CURRENT RESEARCH PHILIPPINE JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS

Volume 25, Numbers land 2

June and December 1994

SUBGROUPING AND NUMBER OF lHE PHILIPPINE

LANGUAGES l
OR
HOW MANY PHILIPPINE LANGUAGES ARE lHERE?

CURT'ISD. McFARLAND

Waseda University. Thkyo

1. THE AUSTRONESIAN FAMILY OF LANGUAGES

The indigenous Philippine languages belong to the Austronesian

family of languages-a very large family which includes most of the
languages of Indonesia, Malaysia, Polynesia, Melanesia, and Micronesia,
some of the indigenous languages of TaiWan and Indochina. and even the
national language of Malagasy. To say that these languages are related
or members of the same family is to assert that they have developed out
of a single language, a single speech variety that was presumably spoken
by a relatively small group of people thousands of years ago. The
Philippine languages are also Hesperonestan (Western) languages-they
are descended from a common ancestor which was also the ancestor of
many Indonesian and Malaysian languages, but not of other
Austronesian languages such as the Polynesian, Melanesian, and
Micronesian languages. Similarly many of the languages of the northern
Philippines share a common ancestor which was not the ancestor of
languages in the central and southern Philippines.
In this type of development those languages which share a more
recent ancestor-e.g.. the same 'mother'-are more closely related to each
other and in general more similar to each other. than they are to
languages which share a more distant ancestor-e.g. languages which
have the same 'grandmother' but different 'mothers'. Thus the languages
of the northern Philippines are more closely related and more similar to
each other than they are to the languages of the central and southern
Philippines. The languages of the Philippines are more closely related
and more similar to the other Austronesian languages than they are to
unrelated languages-languages which do not share any common
ancestor-such as English, Chinese, and Japanese.
Within a family of related languages, those languages which are
more similar and share a more recent common ancestor are said to form
groups or subgroups.

~paper was prepared in 1993 by the author upon the request of

Armand Fabella. Secretary of Education. Culture, and Sports. and Chainnan of
the Summer Institute of Llngutstics (SIL) Philippines Advisory Board,
communicated through Andrew Gonzalez. FSC. Executive Secretary of the
Ungutstlc Society of the Philippines and member of the same Advisory Board.

75
McFARLAND

2. METHODS FOR TRACING THE PREHISTORY OF THE

PHILIPPINE LANGUAGES

Unfortunately we have no direct records of the historical

development of Philippine languages before the arrival of the Spaniards,
by which time most of the important developments had already taken
place. Lacking such direct records, we must examine the languages now
spoken in the Philippines, compare the relative degrees of similarity
among them, and try to reconstruct a' family tree representing the
historical development.
Measuring the difference or similarity and the languages is not a
Simple matter. Linguists use two prtmary tools: lexicostatistics and the
comparative method. Lexicostattsttcs is based on the assumption that
the replacement of words in the basic vocabulary of a language occurs at
a relatively constant rate. and that therefore 'daughters' of a given
language will share a higher percentage of words in their basic
vocabularies with each other.. than they will with languages which
descend from the same 'grandmother' but a different 'mother', and so
forth.
The comparative method involves the comparisons of shared
innovations ..'. This method is based upon the assumption that the
likelihood of any given innovation is very smalband that therefore the
likelihood that the same innovation would occur independently in two
different languages is almost zero. Thus the appearance of the same
feature in two languages. or a group of languages. but nowhere outside
the group, is evidence that the feature is the result of an innovation
which occurred in a language which was the ancestor of that group.
Unfortunately neither of these methods provides an indisputable
reconstruction of the historical development. Clearly it is necessary to
gather all the available evidence and formulateconclusions which best fit
these data. The subgrouptng of Philippine languages presented in this
article is based primarily on the Iextcostattsttcal studies of Dyen 1965
and Walton 1979. supplemented by other regional studies.
3. SUBGROUPING OF THE PHILIPPINE LANGUAGES

A few general observations can be made about the Philippine

languages and their subgroupmg.
As a general rule. the sea unites and mountains divide. That is.
communication by sea is easy; communication inland over hills and
mountains is difficult. Historically communities located in lowlands near
the sea have been in close communication with each other, but those
located inland have been relatiVely Isolated from one another. Thus we
find much greater lmgutsttc diversification in mountainous inland areas
than the areas close to the sea.
Linguistic subgrouping and level of development are relatively
unrelated. Thus for example Pangasman is closely related to the
languages of more 'primitive' groups living in Benguet. Similarly present
social identification may diverge from the linguistic subgrouptng. For
example, the people of Sorsogon belong to the Bikol socio-economic
community, but their languages belong to the Central Bisayan subgroup.
Both lexicostatistics and the comparative method are based on
the assumption of sudden, complete, and permanent divisions of
languages into daughter languages. etc. Such divisions may in fact be

76
 SUBGROUPING OF THE PHILIPPINE LANGUAG~

rather exceptional in the historical development of all languages. The

development in the Philippines seems particularly. to have been
characterized by gradual, partial, and occasionally reversible divisions.
One result of such divisions has been the development of a number of L-
complexes. or complex languages, by which is meant: Languages
contiguous to each other are mutually intelligible, but the degree of
mutual intelligibility diminishes with noncontiguity and distance. Such a
sequence is called an L-complex. When we speak of a 'language' we
usually think of a speech variety, such that all speakers of that 'language'
can understand and communicate with all other speakers of that
language. But in some cases the language has diversified into a number
of dialects such that OJ the speakers of all dialects can communicate
with speakers of some other dialects, and are connected with all other
dialects through claims of intelligibility, but (2) not all speakers of all
dialects can understand all other dialects in the group. Such a situation
exists for many of the 'languages' of northern Luzon.
While the overall development seems to have been gradual, there
is some evidence of major migrations, primarily in the existence of
language boundaries, that is, areas in which languages which are not
mutually intelligible and are quite different are found in close contact
with each other. Near language boundaries we usually find a high level
of borrowing, usually from the more to the less dominant language, but
also to some extent in the opposite direction. Thus, there has been a lot
of borrowing from Tagalog (a central Philippine language) to
Kapampangan (a northern Philippine language), giving them the
appearance (lexically) of being more similar and closely related then they
actually are. Similarly Sebuano is usually considered to be the Bisayan
language. Yet its grammar is strikingly different from the other Bisayan
languages. Again, this is apparently the result of the migration of
Cebuanos into the area of the other Bisayan languages, and subsequent
extensive borrowing from Sebuano into the other languages, creating the
appearance of a closer relationship than actually exists.
There is general agreement about low-level subgroups presented
in this essay, with one major exception. Zorc 1977 treats Surtgaonon,
Butuanon, and Tausug as South Bisayan languages in a subgroup with
Sebuano. Mamanwa is classified as an East Mindanao language, along
with Davawefio, Mandaya, and other languages. Pallesen 1977 and
Gallman 1977 place Mamanwa in a subgroup with Butuanon,
Surtgaonon, and Tausug. This subgroup, which they call Northeast
Mindanao, may also include Sebuano, and is itself included in the East
Mindanao subgroup. The listing below reflects the Zorc position, but
Without the intention of taking sides in this disagreement.
The subgrouping of the Philippine languages above the lowest
level is a very difficult subject; relatively few definite results have been
achieved in it. The followtng points reflect areas of general agreement.

1. All Philippine languages except Chavacano and the

imported languages (Chinese, Engltsh, Spanish,
etc.) are Austronestan languages and
Hesperonestan (Western Austronesian) languages.
Chavacano is a creole language spoken in a number of
places, including Cavtte and Zamboanga. which is
purported to have a basically Spanish vocabulary With
a basically 'Philippine' grammar.

77
2. It is not clear whether the Philippine languages, that
is. the Austronesian languages found in the
Philippines, constitute a subgroup or not. Possibly
some of the southern languages are more closely
related to some Indonesian languages, etc.
3. There are three large groups of Philippine language:
Northern Philippine. Meso-Philippine, and Southern
Philippine.
4. The Meso-Philippine and Southern Philippine groups
probably combine into a Single group.
5. The Ivatan languages. the South Mindanao languages.
the Sarna languages. and Sangil do not belong to any
of the three large groups of Philippine languages.
6. The relationships between the Northern Philippine
languages and the groups/subgroups narnedin 4. and
5.. and the relationships between these languages and
other Austronesian languages, cannot bedetermtned
at this time.
7. Within the Northern Philippine group there is a
Cordilleran subgroup which includes the Dumagat
languages. the Northern Cordilleran .Ianguagee,
Ilokano, the Central Cordilleran languages. and the
Southern Cordilleran languages.
8. Within the Meso-Philippine group. there is, a Central
Philippine subgroup which includes Tagalog, the Bikol
languages, the Bisayan languages, and the East
Mindanao languages.
9. Within the Central Philippine subgroup.' the West
Btsayan languages and the Central Bisayan languages
combine to form the North Bisayan subgroup.
Major problem areas include the following:
1. Reid and Zorc argue that nongot is a Cordilleran
language and probably a Southern Cordilleran
language. Lexicostatistical studies seem to indicate
that it may not even be a member of the Northern
Philippine group.
2. The Sambalic languages show strong structural
similarities to the Northern Philippine languages, but
lexicostatistical studies tend to place them close to
Tagalog and thus the Meso-Philippine group.

78
 SUB GROUPING OF THE PHILIPPINE LANGUAGES

3. The relationships of the Mangyan languages present

difficulties. Zorc 1974 presents evidence (I) that the
North Mangyan and South Mangyan languages may
not form a single subgroup. and (2) that the North
Mangyan languages may be more closely related to the
Sambalic languages.

4. The relationships among the Central Philippine

languages. and in particular. the position of the South
Btsayan languages. present very serious problems.
Gallman and Pallesen, on one hand. and Zorc, on the
other. disagree both about the membership of South
Bisayan and East Mindanao and their relationship.
Gallman and Pallesen prefer a subgrouping which
includes South Bisayan as a part of East Mindanao.
leaving the North Bisayan languages to form a
subgroup with the Btkol languages and Tagalog. Zorc
prefers a subgrouptng of all the Blsayan languages
together; this subgroup combines with the Bikol
languages and Tagalog: the resultmg subgroup then
combines With the East Mindanao languages.
The following listing shows a possible subgroupmg of Philippine
languages:

1. Ivatan languages
A ITBAYATEN[Itbayat. Batanes!
B. IVATAN[Batanes)
C. BABUYAN[Babuyan Island. Calayan, Cagayan)

II. Northern Philippine languages

A Cordilleran languages
1. Dumagat languages
a Northern Dumagat languages
i. NEGRITO (East Cagayan) [eastern Cagayanl
ii. PARANAN[Palanan. Isabela]
iii. DUMAGAT[Castguran] [northern Quezon)
tv, KASIGURANIN[Casiguran, Quezon!
b. DUMAGAT(Umirey) [central Quezon)
2. Northern Cordilleran languages
a ISNAG [northern Kahnga-Apayaol
b. ADASEN [northern Abra;central Kalinga-Apayao]
c. MALAWEG[Rizal. Cagayan: Conner. Kalinga-
Apayao)
d. ITAWIS[southern Cagayan!
e. IBANAG[northern Cagayan: southern Cagayan:
northern Isabelal
ATTA[central Cagayan]
AGTA[central Cagayan)
GA-DANG[eastern Mountain province]
GADDANG[northern Nueva Vizcaya!
YOGAD[Echague, lsabela]

79
McFARLAND

3. ILOKANO[Ilocos Norte; Ilocos Sur; La Union;

Pangasman: throughout northern Luzon as lingua
franca)
4. Central Cordilleran languages
a KALINGA(Ircomplex)
1. KALINGA(North) [southeastern Kalinga-
Apayao)
n. KALINGA(South) [southwestern Kalmga-
Apayao)
iii. KALINGA(Guinaang) [southwestern Kalinga-
Apayao)
iv. KALINGAlItneg) [southeastern Abra]
b. ITNEG [northern Abra]
c. BALANGAW[Natonm, Mountain Province]
d. BONTOK (L-complex)
1. BONTOK (Central) [central Mountain Province]
ii. BONTOK (South) [south central Mountain
Province)
e. KANKANAEY (L-complex)
i. KANKANAEY (North) [western Mountain
province]
ii. KANKANAEY (South) [northern Benguetl
iii. KANKANAEY lItneg) [Southern Abra)
f. IFUGAO (L-complex)
1. IFUGAO (Banaue) [central Ifugao]
i1. IFUGAO (Kiangan) [western Ifugaol
iii. IFUGAO (Eastern) [eastern lfugao]
g. ISINAI [central Nueva Vizcaya]
5. Southern Cordilleran languages
a KELEY-I[Kiangan, Ifugao]
b. KALLAHAN [western Nueva Vizcaya]
c. KARAW[Bokod, Benguetl
d. INIBALOY[central and southern Benguet]
e. PANGASINAN[central Pangasinan]

B. ILONGOT [Quirino; eastern Nueva Vizcaya]

C. Sambalic languages
1. Sambal
a BOLINAO[northwestern Pangastnan]
b. SAMBAL (Tina) [northern Zambales]
c. BOTOLAN [Botolan, Zambales)
2. KAPAMPANGAN [Pampanga: southern Tarlac)
3. SINAUNA[Tanay, Rizal]

Ill. Meso-Philippine languages

A Northern Mangyan languages

1. lRAYA[northwestern Mindoro)
2. ALANGAN[central Mindoro)
3. TADYAWAN [central Oriental Mindoro)

80
 SUBGROUPING OF THE PlDLlPPINE LANGlJAGES

B. South Mangyan languages

1. BATANGAN [central Mindorol
2. BURID [southern Mindoro)
3. HANUNOO [southern Mindoro]

C. Palawan languages
1. North Palawan languages
a KALAMIANON [Calamtan Islands, Palawan)
b. AGUTAYNON(Agutaya Islands, Palawan]
2. South Palawan languages
a BATAK[northern Palawan)
b. TAGBANWA(central Palawan)
c. PALAWENO[southern Palawanl
d. MOLBOG (southern Palawanl

D. Central Philippine languages

1. TAGALOG [central Luzon; throughout Philippines as
basis of Ftltptno]
2. Btkol languages
a BlKOL (Standard) (eastern Camartnes Norte;
Camartnes Sur; eastern Albay; southern
Catanduanes; northern Sorsogonl
b. BIKOL (Rinconadal (southern Camartnes Surl
c. BIKOL (Albay) [western Albay]
d. BIKOL (Catanduanes) (northern Catanduanesl
3. North Bisayan languages
a West Bisayan languages
i. KlNONON [Cuyo Islands, Palawanl
ii. BlNISAYA(Westl[southem Mindoro; southern
Romblon; SemtraraIslands, Antique]
iii. AKLANON(Aldan)
tv. KlNARAY-A[Antique; western Capiz: western
Iloilo)
b. Central Bisayan languages
i. BANTON [western Rornblon]
ti, ROMBLON [eastern Romblonl
iii. HILIGAYNONlIloilo; Captz: Negros Occidentall
iv. MASBATENO [Masbate]
v. SORSOGON (Masbatel [central Sorsogonl
vi. SORSOGON (Warayl [southern Sorsogonl
vii. SAMAR-LEYTE (Samar; eastern Leyte)
4. South Bisayan languages
a SEBUANO [Cebu: Negros Oriental; Bohol: Siquijor;
western Leyte; northern Mindanao; throughout
central and southern Philippine as lingua franca)
b. SURIGAONON [Surtgao del Norte; Surigao del Sur]
c. BTlTUANON(Agusan del Norte)
d. TAUSUG [Sulu; Tawi-Tawi]
5. East Mindanao languages
a MAMANWA(Lake Mainit, Agusan del Norte]
b. KAMAYO[southern Surtgao del Sur]
c. DAVAWENO[northern Davao Oriental]
d. MANDAYA[eastern Davao; Davao Qriental]

81
 e. KALAGAN(southern Davao; eastern Davao del Sur]
f. TAGAKAULU[central Davao del Sur)

lV. Southern Philippine languages

A Subanon languages
1. SUBANUN (L-complex)
a SUBANUN (Sindangan) (east central Zamboanga
del Norte]
b. SUBANUN (Salug) )eastern Zarnboanga del Norte]
c. SUBANUN (Lapuyan) (northeastern Zarnboanga del
Sur]
2. SUBANON (southwestern and central Zamboanga del
Norte)
3. KALIBUGAN (Siraway. Zamboanga del Norte]

B. Danao languages
1. MARANAO[Lanao del Sur; southern Lanao del Norte]
2. lLANUM (northern Magutndanao]
3. MAGINDANAO[Maguindanao]

C. Manobo languages
1. North Manobo languages
a KAGAYANEN(Cagayancillo Island. Palawan]
b. KINAMIGIN[Camiguin]
c. BINUKID [northern Bukidnon)
2. Central Manobo languages .
a MANOBO (Agusan) (Agusan del Sur; eastern
Agusan del Norte)
b. MANOBO (Rajah Kabungsuan) (southern Surtgao
del Sur]
c. MANOBO (Ata) (northwestern Davao]
d. MANOBO (Tigwa) (southeastern Bukidnon]
e. MANOBO (West Bukidnon [southwestern
Bukidnon]
f. MANOBO (lhanen) (northern North Cotabato;
southern Bukidnon]
g. MANOBO (Obo) (Davao del Sur-North Cotabato
boundary]
h. DIBABAWON (northeastern Davao: southern
Agusan del Sur)
3. South Manobo languages
a TAGABAWA[Davao del Sur-North Cotabato
boundary]
b. MANOBO (Saranganil [southern Davao del Sur;
southern Davao Oriental]
c. MANOBO (Cotabato) (western Sultan Kudarat]

V. Sarna languages
A SAMA (Sibuguey) [Olutanga Island, Zarnboanga del Sur]

B. SAMA (North) [Jolo and Tungkil, Sulu: Basilan: southern

Zarnboanga del Sur)

82
 SUBGROUPING OF THE PHILIPPINE LANGUAGES

C. SAMA(West) [Pangutaran and North Ubtan, Sulu]

D. SAMA(Central) rrawi-Tawil
E. SAMA(South) [Simunul and Stbutu, Tawi-Tawil
F. YAKAN [eastern Basilan; southeastern zamboanga del
Sur]

G. JAMA MAPUN[Kagayan de Sulu and Turtle Islands; Tawt-

Tawi; southern Palawan]
H. ABAKNON[Capul Island, Northern Samar]
VI. 'South Mindanao languages
A BAGOBO [northern Davao del Sur]
B. BLAAN[southeastern South Cotabato: southern Davao del
Sur]

C. TEOLI [western South CotabatoJ

D. TIRURAY[southwestern Magutndanaao]
VII. SANGIL[Balut and Sarangani Islands, Davao del Sur]
4. NUMBER OF PHILIPPINE LANGUAGES

If we are to answer the question. 'How many Philippine languages

are there?' we can attempt an estimate based on the preceding
discussion.
When we speak of languages. we mean codes which are not
mutually intelligible or understandable. As we stated earlier. there are
some languages descended from the same 'mother language' which are
geographically distributed along a continuum or 'Language-complexes'
(L-complex), so that two proximate languages are mutually intelligible
and may more fittingly be considered dialects of the same language.
However. as geographical distances expand, non-proximate 'dialects' are
no longer mutually intelligible and therefore are separate languages. The
L-complexes listed in the preceding subgrouptng are Kalinga {ILA.4.a.},
Bontok (ILA.4.d.), Kankanaey (Il.AA.e.), Ifugao ULA.4.F.J, and Subanon
(IV.A.l.). Because of the mutual intel11gibility of languages in
geographical proximity which are members of these L-complexes. the
whole L-complex is considered as a single language for purposes of
counting.
If we count the languages listed in the preceding subgroupmg to
obtain the total number of languages in the Philippines in the sense of
mutually unintelligible codes, then the number may at this state of our
knowledge be indicated as 109. We must add to this the Philippine-
Spanish creole called Chavacano (with two known dialects. Ternateiio
and Zamboangueiio: see Riego de Dios 1976) and thus arrive at the
number 110.

83
 REFERENCES

DVEN, ISIDORE. 1965. A lexicostatlsttcal classification of the

Austronesian languages. International Journal of American
Linguistics, memoir 19. Baltimore: The Waverly Press.

GALLMAN, ANDREW F. 1977. Proto-Southeast Mindanao and its

internal relationships. Paper presented at the Austronesian
Symposium at the VniversityofHawaii, Honolulu. August 18-20.

PALLESEN, KEMP A. 1977. Pan-Philippine semantic universals. In

Language planning and the building of a national language:
Essays in honor of Santiago Fonacier on his 92nd birthday, ed. by
Bonifacio P. Sibayan and Andrew Gonzalez, FSC, 304-21, Manila:
LinguistiC Society of the Philippines and Language Study Center,
Philippine Normal College.

RIEGO DE DIOS, ISABELITA 0., RVM. 1976. A composite dictionary of

Philippine creole Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City.

WALTON, CHARLES. 1979. A Philippine language tree. Anthropological

Linguistics 21.2.70-98.

ZORC, DAVID. 1977. The Bisayan dialects of the Philippines;

Subgrouping and reconstruction. Pacific Linguistics, C-44.
Canberra: Australian National University

84