Selected Bikolano Verbal Hygiene Practices: An ethnopragmatic investigation

Dominic Bryan S. San Jose, MAEd
(https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9089-9336)
This paper “Selected Bikolano Verbal Hygiene Practices: An ethnopragmatic investigation” was funded and originally published by Bikol Studies Center housed at the University of Santo Tomas-Legazpi (Legazpi City, Albay, Philippines.

How to cite:
San Jose, D.B.S. (2018). Selected Bikolano verbal hygiene practices: An ethnopragmatic investigation. Bikol Studies Research, 1(1), 184-195.

ABSTRACT

The linguistic community’s attempt to clean up language and the collective and conventional effort to make language use conform to a linguistic community’s accepted ideals, beauty, truth, efficiency, logic, correctness, and civility are culturally bound. This means that language is not only a form of a community’s expression of culture but also a source of concurrence in the community in setting up meanings and significations among them since linguistic signs around them are arbitrary. Verbal hygiene, therefore, although common to all languages varies from culture to culture since different ground rules or linguistic rules with various degrees of importance exist. Each linguistic community, like English speakers or Filipino speakers, has its own verbal hygiene practices driven by its cultural valuations and linguistic conventions. This is also true among the Bicolano speakers. Bicol language, with all it variations in the entire Bicol region, has its own set of verbal hygiene practices to maintain some sort of language ecology. Using a qualitative research design and ethnopragmatic method of investigation, the study determined some Bikolano VHPs and categorized them into four classifications: common words and expressions; terms of address; interactional routines; and derivational morphology. The study concludes that those selected Bikolano VHPs are expressions of the ecology of the Bicol language.

Keywords: Verbal Hygiene, Bikolano, Bikol Culture, Ethnopragmatic, Philippines.

INTRODUCTION

It is believed that every language maintains some sort of “language management” (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1995) or language sanitation or “ecology of language” (Mesthrie et al., 2009), that are very much related to verbal hygiene practices. An American linguist, Deborah Cameron (1995), defined verbal hygiene as a “concept that denotes the use of politically, socially, religiously and linguistically correct words to express opinions, ideas and views in a given situation. It is a collection of discourses and practices through which people attempt to ‘clean up’ language and make its structure or its use conform more closely to their ideals and beauty, truth, efficiency, logic, correctness and civility” (Cameron, 1995). Cameron suggested three major categories of verbal hygiene practices (VHP) which are authority, identity, and agency. She also explored other types of VHP like style in writing to clean up the printed world; English grammar in school; politically correct words; widespread linguistic training and self-help.

Under authority, verbal hygiene practices are related to respect for and adherence to conventions, traditions and customs, attachment to values and practices that were imprinted on people during the formative stages of their personal linguistic histories, and general preference for continuity over change. Language that is used to indicate social identity and belongingness to a particular group, ethnicity or community may be classified under identity. Verbal hygiene practices promoted by a particular linguistic community or group of people who make rules to alter the conventional traditions of usage may be sorted under agency (Cameron, 1995).

The linguistic community’s attempt to clean up language and the collective and conventional effort to make language use conform to a linguistic community’s accepted ideals, beauty, truth, efficiency, logic, correctness and civility are culturally bound. This means that language is not only a form of a community’s expression of culture (Sapir, 1949), but also a source of concurrence in the community in setting up meanings and significations among them since linguistic signs around them are “arbitrary” (De Saussure, 2002). Verbal hygiene, therefore, although common to all languages, vary from culture to culture since different “ground rules” (Thomas, 1983) or linguistic rules with various degrees of importance exist.

Each linguistic community, like English speakers, Spanish speakers, Mandarin speakers, or Filipino speakers, has their own verbal hygiene practices driven by their cultural valuations and linguistic conventions. This is also true among the Bicolano speakers. Bicol language, with all it variations in the entire Bicol region, has its own set of verbal hygiene practices to maintain some sort of language ecology.

Recent studies in the Philippines that somehow touch on language sanitation, and in different degrees, related to verbal hygiene featured Ilocano socio-language perspective on the Filipino cultural systems (Bueno, 2013), verbosity and aesthetics (Mercado, 1992), speech and gender behavior (Mamonong, 2014; Godinez, 2009; Mabanglo, 1991), linguistic features of politeness (Batang & Batang, 2009), language and social media (Vasay & Jaum, 2014), and relationship behavior like the semantic analysis of Lorenzana (2015). These studies did not use the ethnopragmatic method and the relation to verbal hygiene practices may only be inferred from some parts of their studies. However, studies on active metaphor (Goddard, 2004), conversational humor (Goddard, 2017), conceptualization of beauty (Gladkova & Romero-Trillo, 2014), social categories (Gladkova, 2013), and Swedish thanking (Pedersen, 2010) employed the ethnopragmatic method under Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) approach but not related to verbal hygiene practices. The study of San Jose (2018) regarding millennials’ contraventions of verbal hygiene practices concentrated on the millennials’ violations of verbal hygiene practices on various social media platforms using content analysis method. There is no published study on any Bicolano verbal hygiene practices using the ethnopragmatics under NSM approach.

Framework

Ethnopragmatics, which is a successor of “transcultural pragmatics” (Peeters, 2003; 2004), and one of the five ethnolinguistic pathways that illustrate how the detailed study of communicative behaviors, phrases, key words and productive syntactic patterns can lead to the discovery of putative cultural values, studies “culturally specific communicative behaviors and communicative norms, relying on linguistic as well as non-linguistic evidence, with a view to discovering whether any cultural values, previously known or newly discovered, underpin these behaviors and norms” (Peeters, 2009).

According to Goddard (2006), those communicative behaviors may be found, but not limited in cultural key words (terms for values social categories, ethnopsychological constructs, and ethnophilosophical terms); proverbs and common sayings (“cultural common sense”); common words and expressions (like ‘absolutely’, ‘definitely’); words for speech acts and genre; terms of address (such as various pronouns, titles, quasi-kin terms, designations by profession or role, terms of endearment or familiarity); interactional routines (such as greetings and partings, appropriate things to say (if anything) when good things happen, when bad things happen, when someone does something good for one, etc.); phraseological patterns (such as the English “interrogative imperatives” and tag questions, or the numerous expressions based on “necessity” and “obligation”); patterns of turn-taking and other conversational management strategies (such as preferences for non-interruption, for overlap, for incomplete or elliptical expressions, etc.); derivational morphology expressive social meanings (such as
interpersonal “warmth”, “respect”, etc. including diminutives and honorifics); and discourse particles and interjections. Some of these categories are used in the study to facilitate the classifications of selected
Bikolano verbal hygiene practices provided by the participants.

Peeters suggested five steps in studying communicative behaviors and norms under ethnopragmatics: 1) search of tangibleevidence for the reality of a putative communicative behaviors; 2) translation of step 1 findings into NSM; 3) further corroboration based on linguistic data; 4) identification of the previously known or unknown cultural value which appears to underpin the communicative behavior and the corresponding communicative norms; and 5) summary list of other linguistic evidence in support of the value identified in the previous step.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The study determined a few selected Bikolano verbal hygiene practices through ethnopragmatic investigation and by adhering to Peeters five steps in ethnopragmatic studies. Results of this study aim to provide cultural awareness and contribute to future references, available in Bikol Studies Center, for cross-cultural studies and/or multi-disciplinary investigations.

METHODOLOGY

The study employed a qualitative research design using FGD (focused-group discussion) method in data gathering. Two blocks of graduate students (more or less 180 students) of University of Santo Tomas-Legazpi participated in the study. The participants were young professionals who were taking Certificate in Professional Teaching (CPT) Course in preparation for the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET). Though the participants’ distribution was not even, all the provinces in the Bicol region (Albay, Masbate, Sorsogon, Camarines Norte, Camarines Sur, Catanduanes) were represented. And although the activity (FGD) was part of the lesson, the participants were informed that data provided by each group would be utilized as raw materials for a research.

The participants, two blocks who were met separately, were divided into four groups. They were instructed to brainstorm and make a list of words, phrases or verbal expressions of politeness, respect, and ecology of language that the Bicolanos teach to their children as they grow. They were encouraged to contribute unique practices from their hometowns or provinces. They were also instructed to write instances and situations where those words and phrases are used. Each group shared their work to the whole group with some comments and further deepening that enriched the data gathering. After the gathering of data, the researcher started writing the explications and discussion of the selected Bikolano VHP.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The abundance of data provided by the participants varied from Bicolanos’ cultural practices, beliefs, values, and even expressions used to communicate with their domestic animals. However, the researcher filtered the data and collected only those related to VHPs. Table 1 below shows the lists of words and phrases used as part of Bicolano VHPs. The collection of words is not exhaustive since they are just the results of the data provided by the participants during the focused-group discussion. Four categories of ethnopragmatic communicative behaviors, proposed by Goddard (2006), were utilized to classify the data that are related to Bicolano VHPs.

Common Words and Expressions	Terms of Address	Interactional Routines	Derivational Morphology
baysana dios ko marasa pa pwera grasya pwera bali diosmi	manay/manoy tiya/tiyo tya/tyo mamay/papay noy/nono/nonoy ne/nene sinaki/senake ate/kuya hermano/hermana baba buboy	mabalos dios mabalos dios maray/ marahay na aga dios maray na tanghali dios maray na hapon dios maray na banggi maogmang pagabot	Tabi maki- paki- po opo ompo/umpo man palihog

Common words and expressions include baysana (short for bayai sana loosely translated as ‘don’t worry’), dios ko and diosmi (are variations of ‘my God’), marasa pa (used to express disappointment, dismay, or displeasure), pwera grasya (said by a person to counter the misfortune that might fall on him or her due to disposal of food), pwera bali (said inaudibly by a person who sees anything unusual like deformed body or face to counter the chance of happening this to him or her or to his or her family like sons or daughters).

Terms of address include manay and hermana (variations of ‘sister’ whether younger or older), manoy and hermano (variations of ‘brother’ whether younger or older), tiya and tya (variations of ‘aunt’), tiyo and tyo (variations of ‘uncle’), noy, nono, nonoy and buboy (variations of ‘boy’ or ‘baby boy’ or ‘little boy’), ne and nene (variations of ‘girl’ or ‘baby girl’ or ‘little girl’), sinaki or senake (‘cousin’ regardless of gender), ate (older sister), kuya (older brother), baba (from padaba meaning ‘beloved’ or ‘love’).

Under interactional routines, the list includes mabalos or dios mabalos (literally means “God pays [you] back”, but for Bicolanos, these words also mean ‘thank you’), dios maray na aga (‘good morning’), dios maray na tanghali (‘good noon’), dios maray na hapon (‘good afternoon’), dios maray na banggi (‘good
evening’), and maogmang pag-abot (‘welcome’).

Derivational morphology includes tabi and palihog (‘please’), maki- and paki- (are prefixes that include ‘please’ in a word or sentence), po, opo, ompo/umpo (are words inserted in a sentence to signify respect, there are no direct translations of these words in English), and man (which can be literally translated in English as ‘also’ but the meaning varies depending on the context).

Further corroboration based on linguistic data

The common words and expressions like baysana, dios ko, diosmi, marasa pa, pwera grasya, and pwera bali can be used alone or with supporting phrases or sentences as forms of VHPs of Bicolano language. This is because the use of opposite expressions is not considered linguistically hygienic since the usual opposites of those expressions can be curses. Consider the examples below in the forms of conversations.

A1: Dai nanggad ako nakapasar sa LET (Licensure Examination for Teacher). [I was not able to pass the LET.]
B1: Baysana, igwa pa man baga masunod. [Don’t worry, there is still next time.]

A2: Tig unas kan ikus an satuyang panira atyan na pamaggi. [A cat ate our viand for dinner.]
B2: (surprised) Dios ko!/Diosmi! Mahalun an bakal ko kaidto! [My God! That is very expensive!]

A3: Tol, magayunon su babayi sa jeep, tig hagad ko su number. [Dude, the girl in the jeepney was beautiful and I asked for her phone number.]
B3: Marasapa ika, igwa ka na bagang ilusyon! [(displeased)You already have a girlfriend!]

A4: Manay, naraot su mga panghimagas para sa aga. (Sister, the dessert for tomorrow got spoiled.]
B4: Dae na lugod yan ipakaon, iapon mo na. Pwera grasya. (Don’t serve them anymore, throw them instead.)

A5: Hilinga na su ayam, lima an bitis! (Look at the dog, it has five feet!]
B5: Pwera bali!

In the sample conversations above, A1 expressed certain disappointment for not passing the LET, but B1 tried to pacify him. B1 (which could be A1’s mother or father, or friend or a benefactor or sponsor may also express disappointment with A1) did not curse A1 despite the disappointment, rather he said baysana, which is a way of telling A1 that ‘it is okay and don’t worry’. In the same way, B2 may have uttered curse not only because of the facts that they would not have viand for dinner but also the viand was expensive. B3 could have cursed A3 for his disloyalty, but instead B3 uttered marasapa to express his disapproval for A3’s actions. B4 could have said a lot more with curses or expression like dios ko or diosmi about what happened, but towards the end, the guilt of throwing the food is neutralized by uttering pwera grasya. B5 could have said few more descriptions of what A5 was referring to, but to cut the conversation short, he just said pwera bali. In many cases and contexts, these expressions are substitutes for curses that could rapture a relationship or hurt the people who might hear the curses, or scandalize the young minds. Hence, these selected common words and expressions are treated in this study as parts of VHPs.

The Bicolano VHPs are even more evident in the way Bicolanos address the people around them. In the Tagalog speaking towns of Camarines Norte, the common way of calling an elder brother is kuya, while an elder sister is ate. From the Bicol speaking town of Camarines Norte all way down to the island provinces of Catanduanes and Masbate, the common way of calling a brother and a sister is hermano or manoy and hermana or manay repectively. Bicolanos call their aunt tiya or tya or mamay and their uncle tiyo or tyo or papay. Young boys or younger brothers are called noy or nonoy or buboy and young girls or younger sisters are called ne or nene. Sinaki or senake is used to refer to cousins, and baba is a general term (from padaba literally means ‘beloved’ or ‘love’) used to refer to anyone whose name is not familiar to someone (like a teacher calling her student ‘baba’) or a term of endearment (like a wife calling her husband ‘baba’ or a grandmother calling her grandson ‘baba’).

Aside from those uses of terms of address, Bicolanos use the terms kuya or ate to refer to anyone even not a member of a family and usually a stranger. For instance, in the market or public market, it is common to hear “Ate magkano po ang kilo?” (Miss/Lady/Woman, how much per kilo?); or “Kuya tawadan mo naman.” (Mister, add some more.); or “Kuya or Ate ano pong hanap nyo?” (Miss or Mister, what are you looking for?). The words tiyo and tiya are also commonly used to refer to an older man or woman, and usually strangers. Tiyo may refer to a jeepney driver, tricyle driver, male vendor or neighbor, waiters, clerks, even teachers, etc., while tiya may refer to a woman anywhere. Usually, tiya is older than ate, just like tiyo is older than kuya. Moreover, manoy and manay are not only used for family members, Bicolanos use them with an extensive meaning. They may refer to a male (manoy) and female (manay) relatives, friends, officemates, and even strangers.

Bicolanos rarely use the names of a person who they are speaking with. They always use appropriate terms of address to express their respect and politeness.Although there are many Bicolanos who already transcended these cultural practices, majority of Bicolanos still prefer the use of proper terms of address as a sign of courtesy. Therefore, these words under terms of address form parts of Bicolano VHPs due to the extent of their nature and usage.

Selected Bikolano VHPs under interactional routines include mabalos or dios mabalos as Bicolanos’ profound expression of gratitude. It is so deep that, as they believe, only God can return the favor given. It is used in a short form (mabalos) or a long form (dios mabalos). But in a formal context, the long form is always used. For example, a politician after his speech would say: “Dios mabalos po sa saindong gabos” (Thank you very much to all of you). The root word of mabalos is ‘balos’ meaning ‘requite’ or ‘reciprocate’ or ‘repay’. The prefix ma is an indicative of future action like makaon (will eat), mauron (will speak with), malakaw or mabaklay (will walk), mabalos (will repay). Hence, dios mabalos is a Bicolano prognosis that a person who has done something good “will be repaid not only with better things, but the best blessings coming from God”.

Another example of interactional routines are the Bicolano greetings like dios maray na aga (‘good morning’), dios maray na tanghali (‘good noon’), dios maray na hapon (‘good afternoon’), dios maray na banggi (‘good evening’), and maogmang pag-abot (‘welcome’). These greetings, especially the first four that are always preceded with dios (literally ‘god’), reflect the deep-seated faith in something good and divine of the Bicolanos that is invoked and implicitly desired to be passed on to their daily social and relational undertakings every time they utter those greetings. The Bicol counterpart of ‘welcome’, which is maogmang pag-abot contains a hopeful yearning for a visitor to be happy (maogma) in a place he or she visits. These greetings contribute to the ecology of Bicol language since they contain a built-in desire to make the greeted person naturally (marhay/marahay) and supernaturally (dios) well in the entire day or at the moment of greetings. Failure to utter these interactional routines may mean indifference or apathy for Bicolanos. Therefore, these greetings are essential to Bicolanos’ everyday lives as part of VHPs in their interactional routines.

Some parts of Bicolano VHPs are categorized under derivational morphology that express social meaning with regard to interpersonal warmth or respect. Some examples are tabi and palihog, maki- and paki-, po, opo, ompo/umpo, and man.

Tabi, which is the counterpart of the English ‘please, is commonly used by the Bicolanos in almost every context. It can be used when answering politely (Amo po tabi.Yes please.), when using the imperative mood (Example inside the jeepney when giving the transportation fare to the driver: Bayad tabi. Fare please.) when asking someone (Sain tabi ang lunadan? Where is the terminal please?), and in almost every context and circumstances. Palihog is the same as tabi, but it is a classic version of tabi in Sorsogon and Masbate. Thus, only the older generations use palihog, while the young ones, because they seldom hear palihog, use tabi instead.

The prefixes maki- and paki- are indicative of respect embedded in a manner of requesting in any form of discourses. Usually tabi is included after the request with prefixes maki or paki to add emphasis on the politeness of speaking, the use of maki or paki is already enough to show respect. And usually at the middle or end of a sentence, the word man is included to indicate courtesy or gentility in a discourse. When man is used, it reflects the tenderness of the requester in contrast to being arrogant and bossy. Moreover, the word po may still be added in a discourse as a general indication of respect. Usually, po is included in a sentence when the one being requested is older in age or higher in position than the requester. Po is also used when asking question (like clarification), or answering when being called. Po is used throughout the country by the Filipinos, but tabi or palihog are distinct to Bicolanos. Consider the following sample sentences.

A (to a friend): Pakikuha nin tubig or Pakikuha man tabi ki tubig (Please get the water).
B (to a friend): Pakibakal nin pagkaon or Pakibakal man tabi ki pagkaon (Please buy some food).
C (to a stranger) Pwede makisubli man po ki lapis (May I barrow your pencil?)
D (to a stranger in a jeepney): Pakisibog man tabi (Please adjust a little bit).
E (to his professor): Sir, makisend man po nin handout sa email (Sir, please send the handout to email).
F (calling her student’s name): Maricar?
G (answering her teacher): Po? (Yes?) or Ano po? (Yes ma’am?)

Another indicator of Bicolano VHPs under derivational morphology is the use of opo or ompo or umpo, which are variations of ‘yes’. Bicolanos seldom use ‘amo’ or ‘iyo’ (yes) when answering affirmatively to someone older than them. Instead, they use opo or ompo or umpo to mean yes. Children are reprimanded and corrected when they answer amo or iyo to those older than them. Bicolano kids or teenagers who do not use po, opo, ompo or umpo when speaking with or answering those older than them are regarded as walang galang (impolite), and are jestingly recommended to eat upo (a vegetable) so they learn to say opo, ompo, or umpo. Hence, the use of those derivational morphology are important parts of Bicolano VHPs.

Identification of the previously known or unknown cultural values

There are Bicolano cultural values that appear to underpin the Bicolanos’ communicative behaviors especially as regards the Bikolano VHPs. The most popular and encompassing Bicolano values where the VHPs are always evident are the following: very close family relationship, bayanihan, and religiosity (Nasayao, 2010). It is in the relationships with family, community (bayanihan), and God (religiosity) where the Bicolano VHPs are appraised and evaluated relative to what is conventional and unconventional.

Andres (2005) determined some positive Bicolano cultural values like humility, friendliness and sociability, courtesy, hospitality, smooth interpersonal relationship, and gratefulness. The selected Bikolano VHPs can generally be classified as practices under courtesy. However, the rest of the values mentioned above, other than courtesy, are all avenues where the Bikolano VHPs are practiced and enriched.

Other linguistic evidences

Bikolanos avoid words that may mean the opposite of humility. In fact, as Andres (2005) stated, “Bikolanos prefer to be on the sidelines rather than be at the center of attention, even if they rightfully deserve it. He just takes prides from the feeling that he has done a good job and has met the expectations of his peers. Seldom will one encounter a Bikolano publicly asking for a commendation for his accomplishment” (Andres, 2005).

The identified Bikolano VHPs under derivational morphology are lubricants to their hospitality, friendliness and sociability and smooth interpersonal relationship. With Bikolanos’ kind words and the use of terms of address and interactional routines, strangers in the region immediately find a friend in no time.

Bicolanos’ courtesy is expressed not only in the use of po, opo, ompo or ompo, but also in the practice of kissing hands of the elders or pagmamano or pagbibisa. Moreover, Bicolanos’ gratefulness is expressed not only in the use of dios mabalos but also in the distinct Bicol word salamatun (thank you very much), which can be salamatunun (superlative of thank you) or salamatununun (more than superlative of thank you), since the more suffix un the deeper the gratefulness. This salamatun is another linguistic evidence as part of Bikolano VHPs that may be under common words and expressions or interactional routines.

CONCLUSION

Using the ethnopragmatic investigation, the study has determined some Bikolano VHPs and categorized them into four classifications: 1) common words and expressions (baysana, dios ko and diosmi, marasa pa, pwera grasya, and pwera bali); 2) terms of address (manay, Hermana, manoy, hermano, tiya, tya, tiyo, tyo, noy, nono, nonoy, buboy, ne, nene, sinaki or senake, ate, kuya, baba); 3) interactional routines (mabalos or dios mabalos, dios maray na aga, dios maray na tanghali, dios maray na hapon, dios maray na banggi, maogmang pag-abot); and 4) derivational morphology (tabi, palihog, maki, paki, po, opo, ompo/umpo, man). These selected Bikolano VHPs are indispensable in the daily discourses of Bicolanos since they form part of the Bicolanos cultural expression of language sanitation or ecology of Bicol language.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A very special thanks to the researcher’s students in the Graduate School of UST-Legazpi (2017-2018 Certificate in Professional Teaching Classes) for actively participating in this study. To Ms. Catherine Almoguera, Mr. Sandy Lleva, Ms. Claudine Balana and Ms. Ariane Panelo-San Jose for providing examples of Bikol sentences and several translations. And to Dr. Angela Lorenzana for sharing her knowledge about Ethnolinguistics.

REFERENCES

• Andres, T. D. (2005). Understanding Bikolano values. Quezon City: Giraffe Books.
• Batang, B. L. & Batang, R. (2010). Politeness and compliments in selected Ilocano radio dramas. ISU-Cabagan Journal of Reseach, 19(2), 9-23.
• Bueno, C. F. (2013). The socio-language perspective on the Filipino cultural system of the Ilocano society. UNP Research Journal, 22(1), 21-35.
• Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal Hygiene. New York, NY: Routledge.
• De Saussure, F. (2002). Course in General Linguistics. Ed. Charles Bally & Albert Sechehaye in collaboration with Albert Riedlinger. Trans. Roy Harris. Illinois: Open Court Publishing Company.
• Gladkova, A. (2013). “Is he one of ours?” The cultural semantics and ethnopragmatics of social categories in Russian. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 180-194.
• Gladkova, A. &Romero-Trillo, J. (2014). Ain’t it beautiful? The conceptualization of beauty from an ethnopragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 140-159.
• Goddard, C. (2004). The ethnopragmatics and semantics of ‘active metaphors’. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(7), 1211-1230.
• Goddard, C. (2006). Ethnopragmatics: A new paradigm. Ethnopragmatics: Understanding in Cultural Context. 1-30 DOI 10.1515/9783110911114.1.
• Goddard, C. (2017). Ethnopragmatic perspective on conversational humour, with special references to
  Australian English. Language & Communication, 55, 55-68.
• Godinez, M. V. Z. (2009). Redefining Filipino male speech in microcosm. UE Research Bulletin, 11(1), 1-29
• Lorenzana, A. (2015). A semantic analysis of “pakikisama”, a key Filipino cultural relationship concept: The NSM approach. IAMURE International journal of Literature, Philosophy and Religion (7), 15-31.
• Mabanglo, R. S. (1991). Wika at katauhang babae: Mula mito hanggang panahong modern. MALAY, 9(1), 48-53.
• Mamonong, V. H. (2014). Genderlect in the academic milieu: In appreciation of the opposite sex. IAMURE
  International Journal of Education, 11(1), 68-89.
• Mercado, L. N. (1992). Kagandahan: Filipino thought on beauty, truth, and Good. Karunungan, 9(1), 106-114.
• Mesthrie, R., Swann, J., Deumert, A. & Leap, W. L. (2009). Introducing Sociolinguistics, 2nd edition. Edinburgh, Germany: Edinburgh University Press.
• Nasayao, E. K. (2010). Bikol beliefs and folkways: A showcase of tradition. Legazpi City: Hablong Dawani Publishing House.
• Pedersen, J. (2010). The different Swedish tack: An ethnopragmatic investigation of Swedish thanking and related concepts. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(5), 1258-1265.
• Peeters, B. (2003). Le transculturel: Semantique, pragmatique et axiologie. La linguistique 39(1), 119.133.
• Peeters, B. (2004). ‘Thou shall not be a tall poppy’: Describing an Australian communicative (and behavioral) norm. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1, 71-92.
• Peeters, B. (2009). Language and cultural values: The enthnolinguistic pathways model. FULGOR, 4(1), 59-73.
• San Jose, D. B. S. (2018). Millennial’s contraventions of verbal hygiene practices (Unpublished master’s thesis). Bicol University, Legazpi City, Philippines.
• Sapir. E. (1949. Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture and personality. David Mandelbaum (ed) Berkeley University California Press. Retrieved January 10, 2018 from http://goo.gl/3WBvxl
• Skutnabb-Kangas, T. ed. (1995). Multilingualism for all. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
• Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-112.
• Vasay, M. G. & Jaum, D. C. (2014). Speech acts in Kris Aquino’s tweets: A content analysis. IAMURE
  International Journal of Literature, Philosophy and Religion, 6(1), 57-72.