CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

Changes happened in language in the past decade in its various aspect and still

change up to present times due to its complexity and dynamic or even the cultural aspect

may be the reasons to change the meaning and the purpose of it. On the other hand, the

gender and sex of one person has something to do with how one person used it.

Furthermore, over the past twenty years, sociolinguists have developed increasingly

sophisticated ways of modelling the relationship between language and social identity.

Incorporating elements of anthropological and philosophical theory, we have moved from

seeing language as a reflex of a speaker’s structural position in society to seeing it as a

resource with which speakers are able to construct and position desired presentations of

self. This shift has been based in large part on a revalorization of identity not as something

that speakers have, but as something they actively claim. But while this newer perspective

on identity has had a profound impact on the explanatory adequacy of sociolinguistic

theorizing, it has at the same time (and perhaps paradoxically) limited our interpretive

purview

In 2012 in an article of Erkert and Maconnell in New York City discuss the

connection and collision of language and the impact of gender on it for the past decades.

In particular they note that the researcher of this field had failed to distinguish and think

practically and look logically on the connections of two variables. Similarly, the past two

decades have witnessed a minor explosion in publications dealing with the ways in which

1
gay men and lesbians use language. In fact, though, work on the topic has been appearing

in several disciplines (philology, linguistics, women's studies, anthropology, and speech

communication) since the 1940s. This review charts the history of research on "gay and

lesbian language," detailing earlier concerns and showing how work of the 2000s and

2007s both grows out of and differs from previous scholarship. Through a critical analysis

of key assumptions that guide research, this review argues that gay and lesbian language

does not and cannot exist in the way it is widely imagined doing.

Contrary to Hayes (2005) said that gay lexicons serve an identity-affirming,

community-building purpose gay lexicons are used as a means of secret communication.

Likewise, numerous studies have demonstrated the solidarity-building function that the use

of gay lexicons can serve, similarly Kinyua (2013) said the language used by the LGBT,

though not yet fully independent, has an appreciable lexicon which enables the speakers

communicate whatever sentiments they wish to communicate amongst themselves without

spillage to the mainstream community and that this lexicon is continuously growing. The

fact that a sizeable stock of this lexicon is made up of words and phrases used amongst the

LGBT speech community alone is an indication that this speech community still operates

in clandestine ways. The ways in which the words and lexical items in the language of the

LGBT are formed follow processes that are similar to those followed by other languages –

mainstream or otherwise. This led to conclude that the language spoken by the LGBT has

all the potential to develop into an independent language, despite the social stigma

associated with its speakers.

With respect to the socio-psychological factors influencing LGBT language usage,

the three main factors found to influence the sampled members of the LGBT are to

2
feel/create a sense of belonging, concealment of the queer identity among the mainstream

community members and concealment of identity for fear of arrest, oppression and

stigmatization also the researcher will use interview and structured interview in gathering

data among the respondents of this study consultation of the expert in the field of linguistic

are also take place for the ratification of guide interview of the respondents.

In the Philippines, gays stereotyped as homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals,

crossdressers, hairdressers, and camp (Dador et al., 2013) are generally tolerated within the

society but there are still widespread cases of discrimination. For this reason, Filipino gay

men, like all the other gays abroad, have decided to come up with a form of language that

is only peculiar to them to “facilitate communication among the members with a slight

intention of concealing the real message behind the information being expressed” (Casabal

N. V., 2008). This language is widely known as gay lingo.

Given that any language is used by a group of people based on or determined by

individual preference or convenience, the Filipino gay lingo became the means of

communication to gays (and even non-gays) for they can express themselves on their own

way as they share similarities in dealing with the discursive sexual discrimination in the

society. It supports the definition that culture is simply the learned and shared behavior of

a community of interacting human beings. Through this, Filipino gays felt a sense of

identity and belongingness. Cohering with Casabal, 2008 Gay language has achieved a

higher degree of acceptance in recent years in the Philippines. Both gays and non-gays can

be heard uttering gay expressions. The main role of ‘gay speak’ for gay people in the

Philippines is to function as an “armor to shield themselves from the chasm and the social

stigma caused by gender differences” (Casabal N. V., 2008).. In Mariveles, Bataan since

3
the municipality is multi-cultural and gay lingo often here anywhere the researcher decided

to study the language of gay not only because he is also belong on the umbrella but also to

help the society to understand and accept the beauty of gay lingo.

In this aspect, the researcher would like to have an in-depth analysis with the use

of Semantic and Lexical -Analysis method to study the ways of the gays in creating and

forming new language in the Philippines and its connotes and implied meaning and it also

aims to help linguists to understand the mode of communication amongst the group under

study, and partly as a way of understanding the ways in which language grows and to

produce info graphic materials that will help the society to understand the language of

Gays.

Statement of the Main and Sub-Problem

This study aims to determine the Semantic – Lexico analysis of the Queer language

of gays

It seeks to answer the following sub-problems

1. What is the nature of the lexicon of the Gays speech communities?

2. What are the semantic and lexical features commonly used of Gays society?

3. What word formation processes are employed in the specific ways in which the

Gays speech communities?

4. What are the common Patterns use of Gay language?

Significance of the study

The findings from this study will be useful in various ways on the following field

4
Linguist/Teacher-it may be a sole foundation and background of knowledge in the field

of linguistic on how one member of Gays community acquire language and used it on daily

communication, particular, sociolinguistics. This is knowledge that will help linguists to

understand the mode of communication amongst the group under study, and partly as a

way of understanding the ways in which language grows. It is a demonstration of the fact

that just as the society is dynamic, so is language. Gay speech community being an

acceptable and, have come up with their own language which enable them to communicate.

Furthermore, the group is increasing day by day and their efforts to seek legal and social

recognition. It is in this context that the study seeks to analyze the language used by this

minority group.

Education Sector- it may benefit education section especially those in administrators,

since the findings may give relevant information about how the language of the gay

develop and its lexical-semantic meaning. Hence it may also be a source to help them in

formulation of an intervention program that will address the needs of the students, it may

also serve as point of reflection in the reformation of instructional materials that may be

used in enhancing students interest.

Community- the result of this study may help the people of community to be more aware

on the language of gay community and to further comprehend their own language and

eventually being part also of their communication every day. Also, it will serve as a guide

to reduce confusion of the language.

Future Researchers: The study is considered as an initial research on the understanding

of Gay lingo in a particular locale. Hence, this may serve as a basis for other researchers’

further undertaking dealing in similar subject of the study

5
Scope and Limitation

This study focused on the linguistic aspects of the Gay speech community, This

was partly because Mariveles is categorized as first-class municipalities composes of

100,000 population as well as multicultural (source municipal of Mariveles), this is where

most of those with such orientations are commonly found. More specifically, it focused on

the lexico-semantic items, their meaning and the contexts of their usage. These two

linguistic aspects were preferred because they were more convenient to study especially

for such a group which operates in a somewhat clandestine manner. This way of operating

can be attributed to the fact that the mainstream dominant culture is opposed to such a

lifestyle while studying the lexico-semantic items is more convenient as compared to, say,

phonology or pitch of voice, which might pose far more challenges in getting the

respondents to act out articulations of certain words for analysis. Since the study was based

on a group of people that rarely goes public, it appeared to be such an uphill task trying to

gather information from them. However, as the researcher, I made use of the few reliable

resource persons amongst them that helped in identifying other platforms and media that

boosted my interaction with them as the process of data collection was underway also

consultation of the linguistic expert took place.

6
 Chapter Notes

Chandler, R. C. (2013). lavander world syndrome: A critical discourse analysis of the

first world problems and third world success internet lavander. Retrieved
from http://etd.fcla.ed/CF/CFE0004828/Chandler_Robert_C_3127154_M pdf

Davison, P. (2012). The language of gays. In The Social Media Reader.

Mandiberg, M. ed. New York University. Retrieved from
https://ia902603.us.archive.org/35/items/TheSocialMediaReader/Mandi
bergtheSocialMediaReader-cc-by-.pdf

Djajasudarma, F. (1993). Metode Linguistik: Ancangan dan aplikasi. Bandung: Eresco. pp:
15-60.

Varona, K.Y. (n.d.). The role of gay language in society on the 2013 pork barrel
case in the Philippines. Retrieved from http://asianmediacongress.org.pdf
https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2016/03/11/1562061/philippine-gay

lingo#IX5T6dMj0yXs9vyW.99

http://www.languageinindia.com/sep2013/tridanggaylanguagefinal.pdf

http://ncca.gov.ph/about-culture-and-arts/in-focus/the-filipino-gayspeak-filipino-gay-

lingo/

https://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/kk/article/viewFile/1503/1528

https://www.coursehero.com/file/p506m3f/This-study-aims-to-benefit-the-following-

groups-Speakers-of-the-gay-language/

repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/8681/1/Suguitan_ASemanticLook2005.pdf

http://www.academia.edu/25366000/Gay_Speak_Morphological_Characteristics

https://www.daytranslations.com/blog/2013/04/swardspeak-the-colorful-language-of-the-

filipino-gay-community-1311/

7
 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter presents the relevant theories that support the study, related literatures

and studies of previous findings connected to the current issue serves as background of the

study. The conceptual framework, the paradigm as well as the assumption of the study are

also included in this chapter.

Relevant Theories.

The study adapted Carol Myers-Scotton’s 1993 Markedness model and Mead’s

Symbolic Interactionism Theory and (2) Gumperz’ Theory of Interactional

Sociolinguistics. The Carol Myers-Scotton’s 1993 Markedness model model explores

use of code switching. It takes into account the socio-psychological motivations of a

speaker when code switching. The model also conveys the idea that a major motivation for

variety in linguistic choice in any given community is the possibility of social- identity

negotiations (Myers-Scotton 1993: 111). Negotiations play an important role in any

interaction because it is a dynamic enterprise with at least two sides, without a foregone

conclusion. Therefore what the speaker provides is a presentation of self. The markedness

model is predominately a speaker-centered model which seems to imply that no model of

conversation can ignore the effect of the addressee and the audience even on speaker

choice. The Markedness model is motivated by the fact that speakers make choices

primarily based on enhancing their own positions and on communicating their own

perception No community is without at least two different speech styles. In many

communities, more than one language is spoken and often more than one dialect of a

language is spoken. These different styles, languages and dialects are typically associated

8
with different social groups or contexts. Not everyone in the community has a complete

command of all the varieties in the community’s linguistic repertoire, and not everyone

uses the varieties with the same frequency (Myers-Scotton 1998). The speaker-hearer has

the option of choosing what may be considered marked choices to convey certain messages

of intentionality. The Markedness Model states that, when an individual speaks a language,

other individuals can exploit the relationships that have become established in a community

between a linguistic variety and those that use the variety. This study is about lexical

semantics of the language of the lesbian gay bisexual and transgender. It can also be

observed, from the tenets of this theory that scholars have argued that linguistic choice,

marked or unmarked, takes place as a result of specifiable social and situational constraints

and incentives which are quite amenable to analysis. In its investigations, the study

therefore sort to establish the markedness of the potential choices of the LGBT as

determined by the social forces at work in their community that makes them decide either

to follow or reject, and in this case, to reject the normative model hence coming up with

their own linguistic variety. This therefore provided further guidance to the nature of

questions that were asked to the respondents.

Another theory associated on this study, Mead’s Symbolic Interactionism Theory

and (2) Gumperz’ Theory of Interactional Sociolinguistics.

The theories mentioned above both tell about how one can acquire language

through interaction and socialization. Mead’s Symbolic Interactionism Theory and

Gumperz’ Theory of Interactional Sociolinguistics are important in this research for it

tackles mainly about the formation of meanings for individuals through adapting and

interactive relation to their surroundings. The researcher made use of these theories to

9
expound how will the target respondents connote gay words that have mainstreamed in the

society which has a great emphasis in achieving the goal of this study.

Theory of Social Interactionism is all about the interpretation of a symbol can be

different from others. It is a major framework of sociological theory. This perspective relies

on the symbolic meaning that people develop and rely upon in the process of social

interaction. Although symbolic interactionism traces its origins to Max Weber's assertion

that individuals act according to their interpretation of the meaning of their world, the

American philosopher George Herbert Mead introduced this perspective to American

sociology in the 1920s.

Symbolic Interactionism according to Blumer (1969) is “the process of

interaction in the formation of meanings for individuals”. The inspiration behind this theory

came from the first works and ideas of Dewey (1981), which believed that “human beings

are best understood in a practical, interactive relation to their environment”.

The Symbolic Interactionism Theory consists of three core principles: (1)

meaning, (2) language and (3) thought. These core principles lead to conclusions about the

creation of a person’s self and socialization into a larger community (Griffin, 1997):

Meaning states that humans act toward people and things according to their interpretation

and own meanings about those people or things. Symbolic Interactionism holds the primary

meaning to be the central aspect of human behavior.

Language gives humans a means by which to negotiate, form and analyze meaning

through symbols. Humans identify meaning in speech acts with others.

Thought modifies each individual’s interpretation of symbols. Thought is a mental

conversation that requires different points of view. This theory can be applied to the

10
research study for it concerns the social and intellectual aspect of a person in using his

language and his character in terms of communication. Similarly, this theory refers to the

differentiation of a word from a person’s perspective to another person’s perspective. It

says that a word can have many meaning depending to whom you are talking to or to what

you are referring for.

Review of Related Literature and Studies.

RELATED LITERATURE

Casabal (2008) defined “Gayspeak” or gay language as a form of sublimation of

gay people against the domineering power of patriarchy and since then, has successfully

penetrated the society. Gay language is mostly comprised of terms derived from existing

terminologies from different languages and as well as the native language of the speaker.

Although the language uses existing terminologies, the speaker determines the definition

of the terms and changes the meaning however he wants so long as it is within and near the

context. This semantic principle is very prominent in the gay language because it uses

words that are part of a mainstream language and then applies it metaphorically giving it a

streak of connotative definition. (Casabal, 2008; Lunzaga, Bendulo, Felisilda, 2012;

Saguitan, 2005) Cage (2003, p.23), however, describe gay language as a particular register

or variety of language that is employed in certain socio-cultural contexts by gay people.

That is to say, this kind of language has its narrow use in some situations and contexts but

in others involving “the social system of the gay co-culture”

Gayspeak, gay language or swardspeak has been apparent and commonly used not

just in the present generation but in early times as well. The only difference was that it is

more accepted and used by the community today. Most gay slang, gay lingo, gay speak or

11
gay languages arose as a form of anti-languages. According to Montgomery’s An

Introduction to Language and Society, anti-languages are “extreme versions of social

dialects” which tend to “arise among subcultures and groups that occupy a marginal or

precarious position in society… (1995:96).” Anti-languages are usually developed by

marginalized communities as a secret language. Conceived of as a way to resist the

marginalization and exclusion suffered in society-at-large, anti-societies are liminal

discursive spaces with their own locally-generated standards, values and systems of social

organization. The goal of anti-society is to provide an alternative frame of reference for its

members, a new and different reality in which they can construct and portray alternative

identities without fear of censure or reproach. The anti-language, in this formation, serve

two crucial and interrelated purposes. The first is the creation of the anti-society itself,

literally giving voice to the alternative set of values by which the anti-society is defined.

The anti-language’s second purpose is then the maintenance of the anti-society it helped to

define, providing its members with a unique, and often subversive, means of distinguishing

themselves from non-members. Under an oppressive society where homosexuals and their

lifestyle are often looked down upon, a need for a language understood only by them and

perhaps by individual’s friendly to the gay community, was necessary.

As we know, homosexuals still receive discrimination and condemnation in several

countries in the world although people have a more open-minded attitude towards them

today. For this reason, gay language functions as a form of “defense mechanism” against

homophobic society (Baytan, 2002, p. 260). In other words, in the homophobic

environment, shielding one gay’s identity is important if one would like to avoid

“persecution and prosecution” (Cage, 2003, p.35).

12
 Philippine culture openly projected bias against the gays. Biases are often

manifested even within the family in which the father, more specifically, would even

disown a child who is a gay (Casabal N. V., 2008). It was made evident then that during

the times of our forefathers, gays were considered a cause of shame to the family. However,

in today’s generation which recognizes changes in almost every aspect of man’s life, gays

are no longer treated as such. Instead, they receive different treatment letting them realize

they are unique with significant contribution to the society’s economy. In fact, they are

given recognition in the aesthetic fields exhibiting creativity and artistry particularly in

cosmetics entertainment. The acceptance of the gays in the society comes the propagation

of the gays’ spoken discourse commonly known as the Gay Lingo.

Since the Philippine context has been exposed to all forms of media which

contributes a great influence to the propagation of linguistic biases, it does not hinder for

the gay speak to be known still. Moreover, it may be a sensitive case about Filipino gays

to investigate how gender roles are discursively constructed through language and

translation considering that gender definitions are constantly interacting with other

similarly constructed parameters such as race, geography, class or sexuality and having

consequences at the level of material and social practice (Castro, 2012). Accordingly, the

gay language is no longer exclusively used by gays as some of the terminologies have

mainstreamed. The language of gays has now earned respect from the community and

observably been infused in the mainstream language of the society (Casabal, 2008).

Granted that the Gay Lingo has been contagious unexclusively to the

Filipino gay men, the language emerges even inside a classroom setting. On August 2015,

DepEd Secretary Armin Luistro opened the doors of possibility regarding the proliferation

13
of the Gay Lingo among the youth. When asked if such norm is accepted socially, he

answered, “The use of new colloquial terms like ‘gayspeak’ is part of the evolution of

languages that we cannot stop. If this type of language becomes acceptable to society and

is being used by the majority, that’s the time it becomes part of official communication”

(Cueto, 2015). In addition, the emerging use of students of the gay languageto have easier

way of expressing themselves leads to the claim of Luistro for it to be welcomed in

classrooms.

Considering that language evolves with its changing nature, existing

language needs to be documented for posterity reasons. For the gay lingo is continuously

updated, a bulk of researches has been made to examine its morphological processes in

formulating gay terms. Furthermore, gay Lingo has been an active language by being an

amalgam of different languages used across the country (Collado, 2014).

The use of gay lingo was firstly because to avoid having other people hear what

you are talking about, especially when it comes to sex. According to Hayes (1981), the

richest features of social gayspeak are found in the lexicon, particularly in compound

constructions, with queen being possibly the most widely employed stem word for building

compounds used for a limitless series of images to describe sexual preferences (that is size

queen), subculture types (queen of tarts, a pimp for hustlers), to make fun of a man’s

hobbies or interest (poker queen for someone who likes playing cards) or as an all-purpose

term of derogation (queen Mary for someone fat) Hayes (1976/2006). Hayes’s assertion

was that Gayspeak was characterized by use of argot, innuendo, categorization, strategic

evasions such as omitting or changing gendered pronouns and conscious revaluation of

formerly derogatory terms Cameron & Kulick (2003). Gayspeak is characterized by an

14
abundance of sex-themed expressions and expressions for physical appearance, as well as

intimacy of relationship, rank and eccentricities within the subculture, Hayes, (1976). It

was important for gays to keep the language hidden from the majority which resulted in

“over - lexicalization of terms for sex, body parts, and people” (Taylor, 2007; 20).

As so much of human existence is bound by, dependent on, and dictated by

language, one of the outcomes of this persecution was that homosexual people needed to

be able to communicate secretly without fear of exposure (Maurer 1991). When analyzing

language use, a Queer Linguistic approach assumes that (sexual/gendered) identities do not

exist pre-discursively but are constructed socially in the very moment of speaking or

writing. Cage (2003) observes that, all over the world members of the LGBT have

developed a language that includes use of code switching in their spoken communication

and non-verbal paralanguage to affirm their sexuality and gender. The development of this

lavender culture has greatly been attributed to the hetero-normative ideas of sexuality,

gender and language.

With the help of the Internet and modernization, the heteronormative discourse has

been reduced and gayspeak became more prevalent. As the usage of these words rise in

many different media, gayspeak has once again lost its isolating meaning and began to

influence the world. The range of technologies churned out by swardspeakers has become

massive and extensive that almost all words can have equivalents or derivatives. Remoto

qualifies this as swardspeak is “continuously updated” (Remoto, 2016). Quoting Castro in

Introduction: Gender, language and translation at the crossroads of disciplines, “language

is a political act of meditation and communication which either perpetuates or challenges

existing power structures within wider social and cultural contexts”. The birth of a common

15
language among gays clearly and explicitly defies the culture that the Philippines has had.

It had tried to break away from the dualistic perspective of life – heaven and hell, black

and white, man and woman. Gayspeak was the weapon that Filipino gay men used to

connect with other gays – those who are discriminated, oppressed and ridiculed and

belittled.

In the essay Language, Sex, and Insults: Notes on Garcia and Remoto’s The Gay

Dict, Ronald Baytan describes the creation of gay lingo as “gays turning the source of their

oppression, their desires, into the very source of their self-affirmation”.

According to Pascual, G.R. (2016), playing with words is what the gays are most

commonly known. Although this stands to be true, the gays are pickier and actually follow

a process or use a strategy in deriving or creating words like other languages do. Most

often, they tend to use the following strategies or processes: loanwords or borrowing,

metathesis either by syllable switching or full reversal, affixation, substitution, acronym,

duplication or repetition, clipping/ reduction, blending, using names of popular persons or

places, using figures of speech (onomatopoeia and metaphor), and mix-mix. The major

reasons why gays create their own style of words are to become different from other people,

to serve as their identity, to be accepted in a group, to give them pleasure and to make them

diverse and inventive.

Philippine Gay Culture pointed out that identification plays a great role in the

growth of Gay language. This is further proven when he reasoned with the postcolonial

theory and how it affects the colonized nation or society. In this theory, the colonized

subject uncritically accepts the labels given by her colonialist. With counter-identification,

however, the subject rejects the terms of the debate and denies its basis. This is the path

16
taken by many nationalisms, which embrace nativity. This position also remains trapped

in a binary opposition to the relationally dependent and equally fanstasmatic category of

the foreign. In the Philippines, counter-identification is evident in nativistic studies that are

invariable written in a triumphalist version of Tagalog and extol the “indigenous” gender-

crossing tradition as well as the irreducible uniqueness of the Filipino ‘bakla’. The book

also explained that dis-identification implies that the subject unapologetically accepts and

yet critically transforms, hybridizes, and/or appropriates the concept provided by

colonialism. This process only affirms the fact that meaning doesn’t reside in ideas or in

languages per se but is rather always a social event – a “situated accomplishment” – and as

such we eminently open to resignification and contextualization. Needless to say, this is

the strategy employed by many Filipino LGBT scholar nowadays, who painstakingly

situate the Western-derived but locally appropriated terms they seek to deploy, explain and

critique.

The book also gave light to another interesting overlap between postcolonial and

anti-heteronormative discourses which is the theoretical parallelism between the notion of

the subject implicit in the former’s theory of hybridity, and the latter’s phenomenally

generative and much-celebrated concept of performativity. The overlap is clear when we

consider how both theoretical accounts posit the self – be it a gendered, sexual or indeed

national self – as the mimetic, citational and repeatedly performed approximation of an

unrealizable norm. Employing a novel cross-hatching of these two theories, we can

therefore infer that because national identity, like maleness or femaleness, is a kind of

compulsory “performativity”, then it only follows that one’s Filipinoness – or

Americanness – is not what one is, but what one does.

17
Related studies

Baker (2005, p.174) conducted a research on the language of gay men and lesbians

and found that gay men’s language is informal, non-standard and often impolite, whereas

lesbians’ language is more polite, more affectionate and more standardized. Gay men use

informal language not only in spoken discourse but also in written discourse.

Hayes (1981) argued that Gayspeak was an authentically gay way of speaking that

differed from heterosexual language in three particular contexts: the ‘secret setting’, the

‘social setting’, and the ‘activist-radical setting’. In the secret setting gay men use particular

forms of language to convey their sexuality to one another without making their sexuality

known to heterosexuals who might hear their conversation. In their social setting, Hayes

described the use of specific vocabulary and discourse styles associated with contexts in

which all participants were gay, whereas the activist-radical setting referred to the language

of the gay and lesbian civil rights movement.

The central target of Queer language is the linguistic manifestation of

heteronormativity and, connected with it, binary gender and sexual identity discourses

(Bing and Bergvall 1996). Heteronormativity is the belief that people fall into distinct and

complementary genders (male and female) with natural roles in life. It assumes that

heterosexuality is the norm or default sexual orientation, and that sexual and marital

relations are most (or only) fitting between people of opposite sex. For non-heterosexual

people, this pressure has far-reaching consequences that have repercussions throughout

their lives: from hiding their identity to repeated coming out in diverse contexts, from their

own personal struggle to the fight with heteronormative (H. Motschenbacher, 2011).

18
 Hayes (2001) suggested that Gayspeak used by the gay men in America served

three specific functions or dimensions. First, that it was a secret code developed for

protection against exposure characterized by innuendo and by the avoidance or switching

of specific gender reference when discussing one’s partner. Second, the code enables users

express a variety of roles within the gay subculture that involves use of vocabulary to define

sexual roles and behaviors. Third and last, Gayspeak is a resource that can be used by

radical-activist for politicizing social life.

In the study conducted by Hazel V. Cortez (2017) on Gay language: Impact on

colloquial communication in Barangay Sto.Tomas, City of Binan Laguna Many

communication disputes and misunderstandings came from not being able to understand a

culture that is different than the one that people are comfortable. When a person is trying

to learn about another sub culture that is different from their own understanding the speech

style is important in order to learn about the other rules and norms within the group. It has

been found out that homosexuals have vocabulary of their own popularly known as “Gay

Language” that sets them apart from the mainstream heterosexual. In the Philippines,

sexual orientation has become a moral, political and social issue of acceptability. This study

determined the impact of gay language on colloquial communication in terms of

understanding acceptability and usage in Barangay Sto. Tomas, City of Binan, Laguna.

The study used the descriptive method of research since it can describe the situation

objectively. The results revealed that there is no significant difference in the impact of gay

language on colloquial communication when grouped according to age and gender.

Moreover, a study of sward speak (gay lingo) in the Philippine context: a morphological

analysis by Pascual, Gemma R., Associate Professor II, Cagayan State University – Lal-lo

19
Campus, Cagayan North, Philippines (2017), assessed the word formation of sward speak

used in the Philippines.

Specifically, it determined the gay slang used, its formation and the reasons for

using it. The descriptive method was used to conduct the study. A total of 100 gay

respondents conveniently chosen were used in the study. A questionnaire and an informal

interview were used to gather information. The library technique was also used to gather

relevant data and literature to support the findings of the study. In analysing, the strategies

and processes in the formation of Tagalog slang used by Zorc and Celce-Murcia were used.

The gays love to play with words; however, they follow a process or use a strategy in

deriving or creating words like other languages do. They use the following strategies or

processes: loanwords or borrowing, metathesis either by syllable switching or full reversal,

affixation, substitution, acronymy, duplication or repetition, clipping / reduction, blending,

using names of popular persons or places, using figures of speech (onomatopoeia and

metaphor), and mix-mix. The gays’ major reasons for creating words of their own are to

become unique/different from other people, to serve as their identity, to belong or accepted

in a group, to give them pleasure, and to make them inventive.

20
Conceptual Framework.

Code Switching Psychological Factors Social Linguistic

Gay Language

Social Identity Semantics Lexical

Figure 1: Research Paradigm

Figure 1 shows the research paradigm of the study as could be seen the centre of

the paradigm is the gay language perceived to have influenced on the different components

such as code switching, psychological, socio linguistic, social identity and semantics and

lexico. Poplack define code switching as normal expansion of process and preservation of

items which have become lost or infrequent in other varieties which is rampant in gay

language such as the word tomboy, clean-cut and others. Secondly, the psychological factor

governing the gay language use was mainly for secrecy and discretion due to homophobic

society about gay people in Bataan. Perceived to enjoy having their own form of

communication, therefore with it for fun and as a way of socializing. Third is the socio-

linguistic looks at the attitudes toward different linguistic features and their relation to

class, race, sex, sexuality, identity and many other factors. However, Linguistics is not

about prescribing what grammar is “correct”. Rather, we describe language and its

flexibility informed by the position that are the expressions being used by native speakers

or members of a speech community are legitimate grammars with their own regular rules.

21
On the other hand, social identity is an indispensable factor in the formation of a

community in such a way that a social unit whose members are held together by an

international network and who share certain interests, beliefs, views and attitudes) In this

regard, language is known to be an influential symbol of identity, an important clue to

social group membership. Last the semantic-lexico refers to the relationship between the

lexicon of a language (that is, its root-words and word-stems) and the various possible

semantic categories created by the human mind. Every language (and particularly every

language family) divides the world up differently in terms of what sorts of concepts are

made into words and how the meanings of those words reflect the reality around us. In

other words, the lexical semantics of a language answers the questions what semantic

concepts does this language psycho-linguistically categorize into autonomous words and

how are each of these categories internally organized? In other words, lexical semantics is

the study of word meanings and their relationships. This study sought to establish the

origin, word formation processes, how the words come to existence and probably how the

existing words are put into different or varied usage and meanings in the LGBT speech

community in Bataan.

Assumption of the Study

 To identify the common patterns use by street gays

 To know the socio-psychological factors governing queer language use by the street

gays

 To know the word formation processes employed in the specific ways in which the

street gays speech communities

22
Definition of Term.

The following are define operationally.

LEXICAL –conform grammatical standards and use to convey essential meanings of the

language.

SEMANTIC—Branches of linguistic concerned or deals with the literal meaning of the

language.

QUEER LANGUAGE—Umbrella term for the language of person belong in LGBT)

GAY—A male who is sexually attracted to members of same sex

23
 Chapter Notes

Baker, P., (2002a). Fantabulosa: A Dictionary of Polari and Gay Slang. London:

Continuum. Baker, Paul. (2002b). Polari: The Lost Language of Gay Men. London:

Routledge.

Bautista, Ma. Lourdes, 1996.Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics. Manila: De la

Salle University Press.

Fromkin, V, et al. 2010. Introduction to linguistics. Singapore: Cengage learning

Asia Pte. Ltd.

Garcia, Neil, 1996. Philippine gay culture. Quezon City. University of the Philippines

Press.

Hudson, R. 1987. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hayes, Joseph J. (1976). Gayspeak. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 62:256-266.

Reprinted in Hayes, Joseph J. (1981). Lesbian, Gay Men and Their “languages”.

Halliday, M.A.K. 1978 Language as social semiotic. The social interpretation of

language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.

Casabal, N.V 2011 Gay language: Defying the structural limits of the English language in

the Philippines, retrieved from www.ateneo,edu/kritikakultura.com

24
 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methods and techniques of research, population and

sample of the study, research instruments, construction and validation of the instrument,

data gathering procedure, data processing of the data

Research Design Used

The process of research involves empirical work being carried out with the

collection of data which can concur, refute or contest theories which in turn allows for

understanding and clarification for different observations (May, 1997). Qualitative

research involves a process known as induction, whereby data is collected relating to a

specific area of study and from this data the researcher constructs different concepts and

theories. A qualitative approach was considered more relevant to undertake this research

as it allowed greater capacity to gain more depth and meaning based on an individual’s

experiences of gays in using gay lingo along with their beliefs and feelings opposed to a

quantitative approach which is more structured, broader in scale and more numerically

based.

Population and Sampling Technique

The ideas behind a specific sampling approach vary significantly, and reflect the

purposes and questions directing the study (Punch, 2008). In choosing the sample of

participants the researcher used a purposive sampling, a sampling technique that allows the

researcher to use cases that have the required information with respect to the objectives of

the study is essentially strategic and necessitates an attempt to establish a good

25
correspondence between research questions and sampling (Bryman, 2004). In purposive

sampling, the subjects are chosen according to a certain specified criterion. Accordingly,

the criterion used here was that the participant should belong to the general category of the

gays at the age of 18 and up regardless the educational back ground and can speak and

understand gay lingo since the focus of it is the language of the gays. Furthermore the age

restriction aims to provide a more coherent group, which makes comparison between the

subjects more relevant.

In undertaking this study, the researcher decides to have 30 respondents from

Mariveles town proper participants were sought through personal contacts of the

researcher. Initially others participants were recruited to be interviewed the researcher also

assured that the respondents may vary in terms of age and gender orientation.

Research Instrument

The researcher read books, journals, published thesis and dissertation and other

related reading materials and some unstructured interview before the construction of

interview question. A semi-structured interview questionnaire that will use by the

researcher upon interviewing the gay community on their available time. The researcher

used the thematic approach to conduct semi structured interviews in line with the main

research question. The researcher asked the questions listed below, the list of words/phrases

used by the queer community and the reasons why the queer community uses language as it

does. On the other the questions for qualitative research sample interview are as follows.

26
1. Do you have a way of communication aside from Filipino whose usage is confined to

your group? If yes, briefly tell me about it (Probe for: words used and from which

language and how they have come up with them).

2. In what circumstance do you find yourself using this language? (Probe for: time and

place).

3. Would you please share with me why you choose to use this form of language?

4. a.) Do you ever use these lexical items with the heterosexuals?

b.) If you do, how do they others perceive you when you speak this language in their

presence?

c.) And how do you feel while using this language that they do not understand?

The primary source of the data will be the questionnaires and interview adapted by

the researcher and validated by Dr, Lemuel Fontillas, and Dr. Ramon M. Bantugan PhD in

Linguistic

Validation of Interview Guide.

The researcher will ask the suggestion of the expert in the field for modification of

semi-structured interview the following criteria are also measured.

Credibility

According to De Vos, Strydom, Fouche and Delport (2005:346), the credibility

criteria involves establishing that the results of qualitative research are credible or

believable from the perspective of the participant in the research. Since from this

perspective, the purpose of qualitative research is to describe or understand the phenomena

of interest from the participant's eyes, the participants are the only ones who can

27
legitimately judge the credibility of the results. To have ensured that credibility of the study

was maintained, clear parameters for the study were set. Only participants who can provide

in-depth data regarding the phenomenon at hand were included in the study.

Transferability

Transferability refers to the degree to which the results of qualitative research can

be generalized or transferred to other contexts or settings. From a qualitative perspective

transferability is primarily the responsibility of the one doing the generalizing. The

qualitative researcher can enhance transferability by doing a thorough job of describing the

research context and the assumptions that were central to the research. The context of this

study is mentioned in the literature study, as well as in the reporting and findings sections.

The person who wishes to "transfer" the results to a different context is then responsible

for making the judgment of how sensible the transfer is (De Vos et al. 2005:346).

Dependability

The traditional quantitative view of reliability is based on the assumption of

replicability or repeatability. Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007:434) state that essentially

it is concerned with whether the same results would be obtained if the same thing could be

observe twice. But the argument is that the same thing can actually not be measured twice,

because by definition if we are measuring twice, we are measuring two different things.

The idea of dependability, on the other hand, emphasises the need for the researcher to

account for the ever-changing context within which research occurs. The research is

responsible for describing the changes that occur in the setting and how these changes

affected the way the research approached the study. In this study, the experiences of

participants were meticulously analysed and accurately described or interpreted.

28
Conformability

Qualitative research tends to assume that each researcher brings a unique

perspective to the study. Cohen et.al (2007:435) state that conformability refers to the

degree to which the results could be confirmed or corroborated by others. There are a

number of strategies for enhancing conformability. The researcher can document the

procedures for checking and rechecking the data throughout the study. Another researcher

can take a "devil's advocate" role with respect to the results, and this process can be

documented. The researcher can actively search for and describe and negative instances

that contradict prior observations. And, after the study, one can conduct a data audit that

examines the data collection and analysis procedures and makes judgements about the

potential for bias or distortion. An audit trail was followed for this study where participants

were given the opportunity to comment on the data they provided.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researcher secured the permit to conduct a research study and interview to the

dean’s office of Bataan Peninsula State University-Main Campus and to the Municipal

Mayor of Mariveles for the conduct of the study after securing necessary permit the

researcher will inform the respondents for the schedule of interview.

During interview, a cellular phone was used to record the interviews and all

interviews were fully transcribed verbatim. Half of the participants were acquaintances of

the researcher; the other half were recruited through third parties known to the researcher.

All participants were contacted through email or text messaging containing details of the

research and by telephone with the interview. All participants’ chose to have the interviews

carried out in their homes, where they felt more at ease in their surroundings and thus

29
allowed them to speak more freely and openly on the research topic. Semi-structured

interviews were selected to carry out this research study. They allowed the participants to

elaborate and with that provided more flexibility, range and therefore the capacity to elicit

more information from the participant. Semi structure interviews permit scope for

individuals to answer questions more on their own terms than the standardised interview

permits, yet still provides a good structure for comparability over that of the focused

interview (May, 1997). Kumar (2005) views the interview as the most suitable approach

for studying complex and sensitive areas as the interviewer has the opportunity to prepare

a participant before asking sensitive questions and to explain complex ones to them in

person. While the interview process is a valuable means of collecting rich and in-depth

data, it can prove to be an expensive and time consuming process. Interaction between the

interviewer and the participant can differ as each interview is unique and the quality of the

responses obtained from different interviews may vary significantly (Kumar, 2005).

Furthermore the quality of the data generated is affected by the experience, skills and

commitment of the interviewer (Kumar, 2005). A risk of researcher bias can also exist. In

addition, it can prove to be a difficult task to gain reliable data on the research subject if

there are a small number of participants involved, unlike the quantitative approach which

involves a higher number of participants and hence in certain circumstances can provide

more far reaching and reliable data results. The interviewer also has some freedom to probe

and explore additional questions in response to what are seen as significant replies, while

at the same time allowing rapport and empathy to develop between the researcher and the

participant. An interview schedule was prepared in advance to aid the researcher with the

structure and flow of the interview. Each participant was presented with a similar set of

30
questions relating to their overall experiences and reasons in using gay lingo. The questions

were mainly open-ended questions (See Appendixes A). The researcher sought to use

language that was comprehensible and relevant to each of the participants being

interviewed. A pilot interview was carried out prior to the commencement of the actual

research. This process allowed the interviewee to express thoughts and feelings relating to

the questions. This opportunity allowed the researcher to resolve any difficulties with the

wording of the questions and the structure, while also identifying any questions that might

make a participant feel uncomfortable. The data collected in this interview was not

included in the analysis.

Data Processing and Treatment

Moreover, once the data was transcribed, it was then coded, analyzed, interpreted

and verified. The process of transcribing the interviews can help the researcher to gain

more understanding of the subject from repeatedly listening to and reading the transcribed

interviews. Coding the data began once all the data was fully transcribed. The codes applied

are keywords which are used to categorize or organize text and are considered an essential

part of qualitative research. The data was then analyzed, categorized and organized into

themes and further sub-themes which emerged through the coding process. The themes

which emerged were assigned a specific code accordingly. The next stage involved

interpreting the data by identifying any reoccurring themes throughout and highlighting

any similarities and differences in the data. The final stage involved data verification, this

process involves a process of checking validity of understanding by rechecking the

transcripts and codes again, thus allowing the researcher to verify or modify hypotheses

already arrived at previously.

31
Ethical Consideration

The researcher’s intent for the truth and evade errors in the present study and the

data gathered were not fudge or misrepresented. The respondents of this study will be

informed about the purpose of study to ensure that all the data gathered by the researcher

will be used only in academic program and to promote evidence-based study in utmost

confidentiality. Moreover, the researcher will also ensure to avoid plagiarism and attest to

the originality of this research proposal and has cited properly all the references used. And

does not have any personal conflict of interest that may arise from application and

submission of this research proposal

32
 Notes in Chapter III

Fraenkel, Jack R, Wallen, Norman E. (2000) How to design and evaluate research

in (7th Education Edition 2008), New York, USA, McGraw-Hill)

Bernard, H, R. (2000). Social Research Methods – Qualitative & Quantitative

Approaches. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

33