanity can be in

the form of assault to the “face”, a very important psychosocial concept in the Tausug and

Kagan communities.

Furthermore, in another study about “Conversational Topic Preferences, Taboo Words

and Euphemisms: The Case of Philippine Male and Female University Students”, Tajolosa

(2012), explained that people’s language, their taboos and use of euphemisms have always
been inextricably linked to their culture. More than the linguistic side, the findings about

teenagers’ language are a reminder to sociologists and educators how much the Filipino youth

have changed. From their choice of words alone, it can be derived that they are no longer the

modest and sometimes passive Filipino youth who are careful about their language. If there is

anything most glaring in this study, it is the fact that regardless of the kind of homes that

reared our students and whether they are a product of Catholic school or not, their peers and

media will always be there to teach them something , like the use of obscene words. With

language contact and the existence of many cultures including the culture of the internet and

the media, it is not surprising that our youth speak and act differently from the way previous

generations of Filipinos do. In the midst of many things taking place in the lives of our youth

at present, education has remained the most important and the most powerful tool in

transforming their hearts and minds, making them better persons in thoughts, words, and

actions. Lessons on the sociolinguistic functions of taboos and euphemisms are best learned

in school.

In the Philippines, there are some of the word taboos which are being used in a daily

basis for different purposes and instances namely: “putang ina mo”, “gago”, “punyeta”,

“pakshet”, “buwisit”, “hayop”, “hinayupak”, “lintik”, “walang hiya”, at “tae”.

Putang Ina Mo

Owing partly to its use in speeches by Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte, the

phrase “putang ina mo” (sometimes shortened to “tang ina” or minced as PI) has received

considerable international attention and controversy as to its meaning. “Puta” is a borrowed

word from Spanish, in which language it means “whore”. “Ina” is Tagalog for mother, while

“mo” is the indirect second person singular pronoun. Therefore, if translated word – for –

word, the phrase means “Your mother is a whore.”

 However, most Tagalog speakers dispute this simplistic translation, instead alternately

rendering the phrase as “son of a bitch” or as a variation of the word “fuck”.

According to linguist Ben Zimmer, given the context and how the meaning of “puta”

has shifted in Tagalog, the best translation of Duterte’s original “Putang – ina, mumurahin

kita dyan sa forum na iyan. Huwag mo akong ganunin.” would be: “Fuck, I will cuss you out

of at that forum. Don’t do that to me.”

Besides being directed at people, “putang ina” can be just as well directed at

inanimate objects: University of the Philippines Los Baños alumnus Cheeno Marlo M.

Sayuno has documented the use of "tang ina error!" as an expression of exasperation due to

PC errors, and "Uy net! Putang ina mo!" as something akin to "Hey, [slow] internet

[connection], fuck you!" As in the English fucking, the phrase can also be used as an

adjective, as in the case of "putang inang aso" ("fucking dog") or "Diyos ko, ‘putang inang’

buhay ko!" ("God, fuck my shitty life!").

This non-literal meaning of the phrase “putang ina mo” has twice been affirmed by

the Supreme Court of the Philippines: first in 1969 in its decision to Rosauro Reyes vs. The

People of the Philippines (G.R. № L-21528 and № L-21529), and then in 2006 in its decision

to Noel Villanueva v. People of the Philippines and Yolanda Castro (G.R. № 160351). In

Reyes, a certiorari appeal to a criminal defamation and grave threats case, the court acquitted

the defendant, ruling that his use of a protest sign reading "Agustin, ‘putang ina mo’" did not

constitute defamation as “putang ina mo” is a common enough expression in the dialect that

is often employed, not really to slander but rather to express anger or displeasure. It is

seldom, if ever, taken in its literal sense by the hearer, that is, as a reflection on the virtues of

a mother.

Gago

This term is a descendant of the Portuguese word “gago” and “gaguejar”, meaning
"stupid", "foolish" or "ignorant". It is interchangeable with the related words “tanga”,

“bugok”, “bulol” and “bobo”. In Portuguese, “gago” means "stutterer", but in Tagalog it has

completely lost this meaning.

Slang terms derived from “gago” are “kagaguhan” ("a foolish action"), “ogag” (same

meaning as “gago”), and “nakakagago” ("to be made to feel stupid"). “Ulol”, “loko”, and

“sira ulo” can be used similarly, but they are not interchangeable; they also imply madness or

mental retardation on top of stupidity.

According to Article 27 ("On-Air Language") of the Association of Broadcasters of

the Philippines' 2007 Broadcast Code of the Philippines, "Name-calling and personal insults

are prohibited." While this code is strictly voluntary and only affects members of the

organization, as the organization counts among its members widely syndicated channels such

as ABS-CBN and TV5, penalties for breaking this rule affect a large number of broadcasters

and media personalities: fines start at ₱15,000, and quickly escalate to ₱25,000 and a 90-day

suspension.

To avoid breaching this rule, some stations have trialed neural networks which listen

to the speech of actors and guests or contestants real time during live performances, and

automatically censor certain words. In a paper explaining the system, particular attention was

paid by the De La Salle University researchers to censoring potentially insulting words such

as “gago” and “ulol”.

Like many Spanish and Portuguese words borrowed into Tagalog, “gago” is gendered:

the female form for a single woman or group of women is “gaga”, while “gago” is used for a

single man, a group of men, or a group of men and women.

According to the UP Diksiyonaryong Filipino, “gago” is used in the sense of “mahina

ang ulo” (a slow learner).

Punyeta

Descended from the Spanish “puñeta”, the Tagalog version of this word is seldom

used in the Spanish sense of "wanker", but rather as an interjection expressing frustration,

disappointment, or misery. When punyeta is used as an insult directed at a person as in "Mga

punyeta kayo!" (You are all punyeta(s)!), it has a sense similar to the English word asshole.

This word was used heavily by John Arcilla's character in the 2015 Philippine epic film

Heneral Luna in lines such as "Ingles - inglesin mo ko sa bayan ko?! Punyeta!" (Speaking

English to me in my own country? What nerve!). Ambeth R. Ocampo, writing in the

Philippine Daily Inquirer, criticized the Movie and Television Review and Classification

Board (MTRCB) for giving the film a R-13 rating despite the use of this word and others just

because the swear words were Spanish - derived. Other observers have described “punyeta”

as being as obscene as “putang ina mo”.

Pakshet

This word is a portmanteau of the English words "fuck" and "shit", altered to fit the

phonology of Filipino; the words “pak” and “shet” can also be used on their own to similar

effect. While most commonly used as an interjection, rather non-intuitively for English

speakers, “pakshet” can also be used as an insult describing a person, as in “Pakshet ka!”

which could be rendered as “Fuck you! or [You] asshole!” in English.

Summit Media's Spot.ph online magazine claims that the word “pakshet” was

popularized by the 2002 film Jologs, but given its etymology, it may date back to the first

American contacts with the Philippines.

Buwisit

“Buwisit” (sometimes spelled “bwisit”), borrowed from Hokkien (Chinese: 無衣食;

Pe̍h-ōe-jī: bû-ui-sit; literally: "without clothes and food"), is a Tagalog word meaning a

misfortune, but also used in a mildly vulgar sense as a word for a nuisance.
Hayop

It means 'animal' in English. If used as a sentence in Tagalog, "hayop ka" means

you're an animal. You're not human, an outcast, or something that goes in the lines of that.

Hinayupak and Lintik

“Hinayupak” is another Tagalog vulgar word, referring to a person acting like an

animal, rooting back to the word “hayop”.

“Lintik” is a Tagalog word meaning "lightning", also a mildly profane word used to

someone contemptible, being wished to be hit by lightning, such as in "Lintik ka!''. The term

is mildly vulgar and an insult, but may be very vulgar in some cases, especially when mixed

with other profanity. Sometimes, lintik is also used as a verb through adding verbalizing

affixes, such as in "Malilintikan ka sa akin!", that may roughly translate to English "Get

damned!" or "Goddamn you!".

Walang Hiya

“Hiya” is a Filipino psychological concept similar to face and modesty in other

cultures. Author Mary Isabelle Bresnahan has described it thus: "just as the sensitive

makahiya plant protects its inside from direct touch, so too do people hold back in defense of

“loob” [their inner selves]." When translated to English, the words "shame", "embarrassment"

and "dishonor" can be employed as a substitute for “hiya” depending on context.

Like much Tagalog profanity, the phrase "Walang kang hiya!" (You are shameless!)

can vary in offense taken from very little to "the ultimate ‘loob’ - wounding comment"

depending on context and the relationship between the speaker and the receiver. According to

Gerhard Van Den Top, allegations of shamelessness are most damaging when the social class

of people differs, and the poor may consciously avoid interaction with the rich to prevent

even unspoken damage to “hiya”.

In his oft - cited 1964 article "Hiya", psychologist Jaime C. Bulatao defines “walang
hiya” as "recklessness regarding the social expectations of society, an inconsideration for the

feelings of others, and an absence of sensitivity to the censures of authority or society."

Tae

Unlike in many other languages, Tagalog has no word for excrement that would be

considered considerably vulgar, such as English “shit” or Spanish “mierda”. The two Tagalog

words for “feces”, “tae” and “dumi” are closer to the sense of the English poop. In fact, these

words are often used even in medical contexts: a “pagtae” is a bowel movement, while

“magtae” references diarrhea. Tae, is, however, considered by some to be slightly crasser than

the more euphemistic “dumi”. Nevertheless, these words can still be used to cause offense if

the speaker adds to them, of course, as in the expression “kain tae” (eat shit).

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This study utilized phenomenological qualitative research.

As defined by Patton (2002), qualitative research involves the method of gathering

and collecting data and information about the research topic that cannot be quantified. It

focuses on the “quality” and the “standard” of the text that centers on the importance and

essence of a thing. Furthermore qualitative research focuses on understanding rather than

predicting or controlling phenomena. It is usually contrasted with traditional experimental

and statistical research and is felt by many to be more appropriate to the study of human life.

Moreover, Guba (1994) stated that qualitative research as a perspective is concerned

primarily with process rather than outcomes or products. Qualitative researchers are

interested in meaning, how people make sense of their lives their experiences and their

structures of the world. The qualitative researcher is the primary instrument for data
collection and analysis. Data are mediated through this human instrument, rather than through

inventories, questionnaires or machines.

In addition, Creswell (2003) emphasizes the tendency of qualitative research to be

inductive. However, there are instances when qualitative studies may spring from theory and

attempt to show causal or relational patterns. But the burden of proof for its capacity to

generalize findings to the bigger population is stiffer for qualitative studies. In general, the

design and method of qualitative studies are more flexible and they are spelled out in more

general terms prior to the actual study.

Instrumentation

Phenomenology is an approach to qualitative research that focuses on the

commonality of a lived experience within a particular group. The fundamental goal of the

approach is to arrive at a description of the nature of the particular phenomenon (Creswell,

2013).

The methodology used in phenomenology differs than most other research

methodology because the goal is to describe a lived experience, rather than to explain or

quantify it in any way. Phenomenology is solely concerned with the study of the experience

from the perspective of the participants, therefore, the methodology does not include a

hypothesis or any preconceived ideas about the data collected. Phenomenology makes use of

a variety of methods including interviews, conversations, participant observation, action

research, focus meetings, analysis of diaries and other personal texts. In general, the

methodology is designed to be less structured and more open - ended to encourage the

participant to share details regarding their experience.

 In sociolinguistics, conversation analysis is the study of the talk produced in ordinary

human interactions. Sociologist Harvey Sacks (1935 - 1975) is generally credited with

founding the discipline. It is also called talk – in - interaction and ethnomethodology.

"At its core," says Jack Sidnell, "conversation analysis is a set of methods for working

with audio and video recordings of talk and social interaction" (Conversation Analysis: An

Introduction, 2010).

Conversation analysis (CA) is an approach to the study of social interaction,

embracing both verbal and non - verbal conduct, in situations of everyday life. As its name

implies, CA began with a focus on casual conversation, but its methods were subsequently

adapted to embrace more task - and institution – centered. As a consequence, the term

“conversation analysis” has become something of a misnomer, but it has continued as a term

for a distinctive and successful approach to the analysis of social interactions.

Procedure of the Study

The researchers submitted the title proposals in the first week of May. The research

professor approved one of the proposed topics which and that was Sociolinguistic Centrifuge:

A Semantic Analysis on the Use of “Filipino Taboos” Language. From then, the researchers

started to gather necessary data in relation to the current study. In order to know the flow of

the study, the researchers made the theoretical framework and statement of the problem

which were also guided and suggested by the professor. After this, they visited University of

Rizal System Angono and Morong’s Graduate school libraries to search for related literature

and studies. They also conferred to some online search engines for additional inputs in the

conduct of the research.

 The researchers roamed around in some parts of Rizal province to record random and

authentic conversations in the streets. This was done during second until third week of May.

They explored Antipolo City, Morong and Binangonan, Rizal. They came up with corpus

from people ages 11 – 60, people of different social statuses. Those were conversations with

varieties of taboo words utilized by the unconscious respondents.

The next step they made was transcribing these corpuses one by one. After that, each

conversation was scrutinized using phenomenological conversational analysis applying the

Geoffrey Leech’s A Semantic of Meaning (1974) and Wardhaugh’s Taboo Language (2000).

This technique directed the researchers in coming up with the results and recommendations

regarding how these taboo words were used in different contexts and gave various meaning

by the Filipinos.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This part provides the different taboos used by Filipinos and its lexical meanings

based from the usage in variety of contexts. Further discussions on the outcomes,

conclusions, and recommendations were also explicated by the researchers.

Table 1

Filipino Taboos in Different Conversations

Conversations Taboos

1 Putang Ina (24), Bakla/Bading (5), Pinatay/Namatay (2), Bobo (11),

Ampon (1), Gago (5), Magsalsal/Salsalero (2), Baog (1), Pakyutan (1),

Jakolero (2), Tanga (3)

2 Gago (2), Kupal (1), Tang Ina (1), Fucking (1)

3 Gago (1), Hinayupak (1)

4 Putang Ina, Puta, Tang Ina (count is 3 – considers as the same)

 5 Tanga (1), Bobo (1)

6 Puki (1), Tanga (3), Bakla (2), Gago (2)

7 Tang Ina (3), Putang Ina (count is 4 – considers as the same)

8 Gago(5), Siraulo (1), Bakla (1), Tang Ina (1), Hayop (1), Walang

Hiya (1)

9 Puta (1)

10 Siraulo (2), Ulol (1),

The table above shows the different taboos uttered by Filipinos in a variety of

conversations on the streets. Based from this, the most common taboo being used is Putang

Ina / Tang Ina / Puta which has 34 usages. Gago follows earning 15, Bobo with 12, Bakla /

Bading which has 8, and lastly Tanga having 7.

Classifying these taboos according to Wardhaugh (2002), the dominant Filipino

taboos are the four – letter words (puta, gago, bobo, and tanga). However, bakla or bading

falls under the discriminatory language.

Table 2

The Lexical Semantics of Filipino Taboos

Taboos As Used in the Conversation Type of Meaning

Boy 1: Putang ina niyo! Mga bobo. Mga putang inang Affective
bakla. Pinatay ako.
Boys in the Computer Shop: (laughs while continue playing
games)

Putang Ina / Boy 1: Putang ina! Kayo pala ang namatay. Mga bobo.
Salita kayo. Putang ina! Triple Kill ng sentinel. Gago! Affective
Puta / Tang Bobo. Tang ina niyo. Salita nga kayo ngayon. Nasan ‘yung
isa na bobo. Tang ina niyo!

Ina Boy1: Magsalita kayo, ang bobo niyo pala. Ang gagaling.
Tang ina mo. Tang ina mo. Ampon. Singkit.
Boy 1: Pahiya ka pala eh. Tang ina mo eh. Magtatrash talk, Affective
magtatrash talk sa boss mo, gago! Tang ina mo!
Boy 2: Suntukan tayo!

Boy 1: Salsalero, bobo! Visible, inamin, putang ina, walang

 lumalabas, baog! Tang ina mo! Pakyutan! Bobo! Tang ina Affective
niyo mga bading.

Boy 1:Tang ina niyo! Ah, patay ‘yung baraju. Bobo! Tang
ina mo! Magsasalita kayo pag tapos na ‘yung laro ah para di
kayo mapahiya. Gago. Tang ina niyo! Bang gagaling,
putang ina mo! Putang ina mo! Putang ina mo! Anak ka Affective
ni Bentong, tanga!
Boy 2: Putang ina mo talaga!
Boy 1: Anak ni Bentong! Anak ni Dagul, gago! Anak ni
Dagul, tang ina mo!

Boy 1: Pikuning bata ‘yan eh. Jakolero! Meron, tanga! Affective

Jakolerong bading, tang ina mo!
Boys: (others are saying something while some are laughing)

Boy 1: Putang ina mo! Magsalita ka! Gago ka! Affective

Boy 2: Sinong tanga? (laughs) Putang ina mo ka!
Boy 1: Putang ina mo! It takes four to fifty, gago! Tang
ina!

Passenger 3: Wala ka sa lugar boss.

Passenger 2: Wala ka sa lugar, tang ina mo! Affective
Passenger 1: Wala kayong karapatang mag mura? Sino
‘yung nagmura?

Woman 2: Ano, taga Tanawan ka na lang? …isang buwan

ah.
Woman 1: Duterte ang putang ina! Reflected
Woman 3: Uy! Kanina, bingo ako diyan!

Boy 1: Ba’t kanina hindi lumabas?

Woman: Puta nalate nga ng konti eh, bahagya. Affective
Huuuuhhhhh…tang ina! Putek!

Boy 1: Tang ina, putang ina!

Boy 2: Di tayo sumunod sa kabila. Affective
Boy 1: Tang inang hayop ‘yun!

Boy 2: Ah wala na si Hapon, wala na.

Boy 1: ‘Yoko na. Tang ina, biglang nanalo. Affective

Boy 2: Wala si Junbetha. Affective

Boy 3: Tang ina nung hayop na ‘yun eh.

Boy 1: Putang ina! Kayo pala ang namatay. Mga bobo. Salita
kayo. Putang ina! Triple Kill ng sentinel. Gago! Bobo. Tang
ina niyo. Salita nga kayo ngayon. Nasan ‘yung isa na bobo. Conceptual
Tang ina niyo!
Boy 2: Oy!
Gago
Boy 1: Pahiya ka pala eh. Tang ina mo eh. Magtatrash talk, Affective
magtatrash talk sa boss mo, gago! Tang ina mo!
Boy 2: Suntukan tayo!

Boy 1:Tang ina niyo! Ah, patay ‘yung baraju. Bobo! Tang
ina mo! Magsasalita kayo pag tapos na ‘yung laro ah para di
kayo mapahiya. Gago! Tang ina niyo! Bang gagaling, Affective
putang ina mo! Putang ina mo! Putang ina mo! Anak ka ni
Bentong, tanga!
 Boy 2: Ay, nako! Ang tanga!
Boy 1: Putang ina mo! Magsalita ka! Gago ka! Conceptual

Boy 2: Sinong tanga? (laughs) Putang ina mo ka! Conceptual

Boy 1: Putang ina mo! It takes four to fifty, gago! Tang ina!

Passenger 3: Hindi lahat ng costumer, tama!

Passenger 2: Gago! Umagang umaga eh, sasakay ka lang eh. Affective
Passenger 3: Sasakay ka lang kupal ka pa!

Passenger 2: Umurong lang ng konti, gago ka. Di ka

makakapaglakad? Affective
Passenger 3: Tumahimik ka jan!

Driver 3: Gago! Kanina pa ko rito.

Driver 2: Galing na ko ‘run, lumipat lang ako. Conceptual

Girl 2: Bakla, kanino to?

Boy: Sa’yo ‘yan.
Girl 2: Gago! Conceptual
Girl 1: Uy, makagago nalugi ako sa ambag.
Girl 2: Bente na lang pera ko.

Girl: Gago! Kahit na ayaw n’yo!

Boy 2: Echusan.
Girl: Gago! Siraulo ata to ah. Bakla ka, patingin nga gago. Affective
Boy 3: Oh eto na s’ya.

Girl: Isa pa! (selfie)

Boy 1: Ah, gago naman to oh, grabe. Affective

Girl: Ang dami mo agad nakadownload ha. May beauty plus

‘yan e.
Boy 2: Uy ha. Gago! Affective

Boy 1: Putang ina niyo! Mga bobo. Mga putang inang bakla.
Pinatay ako.
Boys in the Computer Shop: (laughs while continue playing Affective
games)

Boy 1: Putang ina! Kayo pala ang namatay. Mga bobo.

Salita kayo. Putang ina! Triple Kill ng sentinel. Gago! Bobo. Conceptual / Reflected
Tang ina niyo. Salita nga kayo ngayon. Nasan ‘yung isa na
bobo. Tang ina niyo!

Bobo Boy1: Magsalita kayo, ang bobo niyo pala. Ang gagaling. Conceptual
Tang ina mo. Tang ina mo. Ampon. Singkit.
Boys: (laughs)

Boy 1: Pikon ka pala eh. Bobo. Mga pikuning bata. Bobo. Affective
Magsalsal na lang kayo. Bobo. Kahit mag dota kayo wala
kayong natututunan. Tanga.
Boys: (laughs)

Boy 1: Salsalero, bobo! Visible, inamin, putang ina, walang

lumalabas, baog! Tang ina mo! Pakyutan! Bobo! Tang ina Affective
niyo mga bading.
Boy 2: Wala kang pinag – aralan eh.
 Boy 1: Walang pinag – aralan, nag – aaral nga ko ngayon eh, Conceptual
walang pinag – aralan? Bobo!
Boys: Bakla, bakla, bakla!

Boy 1:Tang ina niyo! Ah, patay ‘yung baraju. Bobo! Tang
ina mo! Magsasalita kayo pag tapos na ‘yung laro ah para di
kayo mapahiya. Gago. Tang ina niyo! Bang gagaling, putang Affective
ina mo! Putang ina mo! Putang ina mo! Anak ka ni Bentong,
tanga!
Boy 2: Putang ina mo talaga!

Boy 1: Putang ina niyo! Mga bobo. Mga putang inang bakla.
Pinatay ako.
Boys in the Computer Shop: (laughs while continue playing Affective
games)

Boy 1: Salsalero, bobo! Visible, inamin, putang ina, walang

lumalabas, baog! Tang ina mo! Pakyutan! Bobo! Tang ina Affective
niyo mga bading.
Boy 2: Wala kang pinag – aralan eh.

Boys: Bakla, bakla, bakla! Affective

Boy 1:Tang ina niyo! Ah, patay ‘yung baraju. Bobo! Tang
ina mo! Magsasalita kayo pag tapos na ‘yung laro ah para di
kayo mapahiya. Gago. Tang ina niyo! Bang gagaling, putang
ina mo! Putang ina mo! Putang ina mo! Anak ka ni Bentong,
Bakla / Bading tanga!

Boy: ‘Yan na pala pagkain natin e, kasama ba kami dyan?

Joke lang. Reflected
Girl 2: Bakla, kanino to?
Boy: Sa’yo ‘yan.

Boy: Bakla, san to ilalagay? Reflected

Girl 1: Dito maluwag.

Boy 2: Echusan.
Girl: Gago! Siraulo ata to ah. Bakla ka, patingin nga gago. Affective
Boy 3: Oh eto na s’ya.

Boy 1: Pikon ka pala eh. Bobo. Mga pikuning bata. Bobo.

Magsalsal na lang kayo. Bobo. Kahit mag dota kayo wala
kayong natututunan. Tanga. Conceptual
Boys: (laughs)

Boy 1:Tang ina niyo! Ah, patay ‘yung baraju. Bobo! Tang
ina mo! Magsasalita kayo pag tapos na ‘yung laro ah para di
Tanga kayo mapahiya. Gago. Tang ina niyo! Bang gagaling, putang
ina mo! Putang ina mo! Putang ina mo! Anak ka ni Bentong, Conceptual
tanga!
Boy 2: Putang ina mo talaga!

Boys: (others are saying something while some are

laughing)
Boy 2: Ay, nako! Ang tanga! Affective

Boy 1: Putang ina mo! Magsalita ka! Gago ka! Reflected

Boy 2: Sinong tanga? (laughs) Putang ina mo ka!
 Boy 1: Dun sa top, may kalaban dun tanga! Reflected
Boy 2: Oo, alam ko. Wag ka na sumama.

Boy: Tanga! Baka may lason yan.

Girl 2: Eh, bat mo ko tinatanga? Conceptual
Girl 1: Tanga! may lason yan.

The table 2 presents the different meanings conveyed from the use of taboos in

various conversations. It is evident that (1) putang ina / tang ina / puta is more of affective as

it used commonly as an expression of exasperation, wrath, and insult as seen in the corpus;

(2) gago is also expressed affectively however it can be noted that many are also using this

taboo word conceptually – referring to stupid or fool; (3) bobo has more affective sides as

Filipinos are fond of using this word to release irritation and in the same manner it is also

conceptually used referring to a fool person; (4) bakla / bading is a discriminatory language

and Filipinos like to utter this taboo affectively and reflectively in replacement to the name of

a person being associated with the characteristics of a gay person; (5) lastly, the taboo word

tanga is used with a conceptual meaning pointing out the person’s lack of knowledge in a

particular thing or idea depending on the topic in a conversation.

It is also revealed in the table that Filipinos utilize these taboos in different instances

of their lives especially when they are having very high emotions such as wrath and irritation,

as well as during the times that they tend to offense other people as a way of defending

oneself. Nevertheless, it is significant to emphasize that they still utter these taboos pertaining

to what these really mean denotatively. They associate these words to the people as part of

their expression or insult most of the times.

Conclusions

Based on the findings, the researchers conclude that:

The word taboos have been a part of Filipinos’ daily conversations. They are

unconsciously aware of the different lexical meanings (especially the literal meaning) it may
produce based from how they are using these in a variety of instances. Their lack of

knowledge leads them to use these very often. It may even yield to a confusion or worst a

miscommunication when use to people who are not close to them in terms of social distance.

Recommendations

From the conclusions, the researchers recommend that:

Parents and Teachers, as second parents, ought to educate the younger ones about

these taboo words which are inappropriate to any instances of our lives as these are offensive

when spoken in public communication. Students should learn how to be sensitive in every

utterance and action they will be making, and saying this means they become conscious of

the effect it will bring to others.

REFERENCES

A. Books/Journals

Bustos, Alicia & Espiritu, Socorro (1996). Psychological, Anthropological, and

Sociological Foundations of Education. Katha Publishing Co., Inc. Quezon City. Revised

Edition II.

Ingilan (2016). Lexicalization of profanity in Tausug and Kagan languages,

Mindanao, Philippines. University of South eastern Philippines.

Sevilla, Ed. D. Consuelo G. (2008). Research Methods. Cacho Hermanos, Inc.

Mandaluyong City.

Tajolosa (2012). Conversational Topic Preferences, Taboo Words and

Euphemisms: The Case of Philippine Male and Female University Students. Palawan

State University.

Wardhaugh (2006). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Fifth Edition. Blackwell

Publishing.
 B. Theses

Delos Santos, Kristine Joy L. (September 2016). Linguistic Competence of the

Bachelor of Secondary Education Students of University of Rizal System. Unpublished

Graduate Thesis. University of Rizal System Morong.

Gramonte, Honeylyn L. et al. (February 2014). Images Portrayed by Filipina

Women in Selected Top Grossing Films From 2011 – 2013. Unpublished Undergraduate

Thesis. University of Rizal System Angono.

Aqel, Yahia Aqel Abdullah (2016). Constraints on Translating Taboo Language in

English Movies into Arabic. Master’s Thesis. An Najah National University.

C. Electronic Resources/Websites

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociolinguistics

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagalog_profanity

https://www.google.com.ph/chapter ii theories and concepts in sociolinguistics - Shodhganga

PDFshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in › 09_chapter2