Journal Review 2 : Politeness Strategies and Address Forms Used by Filipino Domestic Helpers in Addressing Their Malaysian Employers

Title	Politeness Strategies and Address Forms Used by Filipino Domestic Helpers in Addressing Their Malaysian Employers
Author	Aries Dahan Gan, MESLMaya Khemlani David, Ph.D.Francisco Perlas Dumanig, Ph.D.
Journal	Language in India Journal
Publication	ISSN 1930-2940 Vol. 15:1 January 2015
Abstract	Politeness is important in any interactionand is consideredsensitive in interactions between interlocutors who have different role relationships. In interactionsbetween employersand employees, role and power relationscome into play. In most conversations,it can be observed that bothinterlocutorsparticularly between employee and employersmaintain their face. However, employeesmay struggle to maintain politeness in order to mitigate face-threatening acts(FTA). In this research,politeness strategies used by Filipino domestic helpers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia are examined. More specifically this research focuseson politeness as seen in the use of addressforms. Twenty(20)Filipino domestic helpers participatedin an interview. The findings showthat Filipino domestic helpers usecertain patterns when communicating with their Malaysian employers. It shows thattheuse of Title (T), Title and First Name (TFN), Title and Last Name (TLN), and First Name (FN) are usedas politeness strategies. It reveals that role relationship, social distance and age influence to such use of address forms. Moreover, the findings also revealthat the address forms used by the Filipino domestic helpers are influenced by the Filipino, Malaysian and Western cultures.
Goals	To know the use of address forms in interactions between Filipino domestic helpers and Malaysian employers.
Problems	It is important to note howpoliteness influences the interaction of people particularly those who come from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds,specifically the occurrence of politeness in relation to address forms. One of the less studied phenomena is the interaction between a domestic helper and employer. In employer-employee interactions,the address terms might be used frequently. This study analyzes how politeness strategies are manifested in address forms used by Filipino domestic helpers when they interact with their Malaysian employers. Due to different linguistic and cultural backgrounds of employers and employees, miscommunication is most likely expected. However, the occurrence of miscommunication can be minimized through the use of politeness strategies such asthe use of appropriate forms of address. The analysis of the politeness strategies,particularly the forms of address used by Filipino domestic helpers will help to uncover how politeness strategies influence the interaction between Filipino domestic helpers and Malaysian employers.
Theories	Politeness is viewed differently in various cultures although Brown and Levinson (1978) claim it to be universal. It can be seen in social interactions across cultures and manifests itself in the language used. Politeness can be seen as a social phenomenon and understood to be culturally bound where people from different cultures may perceive an action or statement as polite or impolite. Consequently, sometimes an act or statement can be considered polite in one culture but impolite in another. Watts (2003:8) explains a discursive dispute of what is polite or impolite is predominantly dependent on how behavior is interpreted and perceived in the entire social interaction and not merely at the level of language usage. This means that politeness is observed in thelinguistics, pragmatic and non-linguistic features such as gestures and other movements of the body. As a result, politeness can be considered discursive. The discursive featurerefers to the varying interpretations in evaluating behavior as polite or impolite.             Brown and Levinson (1978:68) describe politeness as a strategic behavior especially in structuring an utterance. They explain how individual speakers take part in a conversation and take into account the possible threats it may cause the hearer. Politeness holds that everyone has both negative and positive face, both of which are threatened by or the other at times, and that individuals will use the politeness strategies before performing a face-threatening act (Brown & Levinson, 1987:62). Politeness strategies are also held not only to mitigate face threatening acts (FTA) but also to fulfill the speaker’s or listener’s positive and negative face (Kitamura, 2000). To explain the concept of politeness,Brown and Levinson (1987:69) classify politeness into four main types such as bald on record, negative politeness, positive politeness and off-record or indirect strategy.             Bald on record strategy does not aim to minimize face threatening acts (Brown and Levinson, 1978:94). For instance, a discourse between close friends can be direct as they have developed closeness and familiarity. In this context, the role relationship between the speaker and listener is important, the closer the participants the higher the possibility of being direct in their discourse. On the other hand, negative politeness is a strategy that considers the context and the situation of a hearer (Brown and Levinson, 1978:129). For instance, when speakers presume to impose or demand something from the hearers they consider the actual capability of the listeners, thus knowing the negative face of the listener could be used as a strategy to impose (Brown & Levinson, 1978). In this case, the hearer’s autonomy is preserved by considering his or her inability to act in a given context or situation.             Positive politeness is a strategy that seeks to minimize the listener’s face (Brown & Levinson, 1987). It considers the capability of the listener in a situation where he or she is being imposed on. It is used to avoid conflict especially when dealing with those who are fairly close to the speaker. Positive face is evident through the use of hedging which is an effective strategy of minimizing the impact of any face threatening acts. Lastly, off-record or indirect politeness is a strategy that separates speakers from being compelled in any given situation (Brown and Levinson, 1978:211). For instance, if a wife is hungry, instead of telling her husband that she wants to eat she might ask the husband if he is hungry. In such context, the wife is indirectly asking the husband to eat as it is understood and expected that she will also be asked in return.             Numerous empirical studies (Lakoff, 1975; Leech,1980; Fraser and Nolan, 1981; Arndt and Janney, 1985; Brown and Levinson, 1978; Hill et (at)1986; Ide, 1989; Kasper, 1990; Holmes, 1995) have been conducted to address politeness in social interactions. One model that has influenced the study of social interaction is Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory. However, due to criticisms that emerged in the 1980’s, several researchers have come up with a wider outlook to study linguistic politeness. According to Watts (2003),politenessis not natural for humans as social beings but it has to be acquired and learned throughsocial interactions and cultural practices. People characterize politeness according to their own perceptions. Some characterize politeness as a behavior that shows respect to others, or evaluate someone as polite by looking at the language used (Watt, 2003:1). Considering all levels of interpretations in understanding politeness, people perceive and evaluate politeness differently. Watts (2003) explains that the varying interpretations of politeness are caused by people’s linguistic and socio-cultural practices and their language. For instance, in Japanese culture, power dimension in relation to politeness is relatively important as compared to the individualistic culture of the Americans where social distance is associated with politeness (Koyama, 2001). It must be noted that Watts’ (2003) notion of politeness does not focus on the overt politeness of the interlocutors’ language use or the linguistic choice, buthe provides a broader description by including the society as a whole. Therefore, when interpreting politeness as a way of behavior it includes the language use in expressing politeness and how behavior is interpreted in socially and culturally bound interactions. Politeness is categorized into two major distinctions,suchas first-order politeness and second-order politeness (Watts, 2003; Ide and Ehlich, 1992). First-order politeness refers to the lay interpretations of politeness which include on how people evaluate and interpret a particular behavior as polite (Watts, 2003:9). On the other hand, second-order politeness refers to the linguistic politeness based on the theoretical perceptions on the study of social interaction (Watts, 2003:4). In studying politeness,it is necessary to consider both lay people’s interpretation and the linguistic interpretation. This will give a clear explanation in identifying the process on how politeness is evaluated and manifested in an interaction. Undoubtedly, Watts (2003) aims to provide sufficient basis in analyzing politeness which largely includes language, culture and society that results in the discursive nature of politeness in social interpretation. To explore politeness strategy, there are features that must be taken into consideration particularlythe address forms which vary in different cultures. The use of address forms signal respect or disrespect to the addressee depending on how it is uttered and perceived. It also varies depending on the level of formality of interaction and the role relationship between the two interlocutors. Holmes (2008) explains that forms of address are derived from identity in a specific context (e.g.,your honor, Prime Minister, madam and sir).
Methods	This study examines the politeness strategiesand address formsused by Filipino domestic helpers when communicating with their Malaysian employers. This study uses two theoretical frameworks to explain the occurrence of politeness when using the address forms in interactions between Filipino domestic helpers and Malaysian employers.The concept of politeness by Richard Watts (2003) helps to explain the cultural aspects of politeness while the politeness theory of Brown and Levinson (1987) explains the occurrence of positive and negative politeness in interactions. The participants of the study were all Filipino domestic helpers who worked in Kuala Lumpur with Malay, Chinese, or Indian employers. Filipino domestic helpers who studied at the Filipino Workers’ Resource Center (FWRC)–the Philippine Embassy’s livelihood/trainingcourses in August 2010and other domestic helpers referred by other Filipinos were used as participants in this research. The data were collected through interviews which were conducted individually in the Philippine Embassy every Sunday where Filipino domestic helpers gathered together to attend various livelihood classes. There were 20 Filipino domestic helpers who took part in the study.The use of qualitative approach is believed to be useful in gathering comprehensive information as to how Filipino domestic helpers used forms of address and forms of request when communicating with their Malaysian employers. In order to triangulate and validate the data,a set of questionnaire was distributed after the interviews to provide written examples when making requests. In addition to the interviews, all audio recorded information was transcribed and analyzed.
Findings	The findings reveal how the Filipino domestic helpers address their Malaysian employers. Filipino domestic helpers employ various address forms when communicating with their Malaysian employers. When addressing their Malaysian employers,they follow certain patterns like using the Title (T), Title and First Name (TFN), Title and Last Name (TLN) and First Name (FN) as politeness strategies. The use of such address forms also indicates the role relationship, social distance scale and age of the speakers.In addition, the address forms used by the Filipino domestic helpers isnot only dependent on the role relationship, but is also influenced by the Filipino, Malaysian and Western cultures. In both Filipino and Malaysian cultures,the importance of politeness is reflected in the use of address forms. Such appropriate address forms does not only reflect politeness but it enhances the relationship between the employer and employee. Developing better communication is seen to be essential between the employersand domestic helpers to minimize problems and misunderstanding in the home domain.
Conclusion	The findings of the study are clear that the use of address forms in interactions between Filipino domestic helpers and Malaysian employers are influenced by the speakers’ role relationship (see Brown and Levinson, 1987). Moreover, the Filipino andMalaysiancultures are seen to be as important factors that influence the address and request forms (see Watts, 2003).