Eh Kasi Naman Eh: An Analysis of Kasi and other Particles of Reasoning in Tagalog

Jun Isaac M. Bulquerin

This study aims to identify the particles used for reasoning in Tagalog language
and how they differ from each other. The methodology used to gather data was recording
informal conversations and from the day to day conversation of the researcher. The
interpretation of this paper was based from Kawanishi and Iwasaki’s Reason-coding in
Japanese and Diessel and Hetterle’s Causal clauses: A cross-linguistic investigation of
their structure, meaning, and use.

INTRODUCTION

Constructions for reasons in Tagalog can not only be found on from the response of Bakit-
constructions. These constructions can also be found on motivation, intention, causal constructions or even
in giving explanations. But there are forms that are used more widely in conversations but are rarely used
to never in writing or formal situations. The focus of this paper would be the function of the forms that are
used in conversations.

There are studies on the topic giving reasons or causal clauses but there is a rare number of studies
when it comes to Tagalog causal clauses. There is only one resource that talks about Tagalog clauses and
that is by Schachter and Otanes’ Tagalog Reference Grammar (1972). The widely renowned English
equivalent of the Tagalog causal causes would be because. Schachter and Otanes discussed several
Tagalog causal clauses and they included both the formal and informal contexts. Some of their examples
are:

(1) Hindi siya makakadalo sa pulong dahil (sa) marami siyang gawain.
‘He won’t be able to go to the meeting because he has a lot to do.’
(2) Sapagkat mataba ang lupa, umunlad ang mga dayuhan
‘Because the land was rich, the immigrants prospered’
(3) Porke tumanggap siya ng mabuting marka, hindi na siya nakikipag-usap sa atin.

Examples 1 and 2 can only be seen on writing and can be rarely heard on conversations. And it
can also be observed that dahil and sapagkat can be found in the clause in the initial position. While on the
case of porke, it is also being used on conversations but it is limited to certain situations. Porke’s
equivalent in English would be “just because” and it is being perceived negatively in Tagalog. Palibhasa
also falls on this category and can only be found on situations such as giving insults.

Now, Schachter and Otanes also included kaya and its function is equivalent to the English so or
with the result that.

1
 (4) Tinukso ni Juan ang bata, kaya umiyak
‘Juan teased the child, with the result that it cried.’
(5) May tipan ako nang alas dos, kaya dapat akong umalis.
‘I have an appointment at two o’clock, so I have to leave.

Kaya is used for indicating result and is also widely used for that particular function. But there are
instances that kaya is also used for giving reason or cause. That would be discussed on the latter part of
this paper.

Now there are a number of studies regarding the topic of causal clauses or giving reasons. One of
them is from Holger Diessel and Katja Hetterle’s Causal clauses: A Cross-Linguistic Investigation of Their
Structure, Meaning, and Use. Diessel and Hetterle discussed the causal clauses on conversations in
English, German, Chinese and Japanese. The equivalent of because in Japanese is kara which occurs at the
end of an adverbial clause. The causal clauses in Japanese are commonly used to support a statement that
the hearer does not accept or understand.

A: Amerika josei wa ja ikaga doo desu ka?

America woman TOP then how how COP Q

B: Nakanaka hitokoto de iemasen nee.

not.easily one.word by cant.say PART

B: Ano boku no un honto iroNna hito iru kara.

well 1SG GEN yeah really various.kind people exist because

A: What do you think of American women then?

B: I can’t say so easily.

B: Well, my/ yeah because really there are various kinds of people.

Continuing from the causal clauses of Japanese in conversations, there is also another causal
conjunction which is datte. It is also used by the hearer or speaker to disagree in a previous statement and
is more forceful than kara.

From Diessel and Hetterle’s paper, it was said that causal clauses are often embedded in discourse
pattern that involves three verbal actions. A statement that the hearer may not accept or understand, the
speaker’s justification or explanation and the hearer’s reaction to the statement.

Additionally, there is another resource from the Japanese pragmatics and this is from Kawanishi
and Iwasaki’s Reason-coding in Japanese (2018). There are four particles that are mentioned from this
paper and these are kara, node, tame and shi. These four are analyzed by their pragmatic differences which
are mainly focused on their subjectivity and objectivity on a statement. As what is said from the paper,

2
tame is restrictively used for objective statements unlike kara. The function of tame is noteworthy and it
would be compared later to a Tagalog particle used for giving reasons. The example given for tame can be
found below.

(6) ame ga futta kara/node/ tame, shiai wa chuushi ni natta

‘Because it rained, the game was cancelled’
(7) ame ga futte-iru kara/node/*tame iku no wa yameyoo
‘Because it is raining, let’s not go out’

Tame can only be used on purely objective statements (6) but can’t be used if the main clause
consists of the speaker’s judgment (7).

Sadly, there is only one Tagalog grammar book that tackles the causal clauses of Tagalog that I
managed to found. But overall these books including the non-Tagalog books that discuss causal clauses
help me to have an analysis of how Tagalog particles function in giving reasons.

METHODOLOGY

The data was gathered by using a recorder on a smartphone. Since this study aims for the particles
used for reasoning in Tagalog, the topic was unrestricted and free. There are around 25 mins of recording
from my two friends Hazel (female) and Bea (female) which are both in the age of 22 and are both
university students. I gave Hazel my smart phone and advised her to turn on the recorder and don’t bear in
her mind that she and Bea are being recorded. The topic of their conversation was random and it is
surprising to find out that one can give reason even without the use of particles for reasoning. Another 30
minutes were from a teleradyo done by recording the audio using a laptop. And lastly, a night time
talkshow was recorded and it has a length of 5 minutes. And other data were gathered from my informal
conversations with my friends and with my family.

Since the data gathered has no flow and parameters, it was difficult to spot statements that give
reasons because the particles are usually omitted. But as far as this paper is concerned, only the particles
that surfaced from the data would be discussed and analyzed.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Both Hazel and Bea are vloggers and they are on the way to attend an event. The recording was
done while they both traveling inside a car.

A: So kasama ka?

B: So actually ako lang talaga yung sinasabi nya kasi sarap ko daw parang i-dress up. Para daw akong
Barbie.

A: Ay ganun, oo nga para kang Barbie.

3
B: Talaga? Thank you.

B: Oh pero pano kayo nakarating dyan?

A: Baliw nandyan na kami.

B: Kaya nga pano kayo nakarating dyan? Sa KFC.

A: May Grab, may jeep, may Katipunan jeep.

B: Ah nag Katipunan jeep kayo, hindi tinatanong ko lang baka nag drive sya.

A: Hindi nagjeep lang kami, ang hassle kaya pumunta sa Katipunan ng may car.

Bea (B) was asking Hazel (A) on how she went to their meeting place which was KFC in
Katipunan. As we can see from the first line of Bea (B), which is translated to English as ‘So actually, I’m
the only one that she is mentioning because she is having fun dressing me up. (Because) I look like Barbie.
Kasi was used to indicate the person is doing this because of this reason. The kasi in here is just like the
English because. From Halliday (2004) ‘happening a is the cause of happening x’. We can infer that a is
the so actually ako lang talaga yung sinasabi nya and x is kasi sarap ko daw parang i-dress up. Which
simply means something wouldn’t happen (x) if (a) didn’t happen. Now, it can also be observed that there
is no Tagalog particle for Para daw akong Barbie. It can be inferred that kasi was omitted from Para daw
kasi akong Barbie and the main function of this statement is to add additional explanation that corresponds
with Diessel and Hetterle’s justification or explanation of the controversial statement.

Another question from Bea (B) Kaya nga paano kayo nakarating diyan? Sa KFC ‘How did you
get there? In KFC. Hazel (A) answered May Grab, may jeep, may Katipunan Jeep. ‘(Because) There’s
Grab, there’s jeep, there’s Katipunan jeep’. Bea was asking how Hazel became on the state where she is on
KFC. On what’s the cause that put her there. But again, it seems that the Tagalog particle for reasoning is
omitted again.

And from the last statements from B and A, Ah nag Katipunan jeep kayo, hindi tinatanong ko lang
baka nag drive siya. ‘Ah you took the Katipunan jeep, no, I’m just asking maybe he gave you a ride’.
Hindi nagjeep lang kami, ang hassle kaya pumunta sa Katipunan ng may car. ‘No we only took a jeepney,
(don’t you know that) it’s a hassle to go to Katipunan with a car’. From here, kaya can be used to indicate
a reason. Because it is a hassle to drive a car to Katipunan, they only took a jeepney ride. Now from what
Diessel and Hetteler’s paper again, a statement that the hearer may not accept or understand and so, kaya is
used by the speaker. But then again, it was mentioned in Schachter and Otanes’ Tagalog Reference
Grammar that kaya is used to indicate result or has the English equivalent of so or with the result that but
from the given statement, so or with the result that can’t be used.

Continuing the conversation of the two, a new topic emerged and it was about when Hazel lost her
wallet in an event inside her university which is UP Diliman.

B: Anong nangyari sa UP Fair bakit naubos lahat ng pera mo? Nanakaw sabi mo.

4
 A: Wala nga ako hanggang ngayon atm.

B: Ninakaw sya ganun?

B: Hindi ka galit? Okay lang?

A: Hindi, okay lang lagi naman akong nawawalan eh. Di naman nila magagamit ‘yun.

B: Kuya pwede mo nang nakawan ah, okay lang naman eh. Okay lang naman, lagi naman eh,
itong cp bago lang oh. Tingnan mo basta ito pwede mong nakawin.

Bea (B) was asking Hazel (A) if she’s mad after founding out that her wallet was gone when she
was in an event in UP Diliman. Hindi ka galit? Okay lang? ‘You’re not mad? Is it okay?’ Hindi, okay lang
lagi naman akong nawawalan eh. Di naman nila magagamit ‘yun. ‘No, it’s okay because I’m always
losing something. They also can’t use it (atm)’. Hazel’s answer to Bea was that it’s okay then she
continued to explain the reason for it and that was because she’s always losing something. Eh here was the
one that made the statement into a reason for something. And again according to Diessel and Hetteler, this
statement falls again to the category of the speaker’s justification or explanation of the controversial
statement.

We now have kasi, kaya and eh as our Tagalog particles on reasoning. Since the data gathered and
used was from a conversation. Other particles listed by Schachter and Otanes in their Tagalog Reference
Grammar will not be analyzed since those are only found in written or formal contexts.

Since usually the particles for reasoning are omitted, authority might be the cause for it. From the
conversation of Hazel and Bea, there are some cases in which the particles were omitted and the reason
might be because they are of the same age and the informal context. Moreover, when I tried to elicit data
from my family, I observed that my mother was not using any particles for reasoning. I already used Bakit-
constructions and other ways to draw out the particles for reasoning but none of it works. This was mainly
because of her authority as she was much higher than me in the hierarchy.

A: Kumain ka na anak.

‘Eat now.’

B: Bakit ma?

‘Why?

A: Kailangan mo nang kumain

‘You need to it now.’

From this example, I tried to draw and predict that she will use a particle for reasoning but instead
none of it were used. But still, it answers the question of why does she wants me to eat now. She was
giving am explanation that I need to eat already and that was why she was telling me to do it (to eat).

5
 And now, focusing on the three particles kasi, kaya and eh, their position in a clause were
observed and that kasi can be found initially, in the middle and can also occur in the final position inside a
clause.

B: Bakit ka kasi nagyeyes sa lahat ng bagay?

A: Bakit ikaw?

B: Hindi ako nagyeyes sa lahat ng bagay.

A: Nagyeyes ka sa lahat ng bagay.

B: Hindi.

A: Oo.

B: ‘Pag sasabihin ng mga people na parang x deal type tapos parang di ka naman super.. ohh
sorry, my rate is.. so kung di sila agree sa rate ko bye bye.

B: Kasi kailangan mo rin naman ng credibility diba. Alam ko naman na small time lang ako but
alam mo ‘yun.

B: Kasi small time nga lang ako so 15 lang hinihingi ko.

As what we can see here, kasi can be found in the initial and medial positions in a clause. Kasi
small time nga lang ako so 15 lang hinihingi ko ‘Because I’m a small time only so I only take 15
(thousand)’ and Bakit ka kasi nagyeyes sa lahat ng bagay ‘What is the reason that you always say yes to
everything’. But there also some instances when kasi can occur on the final position and is also acceptable.
From Kasi small time nga lang ako so 15 lang hinihingi ko to Small time nga lang ako kasi so 15 lang
hinihingi ko.

For the position of kaya, it can only be found in the medial and final position in a clause. From the
earlier example, Hindi nagjeep lang kami, ang hassle kaya pumunta sa Katipunan ng may car. Kaya can
be found in the middle position but can be moved to the last position. From ang hassle kaya pumunta sa
Katipunan ng may car to ang hassle pumunta sa Katipunan ng may car kaya.

Now for eh, it can be found initially and on the final position. The example from the data Hindi,
okay lang lagi naman akong nawawalan eh. Di naman nila magagamit ‘yun. Eh can be found on the final
position. But eh can also appear initially and can co-occur with another eh in a single sentence, Hindi, eh
okay lang lagi naman akong nawawalan eh.

These particles can also co-occur with each other in single sentence especially kasi and eh. But as
for now, further studies are needed to know the function of these co-occurences. Do they have the
properties of kasi or eh or it can be a mix but there is also a possibility of an entirely new function. This
conversation I had was with my cousin, he is a high school student and he was involved in a fist fight at his
school.

6
 A: Hala ano nangyari sa’yo?

B: Nakipagsuntukan ako kuya.

A: Bakit? Anong nangyari?

B: Inaasar niya kasi ako eh.

From his answer inaasar niya kasi ako eh. It can be seen here that kasi and eh occurred in a single
sentence.

To have clear cut distinction between the functions of kasi, kaya and eh is a difficult task because
they are closely and tightly related. But from the data gathered, the frequency of kasi + kaya (result) in a
single sentence occurs more than having a kaya with an eh in a sentence. From this, there is a reason-result
tandem unlike kaya+kaya or eh+kaya that are more likely to not occur.

Now from this sample from the data, this was from my friend and I was asking him how his life
was going.

A: Uy kumusta?

B: Okay lang naman haha

A: Kumusta kayo ni bebe labs mo?
B: Ayun ewan ko ba dun

A: Nag-away ba kayo?
B: Oo

A: Haha bakit?

B: Ganun siya eh, ang bilis magalit.

Ganun siya eh, ang bilis magalit. ‘That’s just her, she is quick to get mad.’ The cause of their
quarrel was because of his partner’s characteristic to quickly get mad. But Ganun siya kasi, ang bilis
magalit. This statement is still acceptable and Ganun siya kaya, ang bilis magalit can also be used. But
how do they differ from each other? With the statement with kaya, its function is still the same with a
statement that the hearer may not accept or understand and so, kaya is used by the speaker. But with the
kasi, it falls on the justification or explanation of the controversial statement. As a native speaker and other
help from native speakers, when kasi is used here instead of the other two, it mostly justifies why did that
happen. There are other factors that made her to quickly get mad. It may be because of bad upbringing or
other explanations. But when eh is used it means that there are no other factors that made her quickly get
mad but because she is just been born like that.

Eh can also appear not only in reason constructions. This conversation is taken from Hazel (A)
and Bea (B)

7
 B: Yehey may bago kang phone.

A:Anong may bagong phone, oo nga eh, may mga ganyan pang mga bibilhin.

B: Galling ba yan sa Hong Kong?

A: Oo girl ang mura 30k lang.

B: I knew it

As what can be observed here, Anong may bagong phone, oo nga eh, may mga ganyan pang mga
bibilhin. ‘What do you mean by a new phone, oh yes, there are still some things to buy (phone
accessories)’. There is clearly no reason being involved in here. The function of eh here is to put more
emphasis on the clause.

And from the most heard question. Bakit ka late? ‘Why are you late?’

(8) Traffic kasi.

‘Because it’s traffic.’
(9) Traffic eh.
‘Because it’s traffic.’
(10) Traffic kaya.
‘Because it’s traffic.’

These three indicates giving reason but there are differences on their implications. In traffic kasi,
kasi here indicates that this is an explanation to a statement and it is purely objective like tame of Japanese.
Unlike traffic eh that works somewhat alike with kara of Japanese which is more on the subjective and the
speaker’s judgment side. And usually, using eh on reasons give an ‘excuse vibe’ which is why eh falls on
the subjective slot. And lastly is kaya, in which still doesn’t change on which it is taking a stand on where
the speaker uses kaya because of the possibility of the hearer’s misunderstanding and unacceptance of the
statement.

CONCLUSION

This paper aimed to identify the particles used for reasoning in Tagalog. From the data that were
gathered through recording and informal conversations, kasi, kaya and eh emerged. Kasi functions as the
explanation or justification on a controversial statement wherein eh works subjectively and to emphasize.
And kaya which is widely known to indicate result or effect, it had it share on reasoning in tagalog wherein
it is used take a stand in a possibility that the hearer might misunderstand or will not accept the reason
gave by the speaker. This topic needs further research and studies because as of now, the analysis on this
paper lacks clear cut distinction between these particles especially on kasi and eh functions and
implications. Also as mentioned earlier, the combinations of kasi + eh function can be investigated but kasi
and eh must be first established.

8
REFERENCES

Schachter, P., & Otanes, F. T. (1972). Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California
Press.

Diessel, H., & Hetterle, K. (2011). Causal clauses: A cross-linguistic investigation of their structure,
meaning, and use. Linguistic Universals and Language Variation.

Kawanishi, Y., & Iwasaki, S. (2018). Chapter 1. Reason-coding in Japanese. Pragmatics of Japanese:
Perspectives on grammar, interaction and culture.