Cando, Daine Joshphine C.

L190 THU
Francisco, Laetizia A. January 16, 2023

A Comparative Analysis of Linguistic Politeness with the Inclusion of Cultural Expressions

in two languages: Tagalog and Korean

ABSTRACT
The politeness phenomenon is a complex and culture-specific concept that has been explored
by numerous scholars before and up until now, yet literature in comparing the context of politeness in
Korean and Filipino culture remains scarce. One of the evident reasons lies in the difference in
language origins. However, both cultures share analogous cultural expressions that are reflective of
their linguistic system. In response, this paper attempts to compare and contrast the linguistic and
sociocultural expressions of politeness in both aforementioned languages. Then, conclusions are
presented, focusing on the universality claims surrounding Korean and Filipino politeness. The
analysis reveals the comparison in terms of the perception of politeness and patterns of address usage.
The collectivist and hierarchical orientation of Korean and Filipino societies stand out as the principal
justification for their similar cultural expressions. Moreover, the analysis reveals that Korean politeness
is language-specific as it uses the grammatical encoding by employing the addressee-honorific process,
while Filipino politeness uses social encoding.

INTRODUCTION
Language serves as an integral part of human socialization. Through language, humans are able
to express their thoughts, expectations, and demands in ways that it governs how social relationships
are established. This can manifest with the attitudes between humans especially on how they address
each other accordingly and appropriately. For instance, Ko (2018) identifies a range of factors that can
significantly influence human socialization, such as age, power, social distance, social values, and degree
of politeness. It is imperative to take such components into account as they are believed to be reflective
of the linguistic and cultural exchange of a certain community, especially in terms of politeness.
Firstly, politeness is perceived as an intricate topic that has already been explored by various
scholars (Goffman, 1974; Axia, 1987; Brown and Levinson, 1987; Fraser, 1990; Wright, 2003) in their
respective theories and fields. With this, various definitions have been ostensibly employed to delineate
the said phenomenon. From a sociolinguistic and pragmatic stance, some scholars discern politeness as
a clear demonstration of interpersonal communication where the social interaction is intended to be
positive as it is an act of abiding by the recognized social norms and values (Nwoye, 1992; Bravo, 2005;
Culpeper, 2011). Crystal (2008) also supplements this by defining politeness as a set of linguistic
features that are in correlation with the societal norms of behavioral standards, which includes
concepts of courtesy, rapport, deference, distance, and the usage of specific discourse markers. Both
fields may be distinct from each other, but Eelen (2001) argues that this depicts the connection
between the usage of language and social reality itself. Hence, social relationships entail a form of
mutual understanding between interlocutors by producing speech utterances that conform to the
social and cultural context of a situation.
Speech utterances are constituted with linguistic expressions such as verbal (e.g. acts of request)
and non-verbal cues (e.g. bowing of head). Rash (2004) claims that linguistic politeness is perceived to
have a crucial role to promote a harmonious relationship amongst individuals; thus, its aim is to pursue
the avoidance of any kind of conflict and dissension. According to Spolsky (1990), this is because it
signifies how the rights of the addressee are simultaneously respected, appreciated, and validated. The
smooth flow of communication is also ensured, which maintains the good relationship that has been
established.
Another viewpoint is concerned about how other scholars see politeness as a means of ‘saving
face’ or, in other words, a social mechanism where the speaker and hearer shows consideration and
awareness of each other to project a positive public image of themselves (Brown and Levinson, 1987;
Hernández Flores, 2004; Yule, 2010). This ‘face-saving’ theory has been used as a framework for most
Western studies, however, it has been heavily criticized due to its individualistic and logic-based nature.
In this case, Kinnison (2012) asserts that it does not satisfy the politeness principles observed in Eastern
cultures. Moreover, it frames politeness and impoliteness at such a limited value which restrains what
kind of intercultural communication should be posited.
As countries differ in cultures, Yule (2010) points out that it is the same regarding how people
distinguish polite behavior. In Eastern culture, Glushkova (2018) indicates that their disposition on
politeness relatively lies in their strong adherence to having a respectful attitude towards the elderly and
those belonging to authority. Collected works inside Kinnison (2012) feature the interpretation and
evaluation of politeness through the usage of honorifics, kinship terms, historical and sociological
developments to geographical variations, and many more. In accordance with East Asian societies, the
Philippines has its own linguistic and cultural expression of politeness, historically and geographically
speaking. The most spoken language in the country is believed to be Tagalog.
Schachter (2003) extensively covers the origin and history of Tagalog. The
Western-Malayo-Polynesian group of Austronesian languages including Tagalog, which is a member of
the Central Philippine subgroup of Philippine languages, is a member of the subgroup that includes
the Bikol, Bisayan, and Mansakan languages and was likely originally indigenous to northeastern or
eastern Mindanao in the Central Philippines (Zorc, 1993). Tagalog became the primary language
spoken in Manila and the surrounding provinces by the time the Spanish arrived in the Philippines in
1521 and it has since expanded as a second language across nearly the whole Philippine archipelago.
According to statistics, only around 25% of the 80 million of the Philippine population could speak
Tagalog in 1940 but by 1970, it increased to nearly 50%; and today, it is thought that well over 90% of
the country's 80 million people can speak Tagalog either as a first or second language. The Philippines'
1987 Constitution officially recognized Tagalog as the nation's official language, chosen in 1937.
Tagalog is now taught in schools all over the Philippines under the name of Filipino. Urbanization and
the language's prominence in the media have both contributed to its spread. The largest city in the
Philippines, Manila, is the origin of Tagalog, which is also widely spoken in other places with diverse
ethnicities.
Another East Asian society that is also interesting to explore is Korea. In terms of their
language, the issue of ancestry and origin of Korean has long been a challenge in historical linguistics.
With this, the genetic theories that have received the greatest attention are those that relate Korean to
the Altaic language and the Japanese language; Korean has been compared to Altaic for almost a
century longer than to Japanese. Even though Korean, Altaic, and Japanese have been compared in
numerous research, it is still unclear where the Korean language originated (Lee & Ramsey, 2011).
Currently, due to the significant differences between Tagalog and Korean morphological
systems, research done on comparing the typologies of these two languages is still extremely limited.
Yet, despite the differences, we have observed that these two languages commonly use expressions of
politeness or respect. As there is still nonexistent research that compares the expressions of politeness
in Tagalog and Korean, this paper aims to discuss the contrasts and similarities of the linguistic and
sociocultural expressions of politeness in both aforementioned languages. The discussion will not
employ a systematic analysis, and as an additional attempt at simplicity, our description mainly deals
with the variations of Korean and Tagalog as spoken in the capitals of Seoul and Metro Manila.
Knowledge gathered from this study can be essential for cross-cultural understanding and
communication as well as for second language pedagogy. This paper is also useful for multilingual
speakers as well because they can gain a deeper understanding about the nature of politeness in Tagalog
and Korean.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

In the Philippines, being a country that is predominantly family-oriented and religious. It
almost comes natural that one of the most important values Filipinos uphold is respect. At a very
young age Filipinos are taught politeness or respectful cues by their parents and/or teachers, teaching
them how to use the politeness cliticmarkers po and opo, as well as the gesture mano whereas younger
Filipinos bring the back of an elder’s hand against their forehead, and also using honorific titles to
address older siblings or elders (Dumaraos, 2022).
Filipinos’ high value on respect is displayed through the use of politeness clitic markers and
honorific pronouns. According to Barrios (2011), Filipino culture places a high value on respect and
politeness. This is attributed by some experts in Philippine studies to the interdependence of farming
communities. Farmers rely on one another as they labor successively on each other's farms while
planting and harvesting rice together. As a result, people take care to communicate with one other in a
respectful manner. Politeness in Tagalog can be expressed through the following:
a. Addressing a stranger or someone older with po and opo (‘yes’) or its less formal variants ho and
oho.
It is more common to use the marker po in today’s time but according to
Benson, Cummings & Greaves (1988), ho is the marker most frequently used to express
politeness while po is less common and is utilized to convey utmost respect. It can be
confusing when to use or where are the proper placements of these markers, although
Filipinos do not strictly follow a certain pattern of when to use po and opo, these are
some of the most common placements where they can be used (Anza, 2020):
● After the 5W Questions. As illustrated in the table below:

English Tagalog with po/ho

What? Ano? Ano po/ho?

Who? Sino? Sino po/ho?

When? Kailan? Kailan po/ho?

Where? Saan? Saan po/ho?

Why? Bakit? Bakit po/ho?

Table 1.1. 5W Questions.

● After (1) nouns, (2) verbs, and (3) adjectives before a pronoun.
For example:
(1) Bahay po nila.
house 3rd-POST-POSS-PL
‘Their house’
(2) Nag-aaral ho ako.
studying 1st-ABS-SG
‘I am studying’
(3) Matalino po siya.
smart 3rd-ABS -SG
‘He/She is smart.’

● After possessive pronouns.

 For example:
(a) Akin po.
1st-PRE-POSS-SG
‘(It’s) Mine.’
(b) Kaniya po.
2nd-PRE-POSS-SG
‘(It’s) His/Hers.’
(c) Kanila ho.
3rd-PRE-POSS-SG
‘(It’s) Theirs.’

b. By employing plural pronouns like kayo (plural form of ka or “you”) and ninyo (plural form of
mo or “your”).
For example:
(a) Kumain na ho ba kayo?
‘Did you eat already?’
(b) Nakuha niyo na po ba bag ninyo?
‘Did you get your bag already?’

c. By using third person pronouns like sila or nila.

For example:
(a) Kumusta ho sila?
‘How are you?’
(b) Kumusta po ang pakiramdam nila?
‘How are you feeling?’

When referring to a single addressee in Tagalog, second-person plural pronouns are

used to convey respect; however, third-person plural pronouns are also utilized to
convey extreme respect (Benson et al., 1988).

Person: ABS ERG; POST-POSS PRE-POSS

1st Person Ako Ko Akin

2nd Person Ikaw Ka Iyo

Dual Kita Natin Atin

 3rd Person Siya Niya Kaniya

1st Person (Plural) Kami Namin Amin

2nd Person (Plural) Kayo Niyo, Ninyo Inyo

Dual (Plural) Tayo Natin Atin

3rd Person (Plural) Sila Nila Kanila

Table 1.2 Tagalog Pronouns
Note. Adapted from “COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ON THE PRONOUNS OF TAGALOG, CEBUANO AND
ITAWIS” by A. Bollas, 2013, p. 6.
https://www.academia.edu/4739622/Comparative_Morphology_Pronouns_of_Tagalog_Cebuano_and_Itawis)
d. After a Yes or No Answer.
For example:
(a) Natulog ka ba? ‘Did you sleep?’
Hindi po. ‘No.’ / ‘I did not.’

Aside from the aforementioned, according to Benson, Cummings & Greaves (1988), Filipinos
also use (a) honorific titles or nouns to address older people as a form of respect and politeness, and (b)
prefixes maki- and paki- for making polite requests.
a. Aside from the typical honorific titles for parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, Filipinos use
honorific titles for siblings as well. They use the term ate to refer to an older sister or older
woman, and kuya to refer to an older brother or older man.
b. In the perspective of outsiders or strangers, if someone is deemed to be older than the person,
Filipinos often address them by several honorific titles that a) may precede their first name or b)
can stand alone if the person is considered a stranger, without taking their profession or social
standing into account.
i. For men, they can be referred to as manong, mang, lolo, tatay, kuya, and mamâ. On
the other hand, for women, they can be referred to as manang, lola, nanay, ate, tita,
and ale. Manong and manang come from the Ilocano word that means ‘elder brother’
and ‘elder sister’ respectively, which acknowledges the hierarchy of age (Batang et.al,
2010). Mang is also an Ilocano kinship term that is derived from the fusion of both
genders manong and manang, but it is often addressed to older male. Mang is said to
express informality compared to manong. However, the main difference between
manong and mang is that mang should be preceded with a name, whereas manong can
stand alone.
a) Manong, pakibilisan naman po ang pagmamaneho.
 ‘[Manong], please step on the gas.’
b) Mang Toto, para po.
‘[Mang] Toto, please stop.’
The sentences above are commonly heard in the streets or in public spaces. They are
both contextualized in public transportation, such as jeepneys, tricycles, SUVs, buses
etc. In sentence (a), manong pertains to someone who drives a public vehicle. Lolo and
lola, tatay and nanay, kuya and ate, tito and tita are considered familial terms but can
be used as an alternative to address older people even though an individual is not
biologically related with the particular person. These can also replace the title manong
depending on what honorific title the speaker is more comfortable with. On the other
hand, the term mamâ and ale are more attributed to strangers.
c. In Filipino, commands and requests have a clear distinction. When making requests, they
attach the prefix paki- and maki-, which roughly translates to ‘please’, to an imperative verb.
For example:
(a) Pakisara po ang pinto.
‘Please close the door.’
(b) Maki(ki)suyo lang po.
‘Just a favor (please).’

Korean culture is very collectivist, just like the majority of East Asian nations. Koreans have an
inclination for being communal, hierarchical, formal, and emotional, and due to the hierarchical
structure of the society and culture in Korea, people's relative status is still valuable when it comes to
interpersonal relationships (Song, 2012; Hwang, 1990). In Korean, their politeness system is reckoned
to have the usage of honorifics and formality embedded in its language. Thus, Yum (1988) concludes
that the Korean language employs discernment politeness. Honorific suffixes and syntactic
constructions like negation, questions, and conditionals are used in the Korean honorific system to
convey respect. As a result, the linguistic forms or norms used by Korean speakers depend on: (1) social
characteristics such age, kinship, gender, social standing, and occupational rank; (2) distance; and (3)
context. (Sohn 1999; Brown 2010)

According to Song (2014), Korean employs three components to the honorific system:
A. Honorific Nouns
Many special nouns in Korean have both a simple and honorific form, with all
the honorific forms in Sino-Korean. It should also be noted that the honorific forms of
some nouns tend to be common nouns, which are words related to people and are
frequently used in questions. It satisfies the need of honorification, which is to
 demonstrate respect for others. Seoul, for example, would not have an honorific form
because it is a proper noun. (Wong, 2011)

Plain Noun Honorific Equivalent Meaning

집 jip 댁 daek ‘Home’

이름 ireum 성함 seongham; ‘Name’

존함 conham

생일 saengil 생신 saengsin ‘Birthday’

나이 nai 연세 yeonse ‘Age’

병 byeong 병환 byeonghwan ‘Illness or disease’

말 mal 말씀 malsseum ‘Words (said by

somebody)’
Table 2.1. Korean Nouns and their Honorific Equivalents.

B. Honorific Suffixes
In Korean, there are there are four honorific suffixes for titles, -님 –nim, -씨
-ssi, -령-hyeng, and -군 -kwun which can be attached to not only Korean titles but also
names. The suffixes -님 –nim and -씨 -ssi are most commonly used honorific because
the suffixes -령-hyeng, and -군 -kwun are the lowest level in respect. (Wong, 2011)

Simply adding the suffixes -님 –nim and -씨 -ssi for titles are the honorific
equivalent of them as illustrated in the tables below:
(a) Honorific titles for family members:

Title Honorific Meaning

할아버지 halabeoji 할아버님 halabeo-nim ‘Paternal grandfather’

할머니 halmeoni 할머님 halmeo-nim ‘Paternal grandmother’

외할아버지 외할아버님 ‘Maternal grandfather’

wehalabeoji wehalabeo-nim

외할머니 wehalmeoni 외할머님 ‘Maternal

wehalmeo-nim grandmother’

아버지 abeoji 아버님 abeo-nim ‘Father’

 어머니 eomeoni 어머님 eomeo-nim ‘Mother’

형 hyeong 형님 hyeong-nim ‘Older brother (of a

male)’

누나 nuna 누님 nu-nim ‘Older sister (of a male)’

오빠 oppa 오라버니 orabeoni ‘Older brother (of a

female)’

언니 eonni 형님 hyeong-nim ‘Older sister (of a

female)’

동생 dongsaeng 동생분 dongsaeng-bun ‘’Younger sibling’

아들 adeul 아드님 adeul-nim ‘Son’

딸 ddal 따님 dda-nim ‘Daughter’

Table 2.2. Korean Honorific Titles for family members

According to Richer (2020), not many Koreans know that the honorific title
for 언니 eonni is also 형님 hyeong-nim, which is the same honorific title for 형 hyeong
because it is not commonly used. The only honorific title that does not use the suffix
-님 –nim is 동생 dongsaeng, which uses the suffix -분 -bun instead, as in 동생분
dongsaeng-bun, to refer to younger siblings with respect.

(b) Korean titles for Non-Family members. These can be used as long as the people
being addressed are older or higher in status.

Title Honorific Meaning

형 hyeong 형님 hyeong-nim ‘Older male (to a

male)’

누나 nuna 누님 nu-nim ‘Older female (to a

male)’

오빠 oppa 오라버니 orabeoni ‘Older male (to a

female)’

언니 eonni 형님 hyeong-nim ‘Older female (to a

female)’
 선배 seonbae 선배님 seonbae-nim ‘Somebody older or
more senior’

후배 hubae 후배님 hubae-nim ‘Somebody younger or

less senior’
Table 2.3. Korean Honorific Titles for Non-Family members

(c) Job Titles. In Korea, job titles are more commonly used to address co-workers
rather than just “Sir”, “Ma’am”, or “Boss”, in general. Shown in the table below
are some:

Title Honorific Meaning

사장 sajang 사장님 sajang-nim CEO

회장 hwejang 회장님 hwejang-nim Chairman

부장 bujang 부장님 bujang-nim Head of the

department

과장 gwajang 과장님 gwajang-nim Head of the section

팀장 timjang 팀장님 timjang-nim Team leader

실장 siljang 실장님 siljang-nim General manager

대리 daeri 대리님 daeri-nim Assistant manager

Table 2.4. Honorific Job Titles

C. Honorific Verbs
In Korean, there are two types of verbs: action verbs and descriptive verbs.
Descriptive verbs are comparable to adjectives, except that they are still also called verbs.
Many special verbs have both simple and honorific forms, and just like nouns there is a
need to attach a suffix to the word to form its honorific equivalent. For verbs, it is the
suffix -(으)시 -(u)si. (Wong, 2011)
Here are some examples in the table below:

Verb Honorific Meaning

가다 gada 가십니다 gasida To go

받다 batda 받으십니다 bateusida To receive

 운동하다 undonghada 운동하십니다 To do sports or exercise
undonghasida
Table 2.5. Honorific Verbs

According to Lee & Ramsey (2001), the suffix -(으)시 -(u)si can be attached to
any verb stem with only a few exceptions. There are plain verbs that are replaced with
what they call “special polite verbs” with the words changing almost entirely which are
illustrated below:

Verb Honorific Meaning

먹다 드시다 / 식사하다 To eat

보다 뵙다 To see

말하다 말씀하다 To speak, say

있다 계시다 To be somewhere or exist

자다 주무시다 To sleep

배고프다 시장하시다 To be hungry

주다 드리다 To give

아프다 편찮으시다 To be sick or be in pain

Table 2.6. Honorific Verbs

Aside from the three (3) components mentioned by Song (2014), in Korean, they also use
honorific pronouns as a display of humility or respect to the person who may be older or of higher
status. According to Lee and Ramsey (2001), there are five (5) forms of second-person pronouns which
can be arranged based on the level of politeness the pronouns entail depending on the person’s social
rank. The second-person pronouns include and are ranked as follows:

2nd-Person Pronoun Politeness/ Formality level

어르신 elusin formal

댁 tayk polite or formal

당신 tangsin semi-formal
 자네 caney familiar

너 ne plain
Table 2.7. Honorific Pronouns

To put the level of politeness or formality in perspective, Lee and Ramsey (2001) gave examples
of situations or relationships where the aforementioned pronouns are typically used:
(a) The pronoun 너 ne are used by elementary and secondary school teachers to address
their students, parents to their children, and between friends in the same age since this
is a more intimate pronoun.
(b) The pronoun 자네 caney are used by college professors to address their young-adult
students.
(c) The pronoun 당신 tangsin is usually used by middle-aged people, between married
couples and by people in a higher rank than those of 너 ne and 자네 caney.
(d) The pronoun 댁 tayk is not used to address someone personally, hence it
usually used to refer to an unidentified reader in advertisements and publications.
(e) The pronoun 어르신 elusin is used to address, regardless of the person's personal
relationship with someone in their seventies or eighties to illustrate extreme respect,
however, in addressing a school principal or the president of the Republic of Korea, for
instance, or for any other public social relation, 어르신 elusin is not accepted.

Korean also utilizes 3rd-person pronouns to convey politeness or respect. In its plain form, ku
stands for "he" or "it," while kunye is used to denote "she." Ku becomes more polite when the suffix
-pwun is added but it is uncommon, nonetheless, for ku to be used as a pronoun. (Lee & Ramsey,
2001). The Korean language more commonly uses 1st-person plural forms such as 우리 wuri, 저희
jeohi (‘we’ / ‘our’) . It's necessary to keep in mind that 우리 wuri, 저희 jeohi is frequently used instead
of “my” when referring to items like family, home, cars, etc. (Richer, 2020).
Apart from the technical elements that Koreans use to express politeness and respect, it is also
interesting to note that the Korean language utilizes indirectness in request phrases or sentences as a
tool to use to express politeness to avoid hurting the other person’s feelings. (Kim & Bresnahan, 1994).

DISCUSSION
As primarily elaborated in this paper, Filipino and Korean languages came from different
origins but relatively share cultural variations because they are part of the cultural sphere of East Asia.
Philippines and Korea are hierarchically structured societies (Hofstede, 1984). This indicates that
societies, in general, significantly value the role that hierarchy plays in defining each speaker's social
distance and power within it (Gan et.al, 2015). The role of the speakers are identified depending on the
culture and status of an individual. A speaker may either be a superior or subordinate. This may most
often apply in employee organizational structures, but it also generally prevails in the usage of
language. Thus, this section will explore and compare various forms of how linguistic politeness is
expressed in Tagalog and Seoul dialect in Korea, together with existing cultural expressions that
correspond to some of the politeness strategies that are demonstrated in both languages.

Perception of politeness
In Korea, Koreans put a premium on politeness and this is through the means of the linguistic
entity of honorifics. Kim (2011) states that the absence of honorifics signify a form of disrespect
towards a person, especially to one’s superiors. However, he posed two questions regarding how adult
Korean speakers perceive politeness, namely: (1) Will a native speaker of Korean be polite to anyone in
conversation as long as they use honorifics? (b) Can a native speaker of Korean still be polite in
conversation without using honorifics? The responses reflect that the usage of honorifics in a
conversation is technically considered to be polite, as honorifics are viewed as deferential speech, yet can
be interpreted as a form of mockery or insult if it is addressed to someone who is younger in age or of
lower status. However, the employment of zero-honorific statements towards a superior is viewed as
impolite. Those who are of the same age, rank or status can only activate the zero-honorific level of
conversation. Alongside this, different honorific markers should also be attached to verbs like
address-honorific morphemes -습니 -supni and -ㅂ니 -ipni, then the subject honorific suffix -시 -si.
Honorific endings are important to take into account as it operates in several levels of politeness and
formality.
Filipinos also have their own perception of politeness. Their culture might not have the system
of honorifics firmly embedded in their language, but they value respect and politeness by making use of
various address forms. Gan et. al (2015)’s study revealed that using the incorrect form of address might
be seen as rude and disrespectful. Address forms will be thoroughly discussed in the succeeding
subsection. Furthermore, Filipinos use the politeness clitic markers opo and po and its variants oho and
ho when talking to the elderly or of people with higher status. The absence of these markers in a
conversation is a sign of disrespect as well.

Patterns of Address Usage

Hierarchical societies take precedence over the usage of titles as it displays the status of various
individuals. This subsection will discuss the four categories on hierarchy of address forms, specifically
on: 1) addressing someone by their first name, 2) personal honorific titles, 3) kinship honorific terms,
and 4) addressing strangers.
A. Addressing someone by their first name. According to Kim (2011), honorifics in Korea
consist of three dimensions, namely: lexical, propositional and discourse dimensions. In the
lexical dimension, Kim explains that mentioning the name of the superior is forbidden.
However, it can be implicitly used if honorific titles, such as professional titles, organizational
titles and titles for a higher rank, are added afterwards. This implies that it is known that the
Korean language has an extensive range of lexicon to confer esteem and respect. In the
Philippines, Filipinos seldomly call their superiors by their first names. The findings of Gan et.
al (2015)’s study shows that Filipino domestic helpers initially found it absurd to call their
employers by their first name but eventually adapted to it in due time. This is due to the fact
that their employers were from Western countries. In Western culture, Holmes (2008) explains
that calling someone by their first name is the proper way for people to be respectful and
considerate towards others regardless of the role or status of the speakers. At times, Filipinos
also combine the title and the first name (e.g. Ma’am Susan) or and title and the last name of
the employer (e.g. Sir Tan). Addressing someone by mentioning their title and last name is
believed by Gan et. al (2015) to be reflective of how Chinese people write their surnames first
before their first name. He also adds that this combination is commonly heard in a classroom
setup where a professor addresses his or her students then vice versa, then exhibiting formality
as well. Overall, the lack of or forbidden reference of the first name of a superior can be
explained with the existence of social hierarchies in both countries.
B. Personal honorific titles. In former times, Filipinos commonly addressed someone of higher
rank or status as ginoo (for male), ginang (female or a married woman), and binibini (young
lady). At the present time, superiors are addressed as Sir or Ma’am which Gan et. al (2015)
assumes to mirror their educational upbringing. In their study, employees usually determine
how they address their employers by 1) using an address form that is frequently used in that
particular context or culture or 2) asking the employer of their preference. The usage of ate and
kuya are also employed, but Gan et. al note that it involves a level of intimacy, meaning that the
person is considered as “part of the family”. Moreover, as previously mentioned, Koreans
attach honorific suffixes to titles in order to show respect. For instance, -씨 ssi is the equivalent
of Mr., Mrs., and Ms. in Korean, and it is always attached to names. On the other hand, -님
nim implies the same, but it is most often attached to family address terms and occupation.
C. Kinship honorific terms. To reiterate, the Korean language has a list of kinship terms where
the honorific suffix -님 nim is attached to the names of superiors in a family as seen in Table
2.2. Kim (2011) even asserts that the honorific suffix -님 nim should still be attached when
referring to a speaker belonging to a superior family regardless of age or status. However, the
suffix is dropped when the speaker is referring to his or her younger siblings. Interestingly,
Lumba Jr. (2008) writes that honorific titles for elder siblings were used before World War II
 had begun, notably: diko (male) and ditse (female) for the second eldest sibling, sangko (male)
and sanse (female) for the third eldest sibling, and siko (male) and sitse (female) for the fourth
eldest sibling. These terminologies are believed to have some linguistic influence from Chinese
as they reflect on its number system (Garcia, 2018). Unfortunately, these sibling honorific
terms are already obsolete and Filipinos just plainly address elder siblings as kuya and ate in
general. In line with this, Kim (2011) expresses his concern over the immense impact that the
internet had on the usage of honorifics. Despite its survival, diminutive forms of honorific
titles have appeared. For example, students address their teacher as 샘 saem or 쌤 ssaem, which
is considered to have undergone an extreme process of contraction from the honorific title
선생님 seonsaengnim. Same goes with the usage of 아빠 appa and 엄마 emma that came
from the honorific titles 아버지 apeci ‘father’ and 어머니 emeni ‘mother’ respectively.
Moreover, Filipinos also have a variety of kinship terms, such as nanay ‘mother’, tatay ‘father’,
etc., and they are all regarded as an address form of respect. However, compared to Korean, it
can be evidently inferred that there is a lack of honorific kinship expressions and suffixes in
Tagalog.
D. Addressing strangers. In Korea, calling someone Sir or Ma’am may come out as disrespectful,
as opposed to what is implemented in Filipino culture. For instance, when a non-native speaker
publicly addresses someone in Korea as 아줌마 ahjumma, which is equivalent to Ma’am, it
might come out as offensive. Instead, familial terms are better alternatives such as 이모 imo
‘aunt’, 언니 eonni ‘elder sister’ (for female), or 누나 nuna ‘elder sister’ (for male). Meanwhile,
in the Philippines, they can be referred to as manong, mang, lolo ‘grandfather’, tatay ‘father’,
kuya ‘elder brother’, and mamâ. For women, they can be referred to as manang, lola
‘grandmother’, nanay ‘mother’, ate ‘elder sister’, tita ‘aunt’, and ale. It can be observed that
both languages have an overlapping usage of kinship terms to address those who are older in
age, despite the speakers not being blood-related (Baron, 2007). This displays a sense of
closeness that is exhibited in these hierarchical but collectivist societies.

Pronouns
Interestingly, Tagalog and Korean languages both use honorific pronouns in order to display
humility and respect during a conversation. The second-person and third-person pronouns are used by
speakers when talking towards the elderly and superiors. In Tagalog, they emphasize the grammatical
category of plurality. This includes the second-person plural pronouns of kayo and ninyo, together
with the third-person plural pronouns of sila or nila. On the contrary, Korean has five forms of second
person pronouns, namely: 너 ne, 자네 cane, 당신 dangsin, 댁 tayk and 어르신 elusin, and two forms
of third person pronouns, namely: 그 ku ‘he’ and ‘it’ and 그녀 kunye ‘she’, where adding the suffix -분
bun to 그 ku makes it more polite. Lee and Ramsey (2001) distinguishes that these honorific pronouns
are used in specific relationships and situations. Tagalog and Korean honorific pronouns also operate
in terms of level of politeness or respect. For example, third-person plural pronouns in Tagalog convey
extreme respect compared to second-person plural pronouns. Then, each form of second person
pronouns in Korean has its intrinsic level of formality as seen in Table 2.7.

Favor giving
In languages, speakers employ several terms that when they intend to ask for requests. Byon
(2017) presents varying degrees when asking for a request in Korean where it can be either direct or
informal; in some cases, the request can also be exceedingly long, indirect, and formal. He also indicates
that the level of politeness of one’s request depends on the relationship of the speaker to its requestee.
Thus, he proceeded to present 35 ways on how to make a request in Korean and concluded that the
lengthier the request, the more indirect yet polite it appears. Korean language has the regular presence
of the adverb, or also known as a hedge, 좀 com ‘a little’ which alludes to soften the speaker's request
by minimizing the addressee's required effort. This can also denote the interjection ‘please’ and adverb
‘kindly’ in one linguistic form. For example:
(a) 물 좀 주세요.
mul com cwu-seyo
water kindly please give
‘Kindly please give (me) water.’

The example is not only accompanied with 좀 com to make it as polite as possible, but also the
favor-seeking verb 주- cwu is inserted that can be attached with an intention and an address-honorific
suffix (Kim, 2011). At the example above, it used an address-honorific suffix -세요 -seyo ‘please’. In
certain circumstances, the addition of -겠 -keyss (a modal suffix that convey intention) can also make
the sentence express politeness and respect at a higher level.
Tagalog also uses similar politeness affixes when a speaker is asking for a request. The prefixes
paki- and maki- are attached to an imperative verb to express that the speaker is kindly asking someone
to grant their request or favor. Filipinos add the second position particle and verb enclitic naman
afterwards. This is almost comparable to the adverb 좀 com ‘a little’ because naman operates alike.
Thus, naman can be considered a hedge in Tagalog.
Culturally speaking, the Korean language permits indirection to express politeness when
making requests (Song, 2014). Same also applies to Tagalog.

CONCLUSION
Linguistic politeness is universally revealed in various cultures throughout the world. Sohn
(1999), as cited in Kim (2011), articulated an ardent statement regarding the existence of linguistic
expressions of politeness and its diversity, together with the cultural variables that are associated,
specifically on age, kinship, gender, social status, and occupational rank, and solidarity variables that
depend on different scales of closeness and the formality of the situation. It solidifies the idea that
language and culture cannot be separated and that society is defined by its nature and structures. In
Korea, the representative feature of politeness is the honorific phenomenon that is embedded into their
language. However, in the Philippines, its language contains different address forms and ways to
express politeness and respect towards those who are higher in rank or status, especially with the
elderly. As shown in the above analysis of linguistic expressions on how politeness is manifested in each
culture, the researchers realized that the collectivist and hierarchical orientation of Korean and Filipino
societies emerge as the principal justification for their nearly analogous cultural variations. The usage
of kinship terms to address even those who are not blood-related to the speakers, the lack of or
forbidden reference to mention the name of one’s superior, and the usage of hedge markers to express
indirectness when making a request are just some examples.
The varying degrees of politeness of Tagalog and Korean are due to their linguistic encoding as
Korean employs a grammatical encoding of the addressee-honorification process, whereas Tagalog
employs social encoding. For factors such as social distance and power, Filipino and Korean languages
give importance to intimacy and relationships as the usage of politeness markers arguably depend on
them. Overall, politeness aims to maintain harmonious relationships and cultural differences are
crucial to determine when extrapolating linguistic and socio-cultural expressions.
 REFERENCES
Anza, P. (2020). How and when to use po and opo. HubPages.
https://discover.hubpages.com/education/How-and-When-to-Use-Po-and-Opo
Axia, G. (1987). The development of social Pragmatics: Across-national study of the case of linguistic
politeness. Cambridge: MIT press.
Baron, N. S. (2007). Discourse structures in instant messaging: The case of utterance breaks. (S.
Herring, Ed.). Hampton Press.
Barrios, J. (2011). Tagalog for beginners: An introduction to Filipino, the national language of the
Philippines. Tuttle Publishing.
Batang, B. L., & Batang, R. S. (2010). Politeness and Compliments in Selected Ilocano Radio Dramas.
ISU-Cabagan Journal of Research. Retrieved from https://ejournals.ph/article.php?id=7609
Benson, J. D., Cummings, M., & Greaves, W. S. (1988). Linguistics in a systemic perspective, 264. John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bollas, A. (2013). Comparative morphology: Pronouns of Tagalog, Cebuano, and Itawis. Academia.edu.
https://www.academia.edu/4739622/Comparative_Morphology_Pronouns_of_Tagalog_Ceb
uano_and_Itawis
Bravo, D. (2005). Categorías, tipologías y aplicaciones: Hacia una redefinición de la ‘cortesía
comunicativa’. In Bravo, D. (Ed.), Estudios de la (des)cortesía en español: Categorías conceptuales
y sus aplicaciones a corpora orales y escritos, 21-52. Buenos Aires: Dunken.
Brown, L. (2010). Politeness and Second Language Learning: The case of Korean speech style. Journal of
Politeness Research 6 (2), 243-269.
Brown, P. & Levinson. S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Byon, A. S. (2017). Modern Korean grammar: A practical guide. Routledge.
Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics.
Culpeper, J. (2011). Politeness and impoliteness. In Aijmer, K., & Andersen, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics of
society, vol. 5 of Bublitz, W., Jucker, A. H., & Schneider, K. (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics.
Mouton de Gruyter, 391-436.
Dumaraos, G. (2022). Things you should know about Filipino culture. Culture Trip.
https://theculturetrip.com/asia/philippines/articles/11-things-you-should-know-about-the-fili
pino-culture/
Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14 (2), 219-36.
Gan, A., David, M., & Dumanig, F. (2015). Politeness strategies and address forms used by Filipino
domestic. Language in India. http://www.languageinindia.com/jan2015/ariespoliteness.pdf
Garcia, M. A. (2018). Filipino terms of endearment: Articles. Puerto Parrot.
https://www.puertoparrot.com/articles/filipino-terms-of-endearment
Glushkova, S. (2018). Politeness in English and Chinese greetings as cultural reflection: Semantic scholar.
Revista San Gregorio.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Politeness-In-English-And-Chinese-Greetings-As-Gl
ushkova/1ccdcc7767fc9eac900961166bc7ec6ff9cb38aa
Goffman, E. (1974). “On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction” in Blount, B.
J. (ed.). Language, Culture and Society: A Book of Readings. Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop
Publishers, Inc., 224-49.
Hernández Flores, N. (2004). La cortesía como búsqueda de equilibrio de la imagen social. In Bravo,
D., & Briz Gómez, A. (Eds.), Pragmática sociocultural: Estudios sobre el discurso de cortesía en
español, 95-108. Ariel.
Hofstede, G. H. (1984). Culture's consequences, international differences in work-related values. Sage.
Holmes, J. (2008). An introduction to sociolinguistics (3rd ed.). Pearson Longman.
Hwang, J.-R. (1990). 'Deference’ versus ‘Politeness’ in Korean Speech. International Journal of the
Sociology of Language 82(1), 41-55.
Kim, A. H.-O. (2011). Politeness in Korea. Politeness in East Asia, 176–207.
https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511977886.010
Kim, J.-N. (2003). The meaning and usage of the Korean pronoun wuli. In Korean Semantics,
257–274.
Kinnison, L. Q. (2012). Politeness in East Asia. Asian Ethnicity, 14(1), 121–125.
doi:10.1080/14631369.2012.72245
Ko, L.-Y. (2018). How polite you are: A study of learners’ politeness strategies used in avatars in the second
life virtual world. Journal of Education & Social Policy, 5(4).
https://doi.org/10.30845/jesp.v5n4p20
Lee, H.-K. (2015). A corpus-pragmatic analysis of Wuli. dbpia.
https://www.dbpia.co.kr/Journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE06590047
Lee, I. & Ramsey, S. R. (2001). The Korean Language, 224-267. State University of New York Press.
Lee, K.-M. & Ramsey, S. R. (2011). A history of the Korean language.
https://altaica.ru/LIBRARY/KOREAN/Lee%20Ramsey_A%20history%20of%20the%20kore
an%20language.pdf
Lumba Jr., A. (2008). Filipino sibling hierarchy. Jon's Other Blog.
https://jonsquared.wordpress.com/2008/04/23/filipino-sibling-hierarchy/
Nwoye, O.G. (1992). Linguistic politeness and sociocultural variation of the notion of face. Journal of
Pragmatics.
Richer, K. (2020). Korean honorifics: Suffixes, titles, pronouns, verbs and more. LingoDeer Blog.
https://blog.lingodeer.com/korean-honorifics/#Pronouns_of_Korean_Honorifics
Schachter, P. (2003). Tagalog. The world's major languages, 936–958.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203214961-47
Sohn, H-M. (1999). The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Song, S-H. (2012). Politeness and Culture in Second Language Acquisition. Palgrave Macmillan.
Song, S-H. (2014). Politeness in Korea and America: A comparative analysis of request strategy in
English communication. Korea Open Access Journals.
http://dx.doi.org/10.25024/kj.2014.54.1.6
Wong, K. Y. (2011). The system of honorifics in the Korean language. OAPS. City University of Hong
Kong, CityU Institutional Repository.
http://lbms03.cityu.edu.hk/oaps/ctl2011-4235-wky201.pdf
Wright, D. N. (2003). Can a cognitive approach offer a solution to the question of universals in linguistic
politeness?. http://teflsmiler.typepad.com/web-log/files/pragmatics_essay.pdf.
Yule, G. (2010). The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.