TEAM IDENTITY AND POLITENESS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE

PHILIPPINES DILIMAN STUDENT COUNCIL ELECTION STANDARD BEARERS’

SPEECH IN PHILIPPINE COLLEGIAN INTERVIEWS

Gabrielle Yvonne Garra Amper

An Undergraduate Thesis presented to the

Department of English and Comparative Literature
College of Arts and Letters
University of the Philippines Diliman

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of
Bachelor of Arts in English Studies: Language

Maria Corazon S.A. Castro, Ph.D

Adviser

December 2018
 ii

DECLARATION

I declare that the work contained in this file is my own, unless otherwise acknowledged. No
substantial part of this work has been submitted by me to other journals or publications.

Gabrielle Yvonne Garra Amper

Author
 v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to the following people whose presence and
continued support contributed to the completion of this thesis:

Dr. Maria Corazon S.A. Castro, my adviser, for patiently guiding me through the process
of completing this study and for giving me helpful advice to improve my research. Without your
patience, wisdom, and understanding, I would not have had the courage and determination to
finish my thesis. Thank you very much.

Dr. Lalaine F. Yanilla Aquino, my critic, and Mr. Paolo Sandicho, my panelist, for the
insightful comments and suggestions that helped in the betterment of my research.

The UP Sigma Alpha Sorority and UP Lingua Franca for always checking up on me and
for hearing me out whenever I felt like talking about my thesis; you helped me flesh out some of
the most important ideas I had for my study.

My parents, Ernestine Amper and Migs Amper, for constantly encouraging me and
patiently waiting for me to finish my studies. Thank you for your support through the years.

Vanessa for being a dear friend I can always talk to whenever I felt too pressured or too
stressed out. Thanks for taking my mind off of things even just for a little while.

MJ for always asking me if I am doing my thesis already or not, counting down the days
and hours until a deadline, and for being a soundboard for my rants and problems. Thanks for
believing in me, bro.

Zara for listening to my ideas and supporting me at work. I also really appreciated it
when you took time from your day-off to give me moral support on the day of my thesis defense.

Lastly, I would like to thank Daryl Libongco for his never-ending patience, love, and
support for the past two years. Thank you for being there during my highs and lows, for buying
me food, for going out on thesis-related errands for me, and just for always being there whenever
I needed you. I seriously don’t think I would have finished this without you. Thank you for being
my pillar of support.
 vi

ABSTRACT

According to former UP Diliman Chancellor Caesar Saloma, “UP is a microcosm of the

larger society.” This study examines the politeness strategies and self-presentation strategies

used by the University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman University Student Council standard

bearers of each political party during the campaign period. The standard bearers’ speeches in The

Philippine Collegian Go Out and Vote election special interviews were analyzed to unlock how

the linguistic strategies they used affect the identities being projected by the political parties

through the speeches of their candidates.

This study employed an equal-status, mixed methods research design and a framework

adapted from Michael Halliday’s Field-Tenor-Mode model in analyzing the speeches of the

candidates in a specific politico-electoral context. Aside from the speeches from The Philippine

Collegian, data from each political party’s social media posts and separate online focus-group

discussions with political party officers and unaffiliated participants were also analyzed to

provide further insight into the context of the situation and the perceived and projected identities

of each political party.

The results of the study show that all political party standard bearers, regardless of

political affiliation, used the same kind of politeness strategies (positive) because of the type of

speech being utilized in this context: an argumentative-persuasive speech. However, the nuances

of the specific politeness strategies as well as the differences in the prevalent self-presentation

strategies they used allow political parties to project an identity that is distinct from one another.

Keywords: politeness, linguistic strategies, face, identity, context of the situation, politics,

rhetoric
“Language is the currency of politics.”

Amber E. Boydston
Associate Professor of Political Science
University of California, Davis
 viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Title Page i
Declaration ii
Thesis Defense Notice iii
Approval Sheet iv
Acknowledgments v
Abstract vi
Epigram vii
Table of Contents viii
List of Tables xi
List of Figures xii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Study 1
Statement of the Problem 2
Hypotheses 3
Objectives 4
Significance of the Problem 5
Scope and Delimitation 6
Definition of Terms 7

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 10

Erving Goffman‟s Presentation of the Self 10
Jones and Pittman‟s Taxonomy of Self-Presentation Strategies 12
The Four Models of Politeness 13
The Conversational-Maxim View 14
The Conversational-Contract View 17
The Face-Saving View 18
Assessment of the Politeness Models 19
Back to Goffman: The Individual and Team Performance 20
Practices in the Philippine Government and the UP Diliman Student Government 21
Review of Related Studies 23
Synthesis 26

CHAPTER III: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 27

Malinowski, Firth, and Halliday: Context of the Situation 27
Contextual Analysis using Field, Tenor, and Mode Framework 28
Jones and Pittman‟s Self-Presentation Strategies 30
Brown and Levinson‟s Model of Politeness 32
 ix

Erving Goffman‟s Team Identity and the “Stage” 35

Goffman Applied to the Dynamics of UPD Student Politics during Campaigns 35
Conceptual Framework 36

CHAPTER IV: METHODOLOGY 38

Research Paradigm 38
Procedures for Data Collection 38
Selection of Text 39
Interview Transcripts 41
Description of Philippine Collegian Interview Set-up 41
“Party Profiles” and Recent Publicity Materials of Political Parties 44
Focus Group Discussions 45
Description of Participants 46
Online Focus Groups (OFGs) 47
Conducting Asynchronous Online Focus Groups 49
Rationale of Questions Asked in the OFGs 50
Data Analysis Procedures 53
Flowchart of Research Procedures 54

CHAPTER IV: PRESENTATION OF ANALYSIS AND DATA 55

The Context According to Halliday‟s Framework 55
The Political Party and Their Projected Identity 58
STAND UP 60
UP Alyansa 63
KAISA UP 65
Perceived Identity: The Political Parties and Their Constituents‟ Perception 67
STAND UP 68
UP Alyansa 71
KAISA UP 72
Prevalent Politeness Strategies Used by Political Party Standard Bearers 73
Code Summary 73
Excluded Strategy: Hedges and Questions (-P2) 75
STAND UP 77
UP Alyansa 84
KAISA UP 90
Similarities and Differences of Prevalent Politeness Strategies 96
Other Notable Politeness Strategies Used by Political Party SBs 100
Positive Politeness Strategies 100
Negative Politeness Strategies 109
Off-record and Bald-on Record Utterances 113
Prevalent Self-Presentation Strategies in the Standard Bearers‟ Speeches 117
 x

STAND UP 119
UP Alyansa 123
KAISA UP 126
Summary: Identities Constructed by the Political Parties 128
Synthesis 129

CHAPTER V: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 131

Summary of Findings 131
Context of the Situation 131
Political Party Identity based on Prevalent Politeness Strategies in Speech 132
Political Party Identity based on Prevalent Self-Presentation Strategies 134
in Speech
Implications 136
Language Studies 136
Politeness Theory: Brown and Levinson‟s Politeness Model 136
Educators of English 10 (College English) 137
Political Campaign Teams and Managers 138
Recommendations 139

WORKS CITED 141

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Brown and Levinson‟s Politeness Strategies 147
Appendix B: Permissions 166
Appendix C: Copy of Philippine Collegian‟s “Go Out and Vote” Pages 172
Appendix D: Encoded Analysis of Interviews 178
Appendix E: 2013-2017 Party Profiles and Recent Facebook Posts 229
Appendix F: Online Focus Group Schedule 244
Appendix G: Transcription of Online Focus Group Discussions 257
Appendix H: UP Diliman University Student Council Campaign Period 274
 xi

LIST OF TABLES
Number Title Page
1 Frequency of Politeness Strategies Used by STAND UP Standard Bearers, 78
Arranged in Descending Order (2013-2017)

2 Frequency of Politeness Strategies Used by UP Alyansa Standard Bearers, 84

Arranged in Descending Order (2013-2017)

3 Frequency of Politeness Strategies Used by KAISA UP Standard Bearers, 91

Arranged in Descending Order (2013-2015, 2017)

4 Frequency of the Seven Politeness Strategies That Appeared in All Political 96

Parties‟ Top Four Lists of Most Prevalent Strategies (2013-2017)

5 Frequency of Positive Politeness Strategies in All Political Party SBs‟ 101

Speeches (2013-2017)

6 Frequency of Negative Politeness Strategies in All Political Party SBs‟ 109

Speeches (2013-2017)

7 Frequency of Off-Record and Bald-on Record Utterances in All Political 113

Party SBs‟ Speeches (2013-2017)

8 Frequency of Self-promotion, Exemplification, and Exemplification + Self- 118

promotion Combination Strategies in All Political Party SBs‟ Speeches
(2013-2017).

9 Frequency of Self-presentation Strategies in STAND UP SBs‟ Speeches 119

(2013-2017).

10 Frequency of Self-presentation Strategies in UP Alyansa SBs‟ Speeches 123

(2013-2017).

11 Frequency of Self-presentation Strategies in KAISA UP SBs‟ Speeches 126

(2013-2017).
 xii

LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Page

1 A taxonomy of self-presentation strategies classified by attribution sought 30

(Jones and Pittman 249).
2 Possible strategies for doing FTAs (Brown and Levinson 1987:69) 34; 147

3 Conceptual Framework 36

4 (From left to right) Covers of the “Go Out and Vote” Issues 2013 to 2017 40

5 Interview questions for standard bearers in year 2013 41

6 Interview questions for standard bearers in year 2014 42

7 Interview questions for standard bearers in year 2015 42

8 Interview questions for standard bearers in year 2016 43

9 Interview questions for standard bearers in year 2017 43

10 KAISA UP 2017 slate poster. Photo courtesy of KAISA UP (2017). 58

11 UP Alyansa 2017 slate poster. Photo courtesy of UP Alyansa (2017). 59

12 STAND UP 2017 slate poster. Photo courtesy of STAND UP (2017). 59

13 The 3 Vice Chairperson candidates wearing their political party colors and 60
coordinated nametags. Photo courtesy of the Philippine Collegian (2017).
14 STAND UP Facebook posts from 1 Aug. 2017 to 8 Apr. 2018, includes only 62
original posts, not shared posts and links. Chart courtesy of Chad Booc (2018).
15 UP Alyansa Facebook posts from 1 Aug. 2017 to 8 Apr. 2018, includes only 65
original posts, not shared posts and links. Chart courtesy of Chad Booc (2018).
16 KAISA UP Facebook posts from 1 Aug. 2017 to 8 Apr. 2018, includes only 67
original posts, not shared posts and links. Chart courtesy of Chad Booc (2018).
17 Distribution of politeness strategies used by each political party standard bearer 97
from 2013 to 2017.
18 Chart of strategies: Negative politeness (Brown and Levinson 131) 155
 xiii

No. Title Page

19 Chart of strategies: Off record (Brown and Levinson 214) 159

20 The Discussion page also serves as the group„s main page 246

21 Default post window 247

22 Poll post window 247

23 “Add File” (enclosed in red box) and “Create Doc” (enclosed in blue box) are 248
found under “More”
24 Facebook reactions (enclosed in blue box, from left to right): Like, Love, Haha, 249
Wow, Sad, Angry
25 STAND UP Standard Bearers Ben Te and Shari Oliquino during an RTR. 275
Photo courtesy of Bea Selina Velasco (2017).
26 (From left to right, top to bottom) KAISA UP, STAND UP, and UP Alyansa 276
candidates after their video interviews at the Philippine Collegian office. Photos
courtesy of the Philippine Collegian (2017).
27 (From left to right) Party chairpersons Marlina Carlos (KAISA UP) and Mench 276
Tilendo (STAND UP) talk about Halalan UPD 2016. Photos taken from DZUP
Radio Circle YouTube videos (2016).
28 USC Councilor candidate Tolits Tanaka (3rd person from the left) after a DZUP 277
program strip during the 2015 elections. Photo courtesy of Samahang Bidang
Bida sa DZUP 1602 (2015).
29 Political party standard bearers in UPFront 2017. Photo courtesy of The UP 277
Economics Society (2017).
30 Students lining up outside Cine Adarna for UPFront 2017. Photo courtesy of 278
The UP Economics Society (2017).
31 KAISA UP‟s USC Councilor candidate Yael Toribio during Hot Off The Grill. 278
Photo courtesy of the Philippine Collegian (2016).
32 UP Alyansa and STAND UP„s vice chairperson candidates during Kape o USC: 279
The Dorm Forum at Yakal Residence Hall. Photo courtesy of the Philippine
Collegian (2016)
 xiv

No. Title Page

33 UP Alyansa and their supporters during the 2015 USC elections miting de 279
avance. Photo courtesy of Jeff Crisostomo (2015)
34 Vice Chairperson 2016 candidate Vince Liban talking in Alyansa Proclamation 280
Rally. Photo courtesy of UP Alyansa (2016)
 Amper 1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

The Philippines is known to have one of the ―worst‖ bureaucracies in the world, ranking

third in Asia (Ho, ―Why the Philippines Rates among the Worst Bureaucracies in Asia‖).

Philippine politics is wrought with political dynasties, celebrity politicians, corruption,

inefficiency, and mismanagement of priorities, among others.

The University of the Philippines (UP) is popularly referred to as the microcosm of

Philippine society, originally coined by UP Diliman Chancellor Caesar Saloma in his address to

the general assembly of the Small Enterprises Research and Development Foundation in 2011

(―Third World Studies Center Launches its 2012 Public Forum Series‖). Coincidentally, UP also

produces the lot of the leaders, lawmakers, and decision-makers the country has, which include

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (executive branch), Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Loren Legarda

(legislative branch), and Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno (judicial branch). In addition, there are

stark similarities between how the Philippine government and the UP Diliman University

Student Council (UPD USC) operate. Firstly, like the Philippine government, the UPD USC

follows the multi-party system, where the three political parties that dominate the university-

wide elections are STAND UP, UP Alyansa, and KAISA UP. Secondly, the UPD USC also

experiences problems in terms of making unified decisions and stances on issues such as the

Socialized Tuition System (ST System) and the Bangsamoro Basic Law. The cause of this might

be that its members belong to different political parties with equally differing beliefs. Lastly,
 Amper 2

members of the political parties clash with one another in social media, general assemblies, and

political forums.

One of the objectives of this study is to determine what politeness and self-presentation

strategies political candidates use in their speech to create such an impression on voters that

either affect the voters‘ decision to vote for the candidates or not. This research would

particularly examine the answers of the respective political parties‘ standard bearers in their

interview with The Philippine Collegian, UP‘s official student publication, for the said strategies.

Analyzing these strategies would determine the role they play in purposefully shaping the self-

image of the candidates and their political parties. It is hoped that the results of this study would

shed light on the beliefs and advocacies each of these politicians represent as projected through

their speech.

Statement of the Problem

The major problem that this research seeks to answer is: How do the politeness strategies

used by the UPD USC Elections standard bearers in The Philippine Collegian interview

transcripts affect their political party‘s identity?

In relation to the major problem, this research also tries to answer these three minor problems:

1. For each standard bearer representing their political party, what politeness and self-

presentation strategies are prevalent in the interview transcripts?

2. What identity are the political parties projecting through the politeness and self-

presentation strategies their standard bearers used?

3. How does the occurrence of politeness and self-presentation strategies relate to the

identity of the political party?

 Amper 3

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses are formulated in connection to the problems stated in the

preceding section:

1. a. The prevalent politeness strategies in the interview transcripts of standard bearers

from:

i. STAND-UP are bald-on record strategies.

ii. UP Alyansa are negative politeness strategies.

iii. KAISA UP are positive politeness strategies.

b. The most evident self-presentation strategies exhibited in the speeches by the standard

bearers from:

i. STAND-UP are intimidation and exemplification.

ii. UP Alyansa are ingratiation and self-promotion.

iii. KAISA UP are self-promotion and exemplification.

2. The following are the identities the political parties project through the prevalent

politeness strategies their standard bearers used:

a. STAND UP, whose standard bearers use bald-on record strategies, intimidation,

and exemplification, is generally composed of members who are ―direct, clear,

and concise (Brown and Levinson 69)‖ in voicing out their beliefs. Their use of

strategies complements their ―no-compromises‖ attitude during elections.

b. UP Alyansa, whose standard bearers employ negative politeness strategies,

ingratiation, and self-promotion, gives importance to an individual‘s power over

oneself, the individual experiences each person possesses, and freedom from

imposition. Their employment of strategies complements their campaign for

 Amper 4

multi-perspective activism, which values diversity and does not impose a singular

form of activism.

c. KAISA UP, whose standard bearers use positive politeness strategies, self-

promotion, and exemplification, encourages solidarity by seeking agreement from

their constituents. Their use of strategies complements their campaign for

collective action.

3. The purpose/rationale behind the use of specific politeness and self-presentation

strategies of standard bearers reflects and even determines the identity of their respective

political parties.

How the political parties present themselves to the public in different media, particularly

their social media posts and their descriptions of what their respective parties are, among others,

were also considered in constructing the hypotheses for this study. In addition, the formulation of

the hypotheses above was also influenced by the preliminary observations and background the

researcher has on student politics in UP Diliman. Scrutinizing and analyzing the data with an

objective eye is a must. Though making personal inferences was sometimes unavoidable,

measures were taken to ensure objectivity in analyzing the data.

Objectives

In undertaking this study, there are three specific objectives that need to be met. The

study seeks to determine what and which type of politeness strategies and self-presentation

strategies are prevalent in the standard bearers‘ interview transcripts through Brown and

Levinson‘s Politeness Model and Jones and Pittman‘s Theory of Impression Management and
 Amper 5

Self Presentation. This necessitates the application of a frequency count to account for the

occurrences of the linguistic strategies. Second, the study seeks to connect the use of these

strategies to Erving Goffman‘s notion of team identity. Lastly, the study‘s goal is to give a

description of each political party‘s identity based on their speech, particularly, the linguistic

strategies they used.

Significance of the Problem

The framework of this study provides a new perspective in analyzing political speeches.

It focuses on the value of politeness rather than traditional rhetoric (persuasive strategies) to

assess a speech and determine a political party‘s projected identity. In the field of

sociolinguistics, the study contributes its framework that takes into account the cultural context

in which the speeches were uttered and includes the context as a vital factor to analyze the text.

Politeness and face-saving were selected as points of interest because of their importance in

Filipino culture. In Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use, Brown and Levinson used

their politeness framework in various languages to prove that it can be applied to different socio-

cultural contexts. This study aims to test their claim and to further contribute to the field of cross-

cultural pragmatics.

The UP Diliman University Student Council Elections exhibits the intriguing power of

words, where the candidates or the party with the strongest branding, wittiest taglines, and

excellent public speakers often emerge as winners. This study serves as a reminder to student

voters to listen beyond the tagline and to analyze their student leaders‘ words deeply.

Though this study is limited to determining the politeness and self-presentation strategies

of politicians inside the UP Diliman student government during elections, the process of
 Amper 6

analyzing their speech can actually be extended to officials seated in the Philippine government.

It is important that voters know that one of the ways in which politicians shape their public

image is through the manipulation of speech. Scrutinizing our nation‘s leaders should be a

common and critical practice of every citizen. Taking candidates at face value may result in a

great disservice to the fate of the country and its people. This research presents a way for voters

to analyze politicians aspiring for government office not only in the UP student council elections,

but also in the nationwide elections.

Scope and Delimitation

The study takes a mixed methods research approach to confirm or disprove the

hypotheses presented above. Though most of the data for this research is qualitative (the standard

bearers‘ interviews, the publicity materials of each political party, and the results from the focus

group discussions that were conducted), as it is concerned with the description of language use in

a particular context, the researcher finds it necessary to employ quantitative data (from the

frequency counting) to complement the qualitative aspects of the study. A combination of

convenience and purposive sampling was used for recruiting participants for the online focus

group discussions that were conducted. The target participants of the focus group discussions

have specific qualifications such as being a member of the executive council of a political party

and having experienced and observed the UP Diliman University Student Council elections for a

number of years. The availability and interest of participants is also a factor in why this sampling

method was employed.

The text that was examined is limited to the transcribed interviews in The Philippine

Collegian ―Go Out and Vote‖ election specials from the years 2013 to 2017. This time period
 Amper 7

was chosen because the recording of interviews in video and them being made available to the

public on YouTube and/or Facebook was only started in 2013 and continues on today.

Though in the previous section, there was mention that this study contributes to the

Philippine political discourse at large, it is important to qualify that this research views politeness

only with respect to the UP community and the conventions of its own political sphere,

particularly in the context of the campaign and election period.

Definition of Terms

Discourse – 1
are ―actual instances of communicative action in the medium of language,‖

(Johnstone qtd. in Bloomaert, 2005: 2); 2 is ―a mode of organizing knowledge, ideas, or

experience that is rooted in language and its concrete contexts‖ (Merriam-Webster

Dictionary).

Discourse Analysis – is a methodology that answers questions that focus on human life and

communication (such as anthropology, cultural studies, sociology, etc.) by examining the

aspects of the structure and function of language use (Johnstone 4, 7).

Face – 1 is ―the positive social value that a person effectively claims for himself… an image of

self-delineated in terms of approved social attributes (Goffman 5)‖; 2 is something that is

managed in interaction through the use of politeness strategies (Brown and Levinson 61).

Identity – (1) is a person‘s ―qualities, beliefs, etc. that make a particular individual or group

different from others; or (2) ―the distinguishing character or personality of an individual

[or group] (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).‖ This study views Goffman‘s concept of

―face‖ as one and the same; refers to the entry for ―Face.‖
 Amper 8

Interview – refers to the interviews conducted by the Philippine Collegian featuring each

political party‘s standard bearers. These interviews produced the interview transcripts or

the Speeches that will be examined in this study.

Negative Face – is the want of every ‗competent adult member‘ that his actions be unimpeded

by others (Brown and Levinson 62).

Negative Politeness – ―is oriented mainly toward partially satisfying (redressing) H‘s negative

face, his basic want to maintain claims of territory and self-determination,‖ (Brown and

Levinson 70).

Philippine Collegian – is the official student publication of the University of the Philippines; the

editions/issues that were analyzed in this study are the ―Go Out and Vote‖ Election

Specials from years 2013 to 2017.

Politeness – is a strategy that counteracts the potential face damage of a face-threatening act in

such a way that indicates there is no such face threat intended or desired, enacted via

positive and negative styles of redress (Brown and Levinson 69-70).

Political party – refers to UPD student political parties (STAND UP, UP Alyansa, UP KAISA)

Positive Face – the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others

(Brown and Levinson 62)

Positive politeness – ―is oriented toward the positive face of H, the positive self-image that he

claims for himself,‖ (Brown and Levinson 70).

Speech – refers to the entry for ―Interview.‖

Standard bearers – in the UP student government structure, are composed of candidates

running for chairperson and vice-chairperson of their university-wide or college-based

student councils.
 Amper 9

Team – is ―comprised of individuals who ‗cooperate‘ in a performance, attempting to achieve

goals sanctioned by the group,‖ (Goffman 78).

 Amper 10

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter is a discussion of the theories and principles of politeness, self-presentation,

and identity. Specifically, this chapter focuses on the current models of politeness and assesses

which of the models would be most appropriate to use for this study. This chapter traces

politeness theory‘s roots from Erving Goffman‘s concept of ―face‖ and ―face-saving,‖ which this

study interprets as ―identity‖ and ―projecting identity‖ which is desirable to other participants in

society, respectively. Jones and Pittman‘s self-presentation strategies, also inspired by Goffman

and are used to maintain the ―face,‖ are similar to Brown and Levinson‘s politeness strategies.

Given these associations, this study came to hypothesize that politeness and self-presentation

strategies may reflect and even beget identities. These identities can be understood in a particular

context, which, for this study, is the context of UP Diliman student politics. To understand the

wider context of Philippine politics, a brief discussion of election practices in the Philippines will

also be included in this chapter.

The following section discusses Erving Goffman‘s notion of the ―face‖ and how social

interactions are considered a performance, also a very fitting metaphor for politics.

Erving Goffman’s Presentation of the Self

Goffman‘s most important contribution is his use of the dramaturgical metaphor that

provided a new perspective on how we see social interactions. In this lens, participants of an

interaction are seen as actors rather than ―real‖ people. The world, then, is a stage but ―all the

world is not, of course, a stage, but the crucial ways in which it isn‘t is not easy to specify.‖ In
 Amper 11

this world of actors, it is all about the performance. The performance is the medium in which the

actor expresses himself, and in the process, gives off impressions (4). The performance and the

impressions an actor gives off make up the ―self-image‖ or identity he projects to the

environment he is in.

The section in his book ―Arts of Impression Management‖ presents self-presentation

strategies that people employ to sustain impressions, and, in extension, relations, and the

common contingencies associated with the employment of these techniques. In this respect, we

can assume that the use of these strategies is a way in which an individual projects his identity to

others, and is in fact a crucial tool in shaping his ―self-image.‖

Goffman, in On Facework: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction,

highlights three types of self-presentation strategies: tact, the avoidance process, and the

corrective process. Being tactful and providing various hints are procedures that people use in

social interaction. Reciprocal self-denial, running oneself down, praising the other, and negative

bargaining are all under the Tact strategy. The Avoidance Process involves avoidance of

situations with possible threats, go-betweens, and withdrawal or defensive maneuvers. Protective

maneuvers, on the other hand, involve show of respect, politeness, and discretion. Having tactful

blindness, another avoidance strategy, denies what occurs to minimize effects or loss of control

of the situation (17-18).

Lastly, the use of corrective process strategies stems from ritual disequilibrium or an

individual‘s disgrace. The face of an individual is then subject to the re-establishment of ritual

equilibrium. The four classic strategies for the corrective process are challenging (which takes on

responsibility for noting misconduct), offering the self to make up for misconduct, acceptance,

and giving thanks (19-23).

 Amper 12

Jones and Pittman developed a taxonomy inspired by Goffman‘s strategies as articulated

in their essay ―Toward a General Theory of Self-Presentation.‖ These strategies will be discussed

in the next section.

Jones and Pittman’s Taxonomy of Self-Presentation Strategies

Jones and Pittman‘s taxonomy includes self-promotion, ingratiation, exemplification,

intimidation, and supplication. Self-promotion occurs when individuals call attention to their

accomplishments to be perceived as capable by observers. Ingratiation occurs when individuals

use favors or flattery to obtain an attribution of likability from observers. Exemplification occurs

when individuals go above and beyond what is necessary or expected to be perceived as

committed or hardworking. Intimidation occurs when individuals project their power or ability to

punish to be viewed as dangerous and powerful. Last, supplication occurs when individuals

present their weaknesses or deficiencies to receive compassion and assistance from others (Jones

and Pittman 249; Lewis and Neighbors 2005: 470-471).

Other researchers have expanded this taxonomy to include other self-presentation tactics

such as excuses, apologies, justifications, disclaimers, self-handicapping, entitlement,

sandbagging, enhancement, and blasting. Lewis and Neighbors summarize each strategy‘s

function below:

Excuses, apologies, and justifications serve similar functions.

Individuals use excuses to deny responsibility for negative events
(Tedeschi & Lindskold, 1976). Individuals use apologies when they
confess to responsibility for harm done to others or negative events or to
express guilt and remorse (Tedeschi & Lindskold). Apologies are
sometimes used to help restore or to defend an image that has been
threatened. Individuals use justifications to provide reasons for negative
behaviors while accepting some responsibility (Scott & Lyman, 1990).
Individuals use disclaimers to explain problems before they occur
(Hewitt & Stokes, 1975). Self-handicapping, entitlement, sandbagging,
enhancement, and blasting are also self-presentation strategies. Self-
 Amper 13

handicapping occurs when individuals produce obstacles to success with

the purpose of preventing observers from making dispositional
inferences about one's failure (Berglas & Jones, 1978). Entitlement
occurs when individuals take credit for positive achievements (Tedeschi
& Lindskold, 1976). Sandbagging occurs when individuals make false
claims of inability or engage in a fake demonstration to create low
expectations of their performance. Enhancement occurs when individuals
persuade others that the outcomes of their behaviors are better than they
might have originally believed (Schlenker, 1980). Finally, blasting
occurs when individuals associate themselves with another person or
group who is seen positively by others or individuals assert the worth of
a group to which they are positively linked (Cialdini & Richardson,
1980).

Although complementary to this study‘s assumption that identity can be expressed

through strategies of self-presentation, Jones and Pittman‘s taxonomy is not detailed and

sufficient enough on its own to be used to evaluate large volumes of text and produce a

comprehensive analysis and description of how strategies can and are used to project an identity.

We look to politeness models for more elaborate frameworks that can fulfill the objective this

study demands.

The Four Models of Politeness

Politeness, as a way of speaking and a set of rules governing speech, is different for each

culture and social group. Currently, there are four frameworks through which the concept of

politeness can be approached.

The first approach, more commonly known for its association to ―good manners,‖ is the

social-norm view. It reflects the historical understanding of politeness generally embraced by the

English-speaking community. It assumes that each society has a set of explicit rules that

prescribe a certain behavior, state of affairs, or way of life. A positive evaluation (polite

behavior) arises when the behavior exhibited by an individual is the norm while a negative

evaluation (impolite behavior; rudeness) is given when the action is contrary (Fraser 220).
 Amper 14

―Polite behavior‖ is often proliferated through instructional or etiquette books, especially in the

19th-20th century. Politeness is then strongly associated to speech style and a higher degree of

formality.

To expose the inadequacy of this view as a framework for sociological analysis, one must

be reminded of a particular experiment by Garfinkel in the 1970s in which students were

instructed to behave ―more politely than usual‖ to their families and observe their reactions.

Most of the students equated politeness with a higher degree of formality towards others, and

they reported that their unexpected actions were interpreted as impoliteness, arrogance, or

sarcasm (220).

This view is still extant today, but most linguists and researchers, if not all, do not adhere

to this simplistic and synthetic notion of politeness. The theoretical frameworks that will be

discussed in the next section are based on current linguistic literature.

The Conversational-Maxim View

The conversational-maxim view was derived from Paul Grice‘s now classic paper Logic

and Conversation. Grice argued that conversationalists are rational beings who are primarily

interested in conveying messages in the most efficient way possible. The Cooperative Principle

(CP), in simple terms, ―provides that you should say what you have to say, when you have to say

it, and the way you have to say it (Fraser 222).‖ The two main adherents to the CP and the

concept of conversational implicature are Robin Lakoff and Geoffrey Leech. Both focused on the

aspect of politeness and constructed separate frameworks that take off from CP.

Robin Lakoff is popular for her work Language and Woman’s Place that dealt with

politeness with respect to the differing politeness styles women and men exhibit. However, even
 Amper 15

before this work was published she had a considerable number of articles that expressed how she

conceptualized the phenomenon of politeness as ―minding your p‘s and q‘s (Watts 58-59).‖

Lakoff‘s study is primarily a prescription of pragmatic rules that classify utterances as either

pragmatically well-formed or not (Lakoff 1973:296). In her latter works, she was more specific

in stating that politeness is ―a device used in order to reduce friction in personal interaction

(1979: 64).‖

This pragmatic well-formedness is traceable to her notion of Pragmatic Competence

which gives two rules: (1) be clear (which is technically a simplified interpretation of the CP);

and (2) be polite. She takes this as in opposition with each other, and she provides three sub-rules

for (2) which are: (2a) don‘t impose; (2b) give options; and (2c) make a feel good. Lakoff‘s

model, with its vague conceptualization of politeness, the fact that the observation of either Rule

1 or 2 means the cancellation of the other, and rigidity of the rules that govern supposedly

naturally-occurring conversation, was met with disapproval.

Geoffrey Leech‘s model, like Lakoff, adopts but grandly elaborates the framework Grice

initially set out. Contrary to Lakoff‘s proposal that politeness and clarity are adversarial, Leech

sees the Cooperative Principle and the Politeness Principle (PP) which he theorized are

complementary. Leech‘s Principle of Politeness states that, ―other things being equal, minimize

the expression of beliefs which are unfavorable to the hearer but at the same time maximize the

expression of beliefs which are favorable to the hearer (Fraser 225).‖

Leech proposes six (or seven) Maxims of Politeness, worth quoting in full below (Leech

84-136):

(1) Tact Maxim: Minimize hearer costs; maximize hearer benefit.

([1a] Meta Maxim: Do not put others in a position where they have to
break the Tact Maxim.)
(2) Generosity Maxim: Minimize your own benefit; maximize your
hearer's benefit.
 Amper 16

(3) Approbation Maxim: Minimize hearer dispraise; maximize hearer

praise.
(4) Modesty Maxim: Minimize self-praise; maximize self-dispraise.
(5) Agreement Maxim: Minimize disagreement between yourself and
others; maximize agreement between yourself and others.
(6) Sympathy Maxim: Minimize antipathy between yourself and others;
maximize sympathy between yourself and others.

Leech further posits that each maxim has a set of scales (never defined in any specificity)

which must be consulted by the speaker in determining, for example, the degree of Tact or

Generosity in a given situation. These scales are outlined below (Leech 123-126):

(1) Cost-Benefit Scale: Represents the cost or benefit of an act to the

speaker and hearer
(2) Optionality Scale: Represents the relevant illocutions, ordered by the
amount of choice which the speaker permits the hearer
(3) Indirectness Scale: Represents the relevant illocutions, ordered in
terms of hearer 'work' to infer speaker intention
(4) Authority Scale: Represents the relative right for speaker to impose
wishes on the hearer
(5) Social Distance Scale: Represents the degree of familiarity between
the speaker and hearer

Leech also distinguishes between Relative Politeness and Absolute Politeness, where the

former is politeness in a specific context while the latter refers to the degree of politeness

inherently present in a speaker‘s actions. This implicates that some illocutions and linguistic

forms used to express them are inherently polite or impolite. With this, he qualifies Negative

Politeness as minimizing impoliteness in impolite illocutions and Positive Politeness as

maximizing politeness in polite illocutions. Leech goes further to propose that, because of its

force, an utterance will require different kinds and degrees of politeness, and suggests that there

are four main illocutionary functions according to how ―they relate to the social goal of

establishing and maintaining comity (Leech qtd. in Fraser 1983: 104-105):‖

(1) Competitive: involving acts such as ordering, asking, demanding,

begging, where negative politeness is required in order to reduce the
"discord implicit in the competition between what the speaker wants to
achieve and what is 'good manners'"
(2) Convivial: involving acts such as offering, inviting, greeting,
thanking, congratulating, where positive politeness may be called for.
 Amper 17

(3) Collaborative: involving acts such as asserting, reporting,

announcing, instructing, where the illocutionary goal is "indifferent to
the social goal", and politeness is seen to be "largely irrelevant".
(4) Conflictive: involving acts such as threatening, accusing, cursing,
reprimanding, where politeness is "out of the question, because
conflictive illocutions are, by their very nature, designed to cause
offence."

This proposal, according to Fraser, is difficult to evaluate because it is difficult or near

impossible to determine which maxims and scales would be applied, what their dimensions are,

and to what degree are they relevant in a given situation. Leech‘s conclusions are also too strong,

one of which is his evaluation of orders as ―inherently conflictive, reduces comity, and requires

negative politeness (Fraser 227).‖ On some occasions, this is true. But, for example, when a

speaker in an awards ceremony orders (or requests) a person to come up on stage to claim his/her

trophy, the effects of orders Leech suggests are reversed. Examples like these are not hard to

find. The next politeness framework that will be discussed attempts to eliminate the tendency of

the conversational-maxim view to prescribe rigid and absolute qualities for what utterances

constitute polite (or impolite) behavior by positing that speakers adjust their speech not because

of their utterances‘ inherent politeness or impoliteness, but because of pre-set but comparably

more flexible rules governing their place or position in and the nature of given context. This

view is referred to as the conversational-contract view.

The Conversational-Contract View

The conversational-contract (CC) view proposed by Fraser (1975) and Fraser and Noleen

(1981) also adopts Grice‘s notion of the Cooperative Principle and Erving Goffman‘s

―facework‖ in their most general sense. As previously said, the most important assumption of

this model is that rational individuals engage in conversations initially aware of the rights and

obligations that determine what the individuals expect from each other. These ―rights and
 Amper 18

obligations‖ involve the position of the individuals with respect to each other and the nature of

contexts they are in. ―During the course of time, or because of a change in context, there is

always a possibility of the renegotiation of the conversational contract, where the two parties can

readjust the rights and obligations they hold towards each other (Fraser 232).‖

Some terms of the conversational contract may be imposed through convention; they are

of the general nature that applies to all conversations. Speakers are supposed to take turns in

conveying their message, they have to speak in intelligible language, and they have to speak

sufficiently loudly. These are the non-negotiable parts of the social contract. Another factor that

affects the CC is the conditions imposed by social institutions. For example, the Philippine head

of state should be referred to as ―President,‖ and an individual is expected to keep quiet and hear

the message of the pastor in a Protestant/Born-Again church service. These, too, are seldom

renegotiated. Other terms may be determined by previous encounters and the particulars of a

situation. These are unique for each interaction, and most are renegotiable in light of the

participants‘ acceptance of their status, power, and role of each speaker and the nature of the

circumstances (232). Politeness, then, becomes something that exists in every conversation.

Politeness does not involve ―making a feel good‖ as Lakoff proposes, or preventing the hearer

from ―feeling bad‖ (as the next framework suggests), politeness is simply in keeping of the terms

of the CC.

The Face-Saving View

The face-saving view was developed by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson (B&L)

in 1978 and revised in 1987 (Fraser 228). The basic assumption of this model is that politeness is

necessary for maintaining the face wants of both the speaker (S) and hearer (H), whether it is
 Amper 19

their negative face or positive face. The face is ―the public self-image that every member wants

to claim for himself, consisting of two related aspects; the negative face, which is a person‘s

―basic claim to territories, personal preserves, and rights to non-distraction,‖ and the positive

face, which is ―the positive consistent self-image or ‗personality‘ (crucially including the desire

that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants (Brown and

Levinson 61).‖ B&L claim that their model of politeness is universal and can be used for cross-

cultural pragmatics. This study will test this claim.

Assessment of the Politeness Models

Brown and Levinson‘s (B&L‘s) model of politeness is considered to be one of the most

influential politeness frameworks to emerge from sociolinguistics that it has been widely applied

and considered (Gilks 94). Up to now, of the four approaches that account for politeness, B&L‘s

face-saving view provides the best framework to raise questions about politeness that should be

urgently addressed (Fraser 219). However, according to Fraser, though the face-saving view is

the most clearly articulated and worked out of the approaches, none of the four adequately

accounts for politeness, especially when applied in cross-cultural linguistics.

Janet Holmes, during her research into language differences between genders in New

Zealand, extensively utilized and proved the universality of B&L‘s model of politeness. Holmes

used B&L‘s formula to account for the ―weightiness of (a) face-threatening act‖, where

sociological dimensions of solidarity-social distance, power, and formality sufficiently

contextualize politeness in specific conditions and are variable depending on the culture or

conventions present in a particular space. Thus, cross-cultural linguistic analysis of politeness is

possible, at least in the Western context.

 Amper 20

However, in Kate Gilk‘s assessment of the B&L model of politeness, she questioned the

universality of the theory across non-Western cultures. In Coulmas‘s work, which examined

Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese, to name a few, it was found that Asian countries‘ notions of

politeness differ from that accounted for in the West (84-103). This implies that there is no fixed

or universal set of politeness strategies people adhere to; notions of politeness in one culture may

not necessarily exhibit politeness in another. There is an urgent need for a framework that

enables cross-cultural analysis of languages where different, specific contexts, beliefs, and value

systems are considered.

As you may well see, there are similarities between Jones and Pittman‘s self-presentation

strategies and B&L‘s politeness strategies. Both are under the assumption that face, or identity, is

maintained by linguistic strategies. This strengthens this research‘s assumption that speech and

identity are linked to each other, where the latter is reflected in the former. A detailed

explanation of team dynamics, an important aspect of political discourse that links individual

candidates to their respective political parties, is what makes Goffman‘s work different from

B&L. However, B&L‘s detailed and organized taxonomy of politeness strategies still better suits

this research‘s framework than Jones and Pittman‘s elaboration of Goffman‘s work. The

following section discusses the connection between the individual and team identity.

Back to Goffman: The Individual and Team Performance

Goffman explores the nature of group dynamics through a discussion of "teams" and the

relationship between performance and audience. He uses the concept of ―team‖ to illustrate the

work of a group of individuals who "cooperate" in a performance, attempting to achieve goals

sanctioned by the group (Goffman 47-48). ―Cooperation may manifest itself as unanimity in
 Amper 21

demeanor and behavior or in the assumption of differing roles for each individual, determined by

the desired intent in performance. Goffman refers to the ‗shill,‘ a member of the team who

‗provides a visible model for the audience of the kind of response the performers are seeking,‘

and promotes psychological excitement for the realization of a (generally beneficial) goal, as an

example of a ‗discrepant role‘ in the team (146). In each circumstance, the individual assumes a

front that is perceived to enhance the group's performance.

―The necessity of each individual to maintain his or her front in order to promote the

team performance reduces the possibility of dissent. While the unifying elements of the team are

often shallower and less complete than the requirements of performance, the individual actor

feels a strong pressure to conform to the desired front in the presence of an audience, as deviance

destroys the credibility of the entire performance. As a result, disagreement is carried out in the

absence of an audience, where ideological and performance changes may be made without the

threat of damage to the goals of the team, as well as the character of the individual. In this way, a

clear division is made between team and audience (Goffman 55-56).‖

A great example of a ―team‖ that works together to create a performance in a literal sense

is a ―campaign team‖ during an election for governments post in public office in democratic

countries like the Philippines. In order to gain a wider understanding of how elections work in

the Philippine context, the next section illustrates some of election practices during the campaign

period.

Practices in the Philippine Government and the UP Diliman Student Government

Under the current system as per the 1987 constitution, the president and the vice-

president are separately elected by a direct vote of the people through simple plurality
 Amper 22

nationwide. Both serve a term of six years. The Philippine Congress consists of the Senate and

the House of Representatives. Half of the 24 senators are nationally elected every six years also

through simple plurality (Teehankee 162). Meanwhile, the University Student Council (USC) of

UP Diliman has a chairperson, a vice chairperson, twelve (12) councilors, and one or two

representatives from each college (―Constitution of the University Student Council in Diliman‖).

Unlike in the Philippine government, the USC officers can only sit for a one-year term.

Section 6, Article IX C of the 1987 constitution also states that ―[a] free and open party

system shall be allowed to evolve according to the free choice of the people, subject to the

provisions of this Article.‖ Currently, the Philippine government implements a multi-party

system. ―The multi-party system has made local politics more intense, thus local politicos must

have access to state resources to accumulate private funds, surplus and pork barrel funds. Access

to state resources has become a way of funding electoral campaigns. Thus, local politicians find

it necessary to affiliate with the administration party (Teehankee 180).‖ Another way to survive

and flourish in Philippine politics is to be part of a political family or dynasty. ‗Political

dynasties refer to clans and families who hold multiple elective and/or appointive positions in

government. It is also used primarily to describe politically active clans and families that have

bequeathed power from one generation to another (181).‘

In UP Diliman student politics, fraternities, sororities, and politically-active organizations

serve the same function as political parties and political dynasties in Philippine politics; they

provide the funding, support, and training for the personalities they want to run for the elections.

In return, these organizations gain prominence and influence within the university. Political

parties in UP Diliman merely gather a certain group of people that best represent their ideologies

and beliefs.
 Amper 23

Another characteristic of Philippine politics is its fondness for celebrities, personalities,

and prominent and elite families, where personality counts much more than policies (McGeown,

―Personality and patronage at heart of Philippine polls‖). Historically, Filipinos have a habit of

electing people with no experience in policy-making, but who are often seen in show business

and the media. These personalities include Senator Emmanuel ―Manny‖ Pacquiao, a world-

famous boxer; former President and current Manila City Mayor Joseph ―Erap‖ Ejercito Estrada,

an action movie superstar; and Vicente ―Tito‖ Sotto, a popular TV personality. Students from the

University of the Philippines also have a tendency to fall into personality politics; one example

includes gimmicks such as wordplay, slogans, and jingles to make voters remember a

candidate‘s name instead of the policies or projects they forward are common during the USC

campaign period. For a more detailed account of campaign practices during the USC election

season, refer to Appendix H.

Review of Related Studies

This section examines other practices in general politics, which sheds light on the nature

of the political setting and how ―face‖ functions in such contexts. This section also explores

unpublished theses found in the University, which helped shape the subject focus of this

research.

Geri Zabela Eddins‘ Persuading the People: Presidential Campaigns, from the name of

the article itself, posits that the ultimate goal of campaigning, a necessity in the modern,

technological world, is to persuade. Strategy and manipulation take center stage as the candidate

and his staff determine how to package and deliver a fine-tuned message. This involves

constructing slogans and choreographing speeches, both of which involve careful and artful use
 Amper 24

of language. Candidates would do anything such as construct a mask, shape speeches to self-

image, and appear as genuine as possible despite the artificiality of the setting. This source is

complementary to the claims of Goffman that interlocutors are actors whose function is shaped

by the space they are currently moving in.

Mirjana Dedaic‘s Political Speeches and Persuasive Argumentation reiterates that

political speech is a relatively autonomous discourse produced orally by a politician for an

audience, the purpose of which is primarily persuasion. With the inception of media and other

channels for communication, the reach of a political speech is that of a large, heterogeneous

audience. Thus, the orator no longer speaks as an individual but as a representative of a political

group or party with a set of beliefs and practices. Contemporary approaches to political rhetoric

consider discourse as symbolic and significant behavior that deals with power and

ideology/identity construction. This shows how the dynamics of a candidate and the political

party he/she belongs to is a perfect example to illustrate Goffman‘s concept of team identity.

In the University, the past language undergraduate theses in the Department of English

and Comparative Literature (DECL) have some degree of similarity to this research. They

provided useful insight on theories and served as the researcher‘s inspiration to pursue areas of

study that have not yet been tackled by these scholars. These studies helped the researcher create

a research topic that is a unique contribution to the thesis collection of DECL, but is, to some

degree, still influenced by the researcher‘s predecessors.

In A Pragmatic Analysis of College Students’ Flouting of Conversational Maxims by

Papa and Limson, their discussions in the sections ―Studies on Flouting, Filipino culture, and

Conversation‖ and ―Concept of Hiya: Its Place in Filipino Communication‖ made it apparent that
 Amper 25

there is a need to contextualize and appropriate Western theories into our own society and

culture first before they become fit for cross-cultural analysis.

Angeles‘ There’s Something Wrong with Your Imagery dealt with the dynamics of a

literary workshop, particularly how politeness plays a role in this academic space. He used

Brown and Levinson‘s model and Leech‘s pragmatic scales to analyze politeness in the

workshops. The salience of hedges, intensifiers, appealers, speaker-oriented subjectivizers, and

the like affirms the need to enact ―simultaneous projection‖ of both aspects of face to achieve

linguistic politeness. Angeles employed B&L‘s formula that computes the weightiness of face

threatening acts (FTAs) through three sociological variables: power, distance, and ranking.

Compared to Papa and Limson, Angeles successfully used B&L‘s formula together with Leech‘s

scales to account for the context of the occurrence of politeness without including the value of

politeness in the Filipino context. This shows that there are some situations, especially in

artificial ones, when cultural context has little significance in the analysis of speech.

Panganiban and Pineda‘s Filipino Face: An Analysis of Politeness in Students’ Notes of

Request provided insight into Filipino politeness in their analysis. One point that stood out from

the rest was their assessment of code-switching as a positive politeness strategy in the Philippine

context. In their data, they found code-switching as a prominent feature in the notes. According

to Maggay, one of their sources, Filipino bilingualism puts English in a higher status than

Filipino. Thus, when a person speaks in English, the assumption is the hearer is of a higher status

(which is debatable in some situations); when switching occurs, the hearer is of the same status

as the speaker, and the speaker reverts back to Filipino when the hearer is of a lower status. The

reason for the shift, then, becomes ―a dilemma of sorts,‖ since the assumption is that switching

occurs when the speaker and the hearer have equal status. In a way, switching then becomes a
 Amper 26

form of solidarity building, and thus can be seen as a positive politeness strategy. This study

reinforces that cultural context still contributes valuable insight into the interpretation of the

meaning of an utterance.

Finally, Feliciano‘s Constructing the Image of Change analyzed the presidential debate

transcripts of Barack Obama using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and showed how Obama

managed to project four different self-images. This sparked interest in the concept of speech as a

means to shape one‘s identity. However, Feliciano‘s study dealt with a Western political figure.

Thus, the researcher decided to deal with local political figures that, compared to Obama,

urgently need to be analyzed because of their close proximity and the immediacy of the effect of

their actions to the researcher and to other students of the university.

Synthesis

Erving Goffman‘s pioneering work on ―face‖ and ―facework‖ led to the conception of

theories on identity and these identities are projected to others in everyday life. Goffman‘s

dramaturgical model which posits that life ―is a stage‖ inspired theorists such as Jones and

Pittman and Brown and Levinson to investigate the ways on how people present themselves to

others, and outlined strategies for politeness and self-presentation. This study uses these theories

to examine the identities presented by a political party through the candidates that represent

them. Although the study only analyzes the projected identity of political parties within

university student politics, given that there are parallels and stark similarities between the

nationwide government and the university student government, this study hopes to present a

framework that can also be used in larger contexts.

 Amper 27

CHAPTER III

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Malinowski, Firth, and Halliday: Context of the Situation

Bronislaw Malinowski, one of the most important anthropologists of the 20th century,

was also one of the first to posit that in order to fully understand an utterance, understanding the

―context of the situation‖ is crucial.

Our task is rather to show that even the sentence is not a self-
contained, self-sufficient unit of speech. Exactly as a single word is save
in exceptional circumstances meaningless, and receives its significance
only through the context of other words, so a sentence usually appears in
the context of other sentences and has meaning only as a part of a larger
significant whole. I think that it is very profitable in linguistics to widen
the concept of context so that it embraces not only spoken words but
facial expression, gesture, bodily activities, the whole group of people
present during an exchange of 6 utterances and the part of the
environment on which these people are engaged (Malinowski 22).

J.R. Firth adopted Malinowski‘s idea of the centrality of the context of the situation and

applied it to his own linguistic model. He believed that the study of linguistics should be focused

on meaning, which was not the popular view back then during the Saussurean and Bloomfieldian

era in American linguistics that did not concern itself with the study of meaning. For Firth,

language was not to be studied as a mental system but rather as a representation of what is

learned from the environment. Thus, aside from linguistic factors, factors such as the status and

personal history of the speaker, the space in which he moves in, and the rules in a specific

context must be taken into account (New World Encyclopedia).

Michael A.K. Halliday, a student and follower of Firth, further developed the idea of

language as being dependent on context into a linguistic theory, the Systemic Functional Model

of Language. Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) viewed language as a social semiotic, where
 Amper 28

choice in the language system is dependent on meanings rather than structure (Fontaine,

―Language as social semiotic…‖). The production of meaningful speech is dependent on the

function it serves in a given context. To put it simply, context shapes the meaning of the

utterance.

Halliday‘s most popular work, Introduction to Functional Grammar (1985) shifted the

focus of linguistics out of the ―syntactic‖ age, which focused on language structure, to the

―semiotic‖ age. He was the first linguist to view language as a resource for construing meaning.

For those who are interested in how language acts both socially and semiotically, SFL is useful

because it enables the description and explanation of how social reality is encoded in language,

both in terms of how language is a means of reflecting on things and how it is a means of acting

(symbolically) on people (Fontaine).

Contextual Analysis using Field, Tenor, and Mode Framework

The context of the situation of this study is too specific and unfamiliar to outsiders and

even to the students and faculty of the university itself to comprehend at face value. Thus, a

detailed description of UP Diliman student politics, particularly during election season, is

necessary. To do this, the researcher selected Halliday‘s elements of the context of the situation,

Field, Tenor, and Mode to provide an organized and systematic account of the descriptions.

Field, Tenor, and Mode are defined as follows, taken from Halliday‘s “Language, Context, and

Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective‖:

Field refers to what is happening, to the nature of the social interaction

that is taking place: what is it that the participants are engaged in? In
which the language features as some essential component?
Tenor refers to who is taking part, to the nature of the participants, their
statuses and roles: the kind of role relationships of one kind or another,
both the types of speech role that they are taking on in the dialogue, and
 Amper 29

the whole cluster of socially significant relationships in which they are

involved.
Mode refers to what part the language is playing, what it is that the
participants are expecting the language to do for them in that situation:
the symbolic organization of the text, the status that it has, and its
function in the context, including the channel (is it written or spoken or
some combination of the two?) and also the rhetorical mode, what is
being achieved by the text in terms of such categories as persuasive,
expository, didactic, and the like.

These three can be further subdivided into six more specific categories to describe the

genre or the situation of the text (Gledhill 2):

Field

(1) Social Context – is the social setting of where a kind of text is usually produced in. It is

also accompanied by the restrictions and obligations the setting imposes on the

speakers/listeners or writers/readers.

(2) Communicative Purpose – is the purpose of the text produced.

Tenor

(3) Roles – are the roles assumed or required of the actors in the genre.

(4) Cultural Values – are the shared cultural values required of the actors in the genre.

Mode

(5) Text context – is the knowledge of other, related texts required of the actors in the genre.

(6) Formal text features – is the shared knowledge of the features and conventions of the text

that is required to comprehend the text.

These six categories were used to describe the context of the situation that were analyzed

using Jones and Pittman‘s self-presentation strategies and Brown and Levinson‘s politeness

strategies. The following section outlines the premise and postulates of Jones and Pittman‘s

theory of self-presentation.
 Amper 30

Jones and Pittman’s Self-Presentation Strategies

According to Jones and Pittman in their article ―Toward a General Theory of Strategic

Self-Presentation,‖ the main driving force of strategic self-presentation or an actor shaping his or

her own responses to create a specific impression desired by the actor is to augment or maintain

one‘s power in a relationship. An important assumption to keep in mind in self-presentation is

that in order for A (the speaker) to get the control or power he or she wants, B (the hearer) needs

to elicit an impression from A‘s actions/utterance. When applied to the context which this study

analyzes, the voters‘ perception of the words and actions of a candidate and, by extension, the

political party is an important factor to consider when analyzing the identity an entity projects

through self-presentation. Put simply, what the hearer thinks of the speaker‘s actions also counts.

The five self-presentation strategies, the attributions sought, or impressions they want to

give off, the possible negative effects risked by displaying such behavior, the emotions each

strategy arouses, and examples of actions related to these strategies, are outline below:

Attributions sought Negative attributions Emotion to be Prototypical actions

risked aroused
1. Ingratriation Likable Sycophant, conformist, Affection Self-characterization,
obsequious opinion conformity,
other enhancement,
favors
2. Intimidation Dangerous (ruthless, Blusterer, wishy Fear Threats, anger
volatile) washy, intellectual (incipient), breakdown
(incipient)
3. Self-promotion Competent (effective, Fraudulent, conceited, Respect (awe, Performance claims,
“a winner”) defensive deference) performance accounts,
performances
2. Exemplification Worthy (suffers, Hypocrite, Guilt (shame, Self-denial, helping,
dedicated) sanctimonious, emulation) militancy for a cause
exploitative
2. Supplication Helpless (handicapped, Stigmatized, lazy, Nurturance Self-deprecation,
unfortunate) demanding (obligation) entreaties for help

Figure 1. A taxonomy of self-presentation strategies classified by attribution sought (Jones and

Pittman 249).
 Amper 31

The ingratiator maintains his power by reducing the likelihood that the target audience

will do negative actions and increasing the prospects of positive ones. The intimidator more

directly enhances his power by increasing the likelihood that he will use negative actions to the

target audience. The self-promoter enhances his supposed instrumental value as a problem solver

for the target audience. Because he obviously has something to offer, he may extract useful or

beneficial things from the target audience in exchange. The exemplifier trades on the power of

accepted social norms enforced by a consensus about proper values and aspirations. He

influences by successfully reflecting these norms. The supplicant also gains the power provided

by the sheltering norm of social responsibility. By surrendering his claims to more immediate

personal power, he places himself at the mercy of more powerful people who are, ideally,

sensitive to the dictates of moral obligation (Jones and Pittman 250).

These five strategies are not required to be mutually exclusive, though some

combinations are more possible and more likely to happen than others. There is an

incompatibility with combining ingratiation and intimidation, but pairing self-promotion with

either happens often. The exemplifier can be intimidating to arouse guilt and fear

simultaneously. Supplication is the reverse of self-promotion, though the supplicant can

obviously be ingratiating, and even to some extent, intimidating. One good example mentioned

by Jones and Pittman in their article involves a militant picketer that intimidates those in power,

while being an exemplifier to passersby or equals (Jones and Pittman 250). One of the political

parties being analyzed in this study often exhibits this action.

Jones and Pittman‘s five self-presentation strategies are too broad and general to use to

definitively conclude that a person or entity is projecting a certain identity. Although their

proposition that these strategies can be used in combination widens the number of possible
 Amper 32

identities one can project, the guidelines on how to do so seems to rely on the interpreter‘s

prerogative. The description of situations that these strategies are applicable in and the lack of

sample utterances in which these strategies are used in their article emphasizes that there is a

need for a more detailed theory that will enable the close analysis of each candidate is necessary.

The next section presents the general propositions of Brown and Levinson‘s theory of politeness,

which this study used to complement the analysis drawn from Jones and Pittman‘s theory.

Brown and Levinson’s Model of Politeness

Brown and Levinson‘s Model was also used in this study to account for the politeness

strategies of the standard bearers‘ speech in the Philippine Collegian interviews. The model

assumes that all competent members of a society have:

1. ―face‖, the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself, consisting in

two related aspects:

a. ―Negative face‖, the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-

distraction – i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from imposition

b. ―Positive face‖, the positive consistent self-image or ―personality‖ (crucially

including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by

interactants

2. certain rational capacities, in particular consistent modes of reasoning from ends to the

means that will achieve those ends (Brown and Levinson 61).

These ―faces‖ can be threatened, and these faces have two distinctions: those that damage

the addressee‘s/hearer‘s (H) face and those that damage the speaker‘s (S) face (65-68). A face-

threatening act (FTA) is an act that is by nature contrary to the face wants of either the addressee
 Amper 33

or the speaker (65). In the context of the mutual vulnerability of face, any rational agent will seek

to avoid these FTAs, and will employ strategies to minimize the threat (68).

The four types of strategies for doing FTAs are on-record, off-record, negative

politeness, and positive politeness strategies (68-70).

An actor goes on record in doing an act A if it is clear to the participants what

communicative intention led to the actor to do A. For instance, if one says ―I (hereby) promise to

come tomorrow‖ and if participants concur that, in saying that, the person did unambiguously

express the intention of committing to the future act, then promising is one way to go on record.

In contrast, an actor goes off record in doing A when there is more than one unambiguously

attributable intention so that the actor cannot be held to have committed himself to a particular

intent. Linguistic realizations of off-record strategies include metaphor and irony, rhetorical

questions, understatement, tautologies; all kinds of hints as to what a speaker wants or means to

communicate, without doing so directly, so the meaning is to some degree negotiable (69).

Before moving on to the discussion of the other types of strategies, redressive action

will first be defined. Redressive action is the action that ―gives face‖ to the addressee, that

attempts to counteract the potential face damage of the FTA indicating that no such face threat is

intended or desired (69-70).

Doing a bald-on record without redress involves doing an act in the most direct, clear,

concise and unambiguous way possible. Normally an FTA will be done by the speaker without

fear of retribution from the addressee. This is the case when (a) S and H tacitly agree that the

relevance of face demands be suspended for the sake of urgency and efficiency, (b) where the

danger of H‘s face is very small, as in offers, requests, and suggestions that are clearly in H‘s

best interest, and (c) when S is vastly more powerful than H (69).
 Amper 34

Strategies that employ redressive action are positive and negative politeness strategies.

Positive politeness strategies are oriented towards the positive face of H, and strategies include

attending to the needs of H, exaggeration, use of in-group identity markers, seeking agreement,

joking, establishing common grounds, and so on. Negative politeness strategies are oriented

towards the negative face of H, and strategies include indirectness, apologizing, impersonalizing,

stating the FTA, redressing other wants, etc. (70).

The diagram below illustrates the schema of the possible sets of strategies.

Figure 2. Possible strategies for doing FTAs (Brown and Levinson 1987:69)

As realized in the review of related literature, B&L‘s formula that uses the sociological

variables social distance, power, and formality to compute the ―weightiness of an FTA‖ would

not be used. Rather, this study would utilize Halliday‘s ―Field Tenor Mode‖ framework for

contextual analysis, which was discussed previously. For a comprehensive list of Brown and

Levinson‘s politeness strategies, refer to Appendix A.

 Amper 35

Erving Goffman’s Team Identity and the “Stage”

―Goffman describes the division between team performance and audience in terms of

‗region,‘ describing the role of setting in the differentiation of actions taken by individuals

(Goffman 47-48; Barnhart 107). Extending the dramaturgical analysis, he divides region into

‗front,‘ ‗back,‘ and ‗outside‘ the stage, contingent upon the relationship of the audience to the

performance. While the ‗official stance‘ of the team is visible at their front stage presentation, at

the backstage, ‗the impression fostered by the presentation is knowingly contradicted as a matter

of course,‘ indicating a more ‗truthful‘ type of performance (Goffman 55). In the backstage, the

conflict and difference inherent to familiarity is more fully explored, often evolving into a

secondary type of presentation, contingent upon the absence of the responsibilities of the team

presentation. To be outside the stage involves the inability to gain access to the performance of

the team, described as an ‗audience segregation‘ in which specific performances are given to

specific audiences, allowing the team to contrive the proper front for the demands of each

audience. This allows the team, individual actor, and audience to preserve proper relationships in

interaction and the establishments to which the interactions belong (Goffman 55-56; Barnhart).‖

Goffman Applied to the Dynamics of UPD Student Politics during Campaigns

The following is an illustration of team dynamics in the politico-electoral setting in UP

Diliman student politics. An individual member, who is the standard bearer/election candidate,

puts on a face that is appropriate for the scenario (e.g. that of an independent, constantly active,

student leader) of delivering a speech. The audience/voters are made to believe that this front is

the one the candidate only carries or, at least, carries most of the time. This can be achieved with

the aid of a ―shill,‖ who, after his team member‘s speech, would initiate a chant that is a marker
 Amper 36

of the identity of the team, sanctioned by the group (e.g. ―Tunay, Palaban, Makabayan! STAND

UP!‖). But these fronts, in actuality, are constantly trained, ―workshopped,‖ and prescribed by

other members of the team. Thus, we can say that these faces that candidates present are highly

artificial. However, these fronts are vital to preserve proper relationships with the audience, the

individual‘s interests, and also of his team‘s performance.

FIELD
UP Student Politics: Election (Campaign) Period

TENOR

MODE
Speech
Political Party B&L‘s Politeness Voters
Strategies
Jones & Pittman‘s
Standard
Strategies
Bearer(s)

Goffman‘s Team Identity

Figure 3. Conceptual Framework.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework reads as follows: The box symbolizes the situation being

analyzed in this study. Words in bold, all-caps ―FIELD‖, ―TENOR‖, and ―MODE‖ are the

elements interacting to form the context of the situation. The italicized words are the concepts

which the field, tenor, and mode specifically refer to in this study. The circles within the box

represent the persons/entities involved in this study, namely the standard bearer(s) and political

party (considered as one functioning entity), and the voters. The thick, white, one-directional

arrow between the two circles represents the mode and the one-way relationship between the
 Amper 37

entities involved; the standard bearers (who are part of a political party) get to answer the

questions and give their speech while the voters only get to hear or read the speech from the

videos released by or from the newspaper issue published and distributed by The Philippine

Collegian. Inside the arrow, the theories/tools used to analyze speech are underlined; the

strategies used in the speech of the standard bearers from The Philippine Collegian interviews

will be examined using Brown and Levinson‘s politeness theory and Jones and Pittman‘s self-

presentation strategies. The thin, black, one-directional arrows point to ―Team Identity‖ (as

defined by Goffman) which this study aims to describe. The identity of each political party is

derived from the speeches of their respective standard bearers and the voter‘s perception of the

political party.
 Amper 38

CHAPTER IV

METHODOLOGY

Research Paradigm

The ultimate goal of this research is to determine the role self-presentation and politeness

strategies play in constructing identity in a politico-electoral discourse. With that in mind, a

mixed methods research design was employed, particularly an equal-status design, in

approaching the problems presented in this study. It was mentioned in the first chapter that one

goal of this research is to provide a description of speech in a particular context; thus, this

research focuses on the qualitative strain (the analysis of standard bearers [SBs] interviews and

publicity materials of the PPs [political parties], prevalence of politeness strategies and its

implications, the results of the online focus group discussions). The quantitative strain also has

an equally important role in providing support and deeper insight to the analysis. The

quantitative strain of the study is represented by the frequency counting of politeness strategies

(PS) in each SB‘s speech and each group of SBs per PP.

Procedures for Data Collection

The main sources of data for this research are the following: (1) The Philippine Collegian

interview transcripts, which are published as a special edition of the student publication every

year; (2) the party profiles, which are included in the paper‘s special edition, and recent publicity

materials and propaganda posted/distributed by the political parties in their Facebook pages; and

(3) the online focus group discussions conducted for political party officers and unaffiliated

students separately.
 Amper 39

First, the five ―Go Out and Vote‖ election specials were examined if they were viable

texts to be analyzed. After confirming their viability, permission from the current editor-in-chief

at the time when the research was conducted was sought. At the same time, the materials needed

to build a description of the context of the situation as well as the projected identity of the

political parties in other media were also being collected and gathered.

Lastly, online focus group discussions were conducted on political party officials and

politically-unaffiliated students to provide additional insight to the identity projected by the

political parties and the impression it left on the student voters, respectively.

After all of these steps were achieved, the analysis of the texts was begun. The following

sections detail the process of data gathering for this research.

Selection of Text

The text that was examined is limited to the transcribed interviews in The Philippine

Collegian ―Go Out and Vote‖ election specials from the years 2013 to 2017. Refer to appendix C

for a copy of the pages of the Philippine Collegian where the video interviews were transcribed

and edited. This range was chosen because the interviews started being video-recorded and

uploaded on YouTube in 2013 and continues on today, this time, on Facebook. Because of this, it

is possible to confirm whether or not what are written in the transcripts are the exact words that

the candidates uttered. In addition, the accessibility of the videos would make it easier for

academics and other readers interested in the work to confirm the data presented in this study.

Aside from technical considerations, the year 2013 was also a pivotal year for UP student

politics. KAISA, the youngest political party in UP Diliman, ―bagged at least six posts including

the council chairmanship‖ in the university student council. The top positions were won by Alex
 Amper 40

Castro and Jules Guiang for USC chairperson and vice chairperson positions, respectively. This

was the second time KAISA won the top post in the UP student government, but what makes

Alex Castro‘s win remarkable was that she garnered the most number of votes ever given to a

USC chair in the council‘s history (4,944 votes), beating the party‘s previous standard-bearer

Titus Tan who holds the second highest record in 2009 (4,905 votes). (Occenola, ―UP‘s Kaisa

bet makes history‖). This record has since been broken two times, with Bryle Leaño of STAND

UP holding the current record for the winning the most number of votes (5,840) by any other

previous chairperson (Onato, ―Botong Isko: STAND UP dominates USC elections‖)

Figure 4. (From left to right) Covers of the ―Go Out and Vote‖ Issues 2013 to 2017.
 Amper 41

Interview Transcripts

The interview transcripts were obtained from the UPD Main Library‘s Serials section. To

validate the accuracy of the transcript to the candidates‘ words, the video-recordings were also

obtained from The Philippine Collegian’s official YouTube channel and Facebook page.

Special permissions were asked from The Philippine Collegian for the use of the videos

and inclusion of the transcript in this study to ensure that no legal matters would arise during and

after the research process. For a copy of the letter of permission signed by The Philippine

Collegian A.Y. 2017-2018 editor-in-chief Sanny Boy Afable, refer to Appendix B.

Description of Philippine Collegian Interview Set-up

The Philippine Collegian interviews were conducted in the Philippine Collegian

headquarters at the 4th floor of Vinzons Hall. Candidates were asked a set of questions that they

answered under a limited period of time. The set of questions for the chairpersons are different

from the vice chairpersons. The questions asked in the interviews arranged by year (oldest to

most recent) are presented below. These were taken from The Philippine Collegian itself, under

―Standard Bearers‖ of their respective year of publication.

Figure 5. Interview questions for standard bearers in year 2013.

 Amper 42

Figure 6. Interview questions for standard bearers in year 2014.

Figure 7. Interview questions for standard bearers in year 2015.

 Amper 43

Figure 8. Interview questions for standard bearers in year 2016.

Figure 9. Interview questions for standard bearers in year 2017

 Amper 44

Evidently, these interviews feature formal and informal questions; serious questions

about their stances in particular political issues and light-hearted, personal questions which

usually ask the candidates to compare mundane objects or ideas to their political undertakings.

In a study about media‘s involvement and effect on elections by Prior, people have

already tuned out of current affairs media. They avoid ―hard news‖ programs and instead watch

―infotainment‖ programming. When political information is packaged as entertainment, it

attracts audiences who are not even interested in politics, and thereby unintentionally make them

learn about politics (Baum, Jamison; Prior).

In theory, this makes The Philippine Collegian’s election specials popular and widely-

read not only because it is effective in informing the students of the candidates‘ platforms and

political stands, but also because it provides entertainment and humor. This further attracts

readers toward it.

“Party Profiles” and Recent Publicity Materials of Political Parties

On each issue of ―Go Out and Vote,‖ a ―Party Profile‖ page is included. This section

outlines the history, advocacies, and current theme or slogan of a political party for the election

season. Each political party also has its own Facebook page where their advocacies, beliefs, and

platforms are showcased. The contents of these materials provide insight to the social identity

each political party wants to project and they further contextualize the political setting inside the

University. These materials also made the formulation of the hypotheses for this study possible.

The data that were gathered from the Facebook pages were limited to five (5) of their

most recent posts, not including videos. The posts of organizations a political party is affiliated

with inside the university, such as Gabriela Youth and Alaysining for STAND UP, UP
 Amper 45

Economics Towards Consciousness (ETC) and Buklod CSSP for UP Alyansa, and Sanlakas

Youth UP Diliman for KAISA UP, were also not included. In addition, posts of organizations a

political party is affiliated with outside the university, such as political parties in the national

level (STAND UP – Kabataan Partylist; UP Alyansa – Akbayan; KAISA UP - Sanlakas) and

political party chapters in other schools and UP campuses, were also not included.

The ―Party Profiles‖ pages of The Philippine Collegian and samples of the political

parties‘ recent Facebook posts are provided in Appendix E. To view all of their posts, please visit

their Facebook pages.

Focus Group Discussions

For this study, the focus group discussions (FGDs) represent the opinions of the

participants and the people who experience UP Student Politics particularly during the UP

Diliman USC election season. According to Morgan, ―focus groups may have an advantage for

topics that are either habit-ridden or not thought out in detail (11).‖ Because UP Diliman Student

Politics is still a very broad topic even though already narrowed down to the context of election

season, participants might not know what to say in individual interviews. By bringing a group

together, participants could initiate discussions and bring up each other‘s ideas and opinions

while also agreeing and disagreeing with each other. A focus group is when a researcher gathers

a group together and provides them a topic (or a focus) and asks them to discuss the said topic.

Focus groups can range from being unstructured to being rigidly structured. In this study‘s case,

a semi-structured approach was employed wherein questions were prepared, but the discussion

was allowed to digress when necessary.

 Amper 46

Data gathered from the FGDs provided a deeper, more recent context to the political

setting/climate in UPD. The FGDs were also conducted to triangulate the data.

Description of Participants

The focus groups each consist of 4-6 people. Participants were selected using a

combination of convenience sampling and purposive sampling (Fraenkel & Wallen). The target

participants of the focus group discussions have specific qualifications such as being a member

of the executive council of a political party and having experienced and observed the UP

Diliman University Student Council elections for a number of years. The availability and interest

of participants is also a factor in why this sampling method was employed.

The researcher enlisted people she knew from each political party to help recruit the

participants for the study. A special online Google Forms survey to recruit unaffiliated students

was deployed as well. The participants of the study are (1) students who are holding/have held

leadership positions in the PP, and (2) unaffiliated students; 2nd, 3rd and/or 4th year students and

above who have experienced at least one election season in UP Diliman prior to participating in

the focus group. For the unaffiliated students, it did not matter whether they have ―political

leanings‖ or political parties they already favor, as long as they are not currently official

members of a political party (meaning former members can still participate) and have not been a

campaign manager or team member of an affiliated candidate of any position. However, this was

still considered in the data.

As homogenous groups are believed to be more conducive to discussion (Morgan), each

focus group was separated according to their affiliation/non-affiliation; each political party had

one (1) focus group discussion while the unaffiliated students had two (2). According again to
 Amper 47

Morgan, the optimal number of focus groups is 3-5 or until ―saturation‖ is reached (Glasser &

Strauss). The ―saturation‖ point happens when similar themes continue to emerge without adding

new insights.

Online Focus Groups (OFGs)

Research using focus groups is one of the most widely used research methods in

advertising and market research, as well as in many other disciplines. Focus groups have only

recently been considered a mature methodology that needed few adjustments when its use is

extended to teleconferencing. However, a key limitation of focus-group research is its tendency

to be bound in time and space by the need to identify, recruit, and assemble a group in a single

space for the purpose of a face-to-face discussion. Many target populations to focus group

researchers are difficult to reach and schedule because they can be global, busy, immobile for

physical or economic reasons, unavailable at comparable times, or otherwise difficult to schedule

to participate in a discussion at a fixed, physical location. Technology has reduced, if not entirely

eliminated, these limitations, and made possible a broader use of focus groups in an Internet-

enabled world (Stewart & Shamdasani 48-49).

Empirical research has demonstrated that many of the same interpersonal processes and

dynamics that characterize face-to-face interactions also characterize online interactions, even

when the interaction is between avatars rather than face-to-face (among people). In addition,

numerous studies have demonstrated that online interaction tends to be very similar to that of

face-to-face interaction. Research suggests it is possible to replicate the social interaction of face-

to-face focus-group research in an online environment. Research also demonstrates that behavior

in virtual environments can affect how individuals behave in the real world (Yoon & Vargas,
 Amper 48

qtd. in Stewart & Shamdasani, 2016: 49). Thus, the distinction between the real world and the

virtual world is increasingly becoming blurred.

―Online‖ focus groups are not really new, because telephonic focus groups have been in

use for many years. However, the development of technology especially for sharing information

and interacting with others, now called ―social media,‖ has dramatically increased the versatility

and utility of online focus groups. There are three main approaches to conducting focus groups

online, the first two of which have been thoroughly studied and identified, while the last one is in

its preliminary stages of research: synchronous groups, asynchronous groups, and groups in

―virtual worlds‖ (Stewart & Shamdasani 51).

Synchronous focus groups are similar to traditional face-to-face focus groups; they

feature real time interaction between the moderator and participants, but use chat rooms or focus

group software packages instead of real physical spaces (Oringderff 3). Tools like Skype,

webinar software such as Adobe Connect, and video conferencing platforms like Gotomeeting

and WebEx are able to replicate real time, face-to-face interactions virtually. Other commercial

providers of synchronous focus group spaces include itracks, e-FocusGroups, FocusVision,

Qualboard (with webcams), and Madge (Stewart & Shamdasani 51-52).

Asynchronous groups allow participants to log-in and answer discussion topics on their

own time, through e-mail or discussion groups. Benefits of asynchronous groups include the

ability to overcome global time differences, time allowances for participants with variable typing

skills, and more time for participants to focus and reflect on responses (Oringderff 3). Free

platforms where asynchronous focus groups can be conducted include Google Groups, Ning, and

Blackboard. Commercial platforms include QualBoard, Dub, FocusVision, itracks,

FocusForums, and Madge (Stewart & Shamdasani 51).

 Amper 49

Conducting Asynchronous Online Focus Groups: Secret Facebook Focus Groups

The study used the asynchronous approach to conduct the online focus groups. The

chosen platform for the OFGs is Facebook, particularly Secret Groups. Wilson, Goslin, and

Graham (2012) report on a rapidly growing literature dedicated to research studying the impact

of Facebook on social life, the utility of Facebook as a novel tool to observe behavior in a

naturalistic setting, test hypotheses, and recruit participants (see their review of 412 academic

journals studying the Facebook phenomenon). In 2014, Facebook claimed to have over 1.23

billion users worldwide, representing a large portion of the global population engaging with

social media and making the world become more connected. Other social media platforms do not

have such a broad reach and are less popular with the target population of our study (Lijadi &

Schalkwyk 2).

Facebook recently added a new feature to allow the creation of a ‗‗secret group‘‘ with

strict confidentiality and privacy settings. In the secret group context, Facebook allows the

facilitator/ moderator to create an exclusive group discussion based on the research questions and

could control and monitor participation. No users outside the group can find or see the group‘s

existence and conversation threads. Thus, participation is by invitation only, and, as a research

tool, this allows the researcher to select only participants who comply with predetermined

criteria for participation and to control the size of the group. The facilitator could also check with

silent members to ensure equal and fair participation of all parties in a discussion of a posted

topic (Lijadi & Schalkwyk 3).

Each political party had their own secret Facebook focus group while two other groups

were reserved for unaffiliated participants, which totals five (5) groups that were moderated and

managed. Before the group commenced discussions, each person was required to read and fully
 Amper 50

agree to participate in the OFG in accordance with the terms indicated in Informed Consent

Form (posted as a note in the group). Agreement was secured through participants sending back

their signed consent forms to the researcher through e-mail or personal message. The forms and

signatures were electronically documented for safekeeping.

Two facilitators, the researcher and an assistant, moderated all the focus groups.

Questions were released one or two at a time per day or until all of the participants have

answered the question(s). This prevents other questions from getting buried in the group and

from overwhelming the participants with a wave of equally difficult questions at once.

Rationale of Questions Asked in the OFGs

The following questions were asked in the OFG, followed by the rationale behind them.

For political parties:

1) What is the political ideology of your political party?

2) What are the advocacies of your political party?

The answers to questions #1 and #2 supply a background of the political party‘s foundation:

their core beliefs. The core belief of a political party is a necessary component to the formation

of an identity. It will also provide the necessary descriptions for the context of the situation.

3) How do you want UP students to view your political party? What do you want to be

recognized for?

Question #3 characterizes what the political party consciously wants the student body to view

them as. This is also a necessary component of identity.

4) How does the political party function during election/campaign season?

 Amper 51

Question #4 supplies the group dynamics and strategies (Goffman) used by the political party.

It also provides invaluable information for the context of the situation.

5) During election season, how do you select your standard bearers? What are the qualities

your candidates must possess in order to be chosen as standard bearers?

a) (Optional) Are your selected standard bearers required to fully agree to your political

party‘s ideology/advocacies?

6) Are your standard bearers constantly trained and rehearsed for speeches, interviews, and

room-to-room (RTR) campaigns?

Questions #5 and #6 provide information about the relationship between the political parties

and the standard bearer(s). The answer to Question 6 also provides a glimpse into the group

dynamics and strategies used by each political party.

For unaffiliated students:

1) What are your advocacies (e.g. LGBTQ rights, mental health awareness, Marcos not a

hero, no to extrajudicial killings, genuine agrarian reform, free and quality education,

etc.)? Please state as many as you like.

2) What is the political ideology that you subscribe to? If you‘re not sure, please check this

link for reference: http://www.quick-facts.co.uk/politics/ideologies.html

Questions #1 and #2 assess the existing bias of the unaffiliated student participants and

predict their political leanings even before the main question that asks it. It is also asked in

preparation for additional questions that may come up through the course of the FGD.

3) Please give a description of each political party according to your

experiences/observations during and outside the election/campaign season.

 Amper 52

The information from Question #3 was used to characterize each political party according to

the perception of their constituents, which contribute in part to their whole identity.

4) Of the 3 main political parties in UP Diliman (Alyansa, KAISA, and STAND UP), which

do you prefer/lean toward most? Which do you distance yourself from the most? Why?

Answers to the questions in Question #4, especially from ―why?‖ may provide

predictions/parallels to the politeness strategies candidates from each specific political parties

usually use. For example, qualities that might come up such as ―aggressive‖ or ―inclusive‖ can

be associated to strategies such as ―bald-on record‖ and ―asserting common ground‖,

respectively.

5) How do you feel/what do you think about UPD politics during election season?

Question #5 attempts to provide further descriptions of UPD‘s election season through the

perception of the unaffiliated voters. Unaffiliated voters offer a more objective opinion of how

the election season goes about than affiliated students.

6) Do you read The Philippine Collegian’s ―Go Out and Vote‖ special during campaign

season? Do you watch the videos uploaded on Youtube and/or Facebook? Do you do

both?

Administered in the form of a poll, Question #6 validates the study‘s assumption that The

Philippine Collegian’s special election coverage is popular even amongst unaffiliated students.

This also confirms the publication‘s influence on the voter‘s opinion and, by extension, the

overall result of the elections.

For the complete design and guidelines of the OFG, refer to the online focus group

schedule in Appendix F. For the transcript of the OFGs, refer to Appendix G.

 Amper 53

Data Analysis Procedures

The main task of this research is to answer the question of what linguistic strategies the

standard bearers used for each political party and how these strategies affect the identity of the

political party.

The answers of the standard bearers to specific questions prepared by The Philippine

Collegian, simply referred to in this study as ―speech‖, are the main texts analyzed in this study.

Jones and Pittman‘s Theory of Self-Presentation and Brown and Levinson‘s Model of Politeness

were used to determine the self-presentation strategies and politeness strategies used in these

texts. Sentences were assigned one (1) or more politeness strategies if applicable. The politeness

strategies used and how frequently they appeared were tallied at the end of each candidate

interview. There are a total of 28 candidates whose speeches were evaluated. After all of the

speeches have been analyzed, the politeness strategies and the overall frequency of their use

were counted per political party. As per Jones and Pittman‘s Self-Presentation strategies, since

the strategy categories are general and broad, instead of per sentence, self-presentation strategies

were assigned per answer to a question.

Data from the online focus groups (OFGs), party profiles, and recent publicity materials

of each political party were used to form the Context of the Situation (using Halliday‘s Field,

Tenor, and Mode model). The analyses of the prevalent self-presentation strategies and

politeness strategies utilized by the standard bearers in their speeches were used to construct and

describe each political party‘s identity. This was then consolidated and corroborated with the

data gathered from the OFGs, party profiles, etc. This step triangulates the data gathered from the

analysis of the SB‘s speech to characterize the identity of the political party.
 Amper 54

Flowchart of Research Procedures

Data Collection: Text

Obtaining copies of the newspapers needed; accessing video recordings of the
Philippine Collegian standard bearer videos; seeking permission/approval to re-
publish the interview transcripts in the study
Data Collection: Context
Recruiting participants for the online focus group (OFGs); conducting OFGs until
"saturation" point; transcribing OFGs

Data Collection: Context

Collecting recent publicity materials from political parties (PP) (e.g. "Party
Profiles" from Philippine Collegian, solidarity statements, campaigns, etc.)

Phase 1 Data Analysis: Self-Presentation and Politeness

Listing of self-presentation strategies (SPS) and politeness strategies (PS) from
Brown and Levinson's (B&L) framework in standard bearer interviews; frequency
counting to assess prevalence of a SPS and PS

Phase 2 Data Analysis: Identity

Linking of analysis of SPS and PS to Goffman's Team Performance through PP's
publicity materials and data gathered from OFGs

Phase 3 Data Analysis: Context and Identity

Unlocking the rationale behind the use of SPS and PS by SBs to project their PP's
identity; deriving the factors that affect the SBs' choice of PS from the context of
UP Diliman politics during election/campaign season
 Amper 55

CHAPTER V

PRESENTATION OF ANALYSIS AND DATA

Because of the more detailed and systematic framework of Brown and Levinson, the

prevalence of the politeness strategies used by the standard bearers takes a large part of the

overall analysis of the identity projected by each political party. The analysis gleaned from Jones

and Pittman‘s self-presentation strategies complements the former.

In order to thoroughly analyze the data on the politeness strategies and self-presentation

strategies used by the standard bearers of each political party, a deep understanding of the

context of the situation is needed. The description of the context is outlined below, followed by

the presentation of data and analysis of the 28 speeches of political party standard bearers

published by The Philippine Collegian.

The Context According to Halliday’s Framework

The context of the situation can be summarized using Halliday‘s framework for

contextual analysis, which was further developed and specified by Gledhill.

The University of the Philippines Diliman‘s University Student Council politics, more

specifically during the election and campaign season, is the social context in which the

interviews/speeches are used and produced in. The text‘s communicative purpose with respect

to the candidates is to first and foremost persuade students to vote for them. Informing the

students, which The Philippine Collegian aims to do, is only secondary to the purpose of the

interviews.

The roles assumed by the actors are that of a candidate and a voter. The relationship

between the candidate and the voter is equal since the candidate is at the mercy of the voter to
 Amper 56

obtain a seat in the USC while the voter is at the mercy of the candidate to fight for his/her rights

and advocacies. The interviewers and editors take an invisible role in uploading the videos of the

interviews of the candidates and making the spoken text more understandable and intelligible

when speeches are transcribed and edited, respectively.

Ideally, the cultural values that are required of the actors are (1) for speakers, in this

case, the standard bearers to be truthful in what they say and to do what they have offered or

promised to do in their speeches; (2) for hearers and readers to read the text provided with a

critical mind and, though not necessary, to incorporate what they have heard or read about the

candidates in their decision on who to vote for to the seats in the USC.

The text context or knowledge of other texts required of the speakers for this genre is the

construction of a basic persuasive argument, which is composed of a thesis or the main idea or

argument followed by one or more supporting ideas or pieces of evidence. The hearers must also

have knowledge of the same structure to recognize the points raised by the speakers and to assess

if the points are valid and reasonable. Both actors need to have knowledge of economic,

ideological, political, and university jargon, otherwise, the hearer/reader who reads the text will

not fully understand what the text is about.

In terms of the written and edited versions of the speeches that were analyzed, aside from

normal newspaper conventions, the formal text features that readers should have knowledge

about are (1) the questions found at the bottom of the page (for 2017, they are located at the top)

have corresponding answers under each candidate, numbered accordingly; (2) Except for 2017,

ellipses (…) were used to denote that the candidate has run out of time while answering a

question; and (3) in 2017, ellipses (…) were used to denote pauses in a candidate‘s speech.
 Amper 57

The next two sections discuss the results from the focus group discussions conducted on

the political parties and on the affiliated students, which reveal the projected identity and the

perceived identity of the political parties, respectively. The party profiles from The Philippine

Collegian election specials, their social media posts, the focus group discussion results and the

analysis of their speeches make up the political party‘s projected identity, or the identity the

party actively projects or shows to their audience. The perceived identity or the descriptions and

perceptions the audience assigns to the political party were gleaned solely from the focus group

discussions with the unaffiliated student voters. This study visibly focuses on projected identity

as implied by the number of sources analyzed (four in total) for this aspect of identity, which is

important for the triangulation of data.

Although projected identity and perceived identity have distinguished definitions and

different sources, it is important to qualify that this study does not consider nor treat them as

separate. The ―whole‖ identity of the political party is composed of both the projected and the

perceived; one is not complete, comprehensive, or balanced enough without the other.
 Amper 58

The Political Party and Their Projected Identity

The difference between the three main political parties of UP Diliman is immediately

evident by their party colors: red for STAND UP, blue for UP Alyansa, and yellow for KAISA

UP. These colors are incorporated into almost everything the political party does: from the

design of campaign posters, online publicity materials, and leaflets, to the nametags worn and

dress code followed by political party candidates during the campaign period.

Figure 10. KAISA UP 2017 slate poster. Photo courtesy of KAISA UP (2017).
 Amper 59

Figure 11. UP Alyansa 2017 slate poster. Photo courtesy of UP Alyansa (2017).

Figure 12. STAND UP 2017 slate poster. Photo courtesy of STAND UP (2017).

During campaign season, the candidates are not the only ones who wear party colors;

political party members as well as unaffiliated students are often seen wearing party colors to

show support to the candidates they are rooting for.

 Amper 60

Figure 13. The 3 Vice Chairperson candidates wearing their political party colors and
coordinated nametags. Photo courtesy of the Philippine Collegian (2017).

Aside from the visual means of expressing identity, other equally important components

of communicating one‘s identity is through written and verbal means. The following section

discusses the identity expressed by each political party through written modes of communication,

such as The Philippine Collegian party profiles and the publicity materials uploaded to their

Facebook pages online. Political party officials‘ answers to some of the questions in the online

focus group discussions with regard to identity will also be included in this section.

STAND UP

Now on its 22nd year, The Student Alliance for the Advancement of Democratic Rights in

UP (STAND UP) is considered ―the largest and longest-running political party in UP Diliman

(Philippine Collegian, ―Party Profiles 2017‖),‖ with 23 member organizations and 10 chapters as

of 2017. STAND UP traces its roots from the earliest political parties in the university:

SAMASA, which had split into two factions. In 1996, the Sandigan Para sa Mag-aaral at
 Amper 61

Sambayanan—Tunay, Militante, at Makabayang Alyansa (SAMASA-TMMA) faction officially

changed its name to STAND UP.

One of the core principles of the party is ―education is a right.‖ In the online focus group

discussions, Jane Salvador1 of STAND UP said that STAND UP believes the current educational

system in the country is colonial, commercialized, and fascist. Given the repressive education

system which tries to mold us into timid and subservient pawns, it is important for students to get

out of their comfort zones. STAND UP stands firm that there should be militancy in advancing

the democratic rights and welfare of students.

The party is firmly opposed to the Socialized Tuition System (STS) (formerly known as

the Student Tuition and Financial Assistance Program or STFAP) implemented in the university

and has spearheaded strikes, walk-outs, and rallies against budget cuts and miscellaneous or

other school fees (OSF). STAND UP also involves itself with issues faced by other sectors in

UP, fighting against demolitions of residential houses on campus, and joining vendors, janitors,

and other UP workers in their fight for their rights.

According to Sarah Isabelle Torres, STAND UP chairperson in 2014, STAND UP

recognizes that the national university must go back to its roots as a university of the people and

realize the full potential of collective action as the catalyst for change both within and outside the

campus. Activism is a lifestyle, and that the party is not just electoral machinery. Throughout the

whole year, the party is a team that seeks to truly represent students and other sectors of the UPD

community (Philippine Collegian, ―Party Profiles 2014‖).

When it comes to national issues outside the university, STAND UP does not keep silent.

The party continuously calls for the passage of the Genuine Agrarian Reform Bill (GARB),
 Amper 62

advocates national industrialization, and consistently critiques current and past administrations

for anti-poor and pro-capitalist policies.

STAND UP‘s Facebook page contains numerous photos of demonstrations and rallies

accompanied by statements on the issue(s) these events are concerned with. According to the

page, some of the other activities of STAND UP members include basic masses integration

(BMI) excursions where they visit factories, indigenous communities, etc. to engage with the

people and the issues that these people face.

Figure 14. STAND UP Facebook posts from 1 Aug. 2017 to 8 Apr. 2018, includes only original

posts, not shared posts and links. Chart courtesy of Chad Booc (2018).
 Amper 63

UP Alyansa

UP Alyansa ng mga Mag-aaral para sa Panlipunang Katwiran at Kaunlaran (UP

ALYANSA) currently leads the University Student Council for school year 2017-2018, winning

the Chairperson seat and six (6) of the 12 USC councilor seats in the last election (Pineda, ―Back

to blue: ALYANSA dominates USC 2017 election‖) . Since its founding in 2000 at the height of

the ouster movement for former Philippine President Joseph Estrada, it has clinched numerous

seats in the USC including six (6) chairpersons, five (5) vice chairpersons, and 73 councilors.

UP Alyansa upholds its main philosophy of multi-perspective activism, which the party

defines as a brand of activism that recognized and respects different perspectives in the fight for

the marginalized, oppressed, and powerless.

2013 Alyansa Chair Ace Ligsay said that they believe activism should not just be

imprisoned into one form, but it should listen to all sides. At the end of the day, activists should

be progressive and should be on the side of the marginalized, oppressed, and powerless

(Philippine Collegian, ―Party Profiles 2013‖).

In the online focus group discussions, current party official Katrina Fajardo2 says that

members are free to identify themselves anywhere on the political spectrum. Current party

chairperson Carlo Brolagda also added that members are welcome to contribute to discussions

within the party especially when it comes to creating stands and devising campaigns.

According to Fajardo, UP ALYANSA aims to be recognized as a leadership formation

that hones leaders who represent the formation's pillars (Progressive Multiperspective Activism;

Academic Excellence; Student Empowerment; and Social Justice and Social Progress).

ALYANSA's brand of leadership listens, works, and deliver. Additionally, ALYANSA's brand

of activism is open to all different forms, from traditional means like mass action through
 Amper 64

rallying and creative protests, to through different art forms, to lobbying and dialogues and more.

They do not impose, nor do they alienate.

While the blue party recognizes issues in the bracketing system, they regard the

socialized tuition system as the ―most just and equitable mechanism by which the burden of

tuition is distributed among students‖ in a statement released after the implementation of STS in

2013. Alyansa also calls for a progressive tuition rollback and is a member of the Progressive

Alliance for the Rollback of Tuition and Accessibility of Education.

Aside from being staunch advocates for gender equality, mental health awareness,

freedom of information, and the end of fraternity-related violence both inside and outside the

university, the party also pushes for the passage of the Magna Carta of Students‘ Rights and

Welfare, a bill of rights that seeks to protect and secure the rights of the student body. UP

Alyansa is also very critical of current President Rodrigo Duterte and the extrajudicial killings

and other injustices committed under his administration.

UP Alyansa‘s Facebook page contains statements on LGBT+ issues, anti-sexual

harassment and women‘s rights statistics and publicity materials, support messages for Chief

Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno as she undergoes impeachment under the Duterte administration,

and quotes from party members that are current USC officers on social issues, among others.

They also share several publicity materials from third party organization events that they helped

organize which focus on issues such as mental health, student services, etc.
 Amper 65

Figure 15. UP Alyansa Facebook posts from 1 Aug. 2017 to 8 Apr. 2018, includes only original

posts, not shared posts and links. Chart courtesy of Chad Booc (2018).

KAISA UP

Nagkakaisang Iskolar Para sa Pamantasan at Sambayanan (KAISA UP) is the youngest

major political party in UP Diliman, formed by two organizations and other college-based

organizations who split from UP Alyansa in 2005. KAISA has participated in the local college

and university elections, clinching the top post of the University Student Council twice in 2010

and 2013. KAISA‘s brand of leadership is ―scholar-activism‖, which means ―academic

excellence with social relevance‖ according to 2013 KAISA Chairperson Shaina Santiago. The

party enjoins students from the university to use their potentials for the development of the
 Amper 66

university and the country. KAISA has also expressed its strong belief that all student-leaders

can work together regardless of political affiliation to boost cooperation and action during the

2017 USC campaign season.

In their General Plan of Action for the 2017 USC elections, they stated that their brand of

leadership is focused on setting aside divisive, partisan politics and working under a unified

council platform.

KAISA has long pushed for full state subsidy and the Six Will Fix Bill since 2008 which

aims to automatically allocate 6% of the country‘s gross national product (GNP) to the education

sector. They believe that education is a right and that the younger generation must ensure

investment in education. According to 2015 KAISA Chairperson Alex Castro, there is a need to

fight for free education because the Socialized Tuition System only justifies the income-

generating projects of UP (Philippine Collegian, ―Party Profiles 2015‖).

According to former KAISA UP official Jacqueline Hipolito, one of KAISA‘s flagship

campaigns is climate justice. They see that the party will leave more of a mark to students if they

push for this campaign since it has never been a campaign by other political parties. But aside

from campaigns, they also want to be recognized as a political organization that organizes and

mobilizes students on issues inside and outside the university.

Other advocacies supported by the party include gender equality, voter education, mental

health awareness, labor rights, women‘s rights, human rights, civil liberties, and the passage of

the Students‘ Magna Carta in the university.

The KAISA UP Facebook page contains a mixture of different shared links/publicity

materials to events they co-organized and pictures of their members attending demonstrations

and rallies accompanied by a statement for its caption. Issues and topics they have posted about
 Amper 67

include climate justice, anti-sexual harassment, anti-Duterte administration sentiments,

rebuilding of the UP Diliman Shopping Center, and calls to end worker contractualization,

among others.

Figure 16. KAISA UP Facebook posts from 1 Aug. 2017 to 8 Apr. 2018, includes only original

posts, not shared posts and links. Chart courtesy of Chad Booc (2018).

Perceived Identity: The Political Parties and Their Constituents’ Perception

Identity is not formed merely by the individual and, if applicable, by the team that makes

an individual conform to its collective identity. Identity is also constructed through the

audience‘s/hearer‘s interpretation of the projected identity of the actors/speakers. This

observation is especially evident in groups that often interact or are inherently made to interact
 Amper 68

with an outside audience. These groups may include religious groups, businesses, film actors and

actresses in talent agencies, and political parties; the list goes on.

Aside from political party officials, a handful of members of the student body who

represent the unaffiliated constituents of the University Student Council were also engaged in an

online focus group discussion. All eight of the participants of the online focus group discussions

are aware and have seen the USC election coverage of The Philippine Collegian; all of the

participants have watched the Facebook and YouTube videos of candidates participating in

interviews and three participants, in addition to watching the videos, also read The Philippine

Collegian ―Go Out and Vote‖ specials.

This section imparts the unaffiliated participants‘ insights and opinions on the USC

elections and the three major political parties of UP Diliman. All the names of the participants

have been changed.

STAND UP

STAND UP is recognized by its constituents as the ―radical‖ and ―extreme left‖ party

relative to the other two parties, and these qualities reflect on their political party color: red. Most

of the members of the party are branded as revolutionaries ideologically and are often seen at

rallies and mobilizations inside and outside the university. Their candidates are known for giving

overwhelming spiels during campaign season. When it comes to issues, students know them for

giving emphasis to national issues and the plight of the masses. They also lobby for students‘

rights and are seen as an ally of indigenous peoples of the Philippines.

The positive characteristics associated with the party are loud (in a positive way) because

of their constant and consistent calls for justice and resolutions to a myriad of issues; skilled at

mobilizing students into action; and active because of their constant presence and visibility
 Amper 69

through organizing rallies, mobilizations, and educational discussions. In fact, four out of the six

students who answered the question that asked them to describe each political party said that the

party is visible throughout the year, even outside the election season.

One negative characteristic associated with them is their inability to compromise. One

participant even went further to say they sound ―too extreme and ridiculous.‖ Another participant

says that because they focus more on issues in the national level, they neglect the issues

immediately faced by students in the university. They are described by the participants as

dogmatic, arrogant, and entitled. They also ―throw shade‖ or covertly criticize and badmouth

other parties. According to Mara, one of the participants from the first focus group, there are

members who also have a petit bourgeois lifestyle who think that it is ―cool‖ to be ―woke.‖

A participant from the second focus group, Jasmine, who also happens to be a former

member of STAND UP and has since left, detailed the party‘s movements during campaign

season and assessed the party‘s elected officials‘ performance. According to her, during election

season, they try to sell the pretty faces to get more votes, they tone down their ―agit‖ (aggressive

and agitated) characteristic, and they become friendlier and invite people to their discussion

groups. She added that however, when they are in power, they cannot decide on what to do first,

what projects really do matter to the students, and the students can also see that they may have a

different agenda from what they originally promised to do. To Jasmine, they make grand

promises they cannot fulfill.

Mara also added that they make fresh recruits run for seats in the elections, which

manifests in the candidates‘ performance in RTRs, forums, and interviews. Two participants

observed that during the campaign season, their candidates seem to parrot or repeat what they
 Amper 70

hear and learn from educational discussions, but when asked specific questions, they cannot

answer properly.

When asked which political party they agree or disagree with, of the six people who

answered the question, two participants said they agree with STAND UP while five did not.

Heather from the agreeing side finds herself in favor of a lot of the points the party

members make during RTRs, election debates, or statements. Though she does not engage in it,

she finds the most merit in the militant nature of their activism. She also admires and respects

their uncompromising stance on all issues. She prefers STAND UP over the two parties because

they have a concrete and consistent analysis of the issues the students and the people face, as

well as the root causes of these issues.

Mara answered that she both agrees and disagrees with STAND UP because they push

for national democracy. However, she does not agree with ―protracted people‘s war‖ as a

solution. Another participant also mentioned this as the reason why she disagrees with the

political party. Protracted people‘s war (PPW) or people‘s war is defined as any form of guerilla

conflict or popular insurrection regardless of its ideological roots. It was developed by Mao

Zedong in the 1930s and 1940s during the Chinese Civil War and the struggle against the

Japanese (McCormick 23).

Other reasons why people disagree with STAND UP are their unapologetic nature, and

their tendency to discredit those who do not share their views. While some like their

uncompromising attitude (like Heather), some see it as a hindrance to create materialized and

genuine change. Keith also adds that STAND UP members have a tendency to discredit and

attack those outside their own party and those who do not share their views. They tend to throw

around and misuse big words and terms attacking certain groups of students, especially those
 Amper 71

who have stances contrary to theirs. They also tend to monopolize certain issues, as if theirs is

the only way. Examples of issues, according to Keith, are free education, Marcos not a hero,

indigenous people, etc.

UP Alyansa

UP Alyansa is known as the most ―right wing‖ party relative to the other two parties. One

participant even labeled them ―evolutionary socialists‖. According to the impression of the

participants in the focus group, their platforms tend to focus on university level issues. Their

candidates are also known to use English as their language in RTRs, but it seems they are trying

to change this by using Tagalog in more recent years.

Most of the participants said they only really see UP Alyansa during campaign/election

season. Heather, in their defense, said that they might be more focused on lobbying legislations

and reforms, and it must be the reason why they are not as visible as the mobs organized by

STAND UP and its affiliated organizations.

The positive aspect that the participants associated with UP Alyansa is they are

diplomatic when it comes to dealing with students‘ concerns and communicating with the

administration. Keith said that their stances on issues are ―mostly reasonable.‖

The negative attributes that are associated with UP Alyansa is they come off as ―elitist,‖

―bourgeois,‖ and pretend socialists.

There is also the problem of them only being active during election season, despite the

presumption that their lack of visibility stems from the nature of their tactics in forwarding and

bringing about change. This is why when the party becomes visible and friendly during elections,

the participants could not help but think that the reason they are engaging in activities is solely

because it is the election season.

 Amper 72

Heather recounts that during election season, all of the political parties are loud in

general, in the sense that all of them are trying to get the attention of the voters. They have their

own gimmicks. All parties each have their own campaigns and advocacies outside election

season, but when election season does come, activities and attention-seeking intensify.

Four participants agreed with Alyansa while one disagreed. The reason why participants

agreed is because they believe that parliamentary reforms can still offer solutions to problems,

however they did mention that these parliamentary reforms should not just be what one struggles

for.

Heather is the only participant who voiced her disagreement with the blue party. She says

that she disagrees with how UP ALYANSA seems to think that reforms can make a flawed

system better. She is not impressed of the liberal character of the party‘s politics either, which

also manifests itself in their activism.

KAISA UP

KAISA is recognized as the party who takes the ―middle ground‖ relative to the other

two parties. Most people observed that their stances are similar to STAND UP‘s, and that is why

people tend to call them the ―weaker‖ version of the red party. One participant even described

them as ―socialist, but not revolutionary.‖

When it comes to visibility, they are the least visible in terms of their platform and

activities during the school year. All six participants who answered the question expressed that

the yellow party only appears during elections. Heather said that there is even a circulating joke

that KAISA only ever resurfaces during elections.

 Amper 73

One of the positive characteristics of KAISA is they field strong, skilled, and popular

individuals to run as candidates under their flag. This has caused them to win some of the highest

seats in the USC in the past years. A participant also described them as ―reasonable.‖

The negative aspects of KAISA according to the participants are their lack of clarity and

the poor consolidation of their political ideology with their affiliated orgs and local chapters. The

participants are not sure if the party earnestly sides with the students or if the candidates they

choose have their own personal agendas. Jasmine even went further to brand KAISA as

―balimbing,‖ a Filipino slang for traitor or turncoat. ―Sometimes they‘re activists, sometimes

they‘re not.‖

Their most serious problem is their lack of visibility when it comes to campaigns all year

round. The result that neither of the participants agree or disagree with KAISA is very telling of

their invisibility. Most of them expressed neutral feeling toward the party, citing their lack of

knowledge of the advocacies, campaigns, and activities of the party. Mara commented that they

are poor at mobilizing their members.

Prevalent Politeness Strategies Used by Political Party Standard Bearers

To fully understand the politeness strategies used in this analysis, refer to the list of

definitions and examples of Brown and Levinson‘s politeness strategies in Appendix A. It is also

important to keep this code in mind to be able to understand the tables in the following sections.

Code Summary
BOR – Bald on record, or without redressive action
+P1 – Notice, attend
+P2 – Exaggerate interest, approval, sympathy
+P3 – Intensify interest to H
+P4 – Use inclusive identity markers
 Amper 74

+P5 – Seek agreement

+P6.1 – Avoid disagreement: Token agreement
+P6.2 – Avoid disagreement: White lies
+P6.3 – Avoid disagreement: Hedging opinions
+P7.1 – Presuppose/raise/assert common ground: Gossip or small talk
+P7.2 – Presuppose/raise/assert common ground: Personal-centre switch
+P7.3 – Presuppose/raise/assert common ground: Time switch
+P7.4 – Presuppose/raise/assert common ground: Place switch
+P7.5 – Presuppose/raise/assert common ground: Using direct quotes
+P7.6 – Presuppose/raise/assert common ground: Presuppose knowledge of H‘s wants and
attitudes
+P7.7 – Presuppose/raise/assert common ground: Presuppose H‘s values are the same as S‘s
values
+P7.8 – Presuppose/raise/assert common ground: Presuppose familiarity in S-H relationship
+P7.9 – Presuppose/raise/assert common ground: Presuppose H‘s knowledge
+P8 – Joke
+P9 – Convey understanding of H‘s wants
+P10 – Offer, promise
+P11 – Be optimistic
+P12 – Include both S and H in activity
+P13 – Give (or ask) for reasons
+P14 – Assume or assert reciprocity
+P15 – Give sympathy, understanding, or cooperation to H (give gifts)
-P1 – Be conventionally indirect
-P2 – Question, hedge
-P3 – Be pessimistic
-P4 – Minimize imposition on H
-P5 – Give deference
-P6 – Apologize
-P7 – Impersonalize, avoid I and you
-P8 – State the FTA as a general rule
 Amper 75

-P9 – Nominalize
-P10 – Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H
OR1 – Give hints
OR2 – Give association clues
OR3 – Presuppose
OR4 – Understate
OR5 – Overstate
OR6 – Use tautologies
OR7 – Use contradictions
OR8 – Be ironic
OR9 – Use metaphors
OR10 – Use rhetorical questions
OR11 – Be ambiguous
OR12 – Be vague
OR13 – Over-generalize
OR14 – Displace H
OR15 – Be incomplete, use ellipsis

Excluded Strategy: Hedges and Questions (-P2)

Hedges are particles, words, or phrases that modify the degree of membership of a

predicate or noun phrase in a set, and can be used to minimize imposition on H. According to

Brown and Levinson‘s model, the primary functions of negative politeness strategy 2 are to

delay the FTA in an effort to soften it, disclaim it, or minimize its imposition on H. Examples of

utterances using questions and hedges per political party are shown below.

Ex.

(1) (STAND UP) Kaya alam naman natin (a) na ahas, ‗di ba, kahit gaano mo iyan alagaan, at

the end of the day (b), may malaki talaga ang chance na kakagatin ka niyan. (That‘s why
 Amper 76

we all already know that snakes, right, no matter how much you take care of it, at the end

of the day, there‘s really a big chance that it will bite you.)

(2) (UP Alyansa) …kung ihahambing natin, ‗no (a), sa isang bahagi ng katawan ‗yung ating

plataporma bilang chairperson ng USC (b), ihahambing ko ito sa paa. (If we‘re going to

compare, [untranslatable filler], one part of the body to our platform as a chairperson of

the USC, I will compare it to feet.)

(3) (KAISA UP) I think the students should not settle with what the government is giving us.

In this context, especially since the medium analyzed is spoken, unintended questions and

hedges may be uttered unintentionally, perhaps out of the candidate‘s nervousness or wanting to

buy time to think of an answer, since the questions were asked on the spot. These segments in an

utterance are called pragmatic markers, which comprise a functional class of linguistic items

that do not typically change the propositional meaning of an utterance. However, these markers

are essential for the organization and structuring of discourse, for marking the speaker‘s attitudes

to the proposition being expressed, as well as for facilitating processes of pragmatic inferences

(Furko 2; Fraser 171). To clarify, it does not that mean that these utterances are meaningless;

pragmatic markers just do not have value-adding meaning to the message uttered by a speaker.

In a spoken medium, it is not easy to distinguish and specify which hedges or questions

were uttered intentionally to serve the specific functions stated above or unintentionally, out of

nerves, etc. Thus, although the occurrences of the negative politeness strategy 2 (-P2) were

already marked in the encoded data analysis in Appendix D, this study does not include the

occurrence of hedges and questions due to their unspecified and indistinguishable function as

pragmatic markers in the speeches.

 Amper 77

The speaker‘s presupposing common ground with the hearer by using place switch

(+P7.4), which involves the use of proximal pronouns such as ―this‖ and ―here‖ instead of ―that‖

and ―there‖, is also considered as a pragmatic marker. They have the specific function of adding

emphasis to the utterance and situating the hearer in the middle of a situation according to Brown

and Levinson. Since the function and supplementary meaning of the place switch strategy as a

pragmatic marker is specified and acknowledged by the model itself, +P7.4 is still considered as

a valid strategy relevant in the analysis.

The main texts analyzed in this study are the political party standard bearers‘ speeches in

The Philippine Collegian Go Out and Vote election specials. This study hypothesizes that the

politeness strategies used by the standard bearers reflect the identity a political party projects to

their constituents. Erving Goffman‘s dramaturgical model states that an actor uses impressions in

his performance to project his ―self-image‖ or identity (4). Deriving from Goffman, Brown and

Levinson developed their own politeness theory, where speakers use politeness strategies to

protect the ―face‖ or public self-image of a person one claims for himself, and the ―face wants‖

or desires of both the speaker and the hearer (61). From these assertions, it is undeniable that

speech is inextricably linked to identity. The following analyses attempt to prove it so.

STAND UP

Using frequency counting, 27 different kinds of politeness strategies were found in the 10

speeches analyzed from the 2013-2017 standard bearers (SBs) of STAND UP, with a total

number of 660 strategies used by the candidates overall. The majority of these strategies were

positive politeness strategies with a total number of 426, while the total number of negative
 Amper 78

politeness strategies is 55. There were 22 off-record and two (2) bald-on-record utterances

recorded as well.

Initially, these numbers disprove hypothesis 1.a, which states that bald-on record

strategies are the prevalent strategies used by STAND UP. However, these numbers do not

necessarily disprove hypothesis 2.a, which assumes that the prevalent strategies used by STAND

UP SBs reflect their no-compromises identity. A lot of the unaffiliated participants from the

OFGs also noted STAND UP‘s unapologetic, uncompromising, and unrelenting stances on

issues and we may still find evidence of this defining trait in the use of other strategies (or lack

there-of) aside from bald-on record strategies.

Table 1
Frequency of Politeness Strategies Used by STAND UP Standard Bearers, Arranged in
Descending Order (2013-2017)
Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency) Percentage scores
+P12 166 32.9%
+P7.4 78 15.4%
+P7.9 38 7.5%
+P7.7 35 6.9%
+P3 30 5.9%
+P2 28 5.5%
-P7 24 4.8%
+P4.1 24 4.8%
-P4 11 2.2%
OR10 10 1.9%
-P8 8 1.6%
-P9 7 1.4%
+P7.2 6 1.2%
+P4.2 6 1.2%
OR13 5 1.0%
-P5 5 1.0%
+P6.1 4 0.8%
+P7.1 3 0.6%
OR9 3 0.6%
OR7 3 0.6%
BOR 2 0.4%
+P1 2 0.4%
 Amper 79

+P6.3 2 0.4%
+P10 2 0.4%
+P13 1 0.2%
+P9 1 0.2%
OR11 1 0.2%
Total no. of politeness strategies used 505 100.0%

The four most prevalent strategies used by STAND UP SBs are: (1) include both the

speaker (S) and hearer (H) in activity (+P12); (2) place switch (+P7.4); (3) presuppose H‘s

knowledge (+P7.9); and (4) presuppose H‘s values are the same as S‘s values (+P7.7).

The most prevalent politeness strategy used by the STAND UP SBs is positive politeness

strategy 12 (+P12) wherein S includes H in the activity S is talking about. This strategy is

employed by the use of the inclusive ―we‖ form. S‘s use of ―we‖ here really means ―you‖ and

―me,‖ and he can call upon cooperative assumptions and thereby redress face-threatening acts

(FTAs). Other forms of ―we‖ include ―our‖ and ―let‘s.‖ In Tagalog (Filipino), which the

language STAND UP SBs frequently use in their speeches, ―tayo‖ (inclusive we), ―natin‖

(inclusive we), and ―atin‖ (inclusive our) are also used. This is different from ―kami‖ (non-

inclusive we), ―amin‖/―namin‖ (non-inclusive our), which falls under negative politeness

strategy 7 (-P7) which impersonalizes S and H.

Ex.

(4) Tayo sa STAND-UP ay naniniwala na ang other school fees ay hindi makatarungan para

sa mga Iskolar ng Bayan. (We at STAND UP believe that other school fees are unjust for

the Iskolars ng Bayan [scholars of the nation].)

(5) Dapat lang na suportahan natin ang Peace Talks sa pagitan ng ating gobyerno at ng CPP-

NPA-NDF… ([It is only just that] we should support the Peace Talks between our

government and the CPP-NPA-NDF…)

 Amper 80

(6) What we need are policies and the state to understand the root causes of the armed

struggle…

(7) Our assessment of STS on its first year of implementation is still, is still the same as our

assessment of STFAP because they're essentially the same.

In Example 4, ―tayo‖ followed by ―sa STAND UP,‖ which translates to ―we at STAND

UP,‖ is used to call on the members of the political party as well as non-members. This form is

used as a strategy on non-members/unaffiliated students to make them feel a sense of

belongingness to the political party and its beliefs, advocacies, and opinions; this somehow

softens the FTA, which is to inform H about S‘s belief and stances on issues that might have

otherwise come off strong if the strategy was not used. STAND UP SBs used positive politeness

strategy 12 166 times, which comprises more than 25% or one-fourth of all the strategies they

have used. STAND UP is not the only political party whose candidates use this strategy. In fact,

this is one of the most used strategies by all three of the political parties. This phenomenon will

be further discussed later.

Place switch (+P7.4), the second most prevalent strategy, is characterized by the use of

proximal rather than distal demonstratives (use of here, this rather than there, that), where either

proximal or distal demonstratives are acceptable, but the use of the proximal is preferred to

convey increased involvement or empathy. In addition to this, by situating H close to the

figurative proximity of the subject and/or its components, S gets H more involved in the

conversation. Tagalog (Filipino) equivalents of proximal demonstratives are ―rito/dito‖ (here)

and ―ito/nito‖ (this).

 Amper 81

Ex.

(8) Ginawa lamang nitong mas efficient yung proseso nung, uh, pag-aapply para dito sa

Assistance Program. (This just made the process of, uh, applying for this more Assistance

Program more efficient.)

(9) …marami pa ring naghihirap dito sa ating bansa. (…there are still a lot [of people]

suffering here in our country.)

Next is presupposing H‘s knowledge (+P7.9). This strategy is characterized by the use of

in-group codes – language, dialect, jargon, or local terminology – with the assumption that H

understands and shares the associations of that code. This strategy is similar to a sub-category of

positive politeness strategy 4 (+P4.3) which uses jargon or slang. The difference between these

two is that +P4.3 is used when S is certain that H knows the meaning of these words. In +P7.9, S

only presumes that H knows the meaning of these words, meaning S is not certain that H actually

knows what he is talking about. S‘s assumption that H knows about these in-group codes may

operate as an expression of good intentions, indicating that S assumes that both him and H share

common ground.

Ex.

(10) Meron siyang programang PPP, meron at, um, pero hindi pa rin ito tumutugon sa

talagang, um, sa talagang poverty… (He [the president] has programs that are PPP

[public-private partnerships], and has, um, but these still do not really solve, um, real

poverty…)

(11) …pinag-uusapan ang mga mahahalagang reporma, katulad na lang ng land reform at

national industrialization at ang pagpo-provide ng ating government sa mga basic social

 Amper 82

services. (…talk about important reforms, such as land reform, national industrialization,

and the government providing for basic social services.)

In this study, the political party jargon and terminologies were determined by

consolidating the data from the OFGs, parry profiles, and posts from Facebook pages. The

speeches of one political party are then cross-checked with the first set of data to narrow down a

list of words that can potentially be considered as in-group jargon, and is then cross-checked

again with data from the other two political parties to determine if terminologies are shared or

unique. Jargons from different fields such as economics, law, and philosophy were also included.

The use of jargon in the context of UPD student politics has a different effect on the

audience than what Brown and Levinson had described. In the focus group discussions, one

participant noted STAND UP‘s use of unfamiliar jargon and described it as ―a tendency to throw

around and misuse big words.‖ Other participants also described STAND UP candidates for

having ―overwhelming spiels‖ and as having a difficult time communicating with the student

body. Instead of serving the function described by Brown and Levinson, STAND UP‘s use of

jargon alienates the audience rather than giving them a feeling of belongingness. The alienation

felt by STAND UP‘s audience also adds to the evidence that proves STAND UP as a party that

has an ―uncompromising‖ attitude.

The last of the four prevalent politeness strategies is presupposing H‘s values being the

same as S‘s values (+P7.7). This strategy is characterized by S‘s preference for extremes in

adjectives and value-judgment scales (e.g. good-bad, beautiful-ugly, interesting-boring), and is

similar to and may be interchangeable with strategies +P2 (Exaggerate), OR4 (Understate), and

OR5 (Overstate). Another form of this strategy is when S uses ―not only… but also‖ in his
 Amper 83

speech. Like the other two subdivisions of positive politeness strategies 7 discussed above, this

strategy is used to stress common ground between S and H.

Ex.

(12) There‘s a very low paper to teacher relation, low paper to student ratio, and low ca—

uh—faculty to student ratio.

(13) For long and lasting peace in Mindanao, we do not need a watered-down, railroaded or

rushed policy.

(14) Tayo din ang maghahawan ng, uh, daan para hindi lamang sa mga iskolar ng bayan

kundi para sa mga mamamayan tungo sa tunay na pagbabago. (We are going to clear the,

uh, way not only for the iskolars ng bayan, but also for the citizens toward real change.)

When combined, the total number of +P7 strategies (including +P7.1 and +P7.2) are 160,

5 strategy uses more than the total number –P2 strategies. The combined number of +P12 and

+P7 strategies makes up 49.4% or a little under half of the overall number of strategies used by

the STAND UP SBs. Though bald-on record strategies are not the most prevalent strategies used

by the STAND UP SBs, it can be argued that their constant presupposition and assertion of

common ground with their hearers (i.e. the use of place switch, use of extremes in value

judgments, and especially the excessive use of jargon) reflects their uncompromising,

unapologetic, and unrelenting identity. In turn, their use of a large number of inclusive pronouns

(+P12) softens the delivery of their otherwise strong stances. This assertion is sufficient to

confirm hypothesis 2.a.

 Amper 84

UP Alyansa

There are 31 different kinds of politeness strategies, the most diverse of the three political

parties, that were found in the 10 speeches analyzed from the 2013-2017 standard bearers (SBs)

of UP Alyansa, with a total number of 461 strategies used by the candidates overall. Similar to

STAND UP, the majority of these strategies were politeness strategies with a total number of

388, while the total number of negative politeness strategies is 53. Also recorded were twenty

(20) off-record and 0 bald-on-record utterances.

Based on these numbers, hypothesis 1.b, which states that negative politeness strategies

are the prevalent politeness strategies used by UP Alyansa SBs, is disproved. However, it is

important to note that UP Alyansa also used the largest percentage of negative politeness

strategies, which makes up 11.5% of all the strategies their SBs used. However, with regard to

the overall percentage of negative politeness strategies used per party, KAISA UP comes at a

close 11.1% while STAND UP has 10.9%. This information is not sufficient to prove or disprove

hypothesis 2.b.

Table 2

Frequency of Politeness Strategies Used by UP Alyansa Standard Bearers, Arranged in

Descending Order (2013-2017)

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency) Percentage scores

+P12 148 32.1%
+P7.4 49 10.6%
+P2 47 10.2%
+P7.2 37 8.0%
-P7 36 7.8%
+P3 33 7.2%
+P7.7 29 6.3%
+P7.9 20 4.3%
-P4 13 2.8%
+P4.1 6 1.3%
OR13 5 1.1%
 Amper 85

OR10 5 1.1%
OR9 5 1.1%
+P6.1 4 1.0%
+P7.1 4 1.0%
+P6.3 2 0.4%
+P1 2 0.4%
-P8 2 0.4%
+P4.2 2 0.4%
-P9 1 0.22%
+P8 1 0.22%
OR11 1 0.22%
+P4.3 1 0.22%
OR7 1 0.22%
OR3 1 0.22%
+P10 1 0.22%
-P6 1 0.22%
+P9 1 0.22%
+P7.5 1 0.22%
OR8 1 0.22%
OR12 1 0.22%
Total no. of politeness strategies used 461 100.1%

The top four strategies used by UP Alyansa‘s SBs are as follows: (1) include S and H in

activity (+P12); (2) presuppose or assert common ground through place switch (+P7.4); (3)

exaggerate (+P2); and (4) presuppose or assert common ground through personal-centre switch

(+P7.2).

The most frequently used strategy is including both S and H in the activity (+P12). This

strategy is employed by the use of the inclusive ―we‖ form. Its other forms include ―let‘s,‖ ―our,‖

―tayo‖ (inclusive we), ―natin‖ (inclusive we), and ―atin‖ (inclusive our).

Ex.

(15) …maganda ang principle ng STFAP, pero ‗yun nga, kailangan nga natin ma-make sure

na bawat estudyante ay kayang mag-apply for it, for us to have a relevant and accessible

education. (…the principle of STFAP is good, but as I said, we need to make sure that

each student is able to apply for it, for us to have a relevant and accessible education.)
 Amper 86

(16) Number one, kailangang maging transparent, ‗no, yung paano ba tayo binabracket, para

macheck natin ‗yung misbracketing, etc. (Number one, the [STS] needs to be transparent,

[untranslatable filler], on how we are placed into brackets so we can check for any

misbracketing, etc.)

(17) Tayo sa ALYANSA na-clear natin ‗yung maaaring benepisyo ng academic calendar

shift. (We at ALYANSA, we cleared the possible benefits of the academic calendar

shift.)

(18) Kaya naman para sa atin, dapat magkaroon tayo ng sapat na pagtuon doon sa, ah,

Mindanao – investment, at, uh, ayusin natin yung kanilang education, health, at siyempre

'yung, um, ka-kapayapaan at seguridad sa buong Mindanao. (That‘s why for us, we

should give enough attention to, uh, Mindanao—investment, and, uh, we should fix their

education, health, and of course, the, um, peace and security in the whole of Mindanao.)

Similar to STAND UP, UP Alyansa SBs also use the ―we at [political party name]‖ form

to soften the delivery of their stances on issues (see Example 17). The strategy is also used to

make H feel a sense of belongingness to the efforts, stances, and activities of the party.

The next most prevalent strategy is using place switch so S can assert common ground

with H (+P7.4). It is characterized by the use of proximal rather than distal demonstratives (use

of here, this rather than there, that), where either proximal or distal demonstratives are

acceptable. The preference for proximal demonstratives conveys increased involvement or

empathy. Tagalog (Filipino) equivalents of proximal demonstratives are ―rito/dito‖ (here) and

―ito/nito‖ (this).
 Amper 87

Ex.

(19) Siguro kung may isang hayop nga sa Chinese Zodiac ang makakadescribe sa mga

plataporma ng aking mga kalaban, siguro ito ‗yung, um, snake. (Perhaps if there is one

animal in the Chinese Zodiac that can describe the platform of my opponents, maybe it

[this] is the, um, snake.)

(20) Ayan, so, isang napakalaking improvement ng STS compared sa STFAP, ay (sic) ‗yung

mas efficient nitong transaction… (There, so, STS is a very big improvement compared

to the STFAP is (sic) its more efficient transaction…)

(21) Pangalawa, malaking benefit din ito sa mga, mga kapwa nating iskolar ng bayan…

(Secondly, this will also [give] big benefits to our, our fellow iskolars ng bayan…)

The fourth most prevalent strategy is exaggeration (+P2), which is done by using

exaggerated intonation, stress, and other aspects of prosodics. Using intensifying modifiers such

as ―very,‖ ―really,‖ ―for sure,‖ ―exactly,‖ ―absolutely,‖ ―napaka-―(Tagalog; extremely, very),

―mas‖ (Tagalog; more), etc. also count as exaggeration.

Ex.

(22) …kapag transparent and accountable talaga ‗yung government, mas magiging maganda

yung relationship… (if the government is truly transparent and accountable, the

relationship will be better…)

(23) Kasi sa ngayon, kapag kinompyut natin, napaka-regressive pa rin niya. (Because right

now, if we compute it, it is still very regressive.)

(24) Pero sa kabila nito, nakikita natin na napakarami pang problema. (But on the other side

of this, we can see that there are still numerous [much more than ―a lot of‖] problems.)
 Amper 88

In Example 24, the exaggeration (+P2) strategy is coupled with an adjective of quantity

―rami/dami‖ which, in Tagalog, denotes a large quantity. The speaker does not have a concrete

figure as to how many problems there really are, but he gives a rough estimate using an adjective

of quantity. It is also possible that the speaker is uncertain whether there really are large numbers

of problems that exist, so it can be assumed that, instead of a strategy that accurately informs, the

speaker is using exaggeration to intensify the interest of H (+P3). This pattern is common in the

speeches of the SBs, where +P2 and +P3 are used hand-in-hand to probably increase or intensify

the interest of the hearer.

The last of the four most frequent strategies used by the UP Alyansa SBs is asserting

common ground by using the personal-centre switch (+P7.2), where S speaks as if H were S, or

as if H‘s knowledge were equal to S‘s, which entails the use of the inclusive ―we.‖ This strategy

is also employed by speaking as if H were the central person in S‘s utterance, which is

characterized by the use of ―you‖ or its other variants.

Ex.

(25) But I think it‘s important as well that if you have globalization and you have this vast

ocean of ideas you have to have, or you have to maintain your own national identity as

well.

(26) Nandiyan ‗yung dormitory fees, nandiyan ‗yung transportation fees, nandiyan ‗yung

pagkain, and even if you can afford tuition, or even if wala na kayong binabayarang

tuition, kung taga-Bacolod ka at hindi mo kayang mag-dormitory; hindi mo kayang

magbayad ng dormitory dito sa UP, wala rin. Hindi mo rin maa-achieve. Hindi rin

magiging accessible for you ‗yung education. (There are dormitory fees, there are
 Amper 89

transportation fees, there are [expenses allotted for] food, and even if you can afford

tuition, or even if you [plural] are not paying any tuition, if you‘re from Bacolod and you

are unable to stay at dormitory; [if] you are not capable of paying for your dormitory here

in UP, it‘s all for nothing. You still can‘t achieve(?). Education will still not be accessible

for you.)

As we can see in Examples 25 and 26, UP Alyansa SBs used this strategy to directly let

the hearer imagine his self into the scenario the SBs created. Making H the central person in S‘s

speech/scenario effectively conveys and reinforces the common ground S is trying to

communicate with H, and affects H in a personal level.

Hypothesis 2.b states that UP Alyansa gives importance to an individual‘s power over

oneself, the individual experiences each person possesses, and freedom from imposition. In the

OFGs, Alyansa officers themselves stated that they do not impose ideologies or a singular form

of activism to their constituents. Unaffiliated participants of the OFG also mentioned UP

Alyansa‘s willingness to compromise and negotiate reforms.

At face value, the fifth most prevalent strategy (+P7.2) gives H ―freedom from

imposition‖ by valuing the individual‘s power and experiences by using ―you‖ to let H imagine

and somehow think for himself. However, the +P7 strategy primarily presupposes and asserts

common ground that ―attempts to bring together or merge the points of view of a speaker and

addressee (Brown and Levinson 119).‖ Because S, in this case, does not really know what H‘s

true wants are since S and H cannot directly communicate, S presupposes H‘s wants by

forwarding his (S‘s) own wants. The use of ―you‖ intelligently gives an illusion that S is letting
 Amper 90

H make his own choices or imagine his own scenarios. But in reality, S is feeding the images that

the ―you‖ in his speech (or H) is imagining.

The total number of positive politeness strategies (388; 84.2%) is significantly higher

than the number of negative politeness strategies (53; 11.5%). With consideration to the data,

hypothesis 2.b is disproved; STAND UP and UP Alyansa are similar in terms of staunchly

defending their stances and beliefs. Like STAND UP, UP Alyansa SBs used +P7 strategies to

soften the delivery of their FTAs, without lessening its imposition on H. The only difference is

UP Alyansa SBs employ the personal-centre switch politeness strategy that makes it seem like

they are giving H freedom from imposition and control over their choices.

KAISA UP

Unlike STAND UP and UP Alyansa, KAISA UP was unable to field standard bearers for

the 2016 USC elections. Thus, only eight speeches were analyzed for the yellow party. Using

frequency counting, 22 different kinds of politeness strategies were noted in the speeches

analyzed from the 2013-2015 and 2017 SBs of KAISA UP. A total number of 261 strategies

were used by the candidates overall, the smallest number among the three political parties. The

majority of these strategies were politeness strategies with a total number of 218, while the total

number of negative politeness strategies is 29. There were nine (9) off-record and five (5) bald-

on-record utterances recorded as well.

Hypotheses 1.c states that the prevalent politeness strategies used by KAISA UP SBs

were positive politeness strategies. Furthermore, hypothesis 2.c states that through these positive

politeness strategies, the party encourages solidarity by seeking agreement from their

constituents. With the numbers presented above, hypothesis 1.c, and even hypothesis 2.c can be
 Amper 91

presumed proven. However, to further provide evidence for hypothesis 2.c, let us look further

into the four (or five) most prevalent strategies used by KAISA UP.

The top four most frequently used strategies by KAISA UP SBs are: (1) include S and H

in activity (+P12); (2) presuppose or assert common ground through place switch (+P7.4); (3)

presuppose H‘s knowledge (+P7.9); and, tied in fourth place, (4) exaggerate (+P2) and intensify

interest of H (+P3).

Table 3

Frequency of Politeness Strategies Used by KAISA UP Standard Bearers, Arranged in

Descending Order (2013-2015, 2017)

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency) Percentage scores

+P12 102 39.1%
+P7.4 49 18.8%
+P7.9 17 6.5%
+P3 14 5.4%
+P2 14 5.4%
-P8 11 4.3%
-P7 10 3.8%
+P4.1 6 2.3%
BOR 5 1.9%
+P7.7 5 1.9%
-P4 5 1.9%
+P6.1 4 1.5%
OR10 4 1.5%
-P9 3 1.1%
+P1 3 1.1%
OR13 3 1.1%
OR4 1 0.4%
+P7.2 1 0.4%
OR8 1 0.4%
+P7.1 1 0.4%
+P7.5 1 0.4%
+P6.3 1 0.4%
Total no. of politeness strategies used 261 100.0%
 Amper 92

The most frequently used strategy is including both S and H in activity (+P12). It uses the

different forms of the inclusive ―we‖ (such as let’s, our, etc.; in Tagalog, tayo, natin, and atin) to

assume cooperation.

Ex.

(27) And I think that, um, if we want the country to develop, um, we should be investing on

education.

(28) We cannot keep bargaining with the government. We should continuously fight for our

rights and be firm about this each and every time.

(29) Kaya naman tayo sa KAISA, pino-promote pa rin natin ang pagpa—pagsasabatas ng Six

Will Fix Bill kung saan tayo ay mag-a-allot ng at least 6 percent of Gross National

Product, kung saan magkakaroon tayo ng security na tayo ay mananatiling Iskolar ng

Bayan anuman ang mangyari dahil responsibilidad tayo ng gobyerno (That‘s why we in

KAISA, we still promote the legislation of the Six Will Fix Bill, where we will allot at

least 6 percent of the Gross National Product, wherein we will have the security that we

remain Iskolars ng Bayan whatever happens because we are the responsibility of the

government.)

As seen in the examples of both STAND UP and UP Alyansa SBs, KAISA UP SBs also

use the ―we in/at [political party name]‖ form to soften the delivery of their stances on issues

(see Example 29). The strategy is also used to make H feel a sense of belongingness to the

efforts, stances, and activities of the party.

The second most prevalent politeness strategy is presupposing or asserting common

ground through the use of proximal instead of distal demonstratives (+P7.4), where both are

acceptable to use. The preference for proximal demonstratives (here, this rather than there, that;
 Amper 93

in Tagalog, rito/dito and ito/nito rather than roon/doon and iyon/’yun) conveys increased

involvement or empathy. In addition to this, by situating H close to the figurative proximity of

the subject and/or its components, S gets H more involved in the conversation.

Ex.

(30) So the government has always been, um, uh, neglecting the responsibility for this

University.

(31) Kaya pagdating sa usapin ng STFAP, alam naman natin dito sa unibersidad na ito ang

mekanismo na ginamit ng UP administration upang pagtakpan ang tina—ang pagtaas ng

matrikula noong 2007. (That‘s why when it comes to the topic of the STFAP, we all

know here in the university that this is a mechanism used by the UP administration to

cover the—the tuition increase in 2007.)

(32) Makikita din natin na itong STS na ito ay panig sa mga mayayaman. (We can also see

that this STS sides with the rich.)

(33) Uh, hindi lamang ito bangayan kundi ito‘y pagpapakita ng isang objektibong paraan na

kung sino nga ba talaga yung mga lider-estudyante na karapat-dapat na maupo sa

konseho ng mga mag-aaral. (Uh, this [UP Diliman election] is not just about bickering,

but it [this] also shows an objective means [to determine] the student leaders who really

deserve to have seats in the student council.)

The next most frequently used politeness strategy is presupposing H‘s knowledge

(+P7.9). This strategy is characterized by the use of in-group codes – language, dialect, jargon, or

local terminology – with the assumption that H understands and shares the associations of that
 Amper 94

code. S‘s assumption that H knows about these in-group codes may operate as an expression of

good intentions, indicating that S assumes that both him and H share common ground.

Ex.

(34) So the Six Will Fix Bill is the allocation of at least six percent of GNP to education

budget.

(35) Yung, patuloy tayong nagtitiwala doon sa ruling elite na sa tingin ko‘y isang malaking

pagkakamali din natin bilang mga, mga Pilipino. (The, our continuous trust to the ruling

elite that I think is a big mistake in our part as Filipinos.)

(36) Thus, this national—premier National University is never really developed into, uh,

because, uh, well, more than the budget cut, it‘s actually the systemic state abandonment

that we‘re experiencing as a University.

The last two, which are tied in fourth place, of the five most prevalent used strategies by

KAISA UP SBs are exaggerate approval, interest, or sympathy with H (+P2) and intensifying

interest of H (+P3). +P2 is achieved in speech with the use of exaggerated intonation, stress, and

other aspects of prosodics, as well as intensifying modifiers such as ―really,‖ ―for sure,‖

―exactly,‖ ―absolutely,‖ etc.

Ex.

(37) We are relying too much on private entities, on westernized cultures, in conforming…

(38) At yun: we always offer our best, uh, support to whoever candidates are there. Pero

ayun, they always choose to break our hearts. (And there: we always offer our best, uh,

support to whoever candidates are there. But there, they always choose to break our

hearts.)
 Amper 95

(39) …we‘re all in this together to prove the UP Diliman student body kung sino nga ba

sa‘ting tatlo yung pinaka-deserving na mapunta sa ating posisyon. (…we‘re all in this

together to prove the UP Diliman student body who among the three of us deserves our

position the most.)

+P3 is employed by ―making a good story‖, which may include S exaggerating facts and

overstating. It is characterized by the use of the ―vivid present‖ in which H is metaphorically

pulled into the events being discussed by S. Tag questions such as ―…you know?‖, ―…isn‘t it?‖,

and ―…‘di ba?‖ (Tagalog) may also be used for this strategy. Similar with UP Alyansa SBs‘

strategies, +P3 is even used in combination with the +P2 strategy (see examples 40, 41, and 42

below). Both strategies are actually very similar in that they both involve exaggerating facts and

are used to intensify interest of H in the subject at hand.

Ex.

(40) Sa kabila ng sunud-sunod na sulir—suliranin, sunud-sunod na pagbabago sa pamantasan

at lipunan, lagi nating iniisip na may bukas pa, may mas magandang naghihintay sa

atin… (In spite of successive problems, [and] successive changes in the institution and

society, we always keep in mind that there is still tomorrow, that there is something better

waiting for us…)

(41) Kasi sabi nila, kapag nagkaroon ng GE reform, mas marami na tayong oras para sa ating

mga majors. (Because according to them, if the GE reform is implemented, we will have

a lot more time for our majors.)

(42) Thus, this national—premier National University is never really developed into…
 Amper 96

Hypothesis 2.c states that KAISA UP SBs‘ use of positive politeness strategies

encourages solidarity by seeking agreement from their constituents. This complements their

campaign for collective action. Supplementary to this is KAISA UP‘s ―want to be recognized as

a political organization that organizes and mobilizes students on issues inside and outside the

university,‖ as they have said in the online focus group discussions.

We saw in the data and analysis that KAISA UP SBs use strategies that include hearers

(H) in their stances, beliefs, and activities (+P12), assert common ground with H (+P7.4 and

+P7.9), and intensify interest of H (+P2, +P3) in the issues they are talking about to encourage

solidarity with their constituents. When added together, the total number of positive politeness

strategies in the KAISA UP SBs‘ speech makes up 59.9% of the overall number of strategies

they used. With these assertions, hypothesis 2.c is also conclusively proved.

Similarities and Differences of Prevalent Politeness Strategies among Political Parties

Of the 53 different kinds of politeness strategies differentiated in this study, only seven

kinds of strategies emerged in the discussions of the top four most prevalent strategies for each

party.

Table 4

Frequency of the Seven Politeness Strategies That Appeared in All Political Parties‘ Top Four

Lists of Most Prevalent Strategies (2013-2017).

No. of times used (frequency and percentage)

Politeness Strategy
STAND UP UP Alyansa KAISA UP
+P12 166 32.9% 148 32.1% 102 39.1%
+P7.4 78 15.4% 49 10.6% 49 18.8%
+P7.2 6 1.2% 37 8.0% 1 0.4%
+P7.9 38 7.5% 20 4.3% 17 6.5%
+P7.7 35 6.9% 29 6.3% 5 1.9%
+P3 30 5.9% 47 7.2% 14 5.4%
 Amper 97

+P2 28 5.5% 33 10.2% 14 5.4%

Total 381 75.5% 363 78.7% 202 77.4%

This is a relatively small group of strategies, which represents only 13% of the 53 kinds

of strategies differentiated in this research based on Brown and Levinson‘s politeness model.

However, these strategies combined do make up 75-79% of the total number of strategies used

per political party, which reinforces the significance and prevalence of the top four strategies

analyzed per political party. All seven of the prevalent politeness strategies are positive

politeness strategies. The prevalence of positive politeness strategies indicates that all three of

the political parties (STAND UP, UP Alyansa, and KAISA UP) appeal to both their own and the

addressee‘s positive face and face wants, which is achieved by ―communicating that [the

speaker‘s] own wants (or some of them) are in some respects similar to the addressee‘s wants

(Brown and Levinson 101).‖

Figure 17. Distribution of politeness strategies used by each political party standard bearer from

2013 to 2017.
 Amper 98

The similarity of the politeness strategies used by all political party SBs can be traced to

the nature and the purpose of the speech itself, which is for the SBs to present their stances and

arguments to their constituents and to persuade the students to vote for them. In the context of

the situation, the roles of both the speaker and the hearer are presumed as equal, where the SB is

at the mercy of his constituents because he needs their votes to obtain a position in the USC,

while the student voter is at the mercy of the SBs and the other candidates to forward his ―wants‖

(e.g. free tuition, student services, etc.) while seated in the USC. In this case, using a large

number of negative politeness strategies, which emphasizes respect and ―the freedom of the

addressee to have his actions unhindered and his attention unimpeded (Brown and Levinson

129)‖, is not the logical choice. The use of positive politeness strategies is naturally appropriate

for this context, where the actors routinely exchange ―interest and approval of each other‘s

personality, presuppositions indicating shared wants and shared knowledge, implicit claims to

reciprocity of obligations or to reflexivity of wants, etc. (101).‖

One might ask: if the SBs, regardless of their political affiliation, tend to use the same

kind of politeness strategies, how was it possible that they were able project different and unique

identities through their speeches? The answer lies in the different political party SBs‘ nuanced

choices in the strategies they used. With regard to the prevalent strategies used, Table 4 shows

that the most noticeable difference is how the different political party SBs used the different

manifestations of the +P7 strategy that presupposes or asserts common ground.

The use of the personal-centre switch (+P7.2), presupposition H‘s knowledge (+P7.9),

and presupposition of H‘s values being the same as S‘s values (+P7.7) have noticeably varied

frequencies of use per political party.

 Amper 99

UP Alyansa used the personal-centre switch strategy (+P7.2) more than the other two

political parties, with a surprising 37 counted instances (8.0%) while STAND UP and KAISA

UP only had six (6) (1.2%) and one (1) (0.4%), respectively. UP Alyansa SBs employed this

strategy with the use of ―you,‖ which intelligently gives an illusion that S is letting H make his

own choices or imagine his own scenarios. But in reality, S is feeding the images that the ―you‖

in his speech (or H) is imagining. The other two parties rarely used this strategy, and UP Alyansa

SBs succeeded in constructing an identity that does not impose on anyone by exploiting this

strategy.

STAND UP used the +P7.9 strategy, which presupposes that H knows the jargon,

terminologies, etc, that S uses, more than the other two political parties. There were 38 (7.8%)

instances when this strategy occurred in STAND UP‘s speeches, while UP Alyansa and KAISA

UP only had 20 (4.3%) and 17 (6.5%), respectively. While STAND UP‘s intention when using

jargon may be with good intentions, the unaffiliated participants of the online focus group

expressed their dislike of this characteristic of STAND UP candidates. The speech and spiels of

STAND UP candidates ―overwhelmed‖ them, and one participant even regarded it as a ―misuse

of big words‖ that they ―tend to throw around.‖ Instead of asserting common ground, it produces

the opposite effect, which isolates the hearers from what the STAND UP standard bearers are

trying to say. UP Alyansa and KAISA UP‘s moderate use of this strategy did not produce this

effect.

KAISA UP barely used the +P7.7 strategy, which presupposes H‘s values being the same

as S‘s values. Only five (5) instances (1.9%) of this strategy were recorded while STAND UP

and UP Alyansa had 35 (6.9%) and 29 (6.3%), respectively. This strategy is characterized by a

preference for extremes in value-judgment scales. While the two other parties have used this
 Amper 100

strategy a couple of times to describe and clarify their stances on issues (e.g. whether STS is

good or bad, or a policy is ―watered-down‖ or sufficient), KAISA UP rarely made any direct

assessments similar to the two other parties. This lack of the use of the +P7.7 strategy in KAISA

UP SBs speeches may manifest itself in the unaffiliated students‘ impression of the political

party that (1) they are in the ―middle ground‖ relative to the other parties and (2) they have no

clear stances on issues, which makes it seem like they are ―mga balimbing‖ (Filipino slang for

traitor or turncoat) and their ―ideology is not consolidated, especially with their affiliated

organizations and local college chapters.‖

Other Notable Politeness Strategies Used by Political Party SBs

This section discusses the other notable politeness strategies used by political party SBs

in their speeches. This discussion reveals other nuances in the choice of the SBs politeness

strategies and supplements the conclusions on the identities of the political parties that were

elaborated above. The discussion of these strategies also contributes to the researcher‘s attempt

to produce a detailed list and description of the speech and politeness strategies used by political

party SBs from 2013-2017.

Positive Politeness Strategies

The strategies of interest are as follows: (1) use of in-group identity markers through

address forms (+P4.1); (2) use of in-group identity markers through the use of in-group language

or dialect (+P4.2); (3) avoid disagreement by means of token agreement (+P6.1); and (4) offer or

and promise (+P10).

 Amper 101

Table 5

Frequency of Positive Politeness Strategies in All Political Party SBs‘ Speeches (2013-2017).

No. of times used (frequency and percentage)

Politeness Strategy
STAND UP UP Alyansa KAISA UP
+P12 166 32.9% 148 32.1% 102 39.1%
+P7.4 78 15.4% 49 10.4% 49 18.8%
+P7.9 38 7.5% 20 4.3% 17 6.5%
+P7.7 35 6.9% 29 6.3% 5 1.9%
+P3 30 5.9% 33 7.2% 14 5.4%
+P2 28 5.5% 47 10.2% 14 5.4%
+P4.1 24 4.8% 6 1.3% 6 2.3%
+P7.2 6 1.2% 37 8.0% 1 0.4%
+P4.2 6 1.2% 2 0.4% -- 0%
+P6.1 4 0.8% 4 1.0% 4 1.5%
+P7.1 3 0.6% 4 1.0% 1 0.4%
+P1 2 0.4% 2 0.4% 3 1.1%
+P6.3 2 0.4% 2 0.4% 1 0.4%
+P10 2 0.4% 1 0.22% -- 0%
+P13 1 0.2% -- 0% -- 0%
+P9 1 0.2% 1 0.22% -- 0%
+P8 -- 0% 1 0.22% -- 0%
+P4.3 -- 0% 1 0.22% -- 0%
+P7.5 -- 0% 1 0.22% 1 0.4%
Total 426 84.9% 388 84.2% 218 83.5%

Positive politeness strategy 4 (+P4), which covers all use of in-group identity markers,

conveys in-group membership and lets S implicitly claim common ground with H by the use of

any of the following: address forms, an in-group language or dialect, jargon, slang, or ellipses.

+P4.1 is a sub-group of positive politeness strategy 4 which conveys in-group

membership through the use of address forms. Examples of address forms include generic

names, terms of address, diminutives, and terms of endearment. Unlike UP Alyansa and KAISA

UP which both only have six (6) instances (1.3% and 2.3%, respectively) of the +P4.1 strategy

recorded in their SBs‘ speeches, STAND UP has a record of 24 instances (4.8%) in theirs (see

Table 5 above).
 Amper 102

Ex.

(43) (STAND UP) Siyempre hindi tayo sang-ayon, sa STAND UP at tayong mga Iskolar ng

Bayan, ‗di tayo sang-ayon sa STFAP. (Of course we are not in favor, [we] in STAND UP

and we Iskolars ng Bayan, we are not in favor of the STFAP.)

(44) (STAND UP) Tayo sa STAND-UP ay naniniwala na ang other school fees ay hindi

makatarungan para sa mga Iskolar ng Bayan. (We at STAND UP believe that other

school fees are unjust for the Iskolars ng Bayan.)

(45) (STAND UP) Dahil tayo sa STAND-UP, naniniwala tayo na gusto nating malinaw para

sa mga Iskolar ng Bayan kung ano nga ba ang pinagdadaanan ng bawat Isko at Iska at ng

buong mamamayan. (Because we at STAND UP, we believe that we want it to be clear to

the Iskolars ng Bayan what each Isko and Iska and all citizens are going through.)

(46) (UP Alyansa) Wala kang kailangang dokumento na kadalasan e mahal at binabayaran pa

ng mga Iskolar ng Bayan para makapag-apply. (You don‘t need a document that is often

expensive and paid for by the Iskolars ng Bayan to be able to apply.)

(47) (KAISA UP) When, uh, ‗pag tiningnan natin, ‗no, mababawasan yung avenues na kung

saan ma-eexpose yung mga Iskolar ng Bayan sa iba‘t ibang realities ng ating lipunan.

(When, uh, when we look at it, [untranslatable filler], the avenues that expose the Iskolars

ng Bayan to the different realities of our society will decrease.)

As we can see in the examples above, the most commonly used in-group address form by

the SBs is ―Iskolar ng Bayan‖ which means ―scholars of the nation‖ and is an established

reference to students studying in UP and other state universities and colleges. Other address

forms noted in the speeches include ―Isko‖ and ―Iska,‖ a shortened version on ―Iskolar ng
 Amper 103

Bayan‖, ―mga kababayan‖ which roughly translates to ―my fellow citizens‖, ―mamamayang

Pilipino‖ (Filipino citizens), ―kapatid nating Moro‖ (our Moro/Muslim brothers), ―guys‖, ―mga

besh‖ (slang for ―[my] best friends‖), and ―mga kapwa kong estudyante‖ (my fellow students).

STAND UP SBs usually use address forms (+P4.1) in combination with inclusive ―we‖

pronouns (+P12) in statements that express their beliefs and stances in an attempt to directly

communicate with the voters and forward the assumption that UP students in general agree with

them. This supplements the conclusion that hypothesis 2.a is proved. UP Alyansa and KAISA

UP SBs only use this form sometimes, and use the address form only as a referential noun in

scenarios.

+P4.2 or the use of in-group language or dialect, involves code-switching or ―any switch

from one language to another in communities where the linguistic repertoire includes two or

more such codes‖. UP Diliman is a melting pot of people from different regions of the

Philippines that have different spoken languages. However, in the context of UP Diliman

politics, in order to be understood by the general population, SBs only use English, Tagalog

(Filipino), or Taglish. Taglish is a widely-used Tagalog-English code-switching system

most commonly observed among the educated, middle-, and upper-middle class urbanities of the

Philippines (Lesada 10). Some have argued that it is now beginning to develop characteristics of

a creole or mixed language (11). Throughout the transcript of interviews, Taglish, by Lesada‘s

definition, can be observed in constant use by all the SBs, regardless of their political affiliation.

The most likely cause of the SBs‘ constant use of Taglish is simply to communicate more

effectively, especially in a high-pressure situation such as an interview for a university

publication. This type of code-switching was ruled out as a type of positive politeness, but

instead, as a mark of sudden switches or changes from speaking in straight, consistent English to
 Amper 104

Tagalog/Taglish or vice versa. Brown and Levinson‘s definition and examples of instances of

+P4.2 are also more similar to the latter type of code-switching mentioned than the former

(Brown and Levinson 110-111).

For this type of code-switching, STAND UP SBs have a record of six (6) instances

(1.2%); UP Alyansa, two (2) (0.4%); and KAISA UP, zero (0). All or parts of these eight (8)

instances are shown below.

Ex.

STAND UP

(48) I was, uh, I think I was a freshman back then, uh, undergrad.

(49) Kaya sa huli‘t huli, sa kamay ko ikukumpara ang aking plataporma. Dahil panahon na

ito ng pag-uunite to fight, unite for our democratic rights at fight for a university of the

people. (That‘s why in the very end, I compare my platform to my hands. Because this is

the time to unite to fight, unite for our democratic rights, and fight for a university of the

people.)

(50) Ah, noong pumasok tayo sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas, ah, hindi lang para mag-aral,

parang na-imbibe na rin natin as UP students, bilang Iskolar ng Bayan na nothing is

convenient in this world since the Filipino people is born out of struggle. (Ah, when we

entered the University of the Philippines, ah, [we did so] not only to study, it‘s like we

imbibed as UP students, that as Iskolars ng Bayan, nothing is convenient in this world

since the Filipino people is born out of struggle.)

(51) STAND UP, may paninindigan talaga sa call ever since. (STAND UP has always been

faithful to their stands and calls ever since.)

 Amper 105

(52) What we need again is to junk STS, have a flat-rate tuition na abot-kaya ng masa. (What

we need again is to junk STS, have a flat-rate tuition that the masses can afford.)

(53) (Question 2) …We have never supported TOFI or the increase of tuition and other

school fees and, uh, we here in STAND UP, we continue to fight for access to education.

What we need again is to junk STS, have a flat-rate tuition na abot-kaya ng masa.

(Question 3) Kung ang aking mga kalaban for this, ah, position ay isang kontrabida,

masasabi ko si Two-Face galing sa Batman, hindi lang dahil si Batman ay isa kong

favorite na superhero nung bata ako… (…We have never supported TOFI or the increase

of tuition and other school fees and, uh, we here in STAND UP, we continue to fight for

access to education. What we need again is to junk STS, have a flat-rate tuition that the

masses can afford. [Question 3 answer:] If my opponents for this position were villains, I

would say [they would be] Two-Face from Batman, not just because Batman is my

favorite superhero when I was a kid…)

UP Alyansa

(54) I think his administration has to prioritize those marginalized, oppressed and powerless

sectors. I think what his administration needs is to, uh, prioritize progressive laws. For

example, yung struggle for land reform or agrarian reform. It's been more than 20+ years

already, it's almost 30 years already. And, noong nagkaroon kami ng People's Agrarian

Reform Congress… (I think his administration has to prioritize those marginalized,

oppressed and powerless sectors. I think what his administration needs is to, uh, prioritize

progressive laws. For example, the struggle for land reform or agrarian reform. It's been
 Amper 106

more than 20+ years already, it's almost 30 years already. And when we organized the

People‘s Agrarian Reform Congress…)

(55) …during the last, uh, two meetings ago, we were able to pass a 10-page proposal from

the University Student Council, wherein we outlined, that our tuition system is not just,

efficient, and progressive. We need to make sure na mas, uh, maganda yung tuition

system natin para maging accessible siya. (…during the last, uh, two meetings ago, we

were able to pass a 10-page proposal from the University Student Council, wherein we

outlined, that our tuition system is not just, efficient, and progressive. We need to make

sure that the tuition system is better for it to be accessible.)

For STAND UP, the first instance of code-switching (see example 48) happened when

the candidate engaged in gossip or small talk (+P7.1). Examples 49 and 50 show instances of

code-switching from Tagalog to English, where the speaker switched codes when delivering the

political party‘s tagline for the election season and when uttering a saying of sorts, respectively.

Inversely, Examples 51, 52, and 53, all spoken by one candidate Mico Pangalangan, switched

from English to Taglish when emphasizing a point (Examples 51 and 52) and when answering a

light-hearted question (example 53).

Examples 54 and 55, which were both uttered by UP Alyansa 2015 vice-chairperson

candidate and 2016 chairperson candidate AJ Montesa, are instances of code-switching from

English to Taglish. In example 54, Montesa started using Taglish as he relates the story of his

interaction with distraught farmers during the People's Agrarian Reform Congress. Similar to

Examples 51 and 52, Montesa used strategy +P4.1 to emphasize a point in Example 55.
 Amper 107

Contrary to expectations, all three of the political parties had the same number of

instances of token agreements (+P6.1) or avoiding disagreement by pretending to agree. This

strategy is employed by using a ―yes, but…‖ format or by twisting utterances so as to appear to

agree or to hide disagreement.

Ex.

(56) (STAND UP) Although mataas ang, mataas ang, uh, popularity rate ng ating pangulo,

marami pa ring naghihirap dito sa ating bansa. (Although the president‘s popularity rate

is high, there are still a lot of [people who are] suffering in our country.)

(57) (KAISA UP) Although yes, we‘ve been proposing for a, uh, a budget, the right amount

of the budget for UP, we never actually received it.

(58) Tayo sa ALYANSA, naniniwala tayo sa principle of socialized tuition. However, we

really have to make sure na okay na siya for implementation before, um, before natin

siya, uh, ipatupad sa iba pang mga state universities and colleges. Tulad nga ng

nangyayari ngayon sa ating university, marami pa rin tayong nakikitang flaws when it

comes to implementation, at ‗yung mga requirements na kailangan ng bawat estudyante

para ma-apply ‗yung STFAP. So, in essence, maganda ang principle ng STFAP, pero

‗yun nga, kailangan nga natin ma-make sure na bawat estudyante ay kayang mag-apply

for it, for us to have a relevant and accessible education. (We in ALYANSA, we believe

in the principle of socialized tuition. However, we really have to make sure that it is

okay/acceptable before, um, before we, uh, implement it in other state universities and

colleges. Similar to what‘s happening in our university, we can still see a lot of flaws

when it comes to implementation, and the requirements needed by each student to apply

for STFAP. So in essence, the principle of STFAP is good, but as I said, we need to
 Amper 108

makes sure that each student is able to apply for it, for us to have a relevant and

accessible education.)

Initially, the researcher hypothesized that UP Alyansa would use this format in many of

their arguments, since several of the unaffiliated participants of the OFGs described their party as

―diplomatic‖ and ―willing to compromise,‖ but the data shows that all political parties used an

almost equal number of instances of this strategy (STAND UP – 0.8%; UP Alyansa – 1.0%;

KAISA UP – 1.5%). However, it is important to note that while KAISA UP and STAND UP‘s

utterances which used this strategy are limited to single lines or sentences, UP Alyansa‘s +P6.1

arguments can span one paragraph to a whole answer worth three paragraphs long.

Another surprising observation is the rarity of strategies that involve offers and promises

(+P10). STAND UP only has 2 instances (0.4%); UP Alyansa has one (0.22%); and none for

KAISA UP. At first, the researcher expected to find numerous offers and promises in the

speeches, since this strategy is often utilized in the national political arena by politicians to get as

many votes as possible, but it seems it is not a popular rhetorical device used by standard bearers

from political parties in UP Diliman.

 Amper 109

Negative Politeness Strategies

The strategies of interest are: (1) impersonalize of S and H (-P7); and (2) state FTA as a

general rule (-P8).

Table 6

Frequency of Negative Politeness Strategies in All Political Party SBs‘ Speeches (2013-2017).

No. of times used (frequency)

Politeness Strategy
STAND UP UP Alyansa KAISA UP
-P7 24 4.8% 36 7.8% 10 3.8%
-P4 11 2.2% 13 2.8% 5 1.9%
-P8 8 1.6% 2 0.4% 11 4.3%
-P9 7 1.4% 1 0.22% 3 1.1%
-P6 -- 0% 1 0.22% -- 0%
-P5 5 1.0% -- 0% -- 0%
Total 55 10.9% 53 11.5% 29 11.1%

Negative politeness strategy 8 (-P8) involves stating the FTA as an instance of some

general social rule, regulation, or obligation. It makes it appear that S does not want to impose on

H but that S was rather forced to by circumstances. This strategy usually occurs in (but is not

limited to) businesses, corporate groups, and the service industry. KAISA UP leads with the

most number of instances of this strategy with 11, followed closely by STAND UP with eight

(8), and UP Alyansa with only two (2) instances (see Table 6).

Ex.

(59) (KAISA UP) So it is written in the Philippine Constitution that the government should

be prioritizing education.

(60) Now, with that said, it is not-- the mandate of the UP charter and also the government

states that education is a right and we must have accessible education for, for all, that is

full state subsidy, and that, that is what we are fighting for.
 Amper 110

(61) (STAND UP) Ang dapat nating ikampanya, imbis dun sa pagpaperpekto nung mga

reporma sa ating STFAP o STS man yan ay pagrorollback ng tuition fee. (What we

should campaign for, instead of our perfecting of either the STFAP or STS, is to rollback

the tuition fee.)

(62) (UP Alyansa) Kaya naman para sa atin, dapat magkaroon tayo ng sapat na pagtuon doon

sa, ah, Mindanao – investment, at, uh, ayusin natin yung kanilang education, health, at

siyempre 'yung, um, ka-kapayapaan at seguridad sa buong Mindanao. (That‘s why for us,

we should give sufficient attention to, ah, Mindanao—investment, and, uh, [we should]

fix their education, health, and of course the, um, p-peace and security in the whole of

Mindanao.)

In the SBs‘ speech transcripts, utterances that are similar to the examples above were also

noted. These utterances were not marked as -P8 strategies because even if they do state a general

rule, it has no clear receiver. These utterances were labeled instead as off-record strategies that

over-generalize to soften criticisms (OR13). Giving proverbs and sayings as advice is also

counted as an OR13 strategy.

Brown and Levinson stated that the -P8 strategy was meant to minimize imposition.

However, in the context of UP Diliman student politics and its usage by the political party SBs, it

seems to have an opposite effect and comes off as sounding too strong and authoritative, which

thus increases imposition on the hearers. This effect is evidenced by the unaffiliated students‘

impression of STAND UP as having an uncompromising attitude when it comes to their stances

on issues, which is seen by some of the participants as overbearing. KAISA UP‘s use of the -P8

strategy also supplements the notion by some of the OFG participants that they have closely
 Amper 111

similar stances, beliefs, and behaviors with the red party. With these assertions, the lack of -P8

strategy use of UP Alyansa projects an identity that does not impose beliefs and stances on

anybody.

Negative politeness strategy 7 (-P7) impersonalizes S and H by phrasing the FTA as if

the agent were other than S, or at least, not S or not S alone, and the addressee were other than H,

or only inclusive of H. It‘s reflected in speech by S‘s avoidance of pronouns ―I‖ and ―you,‖

impersonalizing verbs, using imperatives, etc.

Ex.

UP Alyansa

(63) Kailangan din nating tignan yung, uh, pagkakaroon ng Socialized Tuition System sa

mga graduate students sa second degree, kasi ngayon, lahat sila'y pantay ang

binabayaran, kahit magkakaiba yung kanilang kakayahan, ‗di ba? (We also need to look

into, uh, implementing the Socialized Tuition System on graduate students or those

taking a second degree, because right now, all of them pay an equal amount even if their

capabilities are different, right?)

(64) Pero patuloy pa rin 'yung laban namin ni Madam Claudia at kailangan talaga naming

magtapatan para siguruhin kung kaninong pangako ba 'yung hindi napako at sino 'yung

tumutupad sa kanyang mga pangako. (But the fight between Madam Claudia and I still

continues, and we still need to face each other to make sure whose promises were left to

be forgotten and who keeps their promises.)

STAND UP

(65) So higit pa sa mga kampanya na transparency and accountability, higit pa sa mga

kampaniya na itigil ang kurapsyon, ang dapat pagbuhusan ng lakas ng ating kabataan ay
 Amper 112

kung paanong sila mismo, sa kanilang pagtanda ay piliing pumanig sa mamamayan. (So

more than campaigns for transparency and accountability, more than campaigns calls to

stop corruption, the thing that the youth should pour their strength into is the decision and

the means they will take to side with the citizens and the masses when they become

adults.)

KAISA UP

(66) Uh, we [referring exclusively to political party] attack the calendar shift, academic

calendar shift in two ways. First, we attack the consultation, uh, consultation sa (with)

students.

When making up sample scenarios or narrating the current condition of students n the

university, candidates use the –P7 strategy to refer to the students or the speaker‘s self in the

third person, when in fact the first person inclusive and the second person are grammatically

acceptable to use because (1) the candidate is a student himself and (2) the candidate is directly

addressing the student body. The candidates choose to impersonalize in an effort to minimize the

impingement or imposition of an FTA on H. UP Alyansa used 50% more –P7 strategies than

STAND UP (36 and 24, respectively), while KAISA UP has a record of only 10 instances of this

strategy in their SBs‘ speeches.

Based on the analyses of these negative politeness strategies, UP Alyansa‘s significantly

higher number of uses for the –P7 strategy as well as the rarity of –P8 strategies in their SBs

speeches contribute to non-imposing nature of their identity mentioned both by the party itself

and the unaffiliated students in the OFGs, which supports (but does not significantly prove)

hypothesis 2.b.
 Amper 113

Off-record and Bald-on Record Utterances

Though UP Alyansa used the most kinds of off-record strategies, STAND UP used the

most number of off-record strategies with an overall total of 22. UP Alyansa follows close

behind with 20, while KAISA UP has only 9 off-record strategies overall.

Table 7

Frequency of Off-Record and Bald-on Record Utterances in All Political Party SBs‘ Speeches

(2013-2017).

No. of times used (frequency)

Politeness Strategy
STAND UP UP Alyansa KAISA UP
OR13 5 1.0% 5 1.1% 3 1.1%
OR10 10 1.9% 5 1.1% 4 1.5%
OR9 3 0.6% 5 1.1% -- 0%
OR11 1 0.2% 1 0.22% -- 0%
OR7 -- 0% 1 0.22% -- 0%
OR3 3 0.6% 1 0.22% -- 0%
OR8 -- 0% 1 0.22% 1 0.4%
OR12 -- 0% 1 0.22% -- 0%
OR4 -- 0% -- 0% 1 0.4%
Total no. of OR strategies used 22 4.4% 20 4.3% 9 3.4%
BOR 2 0.4% -- 0% 5 1.9%
Total no. of OR and BOR used 24 4.8% 20 4.3% 14 5.4%
No. of kinds of strategies used 6 8 5

Off-record strategy 10 (OR10) employs the use of rhetorical questions. A rhetorical

question is a kind of question that is asked without the intention of obtaining an answer. The

answer to the question itself may also already be implicated in the question itself. STAND UP

used 50% more rhetorical questions than UP Alyansa SBs (with 10 and 5, respectively), while

KAISA UP follows UP Alyansa close behind with 4.

 Amper 114

Ex.

(67) (STAND UP) Marami ngang na-create na jobs, and yet talaga bang kumikita ang mga

Pilipino? Meron nga ba talagang pagkain na napupunta sa mga – sa mga, uh – tiyan ng

bawat isang Pilipino? (Yes, a lot of jobs were created, and yet, are the Filipinos really

earning money? Is there really food that goes to the, uh, stomach of each Filipino?)

(68) (STAND UP) Tayo sa STAND-UP ay naniniwala na ang other school fees ay hindi

makatarungan para sa mga Iskolar ng Bayan. Bakit natin nasabi na hindi ito

makatarungan? For the past five years, on average, based na din sa research ng Philippine

Collegian, on average ay kumikita ng 50 million ang ating administration from other

school fees. (We in STAND UP believe that other school fees are unjust for the Iskolar

ng Bayan. How were we able to say that this is unjust? For the past five years, on

average, also based on the research of Philippine Collegian, on average, the

administration earns 50 million [pesos] in income from other school fees.)

(69) (UP Alyansa) So, I think, ano ang maiaambag ng UP students? Definitely, maging part

ng samahang ito at maningil sa gobyerno na maging transparent at magkaroon tayo ng

right to information, para doon sa mga, um, information na kailangan natin to ensure

transparency and accountability from our government. (So, I think, what can UP students

contribute? Definitely, being able to take part of this organization and to demand the

government to be transparent and for us to have the right to information, information that

we need to ensure transparency and accountability from our government.)

(70) (KAISA UP) Kung ihahalintulad ko ang mga kalaban ko sa isang kontrabida, sa palagay

ko, ito ay si PNoy. Bakit? (a) Um, unang-una para kay Mico, gusto ko lamang mag-iwan

ng statement na ang ganda naman ng track records ng magulang mo. Pangalawa, para kay
 Amper 115

JP, kumusta na 'yong pagtatanggol mo kay Abad? (b) (If I would compare my opponents

to a villain, I think, [I‘ll compare them to] PNoy [former Philippine President Benigno

Aquino III]. Um, first of all for Mico, I just want to leave a statement [that says] what

good track record your parents have! Second, for JP, how is your continuous defense of

Abad?)

Rhetorical questions are used to perform several indirect speech acts, e.g. advancing an

opinion or point of view, defending an opinion, attacking an opinion or attacking an opponent,

and concluding an argument (Al-Jumaily and Al-Azzawi 14). Example 67 is a kind of rhetorical

question with an implicated answer in the question itself. Examples 68, 69, and 70.a are

rhetorical questions that introduce an argument(s) and acts as a hedge. Example 70.b is another

example of a rhetorical question with an implicated answer and is used to attack an opponent.

The use of metaphors as discussed by Brown and Levinson is for euphemistic purposes

that mask something derogatory or taboo such as insults. However, in the speeches of the SBs,

metaphors are used to enhance arguments. UP Alyansa has the most number of OR9s with five

(5) (1.1%) instances, followed by STAND UP with 2 (0.6%). KAISA UP registered 0 usages of

metaphors. The answers to questions that demand a metaphor or comparison for an answer were

not included.

Ex.

(71) (UP Alyansa) When you have globalization for example, you have, you turn a lake of

knowledge into a vast ocean that's easily accessible to, um, the members of a nation, for

example. So they have access to different cultures, to different ideas from around, around

the globe. But I think it‘s important as well that if you have globalization and you have
 Amper 116

this vast ocean of ideas you have to have, or you have to maintain your own national

identity as well.

(72) (STAND UP) Yung kabataan, ito yung tinatawag nilang mga nasa alas-nuwebe pa lang

ng kanilang buhay. (The youth, they are those who are called as just at the ―9 o‘clock‖ of

their lives.)

Off-record strategies are essentially indirect uses of language. S uses an utterance

wherein H cannot attribute one clear intention to the speech act. H must make an inference to

recover what was in fact intended (Brown and Levinson 211). As observed, the political party

SBs employed these off-record strategies (1) to indirectly attack opponents, as attacking them

outright is frowned upon; (2) to introduce and soften the delivery of an argument; and (3) to

enhance the point of their arguments, by using metaphors, rhetorical questions, etc. On the

contrary, a preference for bald-on record utterances occurs possibly when S prioritizes the

maximum efficiency in delivering an FTA rather than satisfying H‘s face. In accordance with

Grice‘s Maxims, a bald-on record utterance contains only the truth, does not say less or more

than is required, is relevant, and is not ambiguous at all. However, natural conversation rarely

goes about in such straightforward and brusque fashion, which explains the very few occurrences

of BORs in the candidates‘ speeches (five [5] for KAISA UP, two [2] for STAND UP, and zero

[0] for UP Alyansa).

The instances of off-record strategies and bald-on record utterances are too few in the

speech transcripts of all political parties that any interpretation with regard to its impact on their

identity is inconclusive and probably not very significant. Rather, these strategies‘ absence,

especially the absence of bald-on record strategies, further reiterates that not one strategy has
 Amper 117

monopoly over a certain trait that is projected by the speaker. As we have seen in the analysis of

the strategies STAND UP SBs used, their uncompromising attitude and directness are attributed

to their use of the strategy that presupposes common ground with hearer.

Prevalent Self-Presentation Strategies in the Standard Bearers’ Speeches

As discussed in Chapter 2, Jones and Pittman developed a framework to analyze

interactions on how the speaker preserves and/or augments his power over the hearer through

strategies. The five (5) strategies they have distinguished in their framework are ingratiation,

intimidation, self-promotion, exemplification, and supplication. These strategies are not mutually

exclusive and combinations involving two or more is even possible. The analysis gleaned from

Jones and Pittman‘s framework complements the findings from using Brown and Levinson‘s

model, since contrary to Jones and Pittman‘s assumption model that employs strategies to

preserve power over the hearer, Brown and Levinson‘s model uses strategies to mitigate the

effects of face-threatening acts on the hearer.

Similar to the findings in the analysis of the speeches using politeness strategies, a

prevalent set of strategies used by all political parties were observed. Instead of per each

sentence or phrase as was done in assigning politeness strategies to the speeches, one (1) answer

by a standard bearer (three [3] per chairperson and [2] per vice chairperson) was assigned one (1)

or more strategies or a combination of strategies. An abundance of answers that exhibit

exemplification, which attempts to prove the speaker as worthy; self-promotion, which attempts

to show the speaker‘s competence; or a combination of both exemplification and self-promotion

were observed.
 Amper 118

Table 8

Frequency of Self-promotion, Exemplification, and Exemplification + Self-promotion

Combination Strategies in All Political Party SBs‘ Speeches (2013-2017).

Self-presentation
STAND UP UP Alyansa KAISA UP
strategy
Self-promotion 3 10.3% 4 13.3% 5 22.7%
Exemplification 1 3.5% -- 0% 1 4.55%
Exem. + Self- 9 31.0% 6 20.0% 3 13.6%
promo.
TOTAL 13 44.8% 10 33.3% 9 40.9%

Utterances that are categorized under these three (3) self presentation strategies have the

following characteristics: (1) the speaker enumerates good qualities of a leader in the first-person

or even the third-person point-of-view; (2) the speaker presumes the possible actions he or she

will take when elected into office; and (3) the speaker mentions the beliefs he or she has, past

achievements, and ―sacrifices‖ that he or she has done as a leader for a certain cause. Examples

are shown below:

Ex.

(73) (STAND UP) Bilang student leader, tayo dapat ang maging tagapaglikha rin ng

kasaysayan. Alam na natin kung ano yung problema sa loob ng unibersidad at sa labas ng

ating lipunan… panahon na ito ng pag-uunite to fight, unite for our democratic rights at

fight for a university of the people. (As student leaders, we should also be the creators of

our own history. We all know what the problems inside the university and the outside in

society are… It is time for us to unite to fight, unite for our democratic rights at fight for

a university of the people.)

(74) (UP Alyansa) Ayan, so, kasama ang ALYANSA, ‗no, sa FOI Youth Initiative o FYI, ito

yung iisang national federation ng mga student organizations na nagkakampanya sa

 Amper 119

pagpapasa ng Freedom of Information bill. (There, so, ALYANSA is part of the FOI

Youth Initiative or FYI, [which is] the only national federation of student organizations

that campaigns for the passage of the Freedom of Information bill.)

(75) (KAISA UP) Now, with that said, it is not-- the mandate of the UP charter and also the

government states that education is a right and we must have accessible education for, for

all, that is full state subsidy, and that, that is what we are fighting for.

Again, the prevalence of these strategies is attributed to the type of speech uttered in this

specific context, which is argumentative and persuasive in a politico-electoral context.

During the formulation of the hypothesis, it has been predicted that STAND UP‘s

prevalent self-presentation strategies would be intimidation and exemplification; UP Alyansa

would be ingratiation and self-promotion; and KAISA UP would be self-promotion and

exemplification. The following sections will discuss the findings for each political party.

STAND UP

Aside from the three (3) prevalent strategies discussed above, the self-presentation

strategies prevalent in STAND UP standard bearers‘ speeches are Intimidation and a hybrid of

Intimidation and Exemplification (Intimidation + Exemplification).

Table 9

Frequency of Self-presentation Strategies in STAND UP SBs‘ Speeches (2013-2017).

Self-presentation
Number of strategies Percentage Scores
strategy
Exem. + Self-promo. 9 31.0%
Intimidation 7 24.1%
Supplication 4 13.8%
Intim. + Exem. 4 13.8%
 Amper 120

Self-promotion 3 10.3%
Exemplification 1 3.5%
Intim. + Supp. 1 3.5%
Ingratiation -- 0%
TOTAL 29 100.0%

Intimidation occurs when the speaker wants to be feared or believed rather than be liked

to get what he or she wants (Jones and Pittman 238). In the speeches, utterances that exhibited

characteristics of Intimidation (1) have threats and criticisms on the administration whilst

presenting alternatives; and (2) use strong verbs such as ―challenge‖ and ―dare‖ instead of

―softer‖ verbs such as ―enjoin‖ or ―request‖ to encourage solidarity. Examples of the utterances

are shown below:

Ex.

(76) Dapat lang na suportahan natin ang Peace Talks sa pagitan ng ating gobyerno at ng

CPP-NPA-NDF dahil mahalagang hakbang ito para ma-resolve ang root cause ng armed

conflict… nakikita natin na ginagamit ito ng ating gobyerno, para talian ang kamay ng

mga mamamayan, sa kanilang paglaban. Pero hindi ito magiging hadlang, para sa mga

mamamayang Pilipino na patuloy na palakasin yung kanilang, uh, paglaban para kamtin

yung makatarungang kapayapaan dito sa ating bansa. (It is only just that we support the

Peace Talks between the government and CPP-NPA-NDF because it is an important step

to resolve the root cause of the armed conflict… [but] we can see that the government is

using this to tie the hands of their citizens from putting up a fight. However, this will not

be a hindrance for the Filipino people to further strengthen their fight to attain just peace

in our country.)

(77) Kaya naman dito sa UP, ah, hinihikayat natin or hinahamon din natin ang mga kapwa

natin Iskolar ng Bayan na gampanan, or hamunin ang ating mga sarili na

 Amper 121

mapagtagumpayan ang pagju-junk ng other school fees. (That‘s why here in UP, we

encourage, or we also challenge our fellow Iskolars ng Bayan to take upon oneself [the

responsibility] or to challenge oneself to win our fight to junk other school fees.)

A hybrid of Intimidation, which is mixed with exemplification (Intimidation +

Exemplification), is characterized by the speaker‘s mudslinging their opponents, which then

results into the speaker raising himself and implying that he has a higher moral standard.

Ex.

(78) Kaya alam naman natin na ahas, ‗di ba, kahit gaano mo iyan alagaan, at the end of the

day may malaki talaga ang chance na kakagatin ka niyan. At rabbit po dahil patalon-talon

lang sila, akala mo tumatalon nang ‗onti, kala mo may ‗onting progress, pero ang totoo

niyan, hindi naman talaga at wala silang pinupuntahan. (We know the snake, right? That

no matter how much you take care of it, at the end of the day, there is a large chance that

it will bite you back. And a rabbit because rabbits just jump, you think they‘re jumping

forward a little, you think there‘s a little bit of progress, but in reality, they are not going

anywhere.)

It can also be said that a speaker is using the Intimidation + Exemplification hybrid

strategy when they criticize the administration and at the same time, encourage their equals (the

students) to participate in demanding for what is right. This is a similar example to what Jones

and Pittman used when describing this combination (250).

 Amper 122

Ex.

(79) Sa kasalukuyan, kaya pinagkakait sa atin ang libreng edukasyon ay dahil ang layunin

nga ng ating gobyerno sa ating pamantasan ay pagkakitaan tayo, katulad na lamang sa

porma ng socialized tuition system, na isang profiteering scheme lang naman… malaking

hakbang, para makamit ito ay yung patuloy na paglaban nating mga Iskolar ng Bayan

para sa karapatan natin sa edukasyon. (Currently, the reason why free education is being

withheld from us is because it is the government‘s will to profit from our institution. This

comes in the form of the socialized tuition system, which is just a profiteering scheme…

a large step of how we can attain [free education] is for us Iskolars ng Bayan to keep

fighting for our right to education.)

Among the three political parties, STAND UP standard bearers did not use the

Ingratiation strategy at least once. The ingratiator‘s goal is to make others perceive him or herself

as likeable by exhibiting attributes of warmth, humor, reliability, charm, and physical

attractiveness (Jones and Pittman 235). The ingratiator augments and preserves his power by

reducing negative outcomes from the audience and increasing the possibility of positive ones.

The reason why Ingratiation strategies are not present in STAND UP‘s self-presentation

strategies is it is not compatible with militancy, which demands intimidation and

exemplification.

As discussed earlier, members of the red party are seen as ―radical‖ and ―uncompromising‖

relative to the other two parties. STAND UP is known to organize several mobs and rallies inside

and outside the university. According to one of their party officials, militancy is necessary in the

advancement of democratic rights and welfare of the students. Keeping in mind the function of
 Amper 123

the strategies that were just discussed and comparing the results of the analysis using Brown and

Levinson‘s model, even though STAND UP uses positive politeness strategies which aim to

please and encourage solidarity with the hearer, STAND UP standard bearers‘ use of

Intimidation and Intimidation + Exemplification strategies and the lack of Ingratiation strategies

in their speech are consistent with the identity they are projecting and the identity being

perceived by their constituents.

UP Alyansa

The self-presentation strategies prevalent in UP Alyansa standard bearers‘ speeches are

Ingratiation and Self-promotion.

Table 10

Frequency of Self-presentation Strategies in UP Alyansa SBs‘ Speeches (2013-2017).

Self-presentation
Number of strategies Percentage Scores
strategy
Ingratiation 9 30.0%
Exem. + Self-promo. 6 20.0%
Self-promotion 4 13.3%
Intimidation 2 6.7%
Supplication 2 6.7%
Intim. + Self-promo. 2 6.7%
Intim. + Supp. 2 6.7%
Intim. + Exem. 1 3.3%
Ingrat. + Self-promo. 1 3.3%
Ingrat. + Exem. 1 3.3%
Exemplification -- 0%
TOTAL 30 100.0%

Ingratiation has a marked prevalence in the speeches of the UP Alyansa SBs. Ingratiation

as how it was utilized by Alyansa standard bearers is characterized by (1) presenting both sides

of the argument; not agreeing but not totally disagreeing with those in power; (2) explicitly
 Amper 124

defending and agreeing with what is currently being implemented by those in power; (3) denying

that there is any sort of conflict, etc. UP Alyansa standard bearers maximize the effects of

Ingratiation by combining it with either Self-promotion or Exemplification to showcase their

achievements and beliefs. Examples of utterances that use the Ingratiation strategy are outlined

below:

Ex.

(80) We in ALYANSA believe na walang budget cut, kasi ang definition ng budget cut ay

mayroon nang isang budget tapos saka siya babawasan. Ang nangyayari kasi sa ‗tin is

may proposal tayo tapos never siyang nare-reach or palaging mas mababa yung binibigay

sa atin. (We in ALYANSA believe that there is no budget cut, because the definition of

budget cut is there is actual money for the budget and then the money is subtracted. What

happens to us is we have a proposal, but our proposed amount is never reached or what is

given to us is always lower than what we proposed.)

(81) Tayo sa ALYANSA, naniniwala tayo sa principle of socialized tuition. However, we

really have to make sure na okay na siya for implementation before, um, before natin

siya, uh, ipatupad sa iba pang mga state universities and colleges. (We in ALYANSA

believe in the principle of socialized tuition. However, we really have to make sure that it

is okay for implementation before we employ it to other state universities and colleges.)

(82) Ayan, so, isang napakalaking improvement ng STS compared sa STFAP, ay (sic) ‗yung

mas efficient nitong transaction, kasi ginawa nang decentralized, ‗no, yung pag-apruba ng

brackets, from the centralized system ng buong UP system natin. Pero siyempre nakikita

natin na napakarami pang improvement na kailangang gawin sa STFAP. (There, so, [one

of the] very large improvements of STS compared to STFAP is its efficient transaction,
 Amper 125

because the system of approving the [assigned] brackets [to students] has been

decentralized, from the centralized system that was implemented in UP before. But, of

course, we can see that there are still a lot of improvements that need to be made to [the

new system].)

Another prevalent self-presentation strategy used by UP Alyansa SBs is self-promotion

(including combinations). Among the three political parties, UP Alyansa had the most number of

occurrences of the use of the Self-promotion strategy with 14, followed by STAND UP with 12,

and KAISA UP with 8. It is also important to note that STAND UP was more reliant on the

Exemplification strategy with 14, followed by UP Alyansa with 8, and KAISA UP with 5.

Ex.

(83) And, noong nagkaroon kami ng People's Agrarian Reform Congress, um, sa USC, more

than 900 farmers yung umattend noon, and sinabi nila lahat na ang kailangan talaga ay

tapusin na ang pagtupad ng Agrarian Reform. (And, when we had the People‘s Agrarian

Reform Congress in the USC, more than 900 farmers attended and according to them, the

implementation of Agrarian Reform needs to be stopped.)

(84) Right, of course, we continue to lobby for, uh, laws sa legislation na maglalaan talaga ng

budget para sa, para sa education. Um, nakita natin, halimbawa, sa Free Education Bill ni,

nila Bam Aquino, na recently naipasa. (Right, of course, we continue to lobby for laws in

legislation that would allot budget for education. We see, for example, the Free Education

Bill by Bam Aquino, which was recently passed.)

 Amper 126

Self-promotion was actually one form of Ingratiation in an earlier work of Jones.

However, self-promotion was separated into another strategy because it highlights the speaker‘s

need to present himself or herself as competent (rather than likeable) to a target audience. In this

respect, the ulterior goal of the speaker is to enhance his personal attractiveness.

The blue party believes in the philosophy of multi-perspective activism wherein they respect

and recognize different perspectives in fighting for their causes. Their constituents noted their

lack of presence in mobs, rallies, and activities outside elections, and, given their philosophy,

assume that they are lobbying for legislations and forwarding reforms instead. UP Alyansa was

also described as diplomatic when it comes to dealing with both the students and communicating

with the administration. With these characteristics in mind, the hypothesis that Ingratiation and

Self-promotion strategies are the prevalent self-presentation strategies used by the UP Alyansa

standard bearers is proved.

KAISA UP

KAISA UP exhibited a balanced prevalence of Intimidation, Self-promotion,

Exemplification, and Ingratiation strategies, which is different from the hypothesis that Self-

promotion and Exemplification strategies will prevail in their standard bearers‘ speeches. Refer

to Appendix D for the encoded analysis of interviews for the KAISA UP standard bearers.

Table 11

Frequency of Self-presentation Strategies in KAISA UP SBs‘ Speeches (2013-2017).

Self-presentation
Number of strategies Percentage Scores
strategy
Intimidation 5 22.7%
Self-promotion 5 22.7%
Ingratiation 4 18.2%
Exem. + Self-promo. 3 13.6%
 Amper 127

Supplication 1 4.55%
Intim. + Exem. 1 4.55%
Exemplification 1 4.55%
Intim. + Supp. 1 4.55%
Ingrat. + Exem. 1 4.55%
TOTAL 22 100.0%

Contrary to the hypothesis that KAISA UP would use more Self-promotion and

Exemplification strategies to promote solidarity and seek agreement with their constituents,

KAISA UP standard bearers displayed an equally balanced use of the four (4) self-presentation

strategies namely Ingratiation, Intimidation, Self-promotion, and Exemplification. This result is

unprecedented, considering Jones and Pittman‘s statement that even if the five strategies are not

mutually exclusive, some strategy combinations or co-existences are incompatible, such as

Ingratiation and Intimidation (260).

Although it is understandable that the speeches were uttered by different people, at least

one salient strategy such as that of STAND UP (Intimidation) and UP Alyansa (Ingratiation)

should have at least manifested if it is indeed true that the candidates are being trained to carry a

party‘s beliefs and identity throughout the campaign. The balanced use of the four self-

presentation strategies may be attributed to the yellow party‘s tactic for winning the elections

according to the perception of their constituents: the voters have observed that KAISA fields

strong, skilled, and popular individuals to run as candidates under their party, but they lack

originality when it comes to their beliefs and stances in issues. Because of this, the unaffiliated

participants are not sure whether the candidates KAISA chooses to field have their own personal

agendas that are separate from the party‘s interests. This inconsistency botches and distorts the

identity that the political party is trying to project to its constituents, and because of it, the party

does not leave as distinct an impact as the red and blue party.
 Amper 128

Summary: Identities Constructed by the Political Parties

The prevalent strategies STAND UP SBs used in their speeches, which are (1) including

both the speaker (S) and hearer (H) in activity (+P12), using proximal demonstratives (+P7.4),

(2) presupposing H‘s knowledge of jargon and terminologies (+P7.9), (3) presupposing H‘s

value-judgments are the same as S‘s (+P7.7) for politeness strategies; and (4) Intimidation and

(5) Exemplification strategies for self-presentation strategies prove the uncompromising and

unapologetic attitude of the political party when voicing out their beliefs and stances on issues,

as indicated in hypothesis 2.a. This conclusion is also supported by the unaffiliated students‘

description of the red party.

UP Alyansa‘s four most prevalent strategies, namely (1) including S and H in activity

(+P12), (2) presupposing common ground through the use of proximal demonstratives (+P7.4);

(3) exaggerating (+P2), and (4) asserting common ground through putting H in the central

position of a story or scenario (+P7.2) for politeness strategies; and (5) Ingratiation and (6) Self-

promotion for self-presentation strategies all emphasize building common ground with the

hearers as well. Though the study‘s hypothesis of their identity, results from the OFG with the

political party itself, and the OFG unaffiliated participants‘ description of the blue party all

describe UP Alyansa as a party that does not impose political ideologies, stances, and forms of

activism on others, the data and analysis of prevalent strategies did not significantly characterize

this as true. However, UP Alyansa SBs have a record of the habitual use of the +P7.2 strategy,

which disguises itself as a strategy that does not impinge but rather gives choice and control to

the hearer. This, along with their use impersonalizing address forms (-P7), and the lack of

instances of stating the FTA as a general rule or obligation (-P8), at least proves that UP Alyansa

SBs are the most diplomatic and the least forceful relative to the other two parties.
 Amper 129

If we are going to base our conclusions on the OFG with KAISA UP‘s executive

council and the analysis of their SBs‘ most prevalent politeness strategies, the hypothesis that

they project an identity that encourages solidarity by seeking agreement with their constituents

can be proved. However, not much input was gleaned from the unaffiliated participants about

what they think of the yellow party, since the party was collectively described as ―least visible‖

or ―absent‖ relative to the other two parties. In addition, the balanced prevalence of the four (4)

self-presentation strategies namely Ingratiation, Intimidation, Self-promotion, and

exemplification further distorts the identity that the yellow party is projecting to their

constituents to the extent that the unaffiliated voters conjectured that the standard bearers chosen

to run under KAISA UP‘s flag were selected because they are strong and popular individuals

with their own interests that are apart from the interests of the political party.

Synthesis

The similarity of the most prevalent self-presentation strategies and politeness strategies

(i.e. type: positive) used by the SBs regardless of their political affiliation is due to the type of

speech being analyzed: an argumentative/persuasive speech. In a context where the speaker and

the hearer have a candidate-voter relationship, using a large number of negative politeness

strategies that emphasizes respect and ―the freedom of the addressee to have his actions

unhindered and his attention unimpeded (Brown and Levinson 129)‖, is not the logical choice.

The use of positive politeness strategies is naturally appropriate for this context, where

the actors routinely exchange ―interest and approval of each other‘s personality, presuppositions

indicating shared wants and shared knowledge, implicit claims to reciprocity of obligations or to

reflexivity of wants, etc. (101).‖

 Amper 130

The nuance in the SBs‘ choice of politeness strategies and self-presentation strategies in

their speeches enables each political party to construct and project a distinct identity, which is

then interpreted or imbibed by the audience/hearer.

Notes

1. Participant‘s name was changed.

2. Participant‘s name was changed.

3. Participant‘s name was changed.

 Amper 131

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Findings

Based on the data gathered on the three main political parties of UP Diliman (STAND

UP, UP Alyansa, and KAISA UP) from the Philippine Collegian party profiles, the political

parties‘ Facebook pages, and online focus group discussions consolidated through Halliday‘s

Contextual Analysis framework, and the analysis of the Philippine Collegian standard bearer

(SB) interviews from 2013-2017 using Brown and Levinson‘s Model of Politeness and Jones and

Pittman‘s Theory of Strategic Self-presentation, the study‘s conclusions are as follows:

Context of the Situation

The context of the situation can be summarized using Halliday‘s framework for

contextual analysis, which was further developed and specified by Gledhill. Below is a shortened

version of the context of the situation outlined in Chapter V.

Field

 Social context: University Student Council (USC) politics in the University of the

Philippines Diliman

 Communicative purpose: political speech (persuasive/argumentative)

Tenor

 Roles: candidate to voter; candidate and voter power relationship presumed equal

 Cultural values (ideal): candidates to present arguments backed by facts to persuade and

inform; voters to objectively consider candidates‘ arguments in decision of who to vote

 Amper 132

Mode

 Text context: basic structure of a persuasive speech; basic knowledge of economic,

ideological, political, and university jargon

 Formal text features: newspaper conventions; ellipses (…) used to indicate pauses or that

time has run out

The context of the situation provided the background information to appropriately

analyze the texts, which are The Philippine Collegian standard bearer interviews from 2013-

2017. The next section summarizes the conclusions yielded from the analyses of these texts.

Political Party Identity Based on Prevalent Politeness Strategies in Speech

The first hypothesis states that the most prevalent politeness strategies used by political

party SBs are (a) bald-on record utterances (for STAND UP); (b) negative politeness strategies

(for UP Alyansa); and (c) positive politeness strategies (for KAISA UP). Positive politeness

strategies were noted as the most prevalent politeness strategy used by the SBs of all three

political parties (STAND UP, UP Alyansa, and KAISA UP), which means that the hypothesis on

KAISA UP‘s prevalent strategies (1.a.iii) was the only one that was proven correct. Hypothesis

1.a.i and 1.a.ii were both disproved.

The similarity of the kind of politeness strategies (positive) used by the SBs regardless of

their political affiliation can be traced to the nature and the purpose of the speech itself, which is

to present stances and arguments to the hearers while persuading them at the same time. The

usage of positive politeness strategies rather than negative politeness strategies is naturally

appropriate for this context, where the actors routinely exchange ―interest and approval of each

other‘s personality, presuppositions indicating shared wants and shared knowledge, implicit
 Amper 133

claims to reciprocity of obligations or to reflexivity of wants, etc. (Brown and Levinson 101).‖

The nuance in the SBs‘ choice of strategies in their speeches (e.g. preference for using identity

markers [+P12] rather than the personal center switch [+P7.2]) is what enables each candidate,

and by extension, their political party to construct and project a distinct identity, which is then

interpreted or imbibed by the audience or hearer.

The prevalent strategies STAND UP SBs used in their speeches, which are using

proximal demonstratives (+P7.4), presupposing H‘s knowledge of jargon and terminologies

(+P7.9), and presupposing H‘s value-judgments are the same as S‘s (+P7.7) to deliver their

strong stances softened solely by the use of identity markers (+P12) prove the uncompromising

and unapologetic attitude of the political party when voicing out their beliefs and stances on

issues as indicated in hypothesis 2.a. This conclusion is further supported by the unaffiliated

students‘ description of the red party.

UP Alyansa‘s four most prevalent strategies, namely including S and H in activity

(+P12), presupposing common ground through the use of proximal demonstratives (+P7.4);

exaggerating (+P2), and asserting common ground through putting H in the central position of a

story or scenario (+P7.2) all emphasize building common ground with the hearers as well.

Though the study‘s hypothesis of their identity, results from the OFG with the political party

itself, and the OFG unaffiliated participants‘ description of the blue party all describe UP

Alyansa as a party that does not impose political ideologies, stances, and forms of activism on

others, the data and analysis of prevalent strategies did not significantly characterize this as true.

However, UP Alyansa SBs had a record of habitual use of the +P7.2 strategy, which disguises

itself as a strategy that doesn‘t impinge but rather gives choice and control to the hearer. This,

along with their use of impersonalizing address forms (-P7) and the lack of instances of stating
 Amper 134

the FTA as a general rule or obligation (-P8), at least proves that UP Alyansa SBs are the most

diplomatic and the least forceful relative to the other two parties.

As for the yellow party, if we base our conclusions on the OFG with KAISA UP‘s

executive council and the analysis of their SBs‘ most prevalent strategies, the hypothesis that

they project an identity that encourages solidarity by seeking agreement with their constituents

can be proved. However, what the unaffiliated students‘ perception and the self-presentation

strategies used by KAISA UP‘s SBs say a different thing entirely. The next section will discuss

the results from the analysis of each political party SBs‘ speech through the self-presentation

strategies that they used.

Political Party Identity based on Prevalent Self-Presentation Strategies in Speech

As complementary evidence for the conclusions drawn using Brown and Levinson‘s

Model of Politeness, the speeches were also evaluated using Jones and Pittman‘s Theory of

Strategic Self-presentation. Similar to the findings using Politeness Theory, an abundance of

answers that exhibit exemplification, which attempts to prove the speaker as worthy; self-

promotion, which attempts to show the speaker‘s competence; or a combination of both

exemplification and self-promotion were observed. The prevalence of these strategies is again

attributed to the type of speech uttered in this specific context, which is argumentative and

persuasive in a politico-electoral context. However, other prevalent strategies excluding the three

(3) strategies mentioned above were observed as well, which differ from one political party to

the other.

STAND UP standard bearers‘ prevalent use of Intimidation and Intimidation +

Exemplification strategies, which proves hypothesis 1.b.i, and the lack of Ingratiation strategies
 Amper 135

in their speech are consistent with the identity they are projecting and the identity being

perceived by their constituents as indicated in hypothesis 2.a. Given that Ingratiation and Self-

promotion strategies are the prevalent self-presentation strategies used by the UP Alyansa

standard bearers, hypotheses 1.b.ii and 2.b are also sufficiently proven. These results

complement the conclusions drawn from the analysis of the speeches through the Politeness

Model.

Not much input was gleaned from the unaffiliated participants about what they think of

the yellow party, since the party was collectively described as ―least visible‖ or ―absent‖ relative

to the other two parties. In addition, the balanced prevalence of the four (4) self-presentation

strategies namely Ingratiation, Intimidation, Self-promotion, and exemplification further distorts

the identity that the yellow party is projecting to their constituents to the extent that the

unaffiliated voters supposed that the standard bearers chosen to run under KAISA UP‘s flag were

selected because they are strong and popular individuals with their own interests that are apart

from the interests of the political party. Hypothesis 1.a.iii has been disproved, and the result from

the analysis of prevalent self-presentation strategies in KAISA UP SBs speeches does not

supplement or is not value-adding to the proving of hypothesis 2.c.

With regard to the relationship between politeness and self-presentation in speech and the

identity of the speaker, one should keep in mind that speech is just one aspect of communication

that contributes to the construction, projection, and interpretation of an identity. Factors such as

how the speaker dresses, how the speaker conducts and carries himself, and other underlying

contexts and background information also make up the identity of the speaker. This study also

emphasizes the importance of the input of those to whom the speaker projects his identity to: the

hearers. As illustrated in this study, the audience provided a more objective lens in viewing the
 Amper 136

political parties that were scrutinized. It is evident from the beginning that an entity (whether a

group or individual) that naturally puts their best self forward, will most likely give a skewed

evaluation of their self-image in their favor, leaving out vital information that contributes to the

whole context.

Implications

This study has the following implications to the following entities and fields:

Language Studies

The possible implications of this study in the field of language studies are many. First,

this study provides a new framework in which to analyze and scrutinize the rhetoric of

politicians not only inside the university, but in the national level as well. Analysis using this

framework can yield a comprehensive list of self-presentation strategies that can potentially

reveal if the identity projected by a politician in what they say is consistent with what they do.

Politeness Theory: Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Model

When using this study‘s framework of analysis, which was largely adapted from Brown

and Levinson‘s politeness model, it is important to keep the following points in mind:

1. Although a reliable indicator of significance, prevalence does not expose everything in

the data. When analyzing a speech, it is still important to note the prevalence of a

strategy. However, as illustrated in this study, looking into other notable strategies that

appear in the text is vital to finding nuances and revealing deeper information in the

aspects that are being investigated.

 Amper 137

2. Brown and Levinson assigned numerical values to the different politeness strategies they

enumerated and described in their work. However, some strategies have up to nine

unnumbered subdivisions or manifestations that may have different implications when

used in various contexts. In this study, the researcher created a shorter and more specific

code that made it easier to differentiate one strategy from another. It made assigning

specific utterances in a transcript easier and it helped in making the analysis sharper and

more detailed (see appendix A for the full list).

3. Brown and Levinson should consider revising the groupings of politeness strategies in

their pioneering work. In the latest reprint of the book that details the model and its

strategies (1987), the groupings remain unchanged. In the analyses of 28 speeches in this

study, some of the desired effects of individual strategies (e.g. asserting common ground

through personal-centre switch [+P7.2], asserting common ground by presupposing H‘s

knowledge (e.g. using jargon) [+P7.9] and stating FTA as a general rule or obligation [-

P8], among others) had a different or opposite effect from what Brown and Levinson

observed such as alienation rather than belongingness. Future researchers interested in

using the framework of this study to analyze speeches must be doubly careful in

interpreting the effect of some strategies and should always consider the context of the

situation.

Educators of English 10 (College English)

Based on the analysis of the speeches of the political party standard bearers in The

Philippine Collegian interviews, all of the speeches use the same set of strategies regardless of

political affiliation, and this is attributed to the type of speech being used in this politico-electoral
 Amper 138

context: an argumentative and persuasive speech. Educators of English 10: College English may

find additional insight as to the characteristics argumentative-persuasive speeches exhibit as

defined and drawn from Brown and Levinson‘s politeness theory.

An argumentative-persuasive speech in a politico-electoral context may be characterized by:

 The use of inclusive words and clauses such as ―we,‖ ―let‘s,‖ ―we at [name of

organization or group],‖ ―tayo,‖ etc. to convey solidarity or belongingness.

 The use of proximal words such as ―here‖ and ―this‖ rather than ―there‖ and ―that‖ to put

the hearer, rather than the speaker, at the center.

 Speaking as if the speaker is the hearer or that the speaker‘s knowledge is equal to that of

the speaker.

 The use of extremes (adjectives) in value-judgment scales (e.g. good-bad, beautiful-ugly,

interesting-boring).

 The use of jargon appropriate to the context or political situation.

 The use of exaggeration and intensifiers for emphasis and to get the attention of the

hearer.

To review how this definition was conceived, refer to Chapter V: Presentation of

Analysis and Data, Section: Similarities and Differences of Prevalent Politeness Strategies

among Political Parties.

Political Campaign Teams and Managers

Aside from how to dress, how to conduct and carry oneself, propaganda, campaign

materials, and other aspects of a candidate that are constructed and trained before and during

campaign season, what a candidate says and how a candidate speaks should be focused on
 Amper 139

foremost. At least in the UP Diliman student political context, the linguistic strategies used by

the candidates along with these strategies‘ respective effects have a significant impact on how

the audience or the constituents (especially those who have no political affiliation) perceives the

political party.

It is also important to pay attention to what kinds of strategies a candidate will utilize as

these are the tools used by the candidate(s) (i.e. the representatives of the political party) to

convey the beliefs, advocacies, as well as the political party‘s identity. Consistency in stances on

issues, advocacies, and way-of-speaking of a candidate is the key in establishing and imprinting

the identity of candidate, and by extension, the identity of the political party on the voters‘

minds.

Recommendations

Future researchers are encouraged to conduct related studies on national or local

politicians and even other student governments to improve and prove the efficacy of this

framework in larger or similar contexts.

In terms of studies on language in relation to identity, further studies in other fields which

may or may not involve politics and political rhetoric are also needed to further prove the theory

that speech is inextricably linked to and cannot be divorced from identity. Though this research

contributes to the wide literature that strengthens and affirms Goffman‘s dramaturgical model,

like in any school of thought, continuous confirmation and verification of a theory through

changing times is essential.

Methodologically, problems in setting up focus group discussions with the target

participants were encountered during the data-gathering phase of this research. This problem was
 Amper 140

resolved by resorting to online focus groups with the same target participants to obtain the

information needed for this study, and it yielded more favorable results. With continuous

technological advancement and people‘s preference for interactions through technological

means, people may have become more amenable to online interviews and focus groups instead

of face-to-face focus group discussions. Further development and standardization of focus

groups online, especially when conducted on free, social media platforms, should be further

explored by future researchers.

 Amper 141

WORKS CITED

Al-Jumaily, Abdullatif A. and Jassim N. Al-Azzawi. ―Identification, description and

interpretation of English rhetorical questions in political speeches.‖ Iraq Academic
Scientific Journals, https://www.iasj.net/iasj?func=fulltext&aId=73591. Accessed 12
Apr. 2018.

Angeles, Ronn Andrew F. There’s something wrong with your imagery: an analysis of
(im)politeness in a literary workshop. Undergraduate thesis, University of the Philippines
Diliman, 2010.

Barnhart, Adam D. ―Erving Goffman: The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life.‖ Portland
State University, http://web.pdx.edu/~tothm/theory/Presentation%20of%20Self.htm.
Accessed 2 Dec. 2015.

Baum, M. A., & Jamison, A. S. ―The Oprah effect: How soft news helps inattentive citizens vote
consistently.‖ Journal of Politics, vol. 68, no. 4, 2006, pp. 946–959.

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana and Elite Olshtain. ―Requests and Apologies: A Cross-Cultural Study of
the Speech Act Realization Project.‖ Applied Linguistics, vol. 5, no. 3, 1984, pp. 196-213.

Booc, Chad. Facebook posts of political parties. Facebook, Facebook.com, 10 April 2018,
https://www.facebook.com/chadbooc/posts/10211887141274956.

Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. Politeness: Some universals in language use.
Cambridge UP, 1987.

―Constitution of the University Student Council in Diliman.‖ Tinig ng Plaridel, 4 Sept. 2011,
https://tinigngplaridel.net/news/2011/constitution-of-the-university-student-council-in-
diliman/. Accessed 10 Sept. 2018.

Coulmas, Florian. ―Politeness: cultural dimensions of linguistic choice.‖ Sociolinguistics: The

Study of Speakers’ Choice. Cambridge UP, 2005, pp. 84-103.

Dedaic, Mirjana N. ―Political Speeches and Persuasive Argumentation.‖ Encyclopedia of

Language and Linguistics. 2nd ed., 2006, pp. 700-707.

―Discourse.‖ Merriam-Webster, 2011, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discourse.

Accessed 9 Oct. 2015.
 Amper 142

Eddins, Geri Zabela. ―Persuading the People: Presidential Campaigns.‖ Our White House, 2012,
http://ourwhitehouse.org/persuading-people-presidential-campaigns/. Accessed 19 Sept.
2015.

Feliciano, Ana Rochelle Marie A. Constructing the Image of Change: A Critical Discourse
Analysis on the Images of Obama in the 2008 presidential debates. Undergraduate thesis,
University of the Philippines Diliman, 2009.

Fontaine, Lise. ―Language as Social Semiotic in Halliday‘s systemic functional linguistics.‖

SemiotiX , 2012, https://semioticon.com/semiotix/2012/03/language-as-social-semiotic-
in-hallidays-systemic-functional-linguistics/. Accessed 29 Nov. 2015.

Fraenkel, J.R. & N.E. Wallen. How to design and evaluate research in education. 4th ed.,
McGraw Hill, 2000.

Fraser, Bruce. ―Perspectives on Politeness.‖ Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 14, 1990, pp. 219-236.

---. ―Pragmatic Markers.‖ Pragmatics, vol. 6, no. 2, 1996, pp. 167-190.

Furko, Peter. ―Manipulative uses of pragmatic markers in political discourse.‖ Palgrave

Communications, 2017, https://www.nature.com/articles/palcomms201754.pdf. Accessed
25 Nov. 2018.

Gilks, Kate. ―Is the Brown and Levinson (1987) Model of Politeness as useful and original as
originally claimed? An assessment of the revised Brown and Levinson (1987) Model.‖
Innervate: Leading Undergraduate Work in English Studies vol. 2, 2010, pp. 94-102.

Glasser B.G. & A.L. Strauss. The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine, 1967.

Gledhill, Christopher John. The ‘Field Tenor Mode’ framework for analysis. Université Paris
Diderot, 2013.

Goffman, Erving. ―On Facework: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.‖

Interaction Ritual. Doubleday, 1967.

---. The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life. 2nd ed., University of Edinburgh, 1956.

Hall, Joan Kelly. ―Chapter 2: Language and Identity.‖ Teaching and Researching Language and
Culture. 2nd ed., Pearson, 2011.
 Amper 143

Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold, 1985.

Halliday, M.A.K & R. Hasan. Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-
semiotic perspective. Deakin UP, 1985.

Ho, Doris Magsaysay. ―Why the Philippines rates among the worst bureaucracies in Asia.‖
Philippine Star. 13 Mar. 2002, https://www.philstar.com/lifestyle/business-
life/2002/03/13/153737/why-philippines-rates-among-worst-bureaucracies-asia.
Accessed 9 Oct. 2015.

Holmes, Janet. Women, Men, and Politeness. Routledge, 2013.

―Identity.‖ Merriam-Webster, 2011, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/identity.

Accessed 6 Feb. 2016.

"J. R. Firth." New World Encyclopedia, 12 Mar. 2018,

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/J._R._Firth. Accessed 1 Apr. 2018.

Johnstone, Barbara. ―Introduction.‖ Discourse Analysis. Blackwell, 2002.

Jones, Edward E. & Pittman, Thane. ―Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation.‖
Psychological Perspectives on the Self, 1982, pp. 231-262.

Lakoff, Robin. 'The logic of politeness: or, minding your p's and q's'.‖ Papers from the ninth
regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 1973, pp. 292-305.

Leech, Geoffrey N. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman Group Ltd., 1983.

Lesada, Joseph D. Taglish in Metro Manila: An analysis of Tagalog-English code-switching.

MA thesis, University of Michigan, 2017.

Lewis, Melissa A. & Clayton Neighbors. ―Self-Determination and the Use of Self-Presentation
Strategies.‖ The Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 145, no. 4, 2005, pp. 469-489.

Lijadi, Anastasia Aldelina and Gertina Johanna van Schalkwyk. ―Online Facebook Focus Group
Research of Hard-to-Reach Participants.‖ International Journal of Qualitative Methods,
2015.

Malinowski, Bronislaw. Coral Gardens and Their Magic, vol. 2, Allen and Unwin, 1935.
 Amper 144

McCormick, Gordon H. ―People‘s wars.‖ Encyclopedia of conflicts since World War II, vol. 1,
1999, p. 23.

McGeown, Kate. ―Personality and patronage at heart of Philippine polls.‖ BBC News, 7 May
2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8665428.stm. Accessed 8 Sept. 2018.

Měchura, Michal Boleslav. A Practical Guide for Functional Text Analysis. Lexiconista, 2005.
Morgan, D. Focus groups as qualitative research. Sage Publications, 1997.

Murgado-Armenteros, Eva Maria, Francisco José Torres-Ruiz, and Manuela Vega Zamora.
―Differences between Online and Face to Face Focus Groups, Viewed through Two
Approaches.‖ Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, vol. 7,
no. 2, 2012, pp. 73-86.

Occenola, Paige. ―UP‘s KAISA bet makes history.‖ Rappler, 1 Mar. 2013,
https://www.rappler.com/nation/22810-kaisa-bets-take-up-diliman-usc-top-positions.
Accessed 10 Oct. 2015.

Onato, Anton. ―Botong Isko: STAND UP dominates USC elections.‖ Tinig ng Plaridel, 22 Apr.
2016, http://www.tinigngplaridel.net/botong-isko/2016/botong-isko-stand-up-dominates-
usc-elections/. Accessed 12 Apr. 2018.

Oringderff, J. ―‘My Way‘: Piloting an online focus group.‖ International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, vol. 3, no.3, 2004.

Panganiban, Ayreen and Ruby Pineda. Filipino Face: An Analysis of Politeness in Students’
Notes of Request. Undergraduate thesis, University of the Philippines Diliman, 2006.

Papa, Hazel Joyce and Anne Roselle Limson. A pragmatic analysis of college students’ flouting
of the conversational maxims. Undergraduate thesis, University of the Philippines
Diliman, 2008.

―Party Profiles.‖ Philippine Collegian. 23 Feb. 2013, p.6.

―Party Profiles.‖ Philippine Collegian. 26 Feb. 2014, p. 6.

―Party Profiles.‖ Philippine Collegian. 23 Apr. 2015, p. 4.

―Party Profiles.‖ Philippine Collegian. 14 Apr. 2016, p. 6.

 Amper 145

―Party Profiles.‖ Philippine Collegian. 5 Apr. 2017, p. 6.

Pineda, Haidee C. ―Back to blue: ALYANSA dominates USC 2017 election.‖ UPDate Diliman,
10 Apr. 2017, https://upd.edu.ph/back-to-blue-alyansa-dominates-usc-2017-election/.
Accessed 8 Apr. 2018.

Prior, Markus. ―Any good news in soft news? The impact of soft news preference on political
knowledge.‖ Political Communication, vol. 20, no. 2, 200, pp. 149–171.

---. Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement
and polarizes elections. Cambridge UP, 2009.

―Standard Bearers.‖ Philippine Collegian. 23 Feb. 2013, p.7.

―Standard Bearers.‖ Philippine Collegian. 26 Feb. 2014, p. 7.

―Standard Bearers.‖ Philippine Collegian. 23 Apr. 2015, p. 5.

―Standard Bearers.‖ Philippine Collegian. 14 Apr. 2016, p. 3.

―Standard Bearers.‖ Philippine Collegian. 5 Apr. 2017, p. 3.

Stewart, David W. and Prem Shamdasani. ―Online Focus Groups.‖ Journal of Advertising, vol.
46, no. 1, 2017, pp. 48-60.

Teehankee, Julio. ―Electoral Politics in the Philippines.‖ Electoral Politics in Southeast & East
Asia, edited by Aurel Croissant, John, 2002, pp. 149-202.

―TWSC launches its 2012 Public Forum Series.‖ UP Third World Studies Center. 20 Jul. 2012,
http://uptwsc.blogspot.com/2012/07/twsc-launches-its-2012-public-forum.html?m=0.
Accessed 9 Oct. 2015.

Watts, R.J. ―Linguistic politeness and political verbal behavior: Reconsidering claims for
universality.‖ Politeness in Language, Cambridge UP, 1992, pp. 43-69.

Wilson, R. E., Gosling, S. D., & Graham, L. T. ―A review of Facebook research in the social
sciences‖. Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 7, 2012, pp. 203–220.
 Amper 146

Zemliansky, Pavel. ―Chapter 10: Ethnographic Research.‖ Methods of Discovery: A Guide to

Research Writing, 2009, https://www.glowm.com/pdf/JM-research_Chapter%2010.pdf.
Accessed 10 Oct. 2015.
 Amper 147

APPENDIX A
BROWN AND LEVINSON’S POLITENESS STRATEGIES

The following is a simplified presentation of Brown and Levinson‘s (B&L) Politeness Strategies
according to their book Politeness: some universals in language use, published in 1987. The
diagram below presents the schema of possible sets of politeness strategies when doing a Face
Threatening Act, as seen in Chapter IV: Theoretical Framework.

Figure 2. Possible strategies for doing FTAs (Brown and Levinson 1987:69)

In order to fully understand B&L‘s full account, here are the commonly used
abbreviations throughout the book and their meanings:
 S – Speaker
 H – Hearer
 FTA – Face Threatening Act
A code for each strategy is also provided, which was used to systematically mark and analyze
the statements on the speeches of the standard bearers. To see the marked speeches, refer to
Appendix E.

Bald on record, or without redressive action (BOR)

The bald-on record strategy can be treated as speaking in conformity to Grice‘s Maxims, as
follows:
 Maxim of Quality: Be non-spurious (speak the truth, be sincere)
 Maxim of Quantity: (a) Don‘t say less than is required.
(b) Don‘t say more than is required.
 Amper 148

 Maxim of Relevance: Be relevant.

 Maxim of Manner: Be perspicuous; avoid ambiguity and obscurity.
Simply, it is just being frank and direct. The primary reason for using a bald-on record strategy is
when ―S wants to do an FTA more than he wants to satisfy H‘s face. (95)‖ There are two
motives for S using this strategy: (1) when face is ignored or irrelevant, and (2) when S
minimizes the threat by implication/what is said is in H‘s interest.
Examples for (1):
Emergencies: ―Help! I‘m falling!‖
Emphasis/attention-getters: ―Listen. We need to sort this out by tomorrow.‖
Instructions: ―Add 1/8 tsp. of salt to the broth.‖
Examples for (2)
Entreaties: ―Forgive/Pardon me.‖
Imperatives: ―Go to bed.‖ (Mother to child, since S is more powerful than H, there is no risk of
offending, or S does not fear retaliation or non-conformity from H)
In H‘s interest: ―Give me a call when you get home.‖ (Implies S is worried for H‘s well-being)
Invitation: ―Come again!‖ (S after a dinner party with H)
Offers: ―Leave it to me.‖ (S is deliberately taking responsibility off H‘s hands)
―Come, sit here.‖ (S offers seat to H who cannot find one)

Politeness (with redressive action)

As seen in the diagram above, doing an on-record FTA with redressive action, also called
―politeness‖ can be divided into two: positive politeness and negative politeness. Each strategy
will have a brief description and examples:

Positive Politeness
Positive politeness is ―redress directed to the addressee‘s positive face, his perennial desire that
his wants (or the actions/acquisitions/values resulting from them) should be thought of as
desirable. Redress consists in partially satisfying that desire by communicating one‘s own wants
(or some of them) are in some respects similar to the addressee‘s wants (Brown and Levinson
101).‖
 Amper 149

Politeness Super-strategy 1: Claim common ground

Strategy 1: Notice, attend (+P1)
S should take notice of aspects of H‘s condition (i.e. noticeable changes, remarkable
possessions, anything which looks as if H wants S to notice and approve of it).
Example:
I saw your new car. What model is it? (…) By the way, I‘m here to borrow some sugar.

Strategy 2: Exaggerate interest, approval, sympathy (+P2)

Done with exaggerated intonation, stress, and other aspects of prosodics, as well as
intensifying modifiers such as ―really‖, ―for sure‖, ―exactly‖, ―absolutely‖, etc.
Examples:
(1) What you‘ve done here is fanTAStic!
(2) Your house is just absolutely beautiful!

Strategy 3: Intensify interest to H (+P3)

A way of communicating in which S intensifies the interest of H by ―making a good
story‖, which may include S exaggerating facts and overstating. It is characterized by the use of
―vivid present‖ in which H is metaphorically pulled into the events being discussed by S. Tag
questions such as ―…you know?‖, ―…isn‘t it?‖, and ―…‘di ba?‖ (Tagalog) may also be used for
this strategy.
Example:
(1) (Context: Dog owner recounts when she first got her dog) He tells me to go outside and
look in the car. I say, ―hey, what going on?‖ and when I go out to look, guess what‘s
running towards me? A small corgi puppy!
(2) I just couldn‘t tell him, you know?

Strategy 4: Use inclusive identity markers (+P4)

By conveying in-group membership, S can implicitly claim common ground with H that
is carried by that definition of the group. These include the use of address forms, language or
dialect (code-switching), jargon and slang (+P4.3), and contractions and ellipsis.
 Amper 150

Examples:
(1) Address forms (+P4.1): Mind if I borrow this, bro?
Can you get me my glasses, love?
(2) Language or dialect (+P4.2): Mother‘s first call: (Tagalog) Tara na, alis na tayo. (Let‘s
go, we‘re leaving.)
Mother‘s exasperated second call: (English) Ay, come here na, let‘s go!
(And vice versa)
(3) Contractions and ellipsis (+P4.4): Got a lighter? (Do you have a lighter I can borrow?)
Mind if I sit here? (Do you mind if I sit here?)

Strategy 5: Seek agreement (+P5)

This is accomplished by discussing safe topics and by repetition. Raising ―safe topics‖
allows S to stress his agreement with H and therefore H‘s desire to be ―right‖. For example, two
exchange students who have just met but are from the same country may talk about things they
miss from their home country such as food and its conveniences.
Agreement can also be stressed by repeating a part or all of what the previous speaker has
said in a conversation.
Examples:
(1) A: Sorry I was absent yesterday. I got into a car accident.
B: A car accident?!
(2) A: Is it true that she‘ll be moving out next week?
B: Yup, it‘s true.

Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement (+P6)

The desire to agree or appear to agree with H leads also to mechanisms for pretending to
agree, which is called ―token agreement (+P6.1).‖ Instead of blatantly saying ―no‖ to express
complete disagreement, S says ―Yes, but…‖ to avoid the appearance of complete disagreement
and/or to save the face of H or the person who spoke first.
Examples:
(1) A: You go to the gym often?
B: Yeah, sometimes.
 Amper 151

(2) A: It‘s cold, isn‘t it?

B: Yeah, but it‘s just right.
(3) ―A: What is she, small?
B: Yes, yes, she‘s small, smallish, um, not really small but certainly not very big (Brown
and Levinson 114).‖
―White lies (+P6.2)‖ are also used where S, when confronted with the necessity to state
an opinion, wants to lie (―I like your new shoes!‖) rather than damage H‘s face or avoid
confrontation.

Examples:
(1) A: May I borrow some money?
B: Oh, sorry! I just bought my school books and don‘t have any left myself.
(2) A: What do you think of my new hat?
B: Very stylish! I like the feathers.
Alternatively, S may choose to be vague about his own opinions, also called ―hedging
opinions (+P6.3),‖ so as not to be seen to disagree. Words such as ―sort of‖, ―kind of‖, ―like‖,
and ―in a way‖ are used for this strategy.
Examples:
(1) A: You support the Ateneo basketball team, don‘t you?
B: (A UP student) Yeah, sort of. Their players are very good-looking.
(2) I don‘t really know, I mean, people are entitled to their opinions.

Strategy 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common ground (+P7)

This strategy has three (3) manifestations: gossip or small talk, point-of-view operations,
and presupposition manipulations. These three can be further subdivided into nine (9) specific
strategies.
Gossip or small talk (+P7.1) is when S softens a request or request for a favor(s) (FTA)
by spending more time and effort in being with H, as a mark of friendship or interest, by talking
about unrelated topics before doing the FTA.
Point-of-view operations are divided into 4 main sub-groups:
 Amper 152

(1) Personal-centre switch (+P7.2), where S speaks as if H were S, or H‘s knowledge

were equal to S‘s.
Examples:
(a) A (getting an injection): Ow! Mom, it hurts!
B: Yes, darling. It hurts, I know.
(b) A: Well, I was a damn fool up that stage, wasn‘t I?
(c) Doctor to patient: Now, have we been taking our medicine properly? (inclusive
―we‖)
(2) Time switch (+P7.3), where S speaks as if the central or current time were in a past
event.
Examples:
(a) (using the ―vivid present‖ tense) John says he saw you the other day in a cafe.
(b) (doing speech acts via a messenger) Kate says she‘d like you to come, too.
(3) Place switch (+P7.4), where S speaks as if the central place were the hearer‘s location
rather than the speaker‘s. Use of here, this rather than there, that. In Tagalog, it is
dito, doon rather than ito, iyon/’yun.
Examples:
(a) (on saying goodbye) This was a lovely evening. (Rather than: That was a lovely
evening.)
(b) (in reference, while narrating a past event) Now this is something I usually didn‘t
eat, but I still ate it so as not to embarrass her.
(4) Using direct quotes (+P7.5) stresses common ground by reporting to H as if H were
hearing it like S heard it. In English, this is often used by the working class.
Example: So she says to me, ―What‘re you looking at?‖
Presupposition manipulations are also divided into 4 main sub-groups:
(1) Presupposing knowledge of H’s wants and attitudes (+P7.6) is expressed through
asking negative questions with a presumptive ―yes‖ answer.
Example: Wouldn‘t you like a drink?
(2) Presupposing H’s values are the same as S’s values (+P7.7) is similar to and may be
interchangeable with strategies +P2 (Exaggerate), OR4 (Understate), and OR5
 Amper 153

(Overstate). This strategy is characterized by S‘s preference for extremes in value-

judgment scales (e.g. good-bad, beautiful-ugly, interesting-boring).
(3) Presupposing familiarity in S-H relationship (+P7.8) is similar to +P4.1, where S
uses address forms on H. The only difference is that this strategy is used on for
strangers/people S does not personally know.
(4) Presupposing H’s knowledge (+P7.9) entails S talking about topics unknown or
unfamiliar to H. S may know that H may not have an idea about what the topic is, but
S does this as an expression of good intention. This strategy entails the use of (but not
limited to) use of jargon, etc.

Strategy 8: Joke (+P8)

Jokes may be used to stress mutual shared background knowledge and values or put H ―at
ease‖ in response to a faux pas or to minimize an FTA when requesting.
Example:
(1) ―How about lending me this old heap of junk? (H‘s new Cadillac) (Brown and Levinson
124)‖

Politeness Super-strategy 2: Convey cooperation with H

Strategy 9: Convey understanding of H‘s wants (+P9)
This happens when S implies asserts or implies knowledge of H‘s wants and willingness
to fit one‘s own wants in with them.
Examples:
(1) I know you hate business pitches but this one‘s really good! (request/offer)
(2) I know everyone‘s already tired and have little to no sleep, but let‘s keep working! We‘re
almost there! (offer + apology)

Strategy 10: Offer, promise (+P10)

When S claims that (within a certain sphere of relevance) whatever H wants, S wants for
him and will help obtain. Even if it‘s false, they demonstrate S‘s good intention in satisfying H‘s
positive face wants.
 Amper 154

Example:
(1) I‘ll drop by sometime next week to fix it, don‘t worry.

Strategy 11: Be optimistic (+P11)

When S is presumptuous enough to assume that H wants S‘s wants for S (or for S and H)
and will help him obtain them.
Examples:
(1) I‘ll help myself to these cupcakes if you don‘t mind, thanks!
(2) You will let me borrow money from you, right?

Strategy 12: Include H in activity (+P12)

Using the inclusive ―we‖ form (such as ―let‘s‖) to assume cooperation.
Examples:
(1) Let‘s not think about that now, shall we? (i.e. you)
(2) (Tagalog) Tara, kain! (English: ―Let‘s eat‖; used in the Philippines out of politeness
when H sees S eating, does not necessarily mean that S is inviting H to eat.)

Strategy 13: Give (or ask) for reasons (+P13)

When S includes H in the activity by giving reasons as to why he wants what he wants.
By including H in his practical reasoning and assuming reflexivity (H wants S‘s wants), H is
thereby led to (hopefully) see the reasonableness of S‘s FTA.
Examples:
(1) Why don‘t you relax and let me handle this? (FTA is disguised as practical reasoning)
(2) Why didn‘t you lock the door?! (When S scolds H for not locking the door)

Strategy 14: Assume or assert reciprocity (+P14)

Simply summarized by ―I‘ll do X for you if you do Y for me.‖

Politeness Super-strategy 3: Fulfill H’s wants

Strategy 15: Give sympathy, understanding, or cooperation to H (+P15)
S gives gifts (tangible and not) to H.
 Amper 155

Negative Politeness
As opposed to positive politeness which exhibits ―familiar‖ and ―joking‖ behavior, negative
politeness is oriented towards the addressee‘s negative face: the want to have his freedom of
action unhindered and his attention unimpeded. Its aim is to minimize the particular imposition
that an FTA unavoidably effects.

Figure 18. Chart of strategies: Negative politeness (Brown and Levinson 131)

Politeness Super-strategy 4: Be direct

When voicing out wants, S is overcome with the desire to be on-record or straight to the
point as well as the desire to not coerce or impose on H. According to Brown and Levinson, this
―clash‖ is addressed by being ―conventionally indirect,‖ as discussed below:

Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect (-P1)

This is done by stating or questioning a felicitous request. In order for a request to be
felicitous (successful) the addressee must be thought potentially able to comply with the request,
the requestor must want the thing being requested, etc. By using this strategy, one can construct a
readily understandable indirect speech act, which satisfies both S‘s want to be direct and H not
being imposed on.
 Amper 156

Examples:
(1) Please pass the salt/would you please pass the salt/can you pass the salt?
(2) Would you know where the supermarket is?

Politeness Super-strategy 5: Do not presume/assume

Strategy 2: Question, hedge (-P2)
Hedges are particles, words, or phrases that modify the degree of membership of a
predicate or noun phrase in a set, and can be used to minimize imposition on H.
Examples:
(1) You don‘t suppose I can borrow some flour from you, do you? (Direct: I want to borrow
flour from you.)
(2) Won‘t you open the door? (Direct: Open the door.)
(3) By the way, I got you these flowers. (Direct: I‘m giving you these flowers.)
(4) Oh dear, I just remembered! (Apologetic; direct: I remember now.)

Politeness Super-strategy 6: Don’t coerce H

Strategy 3: Be pessimistic (-P3)
This strategy gives redress to H‘s negative face by explicitly expressing doubt on the
appropriateness of S‘s request. It‘s usually employed with the use of the subjunctive.
Examples:
(1) Could/would/might you do this for me? (As opposed to using can/will/may)

Strategy 4: Minimize imposition on H (-P4)

This strategy defuses the FTA by stating that the intrinsic seriousness of the imposition is
not in itself great.
Examples:
(1) I was just wondering if you‘d like to go to the ball with me.
(2) I just dropped by to ask about the upcoming event.
(3) (Tagalog) Gusto ko lang namang makita ang mga bata.
 Amper 157

Strategy 5: Give deference (-P5)

Giving deference is achieved when (1) S humbles and abases himself; and/or (2) S raises
H (treats H like a superior). This is usually done by using honorifics or using setting-appropriate
words.
Examples:
(1) We look forward to dining (eating) with you.
(2) I would like to express my gratitude (thank) to Dr. Reyes (Mrs. Reyes) for bestowing
upon (giving) me such an honor as this.

Politeness Super-strategy 7: Communicate want to not intrude on H

Strategy 6: Apologize (-P6)
By apologizing for doing an FTA, the speaker can indicate his reluctance to impinge on
H‘s negative face. This can be done in four ways: by (1) admitting the impingement, (2)
indicating reluctance, (3) giving overwhelming reasons, and (4) begging forgiveness.
Examples:
(1) I‘m sure you‘re very busy, but can you please take a look at this?
(2) I don‘t want to bother you, but you might want to look at this.
(3) I can‘t think of anyone else to run to but you.
(4) Excuse me, but do you know where the toilet is?

Strategy 7: Impersonalize, avoid I and you (-P7)

This strategy works by phrasing the FTA as if the agent were other than S, or at least, not
S or not S alone, and the addressee were other than H, or only inclusive of H. It‘s reflected in the
speech of S by the avoidance of pronouns ―I‖ and ―you‖, impersonalizing verbs, using
imperatives, etc.

Examples:
(1) It is necessary to submit the papers tomorrow.
(2) Get that (your) dog out of here.
(3) Sorry for being late. The train broke down again.
(4) Mother: What happened to our wedding plates?
 Amper 158

Child who broke it: It fell and broke to pieces.

Strategy 8: State the FTA as a general rule (-P8)

Stating the FTA as an instance of some general social rule, regulation, or obligation
makes it appear that S doesn‘t want to impose on H but that S was rather forced to by
circumstances. This strategy usually occurs (but not limited to) in businesses, corporate groups,
and the service industry.
Examples:
(1) Passengers are not allowed to eat or drink while inside the train.
(2) Unite Airlines claims all responsibility and apologizes deeply on the death of a
passenger‘s dog during flight 4J6055.
(3) Refunds and returns will not be accepted.

Strategy 9: Nominalize (-P9)

The more nouns there are in a sentence (instead of the standard variety of nouns, verbs,
adjectives, objects, etc.), the more formal, distant, and polite it is.
Examples:
(1) Your excellent performance on the interviews and examinations impressed us immensely.
(As opposed to ―You performed excellently on the interviews and examinations and we
were immensely impressed.‖)
(2) It is with deep regret that we inform you of your non-acceptance in our school. (As
opposed to ―We regret to inform you that you were not accepted in our school.‖)

Politeness Super-strategy 8: Redress other wants of H’s

Strategy 10: Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H (-P10)
S can redress an FTA by explicitly stating his indebtedness to H, or by disclaiming any
indebtedness to H.
Examples:
(1) I‘d be eternally grateful if you reconsider my application.
(2) (Japanese) 本当にお世話になっております。 (Romaji: Hontou ni osewa ni natte
orimasu; English: I am indebted to you.)
 Amper 159

(3) (For offers) I could do it for you, no problem.

Off-record
A communicative act is done off record when S intentionally constructs an utterance to have
multiple interpretations to mask an FTA to avoid responsibility for it. In this case, H must
actively infer what S might mean to recover the actual intention of the utterance. This is achieved
through indirectness and/or the violation of one or multiple Gricean Maxims.

Figure 19. Chart of strategies: Off record (Brown and Levinson 214)

Invite Conversational Implicatures

Strategy 1: Give hints (OR1)
When S says something that is not explicitly relevant, he invites H to search for an
interpretation of the possible relevance. This accomplished by stating possible motives or
reasons for A (request/FTA) instead of explicitly raising the issue of A.
Examples:
(1) It‘s cold today, isn‘t it? (Please lend me your jacket/scarf.)
(2) It‘s so hot! (Turn on the electric fan/Lend me your fan.)
 Amper 160

Strategy 2: Give association clues (OR2)

Association clues can only be given when S and H have a mutual understanding that the
seemingly irrelevant utterance actually is associated with a prior experience. For example, when
between friends, one says ―I can‘t concentrate,‖ it can be an invitation to head out and get coffee.

Strategy 3: Presuppose (OR3)

In this strategy, an utterance can be wholly relevant in the context, but still violate the
Relevance Maxim. The use of prepositions such as ―again‖, ―yet‖, etc. and/or contrastive stress
on specific words in an utterance are used in this strategy.
Examples:
(1) I cleaned the bathroom again today. (May imply that S cleaned the bathroom yesterday
and H made a mess in it that necessitated it being cleaned again today.)
(2) A: Who drank my milk?!
B: (looks over to other person who did drink it) It wasn‘t ME who did it.

Strategy 4: Understate (OR4)

Understatements are one way of generating implicatures by saying less than what is
required. This is done by (1) choosing a point in a scalar predicate (e.g. tall, good, nice) that is
well below the point that describes the actual state of affairs, and (2) by hedging a higher point
that will implicate the actual state of affairs.
Examples:
(1) A: You think he‘s handsome?
B: He‘s alright. (If compliment, it might mean he is handsome. If criticism, it might mean
he is not handsome at all.)
(2) Well, that‘s pretty bad, isn‘t it? (The hedge ―pretty‖ somehow magnifies how bad it is.)

Strategy 5: Overstate (OR5)

When S overstates or chooses a point on a scale which is higher than the actual state of
affairs.
Examples:
(1) You never listen to me! (criticism)
 Amper 161

(2) Why do you always smoke? (criticism)

Strategy 6: Use tautologies (OR6)
By uttering tautologies, S encourages H to look for an informative interpretation of a
rather uninformative utterance at face value.
Examples:
(1) A: I just don‘t understand how he can leave his family for another.
B: Well, love is love. (May imply that nothing can stop or get in the way of two people in
love, even if sacrifices have to be made.)

Strategy 7: Use contradictions (OR7)

By stating two things that contradict each other, S makes it appear that he cannot be
telling the truth, which thus encourages H to look for an interpretation that reconciles the two
contradictory propositions.
Examples:
(1) A: Do you even like him?
(2) B: Well, yes and no. (May imply that yes, B likes him as a friend and no, not in a
romantic way.)
(3) (on the phone) A: Is Mrs. Terrence there?
B: Well, she is and she isn‘t. (May imply that she is there but something incapacitates her
to come to the phone at the moment.)

Strategy 8: Be ironic (OR8)

By saying the opposite, S can indirectly convey what he actually means. Clues that help
detect an irony can be verbal (nasality), non-verbal (smirk), or simply contextual.
Examples:
(1) A: How are you, John?
John: (In the middle of an economic crisis that is affecting his business) Never been
better. (said with an annoyed look)
(2) You‘re a genius! (May be said by S even though H clearly said something stupid.)
 Amper 162

Strategy 9: Use metaphors (OR9)

Metaphors are literally false, but connotation of the metaphor is the key to what S might
mean.
Example: Marilou‘s a snake. (S might mean that Marilou often betrays/deceives her friends.)

Strategy 10: Use rhetorical questions (OR10)

Asking a question without the intention of obtaining an answer can be used to do FTAs
for excuses, criticisms, etc.
Examples:
(1) How would I know? (Direct: I wouldn‘t know)
(2) How many times do I have to tell you to not go into my room? (Direct: I‘ve told you
many times to not go to my room but you never listen!)
(3) Did she ever tell you that she loved you? (Direct: She never did say she loves you and
you (H) know that.)

Be vague and ambiguous: Violate the Manner Maxim

Strategy 11: Be ambiguous (OR11)
Purposeful ambiguity can be achieved through metaphors or use of certain ambiguous
words, depending on the context. It is very similar to Strategy 9.
Example: You‘re tough. (Compliment: You‘re strong or hard to beat down. Insult: You‘re
incorrigible or hard to convince.)

Strategy 12: Be vague (OR12)

This strategy is achieved by using euphemisms, being vague about whom the object of
the FTA, or what the FTA itself is.
Examples:
(1) ―Looks like someone had a little too much to drink. (vague understatement) (Brown and
Levinson 226)‖
(2) Did you put you-know-what in you-know-where?
 Amper 163

Strategy 13: Over-generalize (OR13)

Phrasing something in a way that it sounds like a rule and using proverbs are some of the
ways to over-generalize.
Examples:
(1) Mother to child: Good children go to sleep early!
(2) Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise.

Strategy 14: Displace H (OR14)

S may go off record by addressing the FTA to someone else in the hope that the real
target will see that the FTA is actually meant for him. A good example is when you‘re eating at
the dinner table and you ask your sibling, someone who is at least at the same level as you, to
pass the salt instead of your father, an authority figure, who is actually nearer to it.

Strategy 15: Be incomplete, use ellipsis (OR15)

By leaving an FTA half undone, S can leave the implicature ―hanging in the air‖ like how
it is with rhetorical questions.
Examples:
(1) Can I have the, uh…? (points to what S wants, leaving H to infer)
(2) Should I do it or…? (S wants H to do it)

Code Summary
BOR – Bald on record, or without redressive action
+P1 – Notice, attend
+P2 – Exaggerate interest, approval, sympathy
+P3 – Intensify interest to H
+P4 – Use inclusive identity markers
+P5 – Seek agreement
+P6.1 – Avoid disagreement: Token agreement
+P6.2 – Avoid disagreement: White lies
+P6.3 – Avoid disagreement: Hedging opinions
+P7.1 – Presuppose/raise/assert common ground: Gossip or small talk
 Amper 164

+P7.2 – Presuppose/raise/assert common ground: Personal-centre switch

+P7.3 – Presuppose/raise/assert common ground: Time switch
+P7.4 – Presuppose/raise/assert common ground: Place switch
+P7.5 – Presuppose/raise/assert common ground: Using direct quotes
+P7.6 – Presuppose/raise/assert common ground: Presuppose knowledge of H‘s wants and
attitudes
+P7.7 – Presuppose/raise/assert common ground: Presuppose H‘s values are the same as S‘s
values
+P7.8 – Presuppose/raise/assert common ground: Presuppose familiarity in S-H relationship
+P7.9 – Presuppose/raise/assert common ground: Presuppose H‘s knowledge
+P8 – Joke
+P9 – Convey understanding of H‘s wants
+P10 – Offer, promise
+P11 – Be optimistic
+P12 – Include both S and H in activity
+P13 – Give (or ask) for reasons
+P14 – Assume or assert reciprocity
+P15 – Give sympathy, understanding, or cooperation to H (give gifts)
-P1 – Be conventionally indirect
-P2 – Question, hedge
-P3 – Be pessimistic
-P4 – Minimize imposition on H
-P5 – Give deference
-P6 – Apologize
-P7 – Impersonalize, avoid I and you
-P8 – State the FTA as a general rule
-P9 – Nominalize
-P10 – Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H
OR1 – Give hints
OR2 – Give association clues
OR3 – Presuppose
 Amper 165

OR4 – Understate
OR5 – Overstate
OR6 – Use tautologies
OR7 – Use contradictions
OR8 – Be ironic
OR9 – Use metaphors
OR10 – Use rhetorical questions
OR11 – Be ambiguous
OR12 – Be vague
OR13 – Over-generalize
OR14 – Displace H
OR15 – Be incomplete, use ellipsis
 Amper 166

APPENDIX B

PERMISSIONS

Letter of Permission addressed to Philippine Collegian

Page 1 of 2
 Amper 167

Page 2 of 2
 Amper 168

Informed Consent Form for Political Party Members

TEAM IDENTITY AND POLITENESS: An Analysis of the University of the Philippines

Diliman Student Council Election Standard Bearers’ Speech in Philippine Collegian
Interviews

Researcher: Gabrielle Yvonne G. Amper

Department, College, & Institution: Department of English and Comparative Literature,
College of Arts and Letters, University of the Philippines, Diliman

You are being invited to take part in a research study that will examine the speech strategies used
by student politicians during their interviews in the Philippine Collegian and how they relate to
the identity of their political party. The decision to join, or not to join, is up to you. Please read
the following information carefully and feel free to ask the researcher if you need to clarify
anything or if you need more information.

Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to confirm that the identity being projected by a student politician
during election season reflects the identity of the political party he/she is part of. This will be
determined through the analysis of the Philippine Collegian interviews of the standard bearers
for each party. The focus group that you will be part of will provide me the background
information for your political party’s dynamics and how you train and select your candidates,
both of which are important to establish the identities your candidates’ and your political party
project to the student body. You were selected to participate in this study because of the position
you hold in your political party that entails experience and knowledge of how the party operates.

Procedures
The focus group will be fully conducted online through a Facebook secret group. You will be
invited into the group, will be given a briefing of the house rules on how to answer each thread,
and agree on a schedule or “most active” time to participate in discussions in the group. Six (6)
questions, with possible sub-queries, will be asked and posted in the group one-by-one. You are
free to reply or comment on the answers of your co-participants, as long as it is relevant to the
discussion.
Once all six questions have been exhaustively discussed, the group discussion will be
formally ended. It is not required and you will not be asked to leave the group, since the
results/digital copy of the research paper will be distributed through the group. However, if you
do choose to leave for whatever reason, you may still ask me for a digital copy through e-mail or
a private message.

Duration
The duration of the online focus groups can range from two (2) days to two (2) weeks, depending
on the pace of your co-participants. If everyone cooperates and follows the agreed upon time
periods and deadlines for answering questions, we can move forward and finish discussions
immediately.
 Amper 169

Benefits and Risks

The study provides an avenue for you to express the values, beliefs, and advocacies of political
party and inform the student body of how you select the candidates that represent it. As far as I
know, no written document has ever fully discussed how political parties in UP Diliman choose
the future leaders of the University Student Council, and this is one objective that this study aims
to accomplish.
There are no known risks that may affect you directly in participating in this study. The
decision to conduct the focus group discussion online was made to effectively minimize risks
and inconveniences that may arise from physically requiring your presence. You may decline to
answer any or all questions and you may withdraw your participation at any time if you choose.

Confidentiality
As a member and officer of your political party, you can choose to omit or include your name in
the study, but your position within the party will not be withheld. Rest assured that should you
choose to omit your identity, the computer containing the files used in this study as well as the
account I use to facilitate the group in Facebook are password-protected. Due to the nature of a
focus group discussion, the answers you will give that are deemed relevant by the researcher will
be used and will appear in the study.

Contact Information
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me through phone 0956-519-4256 (Globe);
email: gabrielleyvonne@gmail.com; or through Facebook Messenger. This study is being
conducted under the supervision of Dr. Maria Corazon Castro. You may contact her through
mcsacastro@gmail.com. If you have any questions regarding your rights or treatment as a
research participant, or if problems arise during your participation which you do not feel you can
discuss with the researcher, please feel free to contact the Office of the Vice Chancellor for
Research & Development (OVCRD) at ovcrd@upd.edu.ph or by calling 981-8500 loc. 4046.

CONSENT

I have read the provided information and consent voluntarily to be a participant in this study.

Printed Name of the Participant: _________________________________ Date: _________

Political Party: _______________________________ Position: ______________________
___ You may show my real name. ___ Change my name.

Signature*:

*Please sign within the box. You may attach an image or write your signature digitally using Adobe
Acrobat Reader DC.
 Amper 170

Informed Consent Form for Unaffiliated Students

TEAM IDENTITY AND POLITENESS: An Analysis of the University of the Philippines

Diliman Student Council Election Standard Bearers’ Speech in Philippine Collegian
Interviews

Researcher: Gabrielle Yvonne G. Amper

Department, College, & Institution: Department of English and Comparative Literature,
College of Arts and Letters, University of the Philippines, Diliman

You are being invited to take part in a research study that will examine the speech strategies used
by student politicians during their interviews in the Philippine Collegian and how they relate to
the identity of their political party. The decision to join, or not to join, is up to you. Please read
the following information carefully and feel free to ask the researcher if you need to clarify
anything or if you need more information.

Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to confirm that the identity being projected by a student politician
during election season reflects the identity of the political party he/she is part of. This will be
determined through the analysis of the Philippine Collegian interviews of the standard bearers
for each party. You were selected to participate in this focus group discussion because you are
not an official member of a political party, regardless of your leanings.

Procedures
The focus group will be fully conducted online through a Facebook secret group. You will be
invited into the group, will be given a briefing of the house rules on how to answer each thread,
and agree on a schedule or “most active” time to participate in discussions in the group. Six (6)
questions, with possible sub-queries, will be asked and posted in the group one-by-one. You are
free to reply or comment on the answers of your co-participants, as long as it is relevant to the
discussion.
Once all six questions have been exhaustively discussed, the group discussion will be
formally ended. It is not required and you will not be asked to leave the group, since the
results/digital copy of the research paper will be distributed through the group. However, if you
do choose to leave for whatever reason, you may still ask me for a digital copy through e-mail or
a private message.

Duration
The duration of the online focus groups can range from two (2) days to two (2) weeks, depending
on the pace of your co-participants. If everyone cooperates and follows the agreed upon time
periods and deadlines for answering questions, we can move forward and finish discussions
immediately.

Benefits and Risks

The study provides an avenue for you to express your values, beliefs, and advocacies as an
individual, non-partisan member of the student body of UP Diliman. You will be able to join
 Amper 171

lively discussions about politics in a friendly, conducive environment with students like yourself.
You may learn something new from your co-participants and even make a few friends.
There are no known risks that may affect you directly in participating in this study. The
decision to conduct the focus group discussion online was made to effectively minimize risks
and inconveniences that may arise from physically requiring your presence. You may decline to
answer any or all questions and you may withdraw your participation at any time if you choose.

Confidentiality
Your name will be changed in the study. Your identity as well as other personal information you
provide will be treated with the strictest confidentiality. Rest assured that the computer
containing the files used in this study as well as the account I use to facilitate the group in
Facebook are password-protected. Due to the nature of a focus group discussion, the answers you
will give that are deemed relevant by the researcher will be used and will appear in the study.

Contact Information
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me through phone 0956-519-4256 (Globe);
email: gabrielleyvonne@gmail.com; or through Facebook Messenger. This study is being
conducted under the supervision of Dr. Maria Corazon Castro. You may contact her through
mcsacastro@gmail.com. If you have any questions regarding your rights or treatment as a
research participant, or if problems arise during your participation which you do not feel you can
discuss with the researcher, please feel free to contact the Office of the Vice Chancellor for
Research & Development (OVCRD) at ovcrd@upd.edu.ph or by calling 981-8500 loc. 4046.

CONSENT

I have read the provided information and consent voluntarily to be a participant in this study.

Printed Name of the Participant: _________________________________ Date: _________

Signature*:

*Please sign within the box. You may attach an image or write your signature digitally using Adobe
Acrobat Reader DC.
 Amper 172

APPENDIX C

COPY OF PHILIPPINE COLLEGIAN’S “GO OUT AND VOTE” PAGES

The following section contains copies of pages from Philippine Collegian’s “Go Out and Vote”

issues that contain the speeches of the each political party’s standard bearers, arranged in

chronological order (2012-2017).

 Amper 178

APPENDIX D

ENCODED ANALYSIS OF INTERVIEWS

Analyses are arranged by political party in chronological order. A sentence will be assigned one

(1) or more politeness strategies if applicable. The politeness strategies used and how frequently

they appeared are tallied at the end of each candidate interview. There are a total of 28

candidates whose speeches will be evaluated. After all of the speeches have been analyzed, the

politeness strategies and the overall frequency of their use will be counted per political party. It

is important to keep in mind that even though the candidates may be talking directly to the

interviewers for the paper, who they are really addressing are the students who will vote for them

in the elections.

As for Jones and Pittman‘s self-presentation strategies, each full answer is evaluated and

assigned one or more self-presentation strategy. The assigned strategy can be found at the end of

each answer, enclosed in brackets ([]; e.g. [Supplication + Ingratiation]).

STAND UP

2013
CHAIRPERSON
Jose Miguel Solis
4th year, BA History

1. Ang pinakamalaking suliranin na kailangang tugunan ng ating (+P12) mga mambabatas ay

ang poverty. Mara—A—Although mataas ang, mataas ang, uh (-P2), popularity rate ng ating

(+P12) pangulo, marami (+P3) pa ring naghihirap dito (+P7.4) sa ating (+P12) bansa (+P6.1).

Meron siyang programang PPP (+P7.9), meron at, um (-P2), pero hindi pa rin ito (+P7.4)

tumutugon sa talagang (+P2), um (-P2), sa talagang poverty or ‗yung pinanggagalingan ng

kahirapan ng mga tao, uh (-P2), sa ating (+P12) bansa. Uh (-P2), tsaka, nandyan din ang, um (-
 Amper 179

P2)—nandiyan din ang – hindi -- Wala pa ring maayos na, um (-P2), social services na binibigay

sa ating (+P12) mga kababayan (+P4.1). So-- Although, yes, maraming (+P3) programa si PNoy

na sinasabi niya (-P2) ay makakabuti sa kaniyang constituents, marami (+P3) pa rin talagang

(+P2) taong naghihirap (+P6.1). Mara-- hindi pa rin nito (+P7.4) natutugunan ‗yung talagang

(+P2) kakailanganin ng bawat isang Pilipino. Wala—Ma—Marami (+P3) ngang na-create na

jobs, and yet talaga (+P2) bang kumikita ang mga Pilipino? (OR10) Meron nga ba talagang

(+P2) pagkain na napupunta sa mga – sa mga, uh (-P2) -- tiyan ng bawat isang Pilipino? (OR10)

Poverty pa rin ang pinakamalaking (+P2) (+P3) problema ng ating (+P12) bansa. (Code

switching? No. Just borrowing words from English) [Supplication]

2. Patuloy pa rin ang pagkaltas ng ating (+P12) gobyerno sa subsidiyo na binibigay niya sa

SUCs (+P7.9) and siyempre sa UP na rin. Nasabi namin (-P7) ito (+P7.4) dahil meron naman

tayong (+P12) proposed UP budget and yet, year-in, year-out, magkano lang (+P3) ba yung

binibigay? (OR10) Hindi pa nga kalahati, e, almost (-P2) 40—40, 42% the last time na, nag-ano

(-P2), nagbigay ng budget ang pamahalaan sa UP. This year, um (-P2), sinasabi na (-P2)

makakakuha ng, um (-P2), 10 million from the 18 million na hinihingi ng UP. Sabi namin (-P7)

(-P2) na, oo, kinakaltasan pa rin tayo (+P12). At actually (-P2) nga pinapasa sa mga estudyante

ang, ang pasan nung, ano (-P2), nung kakulangan sa budget sa UP (-P9). Sa STFAP, bakit hindi

na—bakit kailangan pa ng STFAP na ‗yung mga estudyante na maykaya ay kaya naman niyang

(-P7) supo--suportahan ang kapwa niya (-P7) Iskolar ng Bayan (+P4.1)? (OR10) Yun lang (-P4),

di ba (+P3), so magbibigay siya ng -- magbabayad siya (-P7) ng mas mataas na tuition, sa,

para—para, yun nga (-P2), ma-subsidize. And, ito (+P7.4) e, mali (+P7.7) ‗yung gano‘ng

sistema because ang dapat na pinanggagalingan ng, ng budget ay mismong (+P2) gobyerno

(OR13). [Supplication]
 Amper 180

3. Kung ang U-USC ay isang chess game (-P2), ito (+P7.4) ay ‗yung mga pawn, ‗yung nasa

harapan, ‗yung unang sinasakripisyo, ‗yung forefront n‘ung laban. At sino-sino ‗yung nasa

likuran, ‗yung nasa pangalawang hanay? (OR10) Hindi ito (+P7.4) yung mga naghaharing uri

(+P7.9), hindi ito (+P7.4) ‗yung mga panginoong maylupa (+P7.9), hindi ito (+P7.4) ‗yung mga

multinational corporation (+P7.9). Ito (+P7.4) ang mga estudyante na pinoprotektahan natin

(+P12) ang kanilang karapatan. Ang USC, yan dapat yung unang inaalay, yung nasa forefront ng

paglalaban, lahat ng laban para ipagtanggol ang mga karapatan ng Iskolar ng Bayan (+P4.1) (-

P8). Ang USC, alam na pagdating sa dulo, diba (+P3), kung may, kung meron man, um (-P2),

kung meron mang makuha na piyesa —‗yung mga estudyante nga ito (+P7.4) —‗pag nakarating

naman siya (-P7) sa dulo, binabawi niya (-P7), yung, binabawi niya ito (+P7.4), sinasakripisyo

ang kaniyang sarili (-P7) para siyempre, um (-P2), ‗yun nga (-P2), ‗yung purpose niyang (-P7)

ipagtanggol ang bawat Iskolar ng Bayan (+P4.1). [Exemplification + Self-promotion]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

-P2 22
+P7.4 12
+P12 10
-P7 9
+P3 8
+P2 6
OR10 5
+P7.9 5
+P4.1 4
+P6.1 2
-P9 1
+P7.7 1
OR13 1
-P8 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 14
 Amper 181

VICE CHAIR
Hannah Keila Garcia
2nd year, Juris Doctor, College of Law

1. Siyempre hindi tayo (+P12) sang-ayon, sa STAND UP at tayong mga Iskolar ng Bayan

(+P4.1) (+P12), ‗di tayo (+P12) sang-ayon sa STFAP. Bakit? (OR10) Kung titingnan natin

(+P12) historically (-P2), historicize natin (+P12) ang pagkakaroon ng STFAP, unang nagkaroon

ng STFAP noong 1989, the first time nagkaroon ng tuition fee increase from P40 to P300. ‗Yung

pangalawang STFAP naman was on 2006. I was, uh (-P2), I think (-P2) I was a freshman back

then, uh (-P2), undergrad (+P7.1) (+P4.2). Uh (-P2), pagtaas naman from 3000 (sic) pesos to one

thousand pesos, 300 percent increase. Kung titingnan natin (+P12) ang STFAP ay isa lamang

justification sa pagtaas ng tuition fee, okay? (+P3) Socialized ito (+P7.4), sinasabing (-P2)

socialized adjustment program (+P7.9) ito (+P7.4), uh (-P2), pero ang totoo niyan (-P2), uh (-

P2), ginagawa lamang itong (+P7.4) dahilan para mas maging palatable sa mga estudyante ang

pagkakaroon ng tuition fee increase (-P9) instead of pagbibigay ng mas mataas na budget para sa

edukasyon (-P9). So hindi po tayo (+P12) sang-ayon sa STFAP. [Intimidation]

2. Uh (-P2), ang totoo niyan (-P2), um (-P2), ang naisip ko (-P2) hindi lang isang hayop kundi

dalawa. At iyon ay isang ahas, kahit year of the snake ngayong taon (-P4), at isang rabbit. Uh (-

P2), sa tingin ko (-P2) ahas dahil sa lahat (+P3) ng mga ginagawa nila, kahit na pinagmumukha

nila na para sa estudyante ang mga ginagawa nila, at, uh (-P2), ang mga pipu-push nilang

legislation ay para sa sambayanan, at the end of the day (-P2), ang pinagsisilbihan po (-P5) nila

ay hindi talaga (+P2) ang masa, at hindi po (-P5) talaga (+P2) pinaniniwalaan na ang edukasyon

ay isang karapatan. Kaya isa po (-P5) itong (+P7.4) pagtataksil sa sambayanan. Kaya alam

naman natin (+P12) (-P2) na ahas, ‗di ba (+P3), kahit gaano mo (+P7.2) iyan alagaan, at the end

of the day (-P2), may malaki (+P3) talaga (+P2) ang chance na kakagatin ka (+P7.2) niyan. At
 Amper 182

rabbit po (-P5) dahil patalon-talon lang sila, akala mo (+P7.2) tumatalon nang ‗onti (+P7.7), kala

mo (+P7.2) may ‗onting (+P7.7) progress, pero ang totoo niyan (-P2), hindi naman talaga (+P2)

at wala (+P3) silang pinupuntahan. [Intimidation + exemplification]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

-P2 20
+P12 8
+P3 5
+P7.4 4
-P5 4
+P7.2 4
-P9 2
+P7.7 2
OR10 1
+P7.1 1
+P7.9 1
+P4.2 1
-P4 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 13

2014
CHAIRPERSON
Erra Zabat
4th year BS Psychology

1. Ang STAND-UP ay naninindigan na sa esensiya (-P2), walang pinagkaiba ang STFAP sa STS

(-P7). Ginawa lamang nitong (+P7.4) mas efficient yung proseso nung, uh (-P2), pag-aapply

para dito (+P7.4) sa Assistance Program. Pero nananatili na pareho silang mekanismo upang mas

maging katanggap-tanggap sa mga estudyante, sa kanilang mga magulang, ‗yung pagtaas ng

tuition fee. Never (+P3) at hindi nito (+P7.4) sinasagot—kahit ng STS—kung bakit ang taas ng

tuition fee nating (+P12) mga estudyante, kung bakit kailangan bumuo ng mekanismo ng mga

admini—ng administrasyon upang mas maging palatable ito (+P7.4) sa mga estudyante. Ang

dapat nating (+P12) ikampanya, imbis dun sa pagpaperpekto nung mga reporma sa ating (+P12)

STFAP o STS man yan ay pagrorollback ng tuition fee (-P8). Dahil sa rolling back of tuition fee,
 Amper 183

dito (+P7.4) natin (+P12) makikita sa konkreto (-P2), kung ano ba dapat, na ang edukasyon ay

karapatan. Bila--Bilang bracket E student, hindi ako naniniwala (-P2) na mapapabayaan yung

ating (+P12) mga nasa lower brackets kapag nagrollback ng tuition fee. [Exemplification + self-

promotion]

2. Yung kabataan, ito (+P7.4) yung tinatawag nilang (-P7) mga nasa alas-nuwebe pa lang ng

kanilang buhay (OR9). Kumbaga, ito (+P7.4) yung nagsisimula pa lamang (-P4) na hubugin

kung ano yung gagawin nilang (-P7) prayoritasyon sa kanilang (-P7) buhay sa pagtanda nila (-

P7). So higit pa sa mga kampanya na transparency and accountability, higit pa sa mga

kampaniya na itigil ang kurapsyon, ang dapat pagbuhusan ng lakas ng ating (+P12) kabataan ay

kung paanong sila (-P7) mismo, sa kanilang (-P7) pagtanda ay piliing pumanig sa mamamayan

(-P8). Kung paanong ngayon pa lamang sa loob ng unibersidad ay matutunan na nila (-P7) yung

buong-buong pagbibigay, pag-aalay nung kanilang (-P7) lakas, potensiyal, oras doon sa

sambayanan, doon sa mamamayan na napapahirapan ng kurapsyon. Yung kurapsyon,

nanggagaling siya sa framework na lamangan yung iba at yung ganitong (+P7.4) framework,

kaya pa siyang baguhin ngayon lama—ngayon pa lamang, lalo (+P2) na‘t nandito (+P7.4) tayo

(+P12) sa loob ng University of the Philippines. Kaya ang kabataan, ang hamon sa atin (+P12),

ay ang pagpursigihan at …. (ran out of time) [Intimidation + exemplification]

3. Kung ihahambing ko ang aking plataporma sa isang bahagi ng katawan (-P2), ihahambing ko

ito (+P7.4) sa kamay. Katulad ng mga student leader, ang kamay ang nagiging tagapaglikha.

Bilang student leader, tayo (+P12) dapat ang maging tagapaglikha rin ng kasaysayan (-P8).

Alam na natin (+P12) (-P2) kung ano yung problema sa loob ng unibersidad at sa labas ng ating

(+P12) lipunan. Pinapabayaan tayo (+P12) ng estado, ang taas (+P3) ng ating (+P12) tuition fee,

yung edukasyon ay hindi na karapatan sa ating (+P12) mamamayan. Uh (-P2), napakadali lang
 Amper 184

sagutin, uh (-P2), napakadali lang (-P4) sagutin ng mga intelektwal na debate. Panahon na para

kumilos, panahon na para tayo (+P12) naman yung lumikha ng panibagong pahina (OR9) sa

ating (+P12) kasaysayan. Hindi tayo (+P12) mapag-iwanan na puro mata ang ginagamit, utak.

Panahon na para kumilos (BOR). Kaya sa huli‘t huli (-P2), sa kamay ko ikukumpara ang aking

plataporma. Dahil panahon na ito (+P7.4) ng pag-uunite to fight, unite for our (+P12) democratic

rights at fight for a university of the people. (+P4.2) [Exemplification + self-promotion]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

+P12 18
+P7.4 11
-P2 9
-P7 9
-P8 3
+P3 2
-P4 2
OR9 2
+P4.2 1
+P2 1
BOR 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 11

VICE CHAIR
Neefa Macapado
3rd year BS Molecular Biology and Biotechnology

1. Mariin nating (+P12) tinututulan yung academic calendar shift dahil napaprioritize ang issue

na ito (+P7.4) over doon sa student issues ay actually (-P2) manifestation ng shift ng

prioritization ng ating (+P12) administration (-P9). The problem of the educational system right

now (-P9) is the ka—quality of education we (+P12) have. There‘s a very (+P2) low (+P7.7)

paper to teacher relation, low (+P7.7) paper to student ratio, and low (+P7.7) ca—uh (-P2)—

faculty to student ratio. Ito (+P7.4) yung dapat nating (+P12) sagutin at, um (-P2), bago natin

(+P12) i-attempt to standardize our (+P12) calendar with other countries (-P8). Why do we

(+P12) not, why do we not look at the possibility to standardize the quality of education we
 Amper 185

(+P12) have here (+P7.4) first before we (+P12) try to compete with other countries? (+P13)

Sabi nga (-P2), we (+P12) don‘t need to internationalize (+P7.9), ay (-P2), we don‘t need to

internationalize (+P7.9) to be good (+P7.7), you (+P7.2) be good (+P7.7) first then you (+P7.2)

internationalize (+P7.9). [Self-promotion]

2. Siguro yung movie na kakatawanin ko kung ‗di ako mananalo ay Even The Rain, kung

napanood natin (+P12) siya (-P2). Siguro panoorin na lang (-P4) natin (+P12) pero ang nangyari,

um (-P2), da—ito (+P7.4), ay (-P2), um (-P2). Even The Rain, dahil, um (-P2), continue yung

struggle kahit na tho—kahit na ang daming (+P3) nasacrifice, nangyari, ang dami nang, ang

dami (+P3) nang, um (-P2)—mga hindi, hindi okay na nangyari doon sa movement noong mga

nasa movie. Ang Even The Rain ay continuous pa rin silang lumaban. At siyempre kahit tayo

(+P12) ay hindi naluklok sa pagiging Vice Chaiperson, at siyempre kasama pa rin tayo (+P12)

ng mga mag-aaral doon sa kanilang (-P7) laban, kasama pa rin tayo (+P12) ng masa. (+P1) I-

foforward ang kanilang (-P7) mga campaigns dahil hindi naman nakukulong doon sa position ng

Vice Chairpersonship yung mga campaigns natin (+P12) at siyempre mamamaximize pa rin

natin (+P12) ang ating (+P12) sarili, yung ating (+P12) potentials kahit nasa labas tayo (+P12)

ng konseho. [Exemplification + self-promotion]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

+P12 20
-P2 11
+P7.7 5
+P7.4 4
+P7.9 3
-P9 2
+P7.2 2
+P3 2
-P7 2
+P2 1
-P8 1
+P13 1
-P4 1
 Amper 186

+P1 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 13

2015
CHAIRPERSON
Mico Pangalangan
5th year BS Community Development

1. For long (+P7.7) and lasting peace in Mindanao, we (+P12) do not need a watered-down

(+P7.7), railroaded or rushed (+P7.7) policy. What we (+P12) need are policies and the state to

understand the root causes of the armed struggle (+P7.9), why there is an armed struggle (+P7.9)

in the first place. And we (+P12) believe (-P2) that, first and foremost (+P2), these struggles

come from the fact that there is not enough social services for the Bangsamoro people. Second is

the historical land grabbing (+P7.9) and the, the theft of, uh (-P2), the ancestral lands in

Mindanao and third, would be the uh (-P2), the disrespect or not providing enough value to the

culture of the Bangsamoro community, the Bangsamoro people. But what we (+P12) need right

now is a policy, first and foremost (+P2), what the Bangsamoro people need is what we (+P12)

must provide. If, uh (-P2), what they need is sovereignty then—and autonomy, then, uh (-P2),

autonomy actually (-P2), that is what must be provided. So we (+P12) need policies that are not

rushed (+P7.7), that are not tarnished by political motive, and, uh (-P2), policies that are

grassroots approach from the Bangsamoro people. [Intimidation]

2. Our (+P12) assessment of STS on its first year of implementation is still, is still the same as

our (+P12) assessment of STFAP because they're essentially (-P2) the same. The reforms are

mere changes in, uh (-P2), form but not in substance. STS sti—STS still serves as an instrument

for the tuition hike, still serves a—as an hi—as a hindrance for the Iskolar ng Bayan (+P4.1) to

have accessible education here (+P7.4) in UP. From the 22-page application form from STFAP

we (+P12) have now two pages. From, uh (-P2), being a heavy-load on paper, it has become
 Amper 187

accessible online. But these are not substantial enough to make education here (+P7.4) in UP

accessible. (+P6.1) What we (+P12) need definitely (+P2) is to junk STS. STAND UP, may

paninindigan talaga (+P2) sa call ever since (+P4.2). We (-P7) have never (+P3) supported TOFI

or the increase of tuition and other school fees (+P7.9) and, uh (-P2), we here (+P7.4) in STAND

UP (-P7), we (-P7) continue to fight for access to education. What we (+P12) need again is to

junk STS, have a flat-rate tuition na abot-kaya ng masa (+P4.2). [Exemplification + Self-

promotion]

3. (+P4.2 starts here) Kung ang aking mga kalaban for this (+P7.4), ah (-P2), position ay isang

kontrabida (-P2), masasabi ko (-P2) si Two-Face galing sa Batman, hindi lang dahil si Batman

ay isa kong favorite na superhero nung bata ako, (+P7.1) kundi (+P7.7) 'yung mga kasama din

natin (+P12) para sa position ng chairperson ay nakita nating (+P12) may mabuting (+P7.7)

background, may kwento at may mabuting (+P7.7) aspeto din sa kanila. Ngunit pag di tayo

(+P12) nakatingin or may nag-iiba ang konteksto, yung mga preferences nila, 'yung mga

perspectives, nag-iiba din ang mukha, nagiiba ang mga stances, at nag-i—paiba-iba ang mga

sinasabi. (+P6.1) [Self-promotion]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

+P12 14
-P2 14
+P7.7 7
+P7.9 4
+P2 4
+P7.4 4
+P4.2 3
+P6.1 2
+P4.1 1
+P3 1
+P7.1 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 11
 Amper 188

VICE CHAIR
Menchani Tilendo
3rd year BA Journalism

1. Ang pinakamalaking suliranin sa ilalim ng administrasyong Aquino ay ang kanyang matinding

(+P2) paglabag ng kanyang, ah (-P2), ng karapatan ng kanyang mga mamamayan sa iba't ibang

anyo ng state abandonment (+P7.9). Nariyan yung usapin natin (+P12) sa Mamasapano

bloodbath (+P7.9) at sa ilalim ng kanyang administrasyon, patuloy ang paglabag ng ating (+P12)

human rights (+P7.9). At dito (+P7.4), hindi lang sa usapin ng edukasyon, nariyan 'yung patuloy

na pagtaas ng mga bilihin (-P9) at pagpaslang ng kanyang mga mamamayan (-P9) at dapat itong

(+P7.4) masolusyunan (OR13) dahil sa STAND UP naniniwala tayo (+P12) (-P2) na ang lahat

ng sangkot ay dapat managot. (OR13) [Supplication, intimidation, exemplification + self-

promotion]

2. Ayan (-P2), ah (-P2), siguro kung yung, may isang teleserye na maglalarawan ng naging

buhay ko bilang isang lider-estudyante (-P2), 'yun siguro yung walang Hanggan ni Julia Montes

at tsaka ni Coco Martin. Ah (-P2), noong pumasok tayo (+P12) sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas, ah (-

P2), hindi lang para mag-aral, parang (+P6.3) na-imbibe na rin natin (+P12) as UP students,

bilang Iskolar ng Bayan (+P4.1) na nothing is convenient in this (+P7.4) world since the Filipino

people is born out of struggle (+P4.2). Walang hanggan 'yung paghihirap natin (+P12), walang

hanggan na ipagkakait sa atin (+P12) ang ating (+P12) mga karapatan, pero sa kabila ng lahat ng

ito (+P7.4), walang hanggan yung ating (+P12) paglaban. [Exemplification + self-promotion]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

+P12 9
-P2 7
+P7.4 4
+P7.9 3
-P9 2
OR13 2
+P2 1
 Amper 189

+P6.3 1
+P4.1 1
+P4.2 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 10

2016
CHAIRPERSON
Bryle Leaño
6th year BS Chemical Engineering

1. Dalawa ang pinakamatinding epekto ng globalisasyon sa edukasyon ng Pilipinas (BOR).

Unang-una, ang pagtataas ng mga matrikula, hindi lamang sa mga state universities and colleges,

kundi (+P7.7) sa mga private schools. Uh (-P2), pangalawa, ang epekto din ng globalisasyon sa

edukasyon ng Pilipinas ay ito (+P7.4) ay magpo-produce ng murang (+P7.7) lakas-paggawa

(+P7.9) at docile labor (+P7.9). Una, doon sa, uh (-P2), pagtataas ng matrikula ng mga

pamantasan. Dahil nga sa globalisasyon, nasa-standardize 'yung edukasyon ng Pilipinas kasama

ng ibang nations or ng ibang mga countries sa buong mundo na nag-aakit ng mas (+P2)

maraming (+P3) mga international students dito (+P7.4) sa bansa. At, uh (-P2), mula dito

(+P7.4) ay nakakapagkamal ng mas (+P2) malalaking (+P3) kita ang ating (+P12)

administrasyon. Pangalawa, doon sa usapin ng trabaho, dahil nga standardized na or globalized

na ang ating (+P12) edukasyon ay mas (+P3) dadami ang mga professionals na magaagaw-agaw

sa kakaunting (+P7.7) trabaho sa global market (+P7.9). At, ah (-P2), siyempre ang sagot dito

(+P7.4) ng mga kapitalista (+P7.9) ay pababain ang sahod upang, ah (-P2), mapilit, upang

mapilit ang mga professionals na magsisiksikan or magkasya na lang (-P4) or pumayag doon sa,

ah (-P2), kakaunting (+P7.7), ah (-P2), trabaho. 'Yun yung ating (+P12) nakikitang epekto ng

globalisasyon sa ating (+P12) edukasyon. [Supplication + Intimidation]

2. Tayo sa STAND-UP (+P12) ay naniniwala (-P2) na ang other school fees ay hindi

makatarungan para sa mga Iskolar ng Bayan (+P4.1). Bakit natin (+P12) nasabi na hindi ito
 Amper 190

(+P7.4) makatarungan? (OR10) For the past five years, on average (-P2), based na din sa

research ng Philippine Collegian, on average (-P2) ay kumikita ng 50 million ang ating (+P12)

administration from other school fees. At makikita natin (+P12) na itong (+P7.4) 50 million na

ito (+P7.4) ay hindi naman nababalik, ah (-P2), or nagagamit para sa kapakanan ng mga

estudyante. Pero liban pa doon, nakikita natin (+P12) na itong (+P7.4) other school fees ay: una,

exorbitant (+P3) (+P7.7), ibig sabihin (-P2), uh (-P2), sobra-sobra (+P3); uh (-P2), pangalawa,

redundant (+P7.7), ibig sabihin (-P2) parte na ng ating (+P12) UP budget ang pag, ah (-P2), sho-

shoulder ng maintenance ng ating (+P12) mga classrooms, pagpapasahod ng ating (+P12) mga

professors at mga staff, at siyempre 'yung pag-acquire ng mga facilities para sa ating (+P12) mga

laboratories. Ibig sabihin (-P2), redundant (+P7.7) na binabayaran pa ng mga iskolar ng bayan

(+P4.1) ang other school fees na ito (+P7.4). At pangatlo, um (-P2), (redundant… exorbitant…)

at siyempre, pangatlo, dubious (+P7.7). Ibig sabihin (-P2), kaduda-duda (+P7.7) nga dahil

nakikita natin (+P12) na hindi natin (+P12) alam kung saan nga ba napupunta ang other school

fees na ito (+P7.4). So tayo sa STAND-UP (+P12) simula pa, ah (-P2), nung nalaman natin

(+P12) ang tungkol sa other school fees ay tutol na talaga (+P2) tayo (+P12) dito (+P7.4). At

siyempre, ah (-P2), nagsimula na ang ating (+P12) kampanya upang i-junk ang other school fees.

At, ah (-P2), sa katunayan (-P2), ah (-P2), sa tulong ng Rise for Education Alliance, isang

national alliance na nagfo-forward ng right to education, ah (-P2), sa ibang schools ay

nakapagsimula na silang makapag-junk ng other school fees katulad ng developmental fees,

spiritual fee, at, ah (-P2), iba pang mga fees sa ibang school. Kaya naman dito (+P7.4) sa UP, ah

(-P2), hinihikayat natin (+P12) or hinahamon din natin (+P12) ang mga kapwa natin (+P12)

Iskolar ng Bayan (+P4.1) na gampanan, or hamunin ang ating (+P12) mga sarili na
 Amper 191

mapagtagumpayan ang pagju-junk ng other school fees. [Exemplification + self-promotion,

intimidation]

3. Kung ako ay isang mobile phone app (-P2), masasabi kong (-P2) ako ay isang flashlight.

Dahil tayo sa STAND-UP (+P12), naniniwala tayo (+P12) (-P2) na gusto nating (+P12)

malinaw para sa mga Iskolar ng Bayan (+P4.1) kung ano nga ba ang pinagdadaanan ng bawat

Isko (+P4.1) at Iska (+P4.1) at ng buong mamamayan. Gusto nating (+P12) katulad ng isang

flashlight ay makita natin (+P12) kung ano nga ba ang katotohanan sa, uh (-P2), sa suliranin ng

ating (+P12) bansa at kung ano ang liwanag na, uh (-P2), madadala ng ating (+P12) sama-

samang pagkilos (+P7.9) upang mapagtagumpayan natin (+P12) ang ating (+P12) mga laban.

Bilang isang flashlight, tayo (+P12) din ang magli-lead ng ating (+P12) way patungo doon sa

tagumpay ng ating (+P12) mga pinaglalaban (+P10). Tayo (+P12) din ang maghahawan ng, uh

(-P2), daan para hindi lamang sa mga iskolar ng bayan (+P4.1) kundi (+P7.7) para sa mga

mamamayan tungo sa tunay na pagbabago (+P10). Kaya, ‗yun, isa po (-P5) akong flashlight.

[Exemplification + Self-promotion]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

+P12 36
-P2 33
+P7.4 12
+P7.7 10
+P4.1 7
+P7.9 5
+P3 5
+P2 3
+P10 2
BOR 1
-P4 1
OR10 1
-P5 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 13
 Amper 192

VICE CHAIR
Beata Carolino
1st year MA Asian Studies

1. So, sa nakaraang mga taon nakita ko na, ah (-P2), yung UP at saka 'yung mga private entities,

medyo (-P4) naging madal—madalas (+P7.7), ah (-P2), 'yung pagkakasundo nila. Makikita natin

(+P12) 'yan sa UP Ayala TechnoHub, sa UP Town Center. And I think (-P2) na 'yung ganitong

(+P7.4) klase ng mga, uh (-P2), partnerships with private corporations ay ini-endanger niya

'yung public character ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas bilang isang state university at bilang national

university na dapat ay 'yung mandate niya mismo (+P2) ay, uh (-P2), pinalalago 'yung kaalaman

ng mga Iskolar ng Bayan (+P4.1) (-P8), yung mga, uh (-P2), kabataan na pag-asa ng bayan

(+P1). Pero sa ganitong (+P7.4) klaseng mga partnerships, nagkakaroon ng danger—na

nahahaluan 'yung interest nung UP. Ah (-P2), nahahaluan siya ng interests ng mga profit-

oriented na mga institutions katulad nga ng mga private entities. At, uh (-P2), nababawasan

'yung pagiging genuine ng unibersidad na mag-hone ng isip ng mga Iskolar ng Bayan (+P4.1) na

naglilingkod sa sambayanan at sa sambayanang Pilipino, at sa masang Pilipino na matagal nang

inaapi. [Intimidation]

2. Siguro 'yung sa—‗yung pangalan ng pelikula na, uh (-P2), na sasalamin doon sa plataporma

ng kalaban ko ay "Oo, Pero Hindi" (OR7). Yuck, hindi siya masyadong (+P2) witty (+P9; Beata

assumes that the audience wants witty answers and partially apologizes for it) pero ―Oo,

Pero Hindi‖ (OR7). Bakit? (OR10) Kasi sa—kini-claim nung, ah (-P2), kabilang partido, nung

mga ibang partido na sila ay maraming (+P3) mga pinakikinggan na mga opinyon at iba't ibang

mga perspektiba, lalo na (+P2) 'yung sa partido nung kalaban ko. Pero sa totoong buhay, sa mga

naranasan sa loob ng konseho, hindi naman talaga (+P2) masyadong (+P2) napapakinggan din
 Amper 193

yung aming (-P7) mga opinyon at hindi rin kami (-P7) masyadong (+P2) napapansin sa loob

nung aming (-P7) konseho. So yun, "Oo o Hindi" (OR7) kasi malabo (OR11). [Supplication]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

-P2 10
+P2 6
OR7 3
-P7 3
+P7.4 2
+P4.1 2
-P4 1
+P7.7 1
+P12 1
-P8 1
+P1 1
+P9 1
OR10 1
OR11 1
+P3 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 15

2017
CHAIRPERSON
Ben Galil "Bente" Te
5th Year BA Sociology

1. Dapat lang (-P4) na suportahan natin (+P12) ang Peace Talks sa pagitan ng ating (+P12)

gobyerno at ng CPP-NPA-NDF (+P7.9) (-P8) dahil mahalagang (+P7.7) hakbang ito (+P7.4)

para ma-resolve ang root cause ng armed conflict (+P7.9). Uh (-P2), sa Peace Talks, pinag-

uusapan ang mga mahahalagang (+P7.7) reporma, katulad na lang (-P4) ng land reform (+P7.9)

at national industrialization (+P7.9) at ang pagpo-provide ng ating (+P12) government sa mga

basic social services (+P7.9). Su—subalit sa ngayon, nakikita natin (+P12) na ginagamit ito

(+P7.4) ng ating (+P12) gobyerno, para talian ang kamay (OR9) ng mga mamamayan, sa

kanilang paglaban. Pero hindi ito (+P7.4) magiging hadlang, para sa mga mamamayang Pilipino
 Amper 194

(+P4.1) na patuloy na palakasin yung kanilang, uh (-P2), paglaban para kamtin yung

makatarungang kapayapaan dito (+P7.4) sa ating (+P12) bansa. [Intimidation]

2. Kaya nating (+P12) makamit ang libreng edukasyon dito (+P7.4) sa ating (+P12) bansa,

kapag syempre ipaglalaban ito (+P7.4) ng mga iskolar ng bayan (+P4.1) at ng lahat (+P3) ng

mga kabataan. Sa kasalukuyan, kaya pinagkakait sa atin (+P12) ang libreng edukasyon ay dahil

ang layunin nga ng ating (+P12) gobyerno sa ating (+P12) pamantasan ay pagkakitaan tayo

(+P12), katulad na lamang (-P4) sa porma ng socialized tuition system, na isang profiteering

scheme (+P7.9) lang naman (-P4). Humuhuthot ito (+P7.4) ng pera na hindi naman

napapakinabangan ng mga estudyante. Ginagamit lang ito (+P7.4) para magkaroon pa ng mga

mas (+P2) marami (+P3) pang income generating projects ang ating (+P12) university. Sa isang

ba—is—isang bahagi lamang ng laban natin (+P12) para sa libreng edukasyon ay ang

pagpapanawagan ng dagdag pondo mula sa ating (+P12) gobyerno, isang panawa—ay—isang

aspeto lang din lamang dito (+P7.4) yung pagkakaroon ng batas, pero higit sa lahat (+P2) ang

kinakailangan nating (+P12) mga kabataan ay iyong pagtitiyak na ang ating (+P12) mga

universities, ang ating (+P12) mga pamantasan ay, ah (-P2), wala—wala sa oryentasyon nito

(+P7.4) ang, uh (-P2), commercialization (+P7.9). Hindi dapat tinuturing, bilang kalakal

edukasyon (OR13), hindi dapat pinagkakakitaan ang mga estudyante (OR13) at, uh (-P2),

malaka—malaking (+P3) hakbang, para ma—makamit ito (+P7.4) ay yung patuloy na paglaban

na—nating (+P12) mga Iskolar ng Bayan (+P4.1) para sa karapatan natin (+P12) sa edukasyon.

[Intimidation + exemplification]

3. Um (-P2), kung maihahalintulad ko ang kalagayan ng ating (+P12) bansa sa isang pelikula (-

P2), siguro puwede itong (+P7.4), ah (-P2), yung "Star Wars: Rogue One", dahil actually (-P2)

makikita natin (+P12) na maraming (+P3) parallelism do‘n sa pelikula na ‗to (+P7.4) do‘n sa
 Amper 195

kung ano talaga (+P2) yung nararanasan ng bansa natin (+P12) ngayon. Na merong isang empire

na, uh (-P2), pinagsasamantalahan o inaapi yung mga mamamayan, at sa—yung mga

mamamayan, pinaglalaban nila yung kanilang kalayaan. Um (-P2), ngayon (-P2) sa ating (+P12)

bansa, uh (-P2), andyan pa rin yung pa—panghihimasok ng mga dayuhan, andyan pa rin yung

pag-control ng isang, uh (-P2), imperyalistang bansa (+P7.9), ng US sa ating (+P12) ekonomiya,

sa ating (+P12) pulitika, at nakikita rin natin (+P12) na andyan yung paglaban ng mga

mamamayang Pilipino (+P4.1) para sa tunay (+P7.7) na kalayaan. Ah (-P2), meron isang, uh (-

P2), line do‘n sa movie, yung sinabi ng isang protag—ng, ng main protagonist do‘n, um (-P2),

"We have hope, all rebellions are built on hope" (not counted as +P7.5; no dramatization. Said

as is), dahil kaya nating (+P12) lumaban kapag tayo‘y (+P12) nagsama-sama, hinding-hindi tayo

(+P12) mawawalan ng pag-asa at kayang-kaya nating (+P12) kamtin ang tagumpay ng ating

(+P12) pakikibaka. [Intimdation + exemplification]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

+P12 32
-P2 17
+P7.4 13
+P7.9 8
-P4 4
+P3 4
+P4.1 4
+P7.7 3
+P2 3
OR13 2
-P8 1
OR9 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 12
 Amper 196

VICE CHAIR
Ma. Shari Niña "Shari" Oliquino
4th Year BA Broadcast Communication

1. Sa katunayan (-P2) hindi ito (+P7.4) magdudulot ng anumang kaginhawaan sa mga Iskolar ng

Bayan (+P4.1). Itong (+P7.4) pagrereporma sa GE. Ang GE reform na ito (+P7.4) ay isa muling

(+P2) neoliberal (+P7.9) na atake sa ating (+P12) edukasyon, dahil yung pangunahing layunin

niya ay mag-produce ng mga ready-made professionals, para ready silang ibenta sa international

market (+P7.9). Hence, makikita natin (+P12) na ito (+P7.4) ay foreign-oriented and at the same

time wala siyang sinasagot na, na problema sa krisis ng edukasyon sa kasalukuyan. For an

instance, yung problem sa inaccessibility, bakit napakaraming (+P2) (+P3) kabataang Pilipino

yung hindi nakakapasok sa loob ng pamantasan? (OR10) Kung ilalapit natin (+P12) ‗yan dito

(+P7.4) sa UP (-P2) bakit tayong (+P12) mga iskolar ng bayan (+P4.1) ay kulang-kulang

(+P7.7) (sa) class slots? (OR10) Makikita natin (+P12) na yung ugat nito (+P7.4) ay dahil sa

colonial (+P7.9), commercialized (+P7.9), at fascist (+P7.9) na orientation ng ating (+P12)

education system. Kung sa usapin ‗yan ng kakulangan sa class slots, (-P2) nandiyaan yung

kakulangan sa faculty items, and syempre, nakikita rin natin (+P12) na, sa pagbabawas ng GE

units na ito (+P7.4), lumalabnaw din yung makabayang diwa ng mga Iskolar ng Bayan (+P4.1)

dahil piling mga subject na lang yung ating (+P12) aaralin. Ayon nga mismo do‘n sa proponents

ay yung sexier (+P3) and marketable courses na lang (-P4) daw (-P7) yung dapat nating (+P12)

itira. [Intimidation]

2. Kung may iaalay ako na kanta sa aking (+P12) mga kalaban (-P2) siguro ay ito (+P7.4) yung

"Ewan" ng Imago, siguro pamilyar yung marami sa atin (+P12) dito (+P7.4) (+P7.1). So

‗yung—may linya do‘n na nagsabi na, uh, (-P2) tawag dito (+P7.4), "ano ba naman ‗yan", uh (-

P2), ano ‗yun? (-P2) Basta paligoy-ligoy (+P7.7), yun yung—yun yung gist niya e, parang
 Amper 197

(+P6.3) "sagutin mo lang, ‗wag lang ewan…", ito (+P7.4) yung iaalay ko na kanta sa kanila,

dahil sa panahon ngayon, na tayong (+P12) mga iskolar ng bayan (+P4.1) ay pinagkakaitan ng

mga demokratikong karapatan (+P7.9) and actually (-P2), hindi lang yung sector natin (+P12),

pati (+P7.7) yung mas malawak na hanay ng mga mamamayan, sa labas ng ating (+P12)

pamantasan, ay pinagkaka—pinagkakaitan talaga (+P2) ng dem—democratic rights (+P7.9),

nandyan yung mga magsasaka na walang lupain, mga manggagawa na patuloy na, uh (-P2),

pumapasailalim sa contractualization (+P7.9). Sa ngayon, kinakailangan ng mga Iskolar ng

Bayan (+P4.1), ng may malinaw (+P7.7) na tindig, hinggil sa mga isyung panlipunan, yung hindi

paligoy-ligoy (+P7.7), hindi pabag—pabago-bago at hindi pinili yung convenient (+P7.7) ways

lamang dahil alam natin (+P12) (-P2) na in achieving our (+P12) democratic rights (+P7.9),

dapat ina—uh (-P2)—ini-aim natin (+P12) yung maximum at buong-buo natin (+P12) ‗tong

(+P7.4) dapat, um (-P2), pinagtatagumpayan. (-P8) (Singing and giving direct quotes not

considered because it’s what’s being asked for.) [Exemplification, Supplication]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

+P12 18
-P2 12
+P7.4 12
+P7.9 9
+P7.7 6
+P4.1 5
+P2 3
OR10 2
+P3 2
-P4 1
-P7 1
+P7.1 1
-P8 1
+P6.3 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 14
 Amper 198

ALYANSA

2013
CHAIRPERSON
Raphael Carlo Brolagda
4th year, BA Political Science

1. For me (-P2), I think (-P2) the number one issue na kailangan sagutin ng mga tumatakbo na

mga congressmen at senador ay ‗yung transparency (+P7.9) and accountability (+P7.9). Kasi I

think (-P2) from here (+P7.4), ang dami (+P3) na nating (+P12) issues na masasagot. For

example ‗yung budget, pag-allocate ng budget nang tama. Um (-P2), kasi kapag transparent and

accountable yung pag-aallocate natin (+P12) (-P2), or at least yung pagbibigay mismo (+P2) ng

PDAF (+P7.9) sa mga congressmen natin (+P12), ang dami (+P3) na nating (+P12) makikitang

mga bagay. For example, kapag may kulang sa isang sektor tapos sumosobra sa isa (+P7.7).

Kapag transparent and accountable yung, uh (-P2), nakikita nating (+P12) gobyerno, makikita

natin (+P12) kung saan pwede tayong (+P12) kumuha at i-reallocate ‗to (+P7.4) nang maayos

(+P7.7). Tapos pati na rin sa mga policies na for example, nakikita natin (+P12) na repressive,

kapag transparent and accountable talaga (+P2) ‗yung government (-P2), mas (+P2) magiging

maganda yung relationship, para makita natin (+P12) ‗yung logic at makausap talaga (+P2) sila

nang maayos para maayos ‗yung mga policies na ganito (+P7.4). [Ingratitation]

2. We in ALYANSA (-P7) believe (-P2) na walang budget cut, kasi ang definition ng budget cut

ay mayroon nang isang budget tapos saka siya babawasan. Ang nangyayari kasi sa ‗tin (+P12) is

may proposal tayo (+P12) tapos never (+P3) siyang nare-reach or palaging (+P3) mas mababa

yung binibigay sa atin (+P12). Kaya in ALYANSA, ang sinasabi natin (+P12) na dapat palaging

mas mataas ‗yung binibigay na budget ‗di lang sa UP, pero sa education sector as a whole

(OR13), na ‗yun pa rin ang call natin (+P12) for a higher UP budget, a higher education budget.
 Amper 199

Kasi, uh (-P2), yung proposal dapat, ‗yun kasi ang pangangailangan natin (+P12) (OR13), and

never (+P3) siyang binibigay nang tama, palagi (OR5) siyang mas mababa. So hindi siya

nababawasan, never (+P3) lang (-P4) talaga (+P2) nare-reach yung ideal nating (+P12) budget

para sa education. [Ingratiation]

3. Kung sa isang chess game (-P2), siguro (-P2) ako ‗yung magiging pawn. Kasi bilang isang

chairperson (-P7), ‗yun talaga (+P2) yung trabaho mo (+P7.2), e. Ikaw (+P7.2) ‗yung manguna

sa laban at protektahan ‗yung ibang mga tao, hindi lang sa loob ng USC, pero pati na rin (+P7.7)

‗yung mga nirerepresent mong (+P7.2) boses sa loob ng USC. [Exemplification + Self-

promotion]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

+P12 16
-P2 11
+P3 6
+P2 6
+P7.7 5
+P7.2 3
+P7.4 3
+P7.9 3
-P7 2
OR13 2
-P4 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 11

VICE CHAIR
Alexandra Maria Francia Santos
3rd year, BA Broadcast Communication

1. Tayo sa ALYANSA (+P12), naniniwala tayo (+P12) (-P2) sa principle of socialized tuition.

However, we (+P12) really (+P2) have to make sure na okay na siya for implementation before,

um (-P2), before natin (+P12) siya, uh (-P2), ipatupad sa iba pang mga state universities and

colleges (+P6.1). Tulad nga ng nangyayari ngayon sa ating (+P12) university, marami (+P3) pa

rin tayong (+P12) nakikitang flaws when it comes to implementation, at ‗yung mga requirements
 Amper 200

na kailangan ng bawat estudyante para ma-apply ‗yung STFAP. So, in essence (-P2), maganda

ang principle ng STFAP, pero ‗yun nga, kailangan nga natin (+P12) ma-make sure na bawat

estudyante ay kayang mag-apply for it, for us (+P12) to have a relevant and accessible education.

(+P6.1) [Ingratiation]

2. Siguro kung may isang hayop nga sa Chinese Zodiac ang makakadescribe sa mga plataporma

ng aking mga kalaban (-P2, included in the question, repeated as a hedge), siguro ito (+P7.4)

‗yung, um (-P2), snake (not qualified as OR9 because it’s what’s being asked for)? Kasi

feeling ko (-P2), ‗yung snake kasi nandiyan (+P7.4), parang (+P6.3) umaaligid, kaya niyang

mag-blend into its environment. But you‘ll (+P7.2) never (+P3) know when it‘s gonna attack

you (+P7.2), and it‘s gonna pounce, and, um— (-P2) para kunin ‗yung atensyon ng mga tao.

Kaya—yun ang feeling kong (-P2) hayop na would best describe ang plataporma ng ibang mga

kalaban. [Intimidation]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

-P2 10
+P12 8
+P6.1 2
+P7.2 2
+P3 2
+P7.4 2
+P2 1
+P6.3 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 8

2014
CHAIRPERSON
Arjay Mercado
1st year MA Economics

1. Ayan (-P2), so, isang napakalaking (+P2) (+P3) improvement ng STS compared sa STFAP,

ay (sic) ‗yung mas efficient nitong (+P7.4) transaction, kasi ginawa nang decentralized, ‗no (-P2),

yung pag-apruba ng brackets, from the centralized system ng buong UP system natin (+P12).
 Amper 201

Pero siyempre nakikita natin (+P12) na napakarami (+P3) pang improvement na kailangang

gawin sa STFAP. Number one, kailangang maging transparent, ‗no (-P2), yung paano ba tayo

(+P12) binabracket, para macheck natin (+P12) ‗yung misbracketing, etc. Number two,

kailangan din maging, uh (-P2), progressive, ‗no (-P2), yung income brackets. Kasi sa ngayon (-

P2), kapag kinompyut natin (+P12) (-P2), napaka(+P2)-regressive pa rin niya. And lastly, ‗yung

pagbibigay din ng socialized tuition para sa mga second-degree majors (-P9), lalo (+P2) na sa

College of Music at College of Fine Arts. [Ingratitation]

2. Ayan (-P2), so, kasama ang ALYANSA, ‗no (-P2), sa FOI Youth Initiative o FYI, ito (+P7.4)

yung iisang national federation ng mga student organizations na nagkakampanya sa pagpapasa

ng Freedom of Information bill. So, I think (-P2), ano ang maiaambag ng UP students? (OR10)

Definitely (-P2), maging part ng samahang ito (+P7.4) at maningil sa gobyerno na maging

transparent at magkaroon tayo (+P12) ng right to information, para doon sa mga, um (-P2),

information na kailangan natin (+P12) to ensure transparency (+P7.9) and accountability (+P7.9)

from our (+P12) government. [Self-promotion + Intimidation]

3. Ayan (-P2), so, kung ako ay is—ah (-P2)—kung ihahambing natin (+P12), ‗no (-P2), sa isang

bahagi ng katawan ‗yung ating (+P12) plataporma bilang chairperson ng USC (-P2), ihahambing

ko ito (+P7.4) sa paa. Kasi kailangan natin (+P12) yung paa para maglakad at pumunta doon sa

mga estudyante natin (+P12), dahil ang ating (+P12) bagong USC at bagong kwento ng

paglilingkod ay umiikot para magserve talaga (+P3) at bumaba, lumapit sa mga estudyante

‗yung University Student Council (+P1). [Exemplification + Self-promotion]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

-P2 16
+P12 13
+P7.4 4
+P3 3
+P7.9 2
 Amper 202

-P9 1
OR10 1
+P1 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 8

VICE CHAIR
JP Delas Nieves
4th year BS Economics

1. Tayo (+P12) sa ALYANSA na-clear natin (+P12) ‗yung maaaring benepisyo ng academic

calendar shift. Una, isa na rito (+P7.4) ang pagkakaroon nang mas maayos na flow sa ating

(+P12) train dahil siyempre papasok tayo (+P12) sa ASEAN integration (+P7.9). Dahil sa

pagpasok natin (+P12) sa ASEAN integration (+P7.9) mas maayos ang ating (+P12) kalendaryo

pagdating sa kung kailan nga ba tayo (+P12) pwede mag-import (+P7.9) o export (+P7.9) ng

ating (+P12) kalakal. So, ‗yun magkaroon tayo (+P12) ng full (+P3) benefits from the ASEAN

Integration (+P7.9). Pangalawa, malaking (+P3) benefit din ito (+P7.4) sa mga, mga kapwa

nating (+P12) iskolar ng bayan (+P4.1) na mga varsities (sic), kung mage-exchange student sa

ibang bansa kung saan marami (+P3) sa atin (+P12) yung talagang (+P2) ma--(unintelligible) na

kailangang mag-LOA (+P7.9). Pero sa kabila nito (+P7.4), nakikita natin (+P12) na napakarami

(+P2) (+P3) pang problema. Una, yung sa logistic, yung logistical problem na, halimbawa, sa

mga law student natin (+P12) na mas iikli nalang yung time nila (+P12) para makapag-aral para

sa bar exam. So, sa mga ganitong (+P7.4) problema nakikita natin (+P12) na hindi dapat natin

(+P12) minamadali yung academic calendar shift na ito (+P7.4). (OR13) Alam natin (+P12) (-

P2) na two years pa lang nang ito‘y (+P7.4) pinag-aralan, at tulad ng iba dyan habang hindi pa

pinaplantsa yung iba pang, uh (-P2), yung iba pang bagay, iba pang mga bagay, e… (Ran out of

time) [Ingratitation]

2. Kung sakaling hindi ako palarin (-P2) siguro ay, yung pinakakakatawan sa gusto kong gawin e,

‗yung pelikulang ‗Bride for Rent.‘ Pero sa, sa akin ay ‗Groom for Rent‘ siya (+P8). Sa
 Amper 203

pelikulang Bride for Rent hindi totoo na mag-asawa sila, parang (+P6.3) kung hindi ako manalo

(-P2), hindi ako totoong magkaroon ng posisyon. Pero sa kabila nito (+P7.4), sa dulo (-P2), e

nagkaroon sila ng tunay na pag-ibig. At sa akin din, wala man akong posisyon e magiging totoo

pa rin tayo (+P12) sa sinumpaan natin (+P12) na maglilingkod tayo (+P12) para sa bayan.

[Exemplification + Self-promotion]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

+P12 20
+P7.4 7
+P7.9 6
-P2 5
+P3 4
+P2 2
+P6.3 1
OR13 1
+P8 1
+P4.1 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 10

2015
CHAIRPERSON
JP delas Nieves
1st year MA Economics

1. Para makamit yung tunay at pangmatagalang kapayapaan sa Mindanao, dalawa yung bagay na

kailangan nating (+P12) pagtuunan ng pansin. Yung una siyempre, kailangan nating (+P12)

bigyan ng pagkilala ang kanilang, uh (-P2), halimbawa sa Bangsamoro, ‗di ba (+P3), kailangan

nating (+P12) bigyan ng pagkakakilala yung gustong pagkakakilala sa kanilang mga sarili. So

kailangan, unang maipasa natin (+P12) ang Bangsamoro Basic Law. Pero siyempre simula

palang (-P4) ito (+P7.4) sa mga problema, at simula palang (-P4) ito (+P7.4) sa mga solusyon sa

kanilang mga problemang kinakaharap. Kailangan din nating (+P12) pagtuunan ng pansin yung

kahirapan sa Mindanao. Um (-P2), napakaraming (+P2) (+P3) nagre-rebelde, napakaraming

(+P2) (+P3) problema dito (+P7.4) dahil nga, um (-P2), lubos (+P3) at hindi natin (+P12)
 Amper 204

maresolba yung kahirapan dito (+P7.4). Kaya naman para sa atin (+P12), dapat magkaroon tayo

(+P12) ng sapat na pagtuon doon sa, ah (-P2), Mindanao – investment, at, uh (-P2), ayusin natin

(+P12) yung kanilang education, health, at siyempre 'yung, um (-P2), ka-kapayapaan at

seguridad sa buong Mindanao (-P8). So, ito (+P7.4) yung kailangang bigyan pa ng pagtuunan ng

pansin ng gobyerno. At siyempre, kasama natin (+P12) yung mga kapatid nating (+P12) Moro

(+P4.1), Kristiyano ka—Moro, Kristyano, at lahat (+P3) ng mga Pilipino sa Mindanao, dapat

magkaroon tayo (+P12) ng lubusang (+P3) pagkakaisa rito (+P7.4). (-P8) [Ingratitation +

exemplification]

2. Itong (+P7.4) nakaraang taon bago pa siya maging Socialized Tuition System, nagpasa yung

ALYANSA ng 14 na reporma. Pito rito (+P7.4) yung na-aprubahan, at ilan dito (+P7.4) yung

nakita natin (+P12) na halimbawa: naging 2 pages na lang (-P4) yung application ng STS. Tapos

naging online, naging mas madali (+P7.7). Wala (+P3) kang (+P7.2) kailangang dokumento na

kadalasan e mahal (+P7.7) at binabayaran pa ng mga Iskolar ng Bayan (+P4.1) para makapag-

apply. Sa unang taon, nakita natin (+P12) na mayroong ilang pagbabago pero, siyempre, nakita

natin (+P12) na lumaki 'yung appeals. At dahil sa pagdami ng appeals na ito (+P7.4), kailangan

talaga (+P2) ng tunay na pagtutok mula sa Diliman Committee on Scholarships and Financial

Assistance na ginawa natin (+P12) bilang University Student Council. Um (-P2), yung tatlong

libo ‗yun, tayo (+P12) 'yung pinakaunang (+P2) nakaresolba nito (+P7.4). So nakita natin

(+P12) na may ganitong (+P7.4) mga pagbabago pero siyempre dumami ang appeals, so ibig

sabihin na meron pa ring ilan na hindi pa rin nabigay sa tamang brackets. So para sa atin (+P12),

kailangan natin (+P12), ah (-P2), muling pag-aralan yung Socialized Tuition System, at tingnan

pa yung ilan pang mga reporma. Halimbawa nalang (-P4), kailangan tayong (+P12) magpasa ng

transportation allowance, allowance, para sa mga freshies (+P4.3). Kailangan din nating (+P12)
 Amper 205

tignan yung, uh (-P2), pagkakaroon ng Socialized Tuition System sa mga graduate students sa

second degree, kasi ngayon, lahat sila'y pantay ang binabayaran, kahit magkakaiba yung

kanilang (-P7) kakayahan, ‗di ba? (+P3) Siyempre, um (-P2), kadalasan, ang kailangan nating

(+P12) gawin dito (+P7.4) e maging—bantayan natin (+P12), maging vigilant para siguraduhin

nating (+P12) walang Iskolar ng Bayan (+P4.1) yung hindi makakapag-aral dahil sa kakayahang

pampinansyal. So para sa atin (+P12), habang hindi pa kayang ibigay ng gobyerno yung libreng

tuition para sa lahat, kailangan nating (+P12) siguruhin, sa pamamagitan ng Socialized Tuition

System, walang hindi makakapag-aral dahil 'di nila (-P7) kayang magbayad. [Ingratitation +

Self-promotion]

3. Ayan (-P2), siguro kung ihahalintulad ko sa kontrabida ang aking mga kalaban (-P2), si Zaira,

siya si Dugong sa Marina. Kung bakit si Dugong sa Marina (-P2), kasi nanggaling siya sa ilalim

ng dagat, biglang umaangat (OR9), at ngayon (-P2), tignan natin (+P12) kung papaano natin

(+P12) matatapos yung laban na ‗yan ni Dugong. Si Mico naman, ah (-P2), kung tignan natin

(+P12) sa Pangako sa Iyo, uh (-P2), siya si Madam Claudia. At a—at 'yung laban namin (-P7) ni

Madam Claudia, medyo (-P4) mainit (OR11), medyo (-P4) mabigat (OR11). Maraming—ayaw

natin (+P12) ng violence pero sana walang sampalan na mangyayari. Pero patuloy pa rin 'yung

laban namin (-P7) ni Madam Claudia at kailangan talaga (+P2) naming (-P7) magtapatan para

siguruhin kung kaninong pangako ba 'yung hindi napako at sino 'yung tumutupad sa kanyang (-

P7) mga pangako (OR7). [Intimidation]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

+P12 31
-P2 16
+P7.4 13
+P3 8
-P7 6
-P4 6
+P2 5
 Amper 206

+P4.1 3
+P7.7 2
OR11 2
-P8 1
+P7.2 1
+P4.3 1
OR7 1
OR9 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 15

VICE CHAIR
AJ Montesa
4th year BS Economics

1. I think (-P2) in President Aquino's, um (-P2), State of the Nation addresses or in his speeches,

he always (+P3) boasts about the 7 percent GDP growth (+P7.9) or how the economic growth

(+P7.9) has always (+P3) been high (+P7.7) in, during his term. But the question is always

(+P3), who benefits from that growth? (OR10) I think (-P2) his administration has to prioritize

those marginalized, oppressed and powerless sectors (+P7.9). I think (-P2) what his

administration needs is to, uh (-P2), prioritize progressive (+P7.7) laws. For example, yung

struggle for land reform or agrarian reform. It's been more than 20+ years already, it's almost 30

years already (OR3). (+P4.2 starts here; he relates the stories of farmers.) And, noong

nagkaroon kami (-P7) ng People's Agrarian Reform Congress, um (-P2), sa USC, more than (-

P2) 900 farmers yung umattend noon, and sinabi nila lahat (+P3) na ang kailangan talaga (+P2)

ay tapusin na ang pagtupad ng Agrarian Reform. I think (-P2) that's something that P-Noy

should prioritize (-P8). Pero hindi lang iyon, kailangan ng other progressive (+P7.7) laws, like

freedom of information (+P7.9). Kung totoo yung campaign niya for anti-corruption (-P2),

kailangang maipasa na siya. For example yung, um (-P2), Anti-Discrimination Bill, ‗di ba (+P3),

to include the LGBT (+P7.9) sector. So I think (-P2), more than a, a high (+P7.7) economic
 Amper 207

growth (+P7.9) or a high (+P7.7) performance, kailangan niya maging inclusive sa mga

marginalized, oppressed and powerless (+P7.9). Kailangan niyang kilingan ang mga sektor na ito

(+P7.4) para hindi lang yung ibang sector ang nag-bebenefit kundi lahat (+P3). [Intimidation +

Supplication, Self-promotion]

2. Uh (-P2), noong bata ako, siguro ang pinaka(+P2)-paborito kong teleserye noon ay yung

Zorro, uh (-P2), ni Richard Gutierrez, actually (-P2). (+P7.1) Kasi,si Richard Guiterrez ba ‗yun?

(+P7.1) Kasi, um (-P2), noong time na ‗yon, um (-P2), yung ideals niya (-P7) kasi na

pinapaglaban yung mga marginalized, oppressed and powerless (+P7.9) nga, kasi set siya in a

context of an oppressive Spanish Government, and, um (-P2), vino-voice niya (-P7) talaga (+P2)

yung mga, um (-P2), issues nila (-P7) or yung mga concerns nila (-P7) (Montesa is really

talking about himself and the students he will be serving, so this also counts as a metaphor:

OR9). Ako, I think (-P2), my, uh (-P2), story as a student leader is nagsimula ako na talo ako as

Econ Rep pero bumawi ako as USC Councilor, ngayon tumatakbo ulit, USC Vice Chairperson.

And I think (-P2), um (-P2), our (-P7) vision naman (-P4) is clear, to make, to take something

that used to be irrelevant (+P7.7), or that, or that used to be not concrete (+P7.7) when it comes

to the students like the University Student Council and to change it, to make it not only critical

(+P7.7) and not only, uh (-P2), favorable (+P7.7) to the marginalized and oppressed and

powerless sectors (+P7.9) na magbigay ng boses sa kanila (-P7), kundi sa mga estudyante din

(+P7.7). Na lumapit sa estudyante at maging, uh (-P2)—nakikinig sa mga estudyante sa

concerns ng bawat student (+P1), at, ah (-P2), ganoon 'yung pagbabago na gusto nating (+P12)

makita. And I think (-P2) si Zorro na, na, ipakita na, as a hero, he really (+P2) progressed, ah (-

P2), throughout the story na hindi lang siya naging isang vigilante, but he, he really (+P2), um (-

P2), represented an ideal for the people that they (-P7) could get behind. And I think (-P2) iyon
 Amper 208

'yung klase ng USC na kailangan natin (+P12), na kailangan nating (+P12) isulong.

[Exemplification + Self-promotion]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

-P2 29
+P7.7 10
+P7.9 9
-P7 8
+P3 6
+P2 5
+P12 3
+P7.1 2
OR10 1
OR3 1
+P4.2 1
+P7.4 1
OR9 1
-P4 1
+P1 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 15

2016
CHAIRPERSON
AJ Montesa
1st year MA Economics

1. I think (-P2), globalization has both pros and cons, um (-P2), as effects on education. When

you (+P7.2) have globalization for example, you (+P7.2) have, you (+P7.2) turn a lake of

knowledge (OR9) into a vast ocean (OR9) that's easily (-P2) accessible to, um (-P2), the

members of a nation, for example. So they have access to different cultures, to different ideas

from around, around the globe. But I think (-P2) it‘s important as well that if you (+P7.2) have

globalization and you (+P7.2) have this (+P7.4) vast ocean of ideas (OR9) you (+P7.2) have to

have, or you (+P7.2) have to maintain your (+P7.2) own national identity as well. So, um (-P2),

in terms of the education system in the Philippines, we (+P12) have to be able to identify what is

the characteristic of Filipino education, and it shouldn't necessarily (-P2) be modeled after, uh (-

P2), western patterns of education, but we (+P12) can draw ideas from the west from the east,
 Amper 209

um (-P2), and from all over the globe. So I think (-P2), um (-P2), the challenge is really (+P2)

for our (+P12) scholars, um (-P2), especially (+P2) in our (+P12) universities, um (-P2), and

higher learning institutions within our (+P12) country to be able to, to strengthen our (+P12)

education in the country, to make sure that we (+P12) do develop that Filipino character to our

(+P12) education. At the end of the day (-P2), um (-P2), our (+P12) Filipino scholars should

have that characteristic (-P8), those traits of what it is to be a Filipino - not just having a world-

class (+P3) education but (+P7.7) an education that is, at the end of the day (-P2), for the nation

and for the development of the country. (+P6.1; the whole argument is a negotiation.)

[Ingratitation]

2. ALYANSA is and always (+P2) has been against all forms of tuition fee and other school fee

increases. That's why this (+P7.4) past year, I was—I had the opportunity to, um (-P2), be a

member of the University Committee on Scholarships and Financial Assistance, which is, uh (-

P2), the decision making body in terms of socialized tuition, in terms of tuition fee, etc. and

during the last, uh (-P2), two meetings ago, we (-P7) were able to pass a 10-page proposal from

the University Student Council, wherein we (-P7) outlined, that our (+P12) tuition system is not

just, efficient, and progressive. (+P4.2 starts here) We (+P12) need to make sure na mas (+P2),

uh (-P2), maganda (+P7.7) yung tuition system natin (+P12) para maging accessible siya. For

example, yung tuition rates na pinapatupad natin (+P12), they‘re actually (-P2) currently

regressive. Meaning (-P2), mas (+P2) mataas (+P7.7) 'yung burden na binabayaran ng mga

lower bracket students sa binabayaran ng higher bracket students. And if you (+P7.2) think about,

um (-P2), that burden (-P2), that is a greater (+P2) burden that might be a hindrance for students

to enter into UP. That's why what of—one of the things we (-P7) proposed was a progressive

rollback – a progressive rollback meaning babaan natin (+P12) 'yung tuition, um (-P2), at all
 Amper 210

counts but make sure that the tuition is lowered, um (-P2), to higher (+P7.7) degree at a lower

bracket level. So meaning (-P2), Bracket D would receive a higher (+P7.7) decrease in tuition

than, as compared to Bracket A students for example. But we (-P7) not only propose that

because we (-P7) don't believe (-P2) that tuition is the only problem that UP students face. For

Bracket El and E2 students, even if they (-P7) don't pay anything (-P2), they (-P7) still have a lot

(+P2) of financial considerations. That's why we (-P7) also propose na taasan dapat yung stipend

nila (-P7) (OR13) because prices every year, they go up. Unfortunately (-P2), the stipends of

these students, they have to be, um (-P2), deliberated na taasan pa. So while there is yearly

inflation, we (-P7) believe (-P2) that there should be a yearly increase on the stipends as well.

(OR13) As well as a yearly increase of the budget to give more (+P2) support to the non-

monetary needs of the students such as dormitories, food, and other, um (-P2), services that

might be needed by the students. At the end of the day (-P2), access is what‘s important (+P7.7),

not just free tuition and what not. [Self-promotion + Exemplification, Supplication]

3. Kung isa—kung isa akong mobile phone app (-P2), ako siguro 'yung sakay.ph - it is like a

commuter-friendly version for Waze. Um (-P2), 'yung Waze, um (-P2), if you're (+P7.2) a driver

(-P2), you (+P7.2) would type in your (+P7.2) destination, and kung nasaan ka (+P7.2), and

bibigyan ka (+P7.2) ng directions kung paano mag-drive papunta doon. But 'yung sakay.ph it's,

um (-P2), it‘s much more (+P2) commuter-friendly kasi ito (+P7.4) binibigyan ka (+P7.2) ng

directions but at the same time, um (-P2), kung ano 'yung mga commuter or yung mga public

utility, um (-P2), vehicles na pwede mong (+P7.2) sakyan. So, alam niyo (+P7.2) ba na may mga

bus pala sa BGC or Taguig area? (OR10) Na doon ko lang narealize when taking that app.

(+P7.1) And I think (-P2), um (-P2), important (+P7.7) rin 'yun sa chairperson (-P7) because

you (+P7.2) need an app that will tell you (+P7.2) which direction you (+P7.2) need to, to take -
 Amper 211

just like a chairperson (-P7) sets the direction for the entire University Student Council. But at

the same time, we (+P12) need a chairperson (-P7) who realizes that there are more than one

ways to take that direction - that there a lot and a lot (+P2) of alternatives – and at the end of the

day (-P2), um (-P2), you (+P7.2) have to give people that op—those options. Those options to

take, um (-P2), whatever public utility vehicles they (-P7) want, whether they (-P7) want to take

a cab or they (-P7) want to take, um (-P2), jeepneys or buses. You (+P7.2) want to give them (-

P7) that option. And at the end of the day (-P2), you (+P7.2) want to get them (-P7) to the

destination that they (-P7) want to get to – and that's what‘s important (+P7.7) (+P10). I think (-

P2), 'yung sakay.ph is a very (+P2) helpful (+P7.7) and convenient (+P7.7) app for any

commuter to use. [Self-promotion + Exemplification]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

-P2 48
+P7.2 23
-P7 19
+P12 15
+P2 11
+P7.7 10
OR9 3
+P7.4 3
+P6.1 1
+P4.2 1
OR10 1
+P7.1 1
+P10 1
-P8 1
OR13 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 15

VICE CHAIR
Vince Liban
1st year MA Urban and Regional Planning

1. Gusto nating (+P12) i-maintain 'yung public character ng UP bilang isang public university,

‗no (-P2), but as long as, ah (-P2), name-maintain natin (+P12) 'yung ganitong (+P7.4)
 Amper 212

characteristics ng UP, ah (-P2), ayos lang (-P4) tayo (+P12) sa uti—utilization ng assets ng UP

para mas (+P2) mapalakas pa natin (+P12) 'yung, ah (-P2), quality and accessibility at 'yung

relevance mismo (+P2) ng edukasyon dito (+P7.4) sa pamantasan. [Ingratitation]

2. Um (-P2), while I cannot speak, uh (-P2), in behalf of my—my, uh, opponent (-P6.2), ‗no (-

P2), I—I think (-P2), the best movie title that can, uh (-P2), represent their platforms is Captain

America Civil War, kung saan gusto nating (+P12) labanan 'yung US imperialism mismo (+P2),

‗no (-P2), dahil nandoon na mismo (+P2) yung pangalan ng Amerika, at siyempre mismo (+P2),

ah (-P2), war. Gusto nating (+P12) tapusin 'yung maka-imperyalistang, uh (-P2), polisiya ng

Amerika. [Ingratiation]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

-P2 12
+P12 6
+P2 5
+P7.4 2
-P4 1
-P6.2 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 6

2017
CHAIRPERSON
Benjie Allen ―Benjie‖ Aquino
5th year BS Business Administration and Accountancy

1. ALYANSA has always (+P2) been against all form of violence. Kaya naman ang

pagpapatuloy nitong (+P7.4), uh (-P2), uh (-P2), usapan ng peace talks, kailangan, ah (-P2),

naniniwala tayo (+P12) (-P2) na sana ituloy siya, at kailangan sana magbunga ‗yung, ‗yung, ah

(-P2), peace talks na ‗to (+P7.4). Um (-P2), actually (-P2), as part of the GPOA of UP

ALYANSA, mayroon tayong (+P12) tinatawag na Duterte Watch. E dito (+P7.4) sa Duterte

Watch, uh (-P2), we (-P7) plan to create a coalition: an alliance of students, organizations sa

 Amper 213

loob at sa labas ng, ng unibersidad, ah (-P2), para bantayan ang mga galaw ni Duterte at

kaniyang mga sinasabi at mga ginagawa. Uh (-P2), at kasama na dito (+P7.4), siyempre, ang,

ang, ang paggawa or ang pagpapatuloy ng administras—administrasyong Duterte for the peace

talks. [Intimidation + self-promotion]

2. Right (-P2) of course, we (+P12) continue to lobby for, uh (-P2), laws sa legislation na

maglalaan talaga (+P2) ng budget para sa, para sa education. Um (-P2), nakita natin (+P12),

halimbawa, sa Free Education Bill ni, nila Bam Aquino, na recently (-P2) naipasa. Um (-P2),

hindi pa rin siya enough. Although, it‘s a good (+P7.7) step towards that, for, for a more

accessible education. (+P6.1) And also another thing we have to consider (-P2), is that free

tuition is not enough, because tuition is not the only hindrance to education. Nandiyan ‗yung

dormitory fees, nandiyan ‗yung transportation fees, nandiyan ‗yung pagkain, and even if you

(+P7.2) can afford tuition (-P2), or even if wala na kayong (+P7.2) binabayarang tuition (-P2),

kung taga-Bacolod ka (+P7.2) at hindi mo (+P7.2) kayang mag-dormitory (-P2); hindi mo

(+P7.2) kayang magbayad ng dormitory dito (+P7.4) sa UP, wala rin. Hindi mo rin maa-achieve.

Hindi rin magiging accessible for you (+P7.2) ‗yung education. Kaya at the end of the day (-P2),

it‘s really (+P2) legislation that will support, uh (-P2), the free education. Para may set na

nakalaan na budget na enough for, uh (-P2), free education, and make it more (+P2), making it

more accessible. [Ingratitation, Self-promotion]

3. Ayan (-P2). Para, para fun naman tayo (+P12) (+P9), feel ko (-P2) Moana, bilang kinakanta

ko siya kanina pa (+P7.1). Sabi ni Moana, ―what is wrong with me?‖ (+P7.5, sang the line)

Nakikita naman natin (+P12) na napakaraming (+P2) (+P3) pagbabago na nangyari sa ating

(+P12) bansa. Napakaraming (+P2) (+P3) changes. Change has come. Change scamming (OR8).

At itong (+P7.4) mga pagbabagong ito (+P7.4) ay hindi necessarily (-P2) magaganda (+P7.7).
 Amper 214

Pitong libo na ‗yung napatay, nailibing na si dik-dik-dictator Marcos sa Libingan ng mga Bayani,

nakawala na si, uh (-P2), GMA. Di ‗ba? (+P3) Kaya makikita natin (+P12) na itong (+P7.4)

sumisimbolo sa bansa natin (+P12). Guys (+P4.1), what is wrong with this (+P7.4) country?

(OR10) Napakarami (+P2) (+P3), and we (+P12) need to be like Moana. Kailangan nating

(+P12) luma—lumabas sa ating (+P12) comfort zone. ‗Di ba si Moana, lumabas siya sa island

niya para lang lakbayin ang Heart of Te Fiti? (OR10) Kailangan na nating (+P12) lakbayin,

kasama ang mga puso natin (+P12). Mga besh (+P4.1), we (+P12) need to fight this (+P7.4) one

out. Kailangan nating (+P12) gumalaw. In every way you (+P7.2) can, in every, um (-P2), type

of activism that you (+P7.2) can use, gawin nating (+P12) Moana. [Intimidation +

exempllifaction]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

-P2 27
+P12 17
+P7.4 10
+P7.2 8
+P2 7
+P3 4
+P7.7 2
+P4.1 2
OR10 2
-P7 1
+P6.1 1
+P7.1 1
+P9 1
+P7.5 1
OR8 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 15

VICE CHAIR
Magnolia Angela "Magnolia" Del Rosario
5th Year BS Hotel, Restaurant, and Institution Management

1. ‗Yan (-P2). Tayo sa UP ALYANSA (+P12), nakisama tayo (+P12) doon sa consultation bago

magkaroon ng University Council meeting noong March 20, at actually (-P2), nagpasa tayo
 Amper 215

(+P12) ng position paper na sinasabi natin (+P12) na kailangan munang i-defer ‗yung GE

Reform. Dahil nakita naman natin (+P12), na unang una, hindi ito (+P7.4) proper (sic) (-P2)

consulted. May mga estudyante na na-consult, halimbawa na lang (-P4) sa College of

Engineering, at mayroon namang mga estudyante na hindi talaga (+P2) na-consult. At nakita

natin (+P12) na mayroong mga epekto na maaaring maibigay itong (+P7.4) GE Reform.

Halimbawa na lamang (-P4), dahil sa pagbawas, baka magkaroon ng pagbawas ng trabaho sa

mga faculty: ‗yung mga dati nating (+P12) Comm 3 teachers, ganyan (-P2), kung mababawasan

man ‗yung mga kailangan nating (+P12) i-take na GEs (-P2). And of course, nakakatakot din,

‗no (-P2), bilang sa parte natin (+P12) bilang mga UP students, na mawala tayo (+P12) ng

holistic development na alam naman nating (+P12) (-P2) tatak UP, na nakukuha natin (+P12) sa

ating (+P12) general education system. Baka magkulang tayo (+P12) sa participation, and sa

appreciation natin (+P12) pagdating sa mga heart arts and humanities, ‗pagdating sa mga science

and technology courses, lalo (+P2) na kung hindi naman talaga ‗yon ‗yung ating (+P12), uh (-

P2), degree program. Nakakatakot lang (-P4), iyon nga lang (-P4), moving forward, kailangan

nating (+P12) mag-work kung nasaan na ba tayo (+P12) ngayon. Kaya ang UP ALYANSA, nag-

propose na magkaroon dapat ng bawat student representatives sa bawat GE committees, sa bawat

colleges, para makokonsulta sila na lahat ng magiging desisyon ng administration ay, uh (-P2),

pabor sa estudyante, at siyempre sa holistic education natin (+P12) dito (+P7.4) sa UP. (OR13)

[Supplication + Intimidation, Self-promotion]

2. Being the only USC Councilor from ALYANSA was really (+P2) difficult. But of course, it

gave me strength. It taught me to be more (+P2) resilient, more (+P2) patient, and creative in my

ways to realize the commitment I made to the students. So for the people out there (OR12), this

(+P7.4) is my song for you, um (-P2): ―You held me down, but I got up. Get ready cause I‘ve
 Amper 216

had enough. I see it all, I see it now. Like thunder, gonna shake the ground. You held me down,

but I got up. Get ready cause I‘ve had enough. I seen it all, I seen it now. I got the eye of the tiger,

the fighter, dancing through the.‖ Okay na ‗yun. Ahahaha, ―cause I am a champion, and you‘re

gonna hear me roar.‖ (Singing and giving direct quotes not considered because it is what is

being asked for.) [Supplication, self-promotion]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

+P12 19
-P2 10
+P2 5
+P7.4 4
-P4 4
OR13 1
OR12 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 7

KAISA

2013
CHAIRPERSON
Ana Alexandra Castro
4th year, BA Psychology

1. So it is written in the Philippine Constitution that the government should be prioritizing

education (-P8), the reason for which is because (-P2) investment in education is very (+P2)

important (+P7.7). And I think (-P2), for our (+P12), uh (-P2), senatorial candidates and of

course for our (+P12), uh (-P2), incoming, uh (-P2), senators and government officials, this

(+P7.4) is what they should be prioritizing (-P8). That‘s why since 2007, KAISA has been

pushing for the Six Will Fix Bill. That is because we (-P7) recognize the importance of

education and of course investment in the youth. So the Six Will Fix Bill is the allocation of at

least (-P2) six percent of GNP (+P7.9) to education budget. On average (-P2), the government is

only (OR4) allotting around (-P2) 2.29% of GNP (+P7.9) to education, and of course, we (+P12)
 Amper 217

can see that that is not enough. We (+P12) have lack of facilities (-P9), lack of schools (-P9),

lack of buildings (-P9) and so on. Even for teachers, competent teachers. And I think (-P2) that,

um (-P2), if we (+P12) want the country to develop (-P2), um (-P2), we (+P12) should be

investing on education. (-P8) [Intimidation]

2. It is written in the UP Charter that our (+P12) premier National University should be

subsidized by the government (-P8), but of course, this (+P7.4) has never (+P3) been the case.

Although yes, we‘ve (+P12) been proposing for a, uh (-P2), a budget (+P6.1), the right amount

of the budget for UP, we (+P12) never (+P3) actually (-P2) received it. So the government has

always (+P3) been, um, uh (-P2), neglecting the responsibility for this (+P7.4) University. Thus,

this (+P7.4) national—premier National University is never (+P3) really (+P2) developed into,

uh (-P2), because, uh (-P2), well (-P2), more than the budget cut (-P2), it‘s actually (-P2) the

systemic state abandonment (+P7.9) that we‘re (+P12) experiencing as a University. And of

course, this (+P7.4) should not be the case. This (+P7.4) is why we (+P12) should demand the

government for them to fulfill their responsibility in subsidizing this (+P7.4) university, and of

course, in, uh (-P2), investing more in education. [Intimidation]

3. If the USC is a chess game (-P2), I‘d like to be the pawn because I‘d like to be at the forefront

when it comes to fighting for the rights of the students (+P1). [Self-promotion]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

-P2 22
+P12 11
+P7.4 7
+P3 4
-P8 4
-P9 3
+P7.9 3
OR4 1
-P7 1
+P6.1 1
+P1 1
 Amper 218

+P2 1
+P7.7 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 11

VICE CHAIR
Juliano Fernando Guiang
4th year, BA Public Administration

1. Uh (-P2), mula noon hanggang ngayon ay patuloy na nagiging ehemplo o gabay ang

Unibersidad ng Pilipinas sa lahat ng mga SUCs (+P7.9) (+P1, raising H’s institution without

giving deference to H, so not –P5). Kung ano ang sinisimulan dito (+P7.4) sa ating (+P12)

unibersidad, ay siyang, ah (-P2), ginaga—ginagamit din ng iba‘t ibang mga SUCs (+P7.9). Kaya

pagdating sa usapin ng STFAP, alam naman natin (+P12) (-P2) dito (+P7.4) sa unibersidad na

ito (+P7.4) ang mekanismo na ginamit ng UP administration upang pagtakpan ang tina—ang

pagtaas ng matrikula noong 2007. Kaya kapag ito (+P7.4) ay nilagay natin (+P12) sa iba‘t ibang

SUCs (-P2), isa lamang itong (+P7.4) manipestasyon na pinapagbigyan na natin (+P12) ang

ating, uh (-P2), ang ating (+P12) gobyerno na pagbigyan lang na itaas ang tuition fee dahil

meron naman tayong (+P12) ipapalit na STFAP. Kung ganito (+P7.4) man, kung may

mekanismo man na dapat gawin ang gobyerno (-P2), dapat ay ayusin muna ang programa ng

STFAP dito (+P7.4) habang patuloy nating (+P12), uh (-P2), pinaglalaban ang pagbigay ng

mataas na alokasyon ng budget sa edukasyon. (OR13) [Ingratitation]

2. Uh (-P2), kung meron mang hayop mula sa Chinese Zodiac sign na maaari kong ihalintulad sa

mga nakakalaban ko na Vice Chairperson (-P2), uh (-P2), silang dalawa ay parang rooster,

actually ako rin, iko-consider ko na lahat kami ay rooster. Dahil lahat kami, naniniwala ako (-P2),

na mayroong mga sariling mga gustong itilaok na pagbabago. Ngunit ang pagkakaiba ko lang sa

kanila ay handa na akong isabong (+P6.1). [Ingratitation]

 Amper 219

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

-P2 10
+P7.4 7
+P12 6
+P7.9 2
+P6.1 1
+P1 1
OR13 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 7

2014
CHAIRPERSON
Carla Gonzales
5th year BS Hotel, Restaurant & Institution Management

1. Basically (-P2) the essence of the STFAP and the STS is the same, the only difference is the

convenience of the process for the students. One with the application process, nabawasan ito

(+P7.4) and also the amount that was set for each bracket. But still it is still socialized tuition fee,

it is still tuition fee and actually (-P2) we (-P7) want to acknowledge that tuition fee is the

biggest (+P3) hindrance to education. Now (-P2), with that said (-P2), it is not-- the mandate of

the UP charter and also the government states that education is a right and we must have

accessible education for, for all, that is full state subsidy (-P8), and that, that is what we (-P7) are

fighting for. That STS and STFAP, no matter what it‘s called (-P2), is the same thing. It‘s tuition

fee, soc-- it‘s tuition fee for the students which is not supposed to be there in the first place.

Thank you (BOR). [Intimidation, exemplification + self-promotion]

2. I think (-P2) the students should not settle with what the government is giving us (-P8). It

ha—it has to be a change in mindset. ‗Cause right now (-P2), the government is hands-off with

their mandate in serving the Filipino people. We (+P12) are relying too much (+P2) on private

entities, on westernized cultures, in conforming, when actually (-P2) hindi nila ginagampanan

yung trabaho nila, by giving us basic social services (+P7.9), education for—uh (-P2), one big
 Amper 220

(+P3) example. So right now (-P2), the students should continue to fight against this (+P7.4) (-

P8). Dapat hindi sila mag-settle (-P8). We (+P12) cannot keep bargaining with the government.

We (+P12) should continuously fight for our rights and be firm about this each and every time (-

P8). So no student, I think (-P2), should settle (-P8) and yun ang maiaambag ng mga estudyante,

a continuous fight to end the discrimination, to end the unjust policies and ‗yung pagkukulang,

malaking (+P3) pagkukulang ng gobyerno. [Intimidation + exemplification]

3. I think (-P2) that would be my han—my hands, because my hands can be used to reach out to

every UP student (+P1), and my hands, my hands are here (+P7.4) to be able to unite not just the

student body but (+P7.7) all-- the entire (+P3) UP community. And when we (+P12) are able to

unite the UP community by serving, by giving tangible results from materialized projects,

activities, campaigns and advocacies, we (+P12) will be able to have a more (+P2) effective and

efficient USC. Also with our (+P12) hand, with our (+P12) hand gestures, it‘s a way to show

respect. Respect is one of the most (+P3) important virtues to be able to have good working

relationships with any organization, anyone who is affiliated even with the other political parties.

Respecting the ideals, opinions and beliefs and focusing on the strengths of each individual

(BOR). That‘s how I would lo—I would like to be as a student leader (BOR). [Self-promotion]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

-P2 12
+P12 7
-P8 6
+P3 5
+P7.4 3
BOR 3
-P7 2
+P2 2
+P1 1
+P7.7 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 10
 Amper 221

VICE CHAIR
Ram Tomaneng
1st year MS Mathematics

1. Uh (-P2), we (-P7) attack the calendar shift, academic calendar shift in two ways. First, we (-

P7) attack the consultation, uh (-P2), consultation sa students. Uh (-P2), alam naman natin

(+P12) (-P2) na ang BOR inapprove ang academic calendar shift at saka nagkaroon ng

consultation afterwards. So, doon palang, medyo (-P4) contentious na yung academic calendar

shift. Ikalawa, we (-P7) recognize the merits of the academic calendar shift and that includes

increased opportunities, tapos di ka (+P7.2) pa matatamaan sa (rainy) weather. (+P6.1) Pero sa

ngayon, natatakot kasi kami (-P7) na baka gamitin lang ng admin itong (+P7.4) academic

calendar shift as an excuse para hindi i-improve ang state of education sa loob ng UP. So, sa

ngayon, hindi pa ready ang UP para huma—harapin ang academic calendar shift na ito (+P7.4).

Dapat i-improve muna ang state of education sa loob ng university (OR13). [Intimidation]

2. Kung sakaling hindi palarin (-P2), maihahalintulad ko ang buhay ko sa mga susunod pang

mga buwan sa pelikulang Life of Pi. Gagamitin ko ang panahong iyon para mag-reflect sa mga

nangyari, para naman sa mga susunod na taon mas marami (+P3) pa akong matutunan at

magamit ko ito (+P7.4) para makapagsilbi pa sa ating (+P12) mga kapwa estudyante (+P4.1).

[Self-promotion]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

-P2 5
-P7 4
+P7.4 3
+P12 2
+P3 1
-P4 1
+P7.2 1
+P6.1 1
OR13 1
+P4.1 1
 Amper 222

Total # of kinds of strategies used 10

2015
CHAIRPERSON
Zaira Baniaga
3rd year BA Broadcast Communication

1. Makakamit ang kapayapaan sa Mindanao, unang-una, kung tatanungin natin (+P12) mismo

(+P2) sila kung ano ba ang kailangan nila. Kasi minsan, nakakalimutan na natin (+P12) silang

tanungin at tayo (+P12) na lang mismo ang nagde-nagde-desisyon sa mga sarili natin (+P12),

kung ano ang kailangan nila. Una, puntahan muna natin (+P12) sila, tanungin natin (+P12) kung

ano ang kailangan nila. At pangalawa, ipasa natin (+P12) ang Bangsamoro Basic Law, kung saan

dito (+P7.4) ay mabibigay natin (+P12) sa kanila ang karapatan sa self-identification, sa kanilang,

um (-P2), practice of, um (-P2), independent governance, at ang kanilang social, economic, and,

uh (-P2), cultural development. [Ingratitation]

2. Noong iniisip ko yung isasagot ko para sa tanong, tanong na 'yan, medyo naalal--, medyo

nakalimutan ko na isang taon pa lang pala nai-implementa 'yung STS (+P7.1). Kasi para sa atin

(+P12), itong (+P7.4) STS na ito (+P7.4) ay pagpapatuloy lamang ng STFAP. So makikita natin

(+P12) ang, ang STS na ito (+P7.4), na tulad ng STFAP, ay hindi makatarungan, hindi maka-

estudyante, at hindi pro doon sa mga nangangailangan ng edukasyon dito (+P7.4) sa Unibersidad

ng Pilipinas. Makikita din natin (+P12) na itong (+P7.4) STS na ito (+P7.4) ay panig sa mga

mayayaman. Hindi natin (+P12) sinasabing galit tayo (+P12) sa mga mayayaman, hindi

kasalanan ng mayaman na mayaman sila (-P7), pero ang mali ay itong (+P7.4) sistema na ito

(+P7.4) na pinagbubuklod, ay na pinagbubukod o pinaghihiwalay itong (+P7.4) mga

mayayaman at mahihirap. (+P6.1) Kaya naman, patuloy nating (+P12) hinihingi ang full state

subsidy (+P7.9), ang, ah (-P2), at ang ating, um (-P2), pag-assert sa ating (+P12) right to
 Amper 223

accessible and free education. Kaya naman tayo (+P12) sa KAISA, pino-promote pa rin natin

(+P12) ang pagpa—pagsasabatas ng Six Will Fix Bill kung saan tayo (+P12) ay mag-a-allot ng

at least 6 percent of Gross National Product (+P7.9), kung saan magkakaroon tayo (+P12) ng

security na tayo (+P12) ay mananatiling Iskolar ng Bayan (+P4.1) anuman ang mangyari dahil

responsibilidad tayo (+P12) ng gobyerno. [Ingratitation, self-promotion]

3. Kung ihahalintulad ko ang mga kalaban ko sa isang kontrabida (-P2), sa palagay ko (-P2), ito

(+P7.4) ay si PNoy. Bakit? (OR10) Um (-P2), unang-una para kay Mico, gusto ko lamang (-P4)

mag-iwan ng statement na ang ganda naman ng track records ng magulang mo (OR8).

Pangalawa, para kay JP, kumusta na 'yong pagtatanggol mo kay Abad? (OR10) [Intimidation]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

+P12 21
+P7.4 11
-P7 1
-P2 8
+P7.9 2
OR10 2
+P2 1
+P6.1 1
+P4.1 1
-P4 1
OR8 1
+P7.1 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 12

VICE CHAIR
Vin Buenaagua
4th year BA Political Science

1. Ang pinakamatinding suli—suliranin na kinaharap ng PNoy administration ay ang sunud-

sunod na alegasyon ng kuro—korapsyon, kaga—kagaya na lang (-P4) ng issue sa PDAF (+P7.9),

Philippine Developmenta—at sa DAP (+P7.9), at pati na rin sa mga, korapsyon sa iba't ibang

executive branches ng kanyang administrasyon. Bakit ito (+P7.4) isyu? (OR10) Una, dahil
 Amper 224

ipinangako niya sa kanyang Tuwid na Daan slogan na, na i—na magdu—na tatawirin ip—

itatawid niya ang lipunan na ito (+P7.4) mula sa korapsyon, subalit binigo niya tayo (+P12) at

hindi niya tinupad itong (+P7.4) pangako na ito (+P7.4). Pangalawa, patuloy ang paghihirap ng

ating (+P12) mga kababayang Pilipino (+P4.1), partikular na ng mga, mga manggagawa at

magsasaka at mga iba pang mga sektor na napag-iiwanan dahil sa mis—sa mga mispriorities na

ito (+P7.4), pati na rin sa pagkukunsinti niya sa patuloy na kultura ng kurapsyon sa kanyang

administrasyon. Pangatlo, ito ay—ito (+P7.4) ay problema dahil kaalin—kaalinsunod nito

(+P7.4) ay ang PPP o Public-Private Partnerships (+P7.9) niya na nag-e-exacerbate sa kalagayan

ng mga mahihirap in terms of, ahm (-P2), ang presyo ng mga bilihin at ng transportasyon, pati na

rin ng kana—pat—pat—pati narin ang isyu sa edukasyon at sa basic social services (+P7.9).

[Supplication + Intimidation]

2. Ang teleserye na sumasalamin sa buhay ko bilang lider estudyante ay May Bukas Pa (BOR).

Bakit? (OR10) Sa kabila ng sunud-sunod na sulir—suliranin, sunud-sunod na pagbabago sa

pamantasan at lipunan, lagi (+P2) nating (+P12) iniisip na may bukas pa, may mas (+P2)

magandang (+P3) naghihintay sa atin (+P12) kung tayo (+P12) lang (-P4) ay magkakasama, ay

(-P2), kung tayo (+P12) lang (-P4) ay magkakasamang lalahok, mamumulat, at lalaban. (-P2)

Kung kaya naman kami, tayo sa KAISA (+P12) ay naniniwala (-P2) na dapat tayong (+P12)

gumising para maharap natin (+P12) 'yong bukas na 'yon —'yong bukas na parating pa lang,

'yong bukas kung saan tayo (+P12) ay malaya mula sa kahirapan, mula sa pang-aalipusta, at

mula sa kawalan ng hustisya dito (+P7.4) sa lipunan. (-P8) [Exemplification + Self-promotion]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

+P12 10
+P7.4 8
+P7.9 4
-P2 4
-P4 3
 Amper 225

OR10 2
+P2 2
BOR 1
+P3 1
-P8 1
+P4.1 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 11

2016
No standard bearers for 2016.

2017
CHAIRPERSON
Leandro Anton "LA" Castro
4th Year BA Journalism

1. Uh (-P2), dapat ipagpatuloy 'yung, uh (-P2), usaping pangkay--kapangpayapaan sa ilalim ng

Duterte administration, ‗no (-P2) (OR13). Kung susuriin natin (+P12) (-P2), libo na, almost (-

P2) 69 to 70,000 na yung pinatay ng, uh (-P2), conflict na ito (+P7.4) at 40,000 na rin yung na-

displa—uh (-P2), displaced, ‗no (-P2). At maraming (+P3) Pilipino na yung apektado ng

ongoing conflict between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines at ng CPP. At

kailangan ng—oras na para pakinggan yung, uh (-P2), mga inihahaing reporma ng, uh (-P2),

magkabilang partido. At, ‗yan (-P2), tulad ng natutunan natin (+P12) sa Maskom, uh (-P2),

tayong (+P12) namang mga… tayong (+P12) mga, uh (-P2), citizens na mga Pilipino (+P4.1),

kailangan patuloy yung pakikialam natin (+P12) sa issue na ito (+P7.4), para mas mapalakas

yung clamor (+P7.9) para sa peace talks. [Exemplification]

2. Tayo sa KAISA (+P12) ay naniniwala (-P2) na makakamit ang libreng edukasyon sa… ga—

through two ways, ‗no (-P2): una, yung pag-create ng public clamor (+P7.9), public press—uh (-

P2), public pressure (+P7.9), uh (-P2), para, ‗yun (-P2), mapalakas natin (+P12) yung mga

organisasyon natin (+P12), yung mga al—alliances natin (+P12) from the grassroots to create

public clamor (+P7.9) para sa pangalawa, ma-engage natin (+P12) yung mga institutions,
 Amper 226

maisabatas yung mga, ‗yung reporma para sa libreng edukasyon. Ayun (-P2). So yung una, pag-

create nga ng public clamor (+P7.9) at pangalawa, yung pag-engage sa institutions. [Self-

promotion]

3. Maihalintulad yung sitwasyon ng ating (+P12) bansa siguro sa pelikulang ―One More Chance.‖

Sabi nga ni Popoy kay Basha, ―Bash, you had me at my best, but you chose to break my heart.‖

(+P7.5, voice-acted the line, like how the actor said it) At tulad nung patuloy nating (+P12)

pag, uh (-P2), pag, ‗yun (-P2), the Filipino people (+P4.1) has always (+P2) been, uh (-P2),

steadfast and parang (+P6.3) committed to one thing a nation they (-P7) can call their (-P7) own

at patuy. Yung, patuloy tayong (+P12) nagtitiwala doon sa ruling elite (+P7.9) na sa tingin ko‘y

(-P2) isang malaking (+P3) pagkakamali din natin (+P12) bilang mga, mga Pilipino. At yun (-

P2): we (+P12) always (+P2) offer our (+P12) best (+P2), uh (-P2), support to whoever

candidates are there. Pero ayun (-P2), they always (+P2) choose to break our (+P12) hearts. At

sa tingin ko (-P2) ‗yun ang kailangan magbago. [Exemplification + self-promotion]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

-P2 27
+P12 17
+P7.9 6
+P2 4
+P7.4 2
+P3 2
+P4.1 2
-P7 2
OR13 1
+P7.5 1
+P6.3 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 11
 Amper 227

VICE CHAIR
Jose Rafael "Yael" Toribio
4th Year BS Business Administration

1. Last Monday, with the 302-31-44 vote, naipasa yung GE reform sa University Council (BOR).

When, uh (-P2), ‗pag tiningnan natin (+P12), ‗no (-P2), mababawasan yung avenues na kung

saan ma-eexpose yung mga Iskolar ng Bayan (+P4.1) sa iba‘t ibang realities ng ating (+P12)

lipunan. And at the end of the day (-P2), we (+P12) have to recognize that we (+P12) have a UP

education in order for us (+P12) to have a holistic understanding of the realities inside our

(+P12) country, and lessening the number of units w—lessening the number of units would

allow us (+P12) to have less (+P7.7) avenues in order to do so. Pero kailangan natin (+P12) i-

clarify na hindi kailangan pag—pagbanggain yung holistic education at specialization. Kasi sabi

nila, kapag nagkaroon ng GE reform (-P2), mas (+P2) marami (+P3) na tayong (+P12) oras para

sa ating (+P12) mga majors. Pero kailangan natin (+P12) tandaan na yung holistic education na

‗to (+P7.4), yung ating (+P12) pag-intindi sa suri ng lipunan ay mas (+P2) makakatulong pa

kung paano natin (+P12) magagamit ang ating (+P12) mga sari-sariling disiplina, kung paano

tayo (+P12) makakatulong sa ikabubuti at pag-unlad ng hindi lamang ng unibersidad kundi

(+P7.7) ng ating (+P12) bansa. [Supplication]

2. Siguro kung may kanta ako para sa aking (+P12) mga kalaban (-P2), ito (+P7.4) yung sa High

School Musical. Yung ―We‘re All in This Together.‖ Actually (-P2), sige, sample: "We‘re all in

this together" We‘re (+P12) all in this (+P7.4) together kasi tayo (+P12), uh (-P2), Shari and

Maggie, uh (-P2), even if we (+P12) come from different political parties (-P2), even if we

(+P12) have a different set of beliefs (-P2), it‘s, uh (-P2), we‘re (+P12) all in this (+P7.4)

together to prove the UP Diliman student body kung sino nga ba sa‘ting (+P12) tatlo yung

pinaka(+P2)-deserving na mapunta sa ating (+P12) posisyon. At sa darating na election season,

 Amper 228

‗no (-P2), sa election season sana mapatunayan natin (+P12) ito (+P7.4) at magkaroon tayo

(+P12) ng, uh (-P2), pagtatasa ng mga plataporma, magkaroon tayo (+P12) ng pagtatasa ng mga

ideolohiya, at ‗yun yung deserve ng ating (+P12) student body: na maipakita na yung elections

dito (+P7.4) sa UP Diliman, it goes… it goes beyond, uh (-P2), politicking. Uh (-P2), hindi

lamang ito (+P7.4) bangayan kundi (+P7.7) ito‘y (+P7.4) pagpapakita ng isang objektibong

paraan na kung sino nga ba talaga (+P2) yung mga lider-estudyante na karapat-dapat na maupo

sa konseho ng mga mag-aaral. (Singing and giving direct quotes not considered because it’s

what’s being asked for.) [Ingratiation + exemplification]

Politeness Strategy No. of times used (frequency)

+P12 28
-P2 15
+P7.4 8
+P2 4
+P7.7 3
BOR 1
+P4.1 1
+P3 1
Total # of kinds of strategies used 8
 Amper 229

APPENDIX E

2013-2017 PARTY PROFILES AND RECENT FACEBOOK POSTS

The first part of this section contains copies of pages from Philippine Collegian‘s ―Go Out and

Vote‖ issues that contain each political party‘s party profile, arranged in chronological order

(2012-2017). The second part of this section contains five (5) of the most recent posts of each

political party‘s Facebook page. All posts were retrieved on March 16, 2018 (Friday).
 Amper 235

STAND UP Facebook Page Posts

 Amper 236

STAND UP Facebook Page Posts

 Amper 237

STAND UP Facebook Page Posts

 Amper 238

UP Alyansa Facebook Page Posts

 Amper 239

UP Alyansa Facebook Page Posts

 Amper 240

UP Alyansa Facebook Page Posts

 Amper 241

KAISA UP Facebook Page Posts

 Amper 242

KAISA UP Facebook Page Posts

 Amper 243

KAISA UP Facebook Page Posts

 Amper 244

APPENDIX F

ONLINE FOCUS GROUP SCHEDULE

Note that this is the proposal for the design for the online focus group discussions. The

tense used in this section is present tense.

Objectives

1. To determine the political values, advocacies, and ideologies both the political party

members and the unaffiliated students carry.

2. To determine the political party‘s projected identity through the political party‘s own

perceptions and the perceived identity through the voters‘ perceptions.

3. To assess the effectiveness and significance of Philippine Collegian‘s campaign and

election period coverage on the student body‘s perception of the political parties.

Sampling

Two groups with a separate set of questions will be interviewed: the political party group

and the unaffiliated students group. The focus groups will each consist of 4-6 people.

Participants will be selected using a combination of convenience sampling and purposive

sampling (Fraenkel & Wallen). The researcher will enlist people she knew from each political

party to help recruit participants for the study. A special online Google Forms survey to recruit

unaffiliated students will be deployed as well. The participants of the study are (1) students who

are holding/have held leadership positions in the PP, and (2) for unaffiliated students, 2nd, 3rd,

and/or 4th year students who have experienced at least one election season in UP Diliman prior to

participating in the focus group. For the unaffiliated students, it does not matter whether they

have ―political leanings‖ or political parties they already favor or have campaigned for, as long
 Amper 245

as they are not official members of a political party and have not served as a campaign manager

or team member of an affiliated candidate of any position. However, this information will still be

considered in the data.

As homogenous groups are believed to be more conducive to discussion (Morgan), the

researcher decided to separate each focus group according to their affiliation/non-affiliation;

each political party has one focus group while the unaffiliated students have two. According

again to Morgan, the optimal number of focus groups is 3-5 or until ―saturation‖ is reached

(Glasser & Strauss). The ―saturation‖ point happens when similar themes continue to emerge

without adding new insights.

Schedule and Active Hours

The focus groups will be conducted through separate secret groups on Facebook; each of the

three political parties will have their own group while two are reserved for the unaffiliated

participants. The OFGs will be conducted from March 6, 2018 (Tuesday) until April 3, 2018

(Friday).

As a rule, participants can answer questions and participate in discussions with no time

limits or set schedule restrictions. However, since each question will be released one at a time,

participants will be advised to answer them within 2-3 days of posting. The date and the time of

day in which both the facilitator(s) and participants are most active, also called ―Active Hours,‖

will be set at the beginning of the OFG through a poll. Answering questions and participating in

discussion within ―Active Hours‖ will be encouraged, but not compulsory.

 Amper 246

Design

Facebook Group Key Features

Facebook groups have a feature in which you can set the privacy of the group to ―secret,‖

meaning any non-members and outsiders will not be able to see or find the group unless

otherwise added as a member of the said group. Other participants can add potential participants

into the group, but they will need the approval of the primary facilitator: the researcher. This

ensures the utmost privacy to the participants, especially the unaffiliated.

Figure 20. The Discussion page also serves as the group‘s main page.

Only facilitators are allowed to post on the groups, and necessary tweaks on the setting

ensured that it will be so. To illustrate how posts work, the important features and tools available

upon writing a post will be discussed. Photos and videos can be attached to posts. Links, when

included on a post, will generate previews of the site they lead to. These features will be utilized

as needed.
 Amper 247

Figure 21. Default post window.

Another key feature of the Facebook group post is its ability to administer a poll. To

create a poll, simply click ―Poll‖ from the default post window (see fig. 22). Settings can be

tweaked to make sure participants cannot add additional poll options and cannot select multiple

answers. This is especially useful for Yes-and-No questions, and it still enables participants to

comment on the poll post.

Figure 22. Poll post window.

 Amper 248

Other features that will be utilized in the group are ―Add File‖ and ―Create Doc.‖ These

two options will appear when the mouse pointer hovers over ―More,‖ found at the top bar beside

―Live Video.‖ The ―Add file‖ feature attaches any type of file to a post. The researcher will use

this to upload PDF files of the Informed Consent Form and Discussion Mechanics, Rules, and

Guidelines. Once the study is completed and approved for publishing, the researcher will upload

a PDF version of the research paper to report its findings to the participants. The decision to give

the participants a digital copy of the research initially is to encourage paper conservation, which

is beneficial both to the researcher and the environment. The participants may still request a

physical copy of the research. The ―Create Doc‖ feature will be used to publish accessible

versions – meaning not requiring download of files -- of the Mechanics, Rules, and Guidelines.

Unlike a normal post that only allows line breaks to space paragraphs, a ―Doc,‖ or document, can

be formatted to be easier to read; text can be adjusted into two text sizes, bullet points and

numbering can be added, pictures can be added between paragraphs, and quotes can be

highlighted.

Figure 23. ―Add File‖ (enclosed in red box) and ―Create Doc‖ (enclosed in blue box) are found

under ―More‖.
 Amper 249

The ―reaction‖ feature, which enables participants to react with ―Love,‖ ―Haha,‖ ―Wow,‖

―Sad,‖ and ―Angry‖ to posts, will be used according to the participants‘ discretion. This is with

the exception of the ―Like‖ reaction, which has the specific purpose of signifying agreement to

another person‘s comment or point. The freedom to react on posts allows participants to simulate

nonverbal cues in a face-to-face setting which cannot be otherwise accounted for in a virtual

group discussion. In effect, the use of emoticons/emojis during discussions will also be allowed.

However, the facilitators will not use this feature strictly to maintain the formal atmosphere of

the focus group.

The ―Seen‖ feature, as seen in figure 24 (lower right corner), enables the facilitators to

check whether all participants have already read the post. This also ensures maximum

participation from members of the group. If a participant has ―seen‖ a post, but has not

commented on the post yet and has not explicitly stated that he/she cannot contribute an answer,

the facilitators may message the participant privately to remind him/her to answer the thread.

However, this action will be done cautiously and sparingly to avoid intrusion on the participant.

Figure 24. Facebook reactions (enclosed in blue box, from left to right): Like, Love, Haha. Wow,

Sad, Angry.
 Amper 250

Welcome Message/Post

Hi, I‘m Yvonne Amper, an English Studies (Language) major from the College of Arts and
Letters (CAL). Thank you so much for helping me graduate! I‘m conducting this online focus
group (OFG) to complete my undergraduate thesis. My thesis is a study on the speech of the
USC political party standard bearers and how it reflects the identity of their political party.
Below is the Informed Consent Form that I need you to read and sign before we begin the
discussions. You can sign it digitally using Adobe Acrobat Reader DC. Please send it to me
through e-mail (gabrielleyvonne@yahoo.com) or Messenger on or before [insert date and time
here].
If you have any questions and clarifications, please feel free to comment them on this post and I
will address them as soon as I can. I‘m looking forward to your cooperation. Thank you!

Informed Consent Form

Informed consent forms are different for political party members and for unaffiliated

students. The consent form is attached to the Welcome Post. Since the focus group will be

conducted over the internet, participants will be asked to download and affix their digital

signatures in the PDF file individually, which will be sent back to the researcher. In the event

that a participant(s) is unable to accomplish the form, he/she can opt to consent through an e-

mail or a private message on Facebook. Copies of the informed consent forms are found in

Appendix C: Permissions.

Pinned Post: Discussion Mechanics, Rules, and Guidelines

This post that is pinned to the top of the group for the participants to constantly see and

review contains the house rules for the group. Participants will be asked to carefully read the

document and to react to it with a ―Like‖ once they are done. The actual contents of the

document are written below:

 Amper 251

Hi! Welcome to the online focus group! We have a few house rules so read this document

carefully and follow them! Thanks!

Document:

Basic Group Mechanics

 The researcher is the only member allowed to invite people into the group. If you wish to

invite someone else into the group, please inform the researcher first.

 The researcher in the only member allowed to post in the group.

 The group cannot be used for purposes outside the scope of the study (e.g. plugs,

advertisements, etc.)

 Participants are expected to answer (comment on) all questions and engage in discussions

unless otherwise explicitly stated.

 Discussions will be held only after all of you have accomplished these 3 things:

o Read and signed the Informed Consent Form.

o Read the house rules.

o Have agreed to specific days and times of day that you are most active in

Facebook to participate in the discussions.

 Questions will be posted in intervals from every 3 hours to every 2 days, depending on

your co-participants‘ and the discussion‘s pace.

 You may still answer previously asked questions even after new ones have been posted in

the group. Just make sure that things don‘t get mixed up!

Discussion Rules: Grammar, Commenting, and Replying to a Comment

Grammar

 You may use English, Tagalog, or Taglish in answering questions.

 Amper 252

 Use proper, fully-spelled-out words with correct punctuation and capitalization. Do not

use shortcuts (prang gn2) and/or Leetspeak (L1k3 tH15).

Reactions

 You are allowed to react to posts however you want.

 Reacting to comments, however, are a bit different. The ―Like‖ react specifically

signifies agreement to a person‘s comment or point, so use it with caution. The other

reactions do not have special meanings and you may use them however you like.

Commenting

 You may attach files, links, and pictures to your comments as long as you feel it is

relevant to the point you‘re making and to the discussion itself.

 In case you haven‘t answered a post yet, the researcher will tag on the post and notify you

through private message.

 As much as possible, be formal and direct in your answers. Using of emoticons is

allowed, but discouraged.

 Refrain from replying using GIFs or stickers.

Replying to comments

 If you feel that you need to add information, contest, express agreement or disagreement

to your co-participants answer, you may do so by replying to that specific comment. You

can even make it a sub-thread if you‘d like.

 Always be respectful of a person‘s views and opinions when commenting on their

answers. Fighting and/or the use of abusive and inappropriate words will NOT be

tolerated and will result in being kicked out of the group without prior notice.
 Amper 253

Management

After asking their permission, participants will be invited to join the group exclusively by

the researcher. They will be asked to read and fill out the Informed Consent Form, will be

briefed on the house rules through the pinned post (Discussion Mechanics, Rules, and

Guidelines), and will be made to agree on a specific days of the week and times of day when

they will be most active, also known as ―Active Hours.‖ Discussions will only commence after

all of these are accomplished. Unaffiliated participants will be asked to introduce themselves

through an ice-breaker post to make them feel comfortable engaging in discussions with their co-

participants.

The six questions will be posted one-by-one in intervals, from every 3 hours to every 2

days, depending on the pace of a group in answering discussions. Participants may still answer

previously posted questions, so multiple discussions may happen simultaneously in the group.

Once all six questions have been exhaustively discussed, the researcher will formally

close the discussions by posting a message in the group to thank the participants for joining the

discussions.

Rationale and Administration of Questions for Political Party Groups

All questions will be given in the form of a post. Participants will answer to these

questions through the comments section.

Q.1 and Q.2: This question would supply a background of the political party‘s foundation: their

core beliefs. It is a necessary component of forming identity. It will also provide the necessary

descriptions for the context of the situation.

Question 1: What is the political ideology of your political party?

Question 2: What are the advocacies of your political party?
 Amper 254

Q.3: This question characterizes what the political party consciously wants the student body to

view them as. This is also a necessary component of identity.

Question 3: How do you want UP students to view your political party? What do you want to be
recognized for?

Q.4: This question supplies the group dynamics and strategies (Goffman) used by the political

party. It also provides invaluable information for the context of the situation.

Question 4: How does the political party function during election/campaign season?

Q.5 and Q.6: These questions provide information about the relationship between the political

parties and the standard bearer(s). The answer to Question 6 also provides a glimpse into the

group dynamics and strategies used by each political party.

Question 5: During election season, how do you select your standard bearers? What are the
qualities that your candidates must possess in order to be chosen as the standard bearers?
Question 5a: (Optional) Are your selected standard bearers required to fully agree to your
political party‘s ideology/advocacies?
Question 6: Are your standard bearers constantly trained and rehearsed for speeches, interviews,
and room-to-room (RTR) campaigns?

Rationale and Administration of Questions for Unaffiliated Student Groups

Q.1 and Q.2: This question assesses the existing bias of the unaffiliated student participants and

predicts their political leanings even before the main question that asks it. This allows the

researcher to prepare herself for any additional questions that may be asked through the course of

the FGD. Participants will answer these questions through the comments section.

Question 1: What are your advocacies? Please state as many as you like.
Question 2: What is the political ideology that you subscribe to? If you‘re not sure, please check
this link for reference: http://www.quick-facts.co.uk/politics/ideologies.html
 Amper 255

Q.3: The information from this question will be used to characterize each political party

according to the perception of their constituents, which contribute in part to their whole identity.

Participants will answer the question through the comments section.

Answer format:

Alyansa

[answer]

STAND UP

[answer]

KAISA

[answer]

Question 3: Please give a description of each political party based on your

experiences/observations of their activities during and outside the election/campaign season.

Q.4: Answers to these questions, especially from ―why?‖ may provide predictions/parallels to

the politeness strategies candidates from each specific political parties usually use. For example,

qualities that might come up such as ―aggressive‖ or ―inclusive‖ can be associated to strategies

such as ―bald-on record‖ and ―asserting common ground‖, respectively. Participants will answer

these questions through the comments section.

Answer format:

Agree: [political party]

[Reason]

Disagree: [political party]

[Reason]

Question 4: Of the 3 main political parties in UP Diliman (Alyansa, KAISA, and STAND UP),
which of the 3 do you prefer/agree with/lean toward most? Which do you disagree with/distance
yourself from the most? Why?
 Amper 256

Q.5: This question attempts to provide further descriptions of UPD‘s election season through the

perception of the unaffiliated voters. They offer a more objective opinion of how the election

season goes about than affiliated students. Participants will answer the question through the

comments section.

Question 5: How do you feel/what do you think about UPD politics during election season?

Q.6: Administered in the form of a poll, this question validates the researcher‘s assumption that

the Philippine Collegian‘s special election coverage is popular even amongst unaffiliated

students. This also confirms the publication‘s influence on the voter‘s opinion and, by extension,

the overall result of the elections. Giving a reason(s) for their answer is optional.

Question 6: Do you read Philippine Collegian‘s ―Go Out and Vote‖ special during campaign
season? Do you watch the videos uploaded on Youtube and/or Facebook? Do you do both?
 Amper 257

APPENDIX G

TRANSCRIPTION OF ONLINE FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

Unaffiliated Students’ Online Focus Groups

The following section contains the answers of the participants from Online Focus Group

1 (OFG1) and Online Focus Group 2 (OFG2). All the names of the participants have been

changed for confidentiality. Answers are arranged in order of who answered first (per group).

Question 1: What are your advocacies (e.g. LGBTQ rights, mental health awareness, Marcos not
a hero, no to extrajudicial killings, genuine agrarian reform, free and quality education, etc.)?
Please state as many as you like.

Answers
Mara (OFG1): LGBT+ rights, mental health, women empowerment, genuine democracy, stop
ejk, free education for all

Queenie (OFG1): Free and quality education, stop the killings, press freedom, no to anti-poor
policies, women's rights

Wednesday (OFG1): Defend democracy, women's right, pro-poor policies (push for
socioeconomic equality)

Xenia (OFG1): Women empowerment, LGBT rights, free education for all, mental health
awareness, no to political dynasty.

Heather (OFG2): it took me a while to answer this because I can‘t really point to any specific
advocacies, but I also don‘t want to say that I have none. Since I just read the critical theory
section of my IR reading, I came to the realization that I often feel strongly when the issues
victims of capitalism and neoliberalism face come up. for instance, neoliberal thought have
charted the fates of many third world countries, often leading to programs and policies devasting
to the majority of the population—ordinary people. there are also those whose opportunities and
choices are severely limited because of the nature of capitalism and how it creates and
perpetuates inequalities. there are more ways through which capitalism affects individual lives
but enumerating them all would take too long. however, I do realize that saying that my
advocacy is that I am against capitalism and neoliberalism seems a little too broad and vague. but
if we ARE speaking of advocacies as something that we feel strongly about, then that would be
my ‗advocacy‘.
 Amper 258

Keith (OFG2): As for my advocacies, I advocate especially against extrajudicial killings and
against Marcos. I firmly believe that the current administration's actions when it comes to it's war
on drugs is not only ineffective, but also disproportionately affects the impoverish. Furthermore,
I also believe that there is huge problem with fake news in the country, where misinformation
and blatantly false information is easily spread.

Jasmine (OFG2): So for one, I really advocate for LGBTQ rights. I'm also a feminist which is
why I also seek to empower women especially those who have been victims of abuse. I believe
Marcos is not and will never be a hero and should be removed from the libingan ng mga bayani.
Extra judicial killings should be stopped there has been to much bloodshed. As a preschool
teacher, I advocate for equal, affordable and quality education from primary to tertiary levels. 

Lara (OFG2): Sorry for not answering immediately… For me, it's against extrajudicial killings.
I just cannot fathom how the government believes that this is the solution to the problem on
drugs. Everytime I read or hear news about these killings, I just cannot imagine how the people
in the government think that it is through this method that they can solve our problems.

Question 2: What is the political ideology that you subscribe to? If you‘re not sure, please check
this link for reference: http://www.quick-facts.co.uk/politics/ideologies.html

Answers
Queenie (OFG1): [REAL] Democracy

Mara (OFG1): Nationalism and democracy

Xenia (OFG1): Democracy

Wednesday (OFG1): Hello! Kailangan po ba based sa categories sa link? If not, I identify

myself as democratic socialist po.

Jasmine (OFG2): Egalitarian :))

Heather (OFG2): online tests have always deemed me a socialist, so I‘ll go with that :))

Keith (OFG2): Liberal

Lara (OFG2): Egalitarian. Sorry for not answering immediately.

 Amper 259

Question 3: Please give a description of each political party based on your

experiences/observations of their activities during and outside the election/campaign season.

Answers
Mara (OFG1):
Alyansa
Burgis. Issue-based mag-isip, never class-based. Branded na kalaban ng STAND. Nirered-tag
ang stand. Sinisiraan ang stand lalo na on a college-level (halimbawa sa CAL), pero mostly
dinadaan ang mga black prop sa orgs at individuals.

STAND UP
Nagpapatakbo ng mga bagong recruit lang kapag election. Pina-parrot lang ang mga ED na
binibigay sa kanila pero iilan lang naman talaga ang nag-aaral at kritikal mag-isip. Mayabang,
minsan feeling entitled din. May mga miyembro ring peti burges ang lifestyle at tingin nila ay
"cool" magpaka-"woke"

KAISA
Madalas missing in action. Election lang nakikita. Nananalo lang ang candidates nila kasi
magaling sila as individuals, hindi dahil sa Kaisa. Malapit sa STAND ang mga stand nila sa mga
issues kaya nakikita silang weaker version ng STAND.

Queenie (OFG1):
Alyansa
-Blue
-Alam nilang elitista ang tingin sa kanila bilang isang partido kaya sinusubukan nilang baguhin
ang imaheng ito (tulad na lamang nung nakaraang eleksyon).
-Ingles ang wikang ginagamit sa RTR campaign, ngunit sinubukan na ring gamitin ang Filipino.
-Parang walang "bago" sa mga proyekto; modified versions ang inihahain.
-Sa aking kolehiyo: mas may "involvement" ang mga tao sa mga ginagawa nila (pero minsan
parang ginagawa nila ito para lang "makilala" ng mga tao)

STAND UP
-Pula = radikal
-Overwhelming ang spiels
-Malaking bahagi ng mga speech ang mga isyung kinakaharap ng bansa. (Maganda ito dahil
nakikita yung pagiging updated nila sa mga nangyayari sa bansa kaya lang minsan parang
nawawala na sa "focus" nila ang UP / UP issues.)
-Madalas na nakikita sa mga kilos-protesta
-Aktibo (pero hindi lahat ay "dedikado" sa mga pinaglalaban ng partido).
-Sa aking kolehiyo: paboritong partido
 Amper 260

KAISA
-Dilaw / Yung hindi pula at hindi blue
-"Middle ground"
-"Never heard"
-Sa aking kolehiyo: Wala talaga akong masyadong alam tungkol sa partidong ito dahil wala
silang "branch" sa aking kolehiyo.

Wednesday (OFG1):
Alyansa
Elitista 'yung dating. Sabi nila sosyalista daw sila pero I can't see it. Pinaka-kanan relative sa
ibang parties.
Platforms focus on univ-level issues. Evolutionary socialist.

Stand
Dogmatic. Extreme left relative ibang parties. I don't know kung alam ba talaga ng lahat na
members nila ang ideals nila. Minsan kasi inuulit nalang ang mga sinasabi pero kapag
tinatanong, hindi naman nasasagot ng maayos. Marami sakanila ang revolutionaries
(ideologically). Magaling mag-mobilize.

Kaisa
Hindi nararamdaman. Hindi namomobilize ang members nila. Mukhang hindi consolidated ang
ideology ng party, especially ang mga affiliated na local parties/organizations. Mukhang gitna
relative sa 2 parties. Sosyalista pero hindi rebolusyonaryo.

Heather (OFG2):
Alyansa
- outside elections: wala masyadong activities. may campaigns pero hindi gaanong visible. in
their defense more on lobbying yata ang ginagawa nila kaya hindi kasing visible ng mobs, say,
ng STAND UP and its affiliated orgs.
- during elections: umiingay/mas nagiging physically visible pag eleksyon lang. again, to be fair,
may campaigns naman sila na di gaanong ‗seen‘. pero ayun, hindi maiiwasang maisip ng mga
tao na yung activities/campaigns nila pag eleksyon e dahil lang sa eleksyon, at hindi dahil sa
kung ano mang agenda/goal.

STAND UP
- outside elections: very active and ‗loud‘ (in a good way) kahit hindi eleksyon. ang logic kasi ay
kapag malapit na ang eleksyon, mas magpapa-‗epal‘. pero ayun, napansin ko sa STAND na
consistent naman ang activities regardless of the nearness of the election.
 Amper 261

- during elections: active pa rin sa pagkilos at pagpapakilos, consistent sa kung anong ginagawa
nila outside election season. kaya medyo mas credible talaga pag STAND ang nagsasabi na
―napagtagumapayan‖ nila ang ganito-ganyan kasi makikita mo naman throughout the school
year na may efforts. pero again, this is not to discount yung pag-campaign less visibly ng ibang
partido.

KAISA
- outside elections: same with ALY, di ko sila masyadong nakikita outside of online
campaigns/statements. again, di ko rin alam kasi baka may pagla-lobby naman silang ginagawa,
which is a less visible form of action but (for me) a valid one nonetheless.
- during elections: mas nagiging visible. may joke nga na lumilitaw lang ang KAISA pag
eleksyon.

FOR ALL THREE

in general, I‘d say na during election seasons lahat naman sila ay maingay, in the sense na lahat
ay nagpapapansin sa mga botante. kanya-kanyang gimmick yan. for example, naalala ko last year
yung ALY may pa-board keme kung sa‘n pwedeng isulat ng students yung concerns na gusto
nilang i-forward. tapos a few days later naglabas sila ng plataporma base dun sa mga sinulat sa
pa-board nilang pina-ikot sa kampus. siguro, in general, lahat ng partido ay may kanya-kanyang
pangangampanya ng mga adbokasya sa labas ng election season, pero pag election season na,
mas tumitindi at mas nagbibidahan kumbaga sa mga activities. which for me makes sense.

bilang medyo skeptical sa student council as an institution, masasabi ko na yung experience ko

sa bawat partido during election season ay a lot of ―weh sinasabi mo lang yan kasi tumatakbo
ka‖ or ―di mo ba kayang gawin yang mga sinasabi mong adbokasya kung di ka mahahalal?
necessary ba na manalo ka?‖. basta questions/comments along those lines. so ayun, though I do
have my leanings (towards STAND), ang experience ko talaga of the parties during election
seasons involves a lot of skepticism. consistent since freshie year yung marami akong ina-
abstain.

as for my experiences with them outside election season, wala akong masabi masyado about
ALY and KAISA. kasi ayun nga, any campaigns that they have outside election seasons ay di ko
nakikita talaga. may pakonti-konti online, kabilang na diyan yung maraming statement. pero
physically, wala talaga akong nakikita. on the other hand, madalas akong maka-encounter ng
mga mobs or rallies ng STAND and its affiliates, pati na rin mga RTR. consistent rin yung pa-
ED nila, ganyan. bilang yung boyfriend ko rin ay affiliated sa CSSP branch ng STAND, madalas
siyang nawawala for meetings nila. so ayun, nakikita naman na consistent yung mga activity
nila. hindi yung biglang nagpipeak lang at a certain issue or pag malapit na ang eleksyon.
 Amper 262

Jasmine (OFG2): Alyansa - they're only really visible during election season but during the
whole school year, they don't really do much. To me, they play safe and try to be a bit diplomatic
when it comes to dealing with student's concerns and communicating with the administration.

STAND UP
- vocal, they make every issue their issue, they have educational discussions about the plight of
the masses, they lobby for student's rights. They always have walk outs to the point that it can be
seen as ridiculous by some. During election season they try to sell the pretty faces to get more
votes, they tone down their "agit" characteristic, and they become friendlier and invite people to
their discussion groups. However when they are in power, they cannot decide on what to do first,
what projects really do matter to the students and the students can also see that they may have a
different agenda from what they originally promised to do. To me, they make grand promises
they can't fulfill

KAISA
- balimbing sila. haha minsan activists minsan hindi. Di mo malaman kung ano pinapanigan nila,
if the students or their own agendas din. Sila yung least visible in terms of platforms and actual
activities during the school year. It's like they only show up during elections and never really do
anything after that.

All three have their own strengths and weaknesses as a political party. In CAL I've only seen and
worked with Alyansa and STAND UP, KAISA hasn't been able to penetrate that college so
talagang hindi sila visible sa akin. To be fair sa mga Alyansa from CAL, they were reliable and
worked really well on their projects. For STAND UP, may mga tao na maayos katrabaho at
talagang they embody what STAND UP believes in at may mga taong toxic talaga na mapuna
mo lang ng kaunti galit na sila sayo at sisiraan ka.

Keith (OFG2):
ALYANSA:
Mostly visible during the campaign season. They try to be diplomatic and work with the
administration. I find their stances on issues to be mostly reasonable.

STAND UP:
I find them to be very loud and active regardless of whether or not it's during campaign season.
However I find that the party especially during campaigns to discount and throw shade on other
parties (though all parties do this, I find STAND to do this the most in my experience). Also,
when asked questions during their RTR's or during UPFRONT they tend to beat around the bush
and not really answer the questions being raised. I also find that they do not particularly like to
compromise, especially with other parties. Even if they do have some valid and even good
 Amper 263

points, because of their inability to compromise, they sound too extreme and even ridiculous. An
example of which is their extreme opposition to the Magna Carta.

KAISA:
I cant really say much about KAISA. Similarly to ALYANSA, I find them to be reasonable as
well. Other than that I don't find them to be quite visible

So in summary, I find the most visible party to be STAND. Though their stances and actions
leave a lot to be desired. For me at the very least ALYANSA and KAISA are reasonable though
are not active out side elections

Lara (OFG2): Nothing else to add.

Question 4: Of the 3 main political parties in UP Diliman (Alyansa, KAISA, and STAND UP),
which of the 3 do you prefer/agree with/lean toward most? Which do you disagree with/distance
yourself from the most? Why?
Answers
Wednesday (OFG1): Agree: alyansa
Agree ako na kaya pa ng parliamentary reforms mag-offer ng solution. Of course hindi lang
parliamentary struggle ang kailangan, pero it doesn't mean na PPW ang solution.

Disagree: stand
Hindi ako nag a-agree na PPW ang solution.

Mara (OFG1): Pwede bang pareho akong agree and disagree sa stand?
Agree sa natdem
Disagree sa ppw

Kasi mas neutral kaysa disagree ang nararamdaman ko para sa kaisa at alyansa. Issue-based ako
pagdating sa alyansa, halimbawa sa DRW, agree. Pero ngayon lang ata ako nag-aagree sa kanila
hahahhaha. The rest ng stand nila sa mga issue ay nakukulangan ako

Heather (OFG2): Agree: STAND UP

I find myself agreeing with a lot of the points they make during RTRs, election debates, or
statements. though I don‘t engage in it, I find the most merit in the militant nature of their
activism. I also admire and respect their uncompromising stance on all issues. lastly, I prefer
them over the two parties because they have a concrete and consistent analysis of the issues
 Amper 264

Iskolars ng Bayan and the people face, as well as the root causes of these issues.

Disagree: ALYANSA
I disagree with how ALY seems to think that reforms can make this flawed system better. I‘m
not a big fan of the liberal character of their politics either, which also manifests itself in their
activism.

Jasmine (OFG2): this is so hard to answer...

Agree: Alyansa
- I might not agree with Alyansa's platforms totally but I do see merit in reforms. We cannot
totally change a system by overhauling it, that's a tedious and messy process that can't be done in
one academic year. That's why I agree with lobbying for reforms to help with student policies.
However, they have a shallow understanding of what it means to fight for the rights of others
outside their own context.

Disagree: STAND UP
- I used to like Stand Up's unwavering and unapologetic nature. However, I don't see it as
practical in terms of diplomacy. One also needs to be able to communicate and compromise with
certain policies and that goes against Stand Up's all or nothing belief.

Keith (OFG2): Agree: ALYANSA

Personally I find all parties to be a load of bullshit to be honest. However, I do agree with
ALYANSA's method of working with the system and the administration, lobbying for reforms
etc. They, at least from what I see, tend to be willing to compromise and work with other parties.

Disagree: STAND UP
I have very strong feelings against STAND. To be honest I find them to be quite stupid and
ridiculous. Though what their fighting for is admirable and certainly correct, this marred by their
unapologetic nature and tendency to discredit and attack those outside their own party and those
who do not share their views. Case in point they like Econ and BA students calling us
neoliberal. They tend to throw around and misuse big words and terms attacking certain groups
of students, especially those who have stances contrary to theirs. Further on STAND, even when
you try to talk to them or reason with them, they often sideline issue to something unrelated like
"neoliberalism". They tend to monopolize certain issues, as if their's is the only way. Examples:
free education, marcos not a hero, indigenous people, etc.

Lara (OFG2) Agree: Alyansa

Same with the comments above, I agree with them in the sense that they try to do reforms.
While it is better to abolish the current system and have a new one that will serve the needs of
the people, it is not easy.
 Amper 265

Disagree: STAND
While I admire their continuous support for the minorities, they are pretty close-minded. What I
see is that they think that there is only one way to fight against the system, so they discredit other
people's efforts. They do not see that other people are also trying to help fight against the system.

Question 5: How do you feel/what do you think about UPD politics during election season?

Answers
Queenie (OFG1): It's all about properly projecting a party's good side.
-Each party has a "good side" -- though I am not so sure about the extent of their elaboration
on/exaggeration of their party's accomplishments, achievements, and future plans which they
present during RTR campaigns.
-Election season also gives them opportunity to correct/clarify misconceptions about the party.
And, the atmosphere is very "awkward" (especially when I come across, for example, friends
wearing red and friends wearing blue ).

Wednesday (OFG1): One of the good sides of UP politics compared to nat'l politics is that it is
also based on ideologies and not merely personalistic politics. Maganda na nai-streamline ang
stands ng parties on both univ and natl issues. However, mali na sabihing hindi personalistic ang
politika. Mayroon pa ring nanalo dahil gwapo/maganda or dahil magaling magdala ng sarili. I
guess hindi naman siya completelt nawawala.

'Yung pinaka-iffy ako tuwing eleksyon ay ang role ng frat. Obviously, hindi lang naman parties
ang nagcocompete tuwing eleksyon, fraternities din. And I think ito rin ang nakakabawas sa
pagiging ideology-centered election sa UP. Makikita sa history ng UP politics kung paano
lumilipat-lipat ang suporta ng mga frat sa iba't ibang parties, at kung paano they get to compete
with parties (bilang may sarili silang makinarya at resources). Take the example of JP delas
nieves. Pinapili siya between frat at party. After nun, nagkaroon ng 'rift' b/w his frat ang alyansa.
Mara (OFG1)’s reply to Wednesday (OFG1): Yung kay JP naman may FRV case kasi kaya
siya pinapili

Mara (OFG1): Actually upd politics, to me, is a microcosm of natl politics. Trapong trapo ang
dating (impression) ng mga plataporma sa election. Nananalo ang mga independent kasi sawang-
sawa na ang students sa mga pol parties na mud sliding at black prop lang naman ang alam on
the side, and on the front pa-good shot ang mga sasabihin sa RTRs, minsan pa-witty-han na lang
ng tagline.

Ang iba nananalo dahil sa tulong ng mga fraternities and sororities as machineries. Pati na rin
orgs.
 Amper 266

Recently may mga nagbabanner ng mga issues sa usc councilors pero wala din namang
naramdaman from them, ie paolo sevilla, independent usc councilor na nanalo using mental
health advocacy. Jelaine gan on the other hand ay naramdaman ang effort to make a cleaner upd,
at plus points sa paperless campaign niya. May mga trapo pa rin pero may mga genuine ang
pagkagustong manalo dahil may gustong mangyari.

Nakakadiri yung dumi ng pulitika tuwing election season. Ang nakakapanatag na lang ay ang
pagka-sure na walang dayaan na nangyayari during casting of votes ng students

Xenia (OFG1): Maingay lang na parties for me are yung stand and yung alyansa. Kaya yung usc
councilor na dilaw nagulat ako na nanalo siya. Then afterwards, lalong naging tahimik ang
dilaw. At the same time, laging involve ang frats. Kung baga pataasan sila ng ihi lahat.

Heather (OFG2): I LOVE UPD politics, especially during election season. I enjoy most of all
the drama and all the ―tea being spilled‖, which in my opinion is more fun to watch when you‘re
unaffiliated. however, there are also times when I hate UPD politics during election seasons, and
this is whenever I see how low candidates and parties can go just to undermine their opponents
(e.g. black prop).

Jasmine (OFG2): It's messy. It gets really personal real fast, people just shading each other and
it can be a bit dangerous. I think it's a big waste of money, especially the fliers and posters that
often get ripped off the bulletin boards by opposing parties. It's funny and entertaining to watch
but it can also get frustrating. Especially as someone who used to part of STAND, the moment
you turn away from them they come after you. You pot about your personal beliefs, they tend to
attack people and not the issues. All parties throw black propaganda and people love the drama
of it.

Keith (OFG2): I find that UPD politics during election to be quite the spectacle. It's fun to
watch all the drama to unfold. However it is quite sad and frustrating as well when you think
about it. That the parties that should be representing the rights and beliefs of students sink as low
to to throw around shade and black propaganda

Lara (OFG2): I agree with the comment above that it's messy, especially with all the black
propaganda. It makes me think, what makes us different from the traditional politicians we are so
critical about when we also do the things they do during the university elections.
 Amper 267

Question 6: Poll: Do you read Philippine Collegian‘s ―Go Out and Vote‖ special during
campaign season? Do you watch the videos uploaded on Youtube and/or Facebook? Do you do
both?
If you have any opinions regarding Philippine Collegian's coverage of the elections, if you think
it's still relevant, informative, opinion-changing, or not, please put them in the comments section.

Both: 3
(Heather (OFG2), Jasmine (OFG2), Keith (OFG2))

Watch videos on YouTube and FB only: 5

(Lara (OFG2), Queenie (OFG1), Wednesday (OFG1), Mara (OFG1), Xenia (OFG1))

Read Philippine Collegian's "Go Out and Vote" specials only: 0

Mara (OFG1): Actually napanuod ko lang yung video nila na nagtatanong sa mga party bearers.
Of course dapat alam nila ang kalagayan ng UP ngayon pero generally I think biased naman kasi
ang kule sa stand so it doesnt make any difference.

Jasmine (OFG2): I tend to read whatever posts I can get my hands on. I mostly get updated
online and I like how the Philippine Collegian tries their best to disseminate information online
and through the print. I enjoy the live coverage on the debates the most and the twitter updates.

Heather (OFG2): I still think Kule is relevant and informative. however, I have some
reservations about it being opinion-changing. in my discipline (political science), some argue
that when people, say, read election-related materials or watch election debates, they do not
really do so to have their minds changed. most of the time, people already have a choice in mind,
and only engage in such activities to have their opinions reinforced. it may also be the case that
people do engage in these activities to have their minds changed, but in the end hold on to their
initial choice through some mechanism of internal reasoning.

I have only read/heard of these arguments in passing, though, so do take them with a grain of
salt. 

**************************nothing follows**************************

Political Party Members’ Online Focus Groups

The following section contains the answers of the participants from STAND UP Online

Focus Group (STAND) and KAISA UP Online Focus Group (KAISA), and UP Alyansa Online
 Amper 268

Focus Group (ALYANSA). Some of the names of the participants who have requested to not

show their names were changed for confidentiality, while some also indicated that their real

names be shown. Names that have been changed will be marked with an asterisk (*). Answers

are arranged in order of who answered first.

Question 1: What is the political ideology of your political party?

Answers
Hans Wu* (KAISA): I have not been active in the party for a few years now, but as an alumnus
with some hindsight, I would say the party is firmly on the left.

Zaira Patricia Baniaga (KAISA): Same sentiment with Hans. I firmly believe KAISA is on the
left side of the spectrum.

Jacqueline Hipolito* (KAISA): Left side.

Ted Jose* (KAISA): Nothing else to add. Left. 

Shara Mae Landicho (KAISA): Left 

Josiah Gil Hiponia (STAND): The Student Alliance for the Advancement of Democratic Rights
in UP (STAND UP) is an alliance of college chapters, member organizations, fraternities and
sororities united by the principle that education is a right and the will to struggle for a nationalist,
scientific and mass-oriented education

Jane Salvador* (STAND): STAND UP also believes that the current educational system in the
country is colonial, commercialized, and fascist. Given the repressive education system which
tries to mold us into timid and subservient pawns, it is important that we be conscious and go out
of our comfort zones and regular routines. Thus, STAND UP stands firm that there should be
militancy in advancing the democratic rights and welfare of students.

Militancy means being uncompromising in working to meet our objectives, efficient in the
execution of well-designed strategies and exhaustive of all possible tactics.

Different tactics include petition drives, lobbying, dialogues, forums and other information
dissemination drives, building of broader networks and activities that shake the power holders
such as walkouts, rallies and strikes.
 Amper 269

Militancy allows the oppressed to show its potency as the real majority and biggest stakeholders
(e.g. students in schools, workers in factories and peasants in the countryside).

Neefa Umar* (STAND): Nothing else to add.

Carlo Brolagda (ALYANSA): Loosely, I would say ALYANSA is a Social Democratic party
since it believes in activism that works within the current framework of democratic institutions
with a bias in actively forwarding the cause of the marginalized, oppressed, and powerless
sectors. However, I say loosely because the membership is not strictly confined to those who
believe in the same. Our members believe in ideologies that span the political spectrum and they
are welcome to contribute to discussions within the party especially when it comes to creating
our stands and devising campaigns.

Katrina Fajardo* (ALYANSA): Members are free to identify themselves anywhere on the
political spectrum, and our discussions are open for all opinions but toward a certain goal.

Like what Carlo said, we are for the marginalized, oppressed, and powerless. We‘ve also used
the term ―progressives,‖ as our goals are towards social justice and social progress (not one
without the other).

Anna Santino* (ALYANSA): Nothing else to add.

Karl Bernardo* (ALYANSA): In my case, I believe that ALYANSA has no precise ideology
being followed. As a philosophy graduate, I have seen the party as a community where members
undergo in a democratic process of dialogue. They discuss and debate with each other what their
perspectives are on the different issues of the society to attain a certain synthesis. In an
Aristotelian sense, it's always a process of development. In relation to development therefore,
members start first as neophytes, and as they go on and be involved in that community of
dialogue being reinforced in the party, they soon realize that they always have to side with the
marginalized, opressed and powerless as Carlo Brolagda said, to attain the ideal society that we
are aspiring for. This is what we meant, I believe, with our concept of being progressive. It's
basically not an imposition, but a learning process and development.

Question 2: What are the advocacies of your political party?

Answers
 Amper 270

Zaira Patricia Baniaga (KAISA): Free and accessible education, Climate Justice, Human rights
and civil liberties

Labor and women's rights 

Jacqueline Hipolito* (KAISA): We also forward accessible student services through the USC


Shara Mae Landicho (KAISA): Nothing else to add! 

Karl Bernardo* (ALYANSA): The advocacies that we have are grounded first and foremost
from the answer that I gave earlier. For the community of dialogue being reinforced in our party
be spread to others, the people must therefore be empowered. I believe that our concept of people
empowerment is deeply rooted from our idea of social progress. Empowerment therefore is a
positive output of the interweaving of factors present in the society, some of them are education,
public institutions, civil society, among others. From these factors we get our advocacies from to
achieve a just society. We fight for the increase of budget for education to not just attain free
tuition but lead to an educational system that also considers the other needs of students, such as
their book needs and transportation. We fight for freedom of information not only in the
executive branch of our government, but also in the other branches as well, to serve as a starting
point to promote government transparency and accountability. We fight for a national land use
policy to make sure that there is proper usage of lands, so the landless households of our nation
for example will be helped to be uplifted from the cycle of poverty. If these causes for example
are actualized and continuously sustained, I believe that our party sees that the society is on its
way to becoming just for every person that is part of it. Once society is a conducive environment
for people, I believe that they will all have every opportunity to realize their potentials as
individuals. Again and again, in a philosophical sense, it goes back to Aristotle's process of
change, that life is a continuous development. We may commit flaws in some of our
implementations of these causes, but in the end, we learn from them. We continuously innovate
to attain a just society that makes everyone progress

Carlo Brolagda (ALYANSA): I agree with Karl. I also feel like it's difficult to give a list of all
our advocacies but from top of mind I would say: 1) quality, accessible, and relevant education;
2) transparency and accountability; 3) agrarian reform; 4) human rights; 5) gender rights; 6)
students' rights; 7) basic sectors' rights (workers, urban poor, indigenous people, religious
minorities); 8) national sovereignty; 9) defending democratic institutions; 10) anti-violence; etc.

Katrina Fajardo* (ALYANSA): Nothing else to add.

Anna Santino* (ALYANSA): Nothing else to add.

 Amper 271

Question 3: How do you want UP students to view your political party? What do you want to be
recognized for?

Answers
Jacqueline Hipolito* (KAISA): One of KAISA's flagship camapaigns in climate justice. Mas
dun namin nakikitang mag mamarka kami sa estudyante dahil hindi naman ito nagiging
kampanya ng ibang partido. Pero aside sa campaign, syempre we want to be recognized as a
political organization that organizes and mobilizes students on issues inside and outside the
university.

Shara Mae Landicho (KAISA): Nothing else to add.

Anna Santino* (ALYANSA): Personally, I want UP Alyansa to be known as a formation that

recognizes different forms of activism, and values differing perspectives.

Katrina Fajardo* (ALYANSA): UP ALYANSA aims to be recognized as a leadership

formation that hones leaders who represent the formation's pillars (Progressive Multiperspective
Activism; Academic Excellence; Student Empowerment; and Social Justice and Social
Progress).

ALYANSA's brand of leadership listens, works, and delivers. Like Anna said, we value different
perspectives, and we remain grounded in the purpose of service for the marginalized, oppressed,
and powerless.

Additionally, ALYANSA's brand of activism is open to all different forms, from traditional
means like mass action through rallying and creative protests, to through different art forms, to
lobbying and dialogues and more. We do not impose, nor do we alienate.

Question 4: How does the political party function during election/campaign season?

Answers
Jacqueline Hipolito* (KAISA): Member organizations are consolidated during trainings and
education discussions, kasama na rin ang USC slate, para maramdaman yung kaisahan. Malaki
din ang tulong ng alumni sa pag train (syempre, dahil sila ang pinakamaalam talaga dito) at
ginuguide din nila ang residente sa pagpapatakbo ng kampanya sa eleksyon.
 Amper 272

Question 5: During election season, how do you select your standard bearers? What are the
qualities that your candidates must possess in order to be chosen as the standard bearers?
Answers
Zaira Patricia Baniaga (KAISA): Standard bearers have to be the party line bringers. They
must possess and embody the principles of the party above all else. They must be willing to
motivate their slatemates in times of doubt and be the first one to encourage them to forward
their advocacies.

We value leadership skills, work ethics, political awareness and involvement, and political will
over credentials in choosing our standard bearers.

Jacqueline Hipolito* (KAISA): Nothing else to add.

Shara Mae Landicho (KAISA): Nothing else to add.

Question 5a: Are your selected standard bearers required to fully agree to your political party‘s
ideology/advocacies?

Answers
Zaira Patricia Baniaga (KAISA): Yes, of course. But it is important to take note that the
party's advocacies are always subject to change, depends on how it can cater the marginalized
and the poor sector even more

Jacqueline Hipolito* (KAISA): I wouldn't use the word "required." We have trainings and
education discussions that put us all in the same starting point in approaching issues. We don't
impose. Syempre, in the first place, yung mga taong ni r recruit naman ay more or less may
understanding na sa mithiin na social change and social justice.

Shara Mae Landicho (KAISA): In addition to what Jacqueline said, we share the common
ground naman na dapat pro-poor and pro-marginalized yung advocacies 

Question 6: Are your standard bearers constantly trained and rehearsed for speeches, interviews,
and room-to-room (RTR) campaigns?

Answers
Jacqueline Hipolito* (KAISA): Yes, actually lahat naman ng USC candidates ay nag u undergo
ng rigid training. Specifically, ang speeches ng standard bearers ay from elecomm, or
cinoconsult sa elecomm para ma make sure na cohesive ang linya, messaging at campaign line.
 Amper 273

But standard bearers have some room to improvise naman, and generally, we discuss what they
want to say in front of the public.

**************************nothing follows**************************
 Amper 274

APPENDIX H

UP DILIMAN UNIVERSITY STUDENT COUNCIL CAMPAIGN PERIOD

This section describes and enumerates the activities and events attended by the political

party standard bearers, as well as how the political party functions as a team during the campaign

period. A synthesized version of the unaffiliated students‟ opinions and sentiments toward the

USC election season is also included in this section.

The Campaign Period: Activities and Events Attended by the Standard Bearers

The campaign period starts near the end of the second semester every academic year. For

2013 and 2014, the campaign season lasted through the majority of February. On the following

school year (2015), when the academic calendar shift was implemented that moved the duration

of the school year from June-March to August-May, the campaign season was also moved to

either the last half of March or the beginning of April.

The candidates running for election, especially those vying for seats in the University

Student Council, do a myriad of activities and attend numerous events to maximize campaign

opportunities.

The basic activity candidates engage in to campaign is going from class to class to

introduce themselves to students and to relay some of their advocacies and plans of action if

voted in the position they are running for. Sometimes, with the permission of the professor, the

students are given a chance to ask the candidates questions about more specific issues or even

about a candidates‟ tagline. This activity is known as (going from) room-to-room or, simply,

RTR.
 Amper 275

Figure 25. STAND UP Standard Bearers Ben Te and Shari Oliquino during an RTR.
Photo courtesy of Bea Selina Velasco (2017).

Every year, all candidates running for positions in the University Student Council (USC)

are invited by the Philippine Collegian, the official student publication of UP Diliman, for

interviews that are then published on the yearly election special “Go Out and Vote”. In 2013,

Philippine Collegian started uploading the video recordings of these interviews onto social

media platforms such as YouTube (2013-2015) and Facebook (2016-present). Unlike other

events such as dorm tours and forums (which will be discussed later), the Philippine Collegian

consistently secures the participation of all USC candidates, especially the standard bearers. This

is one of the main reasons why the researcher selected the speeches/transcript of the interviews

from the Philippine Collegian for analysis in this study. The consistent attendance of the

candidates, whether independent or from a political party, is reflective of their regard for the

Philippine Collegian interviews as a critical and important avenue to relay their beliefs,

advocacies, and programs to the greater part of the student body.

 Amper 276

The only other mass media platform owned and operated within the university that

invites political party officials, and sometimes USC candidates for interviews is DZUP, the AM

campus radio station located in the College of Mass Communication‟s Media Center.

Figure 26. (From left to right, top to bottom) KAISA UP, STAND UP, and UP Alyansa
candidates after their video interviews at the Philippine Collegian office. Photos courtesy of the
Philippine Collegian (2017).

Figure 27. (from left to right) Party chairpersons Marlina Carlos (KAISA UP) and Mench
Tilendo (STAND UP) talk about Halalan UPD 2016. Photos taken from DZUP Radio Circle
YouTube videos (2016).
 Amper 277

Figure 28. USC Councilor candidate Tolits Tanaka (3rd person from the left) after a DZUP
program strip during the 2015 elections. Photo courtesy of Samahang Bidang Bida sa DZUP
1602 (2015).

Other events that candidates attend during the campaign season are forums/debate events

and dorm tours. Some of the most popular forums and debate events attended by students are

UPFront and Hot Off the Grill. UPFront is a forum spearheaded by the UP Economics Society in

partnership with over 40 student organizations and local student councils. It is held in the

spacious Cine Adarna at the UP Film Institute. Hot Off the Grill, which is the official miting de

avance of the College of Mass Communication Student Council, also invites a number of

candidates running for positions in the University Student Council.

Figure 29. Political party standard bearers in UPFront 2017.

Photo courtesy of The UP Economics Society (2017).
 Amper 278

Figure 30. Students lining up outside Cine Adarna for UPFront 2017.
Photo courtesy of The UP Economics Society (2017).

Figure 31. KAISA UP‟s USC Councilor candidate Yael Toribio during Hot Off The Grill.
Photo courtesy of the Philippine Collegian (2016).

USC candidates also participate in dorm tours wherein the candidates visit a total of 13

residence halls and answer questions posed by dormers which tend to focus on dorm matters and

issues. These tours are usually organized by the dorm councils of each residence hall. One of the

most popular dorm tours is Kape o USC, which takes place in Yakal Residence Hall. This event

“pits candidates against each other in a battle of wit and speech. The candidates are scored by
 Amper 279

three judges and the two lowest scorers of a round were asked to drink a cup of coffee

(Philippine Collegian).”

Figure 32. UP Alyansa and STAND UP‟s vice chairperson candidates during Kape o USC: The
Dorm Forum at Yakal Residence Hall. Photo courtesy of the Philippine Collegian (2016).

The final event that candidates attend before the campaign period ends is the miting de

avance. This event is the USC candidates‟ last opportunity to present themselves before the

student body to state their mission and plans of action for the next academic year.

Figure 33. UP Alyansa and their supporters during the 2015 USC elections miting de avance.
Photo courtesy of Jeff Crisostomo (2015).
 Amper 280

These are just a few examples of the events and activities USC candidates participate in

during the campaign season where they are given a chance to showcase their political beliefs and

advocacies that form the identity they want to project as a candidate. Throughout the year,

political parties actively make their presence and activities known through social media

platforms and mobilizations inside and outside the university. Refer to Appendix E for a sample

of their Facebook posts.

The Political Party as a Team during the Campaign Period

From the information provided above, it is evident that the UP Diliman elections and the

University Student Council are considered as an important part of a UP student‟s university life.

Naturally, the political parties also treat it as an equally important, if not a more serious matter.

During and immediately before the election season starts, political parties field for candidates

from within their organization and member organizations. Proclamation rallies exclusive to

political party members are organized by party officials to introduce the candidates that will run

under their name.

Figure 34. Vice Chairperson 2016 candidate Vince Liban talking in Alyansa Proclamation Rally.
Photo courtesy of UP Alyansa (2016).
 Amper 281

When asked about how the party selects its standard bearers and what qualities they

possess to be selected, Zaira Patricia Baniaga of KAISA said that standard bearers have to be the

party line bringers. They must possess and embody the principles of the party above all else.

They must be willing to motivate their slatemates in times of doubt and be the first one to

encourage them to forward their advocacies. The political party values leadership skills, work

ethics, political awareness and involvement, and political will over credentials in choosing their

standard bearers.

To confirm Goffman‟s theory of the individual and team performance, where observed

that individuals cooperate with each other toward a group (political party) sanctioned goal and

individual actors (candidates; standard bearers) who perform in front of an audience (student

body) maintain a “front” or a trained “face” also sanctioned by the group, political party

members were asked if the standard bearers are required to fully agree with the political party‟s

ideologies and advocacies.

Baniaga agreed but also stressed the importance of the „fact” that a party's advocacies are

always subject to change, and depends on how it can cater the marginalized and the poor sector

even more.

Hipolito from the same party disclaimed that it is not „required.‟ She explained that they

have trainings and educational discussions that puts them all in the same starting point in

approaching issues. Like what an Alyansa officer said, they do not impose. They added that, in

the first place, the people they recruit more or less have an understanding of the party‟s desire for

social change and social justice.

 Amper 282

Those chosen to run are often gathered in candidates‟ houses to undergo rigorous training.

They live with their co-candidates (a.k.a “slatemates”) to bond, train together (sometimes from

night until dawn), listen to educational discussions, practice their speeches, etc.

According again to Hipolito, member organizations are consolidated during trainings and

educational discussions, including the USC slate, so people would feel united. The alumni of the

organization also help because they are seasoned veterans and they guide the residents when it

comes to organizing and running the campaign during elections.

The political party officials were also specifically asked if their standard bearers were

constantly trained and rehearsed for speeches, interviews, and room-to-room (RTR) campaigns.

Hipolito confirmed that, actually, all of the USC candidates undergo rigid training. Specifically,

speeches delivered by standard bearers are from the Election Committee, or is consulted with the

Election Committee to make sure that their message and campaign lines are cohesive. Standard

bearers, however, have some room to improvise, and generally discuss and brainstorm what they

want to say in front of the public.

These insights further validate Goffman‟s additional observation that when deviances

from the team‟s desires manifest during a performance (i.e. speeches, interviews, etc.),

“disagreements” or criticisms are carried out in the absence of the audience (e.g. training

sessions in the candidates‟ house), where ideological and performance changes can and may be

made without damaging the goals and identity of the team (political party) and the individual

(candidate).
 Amper 283

Students’ Opinions and Sentiments toward UPD Election/Campaign Season

Echoing former UP Diliman Chancellor Caesar Saloma‟s statement, UP students consider

UP Diliman and its politics by extension as a microcosm of what happens in the larger Philippine

society.

Wednesday from the first online focus group said that “one of the good sides of UP

politics compared to national politics is that it is also based on ideologies and not merely on

personalistic politics. It is good that the stands of parties are streamlined in both university-level

and national-level issues. However, it is wrong to say that politics is not personalistic. There are

still candidates who win just because they are good-looking or they can carry themselves well. I

guess the personalistic side of politics does not completely disappear,”

The participants see the campaign season as an opportunity for political parties to rectify

any misconceptions unaffiliated students have of them. However, it is also common practice for

political parties to attack and spread “black propaganda” about their opponents. Heather

mentioned this as the reason why she has a “love-hate” relationship with UPD politics. “I LOVE

UPD politics, especially during election season. I enjoy most of all the drama and all the „tea

being spilled‟, which in my opinion is more fun to watch when you‟re unaffiliated. However,

there are also times when I hate UPD politics during election seasons, and this is whenever I see

how low candidates and parties can go just to undermine their opponents (e.g. black

propaganda).”

The participants often used the words “messy” to describe the elections. One even

referred to it as “a spectacle”. Queenie from the first online focus group also observed that the

atmosphere becomes “awkward” especially when friends support candidates from different

parties: when she sees one friend wearing “red” clothes while the other one wears “blue” clothes.
 Amper 284

In the extreme, the participants expressed their disgust for the dirtiness of politics during

campaign and election season. “It makes me think: what makes us different from the traditional

politicians we are so critical about when we also do the things they do during the university

elections?” Lara from the second online focus group said.

“The only comforting thought is the certainty that the results will not be compromised

when students cast their votes,” Mara added.