Upload
josh-lim
View
122
Download
4
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
This paper provides an analysis of the history of Philippine language policy and the Filipino language, some of the issues that hound language development in the Philippines, and possible solutions in fixing it.
Citation preview
Lim 1
James Joshua G. Lim
Mr. Roy Tristan Agustin
En 12 R39
February 15, 2010
A Need, A Want, A Calling: Fixing the Issues of Philippine Language Policy
If the Philippines’ fourth-largest broadsheet, the Manila Times, is to be believed (and I
see no reason not to), the headline emblazoned on its September 2, 2007 issue perfectly exclaims
to the world a very stark reality for which we here in the Philippines are now faced with.
“Help from environmentalist NGOs and the government gives endangered species
much better chances of survival than the languages of our dwindling aboriginal
and tribal communities.
Here’s a shocker.
Even Kapampangan and Pangasinan are now dying languages.”
The reality is stark and depressing; the battle, very fierce and controversial. Odds and
ends are pulled from all sides of the debate simply because of an issue as contentious as language
in a country where 170 is the total number of languages spoken and linguistic unity, though
championed for the last seventy years by people across a supposedly wide spectrum, has proven
very hard to come by. No one really knows where linguistic unity starts and ends in this country,
for a lack of foresight and the constant threat of infighting among regions and peoples seems to
move the debate over Philippine languages increasingly towards a path to no resolution in a bid
to sweep the problem under the rug.
Lim 2
Or are we deliberately trying to avoid debate in a bid to salvage whatever sense of
national and/or regional pride we have left?
This paper will cover three main angles on the issue of languages in the Philippines:
setting Tagalog apart from Filipino, the practical applications of local languages and the
reworking of language policy among them, all answering the question of whether or not the
Philippines as a whole can achieve a tenable linguistic peace, and what exactly is the best way to
achieving this. But this is not so much an evaluation as it is a treatise on how the Philippines has
been misguided on the various issues that form the language quandary we have been subjected
to, and how a series of missteps, misguided decisions and mistakes had brought us to a linguistic
road to perdition, for lack of a better term. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good
intentions.
But is it really a road to perdition? Or is it something else altogether: a reawakening of
our sense of self, of the true meaning of being a Filipino?
That is something we will need to see for ourselves.
The Universal Approach: Blurring Boundaries between Filipino and Tagalog
The boundary where Tagalog ends and Filipino begins is a very controversial question
where debate has proven to be raucous and a solution far from being reached. People from all
disciplines and walks of life, educated and uneducated alike, have taken part in a debate where
the potent mix of language, politics and nationalism comes into play, plucking at the heartstrings
of many Filipinos.
However, therein lays a common thread in this debate: vocabulary. Advocates of
Filipino say that it differentiates itself from Tagalog because of the heavy influence of borrowing
from both local languages like Cebuano, Ilokano and Hiligaynon, and foreign languages like
Lim 3
Spanish and English, as simply put by accomplished Bicolano writer and friend Irvin Sto. Tomas
in a debate we had over the issue on Wikipedia a few years ago:
Most of Filipino words are Tagalog origin but not all Tagalog words are Filipino.
Some non-Tagalog words, such as "gurang", "pinakbet", "salvage", "nars", "bus"
perhaps "magayon", "oragon", "crush" and "type" are Filipino. I don't think
"pakikipagtalamitam", "dapatwat" [sic], "pangatnig" and "punlay" (punla ng
buhay) are Filipino.
"Wais" (from English word "wise") is not/(not only) Tagalog but Filipino/(but
also Bikol, Cebuano, maybe Tausug too). "Komplot", "rabuz" (from English word
"complot", "robust") are Bikol words; "Ismagol" (from English word "smuggle")
is Cebuano, but are not Filipino.
Later on, he is countered by another friend of mine, linguist Christopher Sundita, who
says otherwise, and has been doing so for the last few years.
This is the kind of made-up boundaries attempting (and failing horribly) to
delineate Tagalog and Filipino that I've been talking about for a long time. Many,
if not all, of the "non-Tagalog" words you cite may have non-Tagalog origins, but
they have become part of Tagalog before the creation of Filipino.
One then has to beg the question: where does it really end? Or does it even end at all,
and is it worthy of further discussion? The answer apparently lies first and foremost with a bit of
legislation called Republic Act No. 7104, more aptly called the Commission on the Filipino
Language Act, the law establishing the mandate of the country’s premier language regulator and
so-called “guardian” of the national language.
Lim 4
Whether or not the KWF’s intentions are indeed noble, let’s take a look at whether or not
the KWF has enough teeth to even enforce good language manners and proper language conduct,
taking particular focus on this part of Section 14 of RA 7104.
SECTION 14. Powers, Functions and Duties of the Commission. — The
Commission, pursuant to the pertinent provisions of the Constitution, shall have
the following powers, functions and duties:
…
(c) Undertake or contract research and other studies to promote the evolution,
development, enrichment and eventual standardization of Filipino and other
Philippine languages. This will include the collation of works for possible
incorporation into a multi-lingual dictionary of words, phrases, idioms,
quotations, sayings and other expressions, including words and phrases from
other languages now commonly used or included in the lingua franca;
…
The bolded section above is particularly interesting, for they set the tone with which the
KWF can legally go about enforcing and implementing Philippine language policy, as well as the
“proper” usage of the language to such lengths that two people would be theoretically using the
same language, no differentiation attached. However, one has to ask the methodology by which
the KWF borrows words from other languages and “incorporates” them into the Filipino
language. Orara (1993) mentions that the Filipino lexical borrowing model being used in status
quo is the so-called “universal approach”, wherein in order to shift the base of Filipino from
Tagalog to one based on several Philippine languages, borrowing from the other constituent
languages into Filipino is given importance. This approach in particular was championed by
Lim 5
several professors of the University of the Philippines, Diliman, in particular Dr. Ernesto A.
Constantino, Professor Leopoldo Y. Yabes and Dr. Cecilio Lopez, who, according to Orara,
believed in a Filipino “that is still based on Tagalog but includes other languages and with an
increased level of or freedom of borrowing from the other native languages, as well as from
other foreign languages, especially Spanish and English.” (translation mine)
Lopez in particular emphasized the “purist” roots of the then-Tagalog derived Pilipino in
a session of the 1971 Constitutional Convention’s Committee on National Language, as retold by
Yabes in his book “Let’s Study the New Constitution”, quoted by Orara.
He said that from before until 1963, his method was elitist, which aimed to form a
national language to be based on only one native language. This changed after
1963 as a result of many newly-discovered ways of language development. He
saw there what could be the possible solution to all our problems with regard to
the national language. He referred to the universal approach. (Yabes 96,
translation mine)
The big question which needs to be asked here is this: when has forming a national
language based on a single language “elitist”? And as an extension from that question, has
Filipino been really representative of the language used by Filipinos? The simple answer there is
no, and it all delves back to what exactly Filipino is.
Well, for starters, with it being imbued with the sole authority to define what Filipino is,
the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino decided in 1992 to define Filipino as follows:
It is the native language, oral and written, in Metro Manila, the National Capital
Region, and other urban centers in the archipelago, being used as the language
of communication by ethnic groups. Like all other living languages, Filipino
Lim 6
undergoes the process of enrichment through borrowing words from other
languages of the Philippines and from non-native languages and the evolution of
different varieties of language for differing social situations, where the speakers
are of different social backgrounds, and for topics of discussion and critical
commentary. (KWF Resolution 92-1, translation mine)
Primary emphasis is placed on “Metro Manila and the National Capital Region” as the
fathers of Filipino have originally intended for it to be based on the language of Manila, which is
Tagalog. This was particularly emphasized by former Commissioner Ricardo Ma. Nolasco back
in 2007, in his speech “Ang Filipino at Tagalog, Hindi Gaanong Kasimple” (“Filipino and
Tagalog, It’s Not That Simple”):
Are “Tagalog,” “Pilipino” and “Filipino” different languages? No, they are
mutually intelligible varieties, and therefore belong to one language. According
to the KWF, Filipino is that speech variety spoken in Metro Manila and other
urban centers where different ethnic groups meet. It is the most prestigious
variety of Tagalog and the language used by the national mass media. (translation
by Santiago B. Villafania)
Using Nolasco’s reasoning, this means that the words Filipino teachers and Filipinists in
general champion as being part of the Filipino lexicon, like “vugi” (roe), “kalaniyog” (egg white)
or even “xappo” (bell pepper), if I were to use the definition of the KWF, can be considered far
from being part of the Filipino lexicon, as these words are rarely encountered in Manila speech.
When you go to a market, whenever it’s available, you do not ask for “vugi”, rather, you ask for
“itlog ng isda”. When you watch a Tagalog-language cooking show like “Cooking with the
Dazas”, the host would call egg white “puti ng itlog” (and by extension, “egg yolk” becomes
Lim 7
“pula ng itlog”), not “kalaniyog”. Does use of terms not native to Tagalog then necessarily
translate into it automatically being Filipino and not Tagalog?
To answer this, we need to go back to the speech by Nolasco. Currently, some advocates
of Filipino try to distinguish it from Tagalog through the evolution of its vocabulary. He says:
Certain academicians equate Tagalog with “purist” usage and Filipino with
“non-purist” usage. To them, “pulong” and “gurô” are Tagalog words, while
“miting” and “titser” are Filipino words. Word borrowing however is not a
reliable basis for language differentiation. Zamboangueño (Chavacano)
borrowed heavily from Spanish but evolved a different grammar from Spanish. It
cannot be understood by Spanish speakers. (translation by Santiago B. Villafania)
Purism in the Filipino language dates back as far as the national language debate has been
active. Preeminent in championing Tagalog “purism” is none other than Lope K. Santos himself,
who, according to Llamzon, believed that language “was capable of expressing any concept, no
matter how technical”, and therefore resorted to several methods of word formation (such as
redefinition, calquing and derivation) to express concepts which had no native Tagalog
equivalent. Santos’ line of thinking is certainly different from current schools of thought,
wherein Filipino is considered too unwieldy to use for technical concepts, and therefore technical
concepts should be left as they are. This is the viewpoint currently enshrined in the latest set of
orthographical guidelines championed by the KWF back in 2008, and is also a viewpoint which
perhaps is important to the idea of the universal approach of language development and which
reportedly sets Tagalog apart from Filipino, according to its proponents.
All of this then begs the question: does the universal approach necessarily mean then that
we are approaching towards the goal of developing a national language called “Filipino”? The
Lim 8
boundaries, at least from the viewpoint of academicians who have shaped the debate, seem very
unclear, as aptly summarized by my friend Eugene Villar (who is not a linguist) back in the
Wikipedia debate over Filipino.
There's the rub. Are we talking about assimilating words (from any language)
into Tagalog? Into Filipino? Or into Tagalog/Filipino? You say, "the possibilities
of Filipino is more and broader" [sic] How about "the possibilities of Tagalog is
also broad" [sic]? Is your example sentence using "bodi" [Chavacano slang for
“broke”] Filipino, Tagalog, or Tagalog/Filipino code-switched with Chavacano?
When I say "pangga ko siya," am I speaking in pure Tagalog/Filipino with
"pangga" already or in the process of being assimilated or am I just code-
switching with Hiligaynon?
To presume that Filipino is developing at least in status quo requires one to presume that
Tagalog, the substrate, is not enriching its vocabulary in its own right, especially given that
Filipino is classified by Ethnologue as a “variant” of Tagalog, and a fact conceded to by the
KWF two years ago. However, as a standardized language, the KWF must use bureaucratic
processes to fulfill its basic mandate of enriching Filipino, which is not necessarily the best path
of language enrichment. As evidenced by the way Filipino has “evolved”, words more often
used in common contexts are the ones often incorporated into the language much quicker than
the words prescribed by the KWF, which is exactly how Tagalog evolves in the absence of a
strong regulating body. Words like “chorva” (from gay lingo), “pangga” (as a result of the high
ratings of Energy FM in Manila, from Hiligaynon) and “miskol” (the 2007 Sawikaan Word of
the Year, from English) are more likely to be accepted as part of any “Filipino” lexicon than
words like “kalaniyog”, “vugi” or even the oft-cited “gahum” (hegemony, from Cebuano), which
Lim 9
are almost-unheard of even in highly formal speech, which in Manila more often than not reverts
to “pure” Tagalog. This “disconnect” is also one of the reasons why people frowned upon the
purist tendencies of the KWF’s predecessor body, the Surian ng Wikang Pambansa (SWP,
otherwise known as Institute of National Language), as they were reportedly creating gaps
between “the language of the textbooks and that of the masses” (Llamzon, 1977).
This shows that the addition of foreign words to the Filipino lexicon does not necessarily
mean that Tagalog is not evolving. Given that Filipino is based on the Tagalog of Metro Manila,
it can be deduced that following a linear line of argumentation, components of Filipino need to
undergo a sort of “screening” as part of Manila Tagalog before even being considered as
“Filipino”. However, the focus then shifts onto what exactly then differentiates Manila Tagalog
from Filipino, and what is the relationship between the two.
Simply put as it is, Manila Tagalog and Filipino are the same, with Nolasco having
conceded that Filipino has not absorbed any grammatical component or any significant lexicon
from other Philippine languages which in turn would differentiate it from its Manila Tagalog
base. This then would imply that Tagalog is the one evolving, not Filipino, as differing language
registers are not usually considered as separate languages in their own right, and that Filipino as
an independent language is, linguistically speaking, virtually moot.
However, the debate goes far beyond just mere delineation between what is Tagalog and
what is Filipino. There are bound to be practical ramifications with respect to Philippine
language policy and how this is necessarily enforced by government institutions, such as the
KWF, and these are ramifications which should be discussed and addressed.
Putting Filipino into “Practice”
Lim 10
Look all around you and see the traffic signs whose near-omnipresence leaves a lasting
impression over the image that is Manila. In shades of blue, green, white, yellow, red and,
increasingly, pink, messages of where to go, what to (or what not to) do and what to expect are
printed in big, oftentimes bold, letters in a nation known for being bereft of any sense of
discipline on the road and the telling absence of road rules which help make Manila drivers
arguably some of the most versatile in the road, as what my mother said to me two years ago.
But, save for some of those bright pink signs the Metropolitan Manila Development
Authority has erected in the last few years, all these traffic signs have one thing in common: they
are all in English and in English alone. Although the proliferation of monolingual English
signage is a boon to the foreigners who visit the Philippines every year, it certainly defies
convention: the Philippines, aside from Singapore, is the only country in Asia whose signs are
not in English alongside that of the national language. Common knowledge would often dictate
that this is a result of the Filipinos’ understanding of English, but it goes far beyond signs in
itself: the question becomes why almost all government discourse is done in English.
According to an opinion piece on the Philippine Daily Inquirer printed on February 10,
2010, Senator Lito Lapid authored a bill back in 2004 which would mandate the use of Filipino
in business transactions. However, the bill was vetoed by President Arroyo, saying that in the
realm of business and finance, equivalent terms which would be used in Filipino are “not good
for public consumption”. Exactly what the President means by “not good for public
consumption” is still the subject of debate, but does this necessarily preclude not using Filipino
for such transactions simply because it may potentially “offend” popular sensibilities?
We need to understand that the government does have a responsibility to promote
Filipino as the language of everyday life, particularly in business and governmental transactions.
Lim 11
In fact, in the case of government agencies, as we read further down Section 14 of Republic Act
No. 7104, the KWF is mandated to give incentives to government agencies and instrumentalities
to promote the use of the national language in the commission of legal transactions and general
business. Specifically, it says:
…
(f) Create and maintain within the Commission a division of transaction which
shall encourage through incentives, undertake and vigorously support the
translation into Filipino and other Philippine languages of important historical
works and cultural traditions of ethnolinguistic groups, laws, resolutions and
other legislative enactments, executive issuances, government policy statements
and official documents, textbooks and reference materials in various disciplines
and other foreign materials which it may deem necessary for education and other
purposes;
…
Despite the law’s good intentions, this division of transaction does not exist, and little, if
any, government works and legal jurisprudence are in Filipino. In fact, when searching the
Congress’ database of Republic Acts, only three laws, all in the Eighth Congress (1987-1992)
and all only of local importance (one law renames a school in Alabat, Quezon; the others
upgrade health centers in two towns in Nueva Ecija), are written in Filipino. Though Congress
does translate certain laws into several vernaculars (including Tagalog/Filipino), these are still
written in English. However, there is a promising development for the use of Filipino in
government: a pilot project by the Supreme Court had three Bulacan courts use Filipino as the
Lim 12
language of its court proceedings rather than English, all with positive results despite some
minor problems.
This debate also spills over to the oftentimes contentious discussion over the use of
Filipino as the medium of instruction in public schools. Tupas (2007) cites the contentious
debate behind President Arroyo’s 2003 call for the return of English as the sole medium of
instruction in Philippine schools, which later gave birth to the Gullas Bill which was opposed by
proponents of Filipino (in particular by organizations like the Sanggunian ng Filipino
[SANGFIL] and the Filipinas Institute of Translation) but widely supported by media,
government and, not surprisingly, non-Tagalogs. She says that although the importance of
English cannot be discounted in an increasingly globalizing world, replacing Filipino with
English does not necessarily produce an environment where more Filipinos stand to gain
economically, particularly when the debate is driven largely on more socio-politically-oriented
issues such as nationalism and the role of law rather than the economic benefits that ought to be
gained by reworking our language policy (something which proponents of English instruction
say leans in their favor).
Given then that Filipino and English are often on odds and ends over which language is
supposedly more “advantageous” in a setting such as ours, it would be apt to ask why English is
still predominant in the realms of business and government. The answer lays not so much on
legal precedents, but more so on convenience.
First, we need to delve into how the problem got started, and accordingly, how the “deep
language” concept came to fore. Tinio (1990) suggests that the concept of “deep” language is a
malapropism: a way for so-called “linguistic idiots” to express thoughts in language which to
them are either too serious or too complex to be understood by them, or which they simply do
Lim 13
not know. This is exaggerated by him saying earlier that the way language in the Philippines is
used is one that, for lack of a better term, can be said as “chaotic”.
A present and pressing problem in the Philippines is that language use (public
and private) has become so anarchical that language users and even language
teachers (in English or Filipino) have forgotten that language is classified.
It can be conceded that language use in the Philippines, particularly with native
languages, is very fluid in itself, as Tinio concedes. In his arbitrary classification of language,
words like “mag-protest” (Taglish) are colloquial, whereas “protesta”, “reklamo” and “angal” are
informal, and “pagtutol” is formal. However, the boundaries, existent as they are, are more often
than not very blurry, as “protesta” could be used in a formal context, and even Taglish has
become even a staple of formal speech in places such as mass media. It is possible that the
inherently blurred standards by which we uphold our use of language is both a contributing
factor to why Filipinos are reluctant to use formal Filipino (or even formal vernaculars) in
otherwise formal settings like government proceedings and business transactions and a deterring
factor for local languages to be adopted in such settings, although the more preeminent factor
perhaps is the predominance of English as the international language of business and the corpus
of jurisprudence which we have in the same language. Despite this, Tinio believes that although
which words to use in a given context are debatable, what is not debatable is “the principle that
no head of state will address the world in the same kind of language he or she uses at the
hairdresser’s”.
Let’s return then to the analysis of Llamzon as to why Filipinos were not so accepting of
the SWP’s purist overtures back in the 1930s and 1940s. In addition to the SWP’s tendency to
supposedly produce disconnects between the formal language of textbooks and the colloquial
Lim 14
speech of the Filipino citizenry, he says that Santos’ influence in the formation of Tagalog as the
national language and its prescriptive, traditional teaching style resulted in “highly grammatical,
uninteresting and difficult” language classes, even for native Tagalog speakers. Coupled with
the historical use of English as the language of business and government and the prestige of
being fluent in English (which, according to Tupas, was largely divided along class lines, as
English fluency is often attributed with the Filipino elite, and English was a prerequisite to climb
the economic ladder), local languages are put at an inherent disadvantage vis-à-vis their foreign
peers. This so-called “fear” of English, according to an Inquirer opinion piece written by Isabel
Pefianco Marin, is unfounded, given that English is a language which can be aptly described,
based on her piece, as breaking defined molds and prescriptions, and that all languages are
perfect without prejudice to one or the other.
In addition, current conventions and guidelines which are driven by non-binding arbitrary
standards also aggravate the situation to the detriment of local language development. In the
2008 orthographical guidelines, for example, when borrowing from foreign languages, one
should “keep the original spelling” (ergo, not translate) so-called proper nouns, technical and
scientific terms. However, without defining what “proper nouns, technical and scientific terms”
exactly are, this provision essentially does two things: it discriminates against these types of
terms which are already present in the lexicon (e.g. “oksiheno” for oxygen, “sinturong
pangkaligtasan” for seatbelt, “Atenas” for Athens) and it encourages non-uniform use (because
people dictate what these types of terms are, people can choose either to translate them or not
based on interpretation of the other guidelines). In addition, because these terms are oftentimes
considered “obscure” in common speech, people do not see the incentive to use them, and more
likely than not use the English term instead of the native term.
Lim 15
We then need to ask what hampers local languages from moving forward. Is it
necessarily because their growth becomes unwieldy and difficult for their speakers to handle?
Or is it because current policies are too biased against local languages, wherein local languages
are already disfavored by the preeminence of one of their own, which in turn is itself disfavored
by the preeminence of a language not of their own? Either way, the problem of vernacular
development in the Philippines is hampered by several socio-political factors which clearly favor
preferring giving an edge to citizens at the expense of leaving native tongues stagnant, even on
the decline. Leaving the concept of “Filipino” open-ended likewise forces people to make
decisions for themselves, leaving language development to chance and placing it not in the hands
of the regulating body, but rather those of the regulated who will not always think alike as a
single, cohesive body.
Questions now need to be geared towards giving languages in the Philippines a sense of
equity. We should ask, therefore, what is the best way to ensure that all languages get an equal
share of the development pie?
Equality in a Level Playing Field: Re-engineering Philippine Language Policies
If we look back at the seventy-year history of the Filipino language, the ideas in
themselves were noble, and the intentions of the politicians instrumental in the formation of a
national language pure. However, the debate was far from peaceful, and it in itself had served as
a means of escalating regional tensions in an already-polarized society. Before delving into
ways of how to solve the national language problem, a bit of history needs to be looked back
into.
Filipino’s origins are traced back to the 1934 Constitutional Convention which would
have borne the 1935 Constitution. This first clash however was not particularly charged, as the
Lim 16
Philippine Independence Act (more commonly known as the Tydings-McDuffie Act) required
the Commonwealth government to use English as the primary medium of instruction and, by
extension, the language of government. Despite this, steps were taken to ensure that a national
language would eventually be born out of their efforts, with the introduction of a complete draft
of the new Constitution by a committee of seven members and, by extension, Article XIII,
Section 2, which, “being necessary to strengthen the solidarity of the Nation”, required the
National Assembly to “take steps looking to the development of a language common to all the
people on the basis of the existing native languages” (Yabes 343). This section was removed
later on by the same committee, but delegates nonetheless stirred debate by attempting to amend
the draft. The debate, contentious and bitter as it was, was finally calmed when delegates
adopted a compromise proposal by Wenceslao Vinzons of Camarines Norte, which would
virtually enshrine a language based on what would be known today as the “universal approach”.
The National Assembly shall take steps towards the development and adoption of
a common national language, based on existing native dialects. Until otherwise
provided, English and Spanish shall be the official languages. (U.P. Law Center
797)
This was later changed as the draft Constitution was passed onto the Committee of Style,
which later revised the above text (changes in bold).
The National Assembly shall take steps towards the development and adoption of
a common national language, based on one of the existing native languages.
Until otherwise provided, English and Spanish shall continue as official
languages. (U.P. Law Center 797)
Lim 17
From there, the rest is history (Tagalog became the base of the national language in 1939,
for example), and the contentions between Vinzons’ vision of a possible Filipino Esperanto and
Quezon’s “Tagalog-based” Pilipino have continued to be in play. What exactly though is the
model that Vinzons, and now the modern Filipino, tries to espouse? The model could look like
something like the following language model presented in a study conducted by Pineda (1988).
Metung na electronic gadyet nga ininvento ti usa a Filipino nga magapanormal
sang kinandaan nga panagturog ng mga tawo na nagsa-suffer sa aga makaugip
ang saan agbayag ket mointroducir sa public.
…
Pineda identifies this as Language Model 4, wherein terms and elements from English,
Spanish and native language would be used freely depending on the speaker’s preference, and
where it “pretends that the national language is an amalgam of native languages or tongues in all
levels of linguistic analysis”. The above example in “normal” Filipino (combining other
examples from Pineda’s study as well as adding some of my own modifications) would appear as
follows:
Isang kagamitang elektroniko na inimbento ng Pilipino na magsasaayos sa
pagtulog ng mga taong hindi makapagtulog ay malapit nang ipakilala sa publiko.
…
In replying to a comment posted in his blog suggesting a national language similar to that
of the one espoused in Language Model 4, Sundita questions whether it, as a product of much
dispute and controversy over the last seventy years, would be accepted by a Filipino people
possibly drained and demoralized from all the linguistic infighting.
Lim 18
Sure, why not? It's been something I've been thinking about making one for a
while now. But the problem is - will people accept it? There is also the inevitable
problem of the language being too "Luzon centric" or "too Central Philippine"
centric. I'm open to this idea.
Not everyone supports this view however. Another fellow Wikipedian, Harvey Fiji (a
Waray), once left a comment on the e-group of the Defenders of the Indigenous Languages of
the Archipelago (DILA) which has since been published in the organization’s only printed book
to date: “Filipino is Not Our Language”. He says, quite bluntly, that he “will not support a single
national language”, whether it be an amalgam or not (Defenders of the Indigenous Languages of
the Archipelago, 2007).
Although I support an amalgamated Filipino, another way by which language peace
could be achieved is by elevating other regional languages to the status of Filipino as an official
language. Sundita advocates this, believing that it is fair despite examples in other countries
pointing to the fact that they have a much lesser number of existing languages within their
borders (as stated earlier, the Philippines has over 160 languages).
I am leaning towards systems in other countries where there are more than two
official languages. Switzerland is one, with 4 (German, French, Italian, and
Romantsch). But, India is another with 22 official languages.
There are over 160 languages in the Philippines, but clearly all of them cannot be
the official languages.
So maybe the 13 major languages? They each have at least 1 million speakers
Lim 19
and all of them represent at least 90% of the country. It is more inclusive than just
1 language that natively represents about a quarter of the country.
Although this model seems to be fair to most Filipinos, it still poses the risk of elevating
other tongues to a level of prestige similar to that of Filipino, and perpetuating language death as
is the case with Filipino at the moment. For example, the Butuanon language of Butuan City is
endangered precisely because of the influence of Cebuano, where it is similar. On the other
hand, Chavacano, which does not fall under the category of the top thirteen languages as it has
670,000 speakers, could likewise undergo the same fate. This is the same with Cordilleran
languages such as Ibanag, Ifugao and Ibaloi, whose speakers are gradually shifting to Ilokano.
These may be doomsday scenarios, but they are still possible.
Other measures which should be considered include the often-discussed introduction of
vernacular language instruction, programs which encourage the use of local vernaculars in
everyday speech, and the formalization of regional language academies which would have
binding force over the languages which they regulate. Some modified status quo measures, such
as the mandatory translation of all jurisprudence to local vernaculars, could also help arrest the
decline of local vernaculars, all while strengthening English and Spanish as languages which
play a global role. Such measures, when effectively enforced, could help appease regional
sensibilities and possibly end our great language debate.
So Now What? Moving Forward with Multilingualism
Language politics, at least in the Philippines, is still a very contentious issue, and
compromises are often very hard to come by without offending regional sensibilities. It is
important to recognize that in finding any common ground between ethnolinguistic groups on the
divisive issue of a national language, all sides must be effectively engaged in a fair and equal
Lim 20
forum, and all biases need to be set aside in order for a workable solution to be achieved. One of
the reasons why Filipino has reportedly failed is because of regional biases which, according to
Tinio, are inevitable in such a debate (Quezon for one is a Tagalog): biases which only divide
people rather than unite them, as solutions brought about by biases have brought us.
Filipino is a complex problem, and it could possibly take more than a single generation to
fix the problems which came with it. Filipinos are aware of the problem and some yearn for a
solution, knowing that a greater compromise is still achievable, despite its results possibly not
coming to fruition within their lifetimes. However, for any solution to even be achieved, we will
need a sense of political will far greater than what we exercise now in order to move forward and
address the issues head-on, something which is not present with the current crop of solutions we
are presented with.
It is inevitable that we will need to hold hands and solve the problem together, as
everyone knows that it is in their best interests to preserve their own mother tongues. However,
an important component to the debate, as discussed by Tupas, is nationalism. She believes that
the concept of nationalism and a national language should be decoupled precisely because it does
not make you any less Filipino if you do not speak the Filipino language, nor does it make you
any more Filipino if you do. Nationalism is important, but language should not be defined by it.
Rather, the situation should be the reverse: language defines nationalism, and our
multilingualism defines the type of nation we seek to be.
Fixing the problem of language is both multi-step and multifaceted, and it does have a
profound impact on several aspects of Filipino society if any moves are taken. The next move
could either make or break our resolve to finally make a Filipino identity independent of a
Lim 21
linguistic component. But whatever steps we intend to take, language peace is certainly
attainable, and unity certainly tenable, only if we try.
Bibliography
Cabuang, Fred S. "Saving Butuanon language." The Manila Times 6 September 2007.
Defenders of the Indigenous Languages of the Archipelago. Filipino is Not OurLanguage. Angeles City: Defenders of the Indigenous Languages of the Archipelago, 2007.
Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino. Gabay sa Ortograpiya ng Wikang Pambansa.Manila, October 2008.
Llamzon, Teodoro A. "A Requiem for Filipino." Language Planning and the Building of aNational Language: Essays in Honor of Santiago A. Fonacier on his Ninety-second Birthday. Ed. Bonifacio P. Sibayan and Andrew B. Gonzalez. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines, 1977. 291-303.
Martin, Isabel Pefianco. Fearing English in the Philippines. 12 April 2008. 7 February 2010<http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20080412-129893/Fearing-English-in-the-Philippines>.
Nolasco, Ricardo Ma. and Santiago B. Villafania (translator). "Articles: Filipino and Tagalog,Not So Simple / How to Value Our Languages." 30 August 2007. Dalityapi.1 February 2010 <http://www.dalityapi.com/2007/08/articles-filipino-and-tagalog-not-so.html>.
Orara, Jovita H. Ang Papel ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas sa Kilusan para sa Wikang Pambansa(1908-1973). Quezon City: UP Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, 1993.
Ortiz, Margaux. "SC: Use of Filipino language in courts ‘positive’ ." Philippine Daily Inquirer1 July 2008.
Pineda, Ponciano B.P. Evolving a Pilipino Language Model: Nucleus for the Cultivation ofFilipino. Pasig City: Linangan ng mga Wika sa Pilipinas, 1988.
"Republic Act No. 7104." Chan Robles Virtual Law Library.
Lim 22
ChanRobles Publishing Corporation. 5 January 2010 <http://www.chanrobles.com/republicacts/republicactno7104.html>.
"Resolusyon Blg. 92-1." Wika - Opisyal na Wiki ng Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino.5 January 2010 <http://web.archive.org/web/20080430043543/http://wika.pbwiki.com/Resolusyon+Blg+92-1>.
San Juan, Erick. ‘Filipino’ to make Filipinos in thought, word and deed. 10 February 2010.10 February 2010 <http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/letterstotheeditor/view/20100210-252497/Filipino-to-make-Filipinos-in-thought-word-and-deed>.
Sundita, Christopher. My ideal language policy. 8 August 2005. 7 February 2010<http://salitablog.blogspot.com/2005/08/my-ideal-language-policy.html>.
—. The Filipino vs. Tagalog Debate: Bisalog. 25 January 2005. 1 February 2010<http://salitablog.blogspot.com/2005/01/filipino-vs-tagalog-debate-bisalog.html>.
Tinio, Rolando S. A Matter of Language: Where English Falls.Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 1990.
Tupas, T. Ruanni F. "Back to Class: The Ideological Structure of the Medium of InstructionDebate in the Philippines." (Re)making Society : The Politics of Language, Discourse,and Identity in the Philippines. Ed. T. Ruanni F. Tupas. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 2007. 61-85.
Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines - The Filipino Wiktionary Debate (formerly It's official). 5January 2010 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive14#The_Filipino_Wiktionary_Debate_.28formerly_It.27s_official.29>.
Yabes, Leopoldo Y. "History of Filipino as the Common National Language." LanguagePlanning and the Building of a National Language: Essays in Honor of Santiago A.Fonacier on his Ninety-second Birthday. Ed. Bonifacio P. Sibayan and Andrew B. Gonzalez. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines, 1977. 341-355.