Pragmatic functions of formulaic expressions in Cebuano
SPJRD Vol 27 No. 2


formulaic expressions
agreeing particles
disagreeing particles

How to Cite

Araneta, J., & Ingilan, S. (2022). Pragmatic functions of formulaic expressions in Cebuano. Southeastern Philippines Journal of Research and Development, 27(2), 61-83.


Natural conversations contain expressions that can be deciphered through their contextual use. These expressions are often flexible, allowing them to function beyond their literal meaning. Thus, pragmatics is functional in explaining their significance in speakers' utterances, mainly when expressing affirmation and disapproval. This study investigates the pragmatic functions of agreeing and disagreeing formulaic expressions in the Cebuano language, namely o/oolagibitawmaowala, and dili. The framework of Tanangkingsing (2009) was employed to analyze and describe the functions of agreeing and disagreeing formulaic expressions in the Cebuano language used in a radio conversation. The study revealed that agreeing formulaic expressions are primarily used to convey agreement to the statements of the other participants in the conversation and affirm their own statements. On the other hand, disagreeing formulaic expressions are primarily used to convey contradiction to the perceived wrong information given by the other speakers in a conversation, opposing views or counterarguments to the opinions stated in a conversation, and expressions to serve as negation. Agreeing and disagreeing formulaic expressions in the Cebuano language have various functions depending on the context and the speaker's purpose.


Alwhan, S. H. (2019). An overall study of formulaic expressions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 8(3), 24-30.

Araneta, J. & Ingilan, S. (2019). Exploring the pragmatic functions of Cebuano kuan in conversations. International Journal of Education Research for Higher Learning, 25(2), 63-84.

Benamara, F., Chardon, B., Mathieu, Y., Popescu, V., & Asher, N. (2012). How do negation and modality impact on opinions? In Proceedings of the Workshop on Extra-Propositional Aspects of Meaning in Computational Linguistics, 10-18.

Bolinger, D. (1976). Meaning and memory. Forum lilnguisticum, 1, 1-14.

Bullock, B. E., & Toribio, A. J. E. (2009). The Cambridge handbook of linguistic code-switching. Cambridge University Press.

Carballo, A. (2020). Negation, expressivism, and intentionality. The Philosophical Quarterly, 70(279), 246-267.

Diessel, H. (2003). The relationship between demonstratives and interrogatives. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”, 27(3), 635-655.

Fielder, G. E. (2008). Bulgarian adversative connectives: Conjunctions or discourse markers. Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining, 79-98.

Fillmore, C. L. (1979). On fluency. In C. J. Fillmore, D. Kempler, and W.S. Wang (Ed.). Individual differences in language ability and language behaviour, 85-101. New York: Academic Press.

Hickey, T. (1993). Identifying formulas in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 20, 27-41.

Huddlestone, K. & Fairhurst, M. (2013). The pragmatic markers anyway, okay and shame: A South African English corpus study. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus, 42, 93-110.

Hunyadi, L. (2019). Agreeing/disagreeing in a dialogue: multimodal patterns of its expression. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1373.

Hüttner, J. (2014). Agreeing to disagree: ‘doing disagreement’ in assessed oral L2 interactions. Classroom Discourse, 5(2), 194-215.

Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.

Kashiha, H. & Chan, S. H. (2015). A little bit about: Differences in native and non-native speakers’ use of formulaic language. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 35(4), 297-310.

Araneta, J. & Ingilan, S. / Southeastern Philippines Journal of Research and Development , Vol. 27, No. 2 (September 2022) 61-83

Kreutel, K. (2007). “I’m not agree with you.” ESL learners’ expressions of disagreement. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 11(3), n3.

Ljungqvist, M. (2010). A relevance-theoretic analysis of the pragmatic marker ba in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 261-287.

Marrero, H., Yagual, S. N., Gámez, E., Urrutia, M., Díaz, J. M., & Beltrán, D. (2020). Negation interacts with motivational direction in understanding action sentences. Plos One, 15(6).

Miestamo, M. (2007). Negation – an overview of typological research. Language and linguistics compass, 1(5), 552-570.

Nor, S. N. M. (2014). Discourse strategies of expressions of opinions in radio talks. International Proceedings of Economics Development and Research, 77, 34. 2014. V77. 8

Norrick, N. R. (2009). Interjections as pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 866-891.

Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse analysis: An introduction. Continuum.

Pérez-Carballo, A. (2020). Negation, expressivism, and intentionality. The Philosophical Quarterly, 70(279), 246-267.

Pérez-Llantada, C. (2014). Formulaic language in L1 and L2 expert academic writing: Convergent and divergent usage. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 84-94.

Rammell, C. S., Sidtis, D. V. L., & Pisoni, D. B. (2017). Perception of formulaic and novel expressions under acoustic degradation. The Mental Lexicon, 12(2), 234-262.

Repp, S., Meijer, A. M., & Scherf, N. (2019). Responding to negative assertions in Germanic: On yes and no in English, Dutch and Swedish. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 23(2), 267-286.

Rubino, C. (2005). Reduplication: Form, function and distribution. Studies on Reduplication, 28, 11-29.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. In Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 7-55). Academic Press.

Taguchi, N., Li, S., & Xiao, F. (2013). Production of formulaic expressions in L2 Chinese: A developmental investigation in a study abroad context. Chinese as a Second Language Research, 2(1), 23-58.

Tanangkingsing, M. (2009). A functional reference grammar of Cebuano [Dissertation, National Taipei University of Technology, Taiwan].

Tanangkingsing, M. (2022). Pragmatic functions of versatile unsa ‘what’in Cebuano: From interrogative pronoun to placeholder to stance marker. Journal of Pragmatics, 193, 59-75.

Tian, Y. & Breheny, R. (2016). Dynamic pragmatic view of negation processing. In Negation and polarity: Experimental perspectives. Springer, Cham.

Torres, J. (2020). Politeness Strategies vis-à-vis genders and exposures to western culture: The case of ‘The Voice of the Philippines’ coaches. International Journal of Linguistics and Translation Studies, 1(3), 100-117.

Van der Wal, J. (2013). (Inter) subjectification in Makhuwa: From demonstrative to pragmatic particle. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 14(1), 1-44.

van Dijk, T. (1977). The semantics and pragmatics of functional coherence in discourse. University of Amsterdam.

Van Lancker-Sidtis, D., & Rallon, G. (2004). Tracking the incidence of formulaic expressions in everyday speech: Methods for classification and verification. Language & Communication, 24(3), 207-240.

Weinert, R. (1995). The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review. Applied Linguistics, 16, 180-205.

Wouk, F. (2001). Solidarity in Indonesian conversation: The discourse marker ya. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(2), 171-191.

Araneta, J. & Ingilan, S. / Southeastern Philippines Journal of Research and Development , Vol. 27, No. 2 (September 2022) 61-83


Download data is not yet available.