See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333037708

President Rodrigo Roa Duterte in the spotlight: The pragmatic factors and
functions of swearing in public discourse

Article in Asian EFL Journal · March 2019

CITATIONS READS

10 10,045

1 author:

Annie Mae CRUDA Berowa

Mindanao State University Main Campus
10 PUBLICATIONS 124 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Annie Mae CRUDA Berowa on 05 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Asian EFL Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2.4, pp. 183-204, 2019.

President Rodrigo Roa Duterte in the Spotlight: The Pragmatic Factors and Functions of
Swearing in Public Discourse

Annie Mae C. Berowa

Mindanao State University, Main Campus
annieberowa@yahoo.com.ph

Bio-Profiles:

Annie Mae C. Berowa is a faculty member at the Mindanao State University, Main Campus in
Marawi City. She is currently pursuing her Doctor of Philosophy in Applied Linguistics degree
at De La Salle University, Manila.

Abstract
Swearing has always been viewed as an offensive use of language and yet, many people are still
found to frequently swear both in formal and informal contexts just like in the case of President
Rodrigo Roa Duterte of the Philippines. The presence of swear words in different societies and
languages shows that this intriguing and multifarious language phenomenon have been prevalent
in real-life discourse (Dynel, 2012). The act of swearing is assumed to have become possible as it
may serve different communicative functions. This paper examined the use of swear words of
President Duterte in his public speeches which were delivered during the first 100 days of his
administration to discover the pragmatic factors and functions of his swearing behavior. In the
analysis of the data obtained, numerous swear words were found in the speeches which appeared
to be influenced by the topic, the speaker-listener relationship and the socio-physical setting.
Furthermore, President Duterte’s swearing behavior tend to perform various pragmatic functions:
express emotions, name-calling, anaphoric, intensifying and solidarity-building. In the end, this
investigation illustrates that swearing is not always undesirable as it is also linguistically
meaningful.
Key words: President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, swearing, pragmatic factors, pragmatic functions
Introduction
Language is used to communicate thoughts, ideas, feelings, and emotions. It is highly contextual
as there are communicative expressions that may be relevant to some people who belong to certain
linguistic groups but not to others. As such, in intercultural interactions, the ability to effectively
communicate is of great importance (Rillo & Alieto, 2018). In this case, the study of pragmatics
is very relevant as it provides meaning and understanding on how language is used in the different
contexts (Yule, 1996). One of the most interesting aspect in the study of languages is the existence
of swears. Fagersten (2012) maintains that each language has its own form of swear words that
characterize a special occurrence in linguistics since they perform insignificant semantic role but
are found to be socially meaningful.
Swear words, also termed as epithets, profanity, curse words, bad words, dirty words, cuss
words, expletives, four-letter words, obscenities, blasphemy, rude language, taboo language,
vulgar language or bawdy language, are usually associated with taboo spheres like sex, excretory
functions, and religion (Fagersten, 2012). These words are found to be offensive, inappropriate
and unacceptable in particular contexts, and those who swear are perceived to be anti-social,
untrustworthy and incompetent (Cavazza & Guidetti, 2014).
However, several studies have shown that swearing can also bring positive outcomes in
communication depending on the context and the function it performs. Jay (2009) argues that even
in public domain, swearing has become a common conversational practice. The use of swears is
believed to strengthen the public discourse as it characterizes the informality of the event, and it
creates friendly relationship with the listener that fosters social connections (Wajnryb, 2005 as
cited in Cavazza & Guidetti, 2014). This is especially true when swearing is non-propositional as
it is unintentional, unplanned and uncontrollable (Jay & Janschewitz, 2008). The precise purpose
of non-propositional swearing is to incite reactions of solidarity, considered to be a politeness
strategy, to promote group membership and common ground, and to create humor (Dynel, 2012).
In political communication, the use of swear words during campaign enhances the perception that
the candidate is an “everyday man” which suggests informality and friendliness to the audience
that in turn, provides positive impression about the candidate (Barisione, 2009 as cited in Cavazza
& Guidetti, 2014).
One of the most influential and controversial public figures in the political arena both
locally and internationally, who is also known for his swearing behavior, is President Rodrigo Roa
Duterte of the Republic of the Philippines (Casiple, 2016). President Duterte is an interesting figure
who promotes political actions that do not conform to conventional political conduct, and to
personal and moral norms as dictated by the society (Glova, 2016). As a rhetor, President Duterte
delivers unconventional speech to communicate his unique political approach. It is natural for him
to use incessant swearing and intermittent explosions of expletives even in public domain as this
has been his strategy, an unconventional political style which is demonstrated by profanity-laced
tirades (Curato, 2016).
According to Casiple (2016), the swearing and cursing of President Duterte is understood
as part of a populist appeal that disregards political correctness and appropriate civilized behavior
in favor of aggressive language use to disparage criminals, drug dependents, as well as organized
crime, and the bureaucrats who either protect, fund, and/or benefit from illegal engagements which
is referred to as a populist democracy phenomenon. The targets of the swearing of the president
are often the local political elites, the church leaders, and the various world leaders who are
perceived by him to have done nothing to address the pressing socio-economic and socio-political
issues, in addition to problems on personal safety and security. These issues range from the ever-
increasing gap between the rich and the poor, the high crime rates, and the drug trade.
Nonetheless, it is imperative that leaders must use the right language (Montejo, 2018), and
the language of world leaders must be of a controlled tone since peaceful relations among states
in an anarchic setting (the absence of a world government) can only be achieved through the
primacy and institutionalization of ideas, norms, beliefs and identities or some other interpretive
filter through which people perceive the world (Parsons, 2010). Actions are structured by meanings
that people develop to interpret and organize their identities, relationships, and environment. State
actions constitutive of foreign policy must be of a diplomatic tone since the regional arrangements
and accepted international norms of diplomacy have already been institutionalized through our
accession to international legal instruments that are supposed to have the force of law.
The conflict between the concepts of an ideal national leader in terms of language use, who
is the face of the entire nation in the global stage, and the swearing behavior of President Duterte
encouraged the researcher to conduct this study to understand the factors and the functions behind
this linguistic behavior. The study looked into the pragmatic factors, also termed as contextual
variables (Jay, 2000), that may have influenced the president’s use of swear words and the
functions they perform.
1.1 Review of Related Studies
Rodrigo Roa Duterte is the 16th President of the Republic of the Philippines who earned
more than 16 million votes during the May 9, 2016 presidential elections (Curato, 2016). He is
dubbed by the Philippine Daily Inquirer as the “trash talking president” for his frequent swearing
in Bisaya, Tagalog and English languages (McCargo, 2016). Such behavior was emphasized
during the presidential campaign when he did not hesitate to curse people even Pope Francis whom
he called as son of a whore. As he won the presidential seat, it was hoped that he would minimize,
if not eliminate, his swearing conduct particularly in public discourse that is considered as very
unbecoming of a statesman. However, occupying the highest position in the country seems to have
failed in stopping the president as he continues to swear in some of his speeches, and in his press
briefing and interviews. But in spite of his bad-mouthing characteristic, President Duterte
continues to enjoy the strong support of the Filipino people (Casiple, 2016).
According to Fagersten (2012), swearing indicates the use of words which are potentially
offensive, objectionable, unacceptable or inappropriate in a particular social context. Moreover,
swear words are highly contextual and apparently, different context have various words that are
considered as bad, foul, vulgar or profane. Jay (2009) provides that swear words in English mainly
place reference on sex such as cunt and blow job, and on those that are reflective of blasphemy or
profanity such as Jesus Christ and goddamn. Additionally, these taboo words include disgusting
objects and scatological referents such as douche bag, crap, and shit, and animal term such as ass,
bitch and pig. Furthermore, swearing extends from racial, gender and ethnic slurs such as dago,
fag, and nigger to physical, psychological or social insults such as lard ass, wimp and retard. The
list of swear words also include ancestral allusions such as bastard and son of a bitch; substandard
vulgar reference such as on the rag and fart face; and offensive slang such as tit run and cluster
fuck.
In the context of the Philippines, a number of swear words are used by Filipinos in various
forms. Aside from the English terms such as bullshit, or shit, there are sixteen (16) other frequently
used swear words by Filipinos who belong to different ethno-linguistic groups (Laureta, 2015):
Hudas, putang ina (with variants tangina, taena, anak ka ng puta, puking ina, kangina, amputa),
lintik, ulol, gago (with variants gaga, gagi, ogag, kagaguhan), tarantado, buwisit, burat (with
variants nakakaburat and ratbu), kupal, leche (with variant lechugas), ungas, punyeta, hinayupak
(with variants hayop, hayup), pucha (with variants puchanggala, puchangina), pesteng yawa, and
pakshet (with variants pakingshet, pakyu.
As explained by Laureta (2015), Hudas is the term to mean a traitor while putang ina can
be interpreted literally as “your mother is a whore” that can be considered as an equivalent term
to son of a bitch or son of a whore in English. Such expression is meant to show anger, shock,
frustration, joy or surprise. In addition, lintik is utilized to wish someone to be struck by lightning
while ulol can refer to rabid street dogs. However, ulol is often employed to describe someone
who is acting crazy. Gago and tarantado are also considered as swear words in the Philippine
context that illustrates someone who is foolish. Additionally, bwisit means someone is a nuisance
or something brings bad luck. Another is the Filipino term burat which communicates annoyance
to an unfortunate situation or a douche-y person. Included in the list is the term kupal which means
a jerk, while leche refers to someone or something annoying. Furthermore, ungas means ignorant,
punyeta as is used as an expression of agitation or disappointment, and hinayupak to mean
someone acting in an inhumane manner. Pucha has the English equivalent dammit to express
regret. Pesteng yawa, or yawa in Visayan language, is applied to describe someone or something
that cause trouble. Peste in Tagalog means parasite, while yawa in Cebuano is devil. And the last
word identified is the pakshet, or fuck and shit in English that is used to express any emotion.
The use of these swears performs a number of functions depending on the goal of the
speaker in the conversation (Jay, 2006). They can be used to accomplish positive or negative
outcomes in communication both in personal and in interpersonal levels. The negative outcomes
are commonly illustrated in the form of emotional outburst of the speaker that reflects anger,
frustration, joy and surprise (Jay 2009). As Jay (2000) claims, the primary function of swearing is
to signify the emotion of the person in a form of insults or epithets. On the other hand, positive
outcomes are attained when swearing is used in humor and jokes, sex talk, social commentary,
ironic sarcasm, self-deprecation, or in-group slang to build social harmony (Jay, 2009).
Additionally, positive result is achieved when the speaker feels a sense of relief after swearing that
replaces physical violence.
Several investigations were conducted on swearing to discover the different pragmatic
factors or social variables that provoke or restrain its occurrence in various communication
contexts as well as the functions of such linguistic phenomenon.
1.2.2 Contextual factors of swearing
In 2004, Daly, Holmes, Newton and Stubbe illustrated how the presence of others is
relevant to the tolerance of swearing in a particular context that made use of 35-hour recorded
conversations. It was found that swearing appears to be connected with in-group closeness since
it frequently occurs in the presence of own team members than when members of the other group
were present.
 Additionally, Jay and Janschewitz (2008) investigated on the pragmatics of swearing which
aimed to build a framework in a cognitive psychological aspect to demonstrate how swearing
differs in terms of communicative function. As shown in the rating, the appropriateness of
swearing depends highly on the contextual variables, on the speaker-hearer relationship, and on
the social-physical setting. Generally, participants hardly swear when they are with people of
higher social status or with someone of the other gender.
1.2.2 The Functions of Swearing
Jay (2000) affirms that swearing expresses the emotional state of the speaker to the
listeners, and it is usually connected with negative emotions to express anger or to release tensio n
or stress. Although, it can also be an expression of positive emotional state just like excitement,
happiness, surprise and enthusiasm. Furthermore, it was found that two-thirds of the swearing
episodes were connected to personal as well as interpersonal manifestations of frustration and of
anger that appear to be its general function. Additionally, swearing is used as put downs and name
calling, such as asshole and bitch, on top of cursing or wishing harm on somebody just like die,
fuck off, and eat shit.
In his subsequent study, Jay (2009) argues that swear words are used to achieve various
communicative purposes. Swearing provides emotional connotation that occurs in the form of
insult or epithets that is directed to an addressee. The epithets can be an offensive burst of emotion
or phrase such as fuck or holy shit to communicate anger, frustration or surprise of the speaker. On
the other hand, swearing performs positive social functions in humor, storytelling, sarcasm, social
commentary, sex talk and in-group slang to encourage social harmony.
Moreover, Dynel in 2012 studied on the impoliteness of expletives in anonymous
commentaries on youtube that aimed to address the impoliteness of swear words, and found that
swearing can serve both polite and impolite functions. Polite functions include solidarity-building,
creating common ground and humor. In contrast, impolite functions of swear words include abuse,
power-building and display of aggression.
Likewise, investigation with regard to the pragmatic functions of swearing was also
explored by Wang (2013) in the context of interpersonal talk in everyday conversation. The data
were gathered through recording and transcribing of five naturally-occurring conversations. It was
found that swearing in everyday talk performs pragmatic functions primarily to express emotions,
to provide verbal emphasis, to create solidarity and to show aggression.
 In the political domain, Cavazza & Guidetti (2014) conducted an experimental study on
swearing in political discourse to explore the effects of the profanity of politicians and the role of
gender with regard to their actual and perceived persuasiveness. The study revealed that the
political candidate’s use of swear words add to the perceived informality of the language and
enhanced the general opinion toward the source. The researchers pointed out that the appropriate
use of swear words by politicians actually works as they bring the politicians closer to their
constituents. The study further provides that the positive effect of cursing appears to be applicable
to the entire electorate regardless of the participants’ education, gender and political involvement.
From these related studies, it appears that most of the studies were explored to determine
the functions of swear words in everyday conversation. Also, most of the studies were done to
build the relationship between swearing vis-à-vis age, gender, social status or social distance
between the speaker and the listener through the use of hypothetical situations. Less is known, as
far as the researcher is concerned, as to the functions and contexts that provoke swearing in
authentic and natural situations. Moreover, no studies yet have explored on the swearing behavior
of a current public official, more so of a sitting president. This is especially true in the context of
the Philippines where it seems that no studies yet have been explored to discover the functions of
swear words especially in the public discourse of a national political leader.

1.2 Research Questions

The present investigation specifically tried to answer the following questions.
1. What are the swear words used by President Rodrigo Duterte in his public speeches?
2. What are the pragmatic factors involved in the public discourse of President Duterte that
evoke his swearing behavior?
3. What are the pragmatic functions of the swear words used by the subject in his public
speeches?

Methodology
2.1 Research Design
This study employs qualitative research method through discourse analysis in order to
discover the different pragmatic factors and functions that encouraged the swearing of President
Duterte. This study used the terms swear words, swears and swearing to emphasize the purpose of
this research and to achieve semantic consistency.
2.2 The corpus
This research used the transcripts of the public speeches of President Rodrigo Duterte in
the first 100 days of his administration from the official government website of the Presidential
Communications Operations Office (2016). In particular, this study examined the public speeches
delivered before the armed personnel in the Philippines that included the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP), the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Citizen Armed Force
Geographical Unit (CAFGU) from July 1-October 10, 2016 which generated a total of twenty-one
(21) speeches. The researcher narrowed the samples to include only the speeches delivered in not
less than twenty (20) minutes to provide consistency in terms of the length of time in order to avoid
any form of biases during the analysis. This choice of data was made because of the following
reasons. First, it is assumed that well known groups such as policemen and soldiers are explicitly
identified to regularly swear (Jay, 2009). Thus, the armed personnel in the country are considered
as the appropriate type of communication participants in the discourse of President Duterte who
may encourage his swearing behavior which is very important to achieve the goals of this study.
Second, it seems that the president sees the AFP and PNP as his partners for the “change” that he
promised to the Filipino people: to bring peace in Mindanao, to restore law and order in the society,
to eliminate drugs and to end the corruption in the government (Villegas & Manzano, 2016). With
all these, the communicative context appears to have provided all the possible factors that may
evoke swearing on the part of the subject: topic, speaker-listener relationship, and socio-physical
situation. Although the main source for the analysis of this research was the transcribed format of
the president’s speeches, the researcher also watched and listened to the video-recorded forms to
better understand the context of swear that may occur.
2.3 Coding and analysis of data
The coding of swear words used was based on the list provided by Laureta (2015) on the
Filipino swear expressions. The researcher also referred to the claims made by Jay (2009) on what
constitute as swear words that include sexual reference, blasphemous and profane words,
scatological reference, animal name, racial, ethnic and gender slurs, psychological and social
insults, ancestral allusions, substandard vulgar reference, and offensive slang. The coded swear
words were then tabulated, calculated and converted to percentage with the formula: %=f/nx100.
 Additionally, the pragmatic factors that prompted the swearing of the president were
identified and coded based on the assumptions made by Jay (2000) which include the topic, the
speaker-listener relationship, and the socio-physical setting.
As regards swearing functions, the coding was based on the assertion that swearing is used
primarily to express emotions (Jay, 2000; Jay & Janchewitz, 2008). Other swearing functions were
coded with reference to the previous studies carried out in relation to this topic as presented in the
review of related literature. Furthermore, the researcher had to get an inter-raters to see if the
coding and analysis were appropriate based on the aims of the study. The inter-rater is from
Mindanao who speaks Cebuano, Filipino and English, while the other one is from the National
Capital Region who speaks Filipino and English. The researcher got two inter-raters from different
socio-linguistic backgrounds to validate whether the swear words coded are also considered as
such from the perspective of other people, and whether the identified factors and functions are
accurate.

Results and Discussion

3.1 Swear words used by President Duterte in his speeches
Based on the analysis of the data gathered for this research, an overwhelming number of
swear words were found in the public speeches of President Duterte delivered before the armed
personnel in the country. The swear words putang ina, including its variants like tang ina and puta,
are found to be the most frequent occurrence as presented on Table 1.
Table 1

Swear words used by President Duterte in public speeches

Swear Words f %

Putang Ina/Tang Ina/Puta 57 55.9

Buang 17 16.7
Gago 9 8.8
Yawa 6 5.9
Bull Shit/Shit 5 4.9
Tarantado 2 1.9
Ulol 2 1.9
Loko-loko 1 1.0
Buwisit 1 1.0
Hayop 1 1.0
Pulpol 1 1.0

TOTAL 102 100%

Table 1 shows that putang ina, along with its variants tang ina and puta, is found to be the most
prominent form of swear used by President Duterte in his public speeches comprised more than
55% of the total percentage of the swear expressions. The result appears to support the observation
made by Curato (2016) who expressed that it is natural for President Duterte to use incessant
swearing and intermittent explosions of expletives even in the public domain for this has been his
strategy and this reflects his unconventional political style. Moreover, this finding strengthens the
claim made by Jay (2000) that swearing in public is a frequent act. These swears found in the
speeches of President Duterte also seem to corroborate with the observation made by Cavazza &
Guidetti (2014) that this linguistic phenomenon is common among politicians to reinforce the
perceived informality of the language, and enhanced the general opinion on the source that in
return, brings the politicians closer to their constituents.
Hence, the result appears to dispute the assertion that swearing is unexpected in a
communicative interaction that involves participants of unequal status, and that swearing is very
unlikely for someone who is in authority (Jay & Janschewitz, 2008). In the case of President
Duterte, his political authority and power over his audience did not inhibit his swearing behavior.
3.2 Pragmatic factors evoking the swearing behavior of President Duterte
3.2.1 Topic
In the analysis of the data, there are topics which tend to stimulate the swearing behavior
of the president. First, it seems that the swearing behavior of President Duterte is encouraged when
he talks about illegal drugs in the country, including drug dependents, drug pushers and drug
protectors. One must remember that during the presidential campaign, he already flaunted his top-
most agenda if he wins, that is, his war against drugs and the severe punishment waiting for those
who are involved into such illegal activity. And as he won the presidency, the first agenda of the
administration under his leadership is for the law enforcement officers to pursue drug dependents,
pushers and drug lords, to call on them to surrender, and to shoot them if they resist arrest (Casiple,
2016). His strong campaign against drugs can be seen on how he despised drug dependents which
was emphasized through the use of swear in following extract.
Extract 1

“You know, the cost of being an addict. Kapag may anak ka, tang ina! Pagka
nagkaproblema ka sa anak mo, alam mo wala, dysfunctional ang pamilya, sige na
yan away.”
(You know, the cost of being an addict. If you have a child (who is a drug
dependent), tang ina! When you have a problem with your child (being an addict),
there is nothing that you can do (and just face the consequence): dysfunctional
family, frequent fights)

Still on the topic about drugs, the swearing of the president is not only thrown to drug users
but more so, to drug pushers and government officials who turned out to be drug protectors, and
played key roles in the proliferation of the illegal-drug business in the country.
Extract 2

“Gusto niyo kunin ninyo ‘yung listahan kay Bong. Puta! Sinira talaga ng droga ang–
Not only destroyed the politics, nag narco-politics na tayo. “
(If you like, you can get the list from Bong. Puta! Drugs really destroyed the
(country)—not only destroyed the politics, (what’s worse) we were on narco-politics)

In the context of this speech, President Duterte used the word puta as he strongly expressed
how politics in the country has turned into narco-politics. It appears that the issue on the
involvement of local and national politicians in drug business invites swearing. In line with this,
the president also swears when his speech contains narratives in which he constructs himself in
the context as if he had been a victim of illegal drug related crimes and of the injustices made by
narco-politicians. There were instances on his speech when he provided depiction of himself to
construct and reconstruct lived experiences of the victims of drugs that resulted to dependence,
corruption and crimes. It appears that in order to incite reaction or to grab absolute attention from
the listening public, swearing is a strategy which reflects not just the linguistic inclination of
Duterte but more so his avowed abhorrence to illegal drug use and business.
Aside from his war against drugs, the president also promised to get rid of corruption
practices and corrupt officials in the government, and to reduce red tape in three to six months
(Curato, 2016). That could probably explain his swearing as he talked about corrupt officials in
the government. One of the most frequently mentioned corrupt government officials, from the
perspective of Duterte, is Senator Leila De Lima who was once the chairperson of the Human
Rights group in the Philippines and the former Secretary of the Department of Justice.
Extract 3

“De Lima was financed by drug money inside the National Penitentiary. Kung ang
presohan mo mismo, putang ina factory na ng drugs, tapos may mga tao pang magsabi
na like Obama, pontificating.”
(De Lima was financed by drug money inside the National Penitentiary. If the prison
itself, putang ina, is already a factory of drugs, the nerve of these people to preach like
Obama, pontificating)

From this excerpt, the president discussed explained how Senator de Lima,
portrayed as a corrupt public servant, was financed by drug money from the National
Penitentiary during her senatorial campaign for the May 2016 national elections. Prior to
the presented extract, the president expressed how de Lima frequently complained and
criticized his approach in resolving the drug problem in the country and how the senator
did nothing to find solution to the increasing drug problem in the country during her seat
as Justice Secretary. Such topic triggered his use of putang ina as he narrated how the
National Penitentiary became the drug factory in the country.
Additionally, swear words were reflected on how the president dealt with criticisms thrown
against him by the members of the media, by the Human Rights group, and by the politicians in
the country and abroad. It seems that President Duterte gets back to his critics in his public
discourse. The most controversial swearing remarks made by President Duterte were thrown to the
former President of the United States, Barrack Obama, to the United Nations and to the Europian
Union who asked him to stop his anti-drug war. The interference of these world leaders to the
internal affairs of the Philippines as a sovereign state was perceived by President Duterte as
inappropriate and as an insult.
Extract 4

“Si Duterte, sabi doon sa EU, Europe, pinaka ‘unpopular’ daw ako. Gago! Tapos na
ang eleksyon, nanalo na ako dito.”
(Duterte, as mentioned in the EU, Europe, is allegedly the most unpopular (president).
Gago! Election was already done, I already won here)

In the extract presented, President Duterte expressed that the Europian Union (EU) labeled
him as unpopular in which he responded by calling the organization as gago. In one of the
speeches, the president talked about Human Rights Organization in the Philippines, previously
chaired by Senator Leila De Lima, which seems to evoke swearing. The president expressed how
the said organization continuously portrays him negatively because of his bad-mouthing character.
Excerpt 5
“There is no law at all. Mind you Human Rights Commission tarantado pala kayo
eh. There is now law. There has to be a law, do not keep on complaining about my
mouth because my mouth is not the problem, it cannot bring down a country but it
can erase a generation of bright-thinking Filipino.”
(There is no law at all. Mind you Human Rights Commission you fools (tarantado).
There is now law. There has to be a law, do not keep on complaining about my
mouth because my mouth is not the problem, it cannot bring down a country but it
can erase a generation of bright-thinking Filipino)

The excerpt presents the complaints made by the Human Rights group about his bad-
mouthing or his swearing behavior. The president retorted to the Human Rights group by calling
its members as tarantado to complain about his bad mouthing since there is no law that prohibits
such means of expression. The president added that it is not his mouth which is the problem as his
mouth cannot bring down the country but instead, it can erase a generation of bright-thinking
Filipino.
Hence, it can be deduced that there are topics that encourage the swearing behavior of
President Duterte which is manifested through his use of putang ina, tang ina, taranatado, bull
shit, buang, and gago among others. It can be assumed that his constant swearing about certain
themes, particularly issues that involve criminals, corrupt officials and those who are enslaved by
prohibited drugs, is a conscious effort to achieve his communicative purpose. This shock and awe
method of Duterte through swearing appears to address and to reach a much wider audience, the
masses, whose use of profane language is much more widespread (Dynel, 2012). The swearing
and cursing of President Duterte is understood as part of a populist appeal that disregards political
correctness and appropriate civilized behavior, in favor of aggressive language use to disparage
criminals, drug dependents, as well as organized crime, and bureaucrats who either protect, fund,
and/or benefit from such engagements. Casiple (2016) refers to this phenomenon as a populist
democracy.
3.2.2 Speaker-listener relationship
Previous researchers have identified different groups of people who seemed to frequently
swear. As asserted by Patrick (1901 as cited in Vingerhoets et al., 2013), swear words are
commonly used by uneducated individuals, laborers, sailors as well as criminals and soldiers.
Furthermore, Jay (2009) argued that well known groups which include the policemen and soldiers
are explicitly identified to regularly swear. These claims made by previous researchers could
probably explain the numerous swearing in the public discourse of President Duterte before the
armed personnel in the country which include the Armed Forces in the Philippines (AFP), the
Philippine National Police (PNP) and Citizen Armed Force Geographical Units (CAFGU). As
explained, gender of the group members influence swearing and that, swearing appears to be more
frequent in the occupational groups chiefly occupied by men (Jay & Janchewitz, 2008). There is a
strong link between men and their swearing behavior as this trait is associated to masculinity (Jay,
2000). With this, President Duterte, being a man, could have found in-group closeness with the
members of his audience based on gender (Daly et al., 2004) that triggered the use of swear words.
3.2.3 Socio-physical setting
In terms of the physical and social setting of the discourse, it was claimed by Mercury
(1995) that swearing in private and informal settings is more tolerated than in public and formal
settings. However, the case of Duterte provides otherwise as it seems that his swearing behavior
cannot be prevented based on the formality or informality of the event. As observed, he does swear
before his audience without regard to the formality or informality of the occasion particularly,
when he delivers his speech without reading his prepared message.
3.3 Pragmatic functions of the swear words used by President Duterte
3.3.1 Express emotions
In the examination of the speeches of President Duterte, it seems that in some occasions,
swearing functions as an expression of his emotions. The swear words became an instrument to
express his strong feelings brought by anger, disappointment or irritation as found in the following
excerpt.
Excerpt 7

“When I was the mayor – kaya tignan mo ang Davao maganda; patay naman lahat
pero maganda. [Laughter] Kamatayan … putang-inang mga iyan! Buwiset talaga!
Sinabi ko sa kanila talaga, kriminal, umalis kayo dito. Mga durugista, umalis kayo
dito.”
(When I was the mayor (of Davao)—you see that Davao is a beautiful (place). That
is because everybody is already dead but that’s wonderful. (Laughter). Death…
they are son of a whore (putang-ina). Buwiset, indeed! In fact, I told them,
criminals, leave this place. Drug addicts, leave this place)

In the given extract, the president was describing an event which took place when he was
still the mayor of Davao City. He narrated that he told criminals and drug addicts to leave the city.
And the use of putang ina and bwisit appears to reinforce his strong dislike to these people.
Hence, the results appears to support the assertion made by Jay (2000) that the primary
function of swearing is to express the emotional state of the speaker. The results illustrate that one
of the swearing intentions of President Duterte is to express his anger, disappointment, or irritation
toward his critics which involve the media, local politicians and international organizations. The
swear words serve as a sign of his emotional state and anger, and act as a warning of possible
threat to his target recipients.
3.3.2 Name-Calling
It was also found that swears used by President Duterte served a name-calling function in
some situations to insult and to negatively describe the target individuals or groups as shown in
the following excerpt.
Excerpt 7

“Isa pa rin itong buang. Tang-ina! Ang tawag ko, Ban Ki-Sun.”
(Then there is this another buang (crazy). Tang-ina! I call him Ban Ki-Sun)

This predicative occurrence of the name-calling buang provides description about the
attitude of the president toward his target addressees. He mentioned the 8th Secretary-General of
the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, whom he charged to be meddling into the internal affairs of the
Philippines whom he called as buang. With this, the word buang provided a name-calling function
to illustrate the stupidity of his targets and to demonstrate his perception of their crazy behavior.
 3.3.3 Anaphoric
Some of the swearing instances of President Duterte tend to achieve an anaphoric
function in which swear words were used to refer back to the word or to the person
mentioned in the earlier part of the speech.
Excerpt 8

“Sabi ko sa mga mayor doon, I’ll give you 24 hours or I will kill you. O, agad-agad
sa Crame. Nawala ang pagka-superstar ng mga putang ina, bull shit.”
(I told the mayors, I’ll give you 24 hours or I will kill you. Then they hurriedly went
to Crame. The superstar status of these putang ina, bull shit was lost)

In this excerpt, Duterte talked about his order to the mayors who were found to have
involved into drugs to go to the Camp Crame within 24 hours to explain themselves or if not, he
will kill them. In his narration, the mayors hurriedly went to the Crame and described them to have
lost their super star status of those putang ina, bullshit. The putang ina serves an anaphoric function
as it refers back to the word mayors.
3.3.4 Intensifying
It looks like some of the swear words used by the president aimed to intensify his public
discourse. The swears which provide intensifying function were found after an adverb or adjective
just like in the following excerpt.
Excerpt 9

“You know why you get a retort from me that’s really bullshit? Because you are
bull shiting us.”
(You know why you get a retort from me that’s really bullshit? Because you are
bull shiting us)

The excerpt shows that President Duterte explained why his critics received bullshit from
him. He continued by saying that it is because his critics are also bullshiting the Filipino people.
The use of bullshit here refers to the high intensity of the adverb really. As previously mentioned
in this study, the swearing of President Duterte heightens emotionally charged narration or
discussion. The intensifying function of swearing emphasizes the significance or the weight of
feelings or attitudes he placed on the discussion. In this case, the President appears to swear to
illustrate the intense or the heightened emotion that he intends to exert in the discussion. In
pragmatics, it is called as utterance force that represents the mood and communicative intention of
the speaker (Wang, 2013). The occurrence of swear words as shown in the excerpts are used as
emotive language which accentuates the emotions being expressed.
3.3.5 Solidarity-building
The list of the various functions performed by swearing include solidarity-building. In
some speeches, President Duterte included stories in which his audience appeared to have
identified themselves with through the laughter it created. The story-telling made by the president
appeared to incite reactions of solidarity, considered to be a politeness strategy, in order to promote
group membership as well as common ground, and to engender humor (Dynel, 2012).
Excerpt 10

“Karamihan sakit ninyo kidney, almost 65 of them, kasi asin lang minsan ang ulam,
basta malunok lang. (laughter) Putang-ina!”
(Most of your illnesses are on your kidneys, almost 65 of you, because sometimes,
you only have salt as viand, just to have something to eat. (Laughter). Putang ina!)

The excerpt presents the speech of the president before the members of Armed Forces of
the Philippines (AFP). He told the audience that he learned about the situation of the 65 members
of the AFP who suffer from kidney problems since generally, the members of the armed forces
would only have salt to pair up with their rice just to have something to eat. The presented situation
was then followed by putang ina which tends to emphasize the miserable situation of the Filipino
soldiers that stimulated laughter from his audience. It appears that the individual members of the
audience laughed about the reality of their lived experiences in the profession that they have
chosen. His listeners seems to have identified themselves with the situation as they were able to
understand the intended humor provided by the president. Humor, as manifested through laughter,
can only be achieved when the listener and the speaker shared the same background, and when
both parties understood the context of the narrative that reflects solidarity among the people
involved in the communication process (Dynel, 2012).
Thus, it looks like humor brought by swearing builds solidarity between President Duterte
and his audience. This reflects the shared knowledge and interests between the speaker and the
hearer through his narratives. Humor here is used to tease the audience and to emphasize to them
that he knows and understands their lives and struggles. Since the president’s humor is generated
from the shared backgrounds, information and interests, this kind of humor builds solidarity. The
solidarity-building function of swearing in the case of President Duterte reinforces the assertion
made by Dynel (2012) that swearing is a manifestation of camaraderie. Furthermore, Jay (2009)
may be right in saying that swearing performs positive social functions through the use of swear
words in delivering stories and in stimulating humor that encourage social cohesion.

Conclusion
The present investigation looked into the swear words used by President Rodrigo Roa
Duterte in his 21 speeches before the armed personnel in the Philippines which include the Armed
Forces of the Philippines, (AFP), the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Citizen Armed
Force Geographical Unit (CAFGU) during the first 100 days of his administration. In addition, the
study tried to examine the pragmatic factors and functions of his swearing behavior. Based on the
results provided in this study, the following conclusions are drawn.
First, the case of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte sustains the observation that swearing has
become a frequent act even in public discourse as shown in the numerous swear words in his
speeches. Moreover, the results dispute the common perception that swearing is not expected from
someone who is in authority, and in situations that involve communication participants with
unequal social status. In the case of President Duterte, who holds the highest government position
in the country, his swearing does not seem to be deterred by his political power and authority.
Second, the study illustrates that swearing in public discourse is greatly influenced by the
topic of the discussion, by the speaker-listener relationship, and by the socio-physical setting. In
the case of President Duterte, it seems that his swearing behavior is triggered by topics that involve
the drug problems and corruptions in the Philippines along with themes about his critics and the
lived experiences of his listeners. Moreover, it appears that his swearing is encouraged by the
members of the audience who are the police, the soldiers and the CAFGU who are known to have
frequently sworn based on the findings made by other researchers. Since the professions of his
audience are mainly occupied by men, it is assumed that his use of swear words tried to boost the
perceived masculinity of his listeners.
Lastly, the swearing behavior of President Duterte seems to be an instrument to express
emotions and provides name-calling, anaphoric, intensifying and solidarity-building pragmatic
functions. The results try show that in order to incite reaction from his audience, or to grab absolute
attention from the listening public, the surge of his emotions carried by the use of tough language
through swearing is a strategy that reflects not only his linguistic inclination but also his avowed
abhorrence toward criminality, delayed justice and the prolific problem of drug use and business
in the country. Additionally, it appears that the president’s use of swear words is provoked by
spontaneity, as he does not read prepared speeches most of the time, and by his emotionally
charged delivery with regard to the urgency of his message about reform, distributive justice and
factual positive change.
As argued, swearing is an utterance of strong emotions, usually expressing a particularly
strong attitude towards a person (Andersson & Trudgill as cited in Vingerhoets et al., 2013). In the
case of President Duterte, such aggressive and emotional rhetoric that are mostly thrown to
unscrupulous bureaucrats, to self-righteous moralistic purists, and to a number of socio-political
issues, is what creates his populist appeal. Furthermore, although swearing in public arena is
something that is unforeseen of a public figure and unexpected of a statesman, the reaction elicited
from the members of the audience in every single speech delivered by the president has created
solidarity among those who identify with the profanity of his humor. It seems that the construction
of membership and social bonding among those who had been marginalized, as well as those who
have been victims of abuses and of various forms of injustice, and the injection of humor through
the utility of swear words in different languages capture only one facet of the imagined community
of President Duterte’s supporters. The instantaneous connection between the president and his
audience in the context of this study, as shown through clapping and laughing, tries to reflect that
it is not the perceived appropriateness that matters to President Duterte rather, it is how he, as
president, identifies as one with the members of his audience, in local parlance, “totoong tao” (a
real person).
Pedagogical Implication
Notwithstanding with its limitations, this research tried to show the importance of
exploring the pragmatic factors and functions of swearing in order to understand that such
linguistic phenomenon should not always be perceived negatively as it fulfills a number of
strategic communicative functions. Thus, language teachers have the responsibility to expose
students to these words and to explain to them the context in which these swears are usually used
and what encourages this linguistic behavior. In exposing students to this linguistic phenomenon,
teachers may be able to teach their students on the proper attitude toward people who swears. One
should not just quickly judge that just because somebody swears, he is automatically labelled as
uneducated, ill-mannered and disrespectful. As what other researchers found, swearing could also
be an instrument to achieve effective communication. On the part of the students, their knowledge
on the existence of these swear words along with its functions may potentially drive them to
unconsciously or consciously adjust their use of emotion-laden words in their everyday
interactions.

References
Casiple, R. (2016). The Duterte presidency as a phenomenon. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 38
(2), 179-184.

Cavazza, N. & Guidetti, M. (2014). Swearing in political discourse: Why vulgarity works.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, (5), 537-547.

Curato, N. (2016). Politics of anxiety, politics of hope: Penal populism and Duterte’s rise to power.
Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 35 (3), 91-109.

Daly, N., Holmes, J., Newton, J., & Stubbe, M. (2004). Expletives as solidarity signals in FTAs
on the factory floor. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 945-964.

Dynel, M. (2012). Swearing methodologically: The (im) politeness of expletives in anonymous

commentaries on youtube. Journal of English Studies, 10, 25-50.

Fagersten, K. B. (2012). Who’s swearing now? The social aspects of conversational swearing.
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Glova, N. (2016). Decoding Digong from a distance: Political rhetorics and mediation of public
persona. Minda News. Retrieved from www.mindanews.com.

Jay, T. (1992). Cursing in America. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Jay, T. (2000). Why we curse: A neuro-psycho-social theory of speech. Philadelphia and

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Jay, T. (2009). The utility and ubiquity of taboo words. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4,
153-161.

Jay, T. & Janschewitz, K. (2008). The pragmatics of swearing. Journal of Politeness Research,
4, 267-288. DOI 10.1515/jplr.2008.013

Laureta, I. (2015). 16 Totally useful Filipino swear words and how to use them. BuzzFeed.
Retrieved from www.buzzfeed.com.

McCargo, D (2016). Duterte’s mediated populism. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 38 (2), 185-190.
 Montejo, H. B. (2018). Personality traits, leadership qualities and English skills of middle-level
managers of the University of Southern Philippines Foundation: A leadership enhancement
program. The Asian EFL Journal, 20 (2), 78-96.

Parsons, C. (2010). Constructivism and interpretive theory. Theory and Methods in

Political Science (3rd ed.). D. Marsh and G. Stoker (ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Presidential Communications Operations Office (2016). Remarks delivered verbally by the Chief
Executive, whether in a formal or informal context, generally before a public assembly.
Retrieved from http://www.gov.ph/section/speeches/

Rillo, R. M. & Alieto, E. O. (2018). Indirectness markers in Korean and Persian English essays:
Implications for teaching writing to EFL Learners. The Journal of English as an International
Language, 13 (2.2), 165-184.

Villegas, B. M. & Manzano, G. N. (2016). Prospects for the Philippine economy under the Duterte
presidency. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 38 (2), 197-201.

Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M., Bylsma, L. M., & Vlam, C. (2013). Swearing: A biopsychosocial

perpective. Psychological Topic, 22 (2), 287-304.

Wang, N. (2013). An analysis of the pragmatic functions of “swearing” in interpersonal talk.

Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatic and Intercultural Communication, 6, 71-79.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: University Press.

Researchers’ Note: This is an original publication which has not been published elsewhere and
is not under consideration elsewhere.

View publication stats