t?.g.

ob

LANGUAGE USAGE AND LAI.IGUAGE ATTITUDES AMONGEDUCATION

CONSUMERS: THE ÐPERIENCE OF FILIPINOS IN AUSTRALIA AI{D IN
THREE LINGUISTIC COMMUNITIES IN TIfi PHILIPPINES

Presented by

ILUMINADO C. MCAL

In fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor ofPhilosophy
(Ph.D.)

of the

Universþof Adel¿ide
January 2000
 Mr. Jojo Tmrago

Mr' Rigoberto Dizon (deceased), his wife, Teopee, and his son, Rigor

Nabong
Miss Rose Ana Lobiano, Mr. Porferio wilfredo Briva and Mr. Rhodel
in the
The students and parents in Australia and Philippines who participated
Study

My sisters, relatives, and friends

MywifeRose;mychildren,Kennetlr,KnudsorlKingsley,andKween;my

daughter in law, c*lytt; and my grand daughter, Krestana Agnes

All the people listed above provided me with the opportunity to work on this task;

they facilitated for whatever resoufces I needed; they provided me with the love and

prayers that gave me strength to carry on;

Their contributions, I treasure; their manifestations of concerq I cherish;

To them, I salute, and to them, I dedicate this humble work.

ICN
 TABLE OT'CONTEI\ITS
I
TITLE PAGE
ll
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
IY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
xll
LIST OF TABLES
xvil
LIST OF FIGURES xvlll
ABSTRACT

Page
Chapter

L lntroduction
J
Post-colonial Threads in Australia and the Philippines
6
Fragility of Australian Linguistic Pluralism
7
Multilingualism and Schooling in the Philippines
1l
English as a world Language in Australia and Philippines
t4
The Present StudY

2 Language Policies In Australia And Philippines

UINGUAGE POLrcY IN AUSTRALIA

t6
Overview
l9
Socio-historioal B ackground of Assimilation
24
Multiculturalism in Australia
26
Defi ning Multiculturalism
32
Bilingualism in Australia
45
Australian Language Policy and the Filipino Ethnic community
49
UINGUAGE POLrcY IN THE PHIUPPINES

iv
 The Multilayered Lingusitic Heritage ofthe Philippines 50

The Search for a Common National Language 56

the Bilingual Education kogram 63

Evaluation Study ofthe BEP 63

The Reaffïrmation of the BEP, 1986 66

The Development of the Regional Languages 69

The Cebuano language 70

The Waray language 75

The Ilocano language 80

The Future Development oflingua Franca 82

3 Theoretical Framework

/,S,SU¿S TV MUL NLINGUALT SM 84

Language in a Plural Society 85

Linguistic options in a plural society 86

The odds faced by minority languages 88

Dilemmas oflanguage Acquisition in a Multilingual Context 89

Dilemmas in the Philippine context 90

Dilemmas inthe Australian context 9l

Attitudes Towards Language(s) 93

The external considerations 96

The internal considerations 98

v
Language Maintenance and Loss 103

The influence of societal structure on language maintenance

and loss 105

REWEW OF PREWOUS STUDIES 108

Studies Conduoted in Other Countries 108

Studies showing bilingualism as a handicap r08

Studies showing bilingualism as neutral ltl

Studies showing bilingualism as an advantage 113

Studies on bilingual education programs 120

Studies on attitudes to languages t24

Studies in language shift and maintenance 133

Studies Conducted in Australia t34

Studies in bilingualism t34

Studies on attitudes 135

Studies on language shift and maintenance 139

Studies Conducted in the Philippines t47

Studies on bilingualism r47

Studies on attitudes to language(s) r54

Studies in language shift and maintenance r62

Key Theories And Conceptual Formulation 164

Tajfel's Theory of intergroup relations 166

Giles' theory of speech accommodation 168

Smolicz'theory of overarching framework and core

values Culture 170

Conceptual Flow of the Research t73

VI
4 Methodology
The Respondents of the Study t77

The Research Instruments t78

Data Gathering Procedure 182

Analysis of the Data Gathered 183

Presentation and Discussion of Results 188

5 Profïciency And Activation Of Languriges

THE AUSTRALIAN CASE 190

LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE AND PROFICIENCY 190

Filipino-Australian students' Knowledge of philippine Languages 190

Filipirro-Au stralian students' profi ci ency in the use of philippine 195

Languages

Parents'Knowledge of the Three Languages r99

Parerrts'Proficiency in the Use Of The Three Languages 202

ACTTVATION OF LA}IGUAGES 205

Filipino-Australian Students' Frequency of Language Use 205

Fi lipino-Australian Pa¡ents' Frequenoy of Language Use 209

DOMAINS OF LANGUAGES 215

Filipino-Australian Students' Language Use to Different Interlocutors 215

Filipino-Australian Parents' Language use to Different Interlocutors 220

OVERALL PATTERNS OF LANGUAGE USE 225

Filipino-Australian students' overall patterns of Language use 22s

vll
 Filipino-Australian Parents' overall patterns of Language use 228

Overview 230

THE PHILIPPINE CAS.E 233

KNOWLEDGE AND PROFICIENCY IN THE LANGUAGES 233

The Filipino students' Knowledge and proficiency in the Languages 233

The Filipino Parents' Knowledge and proficiency in the Languages 238

ACTIVATION OF LA}IGUAGE S 244

Language Usage of Filipino Students 244

Language Usage ofFilipino Parents 280

TI{E DOMAINS OF LANGUAGES 256

Domains oflanguages Among Filipino Students 256

Domains oflanguage Among Filipino parents 26s

OVERALL PATTERNS OF LANGUAGE USE 273

Overall Patterns oflanguage Use Among Filipino Students 273

Overall Patterns of Language Use Among Filipino paf,ents 276

ó Lenguage Àttitudes And Meanings

Part I 28t
ATMUDES TOWARD S LANGUAGES 281

THE AUSTRAUAN CASE 282

The Attitudes of Filipino-Australian students towards the Languages 282

Attitudes towards philippine Languages 282

Attitudes towards the English Language 289

viii
 The Attitudes of Filipino-Australian parents towards Languages 292

Attitudes to Tagalog 293

Attitudes to Philippine Languages other than Tagalog (plor) 298

Attitudes to English 299

Attitudes Towards The Use Of English In School 302

TTIE PHILIPPINE CASE 305

The Attitudes of Filipino Students towards Larrguages 305

Attitudes towards the Vernacular 307

Attitudes toward English 308

Attitudes toward Filipino 309

Ilocano and Visayan Attitudes to Filipino and English 309

The Attitudes OfFilipino parents towards Languages 310

Attitudes towards Languages per se 3r0

Attitudes towards the use oflanguages in School 327

comparison of Attitudes Among the Three Groups ofparents 313

Summary 3ló
Overview 316

Prrt II
LANçUAGES AND TTIEIR MEANINQS 317

THE AUSTRALAN CASE 321

The Meanings Attached to Languages by Filipino- Australian students 322

The Autotelic Meanings 322

The Instrurnental Meanings 327

lx
 The Negative Meanings 333

The Meanings Attached to Languages by Filipino-Australian parents 336

The Autotelic Meanings 336

The Instrumental Meanings 34t

The Negative Meanings 344

THE PHILIPPINE CASE 347

The Meanings Auached to Languages by Filipino Students 348

The Autotelic Meanings 348

The Instrumental Meanings 356

The Negative Meanings 362

The Meanings Attached to Languages by Filipino Parents 368

The Autotelic Meanings 368

The Instrumental Meanings 373

The Negative Meanings 376

7 Summary And Conclusions

THE AUSTRALUN CASE 381

Proficiency in the Languages 381

Studertts' Usage of Languages 383

Pa¡ents' Usage of Languages 384

Patterns of Language Use 385

Attitudes toward s Languages 386

The Meanings of Languages 387

x
 TTTE PHILIPPTNE CASE 390

Proficiency And Usage in the Languages 390

Students' Usage of the Languages 391

Parents' Usage of the Languages 392

Patterns of Language Use 393

Attitudes towards languages 394

The Meanings Of Languages 396

Overview 399

Bibliography 406

Appendices 427

xl
 ERRÁ.TA

Page 5, constitution. National should be constitution, national

para 2,line 5
Page 60, has should be had
para 3, line 7
Page 67,para Filipino, renamed as should be Tagalog, renamed as
l,line l- 2 Filipino, was
Page 69, para'1., and should be an
line 6
Page70,para2, Jiminez himself, a Jesuit should be Jimenez himself, a Jesuit,
line 8-9
Page 83, para 3, overtime should be over time
linel
Page 95, para2, Znaniecki,l969 should be Znaniecki, 1968
linel
Page95,para3, human activity , and should be human activity and are
line 3 treated treated
Page 101, para boom should be boon
2,line 13
Page 118, para systems Ben-7nev should be systems. Ben-Znev
1, line 9
Page 136, para pluralism positively) should be pluralism positively),
3, last line
Page 151, para pupils from whom should be pupils for whom
3,line2
Page 154, para for example, on should be for example, in
3,ltne2
Page 155, para accepfs should be accepted as
3,pt 1, line 5
Page 165, para trilogy should be triad
3, line 4
Page 170, para may himself find should be may find himself
2,hne6
PageI75,paru vernaculars the fact that should be vernaculars in that
2,hne3-4
PagelT5,pan in Australia the fact that should be in Australia in that
2,line 6
Page 327, para endorsed that English is should be endorsed English as
Z,hne2
Page 355, para extent (357o) and Ilocanos should be extent (357o), and by
2,ltne2 (25Vo\. 25 Vo ofllocanos.
Page 367, pata in school....elemencary should be in school, remains at an
1, lines 5-6 level. elementary level for
those. . . or kindergarten.
Page393,para ...the often to always should be ..the "often" to "always"
1, lines 5-6 range...from the range...from the
sometimes to often "sometimes" to "often"
range... range...
Page 403, para ethic should be ethnic
3, line I
Page 407, entry Bierdstdet should be Bierstedt
5
 LIST OF TABLES

Tnble Tirts Page

A Maþr Mother Tongue of the Philippines Population:
Censal Yea¡s 1960,IWÛ,1975,1980, & 1990.
6t
B R.easorrsfor Tçaching Ethnic Languages and Culture in
Australian Schools. t37

c Distribution ofRespondsnts in the Study of Smolicz

and Secombe in Tcrrns of Reasons for Teaching Ethnic
Ianguages urd Cultures. 138

D Cultural Featureg Considçred Imporant for the

Survival of Group's Culture in Australia. t45

E Percørtage Distributiori of Respondents' Attitude to

EnglishlPilipino by Binhplace in the study of Pespasio.
158
F Societol Structu¡e and Status of Language(s) in the
Phiþpines and in Austr¿lia. t74

I Distribution of Filipino-Aust¡alí¿n Students Àccording

to Thoir Self-Assesçed Ability to Speak Philippine
Languages 19t

2 Mean Proficioncy ofFilipino.Australian Students in the

Use oflanguages t97

3 Distribution ofFilipino-Australian Parents in Terrns of

Knowlcdge of Languages 201

4 Disrribution and Mean of Filipino-Australian Parcffis in

the Proficiency oflanguage Use 203

5 FrequertcyofFilipino-AustralianSttrdents'Language
Usage 206

5-A Filipino-Australian Students' Average Frequency of

Use of Philippine Languages 207

6 FrequencyofFílipino-AustralianParerrts' Usage zrc

xii
6-A Filipino-Australian Parents' Frequency oflanguage(s)
Usags 21r

7 Frequency of Filipino-Au¡tr¿lìan Students'Usc of

Philippino l-anguages to Different Interlocr¡tors 2t6

7-L Filipiao-Australian Studsnts' Average Frequency of

Use ofPhilippine Lringuages in the Ditrerent Dom¿ins
217
E Fitípiuo.Australian Ptrents' Activation of Languages
with Díffereot Interlocutors 221

8-A Mean Fre4uency of Language Activation to Difforent

Intedocutors Among Filipino'Australian Parerts
223
9 Filipiao-Australianstudents'OvcrallPauernsof
Lrnguage Use (Filipino/fagÊlog and PLOT) n¡itb
Differçnt Interlocuùors 226

l0 Distribution of Fitipino-Australian Parøts in Terms of

Overall Fattems of Language Use with Different
trÍedocutors 229

11 Comparison of Proficioncy in the Use of Languages in

Tl¡res Communicatior¡ Activities Among Filipino
Students 235

t1-À Fitipino Students'Proficiency in thç Use oflanguages

in Three Communication Activities 236

12 Distribution ofFilipino Parente with Regard æ

Knowtedge oftho Three Language.s in thp Differer¡t
Communioation Activities 239

l3 l,anguage Proficienoy ofFilipino Parents ia Dififerent

Communication Activities 240
13-A Language Proficiency ofFilipinoParerrts in the Thrree
Speech Çornrnunities 242

14 Distribution ofFilipino Students in thç Activation of

Languages in Ttrree Communication Actívities 246

t+A Comparison of Lenguage Usage ofFilipino Students in

Three Speech Cornmunities 247

toll
l5 Distribution of Filipino Pa¡ents' Activation of
Languages in Th¡ee Communication Activities

15-A Comparison of Language Usage ofFilipino Parents in

Three Speech Communities

t6 Comparison of Filipino Students'Mean Activation of

Languages in Different Domains

16-A Waray Students' Activation of Languages to Different

Interlocutors

16-8 Ilocano Students' Activation of Languages to Different

Interlocutors

16-C Cebuano Students' Aetivation of Languages to

Different Interlocutors

t7 Comparison of Parents'Usage oflanguages in

Different Domains

l7-A Waray Parents' Activation of Languages in Different

Domains

l7-B Ilocano Parents' Activation of Languages in Different

Domains

l7-C Cebuano Parents' Activation of Languages in Different

Domains

18 Overall Patterns of Language Use to Different

Interlocutors Among Filipino Students in the Three
Speech Communities

19 Overall Patterns oflanguage Use to Different

Interlocutors among Filipino Parents in the Three
Speech Communities

20 The Attitudes of Filipino-Australian Students Towards

Philippine Languages and English

2t Attitudes of Filipino-Australian Parents to Filipino,

PLOT and English

zt-A Distribution of Filipino-Australian Parents in Regard to

Auitudes to Tagalog

xlv
2t-B_ Distribution ofFilipino-Australian parents in Regard to
Attitudero PLOT 299

2r-c Distribution of Filipino-Australian parents in Regard to

Attitudes to English 301

27-D Distribution of Filipino-Australian parents in Regard to

Attitudes to the Use of English in School 303

22 The Attitudes of Filipino Students from Three

Linguistic Cornmunities towa¡ds Language 30ó

23 Distribution ofParents in Terms of Attitudes Towards

Languages 311

24 Differenccs of Attitudes Among the Three Groups of

Pa¡ents in the Philippines
314

25 Autotelic Meanings Given to Languages By Filipino_

Australian Students 323

26 Instrumental Meanings Given to Languages by

Filipino-Australian Students 328

27 Negatiy.e Meanings Given to Languages by Filipino-

Australian Students 334
28 Autotelic Meanings Given By Filipino-Australian
Parents to Languages
337

2e Instrumental Meanings Given to Languages by Filipino

Parents in Australia
342

30 Negative Meanings Given to Languages by Filipino

Parents in Australia 346

31 Autotelic Meanings Given to Languages by Filipino

Students from Three Linguistic Communities
3s0
32 Instrumental Meanings Given to Languages by Filipino
Students from Three Linguistic Communities-
358

33 Negative Meanings Given to Languages by Filipino

Students from Th¡ee Linguistic Communiiies 364

XV
34 Autotelio Meanings Given to Languages by Filipino
Parents in Ttree Linguistic Communities 370

35 Instrumental Meanings Given to Languages by Filipino

Pa¡ents in Three Linguistic Communities 374

36 The NegativeMeanings Attached to I¿nguages by

Filipino Parerrts 377

xvi
 List of Figures

tr'igure
Page
I Map Showing the Major classifications of Australian Languages
t7
2 Bisayan Syllabary (taken from The philippine Saga)
77

3 Figure showing the conceptual Flow of the Research

176

xvll
 ABSTRACT

The thesis represents a comparative investigation of language usage and

language attitudes in relation to Filipino/Tagalog, Philippine languages other than

Tagalog (PLOT) and English among senior high school students and their parents in

two countries, the Philippines and Australia. The study provides an historical

overview of the development of national language policies in Australia and the

Philippines, focussing on the way multiculturalism in Australia influenced language

policies and on the reasons for the adoption of the Bilingual Education program in
the

Philþines. A discussion of theoretical issues related to language acquisition and

attitudes to language in plural societies leads to a review of previous studies on

bilingualism and bilingual education and to the formulation of the key concepts which

are used to underpin the empirical investigation.

The 152 students and the corresponding number of parents who formed the

respondents in the Philippines were drawn from three non-TagaloglFilipino speaking

regions of the country: Cebuano, Iloçano and waray. The main language the

respondents spoke at home and in the surrounding oommunity was their pLOT, while

Filipino/Tagalog and English were used as the media of instruction in the schools. In

Australia, the study focussed on a group of 33 Filipino-Australian students and their

parents from both endogamous and exogamous family situations, with the latter

invariably involving a Filipino mother and a non-Filipino father.

The humanistic sociological perspective formed the methodological

framework for this comparative study. All respondents completed a detailed

questionnaire on language usage and activation, while the students were asked in

xvill
 addition to write essays or personal statements concerning their feelings toward the

languages concerned. In the case of the parents, additional attitudinal questions were

included in the questionnaire. The data on language activation for each group were

analysed statistically and have been presented in tables, which are discussed in
relation to the Australian and then the Filipino context. The qualitative data contained

in the sfudents' personal statements and the parental questionnaire responses have

been analysed in terms of positive urd negative attitudes and the particular meanings

which respondents fiom the various g[oups associated with each ofthe languages.

The findings demonstrated the vitality of the three regional PLOT in terms

of their oral usage within their provincial bases in the Philippines, as well as pointing

to their lack of literacy development because of the absence of school and other

institutional support. In contrast, Philippine languages in Australia a¡e shown as

fragile and subject to generational shift to Englislr, despite being eligible for a degree

of school support through the implementation of multilingual education policies. This

phenomenon can be related to the large number of exogamous marriages within the

Fiþino-Australian community, the familiarity of the Filipino-Australians with

English prior to their arrival in Australia, as well as the fragmentation of Filipino

community's support for Filipino lTagalog and the various pl-or.

The Australian part of the study showed the negative influence upon language

survival of "mixed" marriages and the lack of specific domains for the activation and

development of Philippine languages. The data from the Philippines, on the other

hand, showed that where the languages concerned possessed a strong regional base,

the absence of scholastic and formal institutional support did not invariably herald a

xlx
demise of PLOT. It did, however, result in the literary impoverishment and inferior

status which, in the oontext of historical deprivatior¡ could lead in time to discontent

and demands from the groups concerned for cultural recognition and linguistie humarr

rþhts. Hence, one of the conclusions of the study is the need for parallel family,

community, and school support for languages in linguistically plural nation-states, if

the latter areto enjoy both stability and cultural democracy.

xx
 f.¡_ ({
O IE
OJ

Chapter I ;f+

INTRODUCTION

In the context of globalization and the counter-balancing rise of ethno-

nationalism, which it appears to have triggered (Pfaq 1993; Conrrcr, lg93; smith,

1986), the place of languages in multilingual sooieties has acquired new and urgent

rçlevance. The struggle for minority education and linguistic human rights are

increasingly recognized as burning social issues that must bc resolved if muhilingual

societies aro to be culturally and linguistically democratic and avoid ûagmentation

through internal implosion or revolutionary explosion (Grant, 1997 ; Skutnabb-Kangas

and Phillipsor\ 1994).

For many communities, language is the symbol of group's iderrtity and the

core value of its culture. The link betwesn cultural identity and language has been

particularly evident for national or ethniç groups in rnultilingual settings and this

phenomenon is likely to continue into thc futurc. In fact, within the context of
attempts to build monolingual nation-states, no amount of theorizing about nation as

an "imagited community" or about ethnicity as a phenomçnon "invefited" for political

purposes, can negate thc cohesive pov/er of a language ar¡ a building block of national

solidarity, a¡ound which people çan gather, especially in times of stress or danger to

their zurvival (Smolic4 1995a). One of the main thrusts of recent minority language

rçsearch has been to quostion the assumption of the benefits to be derived &om the

conce,pt of a rnonolingual n¿tion-state. For long this Eutopean construct has enjoyed

a positivg image as harbinger of modernity and democracy, with thc homogeneity of

 2

language and culture ensuring political liberty and equal access to educational and

social advanc-ement for all. This image is still alive and propagated as a cure for

ethnic conflict in the countries of Asia and Africa, only recently freed from coloníal

domination, with these same çolonial powers being presented as øremplars of

linguistic and ethnic harmony and stability (Dogaq 1993)

The questionable validity of such an image and the destructive role of the

monolingual nation-state upon languages and oultures of group$ other than the

dominant one are now increasingly clçar. While forces of homogenization persist in

the current uniting Europe (Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipso4 1996), the dangers of

state-imposed monolingualism are forcefully highlighted in post-colonial contexts

where there has been little libety and equality and much cultural and linguistic

suppression in the n&me of stabilþ through uniformity. In this connection Tombiah's

(1996: 126) comments on the lack of evidence for the transferability of \il'estern

theoretical construct to post-colonial societies seem pertinent. Hç notes that the

Western ideal of a nation-statc h¿s been çreated over centuriÊs and that it would be "a

fundamental fallacy (...) to impose a historical construction such as a nation-state,

aohieved on ô distinctive soil, on a dependent world, as if its realization is a necessary

state in aniversal history [especially since even within Europe] its claim was

questioned and contested". It would be a sad inversion of the European model if the

"inferiorisation" of tanguages and cultures by former cotonial powers were to bô

continued by post-colonial independent stâtes in relation to their own indigenous non-

dominant linguistic groups or immigrant groups whioh originated in longestablished

nations with their own distinctive languages and cultures. This study sets out to
 4
J

investigate the extent to which the ideal of a monolingual nation-state (bne country

one language, one people') is appropriate in countries such as the Philippines and

Australia.

Post-colonial Threads in Australi¡ ¡nd the Philippines

\ühen multilingual countries such as Australia and the Philippines are viewed

from a comparative perspective, sornq questions arise which highlight certain key

themes that have preoccupied researchers over the past three decades. Why is it that

some minority linguístic groups appear to have internalized hegemonic domination by

others as normal and natural, so that they submit passively to discriminalion of their

language and culturg while others struggle for their linguistic human rights? Why is it

that some linguistic communities, døried the resource of their own school systerq or

indeed any kind of educational support, rnanage to rnaintain thoir language through

the informal domain of home and market place, while others provided with at le¿st

some opportunity to acquire literacy in their homç language, lose that language in no

more than three generatíons following dislocation from their original homeland? It is

clearly impossible to provide any simple an$wers to zuch complex issues in general

terms, or to find wholly satisfying answers even in one particular socio-cultural

setting as the detailed discussion oftheories and concepts in Chapter 3 indicates. This

study attempts to examine only some of these problems and to explicate some

findings from data collected in the Philippines and Australiq which relate to the

maintenance and erosion of the languages of the Philippines and the acquisition of

Ënglish among Filipino-Australian students and their parents.

 4

Despite their differenoes, both countries have coilrmon threads ruffiing

through their histories, as well as their present circumstances. Both Australia and the

Philippines were invaded, occupied and had settlements established by leading

European powers - Great Britain and Spain, respectively. In the case of the

Philippines, there was a second dose of colonialism from another former European

colony, the United States of America. In both instances, the indigenous population

consisted of local, rural, pastoral or nomadic communities which could not present

viable resistance to thc conquerors (ZialcitU 1995. Bourke, Bourke and Edwards,

1994). Both countries were named by the Europeans and the names given to their

inhabitants - Australian and Filipino - were originally reserved for tho European

settlers.

The two countries also share the impact of an English linguistic heritage, with

over four fifths of the Australian population in 1996 reporting that they uæ English

only as their home language (Cþe and Kipp, 1996, 1997>, and some two thirds of
the Filipinos in 1980 declaring an ability to speak English (Gonzales, 1996a:42). The

fate of indigenous languages in the two countries differs markedly, however. The

numerically small Aboriginal population of Australia (under 2%) is divided into a

number of linguistic groups, with a great number of languages already extinct -a

situation which is furthsr considered in Chapter 2. Despite current efforts to save

those th¿t remain, most "languages of Australia" are still moving along the puh
towards extinction (Fesl, 1988; Jupp, 19881 refleoting the world-wide shrinking of
linguistic diversþ at a rate that is relatively even faster than the disappearance of

biological diversity (Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipsorq 1998). In contrast, the major

 5

indigenous languages of the Philippines have survived. One of them, Tagalog - in its

"intellectualized" form renamed Filipino - has acquired the functions of both official

and national language (Gonzales, 1996a; Sibayan, 1994). The others, often labeled as

'vernaculars' in the Philippines, are usually referred to in this study under the

acronym PLOT, Philippine languages other than Tagalog.

Despite the dominance of English in all the offrcial spheres of life, both

countries are multilingual and have adopted national language policies that t¿ke note

ofthis, but in a very different manner. While in Australia the dominance of English is

taken for granted, so that it is not mentioned as either an offrcial or national language

in the constitution. National and offrcial languages in the Philippines, by contrast,

were included formally in the 1973 Constitutior¡ with English fulfilling the role of an

official language alongside Filipino. The multilingualism of the Philippines is,

howorer, much rnore ramified and deeply embedded in the communþ than could be

inferred from the widely reported rivalry between the two official languages, English

and Filipino. The emergence of Tagalog as 'Tilipino", its adoptíon as the only

"nation&1" language (Gonzales, 199ób: 231) and the exclusion of Philippine

languages other than Tagalog from schools, are complex issues which are discussed in

detail in the second section of Chapter 2. In Australia at present, the teachiíg of

community languages other than English is not excluded from the school c'urriculum

(see the first section of Chapter 2) but, for practical purposes, English dominatos the

scenç and other languages ore generally taught as s€par¡úe school zubjects, either in

the mainstream, or independent ethnic schools (Smolicz, l99l). The school and
 6

societal settings of multilingualism in Australia and the Philippines can thus be seen

to b€ in direct contrast to one another.

Fragility of Australlan Linguistic Pluralism

Although the oxistence of the plurality of languages is now probably more

acceptd than at any time in the history of the English language dominance of

Australia since the period of laissez faire plurahsm in the mid-nineteenth century

(Clyne, 1982, l99l), toleration of languages is less ñrmly entrenched in the

Australian ethos than religious pluralism. Minority languages still remain vulnerable

and it is diffrcult to ass€ss the extent to which schools havo contributcd to stabilizing

the country's linguistic pluralism. This is particularly true in relation to Filipino which

is not currently being taught in any of the "mainstream" schools, although

oommunity-run part-time schools teaching Filipino do exist and receive subsidies

from both the State and Federal governments. The weaknoss of Australian

bilingualism lies in the fast that despite a range of languages which are being offered

as fully fledged end-oÊthe-school examination subjeots that csn count for university

entrancie, some of these languages have very small enrolments and are faught in very

few of the schoolg which have often been rather gudgng and vacillating in their

sl.lpport. Languages (other than English) remain an unpopular option at senior

secondary school level with no more than l0-20Yo of students taking them as their

matriculation subjects. Fufihermore, linguistic erosion at community level (as

revealed by census data 1976-199ó) is best demonst¡ated by the shift away from the

use of comrnunity languages towards English only in the home of the second
generation, particularly for children of exogamous marriage (Ctyne and Kipp, lggT).
 7

Despite, therefore, the significant multicultural reforms in Australian schools, the

multilingualism of the country from the perspestive of communþ languages appa¿rs

to be tra¡rsitional, especially in the case of "second generation" childreu born from

'1nixed" families.

From a comparative perspective the achiçvement of Australia lies in the extÊnt

to which it has been able to reshape itself as a multicultural country. It has

demonstrated that tolerance of diversity and gradually eme,rging pluralist policies in

languages education are a better guarantee of stability than forced assimilatioû to one

domirtant languago and cr¡lturc (Smolicz, 1995a, 1995b; 1999). The ftagility of its
linguistic pluralism can be attributed in part to the lack of a regional or t€ritorial base

for all immigrant community languages, except Englist¡ and alack of dom¿ins, other

than the home, where they can be astivated. Even those young people of non-English

spe¿king bacþrounds who complete school and tertiary studies of their home
language (eg. Italian or Chinese) ultimatety find their minority language domain

restrist€d to their families and a scattering of fellow group members in ethnic

organizationg with very limited opporh¡nities for using theír linguistic skills in the

Anglo-domin¿ted "mainstream" society.

Multilíngueli¡m and Schooling in the Philippincs

The Philippines presents a contrasting picture to the Australian sceng with

census data confrrming the vitality of indigenous languages in the everyday usage of

the populatior¡ including even those languages which have been exoluded f¡om the

sohool cunioulum (Gonzales, 199óa). Unlike the situation in Australia" whore most
 I

immigrant groups of European or Asían origin could be regarded initiatly as

fragments of n¿tions with a long history of the literary development of their

languages, many of the linguistic dilemmas that currently face the Philippines are the

product of the double exposure to colonial domination which has delayed the literary

development of all the eight major indigenous laqguages of the eountry.

The Spanish members of the religious orders in the Philippines used the

indigenous lartguages in their missionary worlg which succeeded in making the

Philippines orte of the most Christian countries of Asi4 while at the same time
helping those tongues to acquire their first written reoords @e la Costq 1961),

Literary development was, howorer, slow duc to the restriction of literacy to a small

elite, with literature mainly confined to religious subjects in a way that precluded

many ¿spects of indigenous culture as pagan- Until the educational reforms of 1863,

fhe cfucation of the indþnous peoples was confined to elementary schooling, and

only the children of Spaniards w€re allowed to receive higher education.

while the American policy, which propagded compulsory education in

English for all Filipinos, was initially directed mainly against Spanish it was almost

equally hostile to the indigenous languages of the oountry, with penalties imposed

upon pupifs using their home languages on the school premises. Although excluded

from school and universities and most forms of public life, the indigenous lauguages

survived and gradually a movement arose demanding the recognition of the rights of
the Filipinos to their own national languag{s).
 9

Independence was conceptualized in terms of the European model of the

monolingual nation-state. When the scarch for one national language through the

fusion of eight major Filipino languages failed (Gonzales, 1974), the adoption of one

of thent was perceived as the only way to prevent total domination by the colonial

language, English. This move was interpreted by the native Tagalog speakers, in

general, as an advantageous and inevitable outcome, while most of the elite members

of other language groups werç eventually reconciled to accept suoh a compromise,

provided English remained dominant in government, universities and businçss life.

The resulting education policies (built on Filipino/Tagalog and Engfish bilingualism)

have oontinued the subordination of all the other l¿rrguages of the Philippines.
Smolicz and Nic¿l (1997) have argued that in this way, the centuries-old submission

to Spanish culture and later to the English language wes compounded by an additional

subordination to the new national tongue 'Tilipino", which reeulted in all other
languages being relegated to thc home and market place.

In the Philippines, the language issue has been debated for decades and

remains a controversy (Acuñ4 1994:3). While the Constitution provides that Filipino

is the nation¿l language, continued resistance from the south, especially those ftom

the Cebuano speaking areas of the Visayas and Mindanao is etill intense (Alburo,

l99O'. 312). The Bilingual Education Program (BEPL which involves the expanded

use of Filipino alongside English as medium of instructior¡ has been formally

implemented in the elemenÏary and secondary schools and, in some cases, in

universities and colleges, especially those preocoupied with nationalist feelings,

coupled with a passion for innovation. But contrary to its basic rationale, namely, to
 10

and to implement the vision

raise the level of performance of students in classrooms
'a

reseafchefs have shown that, within the BEP

contexÇ student
of national unity,
achievement has continuously deteriorated,
not only in English communicative

competence (Manhit, 1980) but also in the

humanities and in the rmtural sciences'

in the non-Tagalog speaking areas

Varied reactions to the BEP, especially from those

these havç not been propedy documented

are oocasionally expressed. Unfortunately,

to Smolicz (1986: 103)'

and hence not given proper consideration. According

It is ind€ed very surPrisi

questioning of the
h¿ve been morç
ethnicatlY and linguistical
could be that those who
i.e. the Professional and the midd
disadvantaged.
speaking
In the Philippines, educationists, especially those from non-Tagalog
Many teachers' who are required to
backgfounds, afe in a perplexing predicament'
are hardly able to implement this'
teåch some subjects of the curriculum in Filipino,

and partly to the lack of appropriate

due partly to their own language deficiencies
therefore, have no choice but to
teaching materials in the language. The students,
their respestive 'mother tongues'
struggle alongside their teachers. while they have
to learn knowledge and skills
(the langUagp first spoken or used at home), they have

in sohools through Filipino and English. Neíther

they nor their parents hsve be€n

the two langunges which they are

asked what they feel and what they think about

required to use as the media of instruøion at school in order to complete their

appropriate occupation'
education and prepare themselves for an
 1l

The struggle for the survival and development of languages formerly

'a

subordinated in educational practice elsewhere in the world (as for example in

Belgium, Spairq the Baltig States, Canada and India) would suggest, however, that

acceptance of educational inequalitics is not likely to last forever. In Smolicz's view,

there is a danger that if the Philippines continue to follow the European tradition that

assumes that each state should possess a single and exclusive national language, it

may not be long before dissenting voices are more resoundingly heard among the

non-Tagalog provinces of the Philippines. This has already occurred in the Islamic

part of the Southern Philippines where the population, with its quite distinct culture

and religion, hâs long beerr in standing rebellion against the central government and

has already been successful in winning a special status for Arabig as well as a degree

of local autonomy (Smolicz and Nical, 1997). For the moment, however, speakers of

languages of the Philippines other than Tagalog (PLOT) have a sense of security

about the surviv¿l of their mother tongues within the tenitorial base of their home-

communities, although it is recognized tllult their literary development remains

precarious under the present policies which exclude them from the eduoatìonal

system.

English as a \ilorld Language in Australia and PhilÍppines

It has already been noted that English plays a crucial role as a lingua franca in

both the Philippines and Australia. In his booh English Langqage Toachin$ ar,rd

Imperialisrn Phillipson (1990: 5) claimed that:

English has in the twentieth çentury become the international language

pai excellence. It has a dominant position in sciencg technology,
 t2

medicine and computers; in rgsearch, books, periodicals and software; in

transnational business, trade, shipping and aviation; in diplomacy and
international Örganizations; in mass media çntertainment, news agenoies
and journalism; in youth culture and sport, in education systems, as the
most widely learned foreign language. This inexhaustive list of the
domains, in whish English has a dominant, though not of course
exclusive place is indicative ofthe functional load carried by English.

From a minor language at the beginning of the seventeenth óentury English has

come to be the leading language of international communicatiron. This remarkable

development is ultimately the result of the British successes in conquest, oolonizatior¡

and trade over four centuries. The spread of English was enormously accelerated by

the emergence of the United States as the major wodd flower and teohnological leader

in the aftermath of World War II (Troke, 1977: 2 in Phillipson, 1990: 6)-

It has been estimated that 400 years ago, there were between five to seveû

million speakers of English. In this century the number of native speakers of English

has remained constant at about 315 million for many years, while the number of users

of English as a second or as a foreign language has been dramatically increasing and

has been estimated at between 100 and 300 million people. The global experience is

that English is both replacing other languages and displacing them especially in

specific domains as in technology and entertainment @hilippson, 7990: 14-16).

Corresponding to the thesis of English dominancg however, is the anti4hesis of

opposition to its advances. Those protesting include colonized people, European
parliamentarians, political ençmies of the key English-speaking nations, intpllectuals

and guardians ofthe purity of the language, English.

In Australia" English monolingualism has been used as the rallying point in the

homogenization of the Australian society. An eloqueflt example of the triumphant

 13

asceridancy of English monolingualism is provided in Selleck's (1980) poignant

description of the way German Language Lutheran schools were stifled during l9l5-

17. The 'White Australia' Policy and the assimilationist model of settlement laid the

foundations for Australia to develop into a predominantly English speaking country,

until the advent of multiculturalism in the 1970s which recognized that languages

otherthan English (LOTE) could co-exist and develop alongside English.

In the Philippines, the rapid spread of English was observed as eady as the

start of the American occupation (1898 - 1935I when it was adopted as the official

language of government and as a medium of instruction in school under the 1935

Constitution. But as with other Asian countries, the current legal status of English in

the Philippines is dwindling, In conformity with some of the examples of protest

onumer¿ted by Philippson (1990: 27),many Filipinos complain about the following:

l. the alienatiort induced by English; the intoxication, denationalirariorl and

mental slavery which the language brings with it in public and private life;

2. the way English is responsible for distorting education, because the time spent

learning English me&ns that the standard re¿ched in other subjects is pitifully

inadequate;

3. the role of the English language in causing colonized peoplo to internalize the

noüns and ideology of the oolonizers leads to cultural deracination.

Although such sentiments are often uscd to justift the gradual replacement of

the English language in government and in schools with the emerging national

language, Filipino, English still occupies the place of dominance not only in public
 l4

office transactions and in school instruction but also in the mass media, entertainment

and æohnology.

Toda¡ the feelings toward English in the Philippines are mixed. While some

people argue that English is 'useless' especially for children ín the corntryside and

the urban poor who leave school eady, there are those who contend that to dury

children the opportunþ to learn English is to deny them access to socio-economic

and intellectual advancement (Sibayan" 1994:62). It was in the light of this range of
sentiments that th€ Filipinos (those living both inside and outside their home country)

have for English and Philippine languages that this study was conceptualiz,ed.

The Freænt Study

The aim of this twñountry study is to examine not only the way Filipino or

Filipino origin sh¡dents and their parents in Australia and the Philippines make usc of

the various languages which are available to them, but also the varying attitudes and

meanings which these respondents ¿ccord respectively to Englislr" Filipino and the

ttree Philippine languages other than Tagalog (PLOT) selected as the special focus of
this study - Cebuano, Ilocano and rilaray.

The specific objectives thcreforg are as follows:

I To ascert¿in the proficisncy, aetivation, and attitudos of students and parents

with regard to Englis[ Filipino, and PLOT (also labeled vernac¡rlar) among

three language communities in the Philippines - Ilocano, Cebuanq and Waray

- and among Filipino-Australians in South Australia.

 15

l.l. To agcertain the domains of languages and the patt€rns of use among

students and parents with roference to these two qctivotionvariables;

1.2. To asc,ertain the attitudes expressed and the meanings attached by

students and parents to the languages with reference to thesc two

altitude vøriøbles,

) To compare the profïciency, activation ard anitudes of students and parents in

threo language communities in the Philippines (Ilocano, Cebuano, and waray)

and in South Australia with regard to the languagos Filipino, English and

PLOT.
 Cbepter 2

LANGUAGE POLICIES IN AUSTRALIA AND PHILIPPINES

I,A}TGUAGE POLICY IN AUSTRALIA,

Overview

The development of an explicit language policy in Australia can be sçen ag a

response to pressing issues of languages and their use. It directly reflests the realities

that prevail in the present Australian society, especially its multicultural and

multilingual character, as well as its location in the AsiaJacific region.

Ahhough the English language could be regarded as a recent arival in the

Australian context, the majority of Australians today are English monolinguals.

Historicalty, the country's original inhabitants were largely multilingual and rnany still

are. The map of the languages of Australia labeled as Fig. I (adopted ûom Walstu in

Romaine, 1991: 29) showing the distribution of aborigind languages across the

country demonstrates that the Australian aboriginal languages a¡e both numerous and

diverse (Fig. l).But these indigenous linguistic resources are steadily declining under

the impact of thc increasing number of migrants coming from all over the world who

need to use the English lærguage as the country's lingua frøncø.

It has been estimated that around 200-250 distinct languages and 600 dialects

were spoken at the time of the fust significant European contact in the late eighteenth

century (Smolicz, 1986:46; Lo Bianco,1987 9). Over the course of time, these have

suffered zuch attrition tbat, ot least, fiffy Aboriginal languages have been totalþ extinct
 t7

Fig. I. Map thøt shows the

' location of dialect
inAustralia
tr
0
ll. ',
tt2
lll
ra ItO
I
rl¡ s ¡¡r tc
It
l. 2l
ttr J' D
m ll lr
rð 3¡
tt
tn ut l¡f tta al
ta
rat iql ft rül I
sl
raa
a¡ ür
tt
l¡t¡ t!n
Ítrd
€a lttc ltt.
, td raa
ao
aof
fi, rllf t¡r
ttL xþ ¡Ð
ì3i ¿lort
6 ¡6rtot
tr¡ ¡þa
a
I Ð
rlti r2f
a2
Þlà al +l
fr ll
r2 ao
llte
Gt
t6¡ rt c¡ ¡r
tlt It t&
aa.
.ta aft aa
ó! !a
tú
O¡rl i

Adny&rìadhånda 128 D¡yarl 129 Guugu Vm¡dhln23 Marlc subgp, Wängumardg 1¿14 Wangamsy 33
æ,96¡0,er
A.lawa 1(þ qåpu 107 Guwa 81 Maung 116 Nyawaygl 34 Wãrumungu 9l
AlyErvôrrð 84 qlaru L:18 cusramu ¡loe Mbåbarðm 27 ¡lyiglna 141 Wärungu 32
And6gereblna el Djigq 2æc r(xì Jab Wurrung 68e Mbärô 31 tùungål 22 UüdËwuÍurE 67
Anguthhnri 5 qi¡ng¡li 97 lah¡gày 28 Mbry'tryorn I tlyungar 155 W€lnblwÞnba 68a
Anindily¿km 105 ry¿¡gEd¡ 47 Jrltnðtñang 59 Mpatltjanh 4 Olgolo 20 Weryåiå 68c
Arürì4|ên 85 Dyirbal 30 JaJa Wunung 68f Mudbur¿ 137 oylcngand l6 W&m D€ort l:r:l
Arðbånä 132 Dyiringany 56 ¡lrbal 30 I'luk-Thang ó0 Pallãngafinlddång We6tÉm TonÊs Sùãlt
58 language 1
Ar¿nda 82 Eadem Tones Stralb Jlnu 30 MuræY¿rl4l Peck Whunorg 70 wk-Mê'nh 12
langllage 2
Arandadlc sbgp. &.6 Gab¡ tg tcrurrs Munlnh-fàthð Pint¡d t38d wik-Mumhh u
AbmpaÌ€ 3 @dang 48 lGlå lägaw LEnEEus I Nalorra 110 F¡itjafl(tþ)tþn 13:ìf W¡k-Munlcn 10
Arl/äbaþl49 @mil¡råãy 61 KalløUngu 89 l'¡gärnÌ,atlarã 133. Pitb-pfträ g/ Wradhuri 62
Awng$lm 5 Garadì/ari l¡t3 l(eråmln 74 It¡gqtan 30 Rqnbarmga lt3 Worora ¡24
BaagandJi 7¿ GãrarnE a3 l(tle 127 N$lhÂ,uru 123 Rlüìamu 106 Wuwvurung 66
Bàlyh,¡ l5() @riyarrd 148 Koko - Befa 19 Ngamin¡ 131 Tängancld€ld 77 Yabula-Yabula É4
Baíalang 42 Glnarnåy 30 lolíon 69 ¡lgandl 103 Thargari f52 Yadhaylcnu 3
Banyllmô l5() Gog-¡{âr 24 Kul@tli 26 I'lgarryaywana 46 Thâwå 57 Yalamngã 88
Barâbô8ùaba 68d Gugada lÏtl Kulq¡ -Thaypan 18 Ngarlgo 54 Th/vl 116 Yandruwänhtha 130
Bardl 140 GW¡¡-Badhun 32 Kl|lEgàri 80 I'lgàrla !15 TyGrdty ff9 Yanyw€ 96
Barlîàn cut¡nhmà 14 O.¡gu-W¿rra 21 Kumu 72 Ngäluma 148 t mbuygámu 13 Yaßlde77
Bldyðrô 4Oc Gt¡gu-YalanJi 22 Ku4lår 25 NgaJvun 35 t rnpll¡ 9 Yaìrruru(Yäuol) 141
Blri 36 Gulnay 3f¡ K¡Juþ - Ya'u 9 Ngayarda $bgp. Ungarlnyh Us Yåyglr rt4
14950
Biy¿ìglrrl33 Arnbñ/ngglr45 Kuum Kopån Noot 70 l'{ga},awung 76 Uradhl 3 Yldiny 29
Eunåbå 126 Gunbàlang 115 Lãma-Larîâ 17 Ngiyànbaa 63 Wbga 39 YhggËrda 153
Bungandtt 71 Gundungurô l? Lardll 95 NharÉa 154 Wagamân 22 Ylnvrum 6
Bu¡ärnl lO9 Grnggsri 40d Unnglth¡gh 7 Nhuwals 149 Wãkm¡ä 22 YlnyJibem¡di 147
Bùrduna 151 GunggÊy 29 Lufltlà 133ö Nor$ k¡r¡b€rlef waffiã0ad 13f) Vr-Yoront 15
sbgp. 124-5
Daly R¡uer sbgÞ, 11921 Gungorágonè 112 Mådht-Madhl 68b N,orthem Parnan llî,ãnbaya 92 Yttha-Ytülå z3
SP.3€
Ddrldnwng 50 Gun¡bldj¡ l1l Malàk-titàlak 120 Ntrdngith 5 wangaaþuwan 63 Yhvajå ll7
Dhalandji 151 Gurfirrdnygu 114 Maryangapa 78 Nunggubuyu lûl WanElqrîará 79 Yolnu dtp. 1098
Dlwawal 52 Gunwlnygu arbgp. 113- Mamu 30 l{ymâ¡ 1.1ó I åri 30 YoÞ-YÉ65
l5
Ohâruk 51 Gunya 40b Mangalô 142 Nyånganyåtjära 1339 Wälmanpa 136 Yugâlnbal 43
Dhuduroa 59 q¡paprynu 107 fihngåråyi 99 ¡¡ì/Eng¡q/atjarô lïth Wårldi 135 Yuh¡IE 94
Dhußa 55 GurerE€urEng 37 fvlanttllttala l33c warluwarr¿ 90 Yulb8rip leSb
Dhuwals Dhurval 107 Gurlndjl r37 Mars lol wamdarång 1@. Yuwa¡llfóay 6l
Grrrama 147 Maranunggu 121 wbmman 134 YUW 75
MargEny4(Þ
 18

and another 100 face imminent death. Today, 150 Aborigìnal languages are still in use

(Kipp, Clyne, and Pauwels 1995:l) although only around 50 are in a relatively healthy

state, surviving against great odds for many years (Smolicz, 1986:46).

English quickly assumed the status of dominant language after the

establishment of the Britisl¡ colonial rule in Australia in the late eighteenth century. As

reported by Lo Bianco (1987:9), the diverse origin of the British settlers and the

spread of both regional and social dialects arnong them, as well as the later inflow of

non-English speakers from Europe, Asi4 and the Pacific, all affected the evolution of
English. English controlled the linguistic domains of major powe,r and served as tho

language used by non-English speaking groups to communicate with each other.

The massive increase of Australian residents born overseas (over four million

from more than 100 countries around the wodd making up 24.5EYo of the total
Australian population in the l99l Census) raises questions concerning the relativo

acceptance of the various cthnic and linguistic groups in the Australian society. After a

long gestation period, howeveç the new ideology of pluralisrn, or multiculturalisrn as it

was called, rlrose in the 1970s in response to these social and political changes. It is an

expansion/extension of the integrationist policy, the second policy model that Australia

adopted, and in direct opposition to the earlier White Australia policy, which projected

an image of an ideal Australia which was monocultural, monolingual, and monoracial.

Many states (such as the Philippines) spell out in their con*itutions which

language(s) has (have) official status for particular purposes. But throughout most of
Australia's history languago poliry at government level has been ad hoc and unofficial,

except for the closure of German language medium schools thnoughout Ar¡stralia over
 19

l9l5-l? period (Sellech 1980). It was only in the 1960s that the articulation of
languago policy bæame somewhat more explioit arrd coherent "in response to the

assertiorts of academics, linguists, ând members of the commrmity language groups

themselves" (Kipp, Clyne and Pauwels , 1995: xiü). No national government of the
English-dominant speaking countries (suoh as Britain and the United States) has ever

felt the need to declare English as its official language. Instead English has served as a

defacto rather thande jure official language. Australia is the first of the major English-

speaking countries to formulate an explicit language policy (Romaine, 1993: 8)

although it is still not officially formulafed in the Constitution.

Sociehistorical Background of Assimilation

Immigration has been a consistent theme in Australian history since 1788. The

original conviçt settlements were planned from London. Successive waves of

immigrants (many of them assisted by the British govenrment) continued throughout

the nineteenth century until the 1920s and were only checked by the depression of

1930 @ullivant, l98l:l7l). Australia attracted few free immigrants until the 1820s-

From IE30, anyone who was British could enter Australia. The practice of free British

entry was coupled with the virtualty free travel for approved immigrants from Brit¿in

and keland. The first waves of thc extensive non-British immigrants came with the

gold rushes from 1850 to 1890.

At the time of ffieration, howeveq a xenophobic postrrre and the desire to

protest Australia as a white and racially pure society resulted in the passing of Federal

Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, the underþing motives of which were both racist

and discriminatory. It had the effect of excluding most people----except the British and
 20

some Europeans. In particular, it was extrernely harsh towards Asians and Pacific

Islanders (Theophanous, 1995:3). The term 'White Australia' was used in this context

and gave its name unofficially to the policy which continued into the 1960s and for

which Australia became notorious. The policy, Bullivant (1981: 174) recounts, was

triggered by the political and economic situation of mid-1800s when a number of

Chinese emigrants, fleeing catastrophes in China" came to Australia as indentured

unskilled labor. The situation was exacerbated when gold was discovered in Victoria

and thousands of Chinese flocked to the goldfields leading to grievances from 'white'

miners, some viole,nce, and restrictive legislation by the Victorian government in 1855.

The White Australia policy which aimed to produce a homogeneous English-

speaking Anglo-Soron culture was firmly adhered to during the succeeding years

(Bullivant, 198l 173-174; Romaine, l99l:.2). It was used to fuel national

consciousness and reinforce the racist attitudes that it sustained. As a result n 1947,

Australians were 99 per cent white and 90 per cent of British origin. Virtually, all

spoke Ensllsb as indicated in the 1933 Census which was the first attempt in

Australian history to obtain some statistics on language use @omaine, 1991: 3 ).

Australia had become one of a handful of homogeneous sooieties.

After the war, however, the slogan of 'populate or perish' was used to justift

large scale migration. Initially, refugees from Central and Eastern Europe arrived.

Later, economic migrants came from Southçrn Europe because the economic and

industrial expansion required more labor than could be drawn from the traditional pool.

With the acceptance of the Vietnamese refugees in the mid-seventies the White
 2t

Australia policy was ended but not the ideology behind it, which persisted especially

in attitudes towards language @omaine, l99l: 4).

One of the strongest expectations of the immediate postwar immigrants was

that they should speak English in public; various organisations passed resolutions

designed to enforce this. Such attitudes were spelled out in leaflets to arrivals in 1948

by the Australian Government. An example of a warning reads thus:

Australians are not usod to hearing foreign languages. They are inclined
to stare at persons whose speech is diffcrent. Some may laugh at you or
rnake fün of your acce,lrt. Do not let this \^/orry or annoy you. Also try
to avoid using your hands when speaking because if you do this you
will be conspicuous. Australian men nwer wear hairnets. They regard
men who do as effemìnate...Learn the habits and customs of the
Australians and you will quicHy feel at home in your new homeland.
(The Canberra Times, 7 August 194E, in Romaine,lggl 4).

This assimilationist ideology, intended by the government "to hasten the

absorption of the total population, Aboriginal and immigrant, into a British way of life"

(Sherwood 1981: 38) persisted into the l9ó0s. The egalitarian myth of Australia as a

classless society was used to justi$ the prevailing attitude of not providing special

privileges or assistance of any kind to newcomers. Only few facilities to æsist the

intogration of migrants in the socio-economic and education system were provided

until the 1970s (Calan, CHOMI Reprints No. 463; Ozoli¡s , 1991: 32945). A similar

situation was e4perienced by the Spanish-Americans in the United States but which

prompted thern to go to court in 1954 to establish that they are white in order to

protect themselves from the discriminatory segregation suffered by the blacks (a

history that is repeated in South Africa); after all, like the Indians of Navajo, they are

not immigrants (Gaardner, 1977 : l3O),.

 22

The great variety of countries from which migrants have come to Australia

and the diversþ of the Aboriginal people of the country accæntuate two major

a¡eas of Australian public policy-- the Aboriginal Affairs and the migrant and ethnic

minorities. During a great part of Australian post-war migration history, both

groups were subjected to assimilation as the official policy. For the aborigines,
assimilation was aimod at the extinction of all aboriginal languages, culttrre, custom,

religion and identity and to be ¿ble to move freely into the white society. But even up

to this da¡ Aborigines are still attached to their values, beließ, and praotices-an

undisputed testimony that assimilation never worked. The immigrants on the other

han{ who were subjected to the attitude of 'sink or srvim' simply suffered various

forms of psycho-social adversities.

The prevailing policy of assimilation had definite consequences for language

development. Language prograrnmes were instituted for adult immigrants. Obsessed

with the objective that every migrant speaks English, the educational authorities

adopted the situational method of English instructior¡ which specifically ignored

bilingual approaches to language learning. Course organizers were encouraged to

teach linguistically and nationally mixed classes to pren¡ent back translation and first

language use @itman, 1952 tà Ozolins, 1995: 330). But NESB children who were

presumed to be able to pick up the language quicHy and easily from their Australian

peers, \ilere not exposed to similar prograrns,

In education, inform¿tion about the schools' inability to cope with increasing

numbers of migrant children, as well as the distribution of migrant pupils, their

knowledge of Englistt, their performance and any psychological difficulties were not
 23

collected. The principle was that once the children of migrants were enrolled in

schools, they were Australians, no different from those of English-speaking

background. But tho evidence of social and economic disadvantages of the migrant

population stårted to show. While they were usually seen ar¡ a group benefiting from

the opportunities provided by the Australian society, surveys began to show that many

migrants had distinctly low prospects for mobilþ. In the workplace, stratification

placed migfants heavily at the bottom of the occupational hierarcþ (Kipp, Clyne, and

Pauwels 1995:xüi). Moreoveç their children were concçntrated in overcrowded and

undet-resourced inner-urban schools and often did poorþ at school @pstein, 1977

38; Martirt 1978 in Ozolins, 1995 :331; Theophanous, 1995: 9).

The aim of assimilationists was to deny and, in many cases eliminate , all

cultural forms other than the Anglo-Celtic ideal (Theophanous 1995: 5). Immigrants

were expected to learn English adopt Australian ways and generally disappear into the

Australian society. Towa¡ds the end of the 1960s, however, the assimilationist and

monocultural positions were coming under pressure and ethnic communities were

beginning to show their resentments towards these policies. Insistence on the

maintenance of the migrant languages and the corresponding establishment of

langugge maintenance institutions were already apparent. Ivtany migrant communities

of varying sizes and concentrations were so concerned with language maintenance for

the future that they established language maintenance institutions such as the part-time

after-hours schools for their children and supported the publication of newspapers in

their own languages (Ozolins, l99l: 331).

 24

These and many more pressures from ethnic communities to adopt a more
flexible model of settlement gave risE to the integrationist policy under which it was

believed that a[ cultures could merge together into one unified whole where the best

characteristics of each would be used to form the basis of a single Australian identþ.

At the same timg considerations of the real disadvantages faced by the ethnic gfoups

were given some attention; issues such as social justice began to be raised in more

vocal terms. A major reason for this was the significant increase in the number of

etlnic groups who were increasingly asserting themselves

Multiculturali¡m in Ausúr¡lia

The 1970s was a decade when both political parties of the Australian

government replaced assimilationist with multicultural policies. With the election of

the Whitlam Government tn 1972, the ethnic community formally gained a voice. The

White Australia Policy was officially ended with the passing of Racial Discrimination

Act in 1975. The Act outlawcd acts of discrirnination on account of racg colour,

descent or national origin, and denied fi¡ndamcntal rights and freedoms. It was the

earliest attempt of the federal government to strike the necessary balance between

cultural pluralism and universal principles of human rights. It set an importarrt

precædent in terms of recognizing discrimination snd findtng ways to promote greater

a\ /¡reness and tolerance of cultural diversþ within the Australian community

(Theophanous, 1995: l3).

Despite, howwer, the apparent unanimity between tho politioal parties, there

were observations that many parliamentarians still held attitudes which were strongly

fuiglo-conformist and ethnocentric @ullivant, 1981: 177'). Nevertheless, the

 25

prçference for the British ended together with the special privileges and conditions

enjoyed by British citizens in Australia like the easier attainment of citizenship, visas,

re-entry permits and voting qualifications. A series of reforms designed to actively

promote the multicultural ideals r¡vere initiated. The Liberal government also extended

the principle of refugeç admission to include Asians after 1975, in the wake ofthe fall

of Saigon(Romaine, 1991: l3).

In less than ten years Australia had adopted an immigration policy no longer

based on national or racial orign. Australia no longer expeøed assimilation. Welfare

work shifted from the mainst¡eam Anglo-Australian organizations to volunteers and

professionals from the various ethnic communities. Issues on the meaning of

nationhood, national identity, and cultural identþ as they related to the consciousness

of wery individual (be it a group or a person) became oritical. Thus, the 1970s could

be seen as the decadc of multiculturalisnL the third policy model adopted to deal with

Australian cultural diversity, following the early assimilationist and integrationist

approaohes,

The acceptance of multículnral pdicies. When the Whitlam Govemment

came into power n 1972, iutegration had become the accepted approach to cultural
diversity not ¿s a reaction to highly positive attitudes towards migrants but as a

response to immigrant and Australian Aboriginal groups resisting challenges to their

identity in addition to the pleas for social justice from the Australian and immigrant

professional elite @orrie, 1959; Zvbrzyclcr, 1966' Storer, 1973; Bosi, 1976) and the

recognition of the role of ethriic communities in the adjustment of immigrants (Tsounis,

1973; Co4 197 5 in CHOMI Re,prints No. 4ó3: 6).

 26

With the change of power into the Fraser Government in 1975 some of the

initiatives introduced by the Whitlam government were continued, while other ne\¡/

ones were started. These included ethnic broadcasting and innovations in the field of
health and migrant education" more particularlythe funding of part+ime ethnic schools

for language maintenance programs was introduced. The official policy aim became

multiculturalism which rçceived a full statement in a report of the Australian Ethnic

Affairs Council entitled Australia As A Multicultural $ociety, (1977 in Bostocþ

l98l). The policy implicæions of multioulturalism was elaborated in great detail in the

Galbally Report (l 970),

As in the policy of assimilation , it had two areas of application--,the

Aborigines and the immigrants. Both thc autocthonous minority (the Aborigines) and

the post-war alochthonous multitude (the immigrants) were taken irrto consideration

(Smolicø, 19954). The violation of the rights of the Aborigines who, from the

begtnning of the European invasion in 1788 were denied participation in the life of

their country, was formally rectified in the political sense (Stretton and Finnimore,

1988) although in linguistic tems, many of the languages of Australia continued to

tread along the path to extinction.

Defi ning MulticulturdÌsm

Multiculturalism as a prograrn was transplanted from Canada where it had

been introduced in 1971. In Australia, the term was first introduced by Al Grassþ in

his capacity as Mnister for Immþation in the Whitlam Government. He evoked the

image of Australia as a family of differerrt cultures to ernphasize the necessity for a

 27

balance between conformity to the Australian way of life and continuing identification

with the home culture. This was e4panded in the Galbally Report (1973) during the

Fraser Government. Its recommendations e4plicitly emphasized the right of migrants

to pursue their cultural and racial identþ and to receive assistance if they wished
(Theophanous, 1995 : 6-29) .

A more explicit definition of a multicultural society was contaìned in the

Commonwealth Education Portfolio (Undated : 8) as oited by Lippman (in Sherwood,

1981: 2l) to wit:

Multicuhural society has been defined as one 'lnhere variety of

different groups co-exist harmoniously, free to maintain many of their
distinctive religious, linguistic or social customs, equal in their access to
resources and service, civil rights and political power, and sharing with
the rest of the society particular conc€m and values."

By 1989, the Jupp Report reflected a changing emphasis including the social

justice dimension as an explicit element of multicultural policy. The most

comprehensive definition of multiculturalism is to be found in the motion which

Theophanous moved in the House of Representatives on 17 March 1988. Its most

important feaû¡res were as follows:

@ Australians of all backgrounds are free and able to participate at all

levels in the political , administrative, legal , economic, cultural and
artistic life of the nation; (ii) there should be freedom to maintain one's
cultural heritage within the conte>c of a common tegal and political
systenr, with English as the accepted language; (ü) All Australians
should be free from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity,
religion or culture and should have equality of opportunity and
equitable access to prograrns and services; (iv) programs and services
provided to the commurtity as a whole should as far as possible, be
made accessible to all Australians by being sufrciently adaptable to
also cater for the specific needs of those born overseas and whose
preferred language is one other than EnSlßtL as well as the English.
speaking born , but where necessary and appropriate, separate and
specialized services should be provided; (v) Programs and services
 28

should be designed and dweloped in consultation with all potential

client gfoups, including those born in Australia and overseas, and
should involve their active participatioq and (vi) A just and equitable
society should be promoted which accepts all people irrespective of
their ethnic and cultural backgrounds (Theophanous, 1995. >wüi)

In short, multiculruralism in Australia has been defined as embracing cultural

pluralisul a model of living whioh enables everyone to maintain his or her own culture

within the context of the Australian political and legal system or whatever segments of

it each may desire without prejudice or disadvantage. Further, it has been defined in s

v'/ay tbat encourages the total community to ernbrace other culfures.

The prødíce of muhìcultutøIísm. In the 1970s and early 1980s,

multiculturalism in Australia received more support from the Federal and state
govemments than cultural pluralism in most Westorn societies. Various bodies (e.g.

Australian Ethnic Affairs Council ; Australian Institute of Multicultural Afairs and

later the Office ofMulticultural Atrairs ) were commissioned with the task of zupplying

government polioy makerswith guidelines toward the most acceptable, and in the long

tenrL most beneficial, type of multiculturalism for the Australian context. The most

pronounoed feature was th¿t it should be a policy of multiculturalism that catered for

the differences which already existod and was realistic, both from the governrnent's

and the immigrant's point of view (Catlar\ CHOMI Reprints No. 463). It should be a

multiculturalism that preserved, and possibly promoted, ethnic traditions zuch as

dancing, music, food. At the end of the spectrum, som€ saw the possibility of an

ultimate synthesis model, in which the Anglo-Australian majority would reorganize

their belief systems as combinations of Anglo-Australian and minority ethnic attitudes

and traditions.
 29

Statements of support for the ideology of maintaining a diversity of cultures

were manifested but with the caveat that social cohesion should not be endangered by

ethnic fragmentation and divisiveness. A pronouncement of the Australian Ethnic

Affairs Council (1978: 17 in Sherwood, 1981: 22) stated,thus: "Australia ought to be

working towa¡ds not a oneness but unity; not a similarity but composite; not a melting

pot but a voluntary bond of dissimila¡ people sharing a common political and

institutional structure", Put in another \¡våy...

Multiculturalism is about diversity, not division-it is about interactior¡ not

isolation. It is about cul¡¡ral and ethnic differences set within a framework of
shared fundamental values which enables them to co-exist on a complementary
rather than oompetitive basis (Fraser, 1981 in Smolicz, 1987: 316)

Such sentiments extended beyond mere rhetoric; governments of both

political parties were prepared to give substantial funds to support programs related to

multiculturalism in education. All Australian states and tenitories established r

Multicultural Education Coordinating Committee, which together with the

Commonwealth schools Commission administered Commonwealth Funds amounting

to $4.943 million in 1985 (Smolicz, 19E7: 316).

Many supportøs of multiculturalism who saw languages as the key

transmitter of cgltures were concerned about the status which minority languages

would enjoy in the school curriculum. They argued that issues of language and culture

are better anchored within a philosophy of dernocratic pluralism and a framework of

broad social goals, while at the same time serving the particular neds of ethnic

minority gfoups (Lo Bianco, 1981: 2). Consequently, any action to utilize and develop

Australi¿'s rich linguistic resources in the nation's best interest must start from a

consideration of the linguistio diversity of Australia; the need for national unity; the
 30

externåI, eçonomic, and political needs of the nation; and the wishes and needs of
I

Australia's citizens (Lo Bianco, 1987: 4). This was in fact, the strategy that gave

strength to the successful implementation of multiculturalism as a policy.

As a result, Australia has developed into a society with great diversity of

culture, languages, and traditions. It is notable for having higher proportion of

migrants compared to the total population than any other country o(cept Israel. In the

l99l Census around 25 p€f, cent of its population were born oversças, with the first

three largest groups coming from the whole of Europe (13.65%) followed by those

from UK and Ireland (6.97yù and the whole of Asia (4.88%). There were 2,905,142

who regularly used LOTE when talking with friends and familics or in religious or

sooial occasions. The LOTEs that had at least 50,000 speakers were a{¡ follows:

Italiari, Greek, Chinese, Arabiç, Croatian/Serbian, Vietnamese, Spanistu Polish,

Macedonian, Filipino languages, and Maltese. (1991 Census in Smolicz,, 1994: 43-

44).

Multìpukufa!þzr, k Sutth,,Atst¡aliu South Australia's leading role in the

field ofmulticulturalism was recognized when the UNESCO-linked Netherlands-based

Intern¿tional Associatiron for Intercultural Education (IAE) held its first-ever Southern

Hemisphere conference in Adelaide at the erid of NIay, 1994 (The Adelaidean 1994:

8). The conference participants carne from all continents including the indigenous

inhabitants of the Pacific Islands and South Americ4 in recognition of Australia being

a laboratory where cultur¿l diversity has been more successfirlly managed than in many

other countries.
 31

The conference fooused on the theme'Education for Cultural Demooracy: A

Global Perspective" which was anchored on the 1984 Report of the Taskforce to

Investigate Multiculturalism and Education chaired by Adelaide University's Professor

J. J. Smolicz. This report had been accepted by the educational authorities of South

Australia as a blueprint for rnulticulturalism in educational policies. Over the next ten

years the State's Education Department phased in a languages education program

designed to give all primary school students the opportunity to study a language other

than English. Children from minority ethnic homes were given the chance to leam their

mother tongue. Those from English speaking backgrounds learned one of the range of

European and Asian languages that were introduced. These included Frenct¡ German,

Italian, Spanish, Greeþ Chinese, Japanesg Indonesian, and Vietnamese (J. Lo Bianco,

leeó),

According to Premier John Olsen (1997: 7), 'South Australia has a well

established record of supporting multiculturalism.' Evidence for this can be seen in

parliament. In 1996, the Government moved a motion in Pa¡liament affirming

support for policies relating to multiculturalism and Aboriginal reconciliation. These

policies were based on the principles of non-discrimination, racial harmony and the

Australian concept of a'túr go" for all. With the passage of the Racial Vilification Act

of 1996 in the South Australian Parliament in November 1996, multiculturalism was

given mor€ teeth. The Act provided that the South Australian community had a right

to live free from racial vilificatior¡ incitement to racial hatred and racial violence. The

legislation (among the strongest in Australia dealing with racial vilificetion) provides
 32

the opporturrity for civil redress while also including tough criminal sanctions

(Multicultural Life, 1997: 6).

The successes of South Australia's implementation can be summarized in the

words of Olsen (1997: 5).

Throughout South Australia's history people from diverse cultural and

linguistic backgrounds have made contributions to South Australia's industry
the professions, the arts and small business. We are proud of the way in which
our diverse cultural communities live together in harmony. This is the best
indication that our society is open, inclusive and willing to give people a 'fair
go.'

Australian multiculturalism has acquired a universal dimension as an exemplar

in the nranagement of cuttural and linguistic diversity.

Bilingualism in Australia

Srnolicz (1992: 17-19) divides the educational responses of Australia to

languages other than English since the Second World War into three distinctive
curriculum focuses, namely; classical, internationql and.internal pulticultural. The

classical focus characterised the approaches during the period that followed World

War II. It was assumed that immigrants would not only acquire British-Australian

ways of life and the English language, but also abandon their own languages and

cultures. Durirg this time Australian education strove to recreate the image of English

society rather than relate itself to the realities of Australian life. This resulted into

school and university syllabuses following traditional notions of English liberal

education in concentrating on the knowledge of those societies that were considered to

lie at the roots of modern Western civiliz¿tion.

 JJ

The internation¡l focus was marked by Australia's increasing awareness of

itself as an independent nation in world affairs, and a growing recognition of its

geographical position in Asia and the Pacific. By the late 1960s moves were evidenrt in

Australia to extend the range and image of language , history and culture courses. The

'mother country's' perspective \¡va$ no longer seen as the only valid one, and courses

which were more responsive to Australian realities were devêloped. This included the

introduction of the languages, histories and cultures of Australia's, rather than

England's, neighbors and trading partners.

The multicultural focus was given impetus when in the mid 1970s Australia's

gaze turned inwards to 'discover'the ethnic, linguistìc, and other sultural complexities

within its own shores (some of them were already of second and third generation

vintage). This marked the phase of internal multiculturalism' where interest in

languages and cultures beoame inner directed into Australian society itself. In this

approacù, languages were developed both to foster Australia's relationships with

other societies (dweloping mainly the Asian languages) and to bridge the linguistic

gaps within the Australian society (teaching and developing 'community' languages)

The approach recognized the positive aspects of linguistic diversity which is the very

essence of bilingualism and bilingual education policy. 'There is a growing realization

that it makes sense to build upon the languages concerned and to utilize the great

potential locked in two million Australian bilinguals, rather than see those linguistic

treasures squandered, only to try to painfully re-constnrct them later from scratch

through foreign language instruction' ( Smolic4 1992: 19) .

 34

The develo!,pment of bilínsuøIísrn os ø ool.¡c1, . The remarkable change in the

immigration policies of the country accentuated its language diversþ as immigrants

from Southern Europe as well as from a væiety of Mddle East and Asian countries

lvere added to the stock from northern and eastern Europe. This demographic

profile led to the introduction of the Commonwealth Child Migrant Education

Programme (CMEP) in 1970, an instrument of public policy aimed at the teaching of

English as a second language intended to cater to the lnnguage needs of migrants and

ethnic communities (Jayasuriy4 1986: 2). Eventuall¡ the Immigration (Education) Act

of l97L which strengthened the policies regarding teaching of English As A Second

Language (ESL) followed. As Bullivant (1981: 180-81) reported, the state education

departments began to introduce ESL programs with Victoria taking the lead. It was
in that state that an advisor on migrant educatior¡ as it was called, was appointed in

1967; that a series of teacher training coursçs in teaching English as a second language

was conducted in l96t; and that advisory committees on prirnary education and on

secondary education were created in 1968 and 1969, respectively. CMEP had to be

expanded during the period 1970-75 due to the increasing demands from schools and a

recognition that far greater needs existed than had been anticipated when the program

was laurtched.

The appointment by the Commonwealth govemment of the Mgrant Languages

Committee n 1974 strengthened the speculations that at long last the Australian

schools would take some parts in teaching ethnic languages, togethø with English.

The recommendations of its 1976 Report represented the füst official recognition of

the educational importance of the languages brouglrt to Australia by irnnigrants and

 35

the need for government support for their teaching. Hotvever, bilingualism in education

was not a new phenomenon in Australia. Moellner (1993: 39) recounts that.

As eady as 1842 local teachers were trained at Lutheran tertiary and

theological colleges in South Australia and Victoria...and in the 1870s
Lutheran Church schools were teaching various subjects in German and
English...Priorto World Wa¡ I there were 49 bilingual German-English schools
in South Australia...Ten such bilingual schools existed in Victoria and one in
New South rilales...Bilingual education for Aboríginal students commenced in
the mid-1930s (in Berthold 1995: 9-10).

The political and ideological atmosphere, however, that nurtured the

¿ssimilationist policies before and aftor World War tr arrested these initiæives.

'Between the 1914-1918 war and World War II, a trend towards English
monolingualism began and was actively promoted by Government interventions

restricting and even suppressing the use of other languages. There was an active and

deliberate opposition to Aboriginal languages, and many became extinct" (Lo Bianco:

1987: 9). It was not until th. ur*ertion of multiculturalism that the recognition for the

rights of the ethnic groups to maintain their home languages was dramatically

recaptured.

The stltas of lhe Aust¡glían bilinsgal elqcçt¡@r.o¡osrums Although the

development of bilingual programs in Australia has not been as clear-cut as appears to

have been in other countries like Canada and Wales ( Berthold, 1995: l), quite a

number of programs ( among these the ethnic schools) had been instituted since the

1970's all directed towards the development of a bilingual Australian sociefy.

According to the Ethnic Schools Survey of 1982, 75 CLOTE were being taught in

special ethnic schools by groups concorned outside of norrral school hours (Smolicz,
 36

1984: 23). However, these ethnic schools were confronted with problems and

constraints. As reported by Clyne (in Garcia, 1991: 255):

In the early 1970s, a number of state and non-government primary

schools in Melbourne had introduced ad hoc programs in languages
other than Englistt. Some were taught by mothers as part of a once a
week electives program in which children could take a term of
photography, cookery or language. Others were tauglrt by the class
teacher who happened to have some bacþround in a particular
language, still others in non-government schools) by the secondary
te¿cher of the language. Several schools received German prograrns
from senior universþ students who were collecting data for these or
term papers.. . South Australia had introduced languages into primary
schools in the 1960s. By 1976,10,364 pupils in that state were taking
secondary language (Murray andlumberg 1977:63,79). Most of the
classes started Grade 3 or 4, were allocated brief time allotment
each weeþ and many errphasized the cultural rather than the
linguistic. Most ofthe teachers were itinerant.

Clyne emphasized that these early programs had no guaranteed continuþ; all

the 'teachers' had deficiencies in their training for the job, and only a few of the

programs were evaluated . It was impossible to ascertain objectively whether some of

the programs were more or less successful than others on what the reasons for success

or failure werç.

In the early eighties, there came the first breakthrough \ /ith bilingual teaching

for mainstream English speaking students in the primary schools @erthold, 1995: 10).

An innovative bitingual progra¡n was initiated in Victoria at Bayswater West and

South primary schools where content was taught through German for between three

and five hours per week. This style of program proved to be very successful and grew

quite strongly in Victoria where according to Clyne (1991 : 62 n Berthold, 1995: l0),

there were 174 equivalent full time numerary teachers teaching lT languages including

Italiaq Grt€k, G€rmar¡ Chinese, Turkish, Japanese, Macedonian and French.

 37

The first secondary immersion program" acoording to Berthold , was initiated

in 1985 at Benowa State High School in Queensland where students studied

approximately 60 per cent of their school progr¿rm through French. Similar programs

have since developed in Queensland and Victoria.

In South Australia, more recent developments have focused on the teaching of

languages other than English as school subjects. According to Smolicz (1994: viii) ..

The recognition of English as the principal language has not precluded the
teaching and examining of some thirty languages other than English rtYerrr 12
level and their recognition as fully fledged subjects that count toward university
entry in the same way as Englista Maths or [üstory. In fact, South Australia has
been one of the pioneers in the teaching of languages other than English at
primary school level, with every child at least to receive sorne instruction in
LOTE by 1995.

From an international perspective, Berthold more appropriateþ describes some

of these programs as 'immersion' which, means " a form of bilingual education in

which students who speak the language of the majority of the population receive part

of their instruction through the medium of the second language and part through the

first language (Genesse 1987: I in Berthold 1995: l). But whatever nomenclature is

grveru these types of pedagogioal arrangements essentially carry the basic aim of

fostering bilingualism in students. Bilingualism has been defined as the use of somç

two (or morÐ languages of instruction in connection with teaching courses other than

the language pü se" (Fishman 1976: 24). 'tseing bilingual means having two

languages; being able to use two languages for some or all of the skills of
understanding speaking, reading, and writing" (Janssen and Pauwells 1993:1). In the

interpretation of the Australian Second Language Prograrn, bilingualism is a high level

competence in two languages, although not nocessârily equal or neady equal

 38

competence (Saunders, 1991 in Liddicoat (ed ) 1991: l) .The efforts therefore, in

Australia to provide education via the first (the dominant English language) and a

second language (whatever LOTE is the choice) or vice-versa both through the

mainstream educational classrooms or through the ethnic schools comprise the essence

of Australian bilingual educ¿tion polioy.

Forms of .üustrølíM bWsualism. Bilingualism in Australia takes its roots

from the two inseparable and basic characteristics of Australian society, namety, its

being multicultural and multilingual. Although Australia is an English-dominant-

speaking country, it should be kept in mind that Australia is an aggregate of not only

the waves of migrants that geometrically increased after World War II but also the

remarkable number of diverse groups of Aboriginal people who lived in the country

before the English settlers in the eighteenth century. The 1976 Cenzus, which was the

first to elicit data on the use of specific languages, reported that 12 per cænt of

Australians over the age of 5 ctaimed to uso a language other than English. Among the

languages spoken were some 75-100 migrant languages. Ten years later, the 1986

Census reported that 13.63 per cent of the Australian population used a language

other than English at home. The most widely used were (in order): Italian, Greeþ

Serbo-Croatian, Chinese, Gennân, and Maltese (Clyne in Garcia" 1991). There were

about 80 differmt migrant languages and 150 Aboriginal languages as re¡rorted þ the

Australian Senate Standing Committee on Educ¿tion and the Arts (1984) (Ma¡tin,

CHOMI Reprint No. 510: 2) . h the 1991 Census, 14. 8 per cent of the Australian

population claimcd to speak a wide fange of 100 LOTE at home (Kipp, Clyne, and

Pauwels, 1995:1).
 39

Hence, any bilingual policy in Australia nÊeded to address the needs of trvo

groups-the Aborigines and the immigrants, on the one hand, and ttre Anglo'

Australian community, on the other hand. Both components of the former group

needed to acquire the dominant language; at the same time both had the right to

maintain whatever LOTE they might have. Inversely, the majority group needed to

acquire a second language other than English. As Smolicz (1986: 5) emphasises, it is

difficult to argue for bilingual educatiorq whether for aboriginal people or for minority

groups, without actively involving the majority in a way that is more encompassing
'While of minority
than just 'tea or sympathy'. some would still limit the teaching

languages to the native speakers of the languages concerned , such ons'sided bridge

building is no longer adequate, cither on cultural or economic grounds. Children of the

majority need to acquire languages which are spoken within the Australian community,

alongside those spoken in the Asia-Pacific region or globally to bridge linguistic

barriers not only towards people overseas, but also towards other Australians,

especially those who have already oonstructed their own bridge by learning English as

well as their home tongue.

All these have strong educational implications . As noted in the reports of the

Migrant Languages Committee, 'the social change rezulting from migfation [and

particularþl the concentrations of certain language gfoups in schools have implications

for school progr¿Ùms It lthe commiuee], therefore, considers that greater

opportunities should be provided for students to study their own language or the

language of their neighbours if they so desire" (in Smolicz, 1979:13). This eventually

emerged as a typical pattern of bilingual education in Australia.

 40

Towa¡dsaNøíonallanguagesPolícy. The current forms of bilingual

education cari best be understood by recalling some major developments directed

toward its more formal and more official institutionalization. In 1985 the National
Advisory and Coordinating Committee on Multicultural Education was established by

the Federal Government with the responsibility to report on ways and means of

extending and deepening the teaching of multiculturalism in schools. A major output

was a concretized definition of multicultural education in the context of social justice

to be seen as 'relating not only to the children whose parents are not of Anglo-

Australian origin but for alt children in Australia. The basic elements included were:

ensuring that the multicultual perspectives are taugha across all areas of the

curriculum; ensuring the teaching of other languages; ensuring significant programs for

the teaching of English as a second language to those that need it; and ensuring the

participation of a wide variety of community groups in the programs' (Theophanous,

1e9: 50-51),

In 1986, the final report of the Australian Institute for Multicultural Education

(4tr\4A) entitled 'Tuture Directions of Multiculturalisrnl' incltrded recommendations

for the future of the multicultural policy. One of these being 'that the needs of the

immigrants and people of NESB continue to be met by the special programs and

services with whatever requirements are neoessary to ensure equity in access and

treatment in the same ïvay as the needs of other specific gfoups in the community are

met, and that the choice between separate or modified general services be based on

the grounds of effectiveness and quality of service' (1995:77).

 4t

Much of the groundwork for the development of a national languages policy

was laid by the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, with its 1984

Report. The preparation for this report and the subsequent discussions it generated

among minority ethnic communities and academics in the multicultural and linguistic

area were important in clarifying key issues and possible policy approaches.

The report of Lo Bianco (1987: 6-7) advanced the general principles

underlying the Australian National Languages Policy (ANLP). The more important

ones (in relation to bilingual education) were as follows:

Language is primarily an instrumcnt of communication which is

evolved socially. Language also serves a wide range of cultural,
artistic, intellectual, personal and group identificatior¡ religious,
economic, and sociopolitical functions. All languages are theoretically
capable of meeting their speakers' communicative needs and language
itself is both an arbitrary and a conventionalized way of representing
reality;

The language pluralism of Australia is regarded as a valuable national

resource and enriching cultural and intellectuàl life and as
v¿luable economic resource in its potential for use in economic trade;
It is in A¡¡stralia's national interests to dwelop the linguistic
resources of its people and integrate these skills with other broad
narion¿l goals.

From these broadly stated declarations emerged the principle of bilingualism

more specifically stated for policy action and strategy identificatiorl to wit:

Bilingualism will be promoted as a positive value to individuals and

society. It will be advocated that children who are potentially
bilingual ought to be assi*ed by schools to develop this poterrtial.
Schools should be encouraged and assisted to make concerted efforts
to foster the bilingualism of their pupils during normal schooling
arrangeme,nts preferably, or in concert with community organizations
or by other amangements where this is not possible.

In that sfine year, the Hawke Government expressed its commitment to the

implementation ofthe AIILP reiterating that the policy

 42

...Ensures that every Australian is taught EnghstU supports ESL

programs in recognition of the need to ensure that people of NESB
are not disadvantaged in Australian society; and ensures that the
education and skills they bring to this country can be fully utilized to
the benefit of all Australians, as well ¿s the maintenance of the
community languages that form an indispensable part of the rich
ethnic heritage of Australi4 while at the same time give Australians
generaþ the opportunity to leam other languages for local as well as
overseas consumption (Theophanous, 1995: 79 -80).

In contrast to the ideals asserted by Lo Bianco, howwer, there had been in

practice an observable substantial shift away from bilingualism. The 1983 figures of

the Department of Education revealed that many pupils/students never studied a

second language at schools (in Lo Bianco, 1987: 26). The specific figures that follow

were very revealing:

l. Oriy 17 .3o/o of all school students study one or more languages other than
English at any oûe time;
2. Only 10% of primary schools teach any language othe¡ than English;
3. líYo of aII secondary schools do not teach any language other than English;
4. Only 12 Yo of all students in the final two years of secondary school study
4ú/on 1967;
a langu4ge other than EngltstL a decline from over
5. Ottly 1l.7Yo of students from homes where a language other than English
was spokem wer€ studying at school the language spoken in the home.

From these facts, it appeared that almost half of the Australian studerfis had

never had any experience at all of studying a language other than English for any

period oftime.

Tke ANLPìw praclúce. While there still remains insufficient acceptance of the

need to make the study of a language other than English (LOTE) into a compulsory

zubject, even ten years after the aoceptance of the ANILP, some states have

fo¡mulated a variety of plans, suoh as an undertaking to provide at least one LOTE for
 43

all primary school students by 1995 (South Australian Ministerial Tasldorce on

Multiculturalism and Education, 1984) .

Bilingual education programs across the country we¡e intensified. As reported

by Berthold (1995: l0), language maintenance programs became an intermediate stage,

usually run out of school hours, where children of NESB parents were encouraged to

maintain and develop the language of their parents and ethnic oommunity.

On the more positive side of recent developments, the protagonists of

Australia's policy on languages have stressed the need to keep a dual focus in relation

to LOTE (Lo Bianco, 1987). One is to create the conditions which permit those

Australians who already speak a language other than English as their first language to

oonsolidate and develop further through literacy, with the chance to learn a third

languagg in addition to English, if they so desire. The other is for people of English

speaking backgrounds to have every opportunity and incentive to build a linguistic

bridge towards their fellow citizens in Australia and/or to Australia's neighbours in the

regloq or to people of interest elsewhere -with the possibility that one and the same

language may fulfil all these fi¡nctions (internal, trzde, politioal, etc.). The third key

element of the policy is th¿t all LOTE program$ âre to be complemented by the

nchievement of competence in English (Lo Bianco, 1990 in Smolicz, l99l: 28-29).

Bilingual education anchors its ideals on the belief that students who enter

schooling with little or no English should be tatrght in their first language and

introduced gradually to EnglisÌr. ïVhere this does not occur, children may be seriousþ

handicapped in their educatiorral career prospects. But in Australia, not only the

minority groups are the subjects ofbilingualism; it works both ways: it addresses those
 44

with LOTE as their first language as well as those with English as their native tongue.

As supported by the Australian Council of Trade Unions at its conference, Education

in the Eighties, Australia's national policy on languoges oalls for exposure to two

languages--€nglish and another language-as part of normal schooling (FislrmarU

1e88:37).

In Australia, English is the language that the majority speaks. '1t is the first

and usualþ the only language of about 83% of the population as well as being the

language of the major and powerfirl institutions of the society'' (Lo Bianco, 1987: l0).

It becomes critical- for the individu¿I, for society and for the collective prosperity-

that every Australian be given the opportunity to master it. On the other hand,
Australians live in a society and in a world where languages other than English are

spoken everyday. These languages embody and communicate a different consciousness

, a distinctive culturg another world which can be shared. The monolingual speaker

whether of English or of any other language, is impoverished in comparison witå those

who speak more than one langu4ge.

There are three compelling reasons why Australians should not be blinded by

the strength of English to obviate the need for Australians to learn or maintain other

languages (Lo Bianco, 1987: 64-65).

Firstly, although the function of English as an international lingua

franca is unlikely to diminisl¡, the total proportion of the world's
population sp€aks English as the first languagÊ appears to be
declining rapidly. SpanistU Arabic, Hhdi, and Pornrguese as first
languages are increasing very rapidly and all may overtake English at
different tirnes cduring the next 50 years;

Secondly, at least as far as the condust of affairs is concerned, the

exclusìve reliance on olient's partner's or neighbor's capacþ in
English (invariably not their first language) creafes potentially serious
 45

dependency risks restricting relationships to less than fi¡ll and

complex levels;

Thirdl¡ in economic relationship a competitive advantage is required

in many dealings. A skilled and proficient knowledge of tåe dominar¡t
(usuaþ sole) language of clients is higbly beneficial. Valuable
knowledge of cultural and sociological facts and trends may be only
available through detailed knowledge of the people concerned. A
knowledge of the particular language then can be indispensable in
predicting ecortomic trends and the nature of goods which are
marketable. Asian languages are particularly crucial in this regard.

In the more recent census of 1991, over l7o/o of the Australian population

reported using a language other than English at home. This represented a 3olo increase

on the 1986 census percentage of those regularly using a language other than English

(Smolicz, 1994: l0). Bilingualism had assumed the centerpiece of multiçulturalism as a

national policy,

Today, while the importanee accordd to competonce in English is fully

recognized, the reasons to provide language education and services vis-a-vis the

linguistic diversþ ofAustralia are recognized as perzuasive and compelling.

Australian l"anguage Policy and the X'ílipino Ethnic Community

In the 1991 Census tiere was a total of 59,1l0 Filipino-Australian residents

who used Filipino languages at home. Languages of the Philippines occupied the

tenth rank among the most widely used languages otler than EnglislL the first of which

was Italian. Th€ largest number was in New South Wales ,31 337 ( 53.01 Vo);

followed by Victoria , 14000 Q3.68% ); Queensland ,6538 ( 11.06% ); Western

Australia ,2574 ( 4.35%); South Australia, 2330 (3.94o/o);Northern Territory , 1208

(2.M%);Australian Capital Tenitory 746 (1.26% ); an¿ Tasmania" 377 ( .64%) (

1991 Census in Smolicz 1994,$a4).

 46

Kipp, Clyne, and Pauwels (1995: 45-46) described the Filipino population in

Australia as predominantly a young one, with 85% aged urrder 44 years. The greatest

concentration(5l.4Yo) was aged betuieen 25 and 44 years. The srnallest group (3.4

per ceiú) is aged between 55 and 64 years. There was a female bias in the oommunity,

with women representing 62 per cent of the population. Formal qualifications are held

by 48. 5 per cent of speakers of Filipino languages, the most common being a

Bachelor degree (12,649), followed by skilled vocational (2581), undergraduate

diplomas (1837) and basic vocational qualifications (1196). In l99l there was an

employment rate of 59 per cent in the population aged between 15 and 65 years. The

largest number of Filipino speaking workers were employed as clerks (6057),

followed by laborers (5917), professionals (2358), sales and personnel Q354),

paraprofessionals Qi 16) and'trade' Q27 6).

When the l99l Census data were compared with those of 1986, the use of

Filipino languages can be seen to have increased across all States and Territories. The

biggest incre¿ses have occurred in New South Wales (up 141.7 per cent) and Victoria

(up 135.1 per cent), followed by South A¡stralia (up 121.5 per cent), the Australian

Capital Territory (up 112.5 per cent) and Queensland (up 108 pet cent). The smallest

increases were in Western Australia (up 40.2 per cent) and Tasmania (up 54.5 per

c€nt). Nearly half of the Filipino speaking conmrunity in Australia lived in Sydney

(Kipp, Clyne and Pauwels 1995: 29 ). Australia has seen a slight overall increase in the

home use ofLOTE since the 1986 Census. The largest increase nationally occt¡rred in

the use of Filipino lartguages (up 129.6 per cent) which Clyne and Kipp (1996: l-19)

attributed to new migration , increased claiming of language use, and second

 47

generation birth rates, combined with successful language mainte,nance. These figures

can be compared to Chinese languages (up 88 per cent), Vietnamese (up 67.3 per

cent), Macedonian (up 41.3 per cent) and Arabic (up 36.5 per cent). Filipino

languages, with only 5.7 per cent of speakers born in Australia" would most likely

owe their increase in number to the surge of migration in the late 1980s and 1990s.

Speakers of Filipino languages were confident in their English proficiency,

with 61 per cent claiming to speak English 'very well', and a fi¡rther 32 per cent

claiming to speak it 'well' making up a total of 93 per cent. Together with Tamil

speakers, Filipino-Australians closely followed the Dutch (96%) and the German

(95yù speakers who rate themselves as eitler speaking English well or very well. Only

0 .7 per cent stated they could speak no English at all (1995:82).

4e ethnic schnl¡ To satis$ the ethnic linguistic and cultural needs of

mostly primary school children not provided in mainstream systemic schoqls, Filipino

ethnic schools had been set up where there are concentrations of community

languages. These are nm by ethnic organizations and are invariably funded by the state

government, the home country, fees and donations. The activities are conducted after-

hours with a prescribed curriculum that inoludes geogr¿phy, arts, and culture in

addition to language. As of 1996, the number of Filipino ethnic schools in South

Australia increased from four in 1994 to five in 1995. The school loca.ted in Adelaide

had an enrolment of 80; Holden tÍlls had 19 pupils; Port Adelaide, 28; Salisbury, 40,

The most recently registered school is in the far north opal mining town of Cooper

Pedy, with an enrolment of 17 (Office of Ethnic Sohools Associatior¡ 1996).

 48

Although in the past, ethnic schools, for the various language comrrn¡nities

were often characterized by lack of resources, poor teaching facilities, untrained

teachers, and inappropriate curricula (Smolicz, 1984: 158-72), much has been done in

the last decade to provide lraining for teachers and to develop curricula that are

comparable to those used in mainstream schools. Registered ethrtic schools in South

Australia rlre now recognized by the state department of education as "complementary

providers" of programmos in languages other than English.

 49

LANGUAGE POLICY IN THE PHILIPPINES

The Philippines is a oountry of cultural and linguistic complexity whose

heritage includes the infusion of a variety of cultures based upon the Indo-Malay base

@owering, 1963). Although a geographically small country, in that its many islands

make up only 116,220 sq. miles, it is paradoxically a pluralistic and multilingual

society. The mr¡lti-ethnic population speak various Austronesian languages which are

not mutually intelligible but are clearly related to one another under various sub-

groupings distributed across the arohipelago. This includes the pidgin Spanish which

emerged in the far south and in some places around the Metro Manila area (Gonzales,

1e80).

The exact number of languages in the Philippines seems not to have been

determired yet (Sibayar¡, in Kaplan (ed), 1985: 152-l6E). Different works have

contradictory figures. Grimes (1984> for example, lists 154 while the National

Scholarshþ Center for the Department of Educatio4 Culture and Sports lists only 91.

In the 1975 Census, ó2 major languages were included, while the results of the 1990

Census specifically listed 84 languages and a variety of 'otlrer local dialects' whose

total number of speakers ( 445, 929) constituted 0.7 per cent of the country's

population. Sibayan explains, however, that the smaller number of languages in the

1975 Census compared to that of Grimes'list is due to the fact that the government

census gave as one language, a number of languages that were çonsidered dilfferent

by Grimes. It could also be that some other minorþ languages have become extinct.

In any case, the eigtrt major languages recognized by the Philippine govenrm€nt as the
 50

bases for determining the national language as early as 1935, nameþ, Cebuano,

Tagalog llocano, Hiligayno4 Bicolano, Wara¡ Pampango, and Pangasinan, are

always mentioned. And while there is no cornmon agreement as to the number of

smaller minority languages in the country, one thing ís definite and certair¡-that the

Philippines is a multilingual nation.

The Multilayered Linguistic Heritage of the Philippines

The indigenous pre-colooial past or the Indo-Malay sourae of Filipino cultural

stream had been infiltrated by other peoples, long before the country was named after

Philip II of Spain. Cultural tributaries came originally from India, and later from Chin4

carrying traders, many of whom settled in the Philippines, mostly after the coming of

the Spaniards. In the Souttu Islamic influences had begun to spread, bringing with them

Arabic and Persian infusions. These can be regarded as no less "foreign' in origin than

the Christianity implanted by the Spaniards sinoe the sixteenth century @owering

1963;Noone, 1989; Arcilla, 1990 in Smolic4 1995). The more recent and apparently

all'pervading American impact, which followed the intervention of USA into the affairs

of the country after 1898 has engendered even more controversy and lively debate

(Constantino, 1982; Lansang, 1988). While Chinese racial and cultural influences

abound, it is Spain and USA that have left the most striking heritage in tenns of

religion and language.

As an independent republic since 1946, the Phiþpines has successfully

transmuted the cultural inputs of its neighbors and the former imperial powers to

constitute a outtural blend that is uniquely Filipino, while still showing the imprirrt of

the various imported cultural values (Smolic4 1992).

 51

The lønguage sìtuoÍìon ilarìng the Spanish regìme (1521-1595). \Uhen the

Spaniards arrive{ the local language situation was cha¡¿cterized by the prevalence of

87 languages (Castariedq 1968: 70). No common tongue could be understood by all

people. But by using the local dialects as their medium of comrnunication with the

masses and as the language of instruction in the lower grades of the schools they

established, the Spaniards u/ere able to reach the people.

Contrary to the succession of orderVdecrees of the central govemment in

SpairU which ordered the teaching of Spanish to the natives, the Spaniards in the

Philippines (mostly friars ) did not want the natives to speak Spanish. For example, the

order issued by Charles I to spread the Spanish language for proper explanation of the

Holy Faith came as early as 1550. This was repeated by Philip IV in March 1634. In

1686, the Royal Decree of June 20 rerninded all authorities concerned to obey the law

concerning the teaching of the Spanish language. In 1768, Gov. Anda issued his

famous mernorial citing the abuses and disorders fostered in the Pbilippine Islands

under the shelter of religion. His twelfth point pertained to the Spanish language

situation es follows:

.,.Contrary to the command of the law, and so many decrees, the

fathers do not permit the 'Indians' to talk Spanistç to which they are
greatly inclined, and punish them if they do (Blair and Robertson
(eds), 1903-1909: 137-90 inCastarled4 1968: 7l)

As a consequence, the Royal Decree of Dec. 22, 1792 strictly ordcred the

provincial government and the parish priests to make every effort toward providing

each village with a school teacher well versed in Spanish. It was further ordered that

no other language than the Castillan be spoken in the convents, monasteries, and in all

judicial, extra -judicial and domestic affai¡s .

 52

Because of the unsatisfactory results of these decrees, the Royal Decrec of

1863 was promulgated. It was motivated by the desire to disseminate the Castillan

language in order to foster political and cultural unity between Spuio and the

Philippines. The decree provided long-term incentives to the natives, such as being

eligible for the office of governor or lieutenant, a member of the local ruling class; or

holding a sala¡ied position if they knew the Spanish language. The decree also
provided that Spanish, once learned, was to be the medium of instruction.

The teachers shall take special ca¡e that their pupils have practical
exercises in speaking the Spanish language and that as soon as they
understand it
zufficiently, e4planations strall be made in thæ
language . They shall be forbidden to communicate lvith each other
in their own language during class hours @eglamentos , Art. 3l in
casrañeda 1968:73).

These orders from Spain, ahhough successful in her other colonies particularly

the Americas, did not yield equal results in the Philippines. The Spanish colonizers

showed much more preoccupation with the inculcation of religion than with languages.

These destees of the Spanish court advocating the more widespread use of Spanish

were largely þored by the members of the four religious orders which virtually ran

the country and whose members le¿rned the indigenous languages in order to spread

the Catholic faith to the masses @e la Costa, 1%l). Only the elite was linguistically

hispanised. Hence, the great Fiþino patriot and hero, Jose Rizal, later executed by the

Spaniards in 1896, ïvrote his call to Filipino independence in Sparish.

The languøge sìtaalíon duñng the Amerícan rcgìme (1898-1935). In

contrast to the Spaniards, the Americarxi were much less concerned with spiritual

mõtters but more with the imposition of American rule and values through the medium

of English (Lansang 1988). WherL after over three centuries, the Spaniards were
 53

forced to leave the Philippines, the Americans who replaced them overpowered the
-a

indigenous independence movement, and made a major effort to introduce the teaching

of English to the country. This move was directed not only against Spanish, but

against all the Filipino languages, which were outlawed from the school.

Two notable changes in the Philippine linguistic scene had occurred when the

Americans arrived, compared to the situation that first confronted the Spaniards. The

alphabet of the vernacular had been Latinized and used to produce written materials

and the educated people (mostþ lawyers), as well as the social elite of the country,

were able to speak Spanish.

Although tha Spanish language neither became the official language rtor the

national tongue of the people, it was not elimin¿ted by the Americans, as it was the

court language as well as the language used in government records. With the help of

the Spanish-educated class (the local ruling class) whom the Americans first sought

aid from in the administræion of government affairs, Spanish continued to be used.

Thus Spanish was the language of both the court and the Philippine Assembly; English

was the language of the Commissio4 the schools, and ofthe rising generation.

English had not been entirely alien in the Philþines during the Spanish

regime. When the Spaniards relaxed their monopolistic commercial policy in the early

nineteenth century, American commercial agents came to the Philippines. In 1809, an

English coutmercial houso was given pennission to establish itself in Manila (Alip,
1949: 248; Craig, 191 7: 16).

It should also be recalled that ea¡lier in the Spanish regime, the British forcibly

occupied the City of Manila on September 22, 1762 as a consequence of the Seven
 54

Years War between Great Britain and France, when Spain was an ally of France. The

British occupation lasted for about two years until May 31, 1763 when Manila was

restored to the Spaniards after the end of the war in Europe (Zude, 1957). These

contacts, however brief, were factors that paved the way to the introduction of the

new language, Englisþ.

It should also be noted that during the period of British conquest, the more

progressive schools were already teaching English- The secondary classes of Ateneo de

Manila offered in the fourth and fifth year one course of French and English in

alternating classes (Castañeda, 1968:81) As reported by the 1903 Census, from the

start of the founding of secondary schools up to 1885-1886, there were 2,935 reported

as enrolled in Englistr courses (Census of the Philippines, III, 1903: 600 in Cætarìeda,
1968: S2). In additior¡ the Malolos Constitution (1899) prepared by Apolinario

Mabini contained a provision to make English a subject of instrustion in the elementary

grades and the language of superior education. The intention \4ras that when the

language was widespread enougl¡ it would be declarcd the official language (Social

Science Review, 1932: 314-44 in Castañeda" 1968: 82).

The multilingual nature of the indigenous Philippine society, accentuated by

the presence of the Spanish languagg was seen by the Americans as perplexing. This

prompted President William McKinley (the US President during the American

occupation in the Philippines) to issue a declaration embodied in his instructions to the

Second Philippine Commission. He gave the opinion that English was the desirable

language medium for Filipinos. In addition, a recommendation to stop the use of

 55

Spanish as offici¿l language was also provided in Assembly Bill 96ó presented on Jan.

19,lgl2,with the provisions stated as follows:

Until otherwise provided by the Philippine legislature, the official

language of all courts and thcir records shall be the English
language. Provided that until January l,
1920, Spanish shall be also
an official la4guage of the courts and their records (Act2239, 1913
in Castarleda, 1968: 89).

However, the abolition of the Philippine Commission by the Jones Law in

1916 made it easy for the Filipinos to extend the status of Spanish, together with

English, until 1930. Then in 1928, the ruling was extended again until 1940.

According to Castarleda (1968:85), the instructions of McKinley actually

contained two general provisions. The first concerned the promotior¡ extension and

improvement of schools started by the President's military authorities. In relation to

this point, it was the United States' desire that instruction in schools should be given in

the first instance in every part of the islands in the language of the people. This meant

that the language of instruction in schools was to be the vernacular in various localities

where schools were to be established.

The second provision pertained to the development of a communication

medium for different tribes and the declaration that this medium should be the English

language. This particular provision indicated that English was to be the linguafrancø

of the people. Castañeda maintains that althougb McKinlsy may have expressed his

desire for English to be learned by the Filipinos, he specified that public school

instruction be carried on in local dialects, which was never complied with. Eûglish was

adopted as thÊ medium of instruction in all public schools, instead.

 56

It may be mentioned that among the three fac'tors presrmed to have frcilitated

the English language learning was the positive attitudes of Filipinos towa¡ds the

Americans in addition to the other two, namely; the system of public instruction

introduced, and the incentives given to Filipinos by the Americans to learn Englisb

such as career opportunities, government servioe and participation in politics.

While the American policy which propagated compulsory education for all

Filipinos in Englislt was initially directed mainly against Spanish, it was almost equally

hostile to the indigenous languages of the çountry, with penalties imposed upon pupils

using their home larrguages on the school premises (Manhit, 1980; l98l). Althouglr

eliminated from schools and universities and most forms of public life, the indigenous

languages continued to thrive in the homes and hearts of people and gradually a

movement arose demanding the recognition of the rights of the Filipinos to their own

national languages. There were obstacles along this path, however. Most notable was

the continued unwillingness on the part of the American authorities including American

teachers, posted to educate the Filipinos in American ways, to recognize the linguistic

rights of the people to acquire literacy in their own languages.

The Search forA Common Netion¡l Language

As early as 1915, the Akademya ng Wikang Pilipino (Academy of the Pilipino

Language) was searching for a common national language. The main difficulty

arose out of the linguistic mosaic that existed in the country, with some 80 major and

minor languages and anot}er 200 dialects (Yap 1990; Tenazas and Ramas, 1974).

However, among these, it was possible to distinguish the eight major languages of the
 s7

Filipino-Austronesian family which between than, accounted for 85 per cent of the

population. There lvere songs, poetry, and some prose already in existence for each of

these, although only three, Tagalog, Ilocano, and Cebuano, could be viewed as serious

contenders for more than purely local status.

The academy, in its struggle for a common national language tried to endorse

the fusionist view, where a mixture of the Philippine languages with the Tagalog (one

of the rnajor languages of the Philippines spoken in the national capital and its
peripheries) used as basis of its core vocabulary, its morphology and syntæ(. This was

seriously opposed, however, by both the purist Tagalogs and thç non-Tagalogs,

especially those coming from the Cebuano speaking areas in the southern Visayan

region. Nevertheless, the endorsement of Tagalog as the national language intensified.

The chauvinism of one proponent is well shown in the following statement:

Ahhough the peoplg of whom Tagalog is the vernacular, are

essentially one and the same race with the other sections of the
archipelago, still they form the most energetic and cr¡ltural portion of
the whole population, live in the most thicHy populated district and
their langu4ge is the most euphonious, he most homogeneous, the
most developed by contact with Spanish and other Philippine
languages (in Goruales, 1982).

While the Filipinos had articulated their unity as early as 1898, the ethnic

diversþ of the archipelago and its consequent linguistic diversity presented a real

divisive factor. The situæion vras characterized by wh¿t Fishman (1972) called a st¡rte-

nation historical sequerìce, a country where a political and governmental unity had

been achieved as a rezult of colonization and the subsequent resistance to colonizatio4

but a country whose people where just beginning to think of themselves as a

community and nation.

 58

The Cebuano speaking Visayans were numerically superior and geographically

more extended than the Tagalog speakers. But due to an accident of history, the

Cebuano speakers did not live in the area which the Spanish commander Adelantado

Mguel Lopez de Legazpi, decided to make his base in 1571, because of its excellent

berthing facilities. The settlement of the Pasig River, whioh was eventually called

Manila, became the centre of economic and cultural dominance by the Spaniards and

contributed subsequently to the dominance of Tagalog in the Philippine life. This led to

a de,fensiveness and sensitivity among the Visayans with regard to amor propio that

the Tagalogs had to reckon \¡vith in any kind of political calculus (Gonzales, in KaplarL

1985:132-151)

The decision to have a national language in the Philippines dates back to the

time of former President lVla¡ruel L. Quezon who took the initiative and leaderstrip in

bringing about a national policy decision on this matter in the mid 1930s. The law-

making body at the time (the National Assembly) passed a law creating the National

Language Institute in 1936 which recommended that Tagalog be the basis of the

national language. This provoked some dissension arnong concerned citizens and the

press, but did not cause any major disturbanoe in the country @ernabe, 1978: 246).

Soon after the ratification of the 1935 Constitution and the formation of the

Commonwealth Government, the National Language Law, authored by Norberto

Romualdez (a statesman and philologist fromLeytq a non-Tagalog speaking area) was

passed. It provided for the adoption of Tagalog as basis for the national language

because it was considered to be the most intrinsically developed and the most extensive

of all the local dialects (Gonzales, 1980). In 1937, President Quezon issued Executive
 59

Order No. 134 proclaiming the adoptior¡ development and use of Tagalog.

HenceforttU the inclusion of 'Wikang Pa¡nbansa' (National Language) as a subject in

thc school curriculum at all levels was instituted through Executive Order No. 263

issued on I April, 1940. This immediately provoked a barrage of criticisms where,

although authorities were of the opinion that the objection stemmed chiefly from the

introduction of a national language into the curiculum without concern for the

ûecessary preparations associated with new courses, regional jealousies could not be

discounted as the cause.

The erratic and problematic development of the Tagalog óased Filipino

language continued. During the Japanese occupation, for example, Ordinance No. 13

dated 24 July 1942 provrded that the official languages for public use should be

Japanese and Tagalog. But the 1943 Constitution of the Second Republic ratified the

selection of Tagalog as the basis ofthe national language.

Beginfling in 1946, Tagatog was taught to students from Grade I to 4û year

high school as a subject, but not used as a medium of instruction. The national anthem

continuçd to be zung inEnglish until 1963 when Presidont Diosd¿do Macapagal sigrred

an Exccutive Order that it should be sung in Tagalog. In 1959, Tagalog w¿s renamed

Pilipino which was described as being the amalgamated Tagalog, in contrast to the

purist Tagalog.

In l9ó9, the Bureau of National Education passed a resolution prescribing the

use of Pilipino as a medium of instruction for Grados I to tV throughout the country.

This was nev€r implemented, however, because of the lack ofteachers and materials.
 60

The Institute of National Language continued producing publications. Among

these were officíal correspo'ndence guides, orthography and dictionaries. Efforts were

pursued to improve the Filipino language and, in the words of Lacuesta ( 1969 in

Gonzales, 1980:109), there emerged "inventors," who kept coining lexical items

strange to everyone, üd "alchemists" who adapted terms to Tagalog phonology to

the point where they were beyond recogrrition.

The language debate continued. Panlasigui, who was opposed to Tagalog

expressed his position as follows:

The Filipinos did not have to search for a usable past to find his
identity. He only had to look at contemporaf,y culture' realize that
what united Filipinos linguistically were English and Spanish; ln fact,
what divided them was Tagalog (in Gonzales,)

Cebuano, which at the 1960 census still had the gtreatest number of mother

tongue speakers (about one quarter of the population), was widely spoken south of

Manila in the Visayas and functioned as a lingua franca for the whole region. Tagalog,

on the other hand, was the language of the national capital, lvIanila" and further

developed in the literary and political spheres, as well as being best known to the

greatest number of Filipinos, for many of whom it acted as a secotd language. By

l97O Tag¡alog has also overtaken Cebuano as the language most people used as their

first or home language Q7.V/o of Tagalog in 1990 as against 24.3% for Cebuano).

(Comparative data as presented on tlre next page based on the 1990 Ceosus Report)

Ilocano was anothø regional language which was spoken widely in the
northern part of the country (ll.3o/o of the population in 1970) and which acted as

the first language of an economically and politically enterprising group of Filipino

people.
 61

Table A

Major Mother Tongues of the Philippines Population:

CensalYears 1960,1970,1975, 1980, and 1990

Majø
molh€¡ 1960 1970 1975 1980 ¡990

Nturbq
Tobl ú,w,æs t00.00 36,684,186 100.00 ¡11,070,660 lm.m 4820p',24 100.@ t1,559,116 100.00
TacâloS t694Qn 21.V2 &97q719 24.8 10,019"214 21.æ. t4294,U2 29.6 t6,91t,871 21.93
Cebwo 6.s29ñ2 24.\t 8,844,996 uJt t0262,73s 24.39 tr,ffi,676 14.20 14,71?,220 21.?0
llmo 3,r5q560 lÌ.6ó 4l$,596 ll.3l 4685¡96 Il l,l 4963,y6 1030 593,5u 9.74
Hilþynm 2ßt73t1 10.,$ 3,74s3)? 10.2t 42048¿s 9.99 44t5,8) 9.16 5,654rß 9_34
(¡lonego)
Biod 2,108,sr7 774 2,507,156 6.83 292ß245 6.96 2,ó85,0,13 5.s7 35t923ó 5.81
Leyndâ I,rts8,668 550 tJ67.8¿9 4.8¿ r,915,005 467 194f"727 3.98 2,437,ffi 4.03
Sûmmür
(Wfay)
P@pErgs 8's,srt 3L3 t,2t\s¿4 3.30 1,442,fr? 3.4t t336,$,f 2;n r,89r¡78 3.13
Pa4cim 666,003 26 838,104 228 948,820 2.26 88Et530 r.84 I,r64J86 t.92

on tortgæ was not included in the 1980 Population Census. Figures we¡e based on sanple
estirn¿tes.
Soruce: National Statistícs Ofüce. Cøss Rqo*, 1960, 1970, 1975, I9S0 and 1990.

Hencg despite the pressure for recognition of the country's indigenous

languages throughout the period of the American occupation, much hesitation

$urrounded the moves to establish just one national language of the Philippines. Even

as late as 1971, the Constitutional Convention showed deep divisions of opinion and a

hostility towards Tagalog "so fierce that there was the danger that a foreign language

like English might be adopted as the Philippine national language" (Bautistq 1981: 6).

Bautista admits that it was in order to forestall such a possibility that the protagonists

of Tagalog which had been developed and rernnred Pilipino at the National Institute

of Language, had no altemative but to resort to a compromise involving some kind of

fi.rsion of all lhe languages of the Philippines. As Gonzales (1996b: 229) affirms, the

1973 Constitution undid much of the previous work of the Institute when it repudiated

Tagalog based Pilipino in favour of a 'lnulti-based language" to be called '?ilipino".

This type of 'l¡niversal approach", involving the amalgamation of the existing

 62

Philippine languages and dialects, engendered rrn¡ch skepticism, with Gonzales himself

labeling it as "legal fiction".

The dec¿de of the 70s w¿s gerrcrally charactpnzed by student and youth

activism. Many organizations proliferated but all were one in erpressing anti-

Americanism and gradually in discontinuing the use of E Shsb at least in public

forums, and in er<pandrrg the use of Filipino. The rhetoric of the streets for rallies and

demonstrations was totally in Pilipino. To use English was to court ridicule, unless one

were a sympathetic foreigner.

In the subsequent years TagalogÆilipino was adopted under the guise of

Filipino (Constarrtino, l98l) and aszumed the role of both a national and official

language, sharing the latter title with English and Spanish. The aoceptance of the

intellectualized version of Tagalog as Filipino, was formalized during a drafting of the

new 1987 Constitution. This was based upon the recognition that TagalogÆilipino

could make use of loan words from other languages but that "structural mixing was

not linguistically feasible" (Gonzales, I989: 230).

Sincæ therq the struggle for linguistic supromacy in the country has come to be

perceived almost solely in terms of the rivalry betwcen English and Tagalog/Filipino.

Other tongues of the Philippines have been left out of the picture, and even virtually

driven from school portals, with the Manila based national opinion pressing a one-

nafion-oneJanguage approach as the only way to build a nation-state and keep English

from occupying unquestioning omnipotence. The force of this fear can be seen in thc

number of English speakers. ln 1970, 48o/o of the population claimed the ability to

speak Englisb at the 1980 census64.50/o claimed that abilþ (Gonzales, 1966: 39).
 63

The Bilinguel Educ¡tion Program

The struggle between the advocates of English and Filipino was resolved

through the imposition of the Bilingusl Education Policy which was formalized n 1974

(in consonance with the provisions of the 1973 Constitution) by a Mnisterial Order

that aimed at 'the development of a bilingual nation competent in the use of both

English and P(F)ilipino" (Manuet 1974). The BEP involved the separate use of

English and P(F)ilipino as media of instruction provided that additionaþ Arabic could

be used in the areas where it is necessary. The regional languages could be used as

auxiliary languages in Grades I and II but this strategy cq¡ld be resorted to only when

necessary to facilitate understanding of the concepts being tauglrt through the

prescribed medium for the zubject. P(F/ilipino was used for teaching Social Studies

and the other social sciences, Character Educatior¡ Work Education, Health and

Physical Education; English was used for teaching Science and lVlathematics, while

Arabic was introduced in special cases, particulady in the Moslem areas.

The tertiary institutions were given discretion to develop their own sohedules

of implementatioq provided that by the school year 1984, all graduates of tertiary

curriculum should be able to pass examinations in English or P(F)ilipino for the

praotice of their professions.

Ev¡luation Study of the BEP

After eleven years of BËP implementatiorq the Linguistic Society of the

Philippines was commis{¡ioned to conduct an evaluation study (Gonzales, 1980;

Sutari4 et. al., 1989 ). The study covered the best and the worst public schools, using

students from Grades Four and Six in the elementary schools and Year tV in the
 64

secondary schools as subjects. One major finding was that there was a cross-sectional

deterior¿tion in the syst€(r, i.e. there was an increase in the average test

scores/achievement scores in all school zubjects from Grade 4to 6, but a decline from

Grade 6 to Yea¡ IV. Using a cut-offscore of 507o, the resea¡chers fowrd that students

in Yea¡ IV did not even average SU/o n their srbjects, çxcept for Pilipino, and did

\¡/orse than their counterperts in Grade 6, who on average scored better than 50% in

respeotive tests.

A disturbing finding was that in Araling Panlipunan (Social Studies), the

average score was less than 50%. If one of the purposes of Bilingual Education Policy

had been to facilitate the learning of Social Studies through (F)Pilipino, therr the use

of it as a medium of instruction and as a means of facilitating rapid and accurate

learning had certainly not been achiwed.

The scores for FÆilipino and English explain a5% of the variance in

achievement scores in Areling Panlipunan, Mathematics and Sciencg hence the

importance of language factor in learning. A high significant correlation between

English and FlPilipino exists. Howwer, through partial correlation, it was found that,

although Pilipino explained such a large percentage of the variance, after English was

partialled out, the variance explained by PÆilipino was quite small. In other words, in

the language factor, English was a much better predictor than Pilipino, even in the

subject Araling Panlipunan which was taught in FÆilipino.

Length of exposure to bilingual education, as another variablg was not a

signiñcant predictor of achievçment, i. e. students achieved well or ill because of othçr

factors and not because of how long they had been exposed to the program. In relation
 65

to the mastery of Englist¡ the BEP appeared to have resulted in a slowing down in

the rate of learning. For students who stayed in the systenç such a slow down could

be compensated for by corfinuing schooling. For those who dropped out of the

systçm, such a slow down meant the non-attainment of even a thrcshold level of

English competence for lifeJong learning and, therefore, could result in permanent

social deficit.

As a rezult, the evaluation study recommended not to rush the implementation

of the BEP; in rushing tlings in the education system, we do more harm than good,

Teachers (especially the more senior ones) should not be made uncomfortable by

making unreasonable demands on them. In the words of Guerrero (Sutaria" et. al,

1989: 129), 'tmless teachers are equipped for teaching in two languages @nglish and

Filipino) the program will fail," an experience that is shared by other countries of the

world having a sfunilar program and similarly situated economically like Albarria,

Burundi and Cambodia (Khmer Republic) (Fishman, 1976: 55). The preparation of

materials for use in both secondary and tertiary levels particularly demanded new

initiatives ftom teaoher educators. The demands for the research aspects, as well as

the intellectualization process of the language, were heavy responsibilities on teacher

education. The education system should think rather in terms of the next generation

and concentrate on the implementation at the pre-service phase rather than the in-

service phase ofthe teachers' çareÊrs.

 66

The Reaffimrtion of the BEP, 1986

The democratic transformation of 1986 preserved the status quo with the new

Secretary (Mnister) of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) articulating her aim as

"the achievement of competence, in both Filipino and English at the national level,

through the teaching of both languages and their use as media of instruction at all

levels", commencing in Grade I. There was the additional provision in relation to

Muslim parts of the country when "Arabic was to bç used in a¡eas where it w¿s

necessatt'' (Qrisumbing 1989: 300). She further claimed that her bilingual policy

'tovetails perfectlt'' with the 1987 Constitution which "reiterates, validateg and

cla¡ifies similar provisions in the 1935 and 1973 constitutions.n' She was also satisfied

that the policy fi¡lfilled the requirement of the new Constitution in relation to Filipino

as "the national language, which was to evolve furthe¡ by developing and enriching

itself on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages." The use of the local

'lernaculat'' or regional language, of the area in which the school was situated, was

allowed "as auxiliary to the media of instructiog but only when necessary to facilitate

the understanding of cotrcepts being tar¡ght in English F@)ilipino or Arabic." No

indication was provided, however, about the way TagalogÆilipino could be

"enriched" by such other languages ofthe Philippines.

No advantage appears to h¿ve been taken of the 1987 DECS guidelines which

referred to the possibility of achieving "reading in the regional languages."

Quisurnbing did not even consider that the acçrisition of literacy could be

accornplished through thc home tongu€s of the non-Tagalog students. The new

democratic govenrments simply confirmed the former procedures that English and
 67

Filipino were to be taught in all grades of elementary and seoondary schools. Filipino,

renamed as the medium of instruction in Social Studies/Social Science, Character

Education, lVork Education, Hçalth Educatior¡ and Physical Educ¿tion; English was

the medium of instn¡ction in all other areas, including Science and Mathematics.

In all the ministerial reports, we find not a word of support for Philippine

languages other than TagalogÆilipino. There is acknowledgment of the difference

between "Tagalog-speaking" students, for'\vhom national language education aotually

starts from childhood and continues throughout life (witÐ the school sewing to

reinforce and refine zuch language education" and other-non-Tagalog speaking

students who represent in fact, the mqiority of the population from the non-Tagalog

areas. No positive statements about the languages which these people aøually speak

and use are to be found. Instead, the Secretary has tried to reassure the non-Tagalog

population by quoting the guidelines to the implementation of the Bilingual Policy

(l.g) which explains that'tompensatory education has been set up for the purpose of

equalizing compçtence in Filipino among T4galogs and non-Tagalog groups through

the development of appropriate teaching materials, the offering of special language

teache,rs, the offering of special clasæs and the establishment of incentives for teachers

of Filipino for acquiring minimum standards of language proficiency." (Quisumbing,

1989: 31a). The fact that teachers below such minimum standards continued to e>rist

after almost three decades of attempts at linguistic assimilation of the whole country to

FilipinoÆagalogo shows the deficiency in the bilingual policy in which native tongues

of students have been perrnitted only as an "auxiliary", as a last resort, and only at the

very beginning of educ¿tion.

 68

In this way the bilingual policy starts with the premise that a student's home

language is a handicap which must be ameliorated by compensatory programs. Such an

assumption recalls such assimilation - driven policies towards minority children in the

USA and Australia in the days before they were found as counterproductive

educationalþ and unjust in terms of the rights of children to be educaæd in their home

language. According to one ofthe chief protagonists ofFilipino, Sibayan (199a : 801

'lf the speakers of the Philippine major languages [other than

Tagalogl would like to have their native language as a medium of
instruction in the early grades... they should be willing to provide
financial support for the program...the Fiþino who reads and writes
in Filipino will have no difficulty in reading and writing in his own
language if necessary'(! )'
The fact that the Bilinguat Eduoation Policy is operating against the majority

of the children who are non-Tagalog native speakers and are indigenous to the

counûy, only adds poignancy to the situation. Reports ofthe failure of bilingual policy

appear constantly in the press with reference to the perceived decline in the standard of

English in the school (Gonzales, 1989: 42) (due partly to greater time allocated to

F/Pilipino and its influence upon the structure of EnglisÐ and hence, the difficulty of

teaching Mathematics and Science in a language that is not fully comprehensible to the

students. Concern has been expressed about the decline of educational standard in the

oountry as a whole, as claimed by the Congressional Commission on Education (1991:

xü) which bluntly stateg "Ûur elementaf,y and high schools ate failing to teach the

competence the average cittzen needs to becomç responsible, productive and self-

fulûlling."

In such evaluations, no commeût appears about the handicaps experienced by

the non-Tagalog native speakers, especially those from low socio-economic status and
 69

the rural poor. In uppsr and middle class homes throughout the country, some English

is usually spoken, so that children have at least a background knowledge of the

language when they start school at the age of six. But the rural poor with very limited

or no English as well as only peripheral knowledge of Tagalog/Filipino learned from

television, films or comics, face a double linguistic banier, so that only those most able

and dedicated can succeed. The superficiality of such and understanding of

Tagalog/Filipino must always be kept in mind whsri the increasing numbers of those

declaring their ability to speak Tagalog is reported in official censuses. This figure rose

from25.4Yo in 1939 to 37.1o/o in 1948; ro 44.4Vo in 1960 55.2% in 1970. Gonzales

(1996, 39) calculated that in 1980, 77o/o of the population six years and over could

speak FilipinoÆagalog, while Quisumbing's estimates for the population at large in

1989 was 75 per cent.

The Development of the Rcgional l,anguages

The e,fforts during the füst half of this century to develop a language that was

intended to unite the whole æchipelago into one nation were paralleled by equivalent

efforts to develop local languages at the regional (ethnic) level. These could partly be

auributed to the awakening of the ilustrados that the Philippines had exchanged one

sct of Western masters (the Spaniards) for another (the Americans). Literatures of

protest in the vernaculars prolifenated. Since Manila was the seat of government, the

preponderance of literary works in Tagalog was noteworthy. Much of these efforts,

however, were mainly directed towards the enhancement of language utility and

preservatiorL as well as building up the indigenous cultural heritage rather than

towards establishing hegemony. To appreciate more fully the development of the

 70

regional languages which are the focus of the subsequent investigation (Cebuano,

Ilocano, and Waray), a brief account for each of the three languages is included in the

sections that follow.

The Cebuøno lønguage, The attempts to develop the Cebuano language are

best seen in the efforts of scholars--both foreign and local- to develop materials that

would enrict¡ intellectualize, ffid standardize the language. Mojares (1990), for

example, chronicles in his article,'Trom Cebuano/to Cebuano: The Politics of Literary

Translations", the publication of literary texts translated mostþ from other laqguages

to Cebuano. Mojares reported that the earliest published work of translation in the

Visayas was Cristobal Jimenez's Visayan translation of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine's

text of Doctrina Cristiana (Manila: Casa de Manuel Gomez, 1610). Jiminez himself, a

Jesuit described his work as'the first book which the Visayans in the whole course of

their history have soen n¿ritten in their own language and that the srbsequent works of

translation, wçre of a kind, instruments of religious instruction and ideological control,

lives of saints, religious hymns, books of conduct, the pasyon, guides for confessior¡

and books of prayers and meditation". Translations were almost wholly unidirestional

(from Spanish to Cebuano) and were largely intended for oirculation among the

Spanish missionaries themselves as an aid for evangelization and convension among the

local people. Nevertheless, such translations helped in the development of the

Cebuano language.

In the effort of propagandists to create a national consciousness among

Filipinog within the context of a multilingual society overlaid by the alien colonial

languages, much cornmerce among torts and languages had to be involved. Filipinos.
 7t

appropriated Western texts for their own ends, as well as revitalizing and

contemporanizing native texts. Yet in speaking to each other across ethnic linguistic

boundaries, Filipinos most often m¿de use of the medium of Spanish. In this regard,

the Spanish language works of the Filipino writer, Jose Rizal, became key texts and

were the most widely translatod across Philippine languages. The earliest printe{

edition in Cebr¡ano of a Rizal novel EI Filibusterismo (wntlen in Spanish) was Tomas

Alonso's translation, Ang Felibusteriszro (Sebu: Imprenta Falek, l9l l). Fragments of

Rizal's works also appeared in translation in the first Cebuano language periodicals

that were publistred after l90l . There are, to date, four Cebuano translations of

Rizal's El Filibusteriv¡to and th¡ee of Noli Me Tangere.Rtzal'sMi Utimo Adios is the

most frequently translated poem in Cebuano literature, since there exist at least 15

Cebuano translations ofthis poem.

The formal literary translation of Tagalog works whether from Cebuano or

into Cebuano, developed unevenly and slowly (Mojares, 1990). But in the first half of

this century, there was a considerable amount of literary translation into or across the

other Philippine languages. The growing commercialization of literature resulted in an

increased demand for literary works. Thus, between l90l (the year the first newspaper

in Cebuano,Ang Suga , was published) and 1940, there were 89 newspapers and

magazines published in Cebu and there were more literary works in Cebuano

published between 1900 and 1940 than in the whole period a.frer 1940.

These translations have been of two kinds: translation into Cebuano of foreign

works (mostþ of foreþ and English writers) and translations into Cebuano from

Tagalog. The forrrer included an odd assortment ofWestern novels by such authors as
 72

the Frenchman Alexandre Dumas (1802'1870), the Italian Rafael Sabatini (1875-

1900), the Englishwoman Cha¡lotte Bronte (1836-1884), the Flemish Hcndrik

Conscience (1812-1883), and the American Lew Wallace (1827-1905). Other foreþ
works translated into Cebuano included those of Charles Dickens and Victor Hugo and

popular novelists like Marie Çorrelli and Edgar Rice Burroughs. These translations

were published at a time when increasingly, literary works came to be produced as

commodities in the market for popular entertainment.

On the other hand, Tagalog novels entered into Cebuano literature mainly

through translations in the pages of Biqaya (193041, 1946+) thc Cebuano weekly

which is part of the Liwayway Publications chain of vernacular magazines and of

Bisaya's sister magaziîe, Saloma 19¿18-1953 a novel-a-month publication. The

Cebuano translations from Tagalog inoluded the works øf Laza¡o Francisco, Inigo Ed.

Regalado, Nemesio Caravana, Susana de Guzman, and Fausto Galauran. Most of these

translations were fi¡eled by market demand.

Most of the Cebuano translations have beçn of outside works; few works in

Cebuano have been translated into other languages, whether foreþ or Philippine.

Other efforts directçd to tfte development of the Cebuano language included

lexical studies, like that of Verstraelen and Trosdal (1974). Each entry in their

dictionary gave (l) the meaning of the word in English; (2) correspondences in related

languages or languages of orign (if applicable) including Arabic, Bisaya, Cebuano,

Indonesian languages, Ilocano, Malay (Bahasa Indonesia), Modern Javanese, Old

Javanese, Philippine languages, Sanskrit, and Tagalog; and (3) information on

soundshifts and other linguistic and anthropological data. In terms of dictionary

 73

preparation, the earliest glossary of Cebuano recorded was that of Antonio Pigafetta's

Cebuano word list of 1521. There were 160 terms transcribed and translated, among

which 48 related to parts of the body, gender and bodily functions; around 40 were

about food and commodities for trade, 10 were numbers, and the rest were simple

commands and sn assortnrent of items of natural and ethnographic interest. The most

formally structured and probably the most comprehensive work that has been done

would be the Dictionary of Cebumo Viryan, a joint project of Cornell University and

the Linguistic Society of the Philippines, which was oompiled by John Woltr (1972).

Having entries for 25,000 words and an addenda of 700, it is the product of eleven

years work by more than a hundred people.

Grammar was also paid attention to. Among the earliest available was that of
Rev. Odfik (1957), the Elementory Grammar of Bisøyan Lønguage. More recentlS

Alfafara (1983) has written Ang ltisøyang Gramatica. Trosdal (1992), published

Formal- Functiornl Grønmar oJ the Cebuqno Languøge, which in the words of

Verstraelen of the Universþ of Utreoht, The Netherlandg is "the best pedagogical

grammar of Cebuano I have seen up to now."

Other miscellaneous materials that were developed include Cebuano

for Missiornries (Pilosas-Ramos, ed.,1962) where "each of the lessons is constructed

around a central dialogue adopted from a dialogue in Tagalog recorded live." þ. i).
Beside this statement on the page in the copy read by this author, was a gnfrtti
which ran, t}us: assgmes a Cçbuano will þehave tho same way. True?- a comment that

is loaded with antagonism towards Tagalog and its speakers. The Beginning Cebuano

written by John Wolf is another work in two volumes which provides learning
 74

rnaterials for Cebuano beginners. His textbook, howwer, is developed around the
-a

principle that the aim of language learning is to use the language like a native speaker.

This means not only that the students learn to understand everything and say what

they want to say themselves, but also more importantly, that they learn the subtleties
and nuances which express the attitudes and feelings of the people who speak the

language. Today, there are efforts to introduce Cebuano writing to an audience

outside the region. There are, as well, scattetred demonstrations of local assertiveness,

as in the campaign of the Cebu provincial government today to effect a ban on the use

of T4galog in Cebu schools and a decree on the use of a Cebuano translation of the

Philippine National Anthem (Baumgartner, 1989:169). More purposive v¡ork,

however, remains to be done in this area.

 75

The Wurøy lønguøge There is no doubt that Waray whict¡ some people (either

because of ideological commitment to another language or ignorance) regard as

dialect or vernacular, is actually a language in its own right In the words of Wolff

(1e68:37)...

We refer to Samar-Le¡e Bisayan as a LAI.{GUAGE, not as

a dialect, with good re¡rson. In common parlance, the term odialect'
is used to refer to a t¡rpe of speech which is not as good as a
language, and thus when people talk of the 'Bisayan dialect' they
have an idea that somehow Bisayan is not as good as English or
other Western languages. I do not believe that Sama¡ Leyte Bisayan
is inferior or ought to be so considered, and I therefore, call it a
language, not a dialect, and urge others to do the same. We do use
the term DIALECT, but only in its scientific sense, namely, to refer
to a specific form of a language, Thus we speak of a Tacloban
dialect of the Sarnu-Le¡e language.

The Waray language which belongs to the Malayo-Polynesian famil¡ a sub-

goup of the Al¡stronesian family oflanguages (Llamsor¡ 1979) is spoken in the whole

islandof Samarandinasignificantportionofle¡ebyabout 2,437,688 people( 1990

Census) which means that it ranks 6th among the eight major languages in ttre

country. Historically, there has been controversy over whether to call the language

Waray or Bisaya. But the latter nomenclature was often confused with the Cebuano

language (also ofren called Bisaya), since both represent languages spoken in the

Visayan group of islands. Othcrs prefer to call it Line¡e-samarnon (a term that is

interchangeably used with Waray in the succeeding discussions) because of the fact

that the language is spokçn in thc two islands of Leyte and Samar. But considering that

a substantial number of people in Leyte do not speak the language, this nomenclature

was also thought to be inappropriate and Waray was preferred instead. As Llarnson

(1979) explained...
 76

l. Waray is the nomenclature by which the language is popularþ known.

'a
Descriptive linguistics require that alanguage be described according to the
usage ofthe speakers ofthe language;

2. The term Waray sharply distinguishes between Samar and Leyte as islands
and Samar-Leyte as a language;

3. Not all the municipalities of Leyte speak "Samar-Leyte," hence, the term
does not sufficientþ distinguish between Waray and non-Waray speaking
areas on the island of Le¡e.

Dr. Vicente de Veyra (1967 17), arenowned Waray language writer, recounts

that before the coming of the Spaniards to the Philippines, the local people had already

developed their own syllabic system of writing which had seventeen letters

(characters or symbols) with 3 characters representing thç vowels and 14 symbolizing

the consonants. (See Fig 2) Likewise, according to De Veyra , other regions of the

country had their own alphabets but these did not last througlr colonial times becar¡se

of the introduction of the Spanish alphabet by the Spanish officials in the schools

under the Franciscan Order . From that time orq all written works in Waray had to use

the Spanistr alphabet.

The develop4ngnt of fhe laneqase- The earliest studies of the Leyte-Samar

Bisayan language were those written by the Spanish missionaries (Sydiongco, 1978).

Fr. Chirino, for examplg who was assþed to Leytg wrote the RpJacio4 de las Islas

Iilipinas (1600) which was a long report addressed to the Superior General of the

Society of lesus describing the

 77

F ig. 2. . BISAYAÌ.I SYLLABARY

'a

1/A "iã* d
Ðs
{ã e {þl$} t-
t-*¡ }¡e-È,1
{..t

Ç3 &"¡.,ïr,¿

'l!Í= Ë {4"*} &- .&s.-ðs -ft-i -¿t åç***,;;

-Þr # {ç*} &
q..4
:$U;e-*49¿i" ,3l' üic}-.ï:nx
{*--l¡e {t*ei Þ+-b;t d-l^Ð þ*.Is+
þ] e {r.¿}.
Ë ;:'. {-1.:*-1
*-t?+
Æ¡ù¡

,Þ
I
1rÉ*ldìi

.¡, e*3å
F
" Ëì.
,b+*,k:.r

4 ä, c--*!.-:¡

-f¡"
.¡ÉÞ
sa {ari ur àrf.¡*#-å *(d tÌâ-"grtl
-Ë.o ñ"þ
J ,H elsø iF a ñ'*.tL{ .,k ¡* È"l*T-ét¿

?*'uc
ì,ts p rp*]
É*
tr
¡k,€Fl."lÊ€¿

F¡**¡:j
H
T",f
*IÆ+åétrüt¿

5:4:-*T.åÀ
\Ê s'{+x**-}
{f"'t Sç-n& qb ár-ù_ rlt':i.

þO r q*a] K *,;"*t È
\q.* t<¡.-*.¡
Ap Ë {-*r} {} Ès*T.rj; !¡'i;:.*Ë-il

?tr'3 x i,r* ï ?
"L/'"-¡ .:f þ-.,}.å .i¡rr*;rU.

Taken ftom Pbfippine Saga. A Pictorial History of the Archipelago Since Time
Began (n.p.; n.n; n.d)

missionary work of the Jesuits, as well as Chirino's own experiences in the

Philippines, with examples in Tagalog and Bisayan, In 1618, Mateo P. Sanchez

developed the Vocabulario de la Lengua Bisay4 SamarJ-eyte. The Franciscans (the

missionaries assigned to Leyte) were the ones who wrote in Bisayan the Catecismo dq

la Doctrina. Cristiana. as well as translating the novenas and prayers into @e Veyra,

te67).

Meanwhile, a Jesuit priest, Francisco Nzina (1610-1674) dweloped a

dictionary of 20,000 \üords, a collection of six hundred Bisayan proverbs, as v/ell as

tracts and manuals of devotion (Llamson, 1979 ). Father Alzina also wrote a History

of the Bisayan Islands (1668). It included a description of the Bisayan language which
 78

Nzlrna described as rich in words, transformetions, descriptions and metaphors. He

considercd the Bisalian language easily adjustable to the expression of Casillan

(Sydiongco, 1978).

A more detailed listing of the earlier materials related to the dwelopment of

the Waray language, as reviewed at the National Library of the Philippines by Fr.

Raymund Quetchenbach (1976:51-59) could be seen in Appendix E.

Soon after the formal occupation of the province by the Americans in 1901, the

first vernacular ne\¡/spaper A¡r Kaadlawon @aybreak) edited by lluminado Lucente

was published in Leyte. Othcr newspapers in the vernacula¡ that followed included La

Voz de teyte (the Voice of Leyte), Noli Me Tangere (Touch Me Not), An Mahagnaq

(The Cold), 4q Silhig (The Broom), and An Kalan,nagaq Ghe Light) (Salazar, 1967:

t4e).

In 1909, the Sanghiran San Binisaya (Acadenry of tbo Bisayan Language of

Iæyte-Samar) was organized for the purpose of cultivating rofining and enriching ttre

Waray language as spoken in Samar and Oriental Leyto, in addition to keeping its

purity and encouraging its use (de Veyra, 1967; Montejo, 1967). This was founded by

Norberto Romualdez ( a renowned philologist in Leyte) and Don Jaime de Veyra.

From then on, writers in the vernaoular flourished. Romualdez himself wrote the

Bisayan Grammar and.Notes on lhp Bisayan Rhetoric and Politics (1908) to which

W.W. Marquardt (Division Superintendent of Schools) provided the preface. He

stated that thenewbooþ

h¡s been neoded by all Americans who desire an acquaintance with

the native language of thç people amoflg whom they live in order that
they may get into closer touch with the great mass of n¿tives as yet
unable to speak with Spanish or English.
 79

I¡¡cente wrote more than 300 lyrics in Bisayan. f[s poems written up to 1929

are contained in a 9l-page volume entítled: Pinulongan l{an Kasingkasing (The

Language of the Heart) published in that year (Salazar, l967la0).In 1934, Jaime de

Veyra v¿rote the Elementary Grammar of the Visayan Language.

Another writer, Eduardo lvfakabenta" who according to Salazar (1968;3-25)

holds an undisputed place among the best poets of Leyte and Samar, had a oollection

of poems in an unpublished volume entitled'?inanrngpong Nga Mga siday ug Mga

Garaygôday (Collected Poems and Verses) dated August 27, 1956 at lvlanila.

lvlakabenta is also best remembered as the translator of Josc Rizal's works into Waray

fur the Jose Rizal National Centennial Commission. His translations included the ext¿nt

lett€rs of Rizal, his poems and prose works, political and historical writings, the novels

Noli M.e Turgere and El Filibusterismo, and Rizal's edition of Morga's Sr¡cesos de lgg

Islas Filipinas. He also translated M Ultimo Adios that appears at the Rizal National

Park in ildanila.

In addition, Makabenta astounded the Leyte-Samar world with his translation

of Poe's The Rave,q Vistor Hugo's ' L' Afnow:, wilcox' solitude, Longfellow's The

Clgcb and many other poÊms in Englisb as well as in Spanish, like Balmouri's g9gg
Hosanr,ra. He also produced the Binisaya-Pilipino-English diøionary which was not

published until hie death n 1973 (Montejo, 1967: 4l).

Other nniters substantially contributed to the dwelopment of the language in

more recent yeaß. Among thesc was Francisco Alvarado, a poet from Palq Le¡e
whose postry is contained in a volume Pmtngug Han Kølag (Utterances of the Soul).

He also wrote dramas, among thern, Bitqy nga Bulmtan (Golden Pendant); Luløy; and
 80

Dulrø Nga Gugna (Two Loves), Another is Gervacio Ortiz who in 1959 wrote the

Guidelo ConvSrsetioqal Waray (Ibid.)

Poets from Samar flourished. Among them were the erudite r¡¡riter Fr. Froilan

Monsanto who translalÊd Riz¿l'g My L.ast Fargwell; Arturo Froilan Batica" Jr. of Basey

who translated Balagtas' Florante at Iraura and several others including Tomas S.

Gomez of Calbayog Clty, Visente Dira" Andres Cabuoñas, Jesus Arteche, Luciano Ty,

and Luciano Ortiz who made nårir€s for themselves.

Dr. Vicentc de Veyra, an anthologi$t, collecled Leyt+Samar folksongs, riddles,

proverts, and sayings. His books include lrFþana¡L Hinugpo, y, Katap,usan ri&l

PanamilcÍ, Pagps$aret, etc. It is also of interçst to note that even in the more recent

ye,ars, some foreigners harrc taken intere.st in the developrnent of the language. John

and lda Wolfr, fot exaurplç, wrote Eegi4nins -Lyqray,-Wqray l4ssqns (1967); Freida

NetthnafL a Peace Corp Voluuteer, developed Notes on the Sa4[er-Lç,yte dìûlFçt; and

Fr. Luis Paulsen, SVD, developed the EnglishsamareñeTqaray Diç3içn¿ry.

The llocuto lønguaga The literary development of the Ilooano language

st¿rted with the lo<icographic works of the Spanish friars, in the sarne manner as the

Waray and the Cebuano languages did. Tho earliest recordings of work docurnented in

the bibliograptuc work of Hendrrickson and Nswe[ (1991) dates back to the works of

Pedro de la Cruz Avilq OSA These were the undated llocgbulæio llæano (Ilocano

@ictionary) and the futç.,Vognbulprio tr Cøtqcismo-ilocæro, a manusøipt in thrçe

volumes complaed in 1600; and the urdatedArte de LenEta IIæøn. fuiother early

writor whose works oame ín zuccession as con¡aind in the book of lVard (1971) was

Francisco Lopezwho, in 1627 wrotethe Arte de Iq lÆrrguã noca printed in Manila by

 8l

the Imprenta del Colegio y Universidad de Sto. Tomas de Aquino; tbefuuwndisJ

Methdo de Ia Suma & Ias Reglas del Arte del ldioma llqcøto printed in l792by

the tmprenta de Ntra. de Loreto del Pueblo de Sampaloc; the Cøtecismo de la Lenguq

Ilæørø con Erylicæion,de los Mistefiqs Prirriwlq.s dg Ntrq. Stø. Fe printed in

Manila in 1882 by Imprenta del Amigos del Pais; and the Grgmatici,ø llocøa printed

in Ndalabon in 1895 by Establicimiento Tipo.-Litografico del Asilo de Huerfanos.

Between thes€ dates (1600-1895), the works of Andres Caro, OS,t we¡re also

documented and are contained in the works of both Hendrickson and \l¡'ard. These are

Vocabularío de Ia kngw YIæa alÇastellero,Ms, 1792; ksaufo Vocabuløip dB la

Lcngua Ylqa q! Cqstelqro, 1794; and the Yocøbulçio llpceÛryañol published in

IVlmila in 188 by tho Tipo. Litog. de M. deFerc4 hijo. This srbsequently became the

IlokeEnglish Dictionary published in Bagrrio by the Catholio School Press. Similarly,

Gabriel Vivo y Juderias, whose works were also on lexicograp¡ did the following:

Gra¡ratica IJts. Gramatica Hiswto-Ilæaryfl (1869) published in Manila by Imprenta

del Colegio do Sto. Tomas; Díccionario llosano-Castellano (Imprenta de Ramirez

y Giroudier , Ivlanila: 1373); Nuevo. Voc.ahtlario en Lengua Hirymelloconq

@inondo:1876); Breve Cçmpretúio de G.ramatigfl lloco.ûasîellil,q (Imprenta del

Colegio de Sto. Tomas lVlanila: l9O7); and the undated Gratrytica HiswttøIlocqnç

(Impremnta del Colegio de Sto. Tomas, Manila). Mention should also be made about

the undated works of I. de Ayora (1750-1800), Vocaþulario llocano, ild that of

Gerardo Blancg OSA (1362-1898) Vocabvløio HiswellocWo which are both

marruscripts. A close examination of theee early works shows that dl had the primary
 82

intertion of establishing a communication line between the Spaniards and the natives

in addition to properly instilling among thc natives tbe rudiments of the Catholic faith.

At the start of the 1900s (when the Americans were already in occupation),

works on Ilocano language development were done not only by the Spaniards but

also by Filipinos (Ilocenos), ¡s well as writers of othe,r nationalities, who had some

interest in thê Ilosarro language. They produced works ranging from dictionaries to

translatíons of texts either fror¡L or to Ilocuro (like the translations of Jose Rizal's

novel, El Filibusterismo to Ilokano titled Ti Pilibusterismo iû 1970) and in different

aspects of living to include thosç outside of religion. The works labeled Appendix F

are worth mentioning:

The materiols listed above are necossarily not exhaustive. However, the efforts

and the initiatives in developing the language are concretely indicated. It should also

be noted that becausç of the in¡roduction of the English language occupation of the

Americans in 1E98, the shift in the language focus ftom Spanioh to English espwiaþ

in dictionaries preparation is obvious.

To date' the plethora of ¡n¿terials in Ilocano car¡not be denied. In fact, therç

are cgrrently two local newspapers and three newsleûters written in llocano, together

with thræ radio st¿tions th¿t broadcast usingthe Ilocano language-

The future llevdopment of Lingua Fr¡uca

A close scrutiny of almost all the languages in the Philippines ilot to mention

Chavap¿no, v¡fiich is actually a pidgin Spanish, rcveals that they are flooded with

Spanish lqricon that are written in their original forms or modified to appear like a

Filipino 1aror{ consequently pronounced the Filipino way. For exatnple, the word
 83

"kumusta'' (How are you?) is undoubtedly a derivation from the Spanish phrase,

"Conto estdl" This is used by almost oll Filipinos a¡l & part of their daily
communication at least, in the Cebuano and Waray communities.

Many, if not rnost, people never rcalize that when they count in the
vernaoular, they are aotually counti4g in Spanistr the fact that they have nsver known

how to çount iri their own larryuage either because they did not have the opportunity to

learn in scltool, or they wero not yet in school when the vernacular was stilt the

medium of instructioq at leas in the first two grades. At most, people in the Waray

community may, at times, start counting (without even realizing) using the roal

vcrnacula¡ ftom one to ten. But when the llth number is reachcd , tlrere is a sudden

but very natural and unconscious shift to Spanish. Several studies @arcelon4 1977

and l98l; Olonan, 1978;Dumarân, 1980; and Caballoro, 1983), howsvcr, as reviewed

by Gonzales ard Bautì$ta (1986; 14) reported a major influence of schooling in

counting, that is, that English was becoming the dominant language used by the

respondents. Similarly, telling the time is definitely done either in Spanish or Englislç

in almost all speech communities throughout the country.

The theory of laqguage sl¡ift and m¿intenanoe points to the fact that overtime

some words tend to fall out of usage either becuse of obsolescpnce, or becar¡se of

nerr torminologies that aÍe ac,coilrmodated into the linguistic system. The fonner could

bo illustrated by examples like changing the use of the formal p,ronouns in prayers zuch

as thou, thee, thy, and thinc with yorr, your, and yours which are bclieved to bç nrore

moaningful to the faithful. Exanrple of the second is English counting words replacing

Spanish.
 84

The word'toilet''is another lo¡ical item that has lost its everyday use among

Filipinos, having long been replaced by more euphemistic words, such as comfort

room or relief area. The former is more coffimon and is most comfortably verbalized

as C.R., which is hardly wer understood in other placeg even in an English speaking

country like Australia. It may not bç very long before the abbrcviation C.R. will

assume the form of an ordinary lexicat iteq which might be spelled as si-ar in any of

the Philippine languages/dialects.

The complete loss of ¿ lexical item may be íllustrated by the word 'þergola".

It used to be very commonly used immediately a.fter the Second World War but it
has disappeared from the Phitippine scene both as cultural and as a lsxical itenr,

Larrguage can also be lost compløely as what happened to the Sumerian

language. When the Babylonians conquerod the Sumerian city states, they imposed

their own language and downgraded the Sumerian language to a position whore it

was only used by the priests, in much the sarne way that L¿tin becarne only used by the

Church of Rome although rnuch reducod in recent years,

 Chapter 3

THNORETICAL tr'RAMEWORK

ISSUES IN IITULTTLINGUALISM

Language in a Ptural Society

In a muhicultural and multilingual society, language is usually an indcx of a

person's social and ethnic bacþround. Spenkers use language(s) to make statements

about who they arg whæ their group loyalties are, how they perceive their relationship

to their hearers, and what sort of speech event they considerthemselves to be engaged

in. People's linguistic behavior nlso shows patterns that serve as indicators of their

concepts and beliefs urd gue insights into attitudçs, trçnds of thought, and directions

for social, political and other changes that are occurring between and among groups.

In other words, aside from the obvious function of communicating language defines

cultural facts, social situations and social relations.

The political and social situation creatod by linguistic diversity ranges from

relative harmony (as in the case of Switzedand and Australi¿ in the more recent

erçorience) to conflict and dissent as in Belgum where only two 'lnainstream"

languages are of significance (Kloss, 1966). Philippines, as a muttilingual society, could

be regarded as in a state of quiescence, but of latent conflict, due to a bilingual policy

that favors one indigenors language as a lingua frarrcg in addition to an ex-coloníal

language, English. In multilingual situations (brought about either through migration

or the existence of indigenous tenitorial divisiveness), it is genøally observed that, at

any given time, one 8troup is in a more favorable situation than the others, and likewise,
 86

one langurùge enjoys a stronger position in government, in schools, in the economy'

and in social ci¡cles (Lieberson, l98l:2). Given these language dynamics, alternative

responses are available to the ditrenent groups and individuals, which open
possibilities

for a variety of linguistic scenarios'

Línguistíc optíons ìn ø plwat socìúy.In a plural society, people may adopt

(Smolicz
one of a number of different ideological orientations toward cultural diversity

and Secombe,lgTT; Smolicz, 1979). Likewise, in the particular sphere of languagg a

m¡nnbe,r of pssible outcomes may be adopted to the problem posed by the exstence of

more than one language in s given locisty. These ws fuminøú monolingualism,

hybrid rnonolinguølistrt, separatist rnotnlinguøIism, minority bilinguølism, ol

bilingualismfor the sæiety as awhole (Smolicz and Lean, 19S0: 99-102)'

Dominant monolingualism impliesthe suppression of all but one language and

the eventual ernergenc.e of r population, which is monolingual fut the national tongue'

On the other harid, lrybrid monolingualism assumes that interaction between the

different linguistio groups will lead ultimately to the formation of a completely new

language. Smolicz argues, however, that language constitutes one area of culture,

which is not amenable to ea.sy amalgamation. But in a linguistically plural society

.ocontaot
dialests" are likely to a¡ise. Words may migfate from the dominant language

to those used by the minorities (or vice-versa) although there is a difference betwecn

suctr local adjustnrents or aocoiltmodatiofl' atrd thc emergencG of some kind of hybrid

languagÊ (Fishmarç lgzz).In the Australian contetrt, it is important to guard against

the ønergence among children of minority ethnic background of hybrid forms, which

would be the result of insufficient knowledge of the ethnic tongue, as well as

 87

inadequacy in English, A similar danger exists in the Philippines for those children who

nev€r master literacy skills in Filipino or English or their regional language.

Separatist monolingualism involves the reoognition of more than one national

language, or at least the tolerance of different linguistic communities within the stÈte,

without any demand that the members of the various groups acquire more than their

own native tongue. Although society as a whole is linguistically plural, in the s€nse

that a variety of language groups co-exist within the one political entity, individuals

remain monolingual, with each speaking their owri ethnic language. In Australia, there

has been a great deal of hostility toward immigrants who cannot speak English, and an

insistence th¿t all childreû regardless of their ethnic background, g"in a mastery of
English. In the Philippines, the bilingual policy and the existence of regional lingu¿

francas have minimized sr¡ch linguistic separatism and made any form of
monolingualism a rare ifnot a non-existent phenomenon.

In minority bilingualism, minority ethnic individuals afe expected to become

bilingual by learning another language (regarded as the national language) for conto¡ts

where the different linguistic communities need to interact for sorrte specific purposes,

such as civic, legal and eco¡omic affairs. Members of the dominarrt group, however,

remain monolingual, and because of the lack of the interactior¡ see no advantage in

acquiring another language. Alternativel¡ mingrity bilingualism may be regarded as a

transitional stagg leading either to the evertual emergence of dominant

monolinguali$n or the acceptance of bilinguatism among the dominant group as well.

this form of bilingualism is most commonly for¡nd in Australia but is not often seçn

in thePhilippines.
 88

The most prefened is a kiûd of bilingualism where atthough there is a conxnon

or national language to enable national unity and effective coexistenco, ethnic

languages are not regarded exclusivoly as languages for ethnic individuatg and

members oftfte majority group are also encouraged to learn one or more of them. This

results in the emergence a¡nong all groups in society ofbilingual individuals with a dual

or even muhiple linguistic systems drawn ftom two or more different linguistic stocks.

This is the ideal of both the Australian National Language Policy and the Philippine

Bilingual Education Policy.

The Ms îcced fo mìnorþ lurguages. Language is a powerfirl syrrbol of

ethnicity and ct¡ltural solidarity (Smolic4 1979; Lewis, 1981; Fishman, 1972ñ977:

Giles, et. al, 1977:307). In the process of syrnbolizing it elso tends to become valued

in itself. Speaking welt acquíring a command of one or more languages, v€rsatilit)r in

the languages-these skills often become specifically valued in their own right (

Fishman in Gileq 1977 25). A question could be raised, however, whether these

languages will rernain living traditions (Smolicz, 1974) for the generation of children

currentþ within the education syst€fiL and hence be transmitted to their children.

The valuç that is attached to a particular language is straped by the society in

which it exists. Those who feel sesure only within the corrfines of a society whose

monolingualism is based upon their olvn tongue, hardly ever considel thc long-term

effect of the rupture in the linguistic transmission of minority groups. Whe¡r literacy in

the home language is not passed on to the next generatiorq somcthing more is involved

than the individual's inability to read and write. The concept of literacy is much wíder
 89

and its acquisition carries with it the learning ofa whole plethora of cultural knowledge

that is virtually impossible to pass on to a child illiterate in that language.

To ease the lot of tinguistic minoríty groups and to have their culture

recognized in the community in general, one must face e central dilemma labelod by

Smolicz (1Ðl: 4) as a 'monolingual urgg' namely, the enigma of people's hostiþ

towards languages other than their own. This is most prevalent a¡nong dominant

groups who would rather see a minority language disappear (even if it be economically

usefirl) than develop it through the building of bilingual bridges by majority and

minority g[oups alike. It is this monolingual urge or 'myopia' that has often proved an

underlying cause of the failure to impleurent some of the promising research findings

and enliglrtened policies directed towards harmonious co-existence in linguistic

divenþ.

Dilemm¡s of Lenguege Acquisition in ¡ Multilingual Context

Language learning can either be very natural or very problematic. It can be

natural in the sense that children can learn languages just by interaction with the social

environment. By the time an infant is borq he,/she is at once exposed to different

modes of communication-.verbal as well as non-verbal. With no choice at al! the child

adopts whafever language(s) predominate(s) in his/her goup. During the first 10-12
years of life, young children have the 'tnysterious, miraculous ability to learn

languago(s) in addition to their own native or first tongue--compløely, effortlessl¡

and to a large exteilt, unconsciously'' (Gaardner, 1977 77).

One such exarnple is the casc of a child born with at least two diftrent

language varieties surrounding him/her at the level of the family and at the level of
 90

society. This happens especially a¡nong migrant families where the children are

confronted with both the larrguage(s) of the parents (ethnic) and that of the dominant

group. It is also most often the case in the Philippines where children grow up in

regions whç¡e both Filipino and a regional language are spoken in everyday life.

Dtløt¿nas ín the Phìlíppíne contd.In some situations, however, the learning

of more than one language can prov€ confusing and difficult for children. Irrrgine a

child from a rural Cebuano -speaking area who has had no contaç{ with either English

or Filipino and conÊonts both languages during his/her first day at school where he

keeps hoaring differEnt language codes for the same particular objeø. One possibility is

that the child could h¿ve the idea that the object is transforming from one situ¿tion to

another ftike a 'Taucet" in the Philippines transforming into a '\ap" i\ Australia)

depørding on the cont€rd in which the language code is used. A pupil in the Philippines

afts his first day in school nrshes home, looks for a flower and with all the enthusiasm

presants to his mother: lrlow I know what this is (pointing to the flower); in the

morning this is flower, in the afternoon, bulakløk." The very limited understanding of

the child pushes him to believe th¿t the particutar object is'îower"'in the nrorning and

'tulaklak" in the afternoo4 just becurse English and Filipino as language zubjects of

the school are respectively rocited in the morning and in the afternoon.

There are countless situations where people can aot in strange if not arnusing

ways, becatrse they mistake one word for anotlron. An Australian woman, for orample,

could make people raise their eye-brows if she looked for a "motel" in Manila"

although it is unquestionably a decent place in Adelaide. In additio4 some aspects of

lexical choice-lÐdcal patterning, phonology, rate, pitclq and volume--can make forms
 9l

of utteraricos/ and linguistic expressiorts vary, as Bradac claims (in Ryan and Gles,

1982: 99) in his article, "A Rose By Another Name: Attitudinal Consequences of

Lexical Variations",

The mounting conftsions of tfiis type can have adverse effects on thÊ life of the

individual if not properly managed. Many rural children in the Philippines such as the

above, will, in faot, loave schoot with minimal writing skitls in Tagalog and very little

command of English althouglr able to use vernacular as the main moans of [ora[

communication, a situation of semilingualism in relation to three languages that they

partly know.

DìIemmas ín the Austtdian cont¿Jü. In the migrarrt.strucn¡red sooiety of

Australia, fi^/o coûtrasting case histories are recounted by Smolicz ( 1991:4): that of

Jerry and Aldona. Jerry was a G'reek-Australian boy who began his schooling at the

age of five speaking Crr€ck but hardly any Engfish. The boy was also sent to a Gteek

Satqrday school, but when his English teacher asked him to recite the alphabet and he

pronoumÆd'Kappa'' for thç lefier K, the fathçr was advised to withdraw his son from

Greek lessons, sinoê education in that language was obviously hindering the boy't

intclleøual development. The young man larcr worked in his father's delicatesse4

having left school at fifteen, with English as his weakest subject. He remained proud of

the fluency of his spoken Greeþ and bad a strong sense of his Greck'Australian

identþ. Jerry's family and primary soci¡l networks remained intast - he h¿d merely

been rendered illiterate in his mother tonguç on the prompting of the Australian school,

which had not concemed itself with the cultural transmission of that language but,

instead discouraged it as "confüsingl' and'ltnnÊccssary."

 92

The young man, cheerful and accommodating to all his customers, retained a

sense of grievance at the school system and those teachers whose persuasive por,ver$

had influenced his father against Greek lessons during the most formative period of his

life. Their advice had helped to prevent him from beitrg able to read and writc in his

native tongue, to the extent that he could not read the Greek papers th¿t he sold in his

shop. Jerry also felt aggrieved at the fact that this handicap in Greek literacy had

resulted in his state of semilingualism , in the sense that his literacy in English was also

gravely suspect. He recallcd doing English spelling drill long before he could Íiaster it

as a spoken language, and the seeds of confirsion, which this o<perience sowed. In façt,

Jerry oould not spell correctly in any language.

One must admit that the difficulties, the anxieties, and the confusíon, are

nightmares that the individual lives with as he struggles to come to têrms with these

linguistic realities. However, there is no room for pessimism about such a

phenomenon. After all, language diversity can be fostered as a social, educational,

political, and economic resource, as espoused by theorists and as illustrated in the

case of Aldona.

In contrast to the story of the young Greek-Australian, Aldona is a Lithuanian

gìd who, whilc experiencing a similarly indifFerent, if not directly hostile school

environment, succeeded in rohieving literacy in her home language through the

determined efforts of her parents and grandparents. Her family was better educated

than Jerry's and, being political refugees, its members were imbued witn a spirit of

almost defiant attachment to their language and culture. In spite of initial problems of

adjustment, the girl mastered English in a matter of weeks. Her English literacy was
 93

firrnly built upon her already advanced reading and writing skills in tithuanian. She

subsequentþ completed an Honours degree in French and took up the study of

Ge¡¡nan and Italian in Europe. Her English is impeccable and she is proud of being
an

in
Australian. Ahhough not entirdry in spite ofthe school, Aldona's achievernertts were

no way recognized or reinforced by the school.

The complexities that language diversity 4s a world phenornenon creotes

choíce but to
coupled wíth the trend towards globalization leave people with no other

le¿rn whatever language (second or thi¡d, or even fourth) is of necessþ to them.

WhÂt

prevailing
matters are the child's, the family's, and the ethnic group's responsQ to the

policies relæed to linguistic diversþ?

Aútitudes Towards Langurgc(s)

lilorking within the general frarnework of psychology, Allport (195a:a5)

describes an attitude as "a mental or narral st¿te of readiness, organized through

experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual's

response to

alt objects and sitr¡¿tions with which it is related." It is fundamentalþ a disposition or

preparedness to act, å process of focusing in readiness to act. It is a disposition to

react favorably or unfavorably to a class of objectg in the context of this study,

langUage. Attitt¡des to language (and turguage learning as well) have cognitive and

affective aspects or çornponents. An attitude is gerrerally reoognized as carryfuE a

considerable element of feeling-it represents for most people their cmotional response

to an object, a situation, or an institution. It is important to stréss that some attitudcs

also have cognitive aspects, whioh means in our study that a p€rson has beliefs abor¡t
 94

it should occupy in relation to other languages in a

both the language and the place

heterogeneous societY.

(especially for a
Attitudes a¡e a critical variable not only in language learning

sccond or a third language) but also in the process€s

of language maintenance and

pef without any

shift. Very seldom can one maintain an attitude towards a langgage
3e

As Fishman claims (1993 2),

oonsideration attached to the language being tlre object.

societally patterned
the sociology of langu4ge is centrally concerned not only with
ettitudes toward languages
behavior through languages, but with societally p8ttefiÉd

whether positive or negative.

In almost all cases, attitudes deperrd on a fange of considerations' Haugen

(1972 in Fase, et. al. [edsJ 1992: a3) in his discussion

of the ecolory of language

posgs ten questionS which need to be taken into account for a grven language

situæion, as follows:

1. How is the langpage classified vis.a-vis other languages

(a matter of
historioal and descripive linguistics)
2. Who uses the language (linguistic demography)?
3. What are the doma¡ns of the language (sociolinguistic)?
4. What other languûges af€ use.d by its speakers (dialingui{icsx
5. wh¿t are the language's irnernal varieties (dialectology)?
6. \ilhat are its rvritten traditions (philologyp
7. Whet is the language's degree õf ndardization (prescriptive linguistics)?
(glottopolitics)?
8. What institutional tuppott Aoes the language have
9. \{hat attitr¡des towards the language are held by its speakers
(ethnolinguistics)?
relation to oth€r languages
10. Where do all ttrese factors place the langUage in
(ecologicat classificæion)?

The ninth question he lists is focused on individual's ¿ttitudes

to languages'

in that while the speakers share commonalties

Multilingual sociEties are unique
 95

have the freedom or may be even the

regarding langUage usage, individuals or gtoups

towards alternative linguistio

right, to interpret the social meanings and adopt attitudes

choices.

1969;
In the tradition of humanistic sociology @ierstedt, 1969; Znaniecki,
and values (as strared group
Smolicz"1979) attitudes (as expressed by individuals)

Language attitudes relate to the

meanings) can hardly be detached from one another.

meanings, which are given to language in genera! as well as to specific languages' as

the culttual values of a given goup. In this wa¡ humanistic sociology emphasizes the

and group values in relatiotU

essential inter-relationship between indívidual attitude

say, to the maintenance and modification of alanguage'

Cultural values, zuch as the words of a language, carry meanings shaped by

things which have a

group members. Cultural values are thus in contrast to natural

have no meaning for human eotivity, and treated

as
content but, as a part of nailrg
river has a meaning for a group of
valueless, when a natural thing uroh as a tree or a

people, it becomes thereby a cultural value. It is possible for an object to have m¿ny

for it may refer to different kinds of human activity related to

different
meanings,

groups.

taken as opinions and

Attitudcs in the context of humanistic sociolory may be

an investigator needs to kno% in

reasons th¿t constitute important cultural fasts which

given situation in relation to

order to understurd tlre way s person is likely to act in a

certain cultural value.r. In contrast to concreto facts, which cofistitute so-called

..objætivd' information concerning the more easily docr¡mented and metefial

attitudes) provide most revealing

manifestations of daily life, cultural facts (in this case
 96

perceived (in this

data on individual's generalized assesun€nt of whæ is subjectively

social roles. The sttitudes of

case language) in the contoxt of their own situation and

individuals to a given language can be derived from such

cultural facts'

language depending
There is a wide range ofmeanings that may be attached to

upon the context and soci¿l situation of the perceiver. A discussion (not nec'essarily

exhaustive) of the probable fhctÖrs, which may be external

or internal to the perceiver

of language, is included in the following sections'

The utqnal cætsítløøiants Two considerations that are exterûal to the

langUage: the question of

perceivers are likely to influence an individual's attitudes to

the
who the spakers of the langUage are and the status/function that
language

assumes.

The speakers of the language are in many oases ¿ critical factor

in language

his associates strongly

attitude formation. As the works of Lambert (1963) and
represented
indicate{ a set of complÞx motivations vis-a-vis the peoplo and thç culture
language learning' the
by the s€gofid langUago is one of the two key sets of factors in

speak the lalryuage?

other being intelligence and aptitude. Who are the people who
How do they *and
What significance do they h¡nre to the learner's pef6eptual world?

in society of which they are part in a plurat setting as well as in the world community

of people? These and other related questions form the basÊs of language
attitude

fonnation.

LangUage status, the other external consideration is concerned with the

prestigc, usefulness and ímportance of the langrrage concerned'

I'eryis (1981: 265-

perceptìon of
267) zuggpsts two different aspçcts to this fbctor. One is the students'
 97

judgment
the characteristics of a language, a perception which involves a comparative
'a

of the hnguages in contact, where one may be regarded af¡ more elegant or musical or

the current
rich than the other. The other aspect is the current uses of a languagg

distribution of roles between the languages in contact, as well as changes in the

distribution of these roles. Du¿ (in Ammoa 1989: 139), in his study of
the languages

in India, classified thç functions Of langUages as instrumental' integrative and

of its signifrcance
communicative. The instrumental function looks at language in terms

for higher educatior¡ job oppornrnitie.s, social mobility' and economic prospøity'
on

on the other'
thc one hand, and its pragmatic value for political-geographic integration

Integrative function involves the symbolic sígniñcance of a language for group

solidarity, identity and socio-cultural integration at the locat regional,

or national

levels across difFerem language and social Sroups. It has implications not only for the

choice, development, and promotion of national and other langUages

but also for their

in the sense thåt it

ståtgs and recognition Language also has a comrnunic¿tive function

becomçs the means for both the intra a¡d intergroup communication' All these

community
functions mey bç fulfilled by a single language, depending upon the speech

and its social context'

In a heterog€n€ous society, designations have to be made to define the

structur¡l relationships among the languages. (Ammoq 19S9) claims that

the

Hindi has
st¿tu$function of a language depends on the social system. For exarnple,

language in
official stôhùs as a language in India; French has a status of a minority

Canada and Swahili has the status of a lingua franca in Kenya. Aocording to Ammoq
 98

the theoretical model to express this could be 'linguistic system (L) has the st¿tus or
-a

function (F) in a given social system (S).

The ìntønøI consíde¡øtìons. Language attitudes can also develop in relation

to a complex set of motivation#aspirations of the perceiver in relation to a particular

language, although it noeds to be recognized that these af,e often derived meanings
(values) from the social contßxt of which the individual peroeiver is a part' In other

words, language attitudes could be contingent upon what meaning or value a particular

language is givør. The range of values could include acadernic/intellectual, social,

political, €coriomic, årnilial, religion and identþ,

In so far as academic motivation is concerned the major wodd languages,

particulrþ Eûgtish, cpuld be hypothesized to be most valued, consideting their utility

in international communication. This does not precludeo however, the possibility of the

other languages being of academic value. Even the language of the world's smallest

uibal corrnunity can be of interest to safisry, for example, the academic pursuits of

social anthropologists.

The social consideration of language attitudes is based on the human need for

intcraction and social relatíonships. St. Claìr (1982: 164), in his articlg 'Trom Social

tüstory to LangUage Attitudes,' asserts from a macro level that

...To understand fully how language auitudes develop, it rnay be

ast and investigate the social
within the history of a
tlre sociology of deviance is
ono as it rolates
soci e feel abo¡t
the of different
eooial and economic gfoups.
 99

At the tevel of tho individual, the social aspects of language ætitudes have to

do with the different levels or degrees of social relationships, which provide the

antecodent to act. Some would maintain a detached relationship. Others consciousþ or

subconsciously aspire for a more relæred interaction in a more intimate relationship

(either facrc-to-face or dìstant) where both parties could cast away inhibitions,

resen¡¿tions, and distn¡st. The likelihood of this being realized is when the parties
involved share a corrunon tanguage for communication (which could be of 'high' or

'low' convergence, to invoke the theory of Lewis, l98l) in which, they both feel at

home. 'There is little doubt that knowing the same language helps to build a feeling of

comrnitment, of togetherness, of belorrging and to extend friendship networks in an

easy and informal manne¡" (Smolicz, 1992 1). When individuals learn another

language within its cultural envelope (and not just its formal grammatical structure or

its simplified business version) they enter into a communion with other speakers and

form a bond, which can or should enrich both them and theír group.

Beyond thesc social considerations is the political backdrop of attitudes toward

language, in which the question of power relations can emerge. Notwithstanding the

occasional bitter linguistic politics that have emerged in multilingual societies like

Canada Belgrun¡ Indie, Cyprus @psteur, 1977 23) and in many other societieg

including the Phitippines, knowledge of a particular language which othor groups may

or mey not poss€$s caû be an advantage in the ìndiviù¡al's pursuit of power and

arthoríty. As Smolicz (19921) contends,

can be a bridge for all those people

It is paradoxical that a language
who speak or write it, but a most obvious, irritåting and inconvenient
barrier for those who do not. What more" the hapless individuals
isolued by such a barrieq caínot build a language bridge in a hurry,
 100

however, urgent the message to be transmitted. It is in instances like

this, that a third patry, who knows both the languages in question (even
if fiom still another background) can acquire great power and status by
linking the others together at his or her pleazure.

Such a reality could enhance motivation for language learning and the

corresponding development of more positive attitudes. If knowledge that provides

powçr is not unifonnly distributed ocross individuals, sofire can be more powerful

compared to others (Young, l97l\. As ønphasized by Bernstein (1971:47), "how o

sooiety selects, classifies, distributes, transmits and evaluates the educational

knowledge it considøs to be publig reflects both the distribution of power and the

principles of social control." St. Clair (in Ryan and Giles, 1982: 165) orplains this

more fully as he stresses that,

... çach nation has an obligation to imbue its citizenry with a respect for
its civic cultr¡re ... This use of political socialization channels social
behavior in line with the mainstream values of a nation...What is
interesting about this phenomonon is that the language standardization
is one of the more dominant instruments for inducing common social
öçectations arnong its citizenry.., The more consen¿ative a tation
becomes, the more it uses language as a constraint against soçial,
political, religious, and ethnic minorities in order to deny thern fult
access to the mainstream culture,..It relates to the needs andthe
concerns ofthe pou¡€r elite of a nation.

In like manner, power defines the ofEcial dialect of a nation so that non-

standard dialects a¡e deerned dwiant. While fi¡ll access to the official language

provides power, those rl¡ho adhere to the non-standard dialects are stigrnatized (St.

Clair, 1982: 166).

Economic conside¡ation is definitely a very basic determinart of attitudes

towards lungougg both at the individual and societal level. At the lovel of the

individual, this means a wider base of opportunities like employmont, cotnÍtorce, and
 (f.

trade. Mastery of a language especially that which is high in status and function is often

a passport to social mobílity. At the country's level, language çompetence can serve ar¡

the vehicle towards the promotion of economic interests not only in the domestic

affairs but also more importantly in the community of nations.

The huge investments in the promotion of English worldwide cannot be

overemphasized. However, the returns h¿ve been enoflnous, especiaþ in relaúon to

the Third rüorld countries oftentimes serving as good prey to predators. The

Anglicization of the Philippines, for example, utilized even the American soldiers

whose orientation \ryas more towards ki[ing rather than nurturing. Nonetheless, it was

overwhelmingþ successful at the level of achieving both literacy aûd economic

demand. Together with the language acquisition came the adoption of both the socio-

psychological and the material Anrerican culture. Some Filipinos started to talk like

Americans, think like the Americans, ast like the Americans, and necesssriþ have all

the material goods of the Americans. Consequently, American industrial products *

garflrents, toiletrios, kitchenware, and all such items that were needed in the daily

existence ofthese Filipinos, including food at some Filipino tables -- swarmed onto the

Philippine market, a boom to the American trade and industry. Australia has made

explicit thç economic motivation as the basis for imposing second language learning

not only on migrants but on mainstream Australians as well (especially Chinese and

Japanesel as it considers foreþ languages as a resource in trying to promote overseas

trade and industry. It advocatçs the dict¡rm'that the best language for business is the

language of the customer" as a Toyota President once s¡id.

 to2

Attitudes towards lan$ag{s) c¿n also be based on familial considerations.

Some families (whether immigrant in Australia or regional based in the

Philippines) put

great str€ss on the children learning the parental tongue and maintaíníng it as a family

language. Other children of migrant families (exogamous or endogarrcus) however,

may not bother to learn the parents' language during the cadier stage of childhood'

Sometimes, ev€n the parents would actually do not care especially when both
are

migrants as a corrflict of intenest can possibly arise. But as the child grows older
and

seeks to develop a wider family horizoq considerations about spørding a holiday or at

least writing to rolatives and friends ensue' In consequence' thoy may devdop a
strong

urge to learn the language thoir relatives and friends use'

Language attitudes can also be based on religion. The Catholic priests' for

o<ampte, needed to learn Latirt ¡s it is the fiormer language of the Roman Catholic

Churc,h. Missionaries had to learn the language of the locality they are assigned in

order to preach anrl spread Christianity more effec'tively. Mernbers of fanatical cults

have to learn whatever strange language the cult íntroduces in order to f€el that th€y

are participating fully in the rituals. Somc teligions require that their adherents

memorizc prayers in a language they barely understand. Attitudes towards

languages

for religious purposes, however, f,oY not always be ftvorable; it could even be

negative and leed individuals to reject the language associated with. Nevertheless,

attitudes can also be religion-based-

Lastly, a very strong value attached to language is related to identþ, the

inclination of an individual to att¿ch his/lrer sense of self to a particular culture or

gfoup of people. From the national standpoint, Smolicz (1987: 9) says, attitudes to
 103

language can provide a particularty effective yardstick for gauging a given state's

identification with one partiailar ethnic group. This is not as simple as it may $eem as

it involves other psycho-social considerationg the most important ones being related to

pridg on the one han{ and prejudice, on thc other hand. For example, can individuals

raise their selÊesteem or strengthen their sense of iderrtity if they a¡e able to speak a

language sr¡ch aB Englistl fapanese, French or German? Conversely, what

consequenc€s for their sense of self would they suffer, if they started to speak Navajo

in America; Vietnamese or Chinese in Australia; or Arabic in the Philippines?

Lrnguage M¡inten¡nce end Loss

The proficiency and th€ €xtent, to which speakers are able to utilize a

particular language in the different communication activities, as well as with different

interloortors, are necessary components of any study of language maintenance or

loss- They can hardly be dctached from attitudes in the sense that they either indicate

or are indicated by such attitud€s. As Lewis ( in Gíleq 1977: 292) pointed out, 'ïto

study of attitudes would be adequate if it did not, at least, touch upon the uses to

which languages in contact are activated and the c,omparative knowledge of them."

In fact, language attitudes can be more directly measured through rurveys and

interviews where respondents give their views about a language variety as well as

their own language use and preference (CHOMI Reprints No. 510: 2-3). It goes

without sayrng that attitude alone does not determine preference for a language. A

great deal depends upon the individual's relative competence in a languagg at least as

much as linguistic competence depends on attitude.

 t04

These variabl€s are crucial for the understanding of such processes as language

maintenance, shift o¡ loss u¡hich inwitably occur in language contact situations and

around whÍch the ultim¿te implications of this study revolvç. Clyne and Kipp (1991),

for exarrple, analyzed the lurguage mainænance and shift arnong migrants in Australia

based on larguage us€ as indicated by the variations of figures between the 1986 and

I99l censuses. It may be of interest to mcntion some of their findings.

The three est¿blished widely used community languages in Austraha (Greek,

Germaq and ltalian) have remained stable; Victoria and South Australia have
relatively low shift rates for the European languages, partly attributable (Clyne
1982: 38-39) to the tradition of multicultural policies in these states. The shift
rate in Western Australia" Queensland, Tasmani4 and Northern Territory are
relatively high. In all these cases, multicultr¡ral policies were slow to develop,
and in the lasú th¡çe, postwar migration war¡ not substaritial. Among the
Filipino immigrants, an increase of 130 % was observed bctween the two
census periods, which Clyne attributed to new migration increased claiming of
language use, and second gøreration births (combined with srccessfi¡l language
maintenance).

Language maintenance and language loss are the two e)rtrem€ possibilities in

the life of language,(Ð in cont¿ot situæions and their occurrence is generally derived

from studies in proficiency and use. 'Changes in language use is larguug" shift while

changes in language proficie,noy are language loss. The retention of both proficiency

and use is language m¿intent¡lce" (Fase et. al., 1992: 4). The knowledge of a language

or sweral languages that the individual possôsses can be regarded as his/her linguistic

cspit{ with which he/she trades on the linguistic market. ffknowledge of a particular

social or geographioal variety of languages does not sell well, on€ can expect this

language to lose its market share @oundieu, 1984 in Fgse st. al 1992: 149),

the gradual disappearance of a language in a community where it used to be

spokeq or the resistance which somo languages show to thet disappearanoe is what
 105

constitutes ttre whole gamut of the continuum. If language disappearance occurs, it

does not leave a vacuum; the lost language is always replaced by another languago

with which it has been in contact. The greæest possibilities for language disappearance

happen in those conterds which offer the easiest opportuníty for replacement.

Unfortunateþ this is the basic characteristic of a domin¿ted language. In other words,

the danger of disappearance in cont¿ct situ¿tions is most re¿l for a minority group.

The lowost cornmon denominator is that one languagg usually the lesser used, has to

yield and be first supplemented with and ultimately replaced by another language
linkcd to a larger or more powerfirl Soup.

The ìnfluence of socletøl sbucta¡e on language moíntenence ond loss. The

type of linguistìc diversity obtaining in a particular sooiøy can influørce the use and

proficiency of a particular language in contaot situations, The ethnio structure may be

'non-territorial' which rezults fiom large-scale núgration as in th'e case of the United

States, Can¡da,Israel, and Australia. This happens in advanced countries where people

from all over the wodd with diverse backgrounds and with multitude of reasons Gome

and live together in a host çountry. It is a kind of 'salad-mix' diversity wtrere the

difrererrt q¡lturat ingredients have become mixed togettrer.

The othen tlpe of diversity could be regarded as 'lerritorial" where groups of

people, who may be fragmented because of geographic conditions and/or terrairu

oonsequently speaking different languages, Gome together in a political gouping as in

the case of Switzerland and the Philippines. This is analogous to an 'ice cream-mix'

diversity where layers of colour or flavour are put side by sidg or o{r top of one

another. More ofteq these societieÊ ûre the residues of colonizatior! where the
 106

language of the colonizers maintain high status functions in government, education,

technology, mass media and the press. The former colonial language is maint¿ined in

contact with an adopted national language, which may also be diftrent from the

indigenous languages of the various loc¿lities called 'lernaculars."

Given tho¡e two types of linguistic diversity, attitudes, knowledge and

activation may vary depending upon the statuVfunctions of the language(s) in focus.

Questions of who and how mariy the speakers ate, what the uscs of the language are in

addition to the issues whether the language is standardized or not, whether ìt is used in

¡chool or, at least, tauglrt as a subject; and whether or not it is used officially in
government functions have werything to do withthis trilogy of linguistic facts.

Much of research conducted in the area of language contact situations, has

related to migrant settitrgs. The studies of Clyne (1991), focusing on lurgu4ge

maintenancc and shift among Ar¡sttalian migrants, used the 1986 and 1991 censusês as

data for analysis. Another study oû language contact" complemented by observations

on the paradigm of language maintenanco, shift and loss, utilized data from Australian

bilinguals, more particularly the Dutch a¡rd the Germans (Ctyne, 1995). Ot¡er

investigntions conductod in migrant settings include the snrdy of Huls and ram de

Mond (in Fase, 1993: 99) on some aspects of languags afcrition among migrant

Turkish families in the Netherlands and that ofBent¿hila and Davies (1993 I97) which

examined two groups within Morooco, the Berters and tho Jewish communities, where

in both of which the traditional home languages were being abandoned. Even Edwards

(1993: 38), who developed a tlpolory of minority, languages using geographical

territories, conceptualized his work from the standpoint of immigrant languages. One
 107

study ( Pandharipandg 1993l.254), however, which fosused on the language shift in

India, was done in the context of tenitorial linguistic diversity and would have some

direct relevance to the situation in the Philippines. Although the present study does

not look into the variables of languege m¿intenance and loss in themselves, the results

of this study will necessarily have implications for the paradiglns of language

maintenance arrd languege loss, both in the Australian and Philippine settings.
 108

REVTEW OF PREVIOUS STUDMS

This study wôs conceptu¿lized in Chapter I \ryithin the context of cultural

pluralism and the corresponding bilingual education programs that obtain in the two

countries of Australia and the Philippines. It was important, therefore, to do a review

on studies in bitingualism and attitudes towards languag{s), as well as those in the

processes oflanguage maintenance and loss.

In order to facilitate concept formation and generalizations from the revieq

the presentation is done in ttuee categories-studies conducted in Australiq sn¡dies

conducted in the Philippines, and studies conducted in other countries.

Studies Conducted in Other Countrie¡

SudÍæ shm,íng bílingualism as a handlcap In relation to the effect of

bilingualism on cognitive and intellectual development, the empirical studics over the

years have shown findings that went ín contrasting directions. Many of the studies

reviewed by Peal and l"ambert (1962) concluded that biling¡¡elism hnd a detrimental

€ff€ct on intellectr¡al functioning, thaf is, the bilingual child was described as b€ing

hampered in his performance on intelligence tests in comparison with the monolingual

child. A smaller proportion ofthe investigations found that bilingualism had little or no

influence at all on intellige,nce.

Some of the early Amuican studies which pointed to tlre detrimental effects

ofbilingualism rvere those of Stewart ( l95l), Graham (1925), M€ad (1957), ard

Wang (1926). These sü¡dies all cor¡sluded that signiñcant differences were found

bstween monolinguals and bilingu¿ls, in favour of the former, in a range of dependent

 109

variables. A basic criticism, however, is thaÍ all studies lacked control of some goup

cha¡acterisiçs like sex, agg and socio-economiç class as intervening variables.

The snrdy of Saer (1923) which was conducæd in Wales arnong 1,400

children in five rural and two urban schools used thc Stanford-Binet Scale and found a

statisticalþ significant inferiority of rural bilingual children when compared with rural

monolingual children. This inferiority becarne consistentþ greater in degree with each

year ûom 7-l I years of agg which trend Saer explained as ment¿l confusion.

However, Saer failed to consider other frctors which might have contrib,uted to these

results such as possible differences in social class between bilingual and monolingual

students. The lower scores in intelligencÆ tests among children in rural schoolg

compared to those in the urban schools, was also a factor that needed to be

considered.

The study of Jones and Stewart (1951) was an experimental design b¿sed

on thc belief th¿t bilingual and monolingual groups differed in non-verbal intelligence

tests and that monolingual groups were uurally zuporior to bilingual groups in verbal

tests, as found by many studies conducted beforo 1951. They uscd a verbal test and a

non-verbal test as the criterion va¡iable and administered them to monolingual and

bilingual groups of betwcen 10-6 and ll-6 years of age in n¡ral districts. The

rnonolinguals scored significantly higher in both types of tests.

Presumed to be wcll controlled w¿s the investigation of Seidl (1937) whioh

used the 1916 Stanford-Binø Scale and the Arthur Point Scale Perforrnance. The

findings showed that monolinguals wcro superior to bilinguals in all verbal tests, but

that bilinguals were superior to monolinguals on perfonnance rneasures. Seidl's study

 110

notd that while the two groups were equated in sq and age, the difforence might

have been car¡sed by the difference between the two groups in terms of the parents'

occupational level. The mean occupational level of tho monolinguals' parents was in

the laboring class; that of the bilinguals' was semi-skilled labor. The claim, however, of

Seidl was tlrat the language handicap of the bilinguals intenfered with their verbal IQ

soores.

Darcy (19ß) conduct€d a study arnorig 212 Amencan preschool ohildren of

Italian parentage where the relevant va¡iables were controlled quite well. A rating

sc¿le was utilized to classiS the subjects in terms of linguatity; the groups we¡e

matched for age, se4 and sociål class and the differont variables were measured by the

Stanford Binet Test (1937 Revision) for the verbal abilrty and the Atkinô Object-Fitting

Test for the non-verbal abilþ The findings, likewise, showed that the monolinguals

scored signiñcantly higher than the bilinguals on the Stånford.Binet (the verbal

moasure) but lower on the Atkins Test (thÊ non-verbal measure). She ofrered the same

explanation as th¿t of Seidl that the bilingual group zutrered a language handicap in

their performance on the St¿nford-Binet Scale, while recognizing the fact that the

intelligence of irrfants and preschool ohildren was difficult to determine with accuracy.

The study of Altus (1953:153) used 'dull' school children for both the
monolingual and the bilingual groups equated on age, sex, and the performance IQ of
the Wechsler Intellige,rrce Scale for Childrcn (!USC). Significant differences in IQ on

the verbal scale averaged 17 points in favour of the monolingual group. Altus elso

made the observation that linguistic difficulties interfered with normal funøioning

among the bilingual group.

 u1

The study of Levinson (1959) which tested American-born Jewish preschool

monolingual and bilingual children equated in terms of socio-economic level showed

that the two groups perfirrmed similarly on thc Goodenough test and in most sub-

scales of the Wechsler Intellige'nce Soale firr Children (!USC). It was on the Stanford-

Binet and in the WISC Arithmetic Vocabulary, and Picture Arrangement sub-tests

where the monolingu¿ls scored higher.

A cursory look at the studies reviewed could lead to the conclusion that, with

regard to non-verbal intelligence measures, the monolingual and bilingual groùps

seemed not to ditrer. It was in the verbal intelligence mçasures that some differetrces

were obsorved. Taking into account, howcnrer, the inadequacies noted in the diffcrenX

studies more particularly the lack of control of the probable intewening variables that

could have distorted some findings, the need for more thorougb research became more

evident.

Sfrr,diæ shøwûng bílingaalísm ¿s neutol. The studies which found

bilingualism to have no effect were thoso ofDarsie (1926), Hill (1936), Spoerl (lg4r'),

and Arsenian (1937). Darsie conducted his study with children of Japanese-and

fuiglo-American background children . The study ærived at the conclusion that

differences in mental capacity between the two groups were slight. On some tests, the

Iapanese orign zubjects were inferior, while on others, the Anglo-background children

were inferior. Among the limitations of the study were the absence of control of the

social class variable and the failure to ønploy a measurement of bilingualism. Later in

1936, Ilill did a bstter controlled study with ltalian-American children where

bilingualism was based on a questionnaire and the language bacþround. In additioq

 LL2

the two groups wçre matched in terms of sex, age, IQ, socio-economic class, and

mental ags. The findings showed that no reliable differences exist in scores on verbal,

non-ve¡bal and performance tests between the monolinguals and the bilinguals.

A study among all the bilingual freshmen students cnrolled at an Arnerican

college was conducted by Spoerl (19¡t4). These were matched with a group of

monolingual freshmen for sox, age, intelligencq and social class. Considered bilingrrals

were those who had learned two languages before sohool entrance . Both groups were

tested on the 1937 Stanford-Binet and Purdue Placement Test. No differences were

found between the two groups, although a sliglrt inferiority was shown by the bilingual

students in five of the verbal items of the Stanford-Binet Scale. A further observation

made, however, was th¿t the bilinguals had done consistently better in school work

than the monolinguals, although their IQs did not differ significantly. Spoerl suggested

that a comperisêtory drive, a¡ising ftom a fecling of environmental insecurity, could

have attributed to the urperiority of the bilinguals in ¿eademic achievement.

Arsenian (1937) conducted an experiment with American-born ltalians and

Amøica¡r-born Jews. Although the variables of age' se4 soçio-economic class and

measurements of bilingualism were well controlled, it was highly criticized by Darcy

(1953) on the adequacy of tests (Pintner Non-Language Test and the Spearman Visuat

Perception Test) used as measure$ of intellige,ncc, ¿side from the fact that the numbor

of subjects (38) was too srnall to permit definite conclusions. Nevertheless, the findings

that no difference existed betu/€€n the two groups was still of some interest and

importance.
 113

From a theoretioal perspective, McNamara (1970) argued that there was no

relationship at all befween l*gu"ge and intelligence or language and creativity. His

argument stommed from the Whorfian sentiments and an acceptance of the Piagetian

view that cognitive structures and lingUìstics structures were separate. Furthcrmore, he

argued that if a dependent relationship were to be posited between the two, it was

more likely that lingUistic structures depemded on cognitive sÉructures ( in Horvath,

1980:30).

Sat¿r¿r showíng htlìnguøIìsnt 6 ør, advøntøge. Peat and l¿mbert also

reviewed studies supporting the favourable efrects of bilingualism on sonæ identified

dependent variables. Included ïyere the studies of Davies and Hughes (1927) and Stark

(1940). Davies and Hughes (1927\ who çondusted their study ín LondorL reported

the superiority of thc lewish (prezumed to be bilingual) over norr-Jewish þresumed to

bo monolingual) childrør in Arithmetic, English and general intelligenee, However,

control of variables such as age, sex and social class was rlotably absent' Stark (19a0)

whose subjects were children aged l0 and 11 found the bilirgrrals to be superior than

the monolinguals on one form of test. Stark concluded that children of "innate verbal

facility''may find early bilingualism an asset to theír mental developmont-

Other studies that support bilingualism included the St. Lamberl School

expøiment in Montreal. Tho study was conduçted in an effort of middle-class

Englísh-spoaking parents to improve relations with French speakers within the conte,$

of Canada's bittefly divisive battle botween its French-speaking minority and English-

speaking majority. From kindergarten, the children were taught entirely in French, with

English as a separate subject. The results wsre remarkablo: The students learned as
 l14

well in French as their English-speaking counterparts did in English; they becarne near-

rtative speakers of French and learned English as well as those taught in English

(Epstein 1977 : S};Horvath 1980: 42).

This 'imnprsion'bilingual technique served as model to similar programs that

sproutod in Canada (numbering 53 as claimed by Epstein ) as well as th€ French

immersion program at Four Corners Elemørtary School in lVastringon D.C. suburbs

of Silver Spring and l\daryland. But in corrtrôst to the St. Lâmbert experirnent which

was somehow, controlled in tenns of socio-economic class , the Four Corners

Ele,rnentary School study was not.

On the basis of the findings of the studies which they reviewed, Peal and

Lambert (1962) themselves conduoted an investigation of the expected effects of

bilingualism on intelligence or mental developmont They o<atnined more extensively

the effects of bilingualism on the intellectual frrnctioning of children ¿s well as

investþating the relations between bilingualism, school achievement and students'

auitudes to the second language community. The zubjects were lO-year old school

children ftom six French schools in Montreal and were m¿tched in socio-economic

e,lass, sox, and age. Based on the previous findings, it was hlpothesized that tlre two

groups of nrbþtg one monolingual and ttre other bilingual, should not differ

significantly on non-vçrbÊl IQ, as meaÍ¡ured by a standardized intelligence test given in

the native or home language of both groupn.

Contrary to Ð$€ctatíons, the study found that bilinguals performed bertter

than monolinguals on both verbal and non-verbal intelligørce tests. This unexpected

finding was explained by the resçarchers in terms of the possibility that the wider
 115

experiences of children in two culh¡res give them the advantages which monolingual

children do not enjoy Intellectually, the experience with two language systems

seemed to have left the bilingual group with a mental flexibilit¡ a superiority in

concept formæion, and a more diversified set of mental abilities, in the sense that the

patterns of abilities developed by bilinguals were more heterogeneous. In contrast, the

nrcnolingual group appeared to have a more unitary structure of intelligence, which

was used for all types of intellectual t¿sks. In relation to attitudes as a function of

bilingualism, the findíngs showed that the two groups m¿intained a distinctivd

diffcrent pattern of attitude¡, where the bilinguals were favourable towards English

and the monolinguals towa¡ds French. An attempt to explain this particular finding

made reference to the frmily-wide attitude , that is, bilinguals were very likely

influenced by parents in their positive attitude towards English, in like manner that the

monolingual$ were also positively influenced towards French.

In a follow-up study, La¡nbert and Tucker (1972) evaluated monolingual

English speaking children enrolled in French languageimmersion classes in Canada and

compared their findings with matched control groups of monolingual English speaking

children instructed in English and monolingual French speaking children instructed in

French. The children in the three groups were matched in kindergarten for social class

variablcs and non-verbal intelþenoe and were cvaluated for five consecutive years. At

the cnd of thìs period, the findings were as follows:

1. Children in the immersion class did not zuffen any impairment in their
English language ability ¿s ¿ ¡ssr¡lt of instruction in a second language and
performed at the s¿me lewl as monolingual English speaking ohild¡en
educated in English;
2. T\e immersion group matched the French speaking group in their
performance in areas such as vocabulary, listening comprehørsion and
 116

knowledge of French concepts. They were howwer, poorer at

oral
expression when retelling short stories in French, but these factors improved
when they were telling an original story in French. Overall, the immersion
children had quite similar abilities to those ofthe French control group.
3. The performance of the immersion class in nonJanguage subjects zuch as
mathçmatics which wore taught in French was at the same level as the
French speaking group (in Liddicoat,l99l1G'l l)

Evidence that bilingual children showed cognitive advantages over

monolingual children was likewise revealed in the study of Landry (197a) who
reported cognitive enrichment as the outcome of elementary school language

prografirnos in the United States . In this stud¡ children were tested in first , fourth

and sixth grades using the Torrance Test of Creative thinking and were tested for

figural and verbal flexibility, flue,ncy and originality. Sixth grade bilingual children were

found to perform significantty better on all tests than monolinguals, but the effeø was

less for fourth gråde children and non-existent for first grade children.

Cummins and Gt¡lutsaû (1974) tested bilirigual and monolingual children on

aspecte of mønory reasoning and divergent thinking. They found that bilinguals

dernonstrated greater verbal abilitS performed better on ûFasures of concopt

formation and scored higher o¡r tests of verbal originality than did monolinguals.

Monolinguals performed better than bilinguals when recalling abstract words , but

othennise, there was no difforence in the ability to p€rform memory tasks.

Kessler and Quinn (19E7) compared bilingual and monolingual eleven-year old

childre,n who were involved in an inquirySased science program during which they

learned to formulate scientific hlpotheses in a problem-solving setting. Bilinguals were

found to perform better than monolinguals in the quality oftheir hypotheses. This was

taken os an indication of enhanced cognitive creativity due to the bilingual language

 tr7

proûciency. Furthermore, Kessler and Quinn found that bilingual children

demonstrated a much higher level of corvergpnt thinking by making Sireater use of

metaphors. Whereas divergent thinking ontails generating a large nurnber of possible

solutions to a problem, convergçnt thinking involves focusing in on disparate objects

and idoas, and relaüng them to each other.

Some social benefits were also found to be associated with bilingualism. In the

sü¡dy of Lanrbert and Tuoker (1972\ it was indicated that children who learned a

second language at school orperiorced positive social development. Bilinguals tended

to adopt a du¿l roference group, starting with that of their original language and

culture, while at thc saure time developing anchors in the secondary reference group of

the new language and culture. Children who learned a second language could,

therofore, add to their oristing social repertoire without compromising their oristing

social integration. Genessee (19S7) also showed that children who acquired a second

language tended to be more op€n-minded and more tolerant than their monolingual

counterparts, as well as having a better sense of their interüocutors' communicative

needs.

The cognitive flexibility identified by Peal and Lambert (1962) was further

investigated in the study of Anisfetd (as reported by Ben-Zeev in Horvath 1980: 33)' It

was found that bilinguals were not superior to monolinguals in terms of creative

ftexibility as measured by nrb- tests, which required a variety of ideas as responses.

How€ver, when the instructions on the s¡b-test did not specifically ask for flexibility,

it was denronstrated that bilinguals tendd to reflect a habit of øking a flexible

approach.
 118

In an attempt to discover the psychological mechanisms that were at work in

the language learning situation that might explain Peal and Lambert's observæion of

cognitive flexibility rimong bilingual students, Ben-Zeev (in Horvath l9S0: 34) anived

at the conclusion th¿t what had prwiously been regarded as the negative effects of

bilingualism fnterference) and the positive effects (a stimulus to individual acts of

thought) were not separate. Instead, interference was the stimulus to the individual's

acts of thougürt. The latter were the cognitive consequençç of strategies which the

bilingual child used to maintain the strucfi.¡ral independence of their two language

systems BenZeev fuither identified meohanisms or stratogies which started as ways of

keepng the languages separate, but also resulted in cognitive flexibility in other areas,

as follows:

The first,..is language analysis, which lead the bilingual child to the
recognition at an earlier age than the monolingual child of the arbitrary
nature of thc sounds meaning relationship in language. This
understanding leads to a kind of consciousness of arbitrariness in other
aspects oflife.

The second has to do with the sensitivity of feedback. Bilinguals are

usually sensitive to cues, both linguistic and interac{ional which
indicate that they are using the correct language system appropriuely,
i.e. based on topic, interlocutor or place. This strategy makes the
children more sensitive generally.

The third is conoerned with the bilingual's attempt to murimize the

diferences between the two languages. Bilinguals are more aware of
the languages as internally consistent systems. The cognitive effect of
this relates to a deeper and more complex understanding of an item. As
an example, she @en-Zeev) oites Greenfield's work on how
children learn notions like squareriess...Children le¡rn the notion better
when they are made to perform many actions with objects extribiting
the trait. Because bilinguals have to deal with the concept in both
languages, thereby 'performing more actions', their understanding may
be deeper.
 119

Ztrke1(in Gaardneç 1977:14-15) evaluared bilingual education in Grades I-3

of the public schools in Connecticut City. The pupils were equated in number, grade

lwel, school attended, age, se:q lurguagu dominance, socio-economic class and were

pre-tested with the non-verbal Goodenough-Huris Draw-A-Msn Test, the Manual

Inter-American Test of Gecreral Ability (which has parallel forrrs in Spanish and

English dealing with listening comprelrension, numerical skills and verbal abilities) and

the Inferred Self-Concept Scale. The post-testing which consisted of the manual tests

parents
and the self-concept scale, plus a statistically validated home ir¡terview with the

was done approximately one year læer.

The rezults of the three bilingual group showed that the o<perimental groups

surpassed the control groups at both lwels with regard to self-concept at Level I and

with regard to academic abilþ in both Spanistr and English in Level II (Zirkel,1972:

88). In the quasi-bilingual gro,rp, the differences were slight and not significant. The

parents of the children of the true bilingual model were fotmd to be significantþ more

interested and in favour ofthe program at the end of the school year, in comparison to

the parents ofthe control group. Thc overall trend for the Spanish speaking students in

the eafly grades seemed to be one of a decreasing self-concept .

In the Republic of South AÊica, two reports (both of Malheebe in Gaardner

lg77) were rwiewed. In the first study, 18,000 pupils in three types of schools:

monolingual Aûikaans, monolingual EnglislL and bilingual Afrikaan'English

particþated. The pupils from the bilingual schools surpassed the pupils in monolingual

schools with respect to language aüainment in both English and Afrikaaq geography

and arithmetic.
 120

In tryíng to relate bilingualism and the sense of identity, Gardner and Lambert

(19?2't conducted a study anrong French-Americans on the consequences (cognitive,

attitudinal, social) of bilingualism with the question in mind: Does becoming bilingual

subtract from a persor's sense of iderrtlty? The results showed that some particþants

oriented themselves definitely towards their French background and tried to ignore

their American roots; others were pulled more to the American pole, at the expense of

their French origins and still others tried not to think in terms of ethnicþ. Most

interesting was a finding of ¿ fourth subgroup of French-American your€ people who

wefe appar€,lrtly successfirl at being both French and American. This subgroup was

characterized by realization of the social usefulness of lmowing Frørc[ which was

grven par€rital $rpport, which made thcrn more competent in French and in English (in

Afendras, 1980 : 14-15).

It should be noted , however, that not atl bilin€uslism lcqds to cognitìve ¿nd

sociðl advantages outlined above. Under favourable conditions whore both languages

are valued and reinforced (which was the context of the Canadian studies in this

section), bilingualísm may have positive effects on the cognitive process and social

sttitudes. These advantages are particularly linked to additive bilingualism . Under

adverse social conditions whçre the child's home language is undervalued and is not

¡cinforced throtrgh the education system, ¿s was the case of the early studies carried

out in the United States bilingualiurr may impede cognitive and social development

(Liddicoat: 1991: 14).

Staües on bìlìngual educøtìon progans. Basic to this review is the

International Study of Bilingual Secondary Education (ISBSE) ( Fishman ,1976)

 r2l

which probed into the status of bilingual education prograrL more particularþ in the

secondary schools all over the world. On the basis of the information he gathered,

Fishrnan (1976:73)described the bilingual education in Australia and the Philippines as

follows:

publications dealing wíth these and related topics,

It may be noted, however, that the findings of Fishman about Australia

related to a period before mid 19?Os when multicultural policies were introduced (See

Chapter 2). This could be due to the linguistic situation in the country which hts

changed to a large extent sinco Fistrman's comments. Legislations forbidding public

schools to teach in LOTE has beon amended in rnost of the states ' Cnvernment

schools too, have been folhwing the LOTE policies introduced over the last twenty

years (Smolicz and Secombe, 1977:3).

 123

success. Finally, student oharacteristics were third in importance, since they

contributed substantially both to the prediction of absolute academic succes$, as well

as to student satisfaction, althouglr they were not the primary predictors of either.

Fishman (1976:104) offers a caveat: Because of the two limiting factors of the

study-its data being of the self-report variety and its samplg rather small, the findings

should definitely not be oversold.

The apprehensions and feelings of inadequacies commonly observed in those

programs reviewed by Fishman are also observed in Robert's (1991: 253-269) study

of parental ottitudes to Gaelic medium of education as a form of bilingual program in

the Western Isles of Scotland whose Gaelio medium of education is very tecerit.
There is no core of all Gaelic schools in the syster4 no school that does all teaching in

Gaelic, no school that teaches Gaelic first, and adds English later. The spread of Gaelic

medium of education began in 1985. The evidence from the suwey is that parents ar€

looking for clea¡ implementation polioies but are not ready for the general application

of something which is still experimental beyond the early stages of primary education,

With regard to bilinguat education and school achievement, particularly the

developmørt of literacy skills, Paulston (1978 in Horvath 1980:zl4) reviewed three

studies that led to rather contradictory results. One was the St. Lambert sûrdy already

discussed. Another was tl¿t conducted by Modiano with Chiapas Indian children in

Mo<ico, who fust learned to read in the mother tongue, then in Spanish. After three

years, theso children scored highet in reading comprehension than those who had been

taught purely in Spanish. The third was the Rizal experiment of Sibayan in the

Philippines where three schemes were tried: l) Four years ìn the native language; the
 t24

fifth and sixth years in English; (2) Two years in the native language and the next four

in English; (3) Engtish from the beginning with no instruction in the native language'

Sibayan reported that the third alternative was best; the students achieved the highest

soores in langrrage and content subjects, including tests in the native language.

Studies on attitudes to lrnguagcs. A numbsr of studies on the attitudes to

languages had been conducte4 including several relating to attitudes to Welsh.

During the ninøeenth and early twentieth cørturt, attitudes towa¡d the Welsh

language became less positive. The use of Welsh by school children was discouraged

and most Welsh-born pilents hoped for a good English educatíon for their child¡en to

give them opportrnities previousþ unattainable. 'Evon in 1984, only 19 %o of Welsh

primary schools educated their pupils througln the mediurt ofWelsh and there has been

a decline in the language berween the census of 1971 when 2lo/o of the population

spoko \ilelslL and that of 1981 where only 19% spoke @aker 1985:240'¡. Generallg

the findings of these studies revealed that the parents wanted their children to learn

Welsh at school, and thought ttre languago was quíte important. It was concluded

that the decline of speakers in \ffetsh was not attitudinal but rather the influence of

legidation. The study, howevetr, was limited to a population irr one part of Guyned in

Northern Wales and may not reflect the attitudes of pare,lrts in other areas ofWales.

The study of Lewis (lgEl) on the attitudes of students and par€rt$ toward

Welsh yielded interesting findings. On th,e basis of the comments (both positive and

negative) endorsed by ürc shrdents, Lewis constructed four major attitudinal

components. The first was gengal approval which included comments like: 'I would
like to speak rilelsh for the fun of it;"'l like speaking Welsh;" '"\ilelsh is a language
 125

worth leorning;" 'T like speaking Welsh;" and other similar comments. The average

favourable response was 68-75Vo. The second is cqru4itment to .practice which

includcd comments like: I want to maintain Welsh to enable Welsh to develop;" "There

ar€ more usoful languages than Wolsh;" "\Melsh should not be forced upon non-Welsh

speaking pupils;" "The learning of Welsh should be left to individual choice." It may

be noted that the proportion of those who endorsed any of these ranged from 40-78Yo,

with those endorsing favot¡rable comments at the lower cnd of the continuum. National

tradition was the third component, \¡vith each of the corresponding comments endorsed

by a large proportion of thc respondents as follows: 'Îhe need to keep up Welsh for

the sake oftradition:'(68%); "\ile owe it to our forefathers to preserve Welsh" (18%);

'"The Welsh language should be preserved beoause it is the sþ of nationhood" (65%).

The last compo'n€rÉ, -eco.

nomiç_imBortance, include the most commonly expressed

comment; namely; 'Welsh is considered advantageous in seekins job opportunities"

(6tyù.

Lewis concluded that in so far as ïVelsh was conc€rned, three factors -genoral

appnoval, traditional nationalism, ffid economic importance--generally producod

favourable responses; the other factor, cornmitment to practice, produced unfavourable

responses. It was observed, however, that traditional nationalism in Wclsh was being

replaced by what was called "necessary bilingualism' indicated by the following

comments: 'I should not like English to t¿ke over from the Welsh language;" " the

English language is killing thc Welsh language;" and '"The Welsh should speak both

lmguages."
 126

From the standpoint of the pareûts, Lewis identified five components in their

attitudes to \ilelsh. Familial and.local considorçtipns were reflected in comments about

the languoge being important to frmily life, whether at home or in formal worship,

and vital to the integrity of small grouptr. Elhnic consider4tiogs were expressed in

statements th¿t the Welsh language was the symbol of Welsh life and the institutions

of Wales w€re meant to pres€rve Welsh tradition¡. Pe¡sonal co.nsiderations could be

seen in comments such as'Iilelsh does not promote the kind of progressive outlook I
approv€ of," and Welsh does not provide for a wide range of aesthetic experience in

literature, the theatre ard the media." In case of s,ocial, opnsiderations. there were

statements like'Welsh promotes exolusiveness and it is of little use in making contact

with the world outside Wales." Linsuistio considerations were evident in comme,lrts

like "The \ilelsh language has not developed sufficiently to meet the demands of

modern society, industry and sciencd'and "\ilelsh is difficult to learn."

The value of investigating preferences for Engfish or Spanish along different

dimensions was illustrated by Adarno (1973), who interviewed 75 Morican-American

parents concerning the importance of their children learning the English and Spanish

languages. Whereas English was considered to be imponant for practical reasons,

Spanish was valued for idealistic and personal reasons. These pare,ntal attitudes

appeared to reflect the functional separation bøween Spanish and Englistr which

existed for many Mexican Americans ( in Giles 1977:6+65).

In her interview study of Mexican American in the East Arstin barrio, Elias-

Olivares (1975) found that the feeling of linguistic inferiority regarding their Spanish

was particularly prevalent among older individuals , whereas younger speakers

 t27

tended to er(press ethnic pride in their ways of speaking. In general, the community

recognized standard Spanish as the prestige variety, but also showed a strong sense
of loyalty to the local varieties of the langu.ge especially those of lower class and

younger speakers. Informants reported thrt the use of standard forms in casual

conv€rsatiorx¡ caused the situation to become stilted and uncomfortable , since the

more polite forms connoted distance rather than intimacy.

Code-switching between Enghsh and SpanislU co¡nmon among bilingual

Mexican Americans, has also been vieu/ed as I means of establishing feelings of

solidarity and group identity. Language mixing involving code changes both between

and within sentences, was characteristic of situations whererrer minority language

groups came in close cont¿ct with majority language gfoups under conditions of rapid

social changs. Although middle-class native speakers were ftquently reluctant to

recognÞe its edstenco, the altern¿tion did carry social meaning. Individuals switched

languages because they wanted to convey that they were indeed bilingual or that they

had not become Anglicized. lVhereas standard English or standard Spanish could be

viewed ar¡ necessary for communication with members of tle outgroup (i. e. non-

Medcan Americans ), code-srritching and local Spanish varieties were clearly reserved

for use $/ithin their own gronp (Ryan a¡rd Carranza in Giles, 1977: 66).

In order to investigate the formation of language attitudes among an immigrant

group with limited formal education and linguistic sophistication, Cohen (1974)

interr¡iewed 8l Mexicsr-American parents predominantly born in Mexico. In response

to a question (franred in Spanish considering thÊir limited English) concerning where

the best Spanish was spoker¡ trends in the data zuggested that men more than women
 r28

and families at a higher socio'econornic level tended to mention Spaiq rather than

Morico, The fact that the higher social status fanilies tendcd to look to Spain for their

model language was probably related to the fact that they were precisd the

individuals who were beginning to succeed in the U.S. On the cultural aud language

orientation ratings, they showed less identification with lVfexico and more concern that

their children learn English in order to bc successful ( in Giles 1977:67) . These

attitudes can be taken as iodicative of the assimilationist forces that existed in the

United Søtes. These forces resulted in a very high value attached to being American

and speaking American.

The pressure to speak prop€r English es a prerequisite to success was also felt

by Mexican American parents. These parentr had to decide which languages they

wished their children to learn to speak . But with advent of Chicanismo movemefü,

e,fiorts to instil more positive attitudes towards Morican American language varieties

were inc¡e"siogly evident. Such attitude changes could lead to improvement in the

Mexican-Amerícan self-image and greater pride in all aspects of their cultural heritage.

Sinc€ a group's own attitudes of pride or inferiority can affect how its members are

viewed by others, appreciation by society in gsneral of Mexican American ways of

speaking and of behaving would be enhanced.

Bourtris (1982 : 34-62) did an elaborate analysis of language ætitudes in

France and ìn those countries that speak French, like Belgiurq Switzerland, North

Aûica" Lúanon, in Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Laos, and Viørnnr); Aûican State$,

French West Indios; the UnÍted States of America and in the two types of languagn

dominated groups in Canada-the Francophone in Queboc and the fuiglophone in

 129

Montreal. More generally, the findíngs showed that in a prestþ evaluation continuum,

French was still given the highest prestþe rating in all countries except those in the

Southeast Asi4 the English speaking group in Canada and the French speaking

community in the United States. The other countries still maintainod an attitude gr"ing

the highest prestige to standard French. Invariebly, French usage was put asíde

considering some €thnic rer'íval movements in these çountries (includhg France) that

are more or less successfi¡l in addition to the use of equa[y important languagos in

diglossic situation (the use of Flemish in Belgun¡, Francophone Romand in

Switzerland, Francobanais in Lebanon). But standard French continued to get the

highest prestige rating or to be rated as at least equal with other Frertch varieties that

were invariably being uscd in some dornains.

In the three southeast Asian countries, however, where France had cultural and

political role to play (Cambodia, Vietnaû¡ and Laos became French protestorates in

the latter part of the nineteenth century) the status of French (national language of the

two protectorates) decreased ¿s the national liberation movemertts replaced

Westernized elites and reinstated their respective national torgue as the only national

language. As Bourhis (1982) claimed,

...the richness of the cultures enibodied by these ancestral languages,

the geographical and ideological distarice separating France and these
three countries as well as thc substantial turmoil generated by the
ferocious national libcration wars waged in each of these countries
contributed to th€ end of French language irrfluoncc in Southeast Asia.

The review gerrerated some intportant considerations in so far as attitudes

towards language is concerned. It took apcount of the status of the language

concerned-whether it was dominant or minority, as well as the prestige it occupied

 130

not only in terms of fünction but also in regard to standardization, and the language

policies that were cwrently imposed.

In the studies rwiewed by Day (in Ryan and Gilos, 1982: 116-13l), some

generalizations about language attitudes were made. One was that language is to be

taken as an integral part oflanguage competence, defined by llymes (1972:63-66) as

the knowledge required to us,e a language appropriately in a speech community. In

addition to gramrnar knowledge, it includes social knowledge which aots to define the

communic¿tive process and to shape the way messages are realized in social situ¿tions.

This was illustrated in the studies of Halliday (1975), Bates (11976), Dore (1973),

Ervin-Tripp (1977), and Keenan (1977). Another was that as children are capable of

perceiving language differences, probably as early as at the age of3 and certainly at the

age of 5, the former being soen in the study of Mercer (1975) and the latter in the

study of Aboud (1976), so it is to be expected thÐt they'are aware of differing

attitudes towards language.

With regard to minority-majority language attiûrdes, Day found i¡ the

researches reviewed that (a) minority ohildren first acquired positive attitudes toward

their home language, but l¿tor display attitudes which reflected thosc of the dominarrt

culture; b, ) majority of children, from a very young age, acquired attitudes cortsistent

with those held by their families. The first generalization wæ illustrated in the study of

Lewis (1975) in his study of monolíngual and bilingual groups' ¡ttitude toward Welsh

and English in Wales conducted between 1967 and l97l among junior secondary

students. Lewis found that the attitude to Welsh becomes incrreasingly less favourable

in all areas ud types of schools and increasingþ favourable to English as the sh¡derüs
 131

grew older (in Day, 1982 122). The second claim was seæn in the studies of
Rosenthal (1974) where white children had more favourable attitude towards standard

English compared to Black Engliú in comparison to attitudes of their counterpart, the

black children as well as in the study of Day(1980), where more favourable attitudes

towards the standard English in llawaii were obseryed from first-graders in School B

(located in a residential neighborhood where parent$ spoke more of the st¿ndard

EnglisÐ compared to children of the same grade level in School A (located in an

industrialized area of the cþ where Hawaüan Creole English (HCE) was more

dominantþ used). Many more studies w€r€ reviewed by Day which led into a final

obserwtion that while a number of significant studies about the process of socialisation

of children had been done, there had been relatively little resea¡ch on children's

language attitudçs, much less the acquisition of such attitudes (Day, 1982: 116).

The potential role of attitudes on behaviour getrerally (whatever the

oonsequent behaviour may be) has been a focus of interest. lvfany sf,rdies have shown

that attitudes towards a particular object (say attitude to language) influenco the

correspondíng behaviour relative to the object that is subjected to the attitude, Hence,

thero may be a good reason to believe that language attitudes could iÍfluence

variables like achievement in the use of a particular language and second language

learning itself

The review of studies reported by Gardner ( in Ryan and Giles, 1982: 134)

covered several studies conducted in diftrent settings and with difforent types of

participarrts. Although there were inconsistencies in some of the findings, it was

generally found th¿t attitr¡dinal and motivational variables in languages were related
 r32

in the
to achievement in a second language and coutd possibty influence proficiency

s,econd language. This wts proven mofe directly by the studies of Jones (1950a;

1g50b) and of Jordan (lg4l) which found positive relations between achievement in

the second language and attitudes towards Wçlsb in the case of the former
and

such trends wsre

towards FrenclL in the case of the latter. Other studies that srpported

those ofNiedt and Hedland (1g67)who found a positive corrdation betwesn attitudes

in Gernraq Mueller and Miller (19?0) between positive

towards and proficiency

French-speaking people and achier¡ement in French; Jacobson and

Inhoof
attitudes to
(1974) between Japanophilia and achievement in rapanese (Gardnen in Ryan and Giles

1982: 13a).

rel¿ted to
The studies wtrich confinrred that bÒth aptitude and attitude were

achievernent in a second language include those of Gardner and La¡nbert (1972) with

elementary and secondary school studerÚs of French in Maine' Louisiana, and

school
Connectiout; Smythe, Steçlnet and Feenstra (1972) wíth senior-elementary

and Santos (1970)

students in their traditional or audiolingual programmes; Ga¡rd¡rer

and Clement'
with students in the Philippines leaming English as a second language;

Ga¿rdner and smythe (1977, 1980), u/ith elementary and secondary school

Frurcophone stude¡rts learning English.

A number of the above research made a distinction between integrative and

refers
instrumental orient¿tions towa¡ds language learning. An integrative orientation

with the
to an interest in learning ¿ second language in order to frcilit¿te interaction

other language community. An instrumental orientation, on the

other hand, foçuses on

the utilitarian aspects of learning the language' An cr<ample of an irrægrative

 133

orientation is learning the language for its own s¿ke. An instrumental orientation is

reflected in such reasons as 'in order to get a good job.' The results suggested that

students who indicated an integfative orientation were generally more motivated to

learn the second language, had more favourable attitudes toward the other community

and were more proficient in the second language than those who were instrumentally

oriented (Gardner in Ryan and Giles, L982 : 134-135).

The findings of the studies reviewed point to the high likelihood that the

association between language and ethnic identþ would materially influence an

individual's reactions to the language leanring situation ìn school depending upon the

nature of the context. If individuals urere to perceive second language acquisition as a

positive acl¡ievement which broadened their horizons, the eduoational conlelft and the

language learning experiences would be ørpected to be very reinforcing. If on the other

hand, second language acquisition were perceived as a negative experience, the

educational context and the acquisition of the second language would be non-

reinforcing and even aversive.

Sþ¿dìes in lansuøßc shlfr ørrd mq¡ntenailce. In an attempt to explore

the relationship between linguistic usage in various domains and the presençe or

absence of mother tongue shift among Gujarati speaking Indians in Nairobi, Licberson

( lgSl: 261) used pupils in seoondary schools as informants about the languages used

by their parents. Using the gamma statistics developed by Goddman and Kruskal,

res¡,rlts revealed that the association betweeri languags usage and degree of language

shift to English tends to be relatively high in such domains as European shops, in

talking to seniors af worþ conversations with European friends, the doctor hospital
 134

setting and juniors at work. The use of more than oile language in addressing ohildren

in the home suggests another nrechanism by which long tenn shift may occur in

addition to the simple change from parents' mother tongue to use of a different

language with their offspring.

Studies Conducted in Au¡trulia

Sardíæ ìn biling4talisln. An innovative educæional orperiment in language

teaching in Australia was the immersion progmm started in French at Benowa Stats

High School in 1985 @erthold 1995). The Benowa Model as it came to be called

was adopted by other secondary schools in the Brisbane area, nantoly; the Mansfield

SHS (Frenct¡ begun in l99l), Kçnmore SHS (Germa¡r, 1992'), and Park Ridge SHS

(Indonesia¡u 1993) and a private boys' school on the gold coast, the Soutþort School

(Frenc[ l9y2). Immersion is a form of bilingual education in which the students who

speak the dominant language reçeive part of their instruction through the medium of

the secor¡d language and part through the first languqge. Both the second and the first

lurguages are used to teach regular school subjects, such as lvlathematics, Science or

Physical Education, in addition to language arts but are never used corwunently (that

is for the sa¡ne subject) in the same ac¡demic year. Diffenent zubjects are taught

through the medium of each language. Generally speaking, ¿t least 50 per cent of

instruction during a given academic year must be provided through the second

language for the progmm to be regarded as immersion @erthold, 1995: l).

As an example of a bottom up initiative, this pattern of immersion teaching has

been finally recognized for what it is -an innovative, effective, challenging program

for children who are looking for an alternative to traditional secondary sohooling which
 135

gives them the opportunity to become frrnctionally bilinguatr-if they make the effot.

Researches conducted on these programs indicate that the prograrns have had no

adverse effects on either the students' English langu4ge development or coritent a"rea

lnowledge as covered by the program. Immersion programs thus offer the possibility

of providing an emichcd educational experience in a second l*googe without the

trouble of travelling abroad. It is also economical in terms of classroom and teacher

hours, as srrbjects normally tat4ht in English can be taught in the target language and

the second language acquisition is an extre bonus.

Stu¡lígc. ü, øriludc$ Smolicz and Secombe (1977) did a study of attitudes to

the introduction of ethnic languages and cultur$ in Ar¡stralian schools using the

submissions re,ccived by the Australian Government's 1974 Committee on the

Teaching of Migrant Languages in Australiån schools as 'cr¡ltural facts,' viewed

within the framervork of humanistic socíology. Positive attitudes were noted and the

arguments advancod in the submissions lvere reconstructed to make up a zummary list

of 14 reaf¡onf¡ (See Table B) re,flecting the positive auitudes. The first three were

culturúheritage (langruge as a means of transmitting cultural traditions of ethnic to

the second or later generations of immigrants); EUis (the teaching of migrant languages

as a Íroans of increasing appreciation of the multicultural nature of the present

Australian soeiety, and maintaining Australia's linguistic urd cultural resources); and

secure identity (the teaching of migrant languages as & means of safeguarding the

emotional securþ of the migrant child and preventing the development of an identþ

crisis (See Table C). Smolicz and Secombe (1977: 19) concluded that ...

even though the attitudes expressed in the submission cennot and must
not, be taken as typical of ethnic- and Angþ-Australian generally, the
 136

degree of support which they rovealed for the teaching of ethnic

languages and culture$ appears to be most ericouragtng for those who
espoused interactionist or pluralist ideals. It would scem that arnong
the group of people represarted by the bulk of submissions, the
Australian tradition of monolingualism has oome to bç negatively
evaluated and beneûts of a multilingual society increasingly recognized.
Furthermore, there seemed to be a consçn$rs among Anglo-md ethnic
Australian srbmissions in ætaohing rolatively little irnportance to the
introduction of ethnic languages for the 'transitíonal reason" which
could be cl¿imed as indicative of a covertly assimilationist attitude. In
contrast, the majority of submissions demonstrated widespread $rpport
for the signiñcance of ethnic cultures for ethnic individuals and for
Australian society at large .

Another study conducted by Smolicz and Lean (in SEANßA, ß77: 99)

focused on attitudes to Australian languages other than English. Parents of Year l0

students rt ù1127 Catholic secondary schools in South Ar¡stralia were asked about their

main lauguage in the home as well as their attitudes to some aspects of language

maintenance. Both positive and negative oriented questions were used to capture their

feelings with regard to maintenance of cdture and language. Generally, the study

revealed that somç form of cultural diversþ was supported not only by most ethnic

Australians but also by about half of the Australians of English-speaking backgrourtds.

It also indicated, however, that many parents (whatever their identity or n¡tive tongue)

w€re ûot firlly aware of the conditions required for the establistrment of cultural

phnalism.

Although msny were conscious of the fact that language was in some ways

linked to the preservation of a cr¡ltr¡re (a significflrt proportion ovaluated oultural

pluralism positively) they approved the teaching ofthe ethnic languages in schools.
 137

TableB

Reasons for Teaching Ethnic Languages and Cultures in Australian Schools

Reasons

1. Cultural heritage: Language as a means of transmitting the cultural traditions of

ethnic groups to the second and later generations of immigrants.
2. Pr¡blic demand or irtterest group pressure: The teaching of a language in response
to the wishes of parcnts, ethnic groups, modern language teachers, employers, etc.
3. Family cohesion: Teaching of languages as a means of presening family bonds and
lessening culture conflict betwçen generations.
4. Individual's birthright: The ethnic individual's right to the study of his mother
tongue and culture.
5. Secure identity: The teaching of migrant languages as a means of safeguarding the
emotional security of the migrant child and preventing the development of and
identity crieis.
6. Transitional: The use of migrant languages as a medium as a mediurn of instruction
alongside English to counteract educational retardetion of children while they are
still learniqg English.
7. Cultural-universal: Language seen as a me,am of broadening the students' cultural
horÞons and increasing international understanding and communication.
8. Educational advantages: Bilingualism aids the child's general intellectual and
conceptual dwelopment.
9. Utilitarian: Language seen as an avenue to the þbs of translator, inærpreter and
some othen occupational pursuit, as well as useful in trade and comrnerce.
10. Civic: The teaching of migrant languages as a means of increasing appreciation of
the multicultural ûeture of the pres,ent Australian society, ard maintaining
Australia's linguistic and cultural resources.
11. Interactiond: Language as ¿ means of perpetuating øhnio cultures for the purpose
of enabling them to interact with Anglo-Sæ<on core values and thereþ leading to
the gradual evolution of hybrid (Australian-ethnic) cultural systems.
12. Attitude formation: Ethnic language to help to mould the AustrâIian ethos away
from Anglo-conformism in favor of cultural pluralism, and respect for ethnic
cultures.
13. Survival: To prevent totål disappearance of cert¡in ethnic languageVcultures
(threatened in their homeland).
14. Academic scholastic: To increase scholarship in the language ct¡lture area.

Source: Study of Smolica and Secomþ 1977

 138

Table C

Di¡tribution of Respondents in the Study of Smolicz and Secombe in Terms of

Reasons for Teaching Ethnic Languages and Cultures

of
Reasons fotteaching Anglo- Ànelo- Ethnic Ethnic Ethnic
ethnic languages Australi¿n Australian Indiviúals Insdntions Australian
and cr¡ltures+ Indiviô¡als (Sub (SuÞ
Total) Total)
o/o o/o
N % N N o/o
N % N N %
Cultr¡ral Herit¿æ 3 9 2 4 5 6 6 11 37 tl 43
Pr¡blicDemand 0 0 0 0 o 0 2 4 6 3 I
Famitv cohesion I ^t 5 9 6 7 5 9 24 11 29
Indivió¡al's 3 9 4 7 7 I 6 ll 2l l0 27
Birthrifùt
Securc identitv 3 I 5 9 I 9 6 1r 24 ll 30
Transition¡l 4 It 4 T I 9 3 5 l5 7 l8
Cultural universal 3 9 5 9 8 9 2 4 12 6 l4
Eó¡cationsl 4 ll 8 ls 12 l3 3 5 8 4 ll
Utilitarim 0 0 I 2 I I 6 ll 4 2 l0
Civic 6 IT 8 l5 14 l6 4 7 2s 12 29
Interactional 3 I 6 ll 9 l0 7 t2 l5 7 22
Attitu& fonnatioa 5 l4 6 ll ll t2 7 t2 t6 7 23
Survival 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 I 3
Academic scholastic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 4
Total 35 I0l 54 99 89 r00 57 to2 214 100 27t
Source: Sady of Smollcz and Secombe, 1977
*The reason headings are fufined in Table B

Restall (1993), did a study of the attitudes among Malaysian medical studelrts

(newly arrivsd as well as those in their fourth year of studies) at the Universify of

Adclaide to Australian and lrdalaysian culture, English development and academic

perforrnance. All the respondents did the 8-week English cours€ at the Centre for

Applied Linguistics in the USA.

Specifioally on tJre language aspect, the findings revealcd that the students (the

old oncs over 65 who had been in Australia for 3 and I years, respectiveþ) seerned to

have made lìttle if any, progress in tlrcir English language ability in the four years of

study which the researcher o<plained as a rcfleotion of rote lenrning. In terms of

 139

usage? only one claimd to speak English at home in addition to Malay, 8 studied

English at school while the remaining students studied Malay only. Most of the

students speak Malay outside of classes in Australia, 3 speak English and 5, both

Malay and English.. In addition fourteen respondents said they had no interest in or

intention of undertaking arry future study of English-one gave illiteracy as a reason.

Sryües, on la4guqe.shífr qtd m+i,ntenançe . There are a wide range of

reasons for language shifr and maintenance. Saunders (1991) m¿kes a list as follows:

intra-ethnic marriages, fear of negative influence on acquisition of English @nglish

learning will be adversely affected); lack of knowledge of normal bilingual

development; unrealistic perfectionist fears that bilingualism could ìmpair intellectual

dwelopment; and language ecology fac'tors. With regard to lack of knowledge of

normal bilingual dwelopment, Saunders (1988:124) notes that a coÍnnon finding is...

.,.Young children go through a stage when they are reluctant to spealc

the minority language and answer their parents in English. This can be
very disconc€rting for parents and may lead them also to shift to
Englisb in which c¿se the minority language will not be passed on to
the children...If children are not'pushed'to aotively use'th€ language,
even though the parents persist in addrcssing them in it, the children
could become receptive biliqguals i,e. understanding the language, but
unable to speak it or with only minimal speaking abilit¡ answering
instead in English (in Satrnders, l99l:99).

The study of Clyne (1968) ¿ùmong 74 families with German-speaking parents

and children who had either been born in Australia or arrived bef,ore tho age of 5,

slrowed that in 56 (75.7%) families the parents were speaking to their children only in

Ger¡nan. But in only 16 Q8.%) of the 56 families did the children speak to their

parents only in GermarU in 27 c¿ses (ß.2%) the children spoke a mixture of English

and Crerman, while in 13 cases Q3.2o/o), the children always answerod their parents in
 140

and Harris (1976) rlmong

Engtish. This trend was also revealed in the study of Smolicz

immígrants of Australia where the percentage of Polish, Dutch, Italisn and Greek
was considerably higher
speaking pafents using ooly their language to their children

than the percentage of children responding only in tlrat

language'

In line with Clyne's ( 1982) findings in his a¡alysis of the 1976 Cenzus'
smolicz and Lean (lglg),in their study of the languages used in the homes of catholic

secondary school students in South Australia, found that Italisns and Poles made the

the Germans (700'4\ and

greatæt use of the ethnic tongue (8S% and 857o) followed by

Dutch (650/o). Approximately, two-thirds of Polish and Italirr respondents favoured

wefQ
the teaching of their mothor tongues at sohool. The German-Australians

somewhat less enthusiestic while the Dutch formed

an exception among ethnic

backgrounds (British
groups, since they Ðrceeded Australians from English speaking

any language other tlran

and kish) in their rejeotion of Australian children learning

English.

out by the
Thc results of a $lrvey of 7, 895 schools of all types canied
of Mgrant Languages in
Australian Government's Commíttee on the Teaching

Schools in 1975 ( in Smolicz and llarris, 1977: l'2) revealed thst- "
o/o of secondary students, were
...some lSYo of childrerç including 35
studying ,nodr- languages in schóot. Howwer, with
the exception of
Italian, the main ttnusl of modern language teaching was
in the
t¡aditional modernlanguages (French and German) and
in Asian
children of
languages (Indonesiaãfufãay and Japanese). For most
language still
ethnic background, opportunities to maintain their mother
did not exist within the school systems'

Gerrrran, Italian,
be considered as
linguistìc and
ethnic group.Less than I per cent of
 t4r

tlre students studying Frçnch were of French origin and only 2.5 yo
studying German ând 2.5% studying Italian viefe native speakers. In
other words, modern languages were taught essentially as foreign
languages.

By contrast, relatively large number of ethnic Australian children were

a
attending lished by various ethnic
sp
graups that some rudimerrts of
their native languages and cultures were transmitted to the rising
generation in Austrdia. It is difficult to find out exactly how many such
schools and olasses exist, but surveys canied out in 1974-75 suggested
that there wefe some 600 to 800 ethnic schools in Australia and that
they had between 50,000 and 70,000 students (Tsounis 1974, 1976).
Some schools Opereted as private organizations; othefs represented
fairly well organized systems of community schools. The fact that they
had to be held outside regular school hours (mostly on Saturdays)
meant that children who attended such sqhools werc necessarily
precluded from many other activities which their Anglo-Australian
peers enjoyed.

Betwecn 1969 and 1975, a nunùer of surveys (Smolicz and McL- Ilarris

(1977) to investigate the extent of ethnic language perpetuation in South Australia

concentrated on s¡¡dents ofDutch and Greek ancestry who were of sesond generation

or if born overseas, had received most of their schoolifig in this country. The resuhs

showed that, in regard to active language experiences in speaking, evçn in those

families where the ethnic language was spoken by the second or thi¡d generation with

ethnic elders, the language used with peers was almost invariably English, Ethnic

linguistic usage suffered a dramatic decline among children of 'mixed' ethnic parentage

(particularly Polish-Anglo Austratian)r evêtr in çonversation with çthnic elders'

Fruthernrore, Australian -born It¿lian students or more generally, minority ethnic

children born in Australia spoke their parørt's language less often than children born

in their ethnic homelands.

 142

The rcsults led to a conclusion that ethnic tongues in Australia were beooming

the language of age, and that their use was increasingly timited to oertain well-defined,

mainly domestic spheres of life. The majority of the ethnic students did not rpad or

write in thoir cthnic tongue, cxc€pt the tertiary students of Polish parentage, a
reasonable proportion ofwhom sometirnes read ethnic ncwspapers and books, and the

Polistr primary age sample for reading reports at Saturday schools.

With regard to command of the ethnic languages, the majority of the students

of homogenous parentåge felt that they had a'fai¡" to'lery good" understanding of

the ethnic tongue. The proportion of the students who claimed to speak the ethnic

language with a degree of oommand was lower than for understanding. In all the

monoethnic respondents, except DutclU the majority claimed to speak their ethnic

tongue'fairly''to'Iery well". All groups excopt Polisll admitted they had very little

knowledge or competence in reading and writing their ethnic language,

More than two-thirds of the ethnic youth indicæed their willingness to study

their mother tongue had it been offered in school. The degree of interest, however,

dropped inthe case of students from mixed ethnic background. As many as two-thirds

of Polish-Polish backgrotrnd attended sthnic Saturday school, a quarter or less for the

Italiaq and none ftom the Dutch lFoup. The findings reflected the frct that the Polish

community in Adelaide had a fairþ organized system of ethnic schools; the ltalians had

established a few schools; and the Dutch none at all.

Ctyne (1982) used the figures in the 1976 Census to demonstrate the

proportion of first generation immigrants from various ethnic groups who claimed not

to use their mother tongue. Greek-Australians exhibited the srnallest shift (three per
 l,+3

cent), whilc ltalians had only a síx per cent loss to English. This compued tvtth 44e/o

for the Dutch" who of all the non-English speaking groups, showed the biggest switch

to English. Thc peoples of Yugoslavie and Poles , Germans and À¿Íaltese occupied

intermediate positions in the displacønent-to-English scale.

Variations in the number of part-time øhnic schools and their students in

relation to the size of the groups concerned in the population as a whole wcre also

apparent. An examination of enrolment figures, for example, showcd that those of

Greek background were much more anxious to establish and attend such schools than

those more numerous 'etlnics' who derived their origin from Italy (Australian Institute

of Multicr¡ltural Atrairs 1982 Tables 3.7,3.8 and 7.4; Price 1983, Tablo 5.2) This

difference could be explained in part by the fact that Italian was taught much more

often than Greek as a regular subject, so thet children of Italian background might have

lcss need for the provision of out-of-school classes in their mother tongue.

A survey of95 Italian school grls in Adelaide (Smolicz, 1983 ) revealed that as

many as 80 % would have been interested in snrdying ltalian provided it was taught as

a regular school subject. The percentage who have actually attended Saturday School

or said they would be prepared to study Italian on their own was much lower.

A¡¡othcr interesting comparison was made between the Dutch and Polish

groups. For Dutch immigrants and their children in Australia there were four ethnic

schools catering for 90 students. In the case of Poles , there were 37 schools \ /ith I197

students serving an eth¡tic community only slightly more thån half the sizo of the

Dutch goup. The Hungarians, numbering 42,055, but containing religious and ethnic

minorities in their midst , had only three cthnic schools wrth 202 stude,nts, while the
 t44

Turkish community of half that size had as many as 47 schools and a total of 2,569

students. Hungarians wo¡e seen as a well-established but also a widely scattered group

, although their situation in this regard might be compared to that of the Llla¡inians

who, with a somewhat smaller community, had 17 schools providing for 952 students.

Overall, the data from thç ethnic schools demonstrated the great importance

that minority groups placed upon the perpetuation and deveþment of their languages

as central to the survival oftheir culture in Australia.

In 1982 a survey of ethnic schools was conducted on behalf of the

Commonwealth Schools Cornmission by Norst in consuløtion with a specially

appointed reference group, where the ethnic organizations conçerned were asked to

indicate what cultural feafures they considered most vital for the zurvival of their

group's culture in Australi¿. From the responses of 223 organ:zations, the results

revealed that languqge maintenailce was quite clearly accorded top priority (in

Smolicz, 1984:28). Eighty per cent showed an overwhelming support for ths need to

maintain the language as vitally important in like mârmer that79 Yo reaogazed reading

and writing their n¿tive language as vitally important. (See Table D for speoifio results)

The same questionnaire was zubsequentþ given by Smolicz and Secombe

(1985 b) to individuals, r¿ther than organizations, of thrce ethnic groupe-Polish,

LâtvrarL and Gnoek. The Polish survey was conducted in December 1982 among a

group ofyoung people (n:73'¡ gather€d at Polish Leadership Training Cunp organized

by the Federal Council of Polish Organizations in Australia" $'ith the support of its

Victorian branch The training camp u,ðs attended by representatives from all States.
 r45

Table D

Cuhural Features Considered Important for the

Survival of Group's Cutture in Australia

Vitalty Not Numberof

AIMS OF ORGA}IISATIONS Importâfit Importânt Inportånt Responses
o/o
% %
I. ETHNICI.A}TGUAGE
l. SpealCngyour ethnic language 86.0 13.5 0.5 215
2. Reading & Writing in your 49.1 20.0 0.9 215
ethnic language
3, Lit€r¿tÌ$e in you ethnic 42.9 46.7 10.5 2t0
languago
U. RELIGION 31.4 55.1 13.5 207
III. KNO\ryLEDGE&
APPRECIA1ÏON tr YOI]R
ETHMC HOME COIJNTRY
l. History 42.0 50.0 8.0 2t2
2. Geograpþ 32.4 54.1 13.5 207
3. Lcve of ethnic homela¡d 35.7 52.7 il'6 207
4. Contritnrtion ofyour ahnic 48.1 40.4 11.5 208
cultur€ to world civilization
5- Customs, feast & celebrations 38.2 s5.7 6.6 2r2
TV. FOLKLORE
L Songs&Mr¡sic 42.8 52.1 5.1 215
2. National Dances 36.2 52.9 ll.0 2t0
3. Traditional arts & crafrs 27.8 52.2 20.1 209
V. SOCIAL REL^NTION
l. Respect forthe aged 56.1 40.1 3.8 212
2.Appreciation aûd $rpport of æ.7 30.7 4.7 215
close family ticr
3.Enoouraging friendehips among 45.8 48.1 6.0 216
sh¡dents ofyur group
4.Encouraging marriage within
]our group 23.7 3t.9 44.4 207
S.Communicating with rembers
of the fa,mily and/or rnembers of 65.0 30.4 4.6 217
the community
VI. LTVING IN MT'LTICIJLTTJRAL
AUSTRALIA
L Helpingmembers ofyour 56.5 36.0 7.5 214
corumunity to settle into
Anstralia more easily
2. Teachingyour language to 17.5 45.3 37.3 2t2
thoæ who are not ofyour
ethnic mmmunity
3. C-ontrihtingto the 49.1 46.7 4.2 2t4
multilingual, multicultural
Australian society
W. Other (nlease specifu) 80.0 20.0 0 t0
Source: Etlmie Sclrcols Survey in 1982
 146

The study asked the respondents to indicate which aspects of Folish culture

they regarded as vitally important for its survival in Australi¿. Eastly the highest in rank

order was tho ability to speak Polish (670/o).Îhon followed a series of aspects given a

similar assessment, with between 4046 per cant of respondents claiming that they

were of vital importancÊ . These included literacy in Polish. The remaining aspects

\¡/ere supported, at the mosto by no more than about one-third ofthe respondents. This

study confirmed there,fore, th¿t the Polidr language was s€en as representing the most

critical area for the maintenartcç of Polish culture in Australia.

The corresponding data for Lawian (n:75) and Greek (n-102) groups were

generated from similar $urnmer school or çonference settings (Smolicz and Socombe

1985a). The Gteek-Australian tertiary studonts considered the ability to sp€ak Greek

to be clea¡ty the most important aspect for the survival of their culture in Australi¿

(81% thought of it as vitally important, as cornpared wtth 5l% who ascribcd vital

importance to 'clo¡e family ties'). The Latvian group concprned showed an

exceptionally high evaluation of native language , with 95 o/o of the respondents

considering speaking Latvian as of vital importance, while 7l per cent gave the same
waluation to literary in that tongue.

The su¡dies discussed above illustrate how, for many ethnic orlûrrer, the

concept of language u¡ a core value helps to mark out the boundary betrveen

assimilatiorl on the one hand" and lasting multict¡lturalism" on the other. In this sense,

languages can be regarded as the cultural markers of minority existence and the

indispensable prerequisites for cultural plurelism in a society composed of more than

one ethnic group; if linguistic values a¡e lost or destroyed , thc cultures becorne
 147

residual ard intellectually de-aotivated (Fishman and Natrirny 1966),In this wa¡ they

become reduced to mere fragments that can be regarded as subcultural variants upon

the måjority culture (Smolicz 1981a).

Studies Conducted in thc Philippínes

A good numbor of language studies on bilingual education have been

conducted in the Philippines. They represent a wide range ofperspectives, purposes,

and settings, as well as varying in substance and methodology. Those whích have

bearingon the present shrdy are reviewed in the succeeding pages.

StudÍes on bfli+sualísn, As earty a¡ 1948, research studies on bilingual

education had been undertaken in the Philippines. The pioneering ones were the Iloilo

end the Rizal expøimørts. These experiments sought to evaluate the effects of

varying the language ofinstruction in the primary grades .

In the Iloilo e4periment (bcgun in 1948) seven experimental classes wero

matched by control classes. These we,re follou¡ed up from Grade I to VI. Children in
the experimental group received all instruction in reading, uithmstic , ild social

studies through Hiligaynorq the motlrer tongue in Grades I and tr and in English from

Crrades tII to VI; the control group was instructed in English throughout the six
grades.

The findings showed that at the end of Grade I, the use of the vernacular,

Hiligaynor¡ as a medium of instn¡ction was more productive of teaching re¡ults than

the use of English. Grade I pupils who wete taught reading, arithmetic and social

studies through the vernaq¡lar were significantly superior in thcse zubjects to the

Grade I classes taught in English. Moreover, "there s€emed to be a transfer of training

 148

the amOunt of carry-

from the vemacular to English and from English to vcrnacular ,

(BPS Bull' No 12' s' 1953: 19)

over being approximately the same in both cases''

At the end of Grade II, the local Wrnacular (tliligaynon) was still
much more

effective than English as a medium of instn¡ction in the

ñrst rwo primary grades' This

foading and æithmetic'

was particularly marked in the social studies, lang¡¡agg

These rezults pointed to the fact that the vernacular, HiligaynofL was a more

e,froctive language of instruotion tþan English in Grades I and II in reading, arithmetio

and social studies.

In Grade III, the experimental got¡p shifted to English as a medium of

the end of Grade III,

instruction, while the control goup continued to use English. At
and social studies
the experimental goup showed superiority in reading aríthmetic ,
The control
over the control gfoup. The advantage was noto however, significant'

gfoup in written English and tho

Soup had a slight advantage over the experimental
(BPS Bull' No' 14, s' 1953:8)
superiority of tho e:çerimental group w¿s diminishing
'

The conolusion drawn was that a child who was taught

in the vernacr¡lar cotild

get the content of education without adversely affecting his abitity

to learn English in

the higher Sades. (Isidro' 1955:514)

the experimental
Ar ths emd of Grade IV, however, the control grouP zurpassed

reading but the differenoes between the two gfoups

Soup ifi ofithmetic, latrguage, and

were not statistically signifioant , excçpt in English whcre the difference was
experimental sFoup was superior
significant onthe 5 per cent lwel of confideÍrce . The

the ditfference also being

to the control g.oup in social studies only to a small degree ,

insignificant. (BPS Bull. No- ló' s' 1953: ll)

 150

One of the most interesting findings of the study was the fact th¿t at the end

of Grade 3, when the children of the experimental group shifted from Hiligaynon to

Engtish, the experinrental group showed superioríty in reading, arithmetic, and social

studies over tlre control gf,oup, although they had bee'n ta¡ght for only a year in

English. This finding seemed to confirm the superiority of the fust language over a

second language in teaching re¿ding skills and the basic content subjects. It also

demonstrated cross linguat transfer of skills, that is, readíng in the first was transferred

to the second so that use of the vernacular did not retard development of language

skilts in Englistr which was ths tool for learning in the uppar grades (UPROBQ 1988:

6)

Transfer of language skills is firlty explained and supportd by Cummins theory

of interdependerpe and threshold (1974). Curnmins shows that there are two

dimensions of language proficiency cognitive-academic proficiency (CALP), and the

conversational lwel called basic-interpersonal communication skills (BICS). It is in the

first type of skills needcd for success in school, like reading and writing that there is a

so-called "cup" or common underlying proficiency, so that instruction in the first

language will also dwelop CALP in the second language. The other componert of the

theory, the threshold hypothesis, points to the need for bilingual students to reach a
oertain level of proficierrc¡ cûtled threshold in both languages, before they can profit

from the cognitive and apademic benefits of bilingualism. Othcrwise there is a danger

of semilingualisrrL a condition in which bilingual students suffer ftom cognitive

deficit because they have not fully dweloped in either languages at thç level

appropriate to their natural linguistic capacity.

 151

One may concludc from the reu¡lts of the Iloilo second language experiment

th¿t when two nsn-native languages are t¿ught to pupils beginning in Grade I,

instruction in both languages best starts in the first grade. Furthermore, the study

showed that instructional tinte in a non-natîve language ïyas more generally effective

when spread over two school years than when concentrated in one . When two

languages as different as English and Filipino were taught concurrently, interference

with the learníng of the non-native language by the other appcars negligible. Whether

interference of this kind would increase as the languages become more nearly alike (as

with the Romance languages , fot instance) or would be greater with older pupils (high

school students for instance), cannot be safely infencd frorn the data.

Relatod to the Iloilo experiment is the Rizal experiment of Sibayan which had

the following aB sorne major conclusions in addition to that presented on pqge 162:

l. English profioiency is directly related to the number ofyears it has been us€d
as medium of instrustion.
2. The ¿verage level of literacy in Tagalog is not closely related to the number
ofyears it has been used as medium of classroom instruction.

Subject matter achievemerit of pupils at the end of Grade Four tended to be

highest on the English version among pupils from whom English had been used as

medium of instruction from Grade I to 4, highest on Pilipino version among pupils for

whom Pilipino was used as medium of instn¡ction from Grade I to 4, and highest on

the bilingual version among pupils for whom English was the medium from Grade I to

4. Af the end of Grade 6, the group with English as the medium of instrustion in

Grades I to 6 displayed , on the whole, the highest level of achiwemen! whsth€r the

tests were given in English, Tagalog or both.

 r52

In addition to the Iloilo and Rizal experimurts, Sutaria, Guerrero and Castaño

(1989: 29-30) provide a surnmary of studies on bilingualism conducted in the

Philippines^ They are as follows:

L A study on the "comparative difficuþ of learning to read and nrite

in Filipino and English" indicated th¿t in both Grades 5 and 6, childrør
showed bettor performance in letter writing in Filipino than in English,
in spíte of the fact that they were non-Tagalogs. They had English as a
mpdium of instruction starting Grade 3 with Filipino as a subject only
for one period daily.

2. The SOUTELE (Survey of Outcomes in Elementary Education)

(1975) revealed thùt 25 o/o
of the pupils use Tagalog as their dialect at
home; 25 % Cebuano; 10.60/o llocano; 7.6% Hiligaynon" and 6.8%
Bicolano. Only 1.5 0z6 use English at home.
Tests in Social Studies and rüúork Education were pr€pared in two
versions- English and Filipino. The children were mado to choose the
version they preferred. Results showed that the chitdren who took the
test in Filipino got higher scores than those who took the test in
English.

3. The Experimental Elernentary Education Program (EEEP) in 1978

showed that pupils consistently gained higher scores in subjects
taught in Filipino than thoso in English,

4. The PRODED @rogram for Decsritralized Education ) experiment

conducted in Regions 4 and I I on the rel¿tive effectiveness of the use
of Filipino vs. English ås medium of instruction in Scierrce and Math
showed t}at children taugtrt in Filipino achieved higlrer scores than
those taugtrt in English.

From the aforecited researohes it can be concluded that the average Filipino
ohild does better with Filipino as a language of instruction than with English. However,

none of these studies made some comparison of how children performed in the

vernacular, as against the use of Filipino and/or English.

In a state- of -the -art rcview, Satina¡ (1989: 48) reported that studies on

bilingual education indicated interesting findings in relation to the attitudes and

 153

lingUistic competence of teachers. Although there seemed to be an awafeness of the

implementation of the BEP placed

bilingual education policy among teachers, the
Common problems in
great faith in their qualifications and teaching experience'

implementing the policy stemmed from a lack of training progÍams for teachers to

teaching materials
make the switch in mediurn of instruction; and the lack of adequate
had to do with the attitudes of
with which to implement the program. Other problems

students and Parents.

of bilingual education policy

segovia (1988) did a study on the irnplementation

at the tertiary level. The findings are ¿¡s follows:

I schools evaluated , a little rnore than a

BEP' More than one-half of these
oánt'ooJ*"n'd
No. 50 s

imPlemørted it onlY to some extsnt

de,fmitely answ€red 'no'. Of the ful
(
were concentrated in the National
develoPed long rang
should be noted that
in Bikol, 1; Iloilo, 5; Ilokano speaking
one school in Mindanao had dweloped a
on of tlis finding is that the farther away
rnakers, the less soriousþ the policies are
taken.

Problems oncountered' The mo

was the lack of teaching m¿terials
textbooks (1?'.569/t|- and wo
thc lack of teacher Profi
instn¡ction pertraps, correlatei wittr ttris was the lack of appropriate
terrrinologiur in f'tfipíno which teachers coufd use
in handling subjects'
esPecialþ technical ones '

There $'ere more 'non answefs

FrctOrs contributing to the succesl of BEP'
Leyto answgrg{ this item'
for this item. None of the schools in Bukídnon and
of BEP was not
rhis may nr€an one of two things--the irnplementationpinpoint any factor
peroaná successful by the respond-errts, or they could ilot
 154

related to the successful implementation of BEP. Based on the meager data

provided, the former was the more likely reason.

The rnost frequently cited factor was the positive attitude of adminístrators
(3 0.5 5yù, teachers ((8. 3 370), and students ( I 3 89%).
-

Pilipino es n hnguage of unity ¡nd national identity. Fifty-two (900/o) of

the administrators and 59 (S3%) facuþ members felt that Prlipino could
func{ion as a language of unity or nation¿l identity'

All languages have an adaptation mechanism to ût thdr respective societies.

Pilipino has the natural capacþ to be utilized for sooial evolution and
¿dvancernent. The respondents claimed that many Pilipino words are identical
in meaning to words in other vernaoulars. Pilipino seemr¡ to be tho only
vernacular that h¿s the chance of becoming the accepted national language.
These were optimistic statements ofPilipino, despíte stray remarks to the effect
that the choice of Pilipino had created feelings of both exolusiveness and
cthnocentricityand that Pilipino to some is 'baþa'or commonplace.

The level of awareness of the bilingual education policy amoflg parents and

amorg govemment organizations (GOs) and non-government organizations (NGOs)

was investigated by Sevilla ( 1988) . One of the major findings was that Enelisll rather

than Pilipino was still the favoured me.dium of instructio4 primaríly because of future

occupational demands. This trend held for all three cities in whioh the investigation

took plaoe. Cebu City favored Engltsh nrost and conversely, favoured Pilipino least.

With respect to bilingualism, parerits would like thei¡ children to be proficient in both

languages, agairr' for career rçasons; however, college subjects stìould ûot be taught in

the so-called'mix-mix' variety of bilingualism.

sludi¡x on,øúíwitel rg tortgaageß\. observations show that language

aüitudes of Frlipinos are diverse and varied. Thesc could be observed, for example, on

pareNrts who worry about the effects of the BEP on their children's cummunioation

skills in Engtish; the mixed language of their children; and peoplo worrying about the
 155

inadequacy of the Filipino language for scholarly discourse and other negative

development in the field of language.

A rtumber of language attitudes studies conducted were rèviewed. The Otanes

and Sibayan language policy survey (1969), a nationwide study aimed at gathering

data that could serve as the basis for making decisions on the language of the schools

and for planning and directing language growh. The important questions of language

use and languagB attitudes were answered by investigating tho role of language in

certain domains nanrely; (l) family, (2) school, (3) community, (4) occupatior! (5)

nation, (ó) journalism, (7) other types of mass media . Some of their findings most

directly relevant to the determinafion of language policy are as follows:

l. English is preferred as a medium of instruction for the levels investigated in

the survey - primary, intermediate, and high school. Only a small percentåge
of the respondents would send their children to schools using Pilipino as a
medium of instruction in any of these three levels. Between Pilipino and the
local vernacular, the latter is more accepted as the mediutn of instruction.
2. In general, the respondents believed that the more rigorous and technical
subjects like arithmetic and science were best t¿ught in EnglistL while the
other subjects could be taught in Pilipino.
3. Achieving success in an oocupation of high prestige was assooiated with
multilingualism - Englist¡ Pilipino and the local vernacular. English,
however, was still the language primarily associated with certain personal
gosls, directly or indirectly contributing to the individual's çconomic and
social advancemcnt. Among the respondents' reasons for wanting their
children to use Errglish were to learn more rapidly , to get a good job, to
show that they were eduoated , and to communicate better. Pilipino, on the
other hand, was associated primarily with citizenship and participation in the
nation's affairs, but widently not with economic advance¡nent.
4. For most purposes of oral communic¿tion with various types of persons,
whsth€r in the home or outside , the local vernacular was still the most
important language. For writing to members of the family, English was
preferred by the teachers and their spouses, while the local vernacular was
prefened by the other group of respondents - the householders. This might
indicate a relationship between the level of formal education of individuals
a¡d their language preference. For reading, English was the language most
preferred by all the respondents.
 156

general'did not confine

5' ino, and vernacular all
for partiorlæ tYPe of
programmes oertain languages wGre more listened
to than others ' English
" was preferred for drarna'
was preferred for popular music while Pilipino
wanted their
With regard to the reasoits why householders and teachers
Pilipino were to be
children to learn Filipino and Engtisb the reasons given for
for English werç to learn more
patriotiC and to understand their heritage better, those

have good educatiorr' get a good

rapidly, communicate more etrectively, show they

job, have Írcfe opportunity to travel, maintain dignlty and self-respect'

(1971in
Arrother study on attitudes was conducted by Castillo and Chan-Yap
of the population other than teachers
Afendras 1980: 128) which focused on soctors

and householders who had be€n the respondents

in the str'rdy of otanes and

of the elitg sampled from Ateneo

Sibayan. The investigatofs considered the Ettitudes

as elites in the public mind'

de Manila university, being the ones often identified
preferred Pilipino to English as
Thç findings revealed that the Ateneo students

medium of instruction. They wefe €ven wiÍing

to improve their knowledge in Pilipino.

seemed to express a deshe for change, a change

on the whole, the resporrdents
activism which was at its
probabty inspired by the nationalism which guided student

neìgtrt about the time of this study'

pasc¿sio (in Afendras, ed. 1gg0: 120- 18S4) also conducted a study unong247

on language attitudes and motivations

college students of Ateneo de Manila university

spoaking areas towaf,ds Prlipino

of Filþino bilir4uals from Tagalog- and non-Tagalog
from the Tagalog speaking aree; the
and English. Among the respondonts, 199 came

60-attih¡de statements lvere gfouped

fest, fum the non-Tagalog speaking åfÊas. The
 t57

into 6 where I represents st¿tements pertaining to positive attitudes to English; 2,

positive atritudes to Pilipino; 3 , positive attitude to English but negative to Pilipino; 4

positive attifl¡de to Pilipino but negative to English; 5 positive attitude to both

languages; and 6, negative attitudes to both languages, The resuhs are plotted in Table

E.

In conclusion, Pascasio claimed that college students in that particular school,

have positive attitudes to both English and Pilipino and thæ no significant difference

was observed between the two groups (Tagalog and non-Tagalog) in relation to tleir

attitude to these languages.

Anothcr srudy of Sibayan (1978) used a total sample of 443 Tagalogs and non'

Tagalogs distributed arnong students of st¿te institutions srd their parents, employees

of a bank and of the Institute of National Language. The findings showed that three

out of €very five Tagalog respondents thought that Pilipino \¡r¿E necessa.ry. As for

ntrglí*lr" 33 yothought English was nêcessary for good citizenship, while 60% did not

think English was needed.

With regard to feelings about EnShslL 47 % thought that English had made

Filipinos s greâter people, while less thaû l0% thought it had slowed down the

nation's progress: 80 per cent believed it had contributed to the Philippines being

irrternationally known; however, 40% claimed that it had given a colonial mentality-

Sixty per cent of the respondants believed that the Philippines would not abandon

Ënglish.
 158

TableE

Percentage Distribution of Respondeirts' Attitude to EnglishlPilipino by Birthplace in

the Study Pascasio

Attitr¡de Tasalos Non-Tagalos

Scale It 3{' 5* l¡¡ 3{. 5r'

1. Strongly Disagree 1.5 l.l 7.6 2.t n, 2,3

2. Disagree 9.0 10. r 11.9 4.2 2.2 20.5

3. Disgree slightly 13. I 12.8 31.6 8.3 5.2 22.7

4. Agræ slightly 46.7 37.8 37.8 4t.7 37.0 34.r

5 Agree 29.6 38.3 6.1 43.8 43.5 20.5

6. Strongly agree
2* 4* 6* 2+ 4+ 6*

6. Strongly4gree 5.0 18.6 4t.7 8.3 20.8 52.r

5..Agree 37.2 44.7 39.7 35.4 33.3 37.5

4. furee slightþ 43.2 30.7 14.6 39.6 37.5 8.3

3. Disagree slightþ I r.6 6.0 3.0 14.6 8.3 2.t

2. Disagree 3.0 1.0 2.t

l. Stronslv disapree
*Categories of Attitudo - Statements to EnglishlPíþino
I - st¿tements pertaining to a positive attitude to English
3 - statemerits pøtaining to positive attitude to English but negative to Pilipino
5 - statements pertaining to a positive attitude to both English and Pilipino
2 - state,ments pertaining to a positive attitude to Pilipino
4 - statements pertaining to a positive attitude to Pilipino but negative to
English
6 - ståterients pertaining to a negative attitude to both English and Pilipino
Soutæ: Study of Pascasio
 t59

The study of Samonte (1981) looked into the attitudes of college students

towards Englieh as a language. One interesting finding was that his respondents did not

equate English with lack of nationalism and did not think thaf knowing was not

necessarily a sigri of being educated or a guarantee of being zuccessfrtl in the future.

The respondents also acknowledged thæ rimong the primary integrative motivated

reasons for their learning of Errglish was to be considered cultured and educated, and

thereby be able to be identified with the educsted elite of the Philippines. The

respondents also pointed out that Englistr lvas not a means ofunifying the country.

Bulatao (1973) asked 1700 respondents whether a national language was

neoessary for use in schools, in government offices" and in the constitution. He for¡nd

th¿t the respondorrts lvere divided almost €qually between those who advocated and

thoso who did not. Among those who approved the proposal-the highest agrcement

was for use in the Constitution(54þ, followed by use in gove,rnment ofrces (46.5%),

and l¿st, for use in sohools (45o/o). The reasons given for agreement were nationalism

and the need to understand each other better, while those who disagreed argued that

not everyone spoke/understood the national language.

The effects of language on ethnicþ were also covered in the studies reviewed.

The ethnic loyalty proved to be a countervailing force against the imposition of

national language, as shown in the studics reviewed. On the other hand, the language

spoken had some effects on ethnic afrliation. In thç study of Bulatao, it was shown

that 95 o/a of his 1700 respondents identified themselves with thc ethnic group

corresponding to the language they first learnd. The language first learned was
definitely more important in ethnic identity than parents' ethnicrty. This was
 160

corroborated by the study of Sibayan (1978) where the respondents considered a

Tagalog-speaking child of non-Tagalog parents as native Tagalogs.

It is conceivable that a person of mixed parentage could claim the othnicity of

either or both of his parents, as well as a third ethnicity, that of the group whoso

larguage he first leerned to speak. An example given by Bautista (1982) was a Filipino

who had lived in Manila all his life, but was of a Pampango father and an Ilocano

mother. If food was being disorssed, he could have the tendency to build a stereotype

of the Pampangos b€ing goum€,ts and good cooks. If the group teased him to give

therr a sample of his cooking, he could easily switch to being an Ilocano and say that

he had beur taught the value of thrift and that they would have to wait until his

birthday for a treat.

While some positive attitudes towards Pilipino as a national language were

obsorved, negative attitudes were also observed. Silliman (1976 and 1978) utilized a

sample of 115 who were highly educated coming from the political. Educational, and

mess media elite of two communities in Iloilo (Hiligaynon-speaking) and two

communities in Negros Oriental (Cebuano-speaking). The fidings showed that 98 per

ccnt agrecd that thc Philippines needed ¿ national language; the other two per cent felt

that English was alreadythe n¿tional language.

Th¡ee-fourths of these respondents agreed that Tagalog had gained in staü.rs

since it was proclaimed the basis of thc national language; a third of the respondents

were resentful of that fact. One fourth of them cl¿imed thar Visayan was just as good

as, if not more beautiful tharr, Tagalog, and thæ the Tagalogs especially Pres. Quezon,

had maner¡vered thc National Language Coffinittee to choose Tagalog as the basis.
 161

Swenty-firæ p€r c€nl of the respondents also felt that the BEP was simplistic

and of doubtful validity. Sixty-six per cent prefened English to be the sole medium of

instructior¡ claiming that for all intent and purposes, English had become the Philippine

national language and that shifting to another mediurn would involve work, money and

trouble. Englishlilas necessary in the modern world and Tagalog would present

problems in science and technology,

Similar claims were also reported by Caballero (1983) where English was

ranked ¿s the most prestigious language by her Cagayan de Oro sample of

respondents, followed a long way behind by Tagalog, and just a point away from

Tag¿log, Cebuano. It was English that was considered the most functional languagq

followed by Cebuano, then by the Erglish-Tagalog combin¿tion. English was r¿nked

first as the language that the respondents wanted their children to know.

From two municipalities in the same Cebnlano and Hiligaynon-speaking areas,

Galon (1975) interviewod 197 public school teachers on their language attitudes.

Sixty-five per celrt agreed that the govermnent's policy to dwelop a common national

language to be called Filipino was sound. They unanimously favoured the plan to be a

nation bilingual in English and Filipino. But 76 per cer¡t were agaínst the plan to use

Pilipino as medium of instruction; 81 per cent wanted English as the only medium and

these respondents were fearfi¡l that tlre introduction sf Pilipino would set Filìpinos

back educationally.

In contrast, the relativeþ younger respondents of Reyes (1983) who were

Cebuano-speaking students did not show so much exciteme,lrt about the

 t62

language iszue. They did not express a strong dislike for Pilipino; neither did they

exprçss a strong manifestation of loyaltytowards Cebuano-

Studies in language shift ¡nd maÌntenance. With regard to language use of

first, sæcond, third, or ntblanguage, Llamson and Koh Belrg Lee (in Afendras 1980:

185) conducted a study in three countries (Malaysia" Philippinæ and Singapore).

Bas€d on the aszumption that ail th¡ee countries were multilingual, ttæ study rwealed

that Singaporeans u/€re the most rmftilingual arnong the threç nationalities. This was

not surprising considøing that Singapore had four official languages (Enghstt Malay,

Chinese l4andari4 and Tamil), withMalay as the natiqnal language. In lvlalaysia, there

is a dsfined policy of promoting Bahasa Malaysia as the one and only national and

official language of the country which changed the statuq of English from an adopted

first to one of a numbe,r of second languages, including Chinese, Talriil, and other

krdian languages. Likewise, Pilipino as a national language was in its interim phase in

the Philippines at the time the study was conduded, when the new national language

(Filipino), designated in the 1973 Constitutior¡ was still bately implemented.

The study revealed further thæ Chinese 8s a group had the most bilinguals,

trilinguals, quadrilínguals, and n-lirtguals among the various races in Singapore and

Malaysia. The trilinguals in Malaysia were the Chinese , who had their ethnic tongues

as their first language , English as their second, and lvfalay as their third. Similarþ, the

trilinguals in Srngapore wcre the Chinese who had le¿rnt their ethnic tonÊues as their

first language , eíther Endish or lvlanda¡in as their second language, and either

Mandarin or English (vice-versa depending on which of the fwo was theit first

languagc) as th€ir third tongue. With regard to the diglossia distribution of the first,
 163

second and third languages in the three countries there ü/ere no complete separation
"

of languages as ftr as their complementary distribution of domains of use was

concerned. This implied that even in school domains , there was code-switching a
phenomenon which Gumperz (1970) has described as one of thc verbal strategies

employed by individuals in muhilingual societies.

It may be of interest to note fl¡rther that, while English as a second language in

the Philippines was used with three identificd interlocutors (parents, siblings, and

teachers) and not with servants and friends, it is only with servaûts thaf it was not

used in Singapore . In lvlalaysi4 its use was only with teachers and friends.
 tØ

KEY TflEORIES AND CONCEPTUAL FORMULATION

The review of literature makes apparent that cultural pluralism and linguistic

diversity confront almost all countries of the world because of either geographic

fragmentatiorq as in Asian countries like Indonesia and the Philippines or the effects of

migration, as in countries like Israel, the United St¿tes of America" Canada and

Australia. Cultural and linguistic diversity can be considered to lead to societal

problems (social, economio, and political) the solutíons of which are, in many casçs,

assumed to be the responsibility of education systern. A bilingual education policy is

one approaoh to solving these problems, but another one, which has often been used is

assimilation to the majority or national langrrage. In other contexts, cultural or

linguistic diversity is percoived positively for the orçative and cognítive beoefits that it

can bring. In these instances, bilingual education is likely to be introduced into the

education system &s a means of achieving this potential.

Bilingualism and bilingual education generate, at least, three comrnon

questions. One is whether children would suffer ifthey become bilingual; the second is

whether ohildren suffer from education th¿t uses fwo languages; and third, whethsr the

right attitude and motivation rather than compulsion and conformity, are vital in

bilingual oducæion and in becoming bilingual @aker, 1988:ix). The first issue deals

with the implìed effects on the brairl on the intelligence and on the process of

thinking. Tha sccond refers to speculation that learning through the child's second

language, or using both languages in the curriorlunl will result in lower overall

performance at school. The third, wtrich is aotually the focus of this stud¡ is concerned

with the fact, that in the experience of many countries, bilingualism (or
 165

monolingualism) is imposed and the freedom of individuals to decide for themselves or

for their children is rare. Consequently, factors of inner feelings and the degree of

support that surround the children for their full development as bilingual individuals

become crucial.

For a number of reasons, the emotional attachment of an individual or a group

of individuals to any given language needs to be considered. Sibayan and Segovia (in

Afendras, ed. 1988: 58) postutated, thus:

\ilhat people ttrink of language is important because it is wh¿t they will

work for. Aszuming its instrumental value, people would want to learn
a language because they are convincêd that it is useful for sornething. If
development is ... brought about by a number of ¿ú"tors, on€ of them
languago(s), the study of people's beließ or valuatiorrs of thc role of
langUage in such developmørt is an importafit activity of the linguistïc
and other social scientists.

In a multicultural society whore language contact is a reality, there are a

rn¡mber of possibilities in so far as the life of any language is concerned. These include

langu4ge loss, language shift or language maintenance. \ryhatever destiny a particular

langu4ge takes may be strongly dictated by any one of the trilogy of language

dimensions, na¡nety, knowtedge, activation, and attitudes. All three are in cyclical

and reciprocal relationship with one another and the direction that they take can be a

function of the language interactiorq the intergroup relations that obtain in such ¿

linguisticatly diverse cr¡lture and the valuçs thal the group(s) uphold(s). Any one of

these dimensions may zubordinate or (may) be subordinated to any of the otlers'

At this point, it may be necessary to review some key theories associated with

these three dirnensions (Tajfel's Theory of Intergroup Relations; Gile's Theory of

 166

Accommodation; and Smolicz's Theory of Overarching Framework and Cøe

Cuttural V¿tues). They serve as thç theoretical bases of the investigation.

Tajfel's Theor'y of Intergroup Relrtions

According to Giles (1977 319), Tajfel's theory, in its simplest terms, involves

the exposition of a s€quenç€ which can be described as: social categorization- soci¿l

identity - social comparison - psychological distinctiverress. Individuals are depicted as

active in defining both themselves and the world from the moment they are born.

Categorization is one of the main oognitive tools which individuals learn and among

the most significant entities they categorize are thernselves a¡rd other people (e.9. into

Blacks and lilhites; English; French Canadians; and Americans).

People's knowledge of their membership in various social (and in the present

case, ethnic) categories, or gfoups of people, and the value attached to that

membership by them in positive or negative terms, is defined as their sqcial identity,

and forms part of their self-conc€pt. Social identity, howwer, only acquires meaning

by compa{ison with other groups, and it is suggested that individuals have a desire to

belong to groups which gives thern a sense of satisfaction and pride througûr

membership. Tajfel's theory then covers a broad range of intergroup situations and

clearly has important implications for language and ethnicþ. The central concepts are

the sequential processes, with the addition of oognitive alternatives and group

strategies

If the basic postulatos of the theory are fullowed, tv/o important iszues

€merge. First, under which conditions will group members attønpt to change the

intergroup sitnation, and second, if change is desired, what are the means by which
 167

ohange can be brought about? Theoreticall¡ change will be desired when the existing

intergroup situation provides members of a group with an inadequate or negative

social identity. People who a¡e membèrs of superior or dominant groups and who

thereby derive a positive social identity will not of course be motivated to change the

relationship between their group and the subordinate outgroups. By contrast members

of wbordinate groups whose social identity is inadequare will desire change in an

attempt to attain a more adequate and positive social identþ. It is not enouglç

however, th¿t members derive a negative social identity from their monbership in a

particular group. They must also be aware, or become aware that cognitive alternatives

to the cxisting status relationship between themselves and the zuperior group are

possible. lüithout the awa¡eness of cognitive alternativeg members of a group may

accept, albeit reluctantl¡ a negative social identity at least in terms of thcir membership

within that particula^r group.

Tajfel propos€s that ìn the case where no cognitive alternatives are peroeived,

menrbers of a group will do nothing to change their group situation but may well adopt

individualistic astions as a means of attaining a positive sosial identity. One solution

migftt be for individuals to compare their condition with other group mønbers, rather

than with that of thc dominant group. Another alternative is for individuals to try to

leave the group which is causing them such dissatisfaction and pass into the superior

one. Ihis assimilation solution involves them in modifying their c¡.rlmral r¡alues, dress

and speech styles so as to be more like menrbers ofthe dominant goup.

Once group members who have an inadequate social identity become aw¡re of
cognitive alternatives, how do they proceed to bring about change in order to attain a
 168

positive social identity? Tajfel proposes thres strategies which subordinate groups may

adopt in order to achie'r¡e these ends. The first is for the group as a whole to assimilate

culu.rally and psychologically to members of the dominant goup. The second is to

redefine the previously negatively-valued characteristics of the group (e.g. skin color,

hair style, diatecQ in a more positive, favourablc direction. The third is the creation of

new dirnensions not previousþ used in intergroup comparisons on which the group

may assume e neu/ positive distinctiveness from the sthers.

Brought into the level of linguistic relationships in a multilingual groups

settings, the above-mentioned alternatives could be put differently as follows:

Th¡ee broad soltrtions are possible in a multilingual society for those whose
native tongue is zubordinate, One is to evolve towa¡d the dominant group, to
give up the native language, and reduce, if not completely eliminate , tlre ethnic
idøttþ it often symbolizes. Another solution is to reduce the handicaps facing
the speakers of a given language by reforming the societal institutions --
changes in educational systenr" political provisior¡ economic re,form and the
like...The third ís most explosive of all-abandoning ths existing nation
through outmigration, revolutiort s€paratisrr¡ or expulsion of the dominant
language group (Lieberson 1981: 2).

Gilcst Thcory of Specch Accommodetion

Gilès' (1977:321-323) theory of speech accorrmrodation is concerned with the

motivation and social çonsequences which underlie changes in people's speæh styles.

Speech, of coursg is not a static phenomøon and people alter their style of spøking,

oñen dramatically, depending on the nature of the setting, topic and person spoke,n to.

A basic posûrlate of the theory is that people are motivated to adjust their speech

styleq or aßoonrmodate, as a means of expressing values, aUitudes md intentions

towards others.
 169

Giles proposes that the extent to which individuals shift their speech style

toward, or away from the speech style of their interlocutors is a mechanism by wtrich

social approval or disapproval is communicated. A shift in speech sryle toward that of

dnother is termed 'convergence', whereas a shifr away from the other's style of speech

represents 'divergence'. In additior¡ the types of consequenc€ are classified into two,

namely; upward (convergence towards a. high prestige language variçty) and

downward (convergatce towards a lower language variety).

Wlrcn interlocutorr of different statuses desire each other's approval, mutual

speech convergenc€ will occur where upward convergence from one will be

complemented by downward oonvergence from the other . Moreover, the rnore a

persoû desires another's approval, the more that individual will converge his or her

speech in the direction of the other, up to a certaín optimal level. However,

oonvergence will only occur at a specific linguistic level if speakers have the repertoire,

which will enable them to do this realistically.

Non-converging speech is an ímportant medium often used by ethnic groups as

a symbolic tastic for rnaintaining their identþ and culu¡ral distinctiveness. Likewise,

one witnesses the effrrts of many ethnic minorities throughout the world, attempting

to maintain thoir own dialects and languages as expr€ssions of cularal pride (Fishrnan,

1966). Howevgr, it could also be that undor certain conditions, people not only want to

maintain their own speeoh style but wish to emphasize it in interaction wíth others.

They may waot to accenfinte the differences betwçen themselves and others perhaps

because of the latter's outgroup membership, undesirable attitudeq habits, or

app€arance. This sosial drssociation is of speech divergence and can also take upward
 170

and downward directions on linguistic value dimensions. It is the opposite of

conv€rgence in that it involves speakers modi$ing their speech away from their

interlocutors and increasing the communicative distance bøween them.

Smollcz' Theory of Over¡rching ß'ramework and Core Values of Culture.

The term 'core values' refers to those values that are regarded as forming the

rnost fundamental components or hea¡tland of a group' s culture, and which act as

identifying values that are qymbolic of the group and its munbership. It is through core

values that social groups can be idøtified as distinctive cultural communities.

Rejection of core values carries with it the tlreat of o<clusion from the group. Indoed,

the deviant individual may himself find unable to continue &s an ar¡th€ntic member'

(Smolicz, 1986:50).

In Austraþ it is possible to identìS a number of ethnic groups which appear to

be language centored, with th€fu ethnic tongues as their cores (Smolicz and Secombe

1989 in Smolicz 1995: 54). Greek, Lithuaniaq Latvian, Estoûian, Polist¡ Spanish, and

Hungarian language groups immediately come to mind. Australisns from such

backgrounds often show great devotion to their n¿tive language, so that even seçorid

and third gøerations attempt to preserve it in a bilingual system with English.

Differences, horvwer, do exist in the degræ of commitment that ethnic groups

in Ar¡stralia havo revealed towards their native languages, This was sho\ün for example

in data obtained ftom the 1976 anó 1986 Australian Censuses. Clyne (1982;1991)

used these fig,rtes to demonstrate the proportion of the first generation immigruts

from various ethnic gfoups who claimed not to use their mother tongile. Grçek
 t7t

Australians exhibited the smallest shift (3%), while Italians had only six per cent loss to

English. This compared with 44Yo of the Dutch who, of all the non-English speaking

groups, showed the biggest switch to English. Such figures would indicate that Greek

and ltalians have language as a core value. The people of Yugoslavia and Poles,

Gerrnans and Maltese occupied intermediate positions in the displacemørt-to-English

scale.

In a society where at least some minority groups have language ûs a core value,

pluralism can only be mainøined by the aaceptanc€ of multilingualism as the ideal for

society. Mnority group members would then be dlowed, and even encouraged, to

maintain their language as a focal point of their culture. In additior¡ however, in order

to avoid pluralisn of the srdreme or separatist kind, it would be necessary frr all

members of society to have a cornmon languags of communication. Hence, society

would need to accept and develop bilingualism at the personal level. This meens that

each individual would internaliee at least two languages in a form of dual system and

astivate each one ofthem according to his/her nceds and oircumstarrces.

How can core values of different groups be reconciled within a plural setting?

How is a conglomerate of disparate groups to remein stable potitically and evolve

culturally? In a democratic society, governed by eonsensus of participant g¡oups, the

possibility of achieving stability througlr control or coercion of the whole society by the

dominant group is ruled out. To achievo such consensus the nn¡hicultural society must

poss€$.s certain supra-ethnic or slwred values which are accepûable to all the goups.

Suoh values transcend and complement the more partioularist values of each group.

Indee{ the accepturce of cultural diversity and linguistic pluralism by the majority
 t72

group, and by society as ¿ whole, f,ôV itself be regarded as a shared or supra ethnic

value, without which there can be no muhicultural socìety.

Those who are opposed to linguistic pluralisrn might argue that thc

proliferation of languages could lcad to political instability and undermine national

identify. Thç cohesion of the State does not, however, depend on having a basically

monolingual population; the examples of lreland and Lebanon show that a coûrmon

language (whether English or Arabic) has not prevonted slaughter in both those

countries.

In such a dynamic setting, the overarching framework is forever changing and

adapting, not only due to the creativity of the mcmbers of all groups and diffirsion from

outside, but also because of input from a variety of majority and minority ethnic

so¡rc€s, although it is likely that the majority group will contribute the most . That is

possible provided there is a consensus about thc fundamentals, so that th€ majority

does not ¿ttÊmpt to rupture the values of the minorities, while the minority values fall

within the range thæ is compatible with the overarching framcwork and do not involve

exclusivist notionsthat would prevent any possibilþ of an overlap.

In Australiq the political and economic systems show sþs of stability becaus-e

ofconsensus and the acceptance ofthe over-arching values in these areas' In other

areas the overarching values are yet in the state of crystaltizæion. What $eems clear,

however, is that English in Australia is already accepted as a co¡nmon language. What

has not been fully gfasped by the dominant group is that this has been understood as

thc the co.existetrce of such a common løtguage with tlrc ndtive tongues of cthnic

minorlties.
 173

Conceptual Flow of the Research

The theories reviewed above provide a framework for understanding the

options that are available to group members in a culturally ¿¡rd linguistically

diverse society. More particularly, th.y invite questions as to how the Filipinos

in Australia and those in the Philippines (specifically sampled from outside the

Tagalog-speaking area) deal with the linguistic situation.

Eoeltsh, Tagalog (Filipino) and other Philþine languages are used in

varying degrees in the two countries (Philippines and Ausüalia). While English

is dominmt in Ausüalia" it is not in flre Philippines. However, it occupies high

prestige being the language of the govemment educatior¡ business and nrass

media. Filipino is the national language of the Philippines; in Ausralia it is the

lingua franca of the Filipino-Australian community. The Philþpine languages

other than Tagalog (PLOT) or the so called 'vernaculars' aÍe dominantþ

spoken in the respective local communities in the Philippines but h¿ve low

prestige since these a¡e not used in official transactions or in education, except

as an auxiliary lmguage in the first trryo years of elernentary schooling. In

Australia" PLOT are simil¿¡ly of low prestige; their use is restricted to the

dornestic spheres of Filipino -Australian life and occasionally among relatives

and friends who might have come from the same linguistic community in the

Philippines or who happen to speak the language as in thç case of folk

bilinguals, ftat ig people who acquire another language tbrough contact and
 174

Table F

Societal Structure and Status of Languag{s )

in the Philippines and in Australia

The countries in focus

Varíables Australia Philippines

Linguirtic divenity Non-territori¡l Territorid

(The language (The language
communities are scattered communities are segregated
within the main stream by regions)
society)
Language súrtus
English Domìnant Oflici¡l
(General mode of (Used in government,
communicatior¡ used in mass media and educæion
government, ducation specifi c disciplinesb almost
and mass media) sole rnedium of instruction in
the universiry)

Filipino (Tagrlog) Lingua fh¡¡c¡ among thc N¡tional rnd ofliciaV

Fitipino-Auctralian deyeloping lin gua francr
ethnic community (Use in govemm€ût is
legalized; used in education
in specific school subjects;
assumed as communic4tion
medium of people across
country; used in mass
media)

PLOTr(Vcrnaculer) Rcstr¡cted use I)omin¡nt in loc¡l

(Limitø to'family' communities
circles and small but of low prestþe
community)

*Philippine languøges other thm Tagalog

 175

not through formal schooling. The matrix labeled Table F provides a more

concr€te view ofthe societal sfiuc"ture and the st¿tus of languages in the two countries.

A deepcr analysis of the table leads to some perceived knowledge of

language suppressior¡ as well as imposition, that gtroup members in both countries

may often experience. In the Philippines, there is urppression of the vern¿culars the

fact th¿t only English and Filipino are officially recognized in schools and in ofñcial

transactions whether government or private. Likewise, some amount of suppression is

also experienced by Filipinos in Aust¡alia the fact th¿t even Filipino whioh has an

official function in thc Philippines creates some 'þroblems- when uscd in the

mainstream Australian society. Consequentþ questions on how and at what level

gfoup members can handle suppressed feelings due to the restricted use of a native

language that gives full exprossion of themselves can be speculated.

The hnguage policies in the two countries need to take account of thesc

attitudes. In the lortg run, no policy will succeed which does not do one of three

things: conform to the attitudes ofthosc involved (the general public, in fact); persuade

those who express negative attitudes about the rightness of the policy; or seek to

remove the c¿usçs of disagreement. Fig. 3 illustrates that in a linguistically diverse

society, the status(es) oflanguage(s) are allocated by the structure ofthe society. In

tuût language status influences the knowledge, the activatior¡ and the attitudes of the

people who a¡e atrected by the language. Wh¿tever information there is in terms of this

trilogr of language dimensions could be utilized as inputs for language polþ and

language planning. Recommendations on what is most appropriate to be done in each

ofthe two countries is the signiücant oontribution ofthis investigation.

 176

allocate Knowledge
Societal Language
LAI.TGUAGE(S) Affeçt Attitude's
Stuctule status Policy
Activ¿tion

Fig. 3. Figrrre illustrating the influence of language status on knowledgg

attitudes and activation

Given the societal structure of Arrstralia and the Philippines, inforrnation on

the status ofthe student¡ and parents in terms of language knowledge and proficienc¡

activation of the languages in the different comrnunication activities end domairrs, and

the attitudes that they uphold towards these languages is importent. In addition ro the

implications that such data oould provide for language maintenance in general and

Ianguage planning in particular, they could reinforce initiatives for a national unity
that gives due regard to diversþ.
 Chapter 4

METUODOLOGY

Ihe Respondents of the Study

The respondents in this study werç final year students ¿nd their pârerit$, drawn

from three linguistic communities in the Philippines arrd the Filipino-Australian

community in Australia. It was decided to gather information on the language

variables outlined below from both age groups in order to have a generational confiast

in each country.

In the Philippines, one secondary school class was selected frorn the

laboratory school attached to a state college/university in the three regional centreg

one school ftom each language are¿ under investigation. It was decidod to use the top

grade class from each of the institutions identified. The regional breakdown was 62

respondents from Cebuano speech community in Cebu City; 55 from the Ilocano

speech community in Nueva Viscaya, and 35 from the Waray speech community in

Tacloban, Leyte. A total of 152 students with their corresponding parentß were

requested to participate and all agreed to be involved.

In Sor¡th Arstrali4 the research was conducted in the family rather than the

school setting, ín order to involve as many Year 12 Filipino-Australian students as

pos.sible. Cont¿ct with families, where at least one parent was ofFilipino bacfcgrotrnd,

was made through the records of the South Australian Philippine Associatiorç the Sto.

Niño de Filipinas Association and other inform¡l community networlc. The students

concerned completed a questionnaire on language usage and essays on their ftelings

 178

toward the language, while the parents \¡vere requested to participate in an interview

to provide their particular perspective on usage ofthe three languages and attitudes to

them.

The Australian respondents involved 33 households, 17 of wtrich were

endogamous familieq while 16 were exogamous. Since studies on the language and

culture of minority ethnic gtoups in Australia have shown a signifïcant variæion

Hrryeen el(ogarnous and endogamous families, this distinction was considered

importarrt in relation to tho socio-lingusitic vari¿bles being investigated. In practice in

all the exogamöus hor¡seholds, the mother proved to be a Filipina. This fact reflects

the pattern of mixed Filipino Anglo marriages, in which there is a paucity ofFilipino

men married to Anglo Australian women. It follows also from the ìmmigration pattern

of Filipinos to Australia which has been exceptional arnong the migrant groups in

having a clear majority of females (over 6V/a) among the migrants (Hugq 1990: 104).

The parents interviewed in the Australian study were in all cases the Filipino mothers,

who came from a variety of linguistic comrnunities in the Philippines, including both

Tagalog and non-Tagalog backgrounds'

The Rece¡rch Instruments

Four aspects of soeiolinguistìc study, namely, language knowledge and

proficiency; langrrage actívation; language attitudes; and meanings assigned to the

languag{s) wçre used as major variables in the study. The languages of conce'rn were

Tagnlog/Filipino, English, and Philippine languages other than Tagalog @LOT). The

principlee of humanistic sociology servçd as the framework for the data collection and

analysis, in that the participants were given as much opportunity as possible to

 179

express their thoughts and opinions in their own v/ay through interviews and open-

ended questions. Supplementary questionnaires were used to gather background

information about the respondents and to ensure that all expressed their views on key

aspects of the issues involved.

Two equivalent sets of questionnaires were developed to gather data. (See

Appendix A to Appendix D) One was desþned for the student respondents and the

other for the parents. The questionnaire for the students consisted of two parts. The

first solicited information on the personal background; the second part focused on

their language knowledge and proficiency and language activation. In additiorg the

students were asked separately to write essays describing their feelings about the

languages being investigated, in both the home and school settings.

The questionnaire for parents consisted of three parts. The first focused on

their personal background; the second, on their language knowledge and proficiency

and language activation in the different domains and in the three communication

activities; the third consisted of questions relative to their attitudes towards the

languagesper se and as medium of instruction in schools.

In order to take account of particular circumstances in the Australian arrd

Filipino linguistic sçenes, some variations in the questionnaires were neo€ssary; thesÊ

are outlined below.

The instruments for the Filinino-Australians. With regard to language

knowledge, two questions were included in the questionnaire for Australian students.

The first simply asked whether the respondent could speak TagalogÆilipino andlor

the parental language, if the paren(s) came from a non-Tagalog speaking area in the

Philippines. If they did indicate knowledge of the languag{s) concerned, the second
 180

question asked for an assessment of their proficiency in speaking each of the

languages. Activation, on the other hand, was ascertained þ asking how frequently

they used the language(s) in the thrce cotnmunication activities - speaking, reading,

and writing - and with whom they were used. Responses to these questions were

marked on a 5-point scale of alternative possibilities, using a continuum from I for

'Î.[evef' and 5 for "Always" in the sense of "All the time" or Constantly*. Finally,

their attitudes toward the languages, and the meaning$ they attributed to them, were

solicited through essays they were asked to write. The fhst topic, My Feelings About

the Phílippine Language(s) Used at Home was meant to gather their attitudes towa¡d

TagaloglFilipino and/or other Philippine languages. The second, lr,Iy Feelings About

tle Language(s) berng Used at School was intended to gather attitudes towa¡ds

English and TagalogÆilipino. This approach to dæa gathering represented an

adaptation of the memoir methodology employed in humanistic sociology (Znaniecla,

1969; Secombe &, Zajda 1999. 296-306).

The questionnaire for thc parents in Australia had a slightly different set of

questions. For the first two variables (language krtowledge and proficiency and

language activation), it followed the same pattern as that for the students who were

their children. trksponses to the aüitude variable were obtained through questions

requiring direst yes-no answers, with a space provided for reasons/explanations about

each answer. More probing, operrended questions gave respondents opportunities to

elaborate or substantiate their feelings and sentiments about the languagss they knew.

In most cases this questionnaire was administered as an interview-schedule.

The instruments for the Filipinos in the Philippines. For the students in the

Philippines, the questionnaire followed the same pattern of questions as that used for
 181

students in Australia, with the addition of the 'Vernacular" (PLOT) of each of the

three speech communitiçs as a third strand to the language questions. Given that

studerrts in the final year of secondary school in the Philippines would have had some

knowledge of all three languages (their vernacular, TagalogÆilipino and English), the

question of whether they knew the languages or not was deemed irrelevant. Rather, a

question on how well they spoke, read and wrote in the languages concerned was

included,

Activation was ascertained by asking how frequently the respondents used the

languages in the three communication activities and how often they used the spoken

language to different interlocutors. Finally, language attitude and the meanings, which

the respondents attached to the languages, were obtained from the essays they wrote'

The topics given to students in the Philippines changed in orientation from that given

to the Filipino-Australians. The first topic, My Feelings About the Language Used At

Home, gathered their attitudes toward the 'lernaculars" (PLOT). The second, My

Feelings Abut the Languages (Jsed in School, was designed to gather their attitudos

toward TagaloglFilipino and EnglislL as well as to ascertain any possible indication of

having PLOT included in the curriculum.

The questionnaire form for the parents in the Philippines followed the sanne

pattern as thet used for the parents in Australia. However, some minor variations had

to be madc to the wording of questions to account for certain peculiarities of the

speech communities involved.

 t82

Data Gathering Procedure

In response to the particular situation of the respondents in the two countries

concerned, the procedure in gathering the data differed substantially, as described

below.

Gathering the data iT, Australia. The original plan was to visit secondary

schools in South Australia and look for possible respondents (students of Filipino

ethnic background who were in their fïnal year of secondary schooling).

Organizational complications and confidentiality requirements made it diffrcult to

obtain any reliable information concerning students of Filipino bacþround.

These circumstances prompted tho researcher to shift to a strategy using the

Filipino community network as a channel for obtaining information on Filipino

households (endogamous and exogamous) with children who qualified to be

respondents. Whenever a¡y ìnformation on possible respondents (parents and

children) was obtained, the family would be contacted for a briefing by the researcher

to seek their participation. With the exception of two parents (and their children), all

those who were contacted agreed to participate.

The distribution of the data-gathering instruments in Australia was mostly

done through the mail. As the identified respondørts signified their willingness to

participate, the forms were post€d to them. They were given s'et time within which to

complete the forms. For those who did not return within the time allocated, follow-up

calls were made. In caees where the respondents were not confident about the way in

which to complete the forms, the researcher visited their home to assist them in

answering the questionnaire. During the collection of forms by the researcher, any

outstanding problems were clarified.

 183

Mention has to be mado that the memoir portion of the data-gathering

instruments for the students-childrçn made the retriçval relatively slow, since the

respondents often found this a challenging and demanding exercise. Nonetheless, the

gathering of data for the Australian component was completed by the end of 1995.

Gçthering qf the data in the Philippines. It was possible to gather data in the

Philippines by making use of the school system, Permission to administer the

questionnaire was sought from the president of each of the schools involved. As the

permission was gÍanted, the researcher contacted the teacher in charge of the teaching

of English as a subject. The English classes were made the venue of the questionnaire

administratiorL so that the English teachers could assign the essay topics for the

students to write on a$ a class exercise.

Ttnough the help of the teachers, the questionnaires for both the students and

parents were distributed. Those for the students viere completed in the school and

rapidly retrieved; thosc for the parents were taken home by the students and were

retrieved, together wíth the essays the students were requested to develop, when they

came to sohool the following day. The authority of the teacher in the Philippine

educational structure was a factor that enhanced the one hundred per cent retrieval of

the student and parent questionnaires, as well as the essays.

Analysis of the Daú¡ Gathered

Althouglr the data for the two countries wçre analyzed separately, the

procedures followed were simil¿r. Using the numerical codes set beforehand,
questions on the language knowledge and proficiency and language activation
 184

variables were entered into the coding sheet. All the data were processed through the
!

computer.

As the questions on language knowledge were designed to be answered with

either yes or no, the distribution was calculated using percentages. For the questions

on proficiency, which was a part of the knowledge and proficiency variable, mean

values were taken and were interpreted using the following ranges as criteria:

4.50 - and above - Excellent

3.50 - 4.49 - Very Good

2.50 -2.49 - Good

l.5O-2.49 -Fair

1.00- 1.49 -Poor

Likewise, activation was examined in two dimensions, namely, activation of

the languages ín three communication activities, (speaking, reading and writing) and

activation of the languages in the different domains, specifically indicated by the

interlocutors. A.rralysis of responscs was carried out tlrough the calcul¿tion of mean

values in both dimensions and interpreted usirtg the following descriptive

qualificatiorts:

4.50 - and above - Always

3.50-4.49 -Often

2.50 -3"49 - Sometimes

1.50 -2.49 - Seldom

1.00 - 1.49 -Never

 185

To compare the proficiency level and language activation of Filipino students

and parents in the three speech communities in the three languages @nglish,

TagalogÆilipino and the 'Ternacula.t'), the F-ratio was obtained, The hypotheses

related to these comparisons were tested at 5 per cent level of significance.

The activation of languages with different interlocutors lvas analysed further

by establishing the patterns of language use in the trilingual situ¿tion. the procedure

adopted by Ammon (1989: 73-76) regarding the sole activation and co-activation of
languager was adopted but was expanded to includc other patterns shown by those

who co-astivated the languages. This classification was based on the frequency of use

of each of the languages endorsed by the respondents. The pattern$ identified for use

in this classificæion were:

rdominance of any language over two equally less used;

rdominance of one in an hierarchical order;

.equal dominancc oftwo ovçr one less used;

rbalanced use ofthe three languages.

this level of analysis was done with the students and their parents in the Philþines.

Forthe ¡ttitude variable, the analysis rñras done differently for the parents and

the students in both countries. In the case of thc students, the essays had to be

thoroughly read and re-read, looking closely at the points and arguments ¡aised

which wçre uged as indic¿tors in passing judgment on whether the writer had a

positive or negative attitude to the language(s) beíng discussed. When the attitude was

positive, it was further classifïed as high (H), maderate (M), or lou, (L). To be

assigned a high positive attitude (category'1"), respondents needed to demonstrate

their appreciation of the intrinsic qualities of the languagg as well as the recognition
 186

of the advantages that rryere assumed to be derived ftom its mastery, For examplg

respondents considered to have high positive attitudes to TagalogÆilipino explained

that the language provided them with a feeling of belonging to the Filipino group and

its culture, as well as expressing admiration for its perceived 'beauty" and

'þoodnoss".

The student essays from participants in both Ar¡stralia and the Philippines

wsre also used for a more qualitative analysis of the meanings that were given to the

languages concernçd. Close reading ofthe essays led to the identification of ¿ number

of distinct meanings which the writer associated with each of the languages. These

meanings were then grouped under three categorie$ - autotelic, instrumental and

negative - and frequency tables for the citations of these meanings were drawn up for

each language, so that the paü€Nn of meanings across the languages aould be

compared. The process of this qualitative analysis is discussed in more detail at the

beginning ofthe second part of Chapter 6.

In the case of parents, the classification of attitudes towards each of the three

languages per se, as well as the corresponding use of each in school, was dorre by

describing the composite scores they yielded in each aftin¡dinal cluster with reference

to a range of criteria aúitrarily set for every cluster. The cortrposite scores were the

summation of the codes assigned to every responso endorsed by the responderts in

every itcn¡ namel¡ I for "no" and 2 for't¡ndecided" and 3 for'!es". In cases where

the item was negatively stated, the coding was reversed. Since the number of items in

the different attitudinal area was not the saflre, the range of criteria for the ætitude

classifrcation differed. The following ranges were sçt as criteria:

 187

a. Attitude towards the vernasular and attitude towards the use of vernacular

in school:

26 - utd above - high positive

19 - 25 - moderate positive

12 - 18 - low positive

l1-below -negative

b. Attitude towards Filipino

35 - and above - high positive

24 - 34 - average positive

15 - 23 - low positive

l4-below -negative

c. Attitude towards the uso of Filipino in school

l0 - and above - high positive

8-9 -moderatepositive

5-7 -lowpositive

4-below -negaÍive

d. Attitude towards English

3 t- and above - high positive

22 - 30 - moderate positive

14 - 2I - low negative

l3-below -negative

e. Attitude towa¡ds the use ofEnglish in school

l0 - and above - high positive

 188

8-9 - moderate positive

5-7 - low positive

4 - below - negative

Presentation and Discussion of Results

In the chapters that follow, the presentation of the results is combined with

discussion of the data analysis and the implications of the findings. Chapter 5 deals

with results in relation to the two variablet, namely language knowledge and

proficiency and language activation. In Chapter 6 the results related t language

attitudes and meanings assigned to languages are preserited. Each of the four variables

is presented as two separate sections: the first considers the data from the Australian

case, while the second dìscusses the results of the Philippines case.
 Chapter 5

PROFICIENCY AI\D ACTIVATION OF LANGUAGES

Three variables inherent in sociolinguistic analysi$ were investigated in this

study. The two variables presented in this chapter (proficiency and activation), are, in

the language of humanistic sociology, Iabeled as coficrete facts. The other variable

(related to langUage attitudes and meanings) which is presented in Chapter 6, can be

classified in terms of providing cultural facts, as indicated in the discussion of

humanistic sociology in Chapter 3.

this chapter prosents the results on tïvo major components of the study. The

first is about the knowledge and proficiency in speaking, reading, and writing of the

respondents in the languages utilized both in Australia and in the Philippines. For the

respondents in Australia, the languages in focus for paretrts are English,

TagalogÆilipino, and/or any Philippine language other than Tagalog (PLOT). In the

case of student tespondents, knowledge and proficiency in English was not

investigated because their partioipation at Year 12 level in the Australian school was

assumed as adequate evidence of their knowledgg proficiency and activation of

English.

In th€ Phitippines, English and TagalogÆilipino âr€ the languages in focuq in

addition to the vernacular of each of three speech communities covered, namely,

Ilocano, Cebuano, aûd Waray. Hence, daø were collected from Phiþpine
 190

respondents, both students and parents, in regard to three languages: English,

Filipino/Tagalog and the vernacular,

The other component presented in this chapter is the activation of the

languages by the respondents. This component is subdivided into three categories. The

first involves the activation of languages in the different communication activities; the

second focuses on the language domains as indicated by the different interlocutors; and

the thi¡d considers the overall pattems of language use.

The rezuIts are presented separately for the two settings of the study--

Australia and Philippines.

THE AUSTRALIAN CASE

In the Australian study, respondents have been classified into two groups,

accotrdirig to whether they lived irt endogamous or exogrùmous households. Since

studies show a signifioant variæion between exogarnous and endogarnous families

among all minority ethnic groups in Australia, the distinction was considered important

in relation to all the socio-linguistic variables being investigated.

LANGUAGE KNO\MLEDGE Ah[D PROFICIENCY

Filipino-Australian Studentst Knowledge of Philippine Languages

K n owl edg e of Tag øI og/Fílípín o

The results presented in Table I show that among the 17 students whose

parents are both Filipinos Gndogamous {narriage), only one claimed to have no
 t9l

knowledge of the TagalogÆilipino language; the others afñrmed their knowledge of it.

The respondent who claimed not to know TagalogÆilipino @27) was ô son of a

couple both of whom came from a non-Tagalog speaking area in the Philippines and,

apart from EnglistL the only language that both his parents spoke was Cebuano.

From the exogqmous families, there were six respondents who claimed they

could speak Filipino, while ten claimed they could riot. The substantial number of

sû¡dents who claimed not to speak TagalogÆiliprno is not surprising. It is difficult for
the Filipino language to be introduced and utilized in a home where the father is a non-

Filipino and most of the time, the student respondents could only use English to

communicate with the other members of the family. (The knowledge of

TagalogÆilipino among non-Filipino fathers was either limited or non-existent).

Knøwledge of PLOT

with regard to knowledge of PLor, thetre were six Êom the endoFampug

f¿milies (two with parents from Tagalog-speaking areas and four with parerrts fronr

non-T4galog speaking areas) who claimed they could speak PLOT; the other eight

claimed they could not. It should be noted that even respondents whoso parents caûie

ftom Tagalog speaking a¡eas in the Philippines might have been able to speak PLOT.

This could have been due to the fact that some of those who reported Manita residence

before they came to Australia had husbonds from non-Tagalog speaking areas (outside

of Manila) and their respective languages had been learncd by the children in addition

to TagalogÆilipíno. Children in this tlpe of family household acquired three

langu4ges--Enghsh Filipino, and the languages of their respective non-Tagalog

parents--which in the caee of these particular respondents were Pampango, Cebuano,
 792

Bicolano, and Waray. These results further show that the respective languages of the

Filipino immigrants in Australia werq to some extent, being preserved.

In the case of pxogalnous households, a total of seven students (two with a

Tagalog speaking parent and five with a non-Tagalog speaking parent) indicæcd that

they could speak PLOT while four answered in the negative. The number of

respondents from mixed marriages claiming to know a PLOT was une(pectedly high

The moment a language that is not understand¿ble to åny member of the family

is used, some s¡rcio-psychological problems are likely to arise. For one thing, those

who do not speak the language &re nccessarily left out. The worst that can happen is

that they may feel offended and consequentþ become suspicious of what the others are

ftlking about. From the researcher's observatiorç it is commonplace to hea¡ complaints

of some Anglo-Australian husbands about their wives talking in their presence to

fellow Filipinos using any one of the Philippine languages. Some of them are brutally

frank in tclling their wives or other household members, or even visitors, (who are not

able to ovcrcome the temptation of carrying out a conversation in their own Philippine

language) to speak English.

Other husbands, however, ffe very tolerant regnrding thc use of Philippine

languag(s) at home, with the çonsequence that tlre native languages of their wives,

who come from non-Tagalog speaking areas, nray also be learned by the childrerL in

addition to Tagalog which is regarded ts the lingua ftanca of Filipinos in Australia. It

was found that thræ of the children (R7, R13, and R25) who had a knowledge of

Filipino could also speak their respective mothers' native tongue, Hilongo for one

respondent (R7) and Cebuano for the other two (Rl3 and 25). Another two (R20 and
 193

R6) did not speâk Filipino but both could speak Cebuano which was the native

language of both their mothers.

Iable I

Distribution ofFilipino- Australian Students According to their

SelÊAssessed Ability to Speak Philippine Languages

Endogamous Exogamous Total

Knowledge of the languages N=17 N=16 N=33
F F F %

TagalogÆItipino

With TSB parents (N=17)

Yes ll 2 13 76
No 0 4 4 24
SuÞTotal ll 6 t7 100

With NTSB parents (N=16)

yes 5 4 9 56
No I 6 7 44
Sril¡Total 6 10 l6 100
PLOT+

With TSB parents (N:17)

Yes 2 2 4 24
No 6 I 7 4t
No response 3 3 6 35
SubTotal 1l 6 T7 100

With NTSB parents (N=16)

Yes 4 5 9 56
No 2 J 5 3l
No response 0 2 2 t3
Sub-Total 6 l0 16 100
*Philippine Language Other than Tagalog
TSB - indicaæs that the reryondent's Filipino paren(s) is of Tagalog speaking bacþround
NTSB - indicates that the reqrondent's Filipino parcnt(s) is of non-Taglog speaking bacþround

The first three individuals mentioned represent outstanding çases of

trilingualism in a mostþ monolingual Australia. Even though their fathers were non-
 194

Filipinos, they had managed to construc"t a triple-personal linguistic system--Tagalog,

Englisb and PLOT.

There are certain circumstances th¿t encourage the activation of TagalogÆilipino

or other PLOTs in Australian homes. For oxamplg the presence of the wives' parents

in some households is a factor that enhances the Filipino language acquisition and

usage of the children. Some grandparents who find difficulty with the English
language, can hardly adapt to the Anglo-Australian communication medium. They talk

to theír children and their grandchildren in the language they feel most comfortablc

with oç better still, that which comes most spontaneously to them --their mother

tongue. This was observed in at least three households during some of the researçher's

home visits when he was collecting the data. One respondent, married to an

Englishmar¡ had parents who both communicated with the grandchildren in Tagalog.

Two other households-one with a Belgian-Australian father and the othef an Anglo-

Australian--h¿d each a mother-in-law who communicated to the grandchildren in

Cebuano.

The family represefis a primary group in which a child learns the first language or

languages and the rules for their use @eñalos4 lgSl; a0). Primary group socialization

and language acquisition are closely tied together. Because of the close intim¿cy of the

primary group, the languagç we learn from the context of such a group tends to h¿ve

particularly warn associations, so that our deepest, strongest personal feelings can be

ofren expressed adequately only in that language, in the particular vsriety learned in the

home. Special feelings likewise may be felt for the larrguage concemed.
 195

FilipineAustralian Students' Proficiency in the Use of Philippine Languages

The selÊassessed proficiency in the use of languages was based on the scaled

responses from excellent (5) to poor (l) as discussed in the chapter on methodology

(Chapter 4). The perceptions of the Filipino-Australian students on how well they

could sp€ak, read, and write the Philippine languages are summarized below'

hoftciency in the Use of TøgøloglFìlípino'

An observation that needs to be stressed is the tngher proficiency level in

speaking, reading and writing in TagalogÆilipino of the respondents from endogafnoqs

families whose parents are of non-Tagalog speaking background (NTSB) compared to

those whose parents are of Tagalog-speaking background (TSB).The respective mean

values for speaking, re4ding, and writing were 3.60, 3.75, and 3.25 for the former

group of respondents against 3.18,2.50, and 2.30 for the latter (Table 2). Although

there was no statistical analysis done, the mean dilfferences provide subst¿ntial

indication that the proficiency of the two groups are different, \ 'ith those who ¿re of

NTSB parents having higher proficiency in atl three communication activities.

This rather unexpected result is partly replicated for the qxogamous families.

The srme proficiency level ofthose with TSB and NTSB parørts could be observed, irt

so far as speaking TagalogÆilipino was concerned (M-2.00 for both groups)' In

reading and in writing, however, the observations were analogous to those from the

endogamous families with the respondents whose parerlts were of non-Tagalog

speaking backgrounds showing a higher proficiency than those with parents of Tagalog

speaking background. The respective mean values for reading and writing are 2-00 and
 196

1.33 for the former type of respondents, while they were only 1.50 for reading and

1.00 for writing in the latter type.

The higher mean values yielded by students whose parents a¡e of NTSB imply

that, \ilhile they may use the language of their respective mothers at home, they also

manage to learn the TagaloglÏilipino language, largely because it acts as the lingua

language situation in the

franca of the Filipino community in Australia, arcphca of the
philippines. This finding suggests a determination among non-Tagalog background

Filipino parents þ preserve the national language of the Philíppines in Australia. It

should be noted that Tagalog/Fiþino is not taught at any Australian public or private

school and is n6t ex¿mined as a matriculation subject at the end of the secondary

school education as a formal subject, but is only taught in part-time "ethnic schools"

set up by voluntary bodies within the Filipino-Australian community (See Section on

ethnic schools in Chapter 2).

The small number of respondents who were involved inthese classes, however,

do not allow for definitive interpretation; what they do point to is that the proficiency

in TagalogÆilipino of the respondents from non-Tagalog background at least

approximates (or even exceeds) those from Tagalog background both for endogamous

and exogamous families.

 197

Table 2

Mean Proficiency of Filipino-Australian Students in the Use of Languages

Mean
Communication Activities Endogamous Exogamous TotÂl
N=17 N:16 N=33
Profïciency in Tagalog/ Xllipino...

rsp
Speaking 3.18 2.00 3.00
Reading 2.s0 1.50 2.33
Writing 2.30 1.00 2.08

NTSB
Speaking 3.60 2.00 3.00
Reading 3.7s 2.00 3.00
Writine 3.25 1.33 2.43
Profrciency in PLOT
TSB
Speaking 4.00 2.00 3.20
Reading 2.00 I.50 1,75
Writine 2.00 1.50 t.75
NTSB
4.25 3.75 4,O0
Spcaking
2.33 2.75 2.57
Reading
2.N 2.7s 2.43
mit'mc
TOTALfoT both TSB and NTSB
Mciencyin
Tagalog...
3.3 r 2.OO 3.0û
Speaking 2.86 r.80 2.58
Reading 1.20 2.21
2,57
Writing
Proficiency in
Pl,or..,
4.t4 3,t7 3.69
Speaking
2,20 2.33 2.27
Reading
2.00 2.33 2.18
Writine

hvficìency ìn the Use of PLOT

With regard to speaking PLOT, the proficiency levels arnong the four

classification groupings seem to follow an expected pattern. Those from e¡dogamoqs

fa¡ilies appeared to be more proficient. The respondents with one Filipino parent

being of non-Tagatog background yielded the higher mefiI M=4.25) compared to

 198

those with Tagalog background parents (M:4.00) (Table 2). The respondents from

exggêm.ous families were observed to have lower proficiency (but nevertheless,

reasonably high proficiency); those whose mothers are of TagalogÆilipino background

were less proficient (M=2.00) than those with mothers of non-Tagalog background

(M:3.75). The observed proficiency in PLOT of some students with parents ooming

from Tagalog-speaking areas could be due to the faú that, in some households, either

the father or the mother originally came from non-Tagalog speaking a¡eas in the

Philippines and oocasionally activated their own language either within the family or

with ethnic peers, more particularly those from the same linguistic comrnunity.

The proficiency of the respondents in reading and writing both with reference

to the area of origin of parents and the type of marriage that they belong to is relatively

low. It is only to be expected that the respondents who are from the exogamous-

Tagaloglparerrt background yielded the lowest mean values-I.50- for both reading and

writing; while those whose parents were of non-Tagalog background yielded the

highest rnean values, M-2.75 for both reading and writing, even though they were in

exogamous households! These surprisingly high results claimed in PLOT are likely to

be indicativc of the realization by the Filipino mother of NTSB that in a mixed

marriage situation, there was no danger of her children (or herself) being deficient in

English but that there was a danger of her own language being compløely lost and that

special efforts were required to transmit it to her children. This hlpothesis is confirmed

by the researcher's discussions wíth the mothers concerned during his home visits. It

should be noted that in Australia there is a purcity, if not complete absencg of repdirrg
 200

Australia were also investigated among the Filipino-Australian parents. But while

English was not considered in relation to students' proficiency, considering their

exposure to it in and outside of the school situation, it was included in the assessment

ofparents' proficiency of languages. A summary offindings is presented in Table 3.

As e>cpected, all the respondents who came from the Tagalog-speaking area in

the Philippines could speak the TagalogÆilipino, language, as it was their mother

tongue (Tablo 3). Similarly, all those who came from non-Tagatog speaking af,eas,

except one, had the ability to speak Tagalog- In the case of the lattêr, they had to learn

Filipino when they were still in the Philippines, mainly through the school system

where both Tagalog/Filipiflo and English were languages of instruction (See Chapær

2).

The findings also suggest that the migrarion of Filipinos to Australi¿ is

relatively recent. In fact, the longest number of years of residence in tÌre country

arnong those who participated in the research is 24 years (R3). Not one among the

pareût respondents was born in Australia, a Srong indication that they had acquired

the Filipino language before they came.

With regard to Philippine languages other than Tagalog, only three parents who

c¿me from the Tagdog-speaking area had the ability to speak PLOT; one of these

knew Bicolano and Pampango (Rl9), while another one @29) knew only Pampafigo;

and the third (R2) l':new the \{aray language. In oontrasf all those who came from

non-Tagalog speaking areas indicaæd the ability to speak at least one of the languages

other than Tagalog indicating that the respondents were most likely to have lived in

their respective regiono in the Philippines prior to their arrival in Australia.

 201

Finally, all the respondents claimed to be able to speak English. Such data are

in line with the findings reported by Cþe and Kipp (1996). Prior to their exposure to

English in Australia, Fiþino immigrants are already generally equipped with the

English language, which they have learned in Philippine schools. With regard to their

educational qualifications, all of the respondents had substantial schooling in the

Philippines, mffiy of thern being degree holders. The lowest educational qualification

held by two respondents, was secondary education. This finding is also consistent with

the report of Cþe and Kipp (1996), which showed that Filipinos were shown to be

among those immigrants to Australia who had the highest level of educational

qualifications.

Table 3

Distribution of Filipino-Australian Parents in Terms ofKnowledge oflanguages

Laneuase and abiliwto soeak Frequencv (Respondent No.) Fer cent

Tagalog
Yes 32 97
No l (R6) 3
No response 0 0
Total 33 100

2l 63.6
No 3 (R4, Rl4. Rl6) 9.1
9 (Rl, R3, R5, R8, R9,
No resDonse R10, R15, R23, R24) 27.3
Total t) 100.00

33 100.00
No 0 0
No response 0 0
Tû.AI 33 100.00
*Philþine languag{Ð other than Tagalog
 202

Parents' Proficiency Ín the Use of the Three Languages

When asked "how well" the parents could use these languages concerned,

majority of therr¡ both from Tagalog and non-Tagatog backgrounds, reported

proficiency ranging from 'þood" to 'excellent" in speaking, reading and writing in

TagaloglFilipino. (See Table a). The respective mean values (3.88, 4.27, and 4.14 for

those who are of Tagalog background and 3.64, 4.29, and 4.17 for those who are of

non-Tagalog background; all indicate'tery good" proficiency. (See Table 4)

However, there were four individuals from non-Tagalog background who

scored low (2 and I on the proficiency scale) in speaking TagalogÆilipino, as opposed

to none for Tagalog background respondents. These results inplY that, with some

exceptions, knowledge, and proficiency in the use of Filipino language extends beyond

Tagalog afeas, at least a¡nong the better-educated peoplo in the Philippines.

In relation to other Philippine languages (PLOT), the results showed disparity

between the two groups, While the majority of those who came &om non-Tagalog

speaking areas claimed they were "excellent" in speaking, reading, and uniting in their

respective languages (M=4.00, for speaking and writing and 4.40 for reading-all

indicating very good proficiency), onlY a few from the Tagalog speaking area

perceived themselves to havç skills in PLOT. Only two respondents claimed

"excellence" in speaking reading, and writing PLOT.

The decrease in the number claiming excellent to good proficiency in reading

and writing, as opposed to speaking PLOT, among parents from non-Tagalog speaking

areas is clearly relatcd to the fact that the study of their respective languages was
 203

excluded from the Philippine school curriculum (See Chapter 2). At most, they are

used as auxiliary languages in the first two grades ofthe elementary school level.

With regard to proficiency in the use of English, all the respondents from the

Tagaloe,speaking arqa, except one (R23), have'þood" to "excellent" proficiency in

the three communication activities. The mean values (3.60, 3.87, and 3.60 for

speaking reading, and writing, respectively) indicate very good proficiency in these

communication skills. This observatiort is also true for the respondents from the non-

lagalog speaking areas with mean values of 4.00, 4.33, and 3.93 for speaking, reading

and writing.

Table 4

Dígribution and Mean of Filipino-Australian Parents in tlre

Profi ciçncy of Language Use

Language No. Of cases of TB with No. the

Communication the observed proficiency
Activities N= l7 Mean Mean
5 4 ? 2 I J 4 3 2 I

Tasalos
Speaking 6 4 4 2 3.88 6 .} I 2 2 3.64
Reading 9 3 2 I 4,27 7 6 1 4.29
Writing 7 3 3 I 4.t4 7 2 2 I 4.t7

PLOT
Speaking t I 2 4.00 8 5 2 4.40
Reading I 3 4.40 8 3 I 2 4.21
Writing 2 2 I 4.00 8 2 I 2 I 4.00

Enslirh
Speakine J 4 7 I 5 6 3 I I 4.00
Reading 5 4 5 I 8 4 3 4.33
Writing 3 5 5 2 5 4 6 3.93

Proûciency scale value:

I - Poor 4 -Verygood
2 - Fair 5 - Excellent
3 - Good
 204

It is interesting to note that the proportion of those coming from non-Tagalog

speaking areas who håve "excellent''proficiency in English is much larger than those

from the Tagalog-speaking areas. It may be mentioned that most of the respondents of

the former type are Cebuano speaking who, later results show, have generally'þoor"

attitudes towards TagalogÆilipino (See Chapter 6). Although Tagalog/ Filipino fulfills

the role of a lingua franca among nlost of the Filipino-Australians, its function as a

medium of communication among Filipínos in Australia is being eroded by the

arnbivalent attitudes of some of the NTSB parents towards that language (see Table

21) and their easy acçess to English. This group of respondents (mostly of Cebuano

background) generally prefers to communicate in English rather than in Tagalog,

resulting in a greater activatio'n of English and in an increasing number of domains.

Only two (R30, R3l) of the NTSB respondents claimed lower proficiency

C'fai/') in writing and speaking, respectively. All others perceived their proficienoy in

the thnee communiçation activities from *good" to "excellent." Consideration of the

concrète fasts shows that the three respondents who endorsed only 'Îlir" proficienoy

in any or all of the three communication activities have only reached high school

çducation. Considering that all th¡ee respondents have already been in Australia for

some length of time--seven years for two respondents (R 23 and R30) and three years

for R31-it could be infened that mere exposure to the English languagg especially

whe,n the immersion happens at a later stage in life, is not a guaraûtee of competence in

its use. This could be observed among other economic migrants and refirgees who

came from different netional origins i¡t Asia, as well as from Europe, and did ûot have

any exposure to English be,fore they came to Australia.

 205

ACTIVATION OF LANGUAGES

After the analysis of language knowledge and proficiency, the second variable

that was investigated was the activation of languages, as indicated by the frequency of

language usage of both the Filipino-Australian parents and children in the different

communication activities, namely, speaking, reading, and writing. In the oase of the

children, usage of FilipinoÆagalog and PLOT; in the case of parents, Filipino[Iagalog,

PLOT, and English.

Filipino-Australian Students' Frequency of Language Use

A s age of TagøIog/Filípino

The results presented in Table 5 show that the 16 students, who came from

endogamous famìlies and who claimed to have knowledge in Filipino, use the language

in varying degreas of ftequency (M= 3.82, 2.30, and 2.0 n speaking, reading, and

writing, respectively). While the larger concentration of respondents both from TSB

and NTSB claimed usage of TagatogÆilipino from "sometimes" to "always" in

speaking; it was only from "sometimes" to "never" in reading and ín writing. These

observatione are evidenced by the larger mean values in speaking (3.82 from TSB and

3.40 f¡om NTSB) compared to the mean values in reading and in writing which a¡e

2.30 and 2.00 for those of Tagalog background and 215 n both communication

activities for the non*Tagalog background students.

The results suggest that the activation of the Filipino language is relatively more

often among the respondents of TSB in speaking, while in reading ¿nd in writing, those

ofNTSB show greater activatiorr,

 206

The Tagalog language is also used (although minimally) among some few

respondents in exogamous family households. Of interest are the higher mean values

yielded by respondents of NTSB in all communication activities which indicated more

activation than those of TSB.

Table 5

Frequency Distribution and Mean of Fiþino-Australian

Students' Language Usage

Mean exo Mean

5 4 3 2 I 5 4 3 2 I

2 5 4 3.82 I I 2.s0
3 7 I 2.30 I I 1.50
2 6 2 2.00 2 1.00

I 4 3.40 I I I 3.33
1 2 1 2.75 3 2.00
I 2 I 2.73 2 I t.67

PLOT

I I I 4.00 2 3.00
1 I 3.00 1 I 2.AO
I I 3.00 I I r.50

qpeaking n I I 4.25 2 I I I 3.80

I I I 3.00 2 2 t 2.20
reading
1
writing I I 3.00 3 I I 2.40
Legend:
5 - Alwayr Note: "Alwayg" signifiee constant use within a particular
4 -Often (Anelo or Filipino) milieu and does not úean
3 - Sometimes an exclusive usage, limitedto one particular language.
2 - Seldom
I - Never
 207

Table 5-A

Filipino-Australian Str¡dents' Average Frequency of Use of

Philippine Languages

Mean Frequoncv ofUse

Languages and
Endogamous Exogamous Total
C ommunication Activities
N=17 N= 16 N:33
Tagalog

3.31 2.00 3.00

2.86 1.80 2.58
2.57 t.20 2.27

PLOT

4.t4 3.17 3.69

2.20 2.33 2.27
2.00 2.33 2.tE

The use ofFilipinolTagalog in reading is not as frequent as in speaking. Among

the respndents from the endogamous family householdg only one (Rl7) says that she

activatcs the language "oftentimes" in reading. All the rest are concentratçd in the

categories nsometirnçs" and "never." This observation is also true in the exogamous

familios. Tagalog/Filipino is only seldom used in reading by four (4) respondents (one

from TSB and three fromNTSB).

The dwindlirrg utilization of the Filipino language is much more observed in

writing where only one (Rl7) utilizes it 'oftentimes;" four (R12, Rl4, R15, R21) ,

"sometime¡;n and 6 (R5, Rl0, Rl9, R33, R23, R24't, "seldom."

From the exogamous families, there were two (R7, R25) who claimed

"seldom"utilization of tho Filipíno language in uniting

 208

Usage of PLOT.
'a

There were a few respondents who endorsed their activation of PLOT. From

the endogamous farnily households, one respondernt (R27) activated the Cebuano

language "always" (rn the Cebuano linguistic contort) in terms of speaking, reading

and writing. (It may be merrtioned that "always" is interpreted here to mean çonstânt

use of the languagg not solely but alongside the use of EngllÐ. Another respondent

(R26) also claimed to speak the Cebuano language "âlwðys" but never used it in

reading and in writing. In an analogous manner, other respondents also used a PLOT

frequently in speaking, but not in reading and rrrriting. The mean activation is 4.0 in

speaking and 3.0 for both reading and witing.

In thc exogamouF families, the rospective means in speaking reading, and

writing are 3.0, 2.0, and 1.50 (Table 5). From these tlpes of family households, two

female respondørts (R13 and R25) used the Cebuano language 'alway$" in speaking,

but only "sometimes" in reading and in writing. Another two respondents (R 7 and

R3l) also used the Cebuano language "oftentimçsn in speaking but never usod the

language in reading and in uniting. The other Philippine language activated

"sometimçs" in speaking and in reading is Pampango (R29), but only 'seldom" in

writing.

the findings both in the endogamous and the exogamous family housçholds

consistently show that the languages, be they Tagalog/Filipino or other Philippine

languages, ar€ utitized most frequently in the oral communioation ectivity. The
utilization is less in roading and le¿st in writing.
 209

The lesser utilization of the Philippine languages in reading could basically be

explained by the fact that reading materials in Filipino, let alone in other Philippine

languages, are not readily available in Australia. Even the Philippine dailies that are

shelved a week late at the Adelaide State Library are written in English. It is probable

that the only time these students are able to aocess to reading materials written in any

of the Philippine languages is when they are taught some rudiments of the Filipino

language in part-time "ethnic schools", when they are learning some Filipino songs, or

when they receive letters from their relatives in the Philippines (presuming their

relatives do not write in English).

The minimal opportunities to utilize any of the Philippine larrguages in reading

may not exist at all in relation to writing. Even writing to relatives in the Philippines,

which is the most likeþ activity, is tnore often done in English.

Filiptno-Australian Parents' Frequency of Lenguage Usc

The information on the pæents' frequency of use of the different languages was

also categorized according to the areas where the respondents resided in the

Philippines prior to migration and the type of marriage in which they were involved in.

(See Table 6)

U sag e of Tagalog/Filìpíne.

The concentration of thc respondents, who are of Tagalog backgrounds, and

who belong to endogamous families, in the use of Filipino is towards *oftentirnes" to

"always" in all connnunication activities.

 2to

Table 6

Frequency of Filipino-Australian Parents' Usage

N-33
CorudÐication Obse,rved ca¡es frorn Tagolog4eaking areas with Observed cases frm nm-Tagalog ryeaking areas wirhthe
Aaivilies indiferent the frmueaq, ofuse ûequ€ncry ofus€
lanzuasgs J 4 3 2 t J 4 3 I

ENDOIGAMOUS
N-I7
ΡmlosÆllidno

Speaking, I,15, t4 lo 18,10,21, 12, t7 27

24-5.34 t9-23 33.26.28
8,t4, 12,21, 18,27
Readhg 5, 15 24,34 10 t7
19.23 33 28
14,15, 12,17, 18,27
Writing 34 10,19 8
2t,24 21 28,33
PLOT
t7,L8, 11,25
Speaking 34 l9 27,n
26,tO
2t,3t
t2

rz18 t2,2f
Reading l9 34 26 30
28.33
12,t8
Wriring 19 34 t7,rÁ 2t-2433
Eng[sh
r4,15, 19,23, r2,r72618
Speaking 5,&10 27
24 33 21,2830,t3
5,8,10, 12,t7,18,21,
Reading 14,19, l5 23,33 26, 30
24 27.28,33
8,10, 17,18,21,26
Writing 14,r9 15,33 23 t7
24 -27.28.33
Ð(OGAMOUS
N:ró 11,22,25
T?qatoe/Fltni¡ro 2,29 I,l6 3,4 7
31,32
6

&eakittg
Readins 4-16-29 3 7 25 32 6-22
Wríthe 4.t6.29 1.3 7 32 6_25
PLOT 7,11, 69,
29 tI,25
Soeakinp tt.32 20-22
22,25"3
Readine 29 6

6,13,2
Writing 29 l1 22,32
5

6,7.9,11,
Enr[slr 22,25,3r, 11,20
1,2,3,4 16,29
Speaking
32
6,7,9,tt,
Reading I,2),4 l6 29 t8,2Ã,22,
2s3t32
6,79,1r,
Writhg t,23,4 16 29
20-25.f\ 22,32 l3
f€ge{tú 5 -Always Note: "Always" sigrifies constant use within a particular
4 -Ofte,r (Anglo or Filipino) milieu and does not mean an exclusive u$age,
3 - Sometimes limited to orre particular laÍguage
2 - Seldom
l -Never
 2tt

Table 6-A

Filipino-Australian Parents' X'requency of Language(s) Usage

Language and Communication Mean Frequencv of Uee

Activities Endogamous Exogamous Total
Tasalos speakins backuround ffSB) n=17 n=16 N=33
TagalogÆilþino
Speaking 4.00 3.17 3.71
Reading 3.40 2.75 3.21
Writing 3.44 2.80 3.21
PLOT
Speaking 3.50 3.00 3.40
Reading t.75 1.00 1.60
Writing 1.50 3.00 1.80
English
Speaking 4.36 4.67 4.47
Reading 4.00 4.50 4.r9
Writins 4.64 4.50 4.59
Non-Tagaloe soeakinq hacksround. (NTSB)
TagaloglFilipino
Speaking 4.17 3.44 3.73
Readtng 3.00 3.20 3.10
Writing 2.40 2.60 2.50
PLOT
Speaking 4.t7 4.22 4.20
ftsariing 2.17 3.25 2.60
Writing 2.33 3.17 2.75
English
Speaking 4.83 4.78 4.80
Reading 4.50 4.M 4.47
Writine 5.00 5.00 5.00
Total Resoondents
Tagalog
SPeaking 3.72
Reading 3.16
Writing 2.92
PLOT
Spoaking 4.00
Reading 2.27
Writing 2.47
English
Speaking 4.63
Reading 4.32
Writing 4.78
 212

Three respondents (R24, R5, and R34) "always" use Filipino in speaking; two (R15,

R5) in reading; and one (R34) in writing (Table ó). The corresponding mean values are

4,O0,3.40, and3.44 for speaking, reading and writing respectively (Table 6-A).

Among the parents who are of non-Tagalog speaking backgrounds, it is only in

speaking that a large proportion shows frequent usç of TagalogÆilipino. Six (R18,

R21, R28, R26, R30, R33) use Filipino in speaking "always;" two (R12 also Rl7) use

it "oftentimes." In reading and in writing, their responses are concentrated in the

categories "sometimes" and "seldom."

In the exogarqous households, TagalogÆilipino is "sometimes' or "seldom"

used in speaking by the respondertts from both the Tagalog and non-Tagalog speaking

areas (mean values for speaking, reading, and writing are 3.'13, 3.10, and 2.50,

respectively (Table 6 and 6-A). However, there is one (R7) from the NTSB who use

TagaloglFilipino 'oahvays" in the three communication activities and one (R25) utilizes

it 'bftentimos" in reading. Likewise, two (R2 and R29) use Filipino 'bftentimes in

speaking.

Usage ü PLOT.

With regard to the use of other Philippine languages, only two parents (R19,

R34) from among those who oome from the Tagalog-speaking arca, and are classified

as endogamous, use other Philippine languages, although at a minimal level only. One

respondent (R19) uses Bicolano "seldom" in speaking, reading and in writing while

another (R34) "sometimes" uses Pampango and Bicolano, but only in speaking.

Even among those who come from non-Tagalog speaking areas, only four

(R17, Rl8, R27, R28) "always" use their respective languages, namely, Waray,
 2t3

Pampango, Cebuano and Bicolano in speaking; two (R26, R30), "oftentimes", four

(Rll, R2l, R25, R33), "sometimes"; and one (Rl2), "seldom." Few of the

respondents use their respective languages in reading-- R 26, "oftentimeso'; R30,

"sometimes"; R 17, Rl2, and R27, "seldom." Two respondents (R17, R26) use their

respective languages'bftentimes" in writirtg. Four respondents (R12, R2l, R2E, and

R33) explicitly stated they "neve/' used their respective languages in reâding and

writing. However, when the mean values for endogamous and exognmous families of

Tagalog speaking background (TSB) respondents are combined, the respective mean

indicators for speaking, reading, and writing ue 3.40, I.60, and 1.80 (Table 6-A).

The results yielded by the TSB respondents from endogamous households in

the use of Filipino (prezumed to be their mother tongue) showed that everybody

claimed to have used the language in all three communioation activities with mean

values 4.0,3-40, and3.44 (See Table 6 and 6-A). The same situation applies to NTSB

respondents, but only in relation to speaking (M- 4.17), since majority of them stated

that th€y never read and write in PLOT and that the mean values for these two

communication activities are 2.17 and 2.33, respectiveþ (Table 6 and 6-A).

In the case of the respondents from exogarnous households, PLOT is more

generally activated by NTSB parents compared to the activation of Filipino by TSB

parefits. Four respondents (R7, R13, R3l, and R32) use their respective languages

"always" in speaking and one in writing. Those who use it *oftentimes" are four (R6,

R9, R20, and R22) in speaking; three (R22, R25, R32) in reading; and two ß22,

R32) in writing. The high dogree of PLOT usage among NTSB parents (the mothers'

presumed home tongue) from exogarnous households exceeds the usage of Tagalog
 214

arnong mothers from exogamous households of TSB. The corresponding rnean values

for speaking, reading, and writing arc 4.22,3,25, ød 3.17 for PLOT and 3.44,3.?ß,

and2.60 for TagalogÆilipino (Table ó and 6-A).

Usage of English

In the use of English, the figures show that almost all the NTSB respondents

(both ftom endogamous and exogamous households) use the English language

"always" in speaking, reading and writing (with means of 4.8, 4.47, and 5.0,
respectively) (Tables 6 and 6-A). Those from the Tagalog speakíng area, on the other

hand, are fairþ distributed among the categories "sorn€times" to 'oalways" in all
communication activities (exeept for one respondent [R17] reporting "seldom" in

writi"g). The coresponding mean values for TSB in English usage are 4,47,4,19, and

4.29 (Table 6-A).

The higlt regard for English among NTSB was also observed in the Philippines

itself amorrg student respondents especially in the case of Cebuano students (Chapter

6). But in the Philippines, the frequency of use in English is not at the expense of the

vernacular, at least in the case of speaking.

These results show that while English is the acceptable medium of

communication in exogarnous households, there are still those who manage to maintain

their own Philippine languages whether TagalogÆilipìno or PLOT. This is evidenc€d

by some student respondents who have 'þood" to 'oexcellent" knowledge of their

parents' respec'tive languages.

 2t5

DOMAINS OF LANGUAGES

For the purpose of this stndy, domains are defined in torms of interlocutors in

the case ofboth parents and students- The interlocutors are grouped into three sets for

students: par€nts, brothers/sisters, relatives/friends and four sets for the parents:

husband¡wife, parents (this refers to students' gfandparents), ethnic peers, and

children.

Filipino-Austrelíen Student¡' Language Use to Differcnt Inter{ocutors

The respons€s to the question to whom the students speak Filipino, and

possibly other Philippine languages, is presented in lable 7.

Endogutms hoaseholds. Among the 14 students ftom endogarnous families,

four speak Filipino to their parents oalways" and five, "oftentimes". All the rest use it

with their parents either "sometimes" or nseldom." These results show that even in

cases where the parents are both Filipinos, Filipino is not the language alweys used by

the children in cornmunicating with them. According to the qualitative descriptions

assigned (See Chapter 4), the mean values in this case indicate that children use

Filipino to their pârents ofterúímes (M:3.90) and sometimes to their brothers and

sisters M=3.09) and to their relatives/friends (M=3.20).

It may be mentiorted that some of these children ftom endogamous Filipino

households were born in Australia and that most of thcm actually fed more

comfonable wíth Engligh than with Filipino. Even those who just recently arived

claimed that they did not límit their conversation to Filipino or PLOT and that they

have to ôpeak English in order to improve their owr\ as well as their parents' English
 216

communication skills. As many respondents put it, "usíng English at homo allows my

parerrts and myselfto practice speaking the English language."

The minimal use of Filipino at sorn€ homes is also a function of the parents'

aspirations that their children assimilate more thorouglrly irtto the Australian

mainstream society. As one mother explained, nI do not want my son to be different

from other Australians and to make him feel disadvsntaged and discriminated against."

Talking to their brothers and/or sisfers in Filipino is even less observed. From

emong the I I respondents who claimed they talk to thcir brothers and sisters in

Filipino, only four did so eíther "always" or "oftentimos." This observation is under-

stable. Researches have shown that children of immigrant families, at leæt integrate,

othçrs assimilate readily into the culture of the host society.

Table 7

Frequency of Filipino-Australian Students' Use of Philippine

Languages to Different Intedocutors
N=33
Language No. Of cases with the froquørcy Naof casos with tho frequency of use
And of use ûom endocamous åmilies froûtr exosaÍrousåmilies
Inæ¡locr¡torc J 4 3 2 I 5 4 3 2 I
Tasalos
Parents 4 5 3 2 I 2

Brothers/
Sisærs
Rel¡tives/
Frienrds
PLOT
Par€flts 4 I 5 1 I 1
Brclrers/
Sisterg 1 I 1 2 I 1 I
Rolatives/
Friends I I I I 2 2 3
Sc¿le v¿lue:
5 - Always ./-Often 3-Sometimes Z-Seldom /-NevEr
 217

Table 7-A

Filipino-Australian Students' Average Frequency of Use of

Phiþpine Languages in the Different Domains

Mean Frequenoy ofUse

Interlocutors
Endogamous Exogamous Total

Tagalog

Pa¡ents 3.93 2.00 3.6r

brothers/sisters 3.09 2.00 2.92
relatives/friends 3.20 3.00 3.16

PLOT

Parents 4.57 3.57 4.07

brotherdsisters 3.50 ?.20 J.JJ
relatives/friends 4.00 3.00 3.58

Exogamous householÃs. The situation in the exogamous families

demonstrated, as expected, a much greater language strift from Filipino to English. The

use of the Filipino language is only "seldom," or utmosf "sometimes" observed. But

while the extensive use of a minority ethnic language among second generation

students from exogamous families is known to be much more limited than for

endogamous families for virtually all minority ethnic gfoups in Australia (Clyne, 1991;

1997), this docs not exolude the possibility of cases arising that show strong lang¡rage

maintenance phenomenon. This research has demonstrated a half a dozen students of

non-Tagalog speaking background (NTSB) who have succeeded in maintaining their

home language (PLOT). Our ñndings reveal that four sildents (2 males and2 fernales)

used their respective mothers' language "ahvays,n and one male student used the
 2t8

language "oftentimes." The male respondents spoke Cebuano and Bicolano, while the

female respondents spoke Waray and Cebuano.

Several implications can be derived from these results. One is that, wherever

supportive conditions are provided, the mother tongue will continue to exist. This is,

firstly, because of the facility of the language, especially in the endogamous families

where both parents and the children have the wide latitude of opportunities to use the

language. Secondly, it has been observed during the home visits that there are students

and parents who felt a relief in speaking their own language from the tension they

experienced in speaking English always either at school or at work.

There were also parents, who showed their strong attachments to their Filipino

heritagg which could be demonstrated by a number of student respondents who

claimed they "always" or "oftentimes" used the Filipino language. Although not one

arnong the respondents who come from the exogarnous families claimed to talk to their

parents in Tagalog/Filipino "alwayl," there were four female respondents from

exogamous families who spoke the language of their respective mothers (FLOT)

"always." Two of these were born in the Philippines, and were adopted daughters of

the Anglo-Australian husbands, while the other two were natural dauglrters of non-

Filipino fathers--one a Belgian-Australian and the other an Anglo-Australian father. All

four ofthese respondents spoke Cçbuano.

The two male respondents, one of whom spoke "ahveys" and the other

"oftentimesn wer€ each the son of an Anglo-Austrahan and a Danish-Australian father,

respectively. Both these respondents also spoke Cebuano.

 219

Two of the respondents (Rl6-M and Rl3-F) who spoke to their mother in

Cebuano "always," also spoke to their brothers/sisters "always," while another

respondent (R25-F) talked to relatives also in Cebuano "ahvays."

When the activation of TagalogÆilipino and other Philippine languages @LOT)

are compared in exogamous and endogamous households, it appears that

TagalogÆilipino is given less importance than PLOT. The combined mean (M-*) for

the use of Filipino is 3.61, 2.92, and 3.16 in use with parents, brothers/sisters and

relativeVfriends, respectively. The use of PLOT is indic¿ted by the means of 4.07,

3.83, and 3.38 for these interlocutors (See Table 7-A).

The aspirations of Filipino parents to maintain their language(s) in the Australian

context, at least in the home domain, can be viewed as being 'lat crossroads." If the

mothers use the language more frequentþ to communicatg at least with their childrer¡

they risk negative reactions from those who do not understand the language, more

particularly, their husbands in exogamous households. They could be accused of being

inconsiderate or impolite. On the other hand, if they put Filipino or other Philippine

languages aside, in consideration for others, they oould be misunderstood to be

throwing away their ethnic heritage which, from the perspective of one respondent

(Rl8), was so bad as to merit a tçm "murderous."

The substantial number of respondents (especially those from the exogamous

families) who revealed minimal use of the Philippine language(s) to any of the three

sets of interlocutors, shows that the use of Filipino or any other Philippine language,

even in the home domain, is considerably reduced sometimes to nothing. the home is

obviousþ the best &venue to preserve the tradition of thc Filipino intmigrants, more
 224

specifically, languagg in a host country like Australia. There areo however, some
families who choose to lay aside their mother tongue in order, as they see it, to
enhance their communication skills in the lingua franca of the mainstream society (in

this case, English) through its constant use even in their endogamous Filipino homes.

Filipino-Australian Parcnts' Language Use to Different fnterlocutors

In a multicultural society like Australia, decisions on what language to use and

who speaks what language are very crucial. The results of the Filipino-Australian

parents'language choice with interlocutors are presented i¡ Table 8.

Endogarnous hoaseholds. In the endogamous family households, majority of

respondents from the Taealog:speakinåbagkground (TSB) said they used Filipino in

talkingto their husbandg parents, peers, and children "always." Some respondents,

however, claimed to use Filipino in talking to their husbands and children at a lesser

frequency. Two respondents (R8, R23), for example, claimed they used Filipino in

talking to their husbands 'bftentimes" which means that at other tirnes, thcy used other

languages, one ofwhich was English. In talking to children, one (Rl5) claimed that she

uses Filipino'bftentimes" and two (R14, R23) said they used it "sometimes."

In contras! the situation in households with parenrts corning Êom¡gnilggdg&

çÊeaking baçkgound (NTSB) understandably revealed less utilization of the Filipino

language. In talking to thcir husbands and childrcn, the utilieation runs through the

continuum of "sometimes" to "always' although only threo signiñed the latter

ftequency of use. In talking to ethrric peers, the range was from 'bfteritimes to

"always," with more respondents than in the family situations endorsing these
 221

Table I
Filipino-Australian Parents' Activation of Languages with Different Interlocutors*

Frequcrcy of language use of Tagolog bacþround Frequeic¡t of langu.age use of nur-TagalOg

respmdents backgrowd reqmdarts
ENDOG,4MOUS N-17 N:16
5 4 3 2 I 5 4 3 t I
Tagalog 5,10,14r5 8,23,2
Husbar¡d/wife 18,2t 27
.t9.24 8
19,23,
Parents
24

Etbnicpeers
1,4,t5,19,23
28
t8,2t,
12,33
24.30.33 26
5,10, 2t,to,
Childrsr
19"u
l5 t4,23
33,
t2L28 rzl8
PLOT
Husb¿nd¡rrvife
l9 18,27 12,28 2t
Parents l9 28 12
Etlmicoeers 19.28 26 18.30"33 2t t2
17,26,
Childrea 19,28
30
27 l8 t2 2l
Engtsh 14,ts,
12 18, 27,
5 8 19,23,
Husband/wifo 2428
30 2l 33

Psr€fltr
t9,2r,
8 2E 30 t2
24
19,23, 17,26, r8,21,
Élmiopeøs l4 8 t5 t2 77
24 33 30
Childrql t4
8,24, 15,19 t7,2t,
18,26 t2
28 2l 27-33
ÐTOGÁMOTTS
Tagalog
Husband¡l¡ifo
29 ll
Parents 29 4 1
Etlmicpeers 4,29 I,l6 3 7,9,20 32
r r,l3
22-25
Childrqr t6 29 7 3t.32 lr
PL(}T
25
HushmdÁrfü
Pargr$ 29 7.13 6.27
Elbnricpees 29
tt2a 6,e,t32
6,7,25
31 2^t2
Childre¡r 25.31 7,tt tt.N
79,rt
English 22,25,
1,3,429
Hu¡band/wife 13,20,
?1.32
Parqús 3 4-29 7.22
Etluicoeers 3.16.4 29 7.25 ll 22
7,9,tt
Child¡eri t,3,4,29 l6 20,22 13,25
-32 3l
Iægend:
ilhe figures in the table refer to the idÞntiûìng numbers assigned to each respondent @)

categories--three in the former and four in the latter-- showing that the Filipino
language is the medium of communication among adult Filipinos in Australia. All th€

parent respondents in this type of households, exoept one (R28), did not use Filipino in
 )1)

talking to their own parents. It caq therefore, be assumed that they use their respective

Philìppine languages (PLOT) or English when communicating with their own parents.

This is evidenced by the findings shown in the same table where one respondent (R 28)

used her own language 'bftentimes" and English "sometirnes" in talking to parents

while another respondent (R30) used English'bftentimes." It should also be noted that

the use of languages other than Tagalog by the respondents who came from non-

Tagalog speaking areas \¡vas not as evident as the use of Filipino in households where

the parents come from the Tagalog-speaking area. Only two respondørts @18, R27)

"always" used their respective languages (PLOT) in talking to their husbands; one

(R26) to ethnic peers; and three (R17, R26, R30) to their children. All these

respondents, except one (R30), who used Bicolano, spoko Cebuano.

With regard to the use of English among respondeuts from non-Tagalog,

speaking areas, nobody used it "always" in talking to husbands and parents; at most,

they 'bftentimes" used it. But in talking to ethnic peers, three (R17, R26, R33)

signified they "always" usçd it; one (R12); "oftentimes;" three (R18, Rzl, R30),
"sometimes;" and one (R27) "seldornl'. In talking to their childrer¡ two (R18, R26)

claimed they "always" used Ënglish; another two (R12, R18) claimed they used it

'bftentimes"; and five (R17, R21,R27,R30, R33) claimed they "seldom" used it.

Some variations a¡e observed in the use of the respondents' respective

languages to the different interlocutors. For example, while Respondent 26 consistently

used Tagalog "always" in talking to ethnic peers and children, two respondents (R17

¿nd R33) used English "always" to çthnic pe€rs, but not to their children with whom

they communicatcd in English "sometime$." On the othor hand, while Respondent l8

 223

communicated with husband and øhnic peers in English "sometimesr" she used English

to her children "always." This trend is also obserrved among the respondents coming

from the Tagalog speaking area, a clear indication of the heterogeneity of the group in

handling the language situation.

Table 8-A

Mean Frequency oflanguage Activation to Different Interlocutors

Among Filipino-Australian Parents

Mean Frequency ofUse

Domains
Endosamous Exogamous Total

Tagnlog

Husbanûwife 4.53 2.00 4.20

Pa¡ents 4.00 4.00 4.00
Ethnic peers 4.83 3.62 4,20
Children 2.93 2,67 3.55

PLOT

Husband/wife 2.50 3.00 2.6t

parents 2.67 4.17 3.67
ethnic peers 3.50 3.70 3.61
children 3.75 3.75 3.75

English

husbanüwife 3.21 5.00 4.07

parents t.20 3.33 2.36
ethnic poers 3.60 3.89 3,7t
children 4.53 4.50 4.00
 224

Exøgømous households. In oxogamous households, Fitipino was much less

used, It was only in talking to parents and to ethnic peers that a good number made

use of Filipino, both among the respondørts coming from the Tagalog- and non-

Tagalog-speaking areas. With regard to using the Philippine languages (PLOT),

however, more activation is obsorved. Their respective languages are more ofren used

in talking to their parents, ethnic peers, and children. In fect, one r€spondent (R25)

clairned she sometimes used her own language to her hu$and (Table S). This is also

donc by one respondent from the Tagalog speaking area who claimed she occasionally

did this. This situation is open to further investþation. Difficulty ín English language

does not adequateþ oxplain the situ¿tion since both respondents reached the tertiary

level of education. Two possibilities can be pursued, One could be that tho respondørts

a^re trying to teach their husbands their own Philippine language in preparation for

planned holidays in the Philippines, which is always of primary consideration for these

migrants. Another could be that they just want th€ir own language to be recognizd

like any other languages, in agreem€nt with Trudgill's (1975) proposition that 'there

are trl linguistic reasons for saying that any languagc is zupøior to any other. All

languages, that is, are equally good."

With regard to the English language, it is definitely used "always" by all

respondents in both groups in talking to their husbands and by the majority in talking

to their children. Some few responderits (Rló, Rl3, R25, and R3l) use the English

language to their children only "sometimes" (Table 8).

In talking to parents and ethnic peers, the language usage is very similar in both

TSB and NTSB groups of respondents. Generally thereforg whatever one's original
 225

linguistic background, the use of English in talking to ethnic peers and parents is not

very frequelrt.

OVERALL PATTERNS OF LANGUAGE USE

The typology dweloped by Ammon (1939: 73-76) provided a basis for the data

to be further analyzed as to whether there is sole or co-activation of any one or all the

languages in the different domains. Ammon's typology was expandêd, however, to

categonze those who co-activated the language in any of the domains in terms of how

the languages interacted with one another. The following patterns were wolved:

dominance of any one language over two 'equally' less used, dominance of any one

languags in a hierarchically ordered fashiorq 'equal' dominance of ¡vo languages over

one less used, and a balanced use of all three languages.

Filipino-Australien Students' Overall Patterns of Language Use

Among the students, only the use of rwo languages (FilipinoÆagalog and any

other PLOT) was investigated in the questionnaire. English language use with different

interlocutors was not investigated. Hencæ, tlte analysis of the patterns of linguistic
interaction between the languages was limited to these two languages.

Enhganous households. Table 9 shows that from the endogamous family

households with parents originating from the Tagatos-spçaking, area,s in thç

Philippines, the majority reported sole activation of TagalogÆiþino with parents,

brotherVsisters, and relatives/friends. Two respondents (R10 and R30) reported co-

activation of Tagalog and PLOT where one of tbe respondents (R l0) was Tagalog
 226

dominant with parents, while being PLOT dominant with relativeVfriends; another

respondent (R 30) had a balanced use of Tagalog and PLOT.

Table 9

Filipino-Australian Students' Overall Patterns of Language Use

(Filipino/Tagalog and PLOT) with Differerrt Interlocutors
Sole Activation Co-Activation
Respondent
Tagalog PLOT Balanced Use
Grouping and
Tacaloc/Fili¡ino PLOT Dominant Dminmt
Inted@ütor
Res. No. f Res.No. f Res No. f Res.No. f Res.No, f

8,I4,15,19 l0 I 30 I
23,2428,
33,5 9
b. brothers/sisters 14,15,19,
23,24,5 6
c. relativeV 8,14,15,19 10 I
friends 232428,
30"33.5 10
NTSB
a. paf€nts
b. brotherV 12,2t 2 26,27 2 17 1 18 I
sist€rs
c. relatived 12,21 2 26,27 2 t7 I l8 1
friends
t22r 2 27 I 26 I 17.18 2

1629 2

t62e 2

,tç
I
l3 I 20,31 2 25 I
202s,
3l 3

l3 I 2025 2
l.[o. of reryondents: Endogamous - l7 Exogamous - 16
TSB = 1l TSB -6
NTSB = ó NTSË = l0

The occurrence of respondents who used both Tagalog and PLOT cÐn be

explained by the fact that some of the respondents who reported that they came from

Tagalog speaking areas had at lcas one of the parents coming from non-Tagalog
 227

speaking areas so that, to some extent, the PLOT was also utilized in the home in

addition to Tagalog.

The students whose parents came from no¡-Tagalog areas in the Philþpines

are fairly distributed in terms of language usage (Table 9). While there were those with

sole use of PLOT (R 26 and R27) there were also others @12 and R21) who used

Tagalog solely in their interaction wíth parents, brothers/sisters, and relativeVfriends.

Still other respondents @17, R18, and R26) co-activate the languages with one

(R17) being PLOT dominant in talking to parents, brothers and sisters and another

(Rl8) showing a balanced use of Tagalog and PLOT with the above mentioned

interlocutors.

It may also be noted that while no respondent from thç endogamous

households whose parents came from Tagalog speaking areas reported the sole use of

pLOT with the 3 interlocutors, two respondents with parents from non-Tagalog

speaking areas decla¡ed the sole use of TagalogÆiliflno. These results show the

hegemony of Tagalog among the endogamous family households in Australi4

especially if one of the spouses comes from a Tagalog-speaking area in the Philippines.

Exogantous households, A common situation observed by the resçarcher was

that in endogamous households, in which one parent spoke only Tagalog and the othe'r

spoke both Tagalog and PLOT, Tagalog was the only Philippine language activated in

the family. In Gile's (1977\ theory of accommodation, this represents higtt

convergence. The theory, however, is not an adequate explanation considering that

even in ê¡ogamous family households where no spouse needs to be convetged with in

regard to Philippine languages, there is also an oçrcufience of the sole use of Tagalog
 228

with parents and with relatives/friends of a respondent (Rl3) whose mother is of a

non-Tagalog speaking background.

As observed, some mothers deliberately taught their children to speak Tagalog

instead of their own PLOT. According to them, Tagalog was more useful to their

children both in Australia and in the Philippines. The greater number, however, of

those who made the sole use of language are those who use PLOT to their parents

(R20 and R31), to brothers/sisters (R20, R25, R31) and to relativeVfriends @20, R25)

(Table e).

Filipino-Australian Parents' Overall Patterns of Language Use

Endogamous households. The Filipino-Australian parents were asked about

their usage of languages, namely, Tagalog, English, and PLOT with the different

interlocutors. The results showed that in the endogamous families, parents who were

of Tagalog speaking background (TSB) tended to co-aotivate Tagalog-English-PlOT,

in that order with husbanüwife (six cases) but adopted sole use of English with ethnic

peers/relatives (eight cases). In contrast, the most frequent pattern of language use

among those who were of non-Tagalog speaking background (NTSB) was the sole

use of English with husband/wife (two cases) and the more or less equal usage of

Tagalog and English with ethnic peers and relatives.

 229

Table l0

Distribution of Filipino-Australian Parents In Terms of

Overall Patterns of Language Use
With Ditr€'rent Interlocutors
Ov
Reçondert
Grouping/ Sole One doninant Equal dominmce
l¡û€rlooúor Acivaion over2 læs Dominance of one in an hicardrical order Bâl
oftwo over me ruriì
t¡sed
T E P T E P TEP TPE ETP EPT PET PTE TE EP

I 2 6 2

I I I
c.
8 7 3 I 2
d" úildrsr 2 I 3 2 I I I

Non-Tag
a. husbatrü
I I
wife
b. o¡refrs I I I
c. dbnic
peerVrel. I I I I
d. d¡fdren I I I I I I

4
b. oarats 4
c. dbnic
oeers/rel. I 3 I
4 I

Non-Tag
a. husba¡d/
\rife 7 I I
b. parents 2 I I I
c" dhnic
oeers/rel. I I I I 2 1 I
d¡il&etr
d. 4 I 1 1 I I
T-Tagalog TE- TEP - Tagalog-English-PlOT EPT - English-PlOT-Tagalog
E- English PE -PLOT-English TPE - Tagalog-PlOT-English PET - PLOT -English Tagalog
P.PLOT PT -PLOT-Tagalog ETP - English-Tagalog-PlOT PTE - PlOT-Tagalog-English

Exogømous households. In the exogamous family households, the sole use of

English with husbands (a total of eleven cases) and \¡vith children (a total of eight

cases) was observed (Table l0). This was more prevalent among mothers who v/ere

from non-Tagalog areas in the Philippines.

 230

The sole use of English with their own parents and ethnic peers was also

observed among some of those with Tagalog speaking background (two cases only),

although the larger concentration r¡/¿rs on the co'activation of Tagalog-English-PloT

(TEP) in that order, with their own parents (four cases); and English-Tagalog-PloT

(ETP) with ethnic peers (three cases). The results also showed that some few parents

of NTSB co-activated the languages with their Anglo-Australian husbartds (one in the

order of ETP and another in the order of ÊPT), and to their childrcn (one in the order

of ET?, another in the order of EPT, and still another in the order of PET). There are

two probable explanations of such observed language bohavior- Perhaps, the parents

from non-Tagalog speaking areas were more att¿ched and more used to multilingual

situations and were consequently more enterprising in terms of maintaining the use of

their language, rt least in the home domain. It could also be that these parents found

difficuþ in the sole use of English in talking to thei¡ husbands and children so that

they tended to rnix English discourse with Tagalog and PLOT. But crnsidering the

English proficiency of Filipino immigrants in Australia, (such as demonstrated by this

particular group of respondents), which is'þood" to "excellent,u the strong attachment

to their tativo tongues is the more plausible erplanation.

Owmíew

The study reveals a very cornplør picture, with distingtions by endo- and

exogarny superimposed upon Filipino parental background from Tagalog and non-

Tagalog areas. In spite of the dominance of English in Australi4 and the respondents

previous familiarity with English, due to their schooling in the Philippines (in the case

of parents), results show that a number of parents hold tenaciously to their own
 23t

languages. TagalogÆilipino is generally accepted as a lingua franca of Filipinos in

Australia and it is mostly dominant in both TSB and NSTB households. However,

attachment to PLOT is also clearly seen in families with parents from NTSB'

Obviously, language maintenance is easier in the endogamous households, but a degree

of maintenance is also observed in sçveral mixed marriage situations, particularly

among Filipino ïvomen who came from non-Tagalog speaking areas in the Philippines

specifïcally, the Cebuanos. These mothers cling to their PLOT and attempt to transmit

to their children and occasionalþ even to co-açtivate PLOT and Tagalog with their

Anglo-Australian husbands.

Students' language maintenance is closely tied to that of their parents, with

Filipino, again in a dominant position, but with a possibility of co-activation with

pLOT and English. What the study demonstrates is the particularly outstanding

exaniple of multilingualism (trilingualism or at least, bilingualism) among the Filipino

Australian community*a feature not reflected by the mainly monolingual 'mainstream.'

At this stage in the life of the community, it ís difrcult to judge the long term prospects

of maintaining zuch a multilingual oasis which, unlike in the case of some other ethnic

groups in Australia, does not depend endogamy for its continued identity and çulture

maintenanc€.

At first sight, it may seem strange tlrat a gfoup with attachment to the use of

their sthnic tongue{s) has not çxerted a major effort to secure the teaching of Filipino

(let alone. PLOT) in any of the state school systems (for example, through state

govçnunent's owïr part-time langUage schools, zuch as SASSL in South Australia

which teaches some 12 community languages other than English ICLOTI up to Year
 232

12 Level) and the relative weakness of the Fiþino ethnic schools. This may be

attributed to the largely oral tradition of Filipino languages and the long ingfained

custom in the philippines to rely on foreign (ex-colonial) languages (initially Spanistt

and later Enghsh) to fulfill literacy funstious, whether in government schools or

its use in
academia. This situation no longer holds for Filípino in the Philippines, where

schools and government officçs has been progressively increased in the

post World

war II period (particularly sinco 1974 Language Education Act), but higher education

is still very largely in English, while PLOT are cortsciously and as a matter of policy

kept at a pre-literaoy stage and virnrally excluded from the schools and universities'

Hence the future of Filipino arid PLOT in Australia is likely to be linked to the

continued migration from the Philippines, the maintenance of close contact

with the

mother country (and the importance of 'home visits' testifies) and the particular

strength and resilience of the Filipino family, even when only the mother is the
sole

carrier of language(Ð and culture in the nuçlear family setting in Australia, Due to the

.chain migration' of many migrants, many Filipinos were able in Australia to build an

erúended family íetwork of kith and kins and these, together with strong links through

community organizations and the religious functions are likely to be the mainstay
ofthe

Philippine language and cultwe maintenance in Australia'

 ¿Jt

THE PHILIPqINE CASE

The inçlusion of the philþines in the study was intended not only to contribute

provide the
to the efforts of theory building in the field of socio-linguistics but also to

practical knowledge as basis for language policy formulation' The similarities and

differences among the respondents that were brought to light from thc oomparative

analysis are valuable inputs to language planning Equally valuable are the empirioal

models arid patterns that were established across the different variables,
together with

the meanings attached to difflerent languages inctuded which may provide better

understanding of the respondents' worldview in regard to language' A compendium

of

pages'
the results in relation to langUage activation are presented in the succeoding

KNOWLEDGE AND PROFICIENCY IN THE LANGUAGES

The F'ilipino students' Knowledge and Proficiency in the Languages

Thç students, being in their final year of the secondary schooling, were

assumed to be potentially knowledgsable in the three languages--their regional

in the
vemacular, Filipino, and English-the first being the tanguage used at home and

and as
local community, and each of the last two being used in school both as a subjecf

a rnedium of instruction.

The proficiency lwel as a self-assessed measure of knowledge of the languages

concerned is where the o*ent of variation could be observed both acrogs the th¡ce

groups ofrespondents and across the three languages'

 2f4

The vm¡acular, The figUres suggest that in terms of speaking the

vernacular, the proficiency among the thf€€ groups of respondents significantþ

differ

(F- 3.19; p<. 05) (See Table l1). On the basis of the selÊassessment, the Waray
4'57. Give'n a
students a¡e the rnost proficient a¡1ong all ttnee groups' with a mean Af

range of 1 to 5, whare the former indiçates poor proficiency and the latter excellent,
proficiency of both
the result indicates "excellenf" proficiency among the Warays. The

the Cebuanos (M=a.21) and the Ilocanos (M:4.18) falls within the range of
mean

values categorized to be'lery good'"

In reeding and in wríting the Ilocano students claimed to be the most

proficient (M=3.29 in both communication aøivities). The F-rario for each areq

however, did not reach the level of signiñcance, which means thct no significant

activitics
difference in the proficiency of the three groups in these two communication

activities,
existed. In other words, the highest ûrean of 3.29 in both oommunication

mean
indicating "good" proficiency, does not differ sig¡rificantly even from the lowest

gfoup and can

values (2.90 for reading and 2.81 for writing) yielded by the cebuano

likewise be interproted to indicate "good" proficiency'

The much lower proficiency rates for the vernacular in the reading and uniting

communioation aøivities when compared with speaking çan be taken as a reflection

of

exoluded
the languages used as medium of instruøion in schools, with the vernacular

in all three linguistic communities.

Fílþíno.In Fiþno, the Ilocano students showed the highest proficiency in all

three communication activities, with ¿lt the mean values (4.00 ín speaking
4'18 in

reading and 4.07 in writing) indicating'lery good" proficioncy. Statistically, however,

 235

yielded by the
these are not significantly different, when compared to the mean values

and l'93 for

other two gfoups. The F-ratios are 1.55 for speaking, Z'87 for reading

no values
writing. With a degree of freedom of 21149,21147, and2ll48, fespectively,

reached a level of significance. The null hypothesis therefore, that there is no

significant differe,nce in the proficiency of speaking, reading and writing in Filipino

among atl three groups is accepæd. It should be mentioned, howeveç that the F-ratio

(p=' 0598), which

in reading Q.S|)almost reached the 5 per cent significance level

se€nu¡ to suggest that the proficiency of the Ilocano group in Filipino is higher then the

other two gfoups.

Table ll
comparisorr ofProficiency in the use oflanguages in Three
CommunicationActivitiesAmongFilipinostudefits
in Three Speech
Activities in Cornmuities- ScheffeRemlts
Different -M.aûPttficienry
lVamy troc¿no Cebuano F-Ratio
at.05lercl
N=35 N=55 N=ó2 Mcünb

Veûaq¡lar #
4.57 4.18 4.21 4.28 3.19r
Speaking

l.l5 t.29 2.90 3.10 r.66

Readhtg

2.85 3.29 z.8l 2.99 2.67

Writing

Filbho 1.55
f.74 4.00 1,79 3.85
Speat<ing

3.9t 4.18 3.A4 1.98 2.87

Readíng

,.1e 4.17 1.77 3.88 1.93

Writing
Erqlish
3.06 4.05 3.56 23.5().. Ml>lvf2; lvÍÞtvf2,l
Spۉking 3.48

4.20 3.69 4.14 4.O7 1t.52*t MI,ÞM¿

Readhg

3.88 t,48 4.31 3.91 16,04ü t/ß>l\t¿,1

Writing
I"€gFnû Tlæ means afe int€rFñeted based onthe following rangec ofscale:
rsignificånt at .05¡anges of scale: l,m - 1.49 Poor
*tsigBificaût at,0l 1.50 - 2.49 Fair
#ì'Io two gloups are signiûcåtrtlydiflM 2.50 - 3.49 Good
3.50 - 4.49 VerY good
4.50-above Excellent
 236

Table 1l-A

Filipino Students'Proficiency in the Use of Languages

in Three Communication Activities
Languages and Proficiency
Excellent Verv Good Good Fair Poor Me¿n
Communication
Activities f o/o f% fVo f% f%
lVrrav Com'tv
Warav
2t ó0 13 37 13 4.57
412 926 1l 32 824 25 3,15

Writine 412 515 t2 35 824 515 2.85

FtlÍpino
514 16 46 14 40 3,74

Readine 618 18 ss 927 3.91

Writins 5ls t9 56 824 26 3.79

Enslish
514 926 t9 54 26 3.48
13 38 15 44 618 4.20
rùllritins 10 29 11 32 t2 35 13 3.88

Cebuano Com'tv
Cebuano
26 42 25 40 914 23 4.21

10 16 12 19 12 19 18 29 10 16 2.90

Writine 813 14 23 10 16 l8 29 t2 19 2.81

ITlinino
l0 16 35 56 13 2l 23 23 3.79
11 18 39 63 58 58 23 3.84

lr 18 36 58 7ll 610 23 3.77

20 32 26 42 15 24 t2 4.05
26 42 31 50 58 4.34

Writins 27 44 28 45 610 t2 4.31

troc¡no Co4',tv

24 44 18 33 t2 22 I 2 4.18

Reading 611 15 27 25 45 713 24 3.29

rùVritine 815 t2 22 25 45 814 24 3.29

12 22 32 5E l0 18 l2 4.00
l9 3s 27 49 916 4.18

l8 33 25 45 11 20 I 1 4.01

I 2 ll 20 34 63 6ll 24 3.06
815 23 42 2342 l2 3.69

Writing 611 18 33 2648 47 3.48

lTtæ hig[er proficiencY for Ilocano respondents

in reading and writing is in line with the ftequency
groups in theír vernaculars.l
data which show tltat Ilocanos use thæe skills more often than the other
 237

Engtish.In Englista sìgnificant differences are observed açross three groups

in all communication activities. The F-ratios (23.50 for speaking,13-52 for reading,

and l6.04for writing) are all signiflcant at 1 per cent level (Table t l). All values cause

exists in
the rejection of the null hypothesis, which st¿tes that no significant difference

The Cebuano
the proficiency of the three groups in all three-communication activitics.

(M=4'05
$udents claimed the highest proficiency in all three çommunication aotivities

in speaking, 4.34 in reading, and 4,31 in writing) and each of these rneans is

in writing'
significantly higher than the means for the other two gfoupc in speakilg and

In reading, both the Cebuanos and the Warays have significantly higher proficíency

than that of the llocanos'

of the more interesting findings in the study is the zubstantially lower

One

proficioncy of students in reading and in writing the vernacular-found to be only

.!ood', compared to the proficiency in Filipino and in English which were both'!ery

good.,, The inadequacie¡ felt by all groups of students in reading and in writing the

that
vernaçular could perhaps be regarded as a cons€quence of the status and function

is formally used
the vernacular assumes in each of the three c,ommunities, that is, none

or taught in sChool. Surprisingly, howwer, the llocano group claimed higher

proficiency in reading and writing the vernaoular. This could probabþ be duc to the

g[eatef community resources that support the development of the langUage in that

region. It may bc mentioned that in Nueva viscaya (the sampled Ilocano speech

community) and in Cebu (the sampled Cebuano speech community), local

ne\ryspapers

prblished in the vernacular are ¿vailable. There are 8t least two looal net¡vspapers and
 238

three newsletters in the former and three local newspapers in the latter. Such a

resource ie not available to the Waray group of students in Tacloban City'

The FiHpino Parents'Knowledge and

Proficiency in the Languages

The parents of tho Filipino student respondents \¡/ere also asked if they knew how

to speak, read, and write the three languages. Table 12 shows that from the Waray

group, everybody had the knowledge of the three languages in all the com¡nunication

activities except two, constituting 6 per cent, who claimed they did not know writing

the vernacular. Similarly, everybody in the Cebuano gfoup of parents claimed

knowledge of all three.

In contrast, the Ilocano parents were somewhat dispersed in terms of knowing

the three languages. In the [Ilocano] vernaoular, one, constituting 2 per cent had
no

knowledge in speaking:2 (4%) had no knowledge in reading; and 5 (9%) had no

knowledge in writing. .

With regard to the Filipino language, 4 per cent h¿d no knowledge in speaking;

and another 4 per cent had no knowledge in writing. The greatest percentage of
those

who had no knowledge in any of the communication activities was observed in relation

to the English langUage-l3 per cent in speaking, 11 per cent in readírtg, and 13 per

cent in writing.

In like tn¿um€r, the claims of the parents to have no knowledge in writing the

vernacula¡ may not actually be taken at its face value. Theoretically speaking, if one

knows how to read, then he must know how to write. It could be conjectured that the

respondents could have aotually meant that they do not know how to write in the
 239

Waray or the Ilocano language as much as they know how to write

in Filipino and in

grenrmar and punctuation'

English where they are able to observe the proper spelling,

no knowledge in
This observation probably applies to those who claimed to have

writing Filipino and English.

Table 12

Distribution of Fþino Pafents With Regard to Knowledge of the Three

LanguagesintheDifferentCommunicationActivities

Communic¿tion
Activities in Ilocano (N=55) Cebuano
NR Yes No NR Yes No NR
the Th¡ee Yes No
f% f % ß% F% f % f % r% f % f %

Vernacular

33 94 2 6 54 98 I 2 52 84 10 1ó
SPeaking
Reading 33 94 2 6 5t 93 2 4 24 s2 84 70 16

\ilriting 30 86 26 3 8 47 85 f 9 3J s2 84 l0 16

Filipino

Speakine 33 94 2 6 53 96 2 4 35 52 84 lo 16

Reading 33 94 2 6 s2 95 52 84 t0 ,ló

English 32 92 3 I 51 93 ) 4 24 52 81 l0 16

Engliph

Speaking 33 94 6 47 85 7 13 t2 52 84 l0 /ó
Reading 32 92 3 I 46 84 6 1I 38 52 84 to 16
Writitrg 32 92 J 8 45 82 7 13 38 52 84 10 16

proficient
The vernacular. Theresults showed that all three groups were very

4'25 (Waray
in speaking their respective vernacular. The mean values fange from

proficiency) to 4.45 (Cebuano profioiency) and the F-ratio is .72 indicating that
the

(Table l3).
difference among the means of the three groups is not significant
 240

Likewise, all three groups were 'Îery good" in reading and in writing' The
activities
waray parents yielded the lowest mean values in both the communication
in
(3.62inreading and 3.56 in writing), while the Cebuano group yielded the highest

these communication activities. But while the F-ratio in writing (1'33) does not

indicate a significant difference among the three means compared, the F-ratio in

reading (3.19) is significant at the 5 per cent level indicating, that a statistically

words' while all

significant difference oxists among the three mean values. In other

th¡ee mean values for reading indicate very good proficiency,

thèir magnitudes aro

disparate enough for a signiñcant difference among them to

be observed' Although the

Scheffe test showed that no two groups were significantty different, the sharp contrast

a higþer proficiency than

between the Waray and the Cebuano groups, the latter having

the former, should be mentioned.

Table 13

Language Proficierrcy of Filipino Parents in Different

Communication Activities

Scheffe
Communication ß'-R¡tio Results
Mean ProfrciencY
Activities Cebu¡no M rt.05 level
Warsv Ilocano
Vemacolar - 72
4.25 4.43 4.45 4.40
3.72 4.t4 3.86 3.20* #
3.62
3.65 3.e4 3.74 1.33
writine 3.56
X'ifioino
3.93 3.98 3.63 3.93 2.94
3.72 3.72 4.00 3,37* #
4.18
3.79 3.s7 4.49 3.67 92
Writing

Enelish
4.06 3.17 3.90 3.75 12.95s+ M3,t >M2
4.f6 3.64 4,19 3,W 9.60** M3,1 > M2
3.2s 4.08 3.77 I 1.1 1+* M1.3 > M2
W¡itins 4.O3
*sigpificant at .05
+*Significant æ.01
#1.[o two groups are significantly differsnt
 241

Fílþíno.In Fiþino, all the F-ratios indicated that none of the diflerences

5 per cent
among the three groups in the different communication activitiçs reached

level of significance, except that for reading (F:3,37; p< '05; df = 2,32) which is

significant (Table 13), The null hypothesis, thereforg that there is no significant

dif¡erence in the proficiency of the threç communities in Filipino and

in each of the

rejected for
three communication activities is accæpted for sBeaking and writing but

rro tu/o groups

reading. Similarly, however, the results of the Scheffe test proved that

(with
were significantly different from each other. The rejection of the main hypothesis

regard to differences in reading), thereforo, could have been due to the inter¿ction

Warays over
effect of the three groups but not realþ due to a hþher proficiency of the

highest mean value

any or both the other two groups as may be suspected through the

(4.1S) that it yielded compared to 3.72,the mean value yielded by both the other
two

groups.

English. Each of the F-ratios (12.95 for speaking, 8.60 for reading, and I l ' l
I

were
in writing) yielded when the mean values in the English communication activities

compared, shows that the difference among the three groups is highly significant

(Table l3). Looking at the Scheffe results the Cebuarro$ and the Warays consistently

have significantly higher proficiency level in all three-communication

activities than the

Ilocanos, The greater disparities a¡e observed in speaking and in writing

where the

mean proficiency ofthe Ilocanos in each activity (3.1? in speaking and3.25 in writing)
gfoups (a'00 in
could only be dcscribed as'þood" compared to those of the other two

speaking and 4.03 in writing among the Warays and 3.90 in speaking and 3'77 n

writing arnong the Cebuanos) all of which could both bG described to be'\¡ery gogd'"
 242

Table l3-A

Language Proficiency of Filipino Parents in the

Tkee SPeech Communities

Com. Activities Meanhoficiencyit¡thelangu¿æ Mean

and Excellcnt Verv eood Good Fair -Poor
f% f o/o
r% f t/o f96
lY¡rev Comttv
N= Warey
t7 53 e28 4 l3 I 3 t3 4.25
Readine l0 3l 722 928 516 13 3.62
928 722 l0 3t 516 t3 3.56

927 13 39 n33 3.93

14 42 \2 36 6 18 l3 4.18
824 12 36 t2 36 l3 3.79

lr 33 14 42 721 l3 4.06
18 55 927 618 4.36
ll 31 t4 42 6 l8 26 4.03

CebuanoGom'tv
[\= Cebuano
z8 s5 18 35 510 4.45
19 37 22 43 I l6 24 4.14
Writins l8 35 16 3r 13 25 48 3.94

612 21 43 zo 4l 24 3.63
l0 20 20 39 l8 35 36 3.72
714 t't 33 21 4I 612 4.49

10 20 27 53 t3 25 t2 3.90
20 39 22 43 I t6 I 2 4.19
l8 35 2t 4l l0 20 24 4.08

trocano,Com'tv

30 57 17 32 5 9 t2 4.43
t4 28 15 30 t7 34 2 36 3.72
\t¡ritine 19 37 7t4 l8 35 24 510 3.65

filipino
l4 26 2s 47 t3 25 l2 3.98
t7 33 20 39 13 25 I 2 4.04
Writinc t2 24 15 29 l8 35 24 48 3.57

4 8 t6 3l 23 44 36 612 3.L7
Readine 10 19 22 42 15 2E 48 24 3.9
lVritine 714 13 25 22 43 48 510 3.25
 243

Discussion. Filipino, even with its status as the national language, is lesst

developed compared to the other two languages especially tmong the two groups from

the south and more particularty in two communication aøivities- speaking and

reading. This conoretizes the observations of Smolicz (198?) in his article ön the

national language policy of the Philippines where he commented on the magsive

emphasis of lEnglishl larrguage learning among the Filipino school children to the

detriment ofthe dwelopmelrt of the more indigenous languages. He says, thus:

Such pressure cooker or immersion techniques undoubtedly helped to

establísh literacy in English among wide circles of Filipino population
and while they failed to eradicate the native langgages from domestic
and extra-curricular usage, they efuively delayed the literacy gfowth
of the Filipino languages (including Tagalog) and their development
into such areas as scienoe and technology (in Spolsþ, 1987)'

It may be argued that knowledge of language (linguistic competence) may nol

actually be reflec,ted in linguistic behavior Qinguistio performance[Fromkin, 1978)'

Knowing something is not the same as doing it. On the one hand, although individuals

may krrow the grammar of a particular language, they may consistently make

grammatical mistakes when they speak it. On the other han{ knowledge of language is

much more than the ability to repeat a limited number of learned and mechanically

applied patterns. The process of learning a language caffiot be reduced to the

mechanisms of conditioning. Chomsþ (19ó8: 1) claims that'.'

...the number sêntances in one's nttivo langUage that one will

of
immediately undetstand with no feeling of difficuþ or strangeness is
astronomical and the number of patterns underlying our normal use of
language corresponding to mearringfirl and easiþ comprehensible
sentences in our langUage is greater than the number of seconds in a
lífetime.
 244

The language situation in the Philippines is not explainablo by such theories of

language universals. It is definitely more than that. Hymes (in Korporot'trcz, 1982)

demonstrates that we cannot explain the real act of language use and the functions of

language, without taking cultural patterns into consideration. For Hymes, as for

Malinowski (in Korporowrcz. l9E2: zz}),language is a mode of action. In order to be

a competent language user, one must be a participating member of the community and

know not orrly the abstracts of grammar but also the relations among the various

elements of speech both linguistic and contextual. According to Hymes, knowledge of

alangngeinvolves a kind of sociolinguistic or, to put it more broadly, communicative

competence.

ACTIVATION OF LANGUAGES
Beyond knowing the proficiency of the rospondents in the three languages, the

study looked into the actívation of these languages by both students and parents.

Simitar to how activation was measured in the Australian case, activation was

measured in terms of the frequency the respondents utilized the languages in the thrce

communication activities and with the different intedocutors,

Language Usage of Filipino Students

Ilsøge of the vernaculat. Majority, 60 per cent of both Waray and llocano, and

69 per cent of ths Cebuano studeûts, use their resp€ctive vernacular in qpeaking

"ahvays" (See Table 14). The rnean indicators show that in this communication

activity, the Cebuanos use the vernacula¡ most frequentþ (M-a.ó3), the Warays, next

(M-a.5Ð; and llocano, the last (M=4.33) As the mean values are based on the scale
 245

of I to 5, the former representing non-use and the latter, always, the three mean values

indicated çxtensive use of the vernacular in speaking. The F-ratio of 2.32 reveals that

no significant difference is observed in thê use of the vernacular across the three

communities (See Table 14-A). At df = 2; l49,the F-value is not significant, henoe, the

acceptanae ofthe null hypothesis ofequal usage.

In reading and in writing, a sharp contrast is observed between the

activation of the Ilocarro group and the other two groups, Waray and Cebuano, where

Ilocanos had the most number of those who used their native language very frequently:

69 per cent use the languagc erther sometimes or oftentirnes in reading and 55 per cent

use the language frorn "sometimes" to "always" in writing (Soe Table 14).

The F-ratios (20.95 in reading and 11.74 in writing), after comparing the means

of the three groups in both activities, are highly significant. Hence, the hypothesis of

equal usage among the three groups can be rejected. The pairwise comparisons show

that only the Ilocano group has significantly higher activation, compared to each of the

Waray and Cebuano groups. No significant difference is observod bçtween the

activation of the tWaray and the Cebuano groups both in reading and in writing. The

Waray group claimed the least use of the vernacular in reading (Ìvl= 1.86) and in

writing (M= 1.80) but the largest proportion of those who never use tho language in

writing is from tho Cebuano goup (32% compared to Zf/o and l8% ûom the Waray

and the Ilocano groups, respectivelÐ. It might be presumed that ¿ll respondents would

need at some points in time to be able to write in their vernaoular.

 246

Table 14

Distribution of Filipino Students in the Activation of Languages in Three

Communication Activities

Frequency of Use
Conmunic¡tion Never Mean
Always Often Sometimes Seldom
Activities f
f % f % f % f % %
WaraY Com'tv
N=35
lYarav
Speakine 21 60 t3 37 I 3 4.57
Readinq 411 22 63 926 1.86
Writine J I 22 63 10 2E 1,80
X'ilinino
Soeakine 15 44 15 44 4t2 3.32
Re¿dins 514 t6 46 l0 29 411 3.63
Writine 1 J 18 53 t2 35 39 3.50
Enelish
Soeakine 26 15 43 16ß 25 3.49
Readins 20 57 12 34 3 8 4.48
Writins t7 49 t7 49 I 2 4.46
CebuanoCom'tv
N=62
Cebuano
Speakins 43 69 t7 27 23 4.63
Readins I 2 t2 tl l8 35 s7 13 2l 2.05
Writine I 2 ll l8 30 48 2t 32 1.89
Filinino
Speakine 23 37 30 48 915 3.22
Readins 58 26 42 19 3l 11 l8 I 2 3.37
Writine 46 27 44 22 35 55 46 3.35
Enslish
Soeakins 9t4 37 60 15 24 I 2 3.87
Readine 50 81 l1 18 I 2 4.79
Writins 42 6E l9 31 I 1 4.66
Ilocano Com'tv
N=55
Ilocano
Soeakine 33 60 11 20 9L6 24 4.33
Reading l0 18 28 51 13 24 47 2.80
Writins 24 5 9 23 42 15 27 10 t8 2.53
trllÍoino
Speaking 74 25 23 42 l7 3t I 2 3.90
Readins 33 60 t2 22 814 24 4.38
Writine 27 49 16 29 t2 22 4.27
Enslish
Speakine 11 20 33 60 10 18 I 2 2.98
Readine t7 3l 20 36 16 29 24 3.95
Writins 13 24 r7 31 22 40 35 3.72
 247

Tablc l4-A

Comparison of Language Usage of Filipino Students

in Three Speech Communities

Communication Frequencv of Language Usage

Schefre Results
Activitie.s in Waray Ilocano Cebuano F-R¿tio
at .05 level
Different Languages N=35 N=55 N=62
Vernacular
Speaking 4.57 4.33 4.63 2.32
Roadins 1.8ó 2.80 2.05 20.99i* M2Ml.3
Writine 1.80 2.53 1.89 r1.74*+ M2>M1.3
Filioino
Soealcine 3.32 3.91 3.22 14.01** M2>M3.1
Readins 3.62 4.38 3.37 19.34+* M2>M3,1
lvritins 3,50 4.27 3.35 18.37*{, M2>ìvll.1
Ensllsh
Speaking 3.48 2.98 3.87 25.O2*+ MI>M2;
M3>M2.1
Readine 4.48 3.94 4.79 23.O9*+ M1,3>M2
Writins 4.46 3.73 4.6 29.86** M1.3>M2
Legend - The calculation of the mean wasbased on the following scalo of usage:
I.00 - Never 2.00 - Seldom
3.00 - Sometimes 4.00 . Ofren
5.00 - Always
**Sígnific¿nt æ .ol

In addition, all the respondents were functionaþ literate in both English and

Filipino. It is therefore, intriguing, paradoúcal, and from the socio-linguistic point of

view, important to observe such a substantial number of respondents who never wrote

in their respective vernacular.

Usage of Fìlîpìno. Filipino, on the other hand, is us€d by all three groups at a

moderate level in speaking. In each of the three corrmrunities, the responses were

concentrated in the categories 'ooftentimes" and "sometimes." Combining the

proportions in these two categories, the total is 85 per cent antttng the Cebuanos, T2

per cent amorig the llocanos, and 8E per cent among the Warays. In reading and in

writing, the same trend of larger proportions being concentrated into the category

"often" is observed among the Warays and the Cebuanos but not among the Ilocanos
 248

where the greatest concentration is in the category 'always' (60% in reading and 49Yo

in writing).

The mean values indicate a significantly more frequent use of the Filipino

language by the Ilocanos in all communication activities, as oompared to the other two

groups. The F-ratios (14.01 in speaking,19.34 in reading, and 18.37 in writing) are all

highly significant. Hence, the rejeotion ofthe null hypothesis that no differcnce exists in

the usage of Filipino among the three groups of Filipino student respondents. Looking

at the Scheffe test results, the mean usage of the Ilocanos in all three activities is

significantly higher than those of the Warays and the Cçbuanos. But no significant

differences exist between the use of the Warays and the Cebuanos in any of the

communication activities.

Usøge of Englìsh. In the use of English; however, contrasting resutts were

observed. The Cebuanos claimed the most frequent usage of the language and thc least

was among the llocanos, in all three*cornmunication activities. The F-ratios Q5.02 in

speaking 23.Ð9 in writing and 28.86 in reading), all indicate highly significant

difference in the usage of English among the 3 groups. The Scheffe results further

show that while the usage in speaking by the Warays is signifioantly more than the

Ilocano group only, the Cebuano group uses the language significantly higher than

both the Warays and the Ilocanos. In reading and in writing, the usage of the Warays

and the Çebuanos is significantþ more than the llocanos. But no diference eústs

between the Warays and the Cebuanos. As indioated by the mean vahæs, English is

*often" used by the Cobuano

students (M=3.S7) end "som€times" by both the Waray

(M=3.49) and the Ilocano M=2,98) groups. In reading and in writing, very high rtean
 249

values (a.79 and 4.óó, respeotively) were yielded by the Cebuano students as the

majority of them (81% in reading and 68% in writing) concentrated into the usage

categorized as "always." Among the Warays and the llocanos, lesser mean values

(4.a8 for reading and 4.46 in writing among the Warays and 3.95 for reading and3.72

for writing among the llocanos) were observed as the respondents from both groups

who indicated very frequent usage were substantially less compared to the Cebuano

goup-

Díscussían The more frequent activation of Fiþino among the Ilocano students

compared to the other two groups in all communication activities could perhaps be

explained by the proximity of the Ilocos Region to the Manila are4 the heartland of the

Tagalog language on which the Fiþino language is largely based. On the coútrary,

Leyte and Cebu are geographically isolated from lManila so that people in these two

provinces have naturally less contact with the language. But the minimal use of the

Filipino language among the Cebuanos could also have political underpinnings. The

struggle to endorse Cebuano as thc national language of the country, bascd on having

the greatest number of native speakets (in the 1975 census, 24.39Yo speak Cebuano

against 23.82Yo, who speak Tagalog in the 1980 Census 24.2Ú/o speak Cebuano while

29.66 speak Tagalog) still persists.

The high frequency of English usage observed in sll three-communication

activities is not uncommon smong Fiþinos wtto belong to, at least, the lower middle

class. The status of English being the official language of the country, aside from being

the medium of instruçtion in schools, forces the respondents to speak, read and write

the language in and outside of school activities. Even the print and broadcast media
 2s0

rsmains to be dominated by the English language. Most of the newspapers and

magazines that circulate in each of the localities included in this ìnvestigation are in

English as opposed to the vernacular where only very limited reading materials are

available. At the most, a couple of tabloids written in Tagalog and a variety of

illustrated "komiks", th¿t are either for sale or hire, are available in sidewalks of the

city streets, These probably account for the comparatively higher mean values yielded

in reading and in writing the Filipino largu"gg compared to any of the vernaculars,

Language Usage of Filipino Parents

Usøge of the vønaculu. Table 15 illustrates a single pat¡ern in so far as the

use of the vernacular in all three speech communities is concerned. Each is most

frequently used in speaking and least in writing. Variations, however, could be

obsen¡çd in the mean indicators across the three epoups. While the Cebuano group

used the vernacula¡ in speaking always Qvl4,76), both the Waray and llocano groups

used the regional language oftentimes, their respective meaú values yielded being 4.31

and 4.47. As Table l5-A indicates, the F-natio is 4.38, which is significant at I per cent

level. The significant difference, however, lies only befwecn the Cebuanos and the

Warays, the former having a significantly higher mean than the latter. In reading and in

writing, on the other hand, the Ilocano and the Cebuano groups use their respectrve

vernacular sometimes witl more frequent use in both cornmunication activiti€s

observed in the former group (M=3.29 in reading and 3.08 in writing) than in the lattcr

(M=3.15 in reading and2.75 in writing). The lVaray group claimed the least use of the

vernacr¡lar in reading (M=2.21) and in writing (M=1.93).

 251

Table 15

Distribution of Filipino Parentsn Activation of Languages

in Three Communication Activities

Communication Mean Frequency of Use

Mean
Activities Ahpays Ofren Sometimes Seldom Never
f t/o f o/o f % f o/o
f o/o

\f,Iarav Con'tv
NÞ 35
Weray
Sneakins t2 38 l8 56 2 6 4.3t
Readine l4 5 1E 2t 15 l4 2.21
Writine I 4 3 ll 17 6t 72s 1.93
FIIÍolno
Soeakins 3 9 13 39 t7 52 3.58
Readins 2 7 r0 33 13 43 5t7 3.30
Writins 2 7 62t 13 43 827 l3 3_00
Indt¡h
Sneakins 5 l6 20 62 6 l9 l3 3-el
Reading 22 69 lo 31 4.69
Writine 20 6l l0 30 2 6 I 3 4.45
CeJs¡npÇgn1tY
N =62
Cebnano
Sneakine 43 83 713 I 2 t2 4.76
Readine 713 773 27 32 917 24 3.15
Writins 48 6L2 19 36 19 36 48 2.75
Filinlno
Soeakine 2 4 E15 28 54 12 23 24 2.92
Readine 3 6 13 25 22 42 ll 2t 36 3.04
Writine I ) 917 20 38 t6 3l 612 2.67
Inclish
Sneakins 10 19 19 36 24 38 36 3.69
Readine 32 62 15 29 4 I I 2 4.50
Writins 32 62 13 25 510 r2 t2 4.42
Iloceno Con'ty
Nd5
Ilmeno
Speakine 39 7l 59 9t6 24 4.47
Readins 9t7 t4 27 15 29 ll 2t 36 3.29
Writine l0 19 7t3 19 36 9t7 713 3.08
tr'llinino
Soeakins ll 20 20 37 23 42 3.78
Readins 1ó 31 t4 27 2t 40 t2 3.8ó
Writins t2. 22 14 26 22 4t 59 l2 3.57
Erslirh
Sneakins I 2 15 28 24 45 917 48 3.00
Readins r7 32 12 23 t7 32 611 t2 3.72
Writine l0 19 l0 t9 22 42 611 59 3.26
 252

Iable l5-A

Comparison ofl-anguage Usage of Filipino Parents

in Th¡ee SPeech Communities

Schefle Results
Communication Mean Frequency of Activalion F-Ratio
Activities at.05level
Waray Ilocano Cebuano

Vernacular

Speaking 4.3r 4.47 4.76 4.38+* M3>M1

2.21 3.29 3.15 I1.49*',f M3.ÞMl
1.93 3.08 2.75 10.31** M2,3>Ml

XTlinino

3.58 3.78 2.92 17.22** Ml,2>M3

Readine 3.30 3.86 3.04 I1.08{,* M2>M3,1
3.57 2.67 11.51** M2>M3,1
\t/ritinc 3.00

Enslish

3.91 3.00 3.69 14.24+* M3>M2

Speaking
M1>M2
Readine 4.69 3.72 4.50 16.93** MI,3,>M2
ït¡ritins 4.45 3.26 4.42 22.04t+ Ml.3>M2
The calculation of the mean uas based on the
Legend:
*Significant at .05 following scale of usage:
t*Significant at .0t 1.00 - Never
2.00 - Soldom
3.00 - Sometimes
4.00 - Often
5.00 - Always

Likewise, the F-ratios in both reading and writing are highly significant (11'49

for the former and 10.31 for the latter) although the Scheffe results showed that only

the mean usage of the Waray goup in both communication activitie$ was sig¡ificantly

lower than the other two groups. No significant difference was found between the

usage of the Ilocano and the Cebuano groups'

Referring to the concrete facts provided by the respondents, all of them are

presumed to be functionally literate. As with the childrer¡ it is, therefore, zurprising to

observç a substsnti¿l number of respondents who never wrote in their respeotive

 253

vernaculrlr. Twenty-five per cent werç observed among the Warays, 13 per cent among

the llocanos, and 8 per cent among the Cebuanos.

In the report of tlarding and Riley (1988:137) on bilingual families, the

assertion is made that generally speaking, the more one reads the more one is likely to

reach a reasonable level in writing and spelling. It is, thereforç unthìnkable that there is

such a number of respondents who never wrotç in the vçmaoular when, in this stud¡

they were presumed to be able to read it.

It may be argued that these respondents were barely literate in the vernacular

since it was not formally taught in school. But the close correspondence betwcen the

pronunciation and the spelling of words in any of the Philippine languages included in

this study would tend to exclude literacy difficulties as a probable explanation of this

phenomenon. Unlike the Englislt language, where spelling skills necessitate complete

familiarity with the word structure, almost all thç Philippine languages are written the

way they ¿lre pronounced. There are conrmon errors, however, that are observable in

writing the vernacular (at least in the experience of the researsher among the Warays).

One is the choice between the use of the vowels 'o' and 'u' (the latter pronounced as

long o) and of 'e' and 'i' (the latter pronounced as long 'e'). Dopending on how hard

or soft one enunciates the vowel sound, any of these vowel pairs can be interchanged.

Another recurring error derives from the residual of the Spanish language interspersed

into the lcuricon of the Philippine languages, where the use of some letters are mixed up

either on account of ignorance of the standardized Filipino form or because of

deliberately maintaining the original Spanish forru espeoially among the elderþ. For

sxample, the wotd 'kutsaf,a' (spoon) which is used in the four Philippine languages
 254

included in this survey can be written as 'cuchara', the original Spanish form. Other

examples include 'kahon' (box) written as 'cajon'; 'silya' (chair) written as 'cilla';

'sigariþ' (cigarette) written as 'cigarillo'; and 'kotse' (car) written as 'coche-' The

tørdency is to mix up the Spanish consonants c, ch, and ll for the Filipino consonants

k, ts, and Iy amongothers. Nonetheless, the correspondence between prornrnciation in

both cases still applies.

Ilsøge of Fítipíno. Filipino was less frequently activated by the Cebuano parents

in speaking compared to the other two groups. The mean indicators show that the

Cebuano group activated the language only at a mean of 2.92while the Waray and the

Ilocano gfoups, at a mean of 3.58 and 3.78, respectively. Apparently, the activation

was most frequent in the latter compared to the other two groups. But while the F-

ratio is 17.22 (sigrrificant beyond 1 per cænt level), the significant difference lies only

between the mean of the Waray and the Ilocano groups çornpafed with that of the

Cebuano group (See Table l5'A).

In both reading and writing, the language is activated substantially higher by

the Ilocanos with respective mean values of 3.86 and3.57 comparçd to the activation

of the Warays which has only a mean of 3.30 in reading and 3.00 in writing and the

Cebuanos being the lowest with respective mean values of 3.04 anó 2.67 in reading

and in writing. The F-ratios are 11.08 for reading and 11.51 for writing and are both

significant. These values led to the rejection of the null hypothesis that there is no

significant difference among the three g[oups in the activation of Filipino' Thc Scheffe

results showed thæ the Ilocano group signiflcantly activates the languags more
 2ss

frequently than the other two groups in speaking and in writing. No significant

difference is observed between the Cebuano and the Waray Sroups.

It may be argued that the opportunities to activate the language in these three

speech communities are minimal, if at all, considering the dominant use of their

vernacular. But the'figh" and "lorv" maan values respectively shown by the Ilocano

and the Cebuano groups and a certain proportion of thç Cebuanos who 'never' spealç

read, arrd write Filipino invite some insþhts. These figures could lead one to believe

that while Filipino is gaining acceptance as a lingua franca in sorne parts ofthe country,

it is obviously struggling in other areas, which in this study is exemplified by the

Cebuano speech comntunity.

(Isage of Englßh. In the activation of the English language, the sharpest contrast

could be seen between the substantial proportions among the Waray and the Cebuano

parents (16% and l9Yo, respectively) who activated the language 'always' in speaking

and that nobody from among the Ilocanos was counted in this category (See Table 15),

A large proportion of those who activated the language always in reading and in

wríting were observed among the Warays (6f/o a¡d 6lYo, respectively) and among the

Cebuanos (62% in both communication activities) while only marginal proportions

(32% for reading and l9o/o for writing) werç observçd among the llocanos. the mean

indicators show that English was often used by both Cebuano and Waray groups in all

three connnunication activities. The Ilocano parents, on the other hand, used the

language'often' in reading (l\Þ3,72) but only'sometimes' in speaking (M:3.00) and

in writing (M:3.26).
 2s6

Comparing the means ofthe three groups, significant differences were observed

in all three-communication activities. All the F-ratios--14.24 in speaking, 16.93 in

reading, and22.04 in writing-- are significant beyond I per cent level. Further analysis

showed that in all communication activities, both the Waray and the Cebuano parents

have significantly higher mean usage of English than the llocanos, a phenomenon that

can be e4plained by the significantly more frequent activation of Filipinos by the

Ilocanos as compared to the other two groups. Although the Waray parents have

consistently higher meflr usage of English than the Cebuanos in all communication

activities, the Scheffe results did not show any significant difference between the usage

ofthese two groups.

On the wholo, however, one can observe that English firtds ntore usage as

compared to Filipino and even the vernaoular, mor€ particularly in the Waray and in

the Cebuano speech communities.

THE DOMAINS OF LANGUAGES

The domains of languages in the experience of Filipino students and parents

were, likewise, looked into. Thcse were indicated by the usage of both groups of

respondents with interlocutors in the domqins of the home, school, market place,

business world, and in offices.

Domains of Languages Among Filipino Studenß

Ðomaìns of the vemaculan Apparently, the use of languages among arry of the

groups vary within the linguistic community as well as across communities (See Table

16). Among the Ilocano and the Waray students, the mean values indicate that the
 257

vernaculaf is used oftentimes with all but two interlocutorg namely, office people and

teachers to whom the language is used only 'sometimes'. The most frequent use by

both groups is in the home domairu particularþ with brothers/sisters (M:4.37 for

Ilocano and 4.53 for Waray). Table ló-C further shows that 5 per cent among the

Ilocanos never used the vornacular (Ilocano) with their parents. But this could actually

be attributed to the usage of other language(s) such as Tagalog, Ibaloi, and Kalanguya,

to mention a few, which were reported by some to be their home language.

The Cebuano students used the vernacular most frequently with brothers/sisters,

almost always, as indicated by the mean of 4.66. It was 'bftentimes" used with

relatives/friends (M=4,40), with fellow students (M--4.35), market vendors (M=4.48)

and with sales people (M:3.58); and "sometimes used" with teachers (M:3.13) and

office people (M=2.83),

The comparison of means showed that it is only in the use with mark4 vendors

and with schoolteachers where significant va¡iations across the three communities were

found. The F-ratio yielded in the former is 13.52 and in the latteç 9.55. Both values

are significant at I per cent level, which causes the rejection of the null hypothesis that

the means of the three groups in these two domains do not differ.

In other words, thç usage of tho vernacular in these three comrnunities did vary

significantþ and that, as shown by the Scheffe results, the lVaray and the Cebuano

students used the language with market vendors significantly more than the llocanos.

In the use with schoolteachers, the Ilocanos and the Cebuanos used the vernacular

more frequently than the Warays.

 258

Table 16

Comparison of Filipino Sfudents' Mean Ac{ivation oflanguages

inDifferent Domains

Ienguage and lvlean Usage of Cornnunities

F-ratio Scheffe TesResults
Interlocutorc Waray Ilocano Cebuano

Vern¡cular
a. pdËnts 4.46 4.31 4.58 1.3ó
b. relatives 4.26 4.22 4,40 .96
c. brqtbsts/sistôts 4.53 4.37 4.66 4.66
d fellow studenß 4.17 4.r8 4.35 1.03
e. marftet vendors 4.66 3,7s 4.48 t3.52** Mra¡ > Mz
f. salee people 3.88 3.64 3.58 1.09
g. officepeople 2.97 2.83 2.83 .32
h. school teachers 2.57 3.85 3. l3 9.55** Mr¡.r Þ M r

Xllloino
a. porents l.E8 3.42 2.54 29.8?++ Mz>M¡¿r;Mr>Mr
b. rclativestriends 3.00 3.38 2.80 6.57* Mz>Mr
c. brothsrs/sistÊts 2.s9 3.52 2.29 24-97+* Mz>Mto,
d" fellow Sudents 2.83 3,48 2.83 I l.69** Mz>Mr¿¡
o. marHvendors t.74 3.05 1.78 29.59+* Me>Mtæ
f.salcs people 2.74 3.27 2.3E 14.14'r* Me>M¡¿r
g. offic€ people 2.89 3.81 2.42 32.91*+ Mz> M ¡at
h. school t€achers 3.28 4.04 3.09 19.66** M z) M¡¡.r
Enqli¡h
a. pårEnts 2.86 2.36 3.23 17.05+* M l¿s)Mz
b. rclstive,Vftiends 2.74 2.X 3.37 17.94t* M¡ )Mz¿r
c. bmotherVsiften 2.82 2.56 3.A2 3.79* M3 )M2
d" fellow students 3.1I 2.84 3.62 15.57r,* Mr >Mzsr
e. market vendors 1.60 r.7t 2.02 3.18* M¿¡>MzlM¡>M
f. salespeqh 3,00 2.L4 3.6r 3l.78rr Ms&l>Mzi M¡)M t
g officepeople 3.s4 3.02 4.02 1E.60'F* M3¿¡)M2
h. school teactrcrs 4.26 3.51 4.O2 12.84*r
IæSend. The calcutatiø of the meqr was based on the following scale of usage:
*Significant at.05 1.00 -Never
'aSipificaot at ,01 2.00 - Seldsn
3.00 -Somctimes
4.00 -Oft€n
5.ü) -Always

A substantial number of students (9/o xnong the Ilocanos, 12 yo among the

Cebuanos, and 3 7o among the Warays) said they never used the vernacular to office

people and 6 pcr c€nt (from the Waray group only) never used it to teachers. The

res¡lts imply that students deal with office people who are presumed to have been

taken by the sh¡dents to meari the administrative personnel in school) in a more formal
 259

Table 16-A
!

Watay Students' Activation oflanguages to Different Interlocutors

N=35

Froqrency of Use
Language.s and
Always Ofren Sometimes Seldom Never Mean
Intefloclrtor¡
f o/¡ f oÁ f a/o
f o/o
f %

Vernacular
a. wEents 20 57 12 34 I 6 I 3 4.6
b. rclatives/füends 13 37 r8 5t 4 11 4.26
c. brothers/sisters 19 56 14 4l I 3 4.53
d. fellow strrdents 13 37 16ß 5 t4 I 3 4.r7
e. market vendors 27 77 617 I 3 I 3 4.66
f. salesneorúe 926 L4 ,10 ll 3l I 3 3.88
e. office oemle I 3 su 15 44 926 l3 2.97
h. school tescherÊ 514 t2 34 16 46 2 6 2.57

f'lllnino
a. þarents 8 23 15M t2 35 l.8E
b. relativedfriends 1 3 823 t7 48 823 I 3 3.00
c. brotherdsisters I 3 39 t7 50 720 618 2.59
d" fellow sh¡dents 823 14 40 t2 34 I 3 2.E3
e. market vendors 6 t7 t4 40 15 43 1.74
f. salesþemle 514 19 54 823 3 I 2.74
g. offiæDeoDle l3 720 16 46 926 2 6 2.88
h. schml tÊaclnrs 38 926 19 54 3 8 I 3 3.28

Encli¡h
a. Darents I 3 411 19 54 ll 31 2.W
b, relativesl&iends 4ll lE 51 13 37 2.74
c. brotherdsisters 720 15 44 ll 32 I 3 2.82
d. fellow studÊûfs I 3 926 t9 54 5 T4 1 3 3.rt
e. market vendors 4 t1 13 37 18 53 1.60
f. sales nænle 4ll 611 15 43 617 4u 3.00
s. o'ffice oooole 720 926 15 43 4ll 3.54
h. schml teachers 14 40 16 46 5 t4 4.26
mean int€rprêted on the following ranges scales:
1.0O- 1.49 -Never
1.50-2.49 -Seldom
2.50-3.49 -Sometimes
3.$ -4.49 -Oft€ú
4.49-above-Always
 260

Table 16-8
'a

Ilocano Students' Activation of Languages to Different Interlocutors

N: 55

Fresuency of Use
Languages and Always Often Sometimes Seldom Nevet
Mean
Interlocutors f % f o/o
F f% f%
Yo

Vernacular
a. Darents 37 67 6ll 7 l3 2 4 35 4.31
b. relativqVftiends 25 45 19 35 9 l6 2 4 4.22
c. brolherVsisærs 36 67 713 7 l3 36 T2 4.37
d fellow students 25 45 15 27 15 27 4.18
e. marhtvendors t6 29 13 24 22 40 4 7 3.74
f. salespooole 13 24 14 2s 23 42 5 9 3,64
g. officeoeople 59 815 27 50 t0 19 59 2.83
h. school leachers 7t3 12 22 29 53 713 3.34

Filioino
a. parents t2 22 713 29 53 6 ll I 2 3.42
b. nelatives/friend¡ 59 t7 3l 21 49 611 3.38
c. brotherysisters lr 20 ll 20 27 50 5 I 3.52
d. fellow strdents 713 14 26 31 57 2 4 3.48
e. marketvsndors 611 t4 25 15 27 t7 3l 35 3.05
f. sales people 6rr t4 25 24 44 ll 20 3.27
e. office DeoDle 16 30 t7 3L 6 30 5 9 3.81
h. school teachers l8 33 2t 38 16 29 4,04

Enelish
a. Dafents 24 24 21 38 19 34 lt 20 2.36
b. relatives/friends 5 I 27 49 t7 31 61r 2.56
c. brotherlsisærs I 2 5 9 2444 17 3l 713 2.56
d" fcllow students I 2 916 27 49 L6 29 24 2.U
e. narket vendors 1l 20 t7 31 27 49 t,7t
f. sales DeoDle 5 9 13 24 22 40 15n 2.r4
e. ofEce oeoole 5 I t2
22 33 l8 19 34 T2 3.02
h. school teachers 916 25 14 53 229 4 I 2 3.51
Legend: The mean is interpreæd based on the following fimges of scales:
1.00 - 1.49 Neve¡
l.5O -2.49 Seldom
2.50 -3.49 Sometimes
3.50 - 4.49 Often
4.50 - above Always
 261

Table l6-C

Cebuano Students' Activation oflanguages to Different Interlocutors

N:62
Frequency of Use
Languages and
Always Often Sonetimes Seldom Never Mcan
Interlæutors
f% f o/o
f % 1% f %

Vern¡cular
a. Darents 4t 66 16 26 5 I 4.58
b. 33 53 2t 34 8 l3 4.40
rclativeVftiends
c. brotherVsisters 45 74 12 20 3 5 I 2 4.66
d fellow students 27 44 30 48 J I 4.35
e. market veridon 44 7l 914 : I 3 5 I 2 4.48
f. sales oeople 16 26 17 27 t8 29 915 2 3 3.58
e. office neoole J 5 r0 17 28 47 12 20 7t2 2.83
h. school teachers I ) 2t 34 25 40 15 24 3.13

Fllinlno
a. Daf€nts I 2 915 le 32 22 37 814 2.54
b. 3 5 915 24 40 2t 35 3 5 2.80
relativeVfriends
c. brotherVsísærs I 2 47 19 32 22 37 t3 22 2.29
d. fellow stu&nts ill8 31 52 t5 25 _t 5 2.t3
e. market vendors 47 I l6 t4 25 29 52 r1E
f. sales people 47 24 44 t6 29 1r 20 2,38
g. offioeþeoole 59 21 38 2t 38 815 2.42
h. school teachers a J 16 26 32 52 813 3 5 3.09

Errslish
a. Darcnts 21 35 32 53 7t2 3.23
b. 2 3 24 40 29 48 4 7 I 2 3.37
relativedftiends
c. brotherVsisters 1 2 t7 30 25 44 l0 l8 4 7 3.02
d- fellow students 5 8 31 5l 22 36 J 5 3.62
e. market vendors 59 I t7 2t 40 l8 34 2.02
f salesoeoole 1l t9 21 3l 20 34 7t2 3.61
s. officeDeoole ls 24 32 52 t4 23 4.02
l¡" school teachers lr l8 66 4l 16 l0 4.02
Iægend: The nrean is interprøed based on the followiag ranges of scales:
l.0O -1.49 Nwor
L.SO -2,49 Seldom
2.50 -3.49 Sometimes
3.50 - 4^49 Oftèn
4.50 - above Always
 262

and official fashion, hence, thc use of either English or Filipino as the two curent
-a

official languages.

Domøìns of Fìlþino. With regæd to the activation of Fiþino, the mean values

yielded showed considerable variations across the three groups. While the Ilocanos

oftentimes used the language with teachers (M:4.04), with brothers/sisters (M=3.52)

and with office people (M:3.81), it is only sometimes used with the teachers by the

Cebuanos (M=3.09) and by the Warays (M:3.28) and is seldom used by the Cebuanos

with brothers/sisters GvI:2.29).

Iri atl three communities, it could be seen that the activation of the Filipino
language w¿s least with market vendors, although the usage among the Ilocano

students was significantly higher (M=3.05) than the activation ¿unong the Cebuano

(M=1.78) and the Waray (M=1.74) students. A considerable proportion of students

who never used the language with market vendors was most observed among the

Cebuanos (52yù and among the Warays (43Yo), compared to thc insignificant

proportion of 5 per cent among the llocanos.

Looking at Table 16, it could be seen that in all domains, the language usage of

the three communities significantly varied. The F-ratios a¡e all significant at I per çent
level except in thç use with relatives and friends where the F-ratio (6.57) is significant

at 5 per cent level only. Interesting results are shown by the Scheffe tests. In the use

with brotherVsisters, fellow students, market vendors, sales people, office people, and

school teachers, the Ilocano students used Filipino significantly more frequentþ than

the Warays and the Cebuanos. [n the u¡e with relatives and friends, the significant

difference occurred only between the Ilocanos and the Cebuanos, where the use of the
 263

former was more frequent than that of the latter. But irr the use with parents, the

Ilocanos had significantly more frequent usage of the language compared to the

Cebuanos and the Warays, and the Cebuanos likewise had a higher mean usage than

the Warays.

The mean indicators show that Filipino was very minimally used with market

vendors Od:1.88) and with parents (M=1.88) among the Warays and only with market

vendors (M=1.78) among the Cebuanos.

Domøíns of Engtßh. In the use of English, the mean values yielded by the

Ilocanos are noticaably lower than those yielded by the Ccbuartos and the Warays with

all interlocutors, except market vendors, where the Ilocano usage was sliglrtly higher

than that of the Warays. The comparisons of means yielded F-ratios that are all

significant at the one per cent level except with two interlocutors, nameh

brotherVsisters and market vendors, The Scheffe results showed an opposite trend,

where the Ilocanos used English significantly less frequently in all domains than either

only one or both the other two groups, which findings are direct contragt to the usage

of the Filipino languoge.

It should atso be noted that the Waray group used the English language

signifioantly less than the Cebuanos, with relatives and friends, with fellow students,

with sales people, and \¡rith office people. There was no domain in which the Cebuanos

used the language significantly lower than eithcr or both of the othor two groups.

Consistentl5 however, the use of English with teachers, compaÍed to the rest

of the interlocutors, is highest in all th¡ee oorrununities whish çould either be on

account of obligation or of responsibility. Some rules and regulations (both verbal and
 264

writteÐ force the students to use English with teachers. As one observes, many

schools in the Philippines impose some form of punishment when students speak in the

vernacular. At the same time, the students feel the responsibility of using English with

teachers to give themselves a chance to both develop competence in the language and

to show respect--the usage of English with teachers and/or other school authorities

being associated with courtesy and politeness.

The fact that English is more oftentirncs activatcd emong the Cebuano and the

Waray groups of students and less among the Ilocanos oould be explained naturally by

the latter's more frequent activ¿tion of Filipino. On the contrary, it is only ín the
Ilocano group where an observed proportion of respondents could be assumed to have

English as their first language since they claimed to always use in the home domain (4

per cent always used it with parents and ? per cerit always used it with

b¡others/sisters). In an earlier study of Gonzales and Sibayan (1988.27\, it was

reported that those who learned Englísh as a first language at home (side by side with

the native language, sinca no Filipino home is truly monolingual), constituted a national

proportion of 2.7 Yo,the highest being in the Ilocano-Mt. Province region/area (9.5%),

followed by Cebuano-Msamís Oriental-Agusar (6.7%), with Metro Manila registering

only 3 per cont.

The relatively less frequent use of English and Filipino, and the corresponding

dominance of the vernacular with market vendors in all communities, still supports the

earlier findings of Caballero (1983), Dumaran (1980), Mendoza (1978), and Otanes

and Sibayan (1969) whose studies, as reported by Gonzales (1988: 7-26), all found the

vernacular to be the medium of market transactions. In other words, even after almost
 265

th¡ee decades, the communication medium in the market has maintained the status quo.

The same report of Gonzales, however, pointed out that the study of Olonan (1978)

found Pilipino to be predominantly used in Paniqui, Tarlac (an Ilocano speech

community) which led tho researcher to conclude that the lingua franca was fast

spreading.

Domains of Languages Among Filipino Parents

Domains of the vetnaculør. The use of the vernacular amorig parerts across

the three speech communities appeared to have no established patteflN, in so far as the

frequency of use with different interlocutors is concerned. Among the Ilocanos, for

example, it was most frequently used with husband/wife (M=4.57) and lvith children

(M: 4.55) (See Table 17-B). In the Cebuano Soup, it was always used \ilith parents

(M=4.58), husband/wif. (M:+.95), children (M=4.78), relatives/ftiends (M=4.79), and

with market vendors (M:4.84) (See Table l7-C). These mean values indicate a

substantially higher usage than that ofthe llocanos with same interlocutors. Among the

Warays, it was always used only withparents (M:4.50) and with market vendors

(M=4.73) (See Table l7-A). While the vernacular is most used with children among

the Ilocanos, it is most used with market vendors ¿Ìmong the Cebuanos and among tÏe

Warays. The comparison of means proved that it is only in two domains, namely, the

use with parents in the home and the use with rnarket vendors where significant

differences were found. (See Table 17) The former yielded an F-ratio of 4.71and the

latter, 16.14.

Both values are significant beyond one per cent level which rn€ans that the

frequencies ofusage among the three communitics with these two categories of
 266

Table 17

Comparison of Parents' Usage of Languages

in Different Domains

Innguage and Sigtiûcant

Waray Ilocano Ceh¡mo F- Rstio
Interlocutor¡ at .05 Iævel
|[= lr[= ]r[=

Vemrcul¡r

a. husband/wife 4.45 4.51 4.85 2.44

4.50 4.38 4.58 AI
4.30 4.52 4.79 4.71r+ MÞMI
childrm 4.36 4.55 4,78 2.91
e. work colleagues 3.78 3.38 4.08 t.26
4.73 4.04 4.U 16.7+t Mt.Þh42
people 4.15 3.72 4.10 2.73
people 3.E2 3.4s 3.74 1.15
i. school te¿chqs 3.29 3.36 3.58 t,23

Filipino

2.90 3.20 2.5t 4.26fi MÞM3

2.45 2.96 2.35 3.68** MÞ3
2.90 3.27 2.57 8.4?*. M2>M3l
3.07 3.34 2.58 6.4+t M2,>I\Æ}
e. 2.94 1.47 2.53 14.99+r rtÞM3,1
f. market 2.03 3.27 1.88 34.06tú MÞM3,1
s. offic€ oeople 2.U 2.52 2.57 15.55+* M>M3,1
2.n 3.61 2.57 17.53|] M2>Nß.1
i. workc.ollasues 3.00 3.33 2.57 7.30*r MÞlvfì

Engllsh

a 3.03 2.33 3.00 8.95*. Ml.3>lvf2;

2.50 2.tr 4.704
c. relativeVfriends 2.72 2.55 2.89 l-81+t
d. children 3.31 2.v2 3.04 2.O2

e. 3.53 2.71 3,21 6.68..

f. ma¡ket \¡endors t.s2 1.90 1.6ó 2.33
e. salesÞeople 2.81 2.40 2.08 7.65.r
h. office oeople 3.48 2.88 3.39 5.60*+ Ml.3>M2
i. school teachers 3.72 3.02 3.53 7.39+4 Ml,3>M2
I*4eúl. merusare interpeted based ut the following ranges ofscale:
+ Signific¿nt at .05 1.00 - 1.49 Never
*'Sig¡riñcmt at .01 1.50 -2.49 Seldom
> Grentcrfhnn 2.50 -3.49 Sometimes
3.50 -4.49 Often
4.50 - above Always
 267

Table l7-A

Waray Parents' Aotivation oflanguages in Different Domains

N:35
Frequency ofUse
Languagcs and
Always ffien Sonetimes Seldom Nçr¡er I4ean
Interlocutors
f a/o i o/o
F % f o/o
r%
Vernacular
22 67 72t 2 6 I 3 l3 4.45
b. mrents 23 72 619 I 3 26 4.50
c. relatives/friends 17 52 l0 30 515 I 3 4.30
d- children 16 48 13 39 4 12 4.36
e. workcolleames 722 r4 44 825 39 3.78
f. martetvenùn¡ 26 79 515 2 6 4.73
s. sales ueo'r¡le 14 42 t2 36 6 l8 r3 4. t5
h. office oeoole ll 33 824 1l 33 3 9 3.82
i. schml toachers 310 929 13 42 619 3.29

Xllinino
413 4t3 l0 32 11 35 26 2.90
b. parents 310 I 3 E26 t4 45 51ó 2.45
c. relatiræslftiends I 3 516 15 48 l0 32 2.90
d. chilùen 27 620 15 50 620 l3 3.O7
e. sales úeoDle l3 619 15 48 826 l3 2.9t
f. marketvendors 26 5 16 16 52 826 2.03
s. ofrceDeoDle 6t9 l5 48 929 137 2.E4
h. school teacheß 826 14 45 723 26 2.90
i. workcolleacues 825 17 53 619 l3 3.00

Dnsl¡sh
a. huúand/wífe 620 19 63 517 3.03
b. oarents 39 t3 4l 13 4t 39 2.50
c. relatives/ friends 412 t6 50 ll 34 l3 2.72
d child¡en l3 l0 34 15 52 310 3.3I
e, work colleasues 516 144/. 825 39 26 3.53
f. ma¡ketvendors 3 l0 10 32 l8 5E t.52
s sales oeoole 5 ,16 t7 55 723 26 2,81
h. office people 515 33 ll 39 13 39 I 3 3.48
i. æhool teachers 412 53 t7 928 26 3.72
The means are interpeted bosed on the following rangs of scales:
1.00 - 1.49 Nwer
1.50 - 2.49 Seldom
2.5O -3.49 Sometime¡
3.50 - 4.49 Often
4.50 - above Always
 268

Table l7-B

Ilocano Parents' Activation oflanguages in Different Domains

N-62
Frequency of Use
Language and
Always Ofren Sometimes Seldom Never Mean
Interlocutors î//o
fV" f f % fYo fYo
Vemacular
a. hu$and/wife 44 83 24 J 6 I 2 36 4.57
b. parents 39 75 36 4 8 3 6 36 4.38
c. relatives/friends 36 69 9t7 6t2 L2 4.52
d. children 43 81 24 5 I 36 4.55
e. work colleasues 15 31 15 3l 15 3l T2 24 3.38
f. marketvendors 24ß 815 l8 3s 24 4.M
g. salespeople t4 28 rl 22 22 44 36 3.72
h, office peoole 918 l0 20 24 49 612 3.45
i. school teachers 816 816 29 58 48 I2 3.36

XTlioino
918 918 19 30 918 48 3.20
b. parents 918 510 18 36 11 22 7t4 2-96
c. relativesl&iends 713 815 30 58 6t2 t2 3.21
d. children r1 22 10 20 19 38 510 510 3.34
e. sales oeople 918 11 22 26 50 510 3.47
f. m¿rketvendors 48 t2 25 25 52 7t5 3.27
q. office oeoole 919 ll 23 24 50 48 3.52
h, school teachers 816 l8 35 22 43 36 3.61
i. work colleagues 714 t4 29 2t 43 24 510 3.33

Enslish
24 24 t7 35 t7 35 ll 22 2.33
b, parents t2 t2 15 32 ts 32 15 32 2.tt
c. relativeslfriends I 2 48 22 47 13 28 715 2.ss
d. children t2 816 30 61 6t2 48 2.92
e. work colleazues t2 919 22ß 7t5 919 2.71
f. marfuetvendors t2 13 26 15 31 20 4t r.90
g" sales Detole 36 23 49 1l 23 to 2t 2.+O
h- officepeople L2 l0 20 27 54 6t2 612 2.E8
i. schoolte¿chers 36 t2 23 26 49 713 59 3.02
Legend: The means are interpreted based on the following ranges of scalç:
1.00 - 1.49 Never
I.5o -2.49 Scldom
2.5O -3.49 Sometimes
3.50 - 4.49 Often
4,50 - above Always
 269

Table 17-C

Cebuano Parents' Activation oflanguages in Different Domains

N-55
Freouencv of Use
Languages and
Interlocutors
Always Often Sometimes Seldom Nwer Mean
f % f % f % f% f 6/o

Venacular
4t 85 7t5 4.8s
b. uarents 39 85 36 3 6 1 2 4.58
c- relatives/friends 42 81 917 I 2 4.79
d- children 4t 80 918 I 2 4.78
e. work colleacues l8 38 l8 38 l0 2r 24 4.0E
f. marketvendors 45 90 24 3 6 4.84
g. sales oeople 21 44 15 31 9 l9 24 l2 4.10
h. ofûceoeoole 13 28 t4 30 15 32 5t0 3.74
i. school teachers 715 19 36 20 38 5r0 3.58

I'llinÍno
a. husband¡wife 25 31 16 37 t7 40 5t2 2.53
b. pa¡ents l2 49 14 33 t4 33 l0 23 2.35
c. relativelfriends 5 ll 20 43 17 37 49 2.s7
d. children I 2 5il 17 38 t8 40 49 2.58
e. sales peorúe 37 22 49 16 36 49 2.53
f. marketvendors 37 7 L7 14 33 18 43 1.88
g. officepeople 5 ll t9 43 16 36 49 2.57
h. school teachers 7t7 n40 14 33 614 2.57
í. workcolleazues I2 511 16 36 l8 4l 49 2.57

Enslish
t2 t2 27 2t 47 818 31 3.00
b. pa¡ents t2 5 1l 23 52 920 6L4 2.68
c. relativeVfriends 24 7t5 25 53 l0 2t 36 2.89
d. children 48 6t2 28 59 817 24 3_04
e. work colleasues 48 t2 25 25 52 48 36 3.2r
f. marketvendors 920 1l 25 24 s4 1.66
s. salesoeoole 36 918 27 55 918 l2 2.08
h. office oeoole 6t2 t2 24 27 55 36 t2 3.39
i. school teachers 6t2 19 39 19 39 510 3.53
Legend: The means are interpreted basod on the following ranges of scales:
1.00 - 1.49 Ner¡er
1.50 - 2-49 Seldom
2.50 -3.49 Sometimes
3.50 - 4.49 Often
4.50 - above Always
 270

interlocutors significantly vary. The Scheffe results showed that with parents, the
Cebuanos had significantly more frequent use than the Warayq but not the llocanos.

With market vendors, on the other hand, the Cebuano and the Warays used the
vernacular significantþ more frequent than the Ilocanos which could actually be
explained by the latter's more frequent use of Filipino in the market,

Consistent with the findings in the students' group, the vernacular was least

used with teachers in all three speech communities,

Domøins of Fílþûno. On the other hand, the mean values indicating the use of

Filipino with different interlocutors ranged from 2.96 (usage with parents) to 3.6t

(usage with school teachers) among the llooanos; 1.88 (usage with market vendors) to

2.58 (usage with children) among the Cebuanos; and 2.03 (usage with market vondors)

to 3,07 (usage with children) among the Warays. The language was most frequently
activated among the Ilocanos where it was used "oftentimes" with two interlocutors--

teachers and office people-and "sometimes" with all the rest of the interlocutors, the

least use being with parents.

On the contrary, the greatest extent to which both the Cebuano and the Waray

g[oups reported use of Filipino was "$ometimes." The highest activation in both

groups was with children alrd the lowest was with market vendors, But while the mean

values yielded by the two groups fell into same category (for interpretation purposes)

those yielded by the Cebuanos were substantially lower than those yielded by the

Warays. This was evident in relation to all interlocuto¡s, the most pronounced among

rWarays).
the contrasts being the use with children (M-2.58 for Cebuano and 3.07 for

Table 17 shows th¿t the F-ratios are all significant at the 1 per cent level except

for the use with parørts, which is signiflcant only at the 5 per cent level. All values

indicate significant differences among the three groups. The null hypothesis, therefore,

that there is no significant differe,nce in the use of Filipino among the three groups of
 27t

parents is rejected. Likewise, the findings are consistent with that of thc students; it is

the Ilocano group that had significantly higher mean usage than both the Warays and

the Cebuanos in the activation with sales people, market vendors, office people, and

school teachers and was highet than the Cebuano group alone, in the use with

husband/wife, parents, relatives/friends, children, and work colleagues. Obviously, the

results show that the activation of Filipino in the different domains was highest among

the llocanos, followed by the Warays and the least w¿s among the Cebuanos'

Domoìns of English. The use of English among the Ilocanos \¡vas generally less

compared to the use observed in the other two groups. It was most frequently used

with tçachers but only with a mean value of 3.02 indicating a usage of "sometimes"

together with other interlocutors, namely office people, children and work colleagues'

It was "seldom" used with the other interlocutors, the least being with market vendors

(M=1.90)

Á,rnong the Cebuanos and the Warays, it was most frequentþ used with

schoolteachers (M=3.53 for the former and 3.72 for the latter). Both mean values

indicate A usage of "oftentimes" including the use of the Waray group with work

colleaguos which is also at a level of "oftentimes" (M:3.53). Furthermore, the use

of

English in both Cebuano and Waray communities rvas only at the level of sometimes

with all the rest of the interlocutors, exc€pt with market vendors with whom it was

only seldom used in both communities, although slightly more frequent aruong the

Cebuanos (M:1.66) than among the Warays (M=1'52).

As indicated by the mean values, the Waray group of parents has the most

frequent use of English with husband/wife, children, work colleâgus, soles people,
 272

office people, and sshoolteachers. The F-ratios computed for these interlocutors are all

significant except thet for children which did not reach a significance level and which

indicates that no significant difference in the use of English with children among the

three communities exists. In all the categories of interlooutors where significant F-

ratios were yielded, the activation of the Waray parents was significantly higher than

only the Ilocano group but not the Cebuano group. Likewisg the Cebuano parents

have significantly higher mean usage than the Ilocano group only in the activation with

husbanüwife, parents, sales peoplg office people, and schoolteachers.

Díscussion The more frequent use of English with teachers in all three
communities implies that parents üke their children talk to tçachers in English. As to

whether they find it compelling, considering that English is the language of the school

domaia or just plain convørience \¡rith the English language is beyond the limits of

these findings. In like maflrer, parents also use English more frequently with work

colleagues in all thrce communities indicating that English still persists as the official

langrrage of the country, notwithstandÍng the proclamation of Filipino as the official

language as early as the 1935 Constitution and re-affirmed in the 1973 Constitution.

Comparing however, the frequency of English and Filipino usege with work

colleagues, it is onþ in the Cebuano and Waray communities where the dominance of

English is observed. In the Ilocano communitg Fifipino is substantially predominant to

English, which could imply some degree of implementation of the constitutional

mandate, beyond the more plausible explanation of facilþ with the language.
 273

OVERALL PATTERNS Otr'LANGUAGE USE

The typology developed by Ammon applied to analyze the pverall patterns of

language use irr the Australian setting was likewise applied to analyze the responses in

the Philippine setting. The results for both students and parents a"re presented in the

succeeding pages.

Overall Patterns of Language Use Among Filipino Students

The results show that the sole use of any one language in the different domains

was hardly ever observpd, except in the market where a substantial 35 per cent arnong

the Warays and 4O per cent amoflg the Cebuanos use the vernacular solely (See Table

18). In cóntrast, only 4 per cent solely activate the vern¿cular with market vendors

arriong the llocanos. Almost all of them (the Ilocano respondents) used the thnee

languages although the largest group consisted of those who used the threc languages

hierarchically, with vernacular being the most dominanq followed by Filipino and

English (33%). This is followed by those who showed "equal" dominance of trvo

languages--vernacular and Fiþino--over English that was less used (25%).

The dominance of the vçrnacular in the market domain over Filipino and

English either "hierarchiçal$' or'bqu¿lly" less used is also observed in the Waray and

the Cebuano communities. It should be noted, however, th¿t in the hierarchical order,

the use among the Warays is followed by Filipino as the second dominant over English

(29/o), while inthe Cebuano Broup, English dominates over thc use ofFilipino (15%).

In the home domairL the dominance of the vernaculâr over Filipino and Engllsh

either as "equally''loss used or'túerarchieally''ordçred is observed in all commudties.

But while the concentration of Warays in relation to firyo interlocutorg namely, pareûts
 274

and brothers/sisters, was towards the balanccd use of the less dominant Filipino and

English the Iloçanos and the Cebuanos use the ttrree languages in hierarchical order,

the former using the pattern of wrnqcalør-FiliptnæEnglßh and the latter, vernaculør-

Englßh-Filþino. None of the respondents endorsed the solc use of any language in the

school domain. Howevetr, the dorninance of the vçrnacular in any pattern of co-

activation of the language is observable in all three communities. But while the usage

among the Warays with teachers is dominantþ English in tr¡vo pattems, namely one

(English) over two less used Q\o/o) and in the hierarchically ordered pattern where

Filipino precedes vernacular (37yo), the larger perc€ritage of Ilocanos are dominantly

Filipino over two "equally'' less used (3lo/o) and those with 'balanced use of three

languages Q0%).Among the Cebuanos, the concentration was towards the dominant

use of English over the "equally''less used Filipino a¡rd vernacular, closely followed by

those with 'equal' dominanoe of two (vemacular and English) over Filipino Qæ/o').

These patt€nts are also observed with office people whcre the largast proportions

emong the Warays ând the Cebuanos Qæ/o for both) are domin¡rrfly English while the

Ilocanos Q5%') a¡e dominantly Filipino. These results cloarly show the arnbivalent

stature of Filipino in the different Philippine speech communities. As shown in this

study, it was the most commonly used language arnong the Ilocano respondents; it was

second to English amortg the Warays but not gaining headway among the Cebuano

respondents.
 275

Table 18

Overall Patterns oflanguage Use to Different Interlocutors Among Filipino Students

in the Three Speech Communities

0û
Spcsch ßolo Àcrivrtim Oûe doúiûr¡ú qvorl*o
Doqi¡¡roe of øo h ratien¡oliql ordct
Equ¡l díînrrûoo otr B¡h
Coml¡¡¡las/¡ øurllv lG rsé.1 tm ovgr odo cêd
¡t€docütds v F E v F E VFE vËF FVE FEV BF'V E\IF VF w FE E$¡.¡
(%) f(Vo) 1(%) q%) fVo) f(Yo) Wo\ (%) fr.w \Y") (9/o) {%) \Yo) {%) V") o80
lø/"1
lVrr.¡v Cm
N=35 14 (.ro) I (3) r (lr) ro (2E) I
I {3)
I 3 (e)
(3) (3)
r ta¡ãrb
b b(otäerv
sißtcc
I (3) I (3) E Q4) t (3) I (3) I (3) 2(O
c. æl¡¡ived
fiad¡ ó (18) J (1s) I (3) 3 (e) r (3)
foüor¡
.¡.
sbd6h 3 (8) 1 (3) 7 (m) I (3) 3 (r) I (3) 5 (r4)
e. sc,hod
taúm I (3) l0(28) I (3) 13 (3Ð 5 (t4) 5 (r4)
f, úrúst
vearhr¡
1435) t (24) lo(29) 4 (t2)

I,sålos
¡eoob
2 (6) 12 (34) 4(11) 4 (ll) 3 (e) I (3) l (3) 7 (6' 3 (e) 3 (e)
f. ofroo
mlE I (3) 4(lr) 4 (ll) I (3) 7(m) I (3) 2 (6) 5 (14) 4 (ll) 6 (r,
llocrno Con
N-
'J I (?) I (2) 13 (24) I (2) t2 (4o) I (2) 3 (5) 3 (5) 7 (r3) 3 (5)
¡, ta¡€rb
b, broûers/
ßiîteß
16 (30) 3 (6) le (35) 2 (4\ 4 (?) I (t) J (e) 2 (4' 2 (4)
rst¡ivs¡/
c.
friñ& r (15) 4 (11 r8 (33) 4(n rs{21l, 6 (ll)
ßlhúv
d.
ßhtrt€ûts
t3(u, I (2) 14{25) I (2) 5 (e) lr(3) I (2) 2 (4'
s. srhool
b¡chds
4 (7) l13r) 6(l r) rQt 3 (J) 3(Ð 3 (5) ? (13) 1l (20)

f, m¡úet
\drdm 2 (41 3 (5) I (2) l8 (33) 2 (4) 12{22) ¡4 (25) ¡ (2) 2 14)

& sdes | I (il)

mle 5 (e) 2 (41 (2) 14(25) (2) 6 le(14) r (2) 2 (4) 4 (7)
f- ofrpe
mlo I (2) 3 (5) 4(t5) 2 (1) 5 (e) ó (ll) 4 (7' 4 (1) 3 (r) 6 (11) 7 (13)
Cebu¡n¡ Cox
N= 62 J (E) l8 (29) I (2) lr (1r) t7 Q7) 3 (5) 3 (s) 4 (6)
r. p¡rEúc
hroüerd
b,
siders
4 (6\ 16 (26) 4 (ó) 28 (4O 2 (3) 3 (J) 3 (5) I (2)

0. þldfuoÊi
fiwds
I (2) r8 (2e) | (¡) rQ, r {¡3) t6 (ß, I (2) 4 (6) 5 (t) 7 (n)
.Lfôllffi
stúddtß t5 (24) 2 (3) t5 (ul I (2) 5 (8) I (2) t5(u) 6 (r0)
o. sotml
úsæfrËs
1 (2) I (2) t7(2T) 1 (2) u(r8) 4 (6) 1 (2) t5 (24) I (r3) 3 (r)
f, mrú€t
vmdm r4(4o) 14(zt) 6 (10) e (lJ) 2 (3) rQ> 2 (3) r (2) I (2)
$hs
&
Do6l3
3 (5) ¡ (2) u (lr) 3 (r) lr (lt) 5 (r) tz<te) e (14) ? (11)

û. ofrce
¡s@b
4 (6) l2lm) J (8) il(rr) 13 <2t, I (2) il(18) 4(O

V - Vemaeular
F - Filþino
E - E¡rglidr
 216

Other interesting findings in so far as the overall patterns of use are concerned

among students include the sharp contrasts in the hierarchiçal use of the three

languages wíth brotherVsisters. Among the Ilocanos it is verrncalar-Filþino-English

(V-F-E) while among the Cebuanos and the'Warays, vernacalar-English-Filipino. The

dominance of Filipino coming next to vernacular over English is also observed in the

activation with relatives/friends among the Warays, but the contrast (lS% for V-F-E

vs. l5olo for V-E-F) is not as sharp as what is observed &mong the Ilocanos (33% for

V-F-E vs.7Yo for V-E-F). Among the Cebuanos, only one-half of those who use in the

order of V-E-F Q6%) use in the order of V-F-E (13%).

The flndings also reveal the versatilþ of sales people, at least in

cornmunication skills, where the respondents in all communities were fairly distributed

in the different categories of use from sole use to co-activation with vernaoular,

Filipino, or English as the dominant medium.

Over¡ll Pattems of Language Usc Among Filipino Perents.

Likewisg the sole use of any of the languages in different domains is not

observed among parents in any of the speeoh communities. Even with the use of the

vernacular, it i$ only with market vendors that a larga percentage of sole usage is

observed among the Cebuanos (37%) and among the Warays (29 %\. A substantial

proportion of those who reported sole use of the vernacular with parents and wìth

husbandrwfe was also observed among the Cebuanos (lS% and lú/o, respectively)

and among the Ilocanos (13% for the former and l}Vo for the latter). The majority of
the respondents co-activated the language with an observed dominance of any one or

two languages depending on the domains in which the languages were used. In the
 277

home domair¡ language interaction with husband/wife, with parents, and viith children

was dominated by the use of the vernacular, either in a pattern that Filipino and

English are more or less equally less used or in hierarchical order, where English is

next dominant among the Visayans (Cebuanos and Warays) and Filipino among the

Ilocanos.

The dominance ofthe vernacular, where Filipino comes next in the hierarcþ, is

also commonly observed in the use with market vçndors in all three speech
communities. These results show that while there is a general preferenoe for the use of

English (VEF) more than Filipino in the different domains in the two Visayan groups,

Filipino comes next to the vernacular in the inte,raction with market vendors among thg

Cebuanos (16% with pattern of VFE as against 6 0/o vøth the pattern of VEF) and

arnong the Warays, constituting almost one-half of the respondents (43Yo for VFE

compared to a negligible 3Yo for VEF). In the market situation, therefore, there is

widence that Filipino is growing to be the national lingua franca as the next most used

alternative to the vernacular.

It is interesting to note, howevór, that these findirtgs seem not to conforrn to

some actual practices in many commercial activrties. More commonly, price labels,

even in very small business activities like selling fruits in sidewalks of city streets are in

Ënglish (e.g. P50 per kilo orP25 per l/2 kilo) aside from the 'abuse' of the phrase 'for

sale.'Even in the remote areas ofthe rural Philippines, people have thç tendency to put

labels or captions in English. For example, in a small sari-sari (conveniencc) storg a

corllmon sþht reads, thus: 'Credit is good but we need cash" where the límited

understanding of some customers, leads to mistaking the word "credit" for "dÊbt"'
 278

Table 19
Overall Patterns oflanguage Use to different Interlocutors Among
Filipino Parents in the Three speech Communities

,anlwe UF

Sp@h Sole Áctimtim One domi¡rmt ovã Dütrircofmeinm Equ¿l <lomh¿nc¿ oftwo
CmmitieJ two æü¡nvkseus€d hiærdrielofüÉ Bdflæ
k¡tql@¡tqs F E F E VFE VEF FYE EFV EVF VF VE B4uâl
FEV FE
\vù f(%) fe/o) \vù f(/o) f(16) Fe/ù {7Ð {"/t t%) \Y") F(/ù ("/ô ("/ù \n W
f(o/¡\
ÌÍæCm
N=35
d. hwbmrV 2 (6) lr (3r) I (3) 12 (34) 2(q 2(q 2(q I (3)
q,lfe-
b DôEts 3 (9) I 11ì , lríl 1 (3) I t3)
c rd¿tivev
ûiqds
I (3) 1l (31) I (3) 5 04) 6 (r1) I (3) 2(q 3 (e) 3 (e)

d dtild¡qr 2ß\ R 2 16l 3 19) 2l6t

e. work
ællmæ I (3) 3 (e) I (3) 4 (ll) 2 (6) 3 (e) I (3) I (3) 2(O 3 (e) 6 (lÐ 2 (6) 4 (ll)
f måJtd
r0(2e) 5 (r4) 15 (43) t (3) 2 (6)
g sslË
lmle 2(O I (3) 11 (31) r (3) 5 (rÐ 4 0l) | (3) 2 (6) 2 (6) t (r) 4 (lD
h. ofüæ
mole I (3) 7 ea) I (3) 5 (14) 3 (e) 6 (17) 3 (e) 2 <6) 2(q 2 (6) 2(q
r-kdlfi lß) 216) I(23) 5(l I r¡ì 6 II7¡
lkramcm
N.5S
a- hmb¡nd/ 6 (lÐ I (2) 13 Q4) I (2) 20 (3ó) 2 (4) 2 (4) 5 (e) I (2) | (2)
wife
h tw6tß 7U\ ì lr'ì ll 120) l7 l3lì 2 løì
c- d¡tiv€Y
ñiñdß 3 (5) 7 (4) ts Q7) 3(Ð l8 (33) 4Q) I (2) ¡ (2) 7 03) 2 (4) 3 (5)

d aùiHrã I l?l l7ßl) 4l,7\ I l2l 14 125) 1 (13

e. wort
øllesus 3(Ð I (2) I (2) 6 (lr) 5 (e) 2 (4) 8 05) I (?) z (4) I (2) rr?, lo (r8) 2 (4> 2 <4) e (lo
i nEiket
3(Ð 60Ð r 2l 5 r (2)
vàd6 1 (2) 5 (e) (2) (3Ð 1 (2) (e) 6 (rÐ 3(Ð
g eale
mdÊ I (2) I (2) 5 (e) ro (18) I (2) t2 (22) I (2) 5 (e) I (2) e (lo 3(Ð I i2) 5 (e)
o6æ
1r.
ffile | (2) 2 (4) 4Q) 6 (11) 3(Ð 5 (e) | (2) 6 (rr) 2(Ð 2 (4) 8 (14) 4 <7) | (2) 1 (t3)
i.tqdñ 2ø\ 315l 311 I /2r r ll¿ì r(2) 7 (l3) t2 a2\
C.blm
Cm
N-ó2 6 (10) (2) 2 (3) t4Q1) t/c) 7 (ll) t7 (27) I (2) z (3)
s. húrbanù
çiÊ
b.ffitß | í')\ 5(9) 2 l3l l l2l l 12)
c. r¿latives/
ñi$d6
4 (6) I (2) ts (2.4) il (lÐ le (3r) ta) 2 (3) I (2)
d ¿triläm 4 f6t t5 or'ì 5 (9) 2l ß1) lÐ
wo¡t
e.
øll€osG 3(Ð 3(Ð e (rt I (2) I (2) 4 (6) r0 (1o 2 (3) 2 (3) 8 (13) 2Q) 6 (10)

t: na*d tQ)
vqdm 23(X1) l0 (16) ro (ro 4 (6) ¡ (2) | (2)
g sals
role 2 (3) 2 (t) l8 (1e) 2 (3) I (2) 11 (18) 2 (3) I (2) 2 (3) 5 (8) 5 (8)

hofræ
ønle 3(Ð 7 (tl) ,8> 3 (5) 4(q 12 0e) 3(O 4(q 5 (B) x (3) 6 (ro)
itadræ 3lt 2 13) t(D 9¿l R fl1ì 5 l*ì r t?ì 5 (8t

Another example is the case of ¿ barnboo raft which is used as a transport

facility in one ofthe villagss in Leyte for commuters to cross from one side of the river

to the other [as there is no foot bridge, at least, that people can walk throughJ. To

inform the riding public, a notice board anflounces the following: 'Children and adults -

P2.00 'leaf' (instead of fare)-' In the personal experience of the researcher, it is

 279

somewhat natural for people to use English in public notices. Some are properþ done

(e.g. 'Beware of dogs," '?ost no bills," 'Beware of falling debris'); others are

approximations like the word 'fear' in that bamboo raft fare notice, "Brake" glass in

casç of fire,' and 'Slow men are working' as examples. These are concîete
--
illustrations that the English language is a ready medium for rnaking announcements,

on signboards, and as warnings.

Among the llocanos, the preference for Filipino over English as an alternative to

the vernacular is observed in all domains. Even with teachers, nobody endorsed

English as the second alternative (V-Ë,-F), in contrast to the usage of both the Waray

and the Cebuano gfoups, wherç nobody uses a pattem of V-Fd. There were even a

few cases who used Filipino solely in all dornains, except with market vendors and

office peoplg a language experience that was not observed among the two Visayan

groups, except one from the Cebuano group who endorsed the sole usç of Filipino to

her husband, but she had been living in the region for only a few months when the

study was conducted.

The sole use of English in the different domains is also reported by a few

respondents, especially from the Cebuano group, where it is only among market
vendors that nobody was observed to use English solely.

Likewise, it may be mentioned that the sole use of any of the three languages may

not actually be taken at its faoe value. According to Gonzales (1988), there is actually

no Filipino home that is truly monolingual. In other words, if one endorses the sole

activation of any one language, he may just actually mean the strong dominance of th¿t
 280

particular language in relatíon to the other two. Nevertheless" the fact remains that

almost always, he uses that partioular language.

On the whole, the results show that while atl tluee languages æe generally used

þ parents in all three speech conmunities, the vernacuhr prorrer to have dominance in

certain dÒmains, followed by English and Filipino, arnorg the Cebuanos and the

Warays, but followed by Filipino and English among tho Ilocanos.

 Chapter 6
'a

LANGUAGE ATTITTJDES AND MEANINGS

Chapter Six is concerncd to explore in ¿ more in-depth, qualitative manner the

respondents' sentiments in relation to the Philippine languages (TagalogÆilipino and

the three 'vernaculars') and English by applying the methodology of humanistic

sociology. The empirical data were derived ûom students' essays where they were

given the opportunity to express their thoughts and feelings about their language
situation, as it appeared to them in their capacity as active human agents. In the case

of the pareñts, th.e dat¿ wore drawn from their respoûses to open-ended zurvey

questions, zupplemented by informal interviews with a number of Australian

participants.

The chapter is divided into two parts. Part I is concerned with the analysis of
the respondents' attitudes towards the languages being investigated in the two

settings-Australia and the Philippines, Part II probes the meanings which the

respondents attach to these languages in thcse two different contexts.

PART I
ATTITUTTES TOWARDS T,ANGUAGES

Cooper and Fishman (1974:6 in Peñalosa" 1981) consider language attitudes to

include attitudes not only towards a language or towards a ftaturo of a language, but

¡lso towa¡ds language use, or towa¡ds language as a group symbol. The present study

limits itself to ætitudes towards the languages (Filipino, PLOT and English) per se
 282

and towards their use in school. In relation to school use, the focus is particularly on

the English language in Austratia and on all three languages--Filipino,

English and the
local vemaçula¡ of each speeoh community included in the
study-in the philippines.
The responses of students and pareirts in Australia and in the philippines
are

presented in aeparate sections ofthis Chapter.

TÏIE AUSTRALIAN CASE

THE ATÎITUDES Otr FILIPINO.AUSTRALIAN STUI'ENTS
TOWARDS THE LANGUAGES

From the personal çomments of students in the two ess¿ys they wrote,

cæegorical desoription of their attitudcs towards the three languages

was made. A
summary of the resr¡lts is presented in Table 20. It should be noted that those

respondents who declined to prepare either one or both of the essays could not be

assigned an ¿ttitude description.

In o¡der to achieve a more cornprehensive analysis of th€ attitudes in relation

to the original language of the parents in the Philippines, the presentation

considers

another dimension-the pa¡ents' Philippine ori$n- classified as coming ftom

Tagalog-sp€aking background (TSB) and non-Tagalog-speaking
background (NTSB).

This is in addition to a distinction being made between endogamous

and exogarnous

families.

Attitudcs Tow¡rd Philippine Lenguages

(For students of
TagøloglFilipino.
either Tagalog/Fi
 283

'a

Erdogamous pventage,. The respondents were assigned as displaying either a

positive or negative attitude to the language. When the attitude was positive, it was

classified as high (ll), múerate (M), or Iw (L).To be assigned a high positive

attitudg category oÏf' respondents needed to denronstrate their identificational ,

aesth€tic or ar¡totelic appreciation of the language, as well as the recognition of the

advantages that were assumed to be derived from its nastery. Respondents in this

category understood the significance of Tagalog as providing them with a feeling of

belonging to their (Filipino) group and its cultrne, ¿s well as admiring it for its
perceived'berutt'' and "goodness. "

Table 20 shows that all the respondents manifested positive attitudes to

TagalogÆilipino, with varying levels of intensit¡ although the large proportion

constin¡tes those u'ith high attitude levels. Among the students from the ørdoganrru$

f¿milies whose parents are of Tagalog-speaking background, five respondents

registered 'figh positive attitude to Tagalog and two h¿ve 'lnoderate " positive
attitude?

In the case of students whose parents oame Êom non-T4galog areas, only two

respondents (both males) had high positive attitude; three were "moderately positive;

¿nd one had low positive attiûrde. The high positive assignation'olf' ca¡ be illustrated

by rcforence to the comments provided by a respondent (RlO).

 284

Table 20

Thc Attitudes of Fitipino-Australian Students Towards Philippine

Languages and English

(For students of Tagalog background, the language in question is always

students ofnon-Tagalog background, the language is
- foi
fàætog¡fifipino.
Tagalog/Filipino or one of the FLOTs)

Attitudes of students
Attitr¡des of students from from
Respondents' endogamous families... Respondents'
Exogamous families..
Identity Identþ To Tagalog To English
To Tagalog To English

Tøsalog-bawd Tasalos-fused
Male Male
M t H
5 M 4
10 H M 16 M# L
19 * rt Female
28 H H I M H
Female
) M L
E H H 3 M
t4 29 L H
l5 M * Non-Tagalog
23 H H Male
L *
24 H M 7
Non-Tagalog 9 N+* H
Male 20 H M
l8 H M 22 N H
27 H :1.
Fernale
30 M rS
6 M L
33 l1 L L
Female 13 M M
t2 M M 25 M M
* *
t7 M M 31
2l L {. 32 M H
+ *
26
Total 7IT.5M,IL 3TI, óM Total ltl,8M,3L 6fI,3lvl,4l,
t +Negative towards Tagalog
Legend H - High
M - Moderate #Moderately Positive to Cebtrano
*These respondents did not compleæ theessays
L-Low
N -Negative
 285

and preserves mY
that one becomes
Tagalog-sPeaking
Filipinos."

Tho above cofnments ale corroborated by another respondørt (R 28) who

wrote:

.ï feel very comfortable with Tagalog being used by my parents in

mixed Engiish... It is important that t keep at least a few links with my
parents' native land. Ideally, I would like to speak Tagalog fluently
along with English. At the momeÍü, however, I feçl there are too many
impõrtant things for me to \ ¡orry about, e.g. schooling...Hopefully,
whin I visit ttre fnitippines at the qrd of this year I wilt be able to
speak Tagalog as I seern to pick it up quite easily when I am th€re."

Another respondent (R8) classified to have "high" positive attitude said,.'

"I believe it is beneficial to use Phitippine languages at home.

Not only it is essential for one to be aware of hislher migin bu1
atso equally importarrt is to retain it. speaking the tragalgel
language at home is a very good way to maintain the Filipino
culture.

With a more intonse feeling of commitmcnt, Rospondent No. 23 put her

sentiments about the Filipino language as fotlows:

I thirrk that to forget my own language is terrible because I was born in

the Philippines and the fact that I a6 a Filipino I should be able to
speak fluent Tagalog. However,
me to use the language, I have
thirrk this is my fault nor mY Pare
abilities sinc€ thetre are hardly any opportunities'

The ¿bove olaims illustrate'higþ levol" attítude towards Tagalog (or any other

Philippine languages as the case may be) by demonstrating the rative tongue's

identific¡tional quotities whicb, in the case of these resporrdeilts, was combined with
 286

low level of aotivation, as an outcome of the limited opporh¡nities for use of

Philippine languages within the Australian environment.

Those attitudes classified as aou/' level ril€re exemplified by

commonts such as,

Yes, I may want to learn Filipino; I am not good at it, (R21); or

I want to learn Filipino in order to communicate better with my Mum

(R29, Rl3, Rll)
They are not completely dismissive of Tagalog/Filipiûo but the r€,asons which

the respondcnts expressed why they wanted to keep it are more of pfagmatic in

natur€, e.g. better comrnunication between mothe,r and daughterr that would probably

minimize some family tensions.

Exogqnous parsntage. Respondents from this type of background showed a

great diversþ of attitudinal responses to Philippine languages' dmong the five

respondents from exogamous families of Tagølog-speaking backgrowd (TSB), four

demonstratod 'tnoderatd'positive attitude, while one was classified to have "lod'

attifi¡de. No responderrts from this "mixed marriage" background could be described

to have 'figh" positive attitude.

Among the r¡espondents whose mothers afe of non'Tagalog speaking

backgrourd (I\-[SB), one (R20) was classified to have "high" positive attitude to

Philippine langUages, with four othors showing '?noder¿td'; two, "loul'; and two,

"nog&tive" attitude.

The low positive attitudes were easily identified as the respondents in question

manifested apathy or eveû antipathy towards the language. For eromple, in relation to
 287

learning Filipino, two responderite referred to the lack of time for it, with one of tlem

adding 'I don't feel any need for it' @l l). Another respondent @7) answered it

simply, with a question of his owrq "\Mhat for?"

A manifest¿tion of a negative attitude towards the Philippine languages from a

male respondent (R22) with an Australian stepfather is given bolow.

It [Filipino langUage] doçs not really concern me. I can no longer

understand the language. I feel more comfortable using the English
language as it is the languoge which I have grown up with.

An extromely negative marrifestation to Tagalog was given by a 15- year old

boy with Slovenian father and a mother of norr-Tagalog speaking background (R9).

He rejected Tagalog as an imposed language upon the Visayan region in the

Philippines, which should heve no place in Australia. He wrote:

I reatly do not want people talking to me in Tagalog nor do I want to

go to a Filipino school. I do not learn anything even if I try. They only
I
teach Tagalog wtrich Consider as political persecution or ethnic
cleansing

There are more people in the Visayas who speak Visayan dialests,
which makes Tagalog a minority language. Yet, people who are
probably like you push for the Tagalog language to be taught in
AUSTRALIAN buildings on AUSTRALIAI'{ soil. TIIE OFFICIAL
LA}IGUAGE OF AUSÎRALIA IS ENGLTSH."

It should be noted, however, that tho extreme rejection of the respondent for

Tagalog had some political underpinnings. The second paragraph refers to the

numcrical supfemacy of the Visayan language þy which he probably meant

Cebruano) in the Visayan region which, according to this respondent, places Tagalog

as a minority language in th¡t part of the Philippines. By this comment, he invokes

the he¿rt of the language controversy in the Philippinee referred to earlier in this
 288

thesis. the respondent is indignant that Tagalog, which is thrust upon the Visayan-

speaking Filipinos in tlreir own region, is again being apparontly encouraged in

Ausralia, where it is perceived as having no status whatsoever. The negative

evaluation of Tagalog as a Philippine language might have been different if the

language being considered ha¡l been Cebuano, the language of the plaoe where his

mother came from. Such re$ponses explain the ambiguity of responses towa¡ds

Tagalog, since some of those rejecting it are only stressing their preference for their

own'lernacular." this is made especially clea¡ in Australia where TagalogÆilipino

lacks the status of the national language and where regional languages can claim

equallty under the umbrçlla of English as the language common to all Austr¡lians.

Two other respondents, while not openly hostile to Tagalog, clearly showed

that thÊir ætitude to the Philippine languages actually referred to Cebuano, rather than

Tagalog (R13 and Rl6). The respondent (R16) who was classified as having a
"modemte" positive attifi¡de noted, 'Tt is good to speak the Philippine language

(Cebuano) at home. I pensonally beliove in ryeaking the language at home so it will

not be forgotten." Respondent 13, said, 'T ftel happy about using the [Cebuano]

language at home because my grandmother can understand me better... The advantage

I have about speaking the Philippine language is that I can communicate with my

relatives in the Philippines."

From the perspective of the whole rçsearch group, howeve'r, a sþnificant

majority have either high or moderate attitude to Filipino, compared to those with low

or negative attitud€ (21 against 6). But the point of iÍtere.st is the wide range of

attitudes to their ethnic home language that people can adopt. Iri th€ caso of Filipino-
 289

Australians, this is further complicated by the lack of one single Philippine language.

Such loyalties to the vernacular among Filipino-Australians from NTSB do not

preclude, in the majoríty of oases, a degree of positive attitude to Tagalog.

Aftitudes Towards the English Language

Pndopølttglp eo¡enta.sq Table 20 shows the attitudes of students towards

the English language. From the endoganous families, all those who wrote the

essays have either "high" or "moderate" positive attifude, and not a single

respondent manifested "low," much less, "negative" attitude. These results

concretely illusfiate the adaptability of Filipinos as r people to the

contingencies of the situation. They comprehend that in Australia, they have no

choice, but to adop the language of the country, othen¡vise, they would find it

diffisuft to survive.

But beyond mere adoptioq the respondents expressed feelings of attachment

tothe language, not only because of its beauty, but because of its potentialities. This is

illustrated by the comments of Respondent 8 wtro said:

English is a diverse language blending a variety of cultures. Many

English words are acquired or are derivatives and which makes the
language more intcresting. I believe that English ¡hould be used.
Besides this country being English-speaking it is also internationally
used. It is advantageous to know English because it is also a business
language.

Another respondent ß23) wrote...

To me, English is an oasy language to master compared to other

languages, e.g. Chinese and Japanese. Since English is spoken almost
 290

anywhere in the world, it would be ¿n advantage if one knows the

language especially now that we âre in one of the English speaking
countries...I am very glad I am able to speak English and that I learnt
to read and u¡rite in it.

A female respondent (P¿8) whose mother comes from a non-Tagalog

speaking area in the Philippines felt rhæ..

English language should be used as the main language in schools. It is

a r¡níversal language and is easily understood if one is øught it from
an early age. I feel English should be used fairly extensively at home
while still maintaining the Filipino languages.

In summary, from endogamous families, there were sev€n with hig[ five with

modenate and one with a low positive auitude.

Exnponrous oa¡entqpe. From the exogamous families (both of TSB and

NTSB), on the other han{ six respondents wer€ identified as having "high"

positive attitude, three "moderate," and as many as fow with low positive

attiûrdes. rWhile nobody actually manifested a negative attitude, these results

are rather surprising since all these respondents were educated in Ausüalia and

may have bcen expected to really appreciate the English language.

Furürermore, all of them have non-Filipino fhtheç all of whom (except tu'o) are

from English-speaking backgrounds.

The more positive attitudes are illustrated by a l6-year old male (Ra) with an

English father who wrde, thus:

English is a language that the world usçs as a medium of

comrnunication. In learning this languagg the world as a whole can
benefit and gain through a compromise. If such a language did not
orist, especially in a multicultural society like Australia" one would
 291

constantly need to speak through an irrte¡prøtø; a situation that defies

logic. Therefore, I fe€l that English is a necessity for all to lea¡n and
for all to benefìt from.

Aûother respondent, who was classified as having a high positive attitude was a

lS-year old female with a German father. She commented:

English is my native language and I believe, English is a ve,ry good

language to know. Firstly, because it is widely used. Secondly, since
both my parents are from different countries, English is our commoû
language... In Australia, many different cultures make up the
populæion so it is only appropriate that we take a oommon and
universal language.,.. English is everywhere--on TV, street sþs,
newspapers, various products, books, etc. So English is an ideal
language to know.

The highly positive comments show the belief in the universality of Englisl¡

illustrating their Filipino and Australian experiences, where English is so cleady

dominant. They also regard it as a language of 'tompromise," equally accessible to

all, although for those for whom it is their mother laqguage, it is undoubtedly more

accessible than for those who only acquire it as their second language and need to
study through it.

On the other hand, those who were classified to have low attitude simply

endorsed the practicality of the language. For example, a male respondent with an

Australian father said 'English is good to be able to communicate." A lGyear old

female respondent with an English father said, 'English language being used in

school ellows one to learn the correct pronunciation and grammar."

A female respondent (R6) who "&hvays" speaks Cebuano to her mother and

brother at home commentod,

 292

Because I am more often in school than at home, I use English mosf of

the times to çommr¡nicate with teachers and friends. I use English
because they can't qpeak the language I use at home which is
Cebuano.

In this case, the low evaluation of the English language is highlighted by the

respondent's obvious preference for Cebuanq which was the language ofher home.

With reference to thosc respondents who show only a low positive attitude and

com€ from mixed maniages, there may well be deeper reasons as to why they show

so little enthusiasm for English. For some, it is their everyday language and as srcl¡

not to be taken for granted. Another deeper reason at least in a few casçs may relate to

the student-respondents' relationship with their fathers of English language

background. Ifthat relationship is found to be under strrirl this appears to be rcflected

in the students' attitudes towardsthe English language.

TEE ATTITUDES OT FTLITtr{O-AUSRALIAN PARENTS TOWARDS

LANGIIAGES

Unlike the studerrts who indicated their attitudes to languages through written

€ssåys, the parents were asked to indicate their attitudes to three languages*Filipino,

PLOT, Englishr and use of English in sctrool thrurgh a questionnaire. Some

atitudinal items were formulated to which the respondents endorsed any one of the

catÊgodes of responses namely, 'let'' indicating a favourable attitudg 'l¡ncertain"

indicating neutrality, and *no'indicating an unfavourabte attitude. The description of

individual attitudes based on the summaf,y scores are presentcd in Table 21 below; the

specific responses to the items in the questionnaire are presffted in Table 2l-A\ Table

2l-B., Table 2l-C, and Table 2ID.

 293

Table 21

Aftitudes of Filipino-Australian Parents to Filipino, PLOT and English

Non-Tagalog
Tagalog Speaking
Attitudeto Speaking Total
Background
Languages Background
N:l7 N-33 N=33
f % f % f %
Aftitude to Tagalog

High ll 65 7 44 I8 55
Moderate 4 24 3 I9 7 2T
Low 5 3I 5 T5
Necative I 6 I 3
Anirude to PLOT

High 4 25 4 12
Moderate 2 I2 3 T9 5 15
Low 6 35 I 50 l4 42
Negative
Attitude to English

High 14 82 l4 8E 28 85
Moderate I 6 2 I3 3 I
Low
Negative
Attitude to English
in school

Hieh l0 59 9 56 l9 58
Moderate 6 35 7 44 13 39
Low
Nesative
NcÊe: toûal percentages nc aff up to 100% slnce not ¿ll respondents
the questiø

Attitudcsto Tagetog

From among the respondents who are of Tagalog speaking backgrourd,

majority showed a favourable attitude to TagÂlog/Filipino as indicated þ the large

 294

percentage of the respondents who answered '?es" to most of the items in the

questionnaire except the third zub-item ofNo. 5 and the second and third sub-item of
No. 6. (For a full te¡xt of the items asked see Part Itr of Appendix B). Item I asks
whether they like to speak lagalog (76yù; the second, whether they think Tagalog

should bc mai¡*ained and developed by Filipinos in Australia(76%);the third,

whether they recommend that Tagalog should be spoken by all people in the

Philippines (71%). Item 4, which asked whether they like their children to learn

and/or use Tagalog whon talking to fellow Filipinos, was positively endorsed by 53

p€r csrit.

Asked if they would listen to some enumerated activities in Tagalog, it is only

in "listening to musio" that 88 p€r ceût answered 'Ïes.' Many of the respondents

claimed that Filipino music, aside from their being pleasant to the ea¡s remind of
thíngs back home. Listening to radio programs was endorsed by 76 per cent, and

listeniag to dialogues, by 53 p€r oent. 'T.istening to holy m¿ss" and 'listening to

stage plays in Tagalog " were each minimally endorsed -both were endorsed by 4l

per cent. These results indicatç that Filipino Radio Programs aired by SBS during

Sundays throughorrt Australia and by 5EBI during Thursdays in South Australia are

welcome by the Filipino community.

With regard to some probable programs that could be inetitr¡ted for the

development of Tagalog it was only "more opportunitics for adult education in

Tagalog that was endorsed by a slight majority (59 per cônt) of the respondents. [n
 29s

Table 2l-A
Distribution of Filipino-Australian Parents In Regard to Atti¡¡des To Tagalog

From Tagalog-speaking From non-Tagalog area Total

Question a¡ea
-naire
No Un Yes No Un Yes No Un Yes
Items*
f% f % f% f% f% f% f % r% f%
I 424 13 76 212 212 t2 75 26 618 25 76
2 318 13 76 425 319 956 412 618 22 67
3 212 212 12 7r 638 3t9 ó38 824 515 18 5s

4 847 95J t19 319 10 63 39 ll 33 19 58

5A t6 t6 13 76 531 212 744 618 39 20 6I

B l6 l6 t5 88 425 319 956 s/5 412 24 73

c 318 424 741 638 425 531 927 824 t2 36

D 212 212 953 638 319 638 824 5Is 15 46

E 212 424 741 744 212 638 927 618 t3 39

6A 529 953 531 319 744 515 824 16 49

B 3r8 74r 424 638 319 425 927 l0 30 824

c 212 141 424 531 531 425 721 12 36 E24
D 318 635 635 425 212 850 721 824 t4 42

E l6 ós5 847 531 425 531 618 10 30 13 39

7 t6 212 13 76 744 212 638 824 412 t9 58

8 t6 s29 r0 59 744 212 s3I 824 721 15 46

9 r6 318 10 59 17 69 212 319 t2 36 515 t3 39

 296

contrast, the iteÍL "more moûey fo encourage the use of Tagalog in the Filipino

communit¡" wa$ supported by only 12 per cent.

Thesc results probably indisated more concern among Filipino women in

Australia for non-Filipino adults (mainly their Anglo-Australians or European-

background husbands) to learn Tagalog rather than the derrelopment of Tagalog

within the Filipino community.

Consistert with the result of the previous itenq (listening to radio programs in

the Tagalog language), the itenç 'lvould you yoursolf wolcome radio programs in

Tagalog" was endorsed by 47 per cent. Howevcr, the itemg '\¡¡ould you yourself

welcome movie and TV programs in Tagalogl' and 'lagalog used in notices, signs

and odvertiSementq" were each endorsed by only 35 and 25 per cent, respectively, an

attitude that is not unexpected in an English speaking country like Australia, and

following the frequent use of such signs in English in the Philippines itself.

The last thnee items, namely, the desire to "read nÊlvspapers and magazines in

Tagalog"; 'talking to friends in Tagalog"; and'\uriting letters to relatives and fríends

in Tagalog" were each endorsed by a majorit¡-the first by 76 p€r ceot and eaph of the

last two by 59 por eænt.

The majority of the respondents (75%) who were of no*Tagalog-speaãng

bockgrourd (NSTB) "like to speak Tagalog, " Likan'isg they wanted to maintain the

use of the Tagalog language among Filipinos in Australia ( 56 per cent answ€red

yçs), and they were willing that their children lea¡n and use Tagalog when talking to

fellorr Filipinos (endorsed by 63 per cent). But they did not recommend thæ Tagalog

be spoken by all Filipinos in the Philippines (equal proportior¡ 3to/o for yes and no).
 297

In addition, they liked listening to Tagalog music. However, the relatively small

proportion of those who answered 'Jles" (56 %) could be an indication that their

desire was not as intonse as those who are of Tagalog speaking background 88 per

cent of whom ansrered'!es.".

Combining both categories of respondents, the rezults showed all first four

items to be favorably endorsed by the m4iority of the respondents. The first item @o

yon like to spealc TagÊlog?) was endorsed by the largest percentage (760/o) and the

third @o you reoommend that Tagalog be spoken by all Filípinos in the Philippines?),

by the stnallest (55Yù

While there were I I items that were favorably endorsed by majorþ of the

respondents ftom Tagalog-speaking baokground, there were only 5 that were

favoøbly endorsed by those from non-Tagalog speaking background. Sharp contrasts

could bs seen in the willingness to recommend that '"lagalog be spoken by all people

in the Philippines" and the'.desire to read Tagalog nowspapers" (the forrnçr having

been endorsed by 7l% as against 387o who endorsed the latter),

Looking at the individual level of attitudes, there were eleven (constitrrting 65

per c€rit of the TSB) who scored "high;" All others except two who did not complete

the questionnaire scorcd "moderate." From the non-Tagalog spealcing group, 7

soored "high;" 3, "moderatg" 5, "lour," and one had a negative attitude.

These results indicate an apparent ap¿thy to the Tagalog language, manifested

by those who come from non-Tagalog speakitrg areas in the Philippines. Such a

bchavior might be traced to the contimring language controversy in the Philippines

regarding the designation of Tagalog as the national language th¿t some groups from
 298

non-Tagalog speaking areas (more particularly the Cebuanos) decline to accept. The

most negative attitude to Tagalog was revealed by non-Tagalog speaking bacþround

G{fSB) respondents in rçlation ûo the proposition that 'all people in the Philippines
should speak Tagalog." Only 38 per cent from NTSB approved as against 7l per cent

from TSB respondents. More approval for Tagalog was forthcoming for its use as a

Filipino lingua franca ìn Australiq with morc NTSB respondents supporting its use

(63%)than the TSB (s3%).

Attitudcs to Philippine Langueges Other then Tagalog (PLOT).

Table 2l-B shows that not one ftom the four acit¡de indicator items were

favorably endorsed by a majority of those with Tagalog speaking background. Even

with those of non-Tagalog speaking background, it is only the fir¡t itonq "do you like

to speak yow own Philippine language," th¿t was affrmatively answered by a greater

majority (75%), Therefore, while these respondents still like to spoak their own

Phitippine language, they do not favor deveþing their own Philippine language in

Australia" muoh less, teaching them in ethnic schools

tilhile these results cot¡ld indicate less support for the languagg it could be

rationalized in terms of the realities that these respondents are confronted with, one of

which is the fact that they are in an English speaking country. Nevertheless, about

one-half of those who come from non-Tagalog speaking areas would still like their

children to knowtheir respective languages.

The individual attitude scor€s of those who are from Tagalog-speaking areas

in so far as attiû¡de to PLOT is concerned showed none with high positive attitude,

two (L2þ wene with "moderatd', üd six (35%) were with "lowo'attitudes.
 299

From among those who are of non-Tagalog speaking background, four

(25yù respondents were olassified as subscribing to tre "hígh''; three (19/o),

"moderate"; and 8 (507o),'ololv."

Table 2l-B

Distribution of Filipino-Australian Parents in Regard to Attitude to PLOT

Tagalog-speaking Non-Tagalog
Total
backgrænd sp€aking background
Quest
No Un Yes No Un Yes No Un Yes
ion-
nai¡e
f% f% f% F f% f% f % f% f%
%
Items

1 t6 t6 529 213 t6 t2 75 39 26 r7 52
2 424 212 531 53r 425 927 721 412
3 318 424 t6 425 r6 850 't 2I 515 927
4 212 fI8 212 744 319 319 927 618 5/5
Notes:

l- Like to speak own PLOT

2- lVaintenance and development ofPLOT in Australio
3- Children to know PLOT
4- PLOT in ethnic schools

Attitudes to English

With regard to attitude towards Englistç a significrnt majority endorsed all

positive attitude items. Asked whether it is important to spealq rçad, and umite in

English, all respondents answered'?es," o(ccpt in the last two activities where one

respondent did not endorse any aûswer at all. The item endorsed by the smallest

percentage (73o/o) is whether they would welcome more money available to encourage
 300

the use of English among non-English speaking background immigrants. The smaller

proportion of respondents who answered 'ïes" is most probably due to the high level

English skills the Filipino migrants bring to Australia. (Clyne, 1998). They do not

need to be encouraged iri terms of usage; even before Filipinos come to Australia,

they are already using English in the Philippines.

On the other hand, the two items on línguistic pluralism designed to indicate

possible negative feelings towards English (and are næessary in ar¡ attitude

questionnaire forrnulation; Edwardq 1957), were endorsed differently. The first

questior¡ which asked if the respondents wanted to speak English if given the choice

lvas answ€r€d "no" by 39 per cent and '!es" by 2a per cent of all respondents,
indicatirrg that majority wes satisfied with English as the lingw frmca of Australia.
The otheritem ('Ifthere ¿re rnagazines written in Tagalog or in your own language in

thc Philippines, would you preftr to read them rather than those written in English?'),

was answered'ho" by 36 per cent and'!es" by 39 per cent (See Table 2t-C). This

índicates a desire for written materials to be available in their home language as a link

with their mother couritry.

The relatively similar proportion of 'Tes" aru¡wers to both the negatively

stated items should not be irtterpreted as indicative of a negative attitude to the

English language. For example, a reason given by some respondents to the que$tiolL

"if you had the choice ín Australia, would you like to talk in a language other than

English?," was given &s: "in order to communicate with other nation¿lities." In other

words, some respondents take the situation ts some kind of additíve bilingualisnr,
 301

Table 2l-C

Distribution of Filipino-Austrelian Parents In Regard to Attitudes To English

Tagalog-speaking Non-Tagalog -speaking

Question- backsround Backrrourrd Total
Naire No Un Yes No Un Yes No Un Yes
Items f ó/6
f% f 0/6
f% f% f% f% f% f%
I a 17 IOO t6 r00 ßrco
b ló 94 16 100 32 97

c 16 94 16 100 32 97

2 424 318 847 425 638 53r 824 927 13 39

3 16 94 15 94 3t 94

4 t6 t4 82 r6 15 94 26 29 88

5 74r l6 847 638 ó38 425 t3 39 72r t2 36

6& t6 13 76 t6 15 94 t3 l3 28 85

b 212 lt 65 t6 13 8I t3 26 24 73

7a 212 13 76 15 94 26 28 85

b 15 88 16 100 3l 94

c 424 11 65 15 94 412 26n

d 529 10 59 15 94 s15 25 76

€ t6 212 12 7I 15 94 1 3 26 27 82
Notes:
Un - Uncertain
 302

whore any language other than English in addition to the English language that they

are already using, may be bcneficial to thm.

Looking at the summary scores of the respondent$, only three (R30, Rl3, and
R3l) yielded scores indicsting "moderate" positive attitude towards English; all
others have 'high" positive ¿ttitude. One respondent (R 25) wiú a lower attitude,
from a non-Tagalog speaking area, has stayed in Au$ralia for nineteÊn years now,
and was a widow to an English husband. It is rather diffrcult to surmise how she could

have such an attitude towards the Engfish language, considering her long period of
residence and family connoction. An implication that could be drawn from this
comment is that length of stay inthe çourúry is not invariably a guarantee that one has
developed a hvorable attitude towards the language that is commonly used, in this
casg English.

Attitudes low¡rds the Use of DnglÍsh in School.

The attitudes towards the use of English irt school are presented in Table 2l-D.

Among the respondents who are of Tagalog origiq 94 per cent positively endorsed

the fust item and 76 per cent, the fourth itern The first question read, thus: "Are you

happy that yow children are taught in school using English?" The fourth was, 'Do
you thiÍk that ctrildren being tÐgùt in English will be better prepared in life" (See

Appendix B). Given the rezultq therc is no doubt that the respondents have a

favorable ætitudc towards English as a rnedium ofinstruction in echool.

In the second and in th€ thi¡d items, (If you had the choice, would you feel

happier if your children are taught in Tagrlog? and 'Do you think your children will

learn bettet if they arc taught in Tagalog?), which emphasize the value of Tagalog in

education, raiher than Englisb the respondents rvere ftirly distributed between the
 303

-a

"no" and 'bncertain" answers. It is noteworthy, however, that those who responded

"no" to both pro-Tagalog items did not constitute the majority.

Even stronger support for English was shown by the respondents from the
non-Tagalog speaking background. While the first item was endorsed favorably by

100 per çent of the respondørts, the fourth was endorsed by 94 per cent. In rclation to

the pno-Tagalog/Filipino items, a fair distribution was observed. The iæm'ïf you had

the choice, would you feel happier if your children are taught in Tagalog?' was

ansr¡tryed'hon'by 50olo, 'lrncertain" by 25%o, and'!es" by l9o/o. The second, 'Do

yotr think your children will learn better ifthey are taught in Tagalog?" was answered

Table 2l-D

Distribution ofFilipino-Australian Parents In Regard to Attitudes To

Use of English in School

Tagalog-speaking Non-Tagalog spøking

Question- background background Total

nare
No Un Yes No Un Yes No Un Yes
Items
f% f% f% f% f% f% f% f% f%
1 16 94 t6 100 32 97

2 953 74r 850 425 319 t7 52 lt 33 39

3 847 741 956 638 l7 52 13 39

4 l6 318 t3 76 t6 t5 94 l3 412 28 85
Notes:
Un -Ur¡certain
Item: I Are you happy that your children are taught in school using English?
2If yotr had the choice, would you feel happier if your children are taught ìn
English?
3 Do you think your children will learn better if they are taught in Tagalog?
4 Do you think that childrsn being tught in English will be better prepared in
life?
 304

*nO" by 38 per Cent, and there were nO '!eS" resPonses'

by 56 per cent, uncertain

The items needed 'Tes' answers if the parent$ were to show their perceptions of the

value of Tagalog as a school language for their children. The negative reWonses

should not be taken ¿s unfavorable to rçterrtion of Tagolog, but rather showed

ewareness of the importance of English as a lartguage of eduçation' These

respondonts cor¡ld havo beon in a predicament where they could hardly decide how to

stress their appreciation of the necd for English and loyaþ to Tagalog as the native

þngue of all the mothers in this study.

The difüculty in ansryering these questions was augmented by the fact that the

questione did not seek to find out whether the parents wanted their chíldren to read

and write Tagalsgßilipino, but rdher whether they wanted them to be educated in

Tagalog (and by implicatio4 rather than English)

These results demonstrete very clearly the Filipino-A¡rstralians' dedication to

English and their acceptance of Engtish as a common languago for all Australians.

Some of them indicated their desire to maintain Tagalog (or PLOT) alongside

EnglislU but nEver to the exclusion of English. In this regard Filipino-Australians

stand out among non-English background groups in Australiq ê group th¿t is fully at

home with Englistr, and yst with a desirc to maintain links with their original home

languag{s).
 305

-a

THE PHILIPPINE CASE

The necessity for finding and analyzing the attitudes of students and parents from

Philippines towards the languages generally used, namely,TagaloglFilipino, Englist¡

and vernacula¡ (PLOT) cannot be overemphasized. All three languages, especially

Filipino and English which are used in school, are important factors that shape not

only the studentso, but the counûr5r's fttuie. Like any other symbol, language oan act

as a powerfirl stimulus to action (Smolicz,). But depending on the sentìmEnts one

associates with such a language, the consequent behavior could be productive or

counterproductive, to both individual and the group.

In this study, the linguistic system of each group of respondents in the

Philippines includes a vern¡cular, in addition to TagaloglFilipino and English, with

the last two learned in school, both as languages pr se and as tools for further

learning. The degree of acceptance or rejection of these languages manifested by

these responderts could have far-reaching effects both on their lives as individuals

and the direction of the oountry's future dwelopment.

THE ATTITUDES OT FILIPINO STUDENTS TO}VARI}S

LAIYGUAGES

the distribution of students in terms of attitudes towards the different

languages is presented in Table 22.

 306

Table22

The Attítudes ofFilipino Students from Three Linguistic

Communities towards Languages

Lansu&c€s
Aftitudss
M F T M F T M F T
f 0/6)
f % f % f % F % f % f % f % f %

I I 2 t2 310 5 38 6 35 n37 7 58 8 44 l5 JO
r1 92 12 70 23 79 4 3I 5 29 930 5 42 l0 56 l5 50
3 18 310 ß 2 12 4ls
B. Nesative 2 t5 4 24 620
Total 12 IN 17 100 29 99 13 99 t7 100 30 r00 12 100 18 r00 30 100

4 I6 936 13 26 14 56 t9 68 33 62 I I 3r1 47
l7 68 12 48 29 58 l0 40 7 2S t7 s2 7 26 829 15 27
4 16 416 816 t4 2 7 36 I3 48 13 46 26 47

B. Negative 6 22 414 l0 18

Total 25 r00 25 100 50 100 25 100 28 100 53 100 27 100 28 tN 55 99

9 47 t4 41 23 13 4 24 3It 716 7 37 l5 42 22 40
4 2I 15 41 l9 36 9 53 17 6I 26 58 I 42 t7 47 2s 45
6 32 515 l1 2I 4 24 620 l0 22 4 2t 4 II 8 14

B. l$erative 27 2s
Total 19 100 34 100 53 100 17 TOI 28 99 45 100 19 100 36 t00 55 99

t4 25 25 33 39 29 23 42 28 3E 5t 40 15 26 26 32 41 29
32 57 39 5I 77 54 23 42 29 40 s2 1I 20 34 35 13 55 39
l0 1E t2 16 22 17 713 l0 14 l7 I3 t7 29 l7 21 34 24
B. Ne*¿tive 21 68 8ó 610 45 107
Grand Total 56 100 76 IM ß2 tN 55 100 73 100 128 IU) 58 99 82 rül) 140 99
 307

Attitudcs Tow¡rds the Vernacular

The respective regional languages, namely; Waray, Ilocano, and Cebuano

were the mother tongue$ (Lr) of almost all the respondents within each of the

resp€ctive communities. All the students from the speech communities were found to

majority (54o/o') of respondents categorized as having '?noderatd' positive attitude;

over a quarter (29/o), showing 'high' positive attitude; and fewer than ¿ fifth (17%),

'low' positive attitude. Comparing the proportion of those in the turo extreilie
categories, those ìñ'ith high positive attitudes are significantly higher than those with

low attitudes.

Anong the three speech communities, it is in the Cebuano Soup which

showed the largest proportion of respondents (43%) with a high positive attitude

towa¡ds their home tongue, as compared with the other two grcups -26 per cent
among the llooanos and l0 per cent among the Warays, Cebuanos ¡re also the only

group with the greatest number of respondents holding high positive attitude to their

vernacular. It seems, therefore, that the Cebuano stude,r¡ts sand out as having the

high€st rçgard for the native langugge.

In terms of gender, the Cebuanos showed a larger proportion (47o/o) of male

respondents with high positive attitude as compared to their female @unt€rparts

(38yo). In both the lVaray and the llocano groups, on the contrary, tho fpmale
respondents registered the larger proportions of those with high positive attitudes to

the vennacular, with Ilocanos outstripping the Warays by a large majority in both

gender, 12 ç/o of female as against 8 Yo of male among the Warays , and 360/o of female

as against 16%o of male among the llocanos.

 308

Inspite of the generally positive attitude of most of the respondents, their

respective vernaoulars were accorded a relatively low prestige in comparison with the

'oflicial' languages of the Philippines, English and Filipino. This can be taken as a

reflcction of the confinement of the vernaculars to the home dom¿in and local

cnmmunity involving transactions in the market place and only their limited use with

teachers and office people. Not one of these languages is us€d in ofücial transactions,

or holds any formal position in school. The positive attitude towards the vernacular

shown by the students can, therefore, be viewed in terms of a genuine emotional

attachment to the language, its praoticability, or whatever symbolic meanings the

respondents were willing to associate with it.

Attltudes Towards English

The three linguistic communities were sharply differentiated arnong each other

in relation to their attitudes to English. While the Waray students provided only two

typos of responses, showing either high or moderate positive attitudes towa¡ds English

(50 % oach[ the Cobuano studonts were either hrgh (4ú/o) or moderate (45%) in

their positivç responses to English but also included a hendful of respondents (14%)

with low positive attitudes to Englisfu the lloçnno students stood out itr sharp corrtrast

to the two Visayan groups with ten respondents (IS %) expressing negative
serúiments towards English and with almost halfof the gfoup(26 respondents or 47Yo)

giving English only a low positive connotation- In fact, there were no more than four

(7%) Ilocano students holding a high positive attitude to English and 15 Q7%) wrrh

moderate positive ¿tritude (T able 22).

 309

AtÉtudes Tow¡fds Filipino

Taking all three groups together, there is a fair distribution of those with high

positive attitude (40yù and those with moderate attitude (41%\ The respondents

holding low positive and negative attitudes consisted of 13 per cent and 6 per ceng

tespectivel y (T tble 22\.

The rczults reveal the contrasting attitudes to Filipino among the tlree

communities, with the llocanos showing the greatest proportion with highly positive

atti$de Gf/o) and the Cebuanos, the lowest (16 o/o), with the Waray goup adoptrng

an intermediate position (35%). In fact" while nobody had a negative attitude

towa¡ds the Filipino language from among the llocanos, 5 per cent among the

Cebuano and a substantial 20 per cerrt of the lVaray stude,nts dentonstrated rregative

attituda. The res¡tts show thst the acçeptance of Filipino in thc Waray and Cebuano

speech communities, despite its being declared a national language, is much more

limited than among tho Iloca¡ro respondørts.

Iloc¡no end Visay¡n Attitudes to X'ilipino rnd English.

There is a sharp contrast between Ilocano and the Visayan (Cebuano and

Waray) students' attitudes to Filipino and English.

Iloc¿nos werç the only group which included some responder¡ts that expressed

negative sontimerts towards Englistt with as many as two-thirds of tlre group

regarding English in eithcr a negative or low positive light. Only a tiny fraction (less

than one-tenth) had a high positive attitude to English.

 310

The reverse of these negative or detached image of English was the Ilocanos'

enth¡¡siasm for Filipino, with as rn¿ny ùs 94 per cent expressing either high or

moderate positive attitude towards it.

By oontfast to thç Ilocanos, the two Visayan groups de¡nonstrated

diametrically opposite positions with regard to English and Filipino. With reference to

EnglistL all the War¿y students and over two-thirds of the Cebu¿nos had either high

or moderate positive attitudes towards it.

Both the Visayan groups included respondents who held negative attitudes to

Filipino, with some one-third of them expressing either negative or low positive

estimates of Filipino. No more than a handfi¡l (ono-seventh) of Cebuanos accorded

Filipino a high positive rating. These findings are in agreement with anatogous data

on differcnces betuieen Ilocano and tlre Visayan groups in relation to the frequency of
language use.

THE ATTITUI¡ES OF FILIPINO PARENTS TOIMARDS LANGUAGES

The attitudes of parents towards the languages were taken in two levels. The

first are the attitudes towards each of the languqes per se and the second are the

attitudes tm¡va¡ds the use of each language in school. The distribution of respondents

is presented in Table 23.

Attitude¡ Towards Lenguages Pe¡ Se

Almost all the respondents have positive attitude towards all thraÊ languages.

Only an insignificant üumber (2 or 3%'¡ from the Cebuano group have unfavorable
 311

attitude towards the vernacular, and 2 (4o/o) of the llocanos as well as I (2%) from the

Cebuano group do not like English.

The positive attitude, however, vary in tenns of intensity across three speech

communities. While majority of tho Waray parents (54%) showed a "moderate"

positive attitude towards the vernacular, both the Ilocanos and Cebtranos seem to be

evenly distributed between the'high" and the *moderate" attitude categories; On the

Table23
Distribution of Filipino Parents in Terms of Attitudes lowards Languages

LanguaÆs and Sneech ðomrrnnities

AttitudÊs Enslish
w I c w I c w I c
fVo f o/o
f% FVo f% f o/o
I o/o
f o/o
f o/o

Towqds a
lansuage Derse

Po¡itive
High 926 24 44 22 35 22 63 4t 75 15 24 9 83 36 65 44 7t
Mode¡ate 19 54 23 42 2t 34 926 916 28 45 I 3 t5 27 58
Low 514 8t4 58 39 59 7lr 2 6 2 4 t2
Negative 23 l2
No resoonss 26 12 19 t2 t2 3 I 2 4 ll l8
Toq/'ards s lanq:
uageæmedhun
of insEuctim

Positive
High 514 19 34 58 20 s7 26 47 37æ
Moderâte 13 37 t7 3l 19 31 720 11 20 914
Ltn¡ 26 47 7tL 926 10 18 18 29 39 713 46
Negative 31 89 48 87 48 Tt 4 1l 4 7 10 t6 13 4 7
No rmnse 26 3 5 7tl 4 11 5 9 l0 l6 411 7 t3 t2 t9
Legend:

\{-Waray;N=35
I -Ilocano;N=55
C-Cebuano;N=62
 312

other hand, while Filipino was sþificantly endorsed with high" intensity by almost

two-thirds of the lVarays (63yo) and by as many as ttree-quarters of the Ilocanos

Q50/o) the Cebuanos liler€ much less well disposed towards Filipino with less than a

qua¡terofthe respondents rwealing a highly positive attitude (24Vù.

The situ¡tion is reversed in ttre case of Englist¡ with the Ilocano goup

showing the smallest pro'portion (65%) with high positive attitude to English,

compared to the other two groups (83o/o among fhe lVarays and 7l% arnong the

Cebuanos). In srrmmary, the results of this study strow that \¡rhile the Ilocanos have

attitudes that are gene,rally morc favor¡rable to Filipino and less favourable to English,

the other two groups ar€ more Êvourable to English ¿nd are less favourable to

Filipino.

Att¡tudca Tow*rd¡ The Use of Langurger In School

The parents' evaluation of English as a medium of instruction in school is

generally highly favorable. Majority of the parents in all three groups has high

positive attitudes, with the Cebuanos showing the most enthusiastic approval for

English (60P/o), closely followed by the Warays (57o/o). The lowest proportion with

hígh positive attitudo to English (47W was found emong the lloca¡ros, which roflccts

their relatively high positive attitude towards Filipino as medium of instruction.

Ilocanos had the greatest proportion (34%) of high approval for Filipino, as agairtst

14 per cent and 8 per cent, from the Waray and the Cebr.¡ano groups, respectively.

Sharp contrast is also obsorved in the parents'high positive evaluation of th

vernacular as languqge per se and the negative attitudes towa¡ds the use of s¿me
 313

language as medium of instruction in schools-- the largest percentage of approval

being smorig the Warays and the least, among the Cebuanos. The results illustrate the

non-acceptance of the vernaculæ among parents as a medium of instruction in

schools. Many reesons for the rejection of the vernacular ¿s medium of instruction

were provided. One of these is the assumption that inclusion of the vernacular would

me¿n the exclusion of other languages, more spocifically Englis[ regarded as an

international medium of communication which allows access to world knowledge.

Even the Ilocano respondents, whose attitude towards the English language per 8e was

least favourablg were generally against the use of Ilocano in school (87% negative).

Their comments included the following:

It will only confuse learners (I-5);

Ilocano is not useful in other countrieVplaces (I-39);

The Ilocano language can just be caught, (I-19 also 30);

As future professionals, they should practice using English and Filipino

(I-41),

It is clear from these ¿nsrvers that the respondents were not familiar with the

conc€pt of additive bilingualism and feared that literacy in Ilocano would have the

effect of lowering their children's profioiency in English and Filipino.

Comparison of Attitudes Amongthe Three Groups of Psrcnts

The varying inrtensity of attiardes to Filipino and Englist¡ both as languages

pglse and as media pf instr.*rctign in schools, is more concretely indicated by the F-

ratios yielded by the Ær{OVA eomputation comparing the means of the three
 314

communities whioh were all significant ú I per cent level, et(cçpt for the attitude

to English as a medium of instruction where the yielded F-ratio (3.32) is significant æ

5 per cent only (See Table 24).

With regard to Filipino as a language Bg[S, the Waray and the Ilocano

parents displayed a significantly more favorable attitude thon the Cebuano parents

(F:10.78). As for the use of Filipino as a medium of instruction in schools, it is only

the Ilocano group that has a significantþ more favorable attitude compared to the

Cebr¡ano ggup. This rçzult shows th¿t while the Ilocano gfoup strongly zupports the

Table?A
Differences of Attitudes Among The Three Groups ofParents
in the Philippines

Highest
Attitude Mean Attitudes Possible F-ratio Soheffe
Towards War¿y Ilocano Cebuano Score at.05

Vemacular
pff se 22.79 23.91 22.78 33 7t

Vern¿cular 6.30 6.75 6.79 l5 39

in school

Filipino per s€ 34.33 36.05 30.t2 42 10.78** Ml >M3

lv[2 > ll[j]
Filipino
in school 7.s9 8.70 7.O2 t2 6.88r"f M2 >lvf,}

English per se 3s.3r 3t.07 35.47 39 g.5g{'r, MI >M2

l.ü} >M2
English
in school 9.97 9.30 t0.42 t2 3.32* Ivfì > M2
*Significent at .01
*Significant at.05
 315

use of Filipino in school, the Cebuanos are strongly opposed to sush an idea. Warays

are positive to Filipino per se, but resemble Cebuano in their opposition to its use in

school as a medium of instrustion.

lVith regard to the attitudes of parents to the vemacular, no diffcrences in the

mean attitude values w€r€ seen both in the comparison of attitudes to the language per

se (F:.71; p>.05) and as a nedium of instruc'tion in sehools (F - ,39; p>.05). On the

other hand, the attitude of the Warays and the Cebuanos to English as a language per

se is significarrtly different from that ofthe Ilocuros (F=8.58; p<.01). As a medium of

instn¡ction in school, the differences among the th¡ee meaûs is significant (F:3.32; p<

.05), but in terms of the Scheffe resrlts, it is only the mean differcnce between the

Cebuano and the Ilocano groups that is significant, the former trraving signifïcantly

higher ¿fütude score towards English than the latter.

From the results, it could be inferred that all three groups of parents have

similar þositive) attitude to their respective vernaculars. Epglish as a hnguage WL-se.

is significantly more acceptable to the Warays ¿nd the Cebt¡anos compared to the

Ilocanos. Likewise, the Warayq togaher with the llocanos havo signifìcantly more

favorable auitude to Filipino compared to the Cebuano pare,nts. As a medium of

instruction in schoof sharp contras is only seen between the Ceh.¡anos and the
Ilocanos, the stronger endorsement coming from the Cebuanos towards English and

towards Filipino by Ilocanos.

 316

SummarÏ

English per ç.e is evaluated significantly more positively by Cebuanos and

Warays than by llocanos,

Filipino.Bet se is significantly more positively evaluated by Ilocanos and

Warays than by the Cebuanos.

EpgûM 4p a, mediUm of instructipp is more highly evaluated by Cebuanos and

tüarays than by Ilocanoe --with tho mean difference between Cebuanos and Ilocanos

stæistically significant.

Filipi4o æ a mçdium gf infltruction is more favoured by the Ilocano group

compared to both Cebuano and Waray groups. But ít is only the difference betweon

the meens of the Ilocanos and Cebuanos that is statistic¿lly significant.

Oveniew

This sh¡dy has revealed a cleavage in the attitudes of Çcbqano and Iloçano

parerits in relation to the two languages of instrucúion in Filipino schools. While

Cebuano respondents favor English as the language of instruction and are negatívely

disposed to Filipino, the Ilocanos are tho reverse, favouring Filipino in school, and

disfevouring English.

Waray group adop,ts on intermediate position between theso two erdremes.

Like llocanos, they are frvourable to Filipino/Tagalog as a language p€r se but stops

short of its use in schools as a rnedium of instruction. Cebuanos shared in their

opposition to Filipino, bnithper se and for school use.

 317

ln relation to English, Warays are much closer to Cebu¿nos, with both groups

strongly supportive of English per se and its use ¡rs a medium of instruetion. Ilocanos

differ in displaying a significantly more negative attitude to English on both aspeqts

(per se and at school) u¿hen compard with the Cebuarro group.

PART TI

LANGUAGAS AND THEIR MEANINGS

Both students and parents provided infrrmation on the wsy they perceived

the different languages included in the study. The str¡dents manifested these in the

essays they developed; the parents, in the answors ttrey gave to the probrng questions

contained in the questionnaire and, in some ças€s, informal follow-up interviews.

As a cultur¿l item, language has the qualþ to triggor some oulturally or may

be psychologically based judgrnents. How one looks at language draws inputs from

the culû¡ral environment in which the language exists. Language therefore, can be

judged by whatever notions or coricepts one rnay share with the rest of the members

of a particular society. It is ur¡thinkable, howÇver, that pæple, who may be bound

together by space and time, will have exactly the same perceptions of things and

attach one particular meaning to a cultural item" say language. Depending on the

emoûonal state that migût have beon shaped by experiences, feelings about language

or practically about anything can v¿ry ftom person to ptrson. Bernstein (1961 in

Tough) theorizes that as children (or a¡ry indívidual for that matter) are brought up in

sr¡ch different environments ¿nd are exposed to different attitudes and values and

different or¡tlooks on the world in general, they are not only developing different ways
 318

of viewing the world but they are also building up orientations towards the use of

language, which reflect differences in the way they respond to their experiences and

assign meanings to them.

The meanings that the respondents explicated in their essays and comments thus

reflected their perce¡ions of the nature of the various languages, as well as thç

functions, roles and uses of the.se languages in the physical and social world which

they inhabit.

The analysis of the student essays and the par€ntàl comments revealed a wide

range of meanings, which the responder¡ts assigned to the threo languages that
constituted their trilingual systems. Thc meenings wore classified initially as either

negative or positive to the language concerned, Since the positive qualities were

found to be very diverse, thoy were subdivided under two headings, namely autotolic

(sometimes called tennin¿l in the literature) and instrufnental. Autotelic was used to

re,fer to qualities, whioh are intrinsic to the particular language, itsel{, while

instrumental is related rather to the functions of tho languages concerned in the

weryday life of the respondents.

The aptotçlic category included meanings labeled as Açsthetic, Socio-cultural,

Porsonal-identificational and Affestive. \ilhere riecessary, tlese subcategories were

furthen divided into more specific qualities related to particular languages. Thc

inFtrumpgal category included meanings related to Econornic, Socio-political, Social,

Fducational, and in the case of the Australian respondents, Farrrilial. The data also

provided evidence of negative meanings, which some respondents assigræd to one or

 319

more of the languages. These could be suMivided into twelve particular bases for

negadvity.

In Maslow's hierarcþ of needs, security, which can be seen as basically

economiq ìs at the base. This conesponds to the values classification of Allport,

Vernon, and Lindsay, whero economic values are considered the lowest. Nonetheless,

their satisfaction of eoonomic needs can be regarded as a precondition for the pursuit

of other human conc,erns and interests.

Much of human life is spent building up and maint¿ining social relationships.

People talk to onç another as recognition of each other's existence and to nurture a

social atmosphere which recognizes everyone ¿s an important partioipant in that

social arena. A person who does not answer, for example, when addressed or spoken

to shuns the possibility of social living and co-existence. While it is true that
individuals live for themselves, it is not until people become aware of their existence

in the re¡lm of other people's consoiousness thæ they find the true msaning of their

own existence.

Cornmunication is €ssential for social relationships. Everybody participates in

the procoss both as the aotor and the audience. According to tlallìday (1974 7, cited

by Ingram in Afendras, ed, 1988:26)....

...language turns the human organism into a social being. It is the

medium by which a human being beçomes a personalþ by virtue of
its mdiation between hiÍL the world ¿nd society, as he interacts
through it with others, and as he identifies, adjusts to, and adopts
various social roles.
 320

The students reçognized the social meoning of language in establishing

relationships with other human beings, whether within their own localþ or country,

as well as overgeas or entertâining visitors. Socíal relations have a double inorement

of meaning in so far as language learning is ooncerned. Beyond the Srong motivation

to lcarn the language in order to facilitate communicatio4 social interaction provides

an immersion exporience where the more practical aspects of the language are learned

and put to use. As tlarding and Riley (1988: 2l) put it, 'language is a social

phenomenon and lang¡¡age learning is a social activity'

fuioths meaning given to the languages by the respondents was political in

nsfi¡re focusing on the hierarchy of the languages and its effect on the sAbility of

society. Power stn¡c'tt¡rÊs are necessarily established ttuough languages so that some

are made to qssume the subordinate role to those, u¡hich dominate. On the other hand,

the relational strucurre could be collegial where cveryone accepts one another as

equal, at least in princìpte. But wh¿t is important is that, at all lovels of society, peace

and harmony is attainable because language allows people to reÆognize the role th¿t

each participant assumes in society.

In the discussion that follows, the classifioation of meanings under the above

headings is presented in both qualitative and tabular form. For each group of

resporrdents (of Filipino-Aust¡alian students and Filipino Australian parents in the

Australian c¿se; students and pafents from each of the vernaculsr background

cornmunities in the Philippines case), three s¡mmarizing tables have been developed

to indicate the frequency of citæions for the autotelic, instrumental and negative

meanings. The frequency of citations is er<pressed as the actual number of times a

 321

given meâning is mentioned by the respondents, sinoe each respondent was free to

provide as many meanings to the languages as he or ehe wished. This frequency is

then expressed as a p€,rcentage of the number of respondents in each of the groups

analyzed. For exemple, in the Austr¿lian caËe, percentages are based on the 33

respondelrts in each ofthe student and parental groupings; in the Philippines, the base

for percentages of the studertts and parent respondents ftom the Waray community is

35. The frequency artd percentages of some of the sub-categories are quite small sincr

the studcnt respondents w€r€ askod to focus on wh¿t they regarded as the most

important meanings of the languages in question. Although they discusged a wide

range of differcnt meanings, few attempted to be futly comprehensive in their

discussion.

While the tablcs provide a useful overview of the patteris of meaning assigned

by the different groups of responderits to the various languages, the most valuable

insights from these qualitative data are to be found in the actual comments

themselves, These are quoted at length in the text in order to reveal how tho
respondents felt about these languages in the context of their daity lives and to
illustrate the broad continuum of views expressed.

THE AUSTRALIA¡I CASE

This seotion of the study involved 33 Filipino-Australian students, 17 from

endogamous and 16 from exogamous families. In the discussion, which follows,

meanings are presented as pertaining to English and TagaloglFilipino, even though in
 322

some instances the respondents are cleady referring to Cebuano and other

vernaculars, rather than Tagalog [these variations are indicated when appropriate].

TEE MEANTNGS ATTACHED TO II\IITGUAGES BY FILIPIN(Þ

AUSTRALTAN STT]DENTS

The Autotelic Mcenings

Aesthelíq. From the personal comments written by the shrderrts, it is only in

regard to Tagalog that three (9/o) respondents (Table 25) amibuted some aesthetic

qualities. A typical combination of the aesthetic and practical rneanings was provided

by a l4-yea¡ old daughter of Filipino parents who said, 'Tor me, it [Tagelog] is not

only beautiñ¡l to hear but it is what I use to communicate with my relativas"ß24).

The sound of Tagalog appears berutifi¡l and attractive to some Filipinos in

Australia, and as a tension-reliever. As one respondent (Rl8) commented, 'IJsing

Tagalog at home is great as it is a nice change of sound especially after a day at

school and at work where ono has to speak English all the tim€,"

In contrast, none of the respondents ætached aesthetic meaníngs to the English

language. One possible reason is that tl¡e students' perceptions ofEnglish were more

focused on praøioal considerations.

 323

Table 25

Autotelic Meanings Given to Languages By Filipino-Australian Students

(N-33)

Meanings Attached to Enelish

Language Frequencv Percentage* f Percentaf,e*

1. Aesthetic 3 9

2. Socio-cultural
a. Mother tongue None 3 I
b. National lánguage/lingua
franca /omnipotent None I 24

c. Intern¿tional/universal
language None l3 39

d. Link with orieir/cultural past 6 l8 None

e. Indicates good education None None

3. Personal identificational
a. Feeling of pride/identity/
nationalismÆilipinism 5 l5

b. Smartness/confi dence None 3 9

4. Affective

a. Comfortable with/prefened 4 t2 2 6

b. Full expression of thoushts None I J

c. Eaw to learn/understand I 3 3 I
Total Citations l9 33
*The frequency of rs as s percentage of the number of respondents
in the goup. One ofthese responses came from a lGyear old girl (with an English
father) who said,'Even ifl can't speak Tagalog, I feel I like it."@l)

#Some students' comments re&r to PLOT (mainly Cebuano) rather than Tagalog (e,g.
R27 ts personal identifi cation).
 324

Sqqíùçu$uîd. In terms of socio-cultural qualities, each of the two languages

(TagalogÆLOT and English) holds distinctive meanings to the student respondents.

While Tagalog is seen by six of the respondents (1S%) as providing a "link with their

origin and historicaUcultural pâ$", English was regarded as their '?nother tongue" by

three rcspondents (9%) or as the "national language/lingua ûancq" ry eiglí Qa%);

and as "international/universal language," by 13 respondents (39olo).

One male respondent (R18) whose parents came from non-Tagalog speaking

area in the Philippines commented in relation to Tagalog/ìFilipino that,

There is nothing worse excçpt murder in my opinion than to forget

where you yourself come from. As for me, using the Philippine
Ianguage at homo mÊans remembering about my roots and those before
rue.

The strong attachment of the respondents to their home country the

Philippines, through the language was also seen in some statements such as...

I thinkthat as Filipinos, we úould not forget or¡r mtiorial language (R17).

Tagalog makes me feel at home, tells me who I am and preserves Íry

culhre (Rl0).

Likewise, some respondents recognized the potentialities of English as an

irrternæional language- A sixteen-year-old female from an errdogamous family wrote:

I believe th¿t Eûglish should be used. Besides this cot¡ntry being

English-speaking, it is also internationally used (R23).

A female respondent whose mother gomes from a non-Tagalog-speaking area

in the Philippines felt that...

 325

English language should be used as the main language in schools. It is

a universal language and is easily understood if one is taught it from an
early age. I feel English should be used fairly extensively at home
while still maintaining the Filipino language.

English language is an international language and it is the means of

communication here and abroad. (R24)

consistent with its being an international language, English was seen

to assume omnipotence, particularly in the media.

English is everywhere--on TV, street signs, newspapers, various

products, books, etc. (Rl).

The TV, radio, and musical selections are all in English. All written
articles are in English. @8)

Perconal ílentifrcatíonaL Table 25 also shows that the Tagalog language was

looked at as a source of pride, identity and Filipinism. This was endorsed by 15 per

cent of the respondents. One respondent (R27), for example, a ló-year old male from

an endogamous family wrotg

My feelings abqut the Philippine languages are great. I still have got
my own unique background &s a Filipino. Using my Cebuano
flanguage] makes mc feel I have not lost my dignity. I know I am still
a partof rny country, Philippines.

A 16-year old girl with an English father matches these feelings, as she stated,

I wish Icould speak Philippine language same as my mother because

in my heart, I still am a Filipino (Rl).
 326

The English language, on the other hand, was looked at to provide an identity

of smartness and confidence (endorsed by 9 per oeflt). As a l7-year old female with a

German father stated,

I feel confident that I have the 'lnagiC'in me to speak English even if I

am of Filipino background. I am a paft of Australia now so I must
know the proper way of using English at home and at school (R25)

A similar statement endorsed by one respondent (R5) was as follows,

I am quite good and confident in speaking English and I have no

problem in iommunicating to my Australian friends at school and
outside of school.

AffeAìve. Table 25 shows that while four respondents (12%) per cent

endorsed Tagalog to be a language one is comfortable witl¡ only two (6%) per cent

gave this meaning to English.

In contrast, while only one respondent saw Tagalog as easy to

learn/understand, there were three (9%) who attached this quality to English' One

female respondent wrote,

To me, English is an easy language to master compared to other

languages, e. g. Chinese and Japanese (R23)'

Other comments about the English language ïvere as follows:

EngliSh is perhaps the easiest to learn, as foreigners are accustomed to

it. (R22)

For me, English is easier to learn than any language (second language)
I know. (R18)
 327

The facility of using English and the feelings that it is easily learned is perhaps

a function oftheir being in Australia where English itself acts as a lingua franca and is

experienced daily in school and in the society as a whole'

The Instrumental Meanings

Economìc Both Tagalog and English, in the view of the students, have

economic significance (Table 26). Two respondents endorsed that English is the

language of business/occupation. At the same time, four respondents (I2$looked at

Tagalog as the language that enhanced job opportunities.

Other miscellaneous comments of the respondents are seen below-

Tagalog assists career wise. It is advantageous to know English

because it is also a business language (R8)

A l4-year old male with a father from Denmark @7) stated,

The advantage of speaking the [Tagalog] language is that it helps

you to get a job, if you know a second language'

This is corroborated by a respondent (R23) who wrote,

The fact that you know another language may in fact be an advantage
for employment purposes. I think that those peoplo who can speak two
languages have a better chance in life.
 328

Table26

Instrumental Meanings Given to Languages by Filipino-Australian Students

N:33

Tagalo# Enelish
Meanings Attached to Language Frequency Perceftage* Froquency Percentage*

l. Economic
a. Language for businesV
None 2 6
occupation
b. enhancesiob 4 t2 None
c. Kev to progresVbright future None None

2. Political None None

3. Social
o, Hiding information from
others 6 t8 None
3 9 1 3
b. Makine friends
c. visitors None None
I 3 2 6
d, Travel overseas

4. Educational
a. Appropriate medium of
instruction None J 9
None 2 ó
b. Access to knowledge/issues
c. of 11 33 None

5. Familial
24 2 6
a. Link with overseas 8
b. Linkwith local
5 l5 2 6

Total citations 38 t4

*The frequency of citations is expressed as a percentage ofthe number of

respondents in the group

(e.8.
#Some students' comments refer to PLOT (mainly Cebuano) rather than Tagalog
P.27 r e personal identifïcation).
 329

These perceptions of the respondents can be seen to reflect an essential

element of Australia's language policy, namely, that students are required to study

languages other than English based on the assumption that this would equip

Australians in a variety of fields more particularly to take up careers in trade and

industry. Emphasis was placed on the Asian languages such as Chinese, Japanese, and

Bahasa Indonesia in view of the position of China, Japan, and Indonesia as the main

business and trade partners of Australia.

Sociat.One of the more interesting social meanings attached to Tagalog was

its use as a'tacit" language and for "hiding information" from non'Tagalog speakers.

As some commented...

'My parents speak to me in Tagalog occasionally and when I get into

trouble so others wouldn't understand'" (R8)

."The
advantage of speaking Philippine languages (Tagalog and Waray)
here in Australia ii
that you can say anything you want without
anybody knowing what you are talking about." (Rl7)

"using the Philippine langUage has an advantage if you don't want an

Australian to know what you are saying." (R20; also R23)'

From the researcher's own observation, there was another side of the coin to

the role of TagalogÆilipino in Australia--this time not as a link among the initiates,

but as a barrier against those who did not know the language and resented being

excluded from the conversation. DifFrculties arose even when there was no intention

to use Filipino as a "secret" language. In faot, in "mixed" company' speaking Filipino

could be a source of irritation for those individuals who did not understand it. They
 330

felt themselves excluded and often demanded that €veryone speaks the language that

everybody understood, i.e. English. This makes it more diffrcult to use Filipino in

mixed company.

The social significance of the two languages is that Tagalog is looked upon as

a language for making friends and was specifically mentioned as such by three

respondents (9%) while English was seen as useful for travel overseas- One

respondent (R1) recounted difficulties due to language deficiencies and at the same

time endorsing tho need to acquire any Philippine language'

There ar€ many advantages in speaking any other language. It wou_ld

be good for me in particular as my relatives and friends in the
Phitlppines naturally speak Tagalog. I'd be left out and miss jokes as
wc[âs misses out in making friends and getting to know people.

It was fairty hard for me during our holiday because although they spoke
English, it wasn't as natural as their Tagalog. Therefore, they felt self-
conscious and hesitant about conversing with me'

The social advantage in being able to speak Tagalog loomed large in the

consciousness of many respondents. As one sucoinctly put it, '.To me, speaking in

Tagalog would only be an advantage socially.. It would mean I could understand and

talk to my family in Tagalog which could be great" (R3). In addition, one re$pondent

(R8) wrote,

Even if I don't frequently speak it (mainly due to ernbarrassment) I still

understand mainstream Tagalog. This has helped me to understand
Filipino conversations here [Australia] and in the Philippines'
 331

The limited use of Tagalog for socialization purposes as perceived by some

Filipino-Australians is seen in the statements of an 18 year old girl (R23) with

parents, both Filipino, who stated,

I only speak Tagalog at home and when my parents would take me to

their friend's I
places. Even then sometimes speak English because
most of their children have forgotten to speak Tagalog as well. At
school, I do not speak Tagalog sincç I do not have Filipino
schoolmates where I study; or if there were, we would speak in
English.

On the other hand, and in & more positive light, English was seen to be an

international language, consequently facilitating travel overseas. As one student (R1),

from an exogamous family background, commented,

English is my native language so I think English is a very good

language to know. Firstly, because it is widely used. Secondly,
since both my parents are from different countries, English is our
common language. In addition, traveling is facilitated in many
countries where English is spoken.

As another respondent put it,

'English is an international language. One can use it [in] whatever

country he is. But it is very hard for people from English speaking
countries to speak other languages when they are traveling to
non-English speaking countries." (R2)

Pdìtícal. Language is a source of power both when one speaks the language

that others speak and do not speak. In Australia, Tagalog is seen to provide no

political meaning, in contrast to its significance for the respondents in the Philippines

(see the Philippine case), Remarkably, English was also not given any political

significance.
 332

English
EducøtíonøL. Both Tagalog (and any other Philippine language) and

seen to
hold educational significance for the Filipino-Australians. While English was

be the appropriate medium of instruction by three respondents (9 %) and

to provide

access to world knowledge by the other two (6 per cent), not one Filipino-Australian

advocated the use of Filipino/Tagalog as a medium of instruction in school' In

by many
contrast, the value of Filipino as a second spoken langUage was appreciated

because of the advantages which bilingualism was deemed to confer from the

speakers. In fact, as meny as eleven respondents (33%) viewed Tagalog as an avenue

to bilingualism. As one respondent observed,

It is good to know two languages (R6)'

Another respondent agreed that,

Speaking the Philippine language is an advantage to me that I can be

bilingual (Rl2).

Other respondents simPlY claimed,

I have the advantage of having a second language (Rl3)'

The advantage of speaking the language [Tagalog] is that one becomçs

Bilingual utt¿ it able to communioate with other Tagalog-speaking
Filipinos (Rl0).

Famìlìø|. Both Tagalog (or other Philippine languages) and English are

perceived as "link with family overseas" as well as "link with local family and

eight
friends.,, The number of respondents who assigned this function to Tagalog was

and five, respectively (Table 26), For example, two respondents (R13 and R15)

recorded similar comments,

 333

The advantage I have about speaking Filipino language is that I can

communicate better with my relatives in the Philippines'

Similarly, Tagalog (or other Philippine language) was seen as providing a link

with local family and friends. As two respondents commented:

I feel that Ineed to learn Philippine languages [Tagalog and Cebuano]

that are used at home because my mum and auntie speak them. (R 11)

The Negative Meanirtgs

In contrastto the positive assertions about the languages included above, some
perceptions
negative qualities were also observed by the respondents' Two common

about the shortcomings of Tagalog predominated the essays' Seven respondents

el%)claimed that Tagalog hâd limited use and/or not as good as any other language.

This meaning could be deduced from comments such as,

The disadvantage with Tagalog is that you can only use it to people
who know fugulog since the language is not popular enough to be
taught in schools. (R13)

It is not a common language; not widely spoker¡ and it prevents one

from speaking good English. (RB)

The other charaslenzation of English that was more commonly observed and

speoifically noted by six respondents (18%) was its tendency of "gxcluding othø

languages." This came out in such a statement as follows:

 334

Table2T

Negative Meanings Given To Languages By Filipino-Australian Students

T¿galog # Enelish
Meanings Attached to Language
Frequency Percentage* Frequency Percentage*

l. Limited use/not as good 7 2l

2. Exclusion of other languages 1 3 6 18

3. Social stigma 2 6

4. Diffrculties/confu sion 1 3 I 3

5. Loss of identity None 1 3

6. Not mature developed None None

7. Useless/trated None None

8. Feelings of unprofessionalism None None

9. I\¡lonotonous, boring, corny,

awfu1 None None

10. Diffrcult to migrants Nonè 2 6

11. Excludes other people in the

conversation I 3 I 3

12. Minority language in the Phil, I 3 None

Total Citations 13 1l
*The frequency of citations is expressed as a percentage ofthe number of respondents
in the group

#Some students' comments refer to PLOT (mainly Cebuano) rather than Tagalog (e.9.
F.27 re personal identification).
 335

The disadvantage of speaking [English] is that you may forget to speak

your own national language (R17).

Such a comment was firrther elaborated in observations such as,

The advantage of speaking Engtish at home is that my parents can

practice their [spoken] English but the downfall is that my Tagalog is
not as fluent as it should be (R5).

I find a disadvantage though ofusing English at home and that is I am not able
to practice speaking Tagalog as much as possible (R23)

The disadvantage of using it [English] at home is that the Philippine

languages may be left behind especially if English is the sole language
used...One of the disadvantages of using English at school would again
be the loss of the Filipino language. Since education is important and
covers a broad range of topics, writing, reading and speaking in
Filipino would defìnitely be afFected. (R28)

The English language was also seen to be difficult and confusing, as illustrated

by comments made by the respondents, $uch as,

The English language is sometimes hard to understand. It has lots of

meaning for one word, e. g. ring. When I arrived here in Australia, I
could not speak or write in English. I had to go to a special school,
which teaches proper way of speaking and writing in English. (R20)

A 16-year old female with an English father said:

English is a very complicated language especially to migrants. They

have diffrculties about writing and grammar (R2).

Problems of identity were also seen in some of the responses. One typical

example of an identþ problem in regard to the use of languages, either Tagalog (or

any other Philippine language) or English is that...

 336

The disadvantage [with Tagalog] is that sometimes I have identity

crisis. I am sometimes confused because I think I am an Australiaq but
still a Filipino (RlO).

THE MEANINGS ATTACHED TO LANGUAGES BY FILIPINO.

AUSTRALIAN PARENTS

The Autotelic Meanings

Unlike students' responses, which were deduced from their essays, the

parental assignment of meanings to languages was derived from their responses to

particular open-ended questionnaire, in some instances, followed by interviews.

The meanings attached by the parents to languages are presented in Table 28,

under the same sub-headings discussed for their student children, In the analysis of

the parents' comments, howwer, the meanings attributed to vernaculars @LOT) were

clearly differentiated from those given to TagalogÆilipino.

Aesthetìc. While four Filipino-Australian parents attributed the aesthetic

meaning to Tagalog, two gave similar meaning to English and to PLOT (Table 28).

One parent, for example, stated,

Love songs in Tagalog are sweet to the ears (R13) .

In relation to PLOT, one male respondent with parents both Filipino referred to

Cebuano to be his everything as he said,

It has always been my languagg my soul and my, everything (R27),

SqcíuculturøL. With regard to the social and cultural qualities ofthe language,

the largest number of respondents (11 or 33%) assigned a mother tongue meaning to

Tagalog.
 337

Table 28

Autotelic Meanings Given by Filipino-Australian Pa¡ents to Languages

N:33

Meanings attachsd to Tagalog PLOT Enclish

language f Percentage* F Percentaget f Percentage*

1. Aesthetic 4 L2 I 3 2 6

2. Socio-cultural

a. Mother tongue/own
language ll 33 -J 9 None
b. National significance/
lingua franca
None None None
c. International lancuage None Nohe 9 27
d. Link with origin/
cultural past 7 2l None None
e. Link with PhiU 8 24
nostalcia None None

3. Personal
identificational

a. Feeling of pride 1ó 48 3 9 1 3
identiw
b. Loyalty /nationalism /
Filipinism 7 21 None None
c. Smartness /
confidence None None None

4. Affective

r. Ease of use 6 18 1 3 None

b. Comfortable
witt/prefened 4 T2 I 3 5 15
c. Full expression of
thoueht 3 9 None None
d. Easy to understand 6 t8 None 4 12

9
Total citations 72 2t
*The frequency of citations is expressed as a percentage ofthe number of respondents
in the group
 338

The second largest number of respondents (9 or 2T/o) looked at English as an

international language.

English is a universal language and must be learnt by everybody

especially children (Rl1; also Rl3).

In the whole world, we can't deny [that] English is the more widely
used cornpared to other languages (R27).

The third most frequentþ mentioned meanings (8 responses or 24'/ù

consisted of those who looked upon Tagalog as a link with Philþines and a

reminder of good memories and experiences back home. As other respondents

claimed,

I like Tagalog as it is one way of keeping abreast with the happenings

in the Philippines @4; also R23 and R28).

Two other respondents regarded Tagalog and PLOT in a nostalgic light with

comments such as:

It [Tagalog] reminds me of things when I was in the Philippines @5)

Itis good to listen to one's own dialect; it feels like we are in the
Philippines; it brings back the reminiscence of our childhood days.
(Rrl)

Another meaning assigned to Tagalog by seven respondents (zlY) was its link

with the respondents' origin/cultural past. Many claimed that,

Tagalog helps one not to forget his origin. (R8; also R23; R25; R26;
R28; R30; and R33).

In addition, some respondents stated that,

 339

It is a part of our cultural background. We should not forget our

national heritage and language is a part of it (Rl2)

It [Tagalog] is a national language; \¡re should know it and not forget it

even if we a¡e in foreign courrtries. (R18)

Tagalog is the national language that every Filipino should know how
to speak. (R24)

Perconal ìdentifrcafíonal. Table 28 shows that for many parerlts, Tagalog is

an identity marker. Almost half of the respondents (a8%) shared the view of Tagalog

as providing them with a 'sense of identity'. At the same time, Tagalog was claimed

by 2l per cent as an embodiment of ' loyalty, nationalism and Filipinism.' One

respondent claimed, for example,

Iam still a Filipino and I like to remain a Filipino forever; Tagalog is our
national language and we should be proud of it.

The frequency of personal identificational meanings linked to TagalogÆLOT

was much greater for parents than for their children in Australia. This high level of

personal identification meaning attributed to Tagalog may be explained by the fact

that these respondents were away from their homeland in what some still regarded as

a 'foreign land. As they heard their own language being spoken, they experienced

nostalgia by remembering the happy experiences they have had while they were still

in their own country.

The feeling of pride and identity was also attached by at least one respondent

to English. But the pride that was felt seçmed to have a different connotation than that

manifested for Tagalog. It could indicate pride for being able to speak English and in
 340

this way to identifu with the Australians rather than pride for being a Filipino. As he

claimed,

World is changing and it's modern now. We as Filipinos should be

proud as usual to speak English and maint¿in our honor that we are the
highest in number in speaking English. (R25)

Affec'Íive. Six (18 %) ofthe Filipino parents in Australia regarded Tagalog as a

language that was easy to use (Table 28). A similar percentage (18 per cent) claimed

Tagalog as "easy to understand" while another four (12 per cent) sated it was a
'þreferred" language. In the words of one respondent,

For me, it is easier to understand all activities in Tagalog (R30).

For other respondents, English was the preferred language (claimed by five or

15 per çsnt of the respondents) or considered easy to understand (claimed by four or

12 per cent of the respondents). The following comments illustrate these meanings for

the respondents,

I think I can read better in English (R9).

I am used to writing in English even when I was in the Philippines (Rl2).

It should be English preferably which is the universal language ß31).

These results are not surprising, given that the parents in this study came to

Australia when they were already mature adults. Many of them came to Australia

because of marriage; others have come as migrants after having been sponsored by

their parents or siblings. This meant that they have been expoeed not only to

TagaloglFilipino (either as their mother tongue or as medium of instruction in

 34t

schools) but also to English (being the ofücial language in addition to Filipino) while

they were still in the Philippines.

It should be noted, however, that there were three respondents (9 per cent)

who regarded Tagalog as the language that allowed them "full expression of

thoughts." One explained,

I don't have to think anymore of the equivalent words/concepts for me

to understand the message, (R10)

None of these respondents attached this quality to arry PLOT, much less, to

English. It would seem that when these particular individuals wanted to express their

thoughts and feelings, they felt most confident in doing so through their native
language. In contrast, they fclt curtailed in English because it needed to be fully

mastered before it could be properly utilized.

The fnstrumental Meanings

Instrumental meanings acoorded to languages by Filipino parents in Australia

are summarized in Table 29, The parental comment$ indicated that only Tagalog was

perceived as important for social and familial significance. In particular, Tagalog was

seen as a language for "makingientertaining füends or tourists." Such comments

were made by three (9%) respondents who claimed that Tagalog allowed them to

make or entertain Filipino friends in their Australian homes, or Filipinos from the

Philippines who visited Australia as tor¡rists.

Familial Four parents(12%) who considered that it provided "link with the

family ov€rseas" recognized the familial meanings attached to Tagalog. This was

illustrated in the comment,

 When they go to Philippines for a holiday, they can speak the language
to our relatives (R32)

Tagalogwas also seen by as many as seven parents Q.I per cent) as providing

a link with local family and friends. As one respondent.put it,

I have to speak it to communicate with Tagalog friends (R9)

Another respondent claimed,

It develops camaraderie and a sense of unity. (R19)

For two respondents, the PLOT, rather than Tagalog, had special familial

meaning.
 342

'a
Table 29

Instrumental Meanings Given to Languages by Filipino Parents in Australia

N=33

Moanings Auachedto Taealog PLOT English

Languages F Percentaqe* F Percentage* f Percentage*

1. Economic
sþificance

a.Language for
business/ occupation/ 5 l5
iob opportunities
b.Keyto progress/
bricht future None None None

2. Political sipnificance Nolre None None

3. Social significance

a. Making/entertaining
frimdsltourists 3 9 None None
b. Travel overseas None None None

4. Familial sþificance

a. Linkwith family 4 12 2 6 None

ovelEei¡s
b. Linkwith local 7 21 None None
family/friends

5. Educational
sþificance

a. þpropriate None None None

medium of
instruction
b. Access to
knowledee None None None
c. Advamage of
being bitineual 6 18 2 6

Total Citæions 20 2 7
* of citations is expressed as a percentage of the number of
respondents in the group
 343

These comments illustrate the basic family orientation of Filipinos, wherever

they may find themselves, and the way Tagalog becomes a bridge among Filipinos in

Australia. Its use was seen to enhance mutual understanding, both within the family

and within the Filipino community in Australia.

Economíc, Looking at the parents' comments, only the English language was

given an economic meaning. More particularly, it was seen by five respondents (15%o)

to be the "language for business/occupation/job opporh¡nities." This observation was

particularly valid in Australia, where a mastery of English was needed in order to

survive. As one parent explained,

The children [who are brought up with the English language] have
better opportunities to get a job in Australia ß23).

Eùtcafìanal. Finally, both languages-- English and Filipino-- were seen to

provide an advantage of being bilingual with six respondents (18%) seeing Tagalog as

a way to bilingualism and ño (6þ attributing this to English. The large number of

respondents who saw Tagalog as contributing to bilingualism could be explained by

the fact that to Filipinos in Australia, Tagalog, rathet than English, is seen as an

additional language viewed as an asset, with English perceived as a necessity. The

importance of bilingualism and the relative signifioance of the two languages are very

well illustrated in the following comments,

It is necessary that childrenspeak both English and Filipino so that

they can have the best ofboth languages. (R5)

Knowing languages other than English is an asset; it is important in

this multicultural society. (Rl9)
 344

Tagalog should be introduced as a foreign language to all nationalities

and not only to Filipinos just like other LOTEs. The teaching of
Tagalog in Australia must not only be confined to Filipinos. (R32)

These parental views are consistent with the opinions of bilingual parents

reported in the study of Janssen and Pauwels (1993: 2) who claimed that

"bilingualism is an asset and an advantage for both individual and society as e

whole."

Polìtìcal It should be noted that no political meaning was attached either to

English or any Philippine language.

The Negative Meanings

Negative meanings which the Filipino parents in Australia attributed to

languages are zummarizedin Table 30. From the standpoint of the parents, English is

not associated with any negative meaning. These results show that Filipinos in

Australia fully accept English and have no diffrcuþ in accepting it as the language

which is predominant in the Australian life.

In contrast, Tagalog was attributed with a number of negative meanings. One

of these was the perception among five respondents (l5olo) that Tagalog was useless

in Australia- This was illustrated in comments, such as:

There is no need for Tagalog in an English speaking country' Why

learn a language which is not used. When in Rome, do what the
Romans do (R20).
 345

Another respondent seemed to repeat the same expression, but with a very

different connotation, showing the pain of separation from native land of which he

was reminded by Tagalog.

Live like the Romans when in Rome. And above all, we just feel
homesick when you speak or listen to it.

Two respondents who wrote revealed apathy towards Tagalog as they said,

I don't like Tagalog and I can't speak fluently. Sorryl I rather speak in
English to my Tagalog friends; (R32)

I have no time for Tagalog; it is not my dialect. There is no need;

everybody should understand English (R9).

Both of the above comments came from mothers who were not themselves of

Tagalog speaking bacþrounds and had no special sympatþ for that language,

Tagalog. This feeling was reversed by Tagalog background parents who thought

PLOT to be useless.

Another negative meaning arose from difficulties and confusion that some

respondents experienced in using Tagalog. This view was revealed in comments such

âS,

[Tagalog is] hard to understand and difficult to express... It is a bit ha¡d

to read in Tagalog; words are too long ß21).

These particular perceptions vvere expressed by parents coming from non-

Tagalog speaking areas in the Philippines. Many such parents who were non-native

Tagalog speakers did not really like Tagalog. They were, however, obliged to speak

the language in Australia because of its role as the lingua francø of the Filipino

community. In the experience of the researcher, it happens sometimes during casual

 346

conversations among Filipinos that when non-Tagalog speakers 'slip into' speaking

their own PLOT in conversation with native Tagalog speakers (who are presumed to

speak no other Philippine language) they are sometimes subjected to corhplaint and

told to use Tagalog or English. But PLOT speakers may sometimes reply, "Couldn't

you learn to speak Cebuano (or Bicolano or Ilocano)?"

Table 30

Negative Meanings Given To Languages By Filipino Parents in Australia

N=33
Meanings Attached Tagalog PLOT Enelish
to Languages F Percentage* F Percentage* F Percentage*
I. Limited use/not
as good None None None
2. Exclusion of other
langr¡.ages I 3 None None
3. Social stisma None None None
4.DifTicuhieV
confusion 3 9 Nono None
a) speaking None None None
b) readine I J None None
c) writins None None None
5. Loss of identitv
6. Not maíße/
developed
7. Useless/hated 5 15 I 3
LFeelings of
unprofessionalism
9. Monotonous,
borins. cornv
10. Diffrcult to
migrants
I l.Excludes other
people in
conversation
12. Minority
language I 3
Total Citations 11 I 0
*The frequency of citations is expressed as a perceutage ofthe number of respondents
in the group
 347

The parents' responses are rema¡kable for the paucity of negative meanings

attached to languages (only I I citations were given as per Table 30). Those that are
given with reference to Tagalog or PLOT seem to be generally associated with the

difficulties of minority languages in an English-dominant context. The Filipino-

Australians, however, differ from other minority groups on two important counts.

Firstly, they are more familiar with English on arrival in Ausralia than most other

immigrants and are, therefore, more prepared to regard English in a favorable light.

Secondly, Filipino-Australians face the complications of having more than one

mother tongue with the possibility of friction between Tagalog background speakers

and those from PLOT backgrounds. Most other groups who generally try to uphold

one clearly defined mother tongue do not oçerience such diffrculties. [For example,

Latvian, Polish, Greek orMalaysian] (Smoliczand Secombe, 1989).

THE PHILIPPINE CASE

The study in the Philippines embraced three non-Tagalog linguistic

communities. This sectioû reports the meanings that student and parent respondents

from these communities gave to the languages under investigation, n&mely, English,

FilipinoÆagalog, the three Philippine languages other than Tagalog (PLOT), Waray,

Ilocano, and Cebuano. The number of respondents for both parents and students from

the three communities was 35 for Warays; 55 for llocanos; and 62 for Cebuanos.

All the respondents were given identification numerals, separately for eac.h

linguistic community. When extract from personal statements and commerits of the
 348

respondents are quoted in the text, they are identified by letter 'W' for the Waray
group; 'I' for Ilocano; and 'C' for Cebuano. When it is appropriate to show gender,

the respondents' numeral bears the additional letter 'M' for male and 'F' for female.
For example, 'CM' indicates that the respondent is a Cebuano male.

TEE MEAITINGS ATTACHED TO LANGUAGES BY FILIPINO STTIDENTS

The Autotelic Meanings

The autotelic meanings given by the students from the three linguistic

communities to languages under investigation are presented in Table 3l under the

same sub- headings used in the study of student responses in the Australian part of the

study. A tabular presentation shows the frequency with which various meanings were

given by students, as well es the perçentage of each citation, in terms of the number of
respondents in each grouping--Waray, Ilocano, and Cebuano.

Aetsthetic. Comments on beauty, refinement, and richness that could be

classified as aesthetic meaning of the language were relatively few. From the total

number of 152, only 17 (ll per cent) gave some aesthetic valuation to the three

vernaculqrs. The number of citations praising the beauty of the vernacular w¿s

greatest among the Cebuano group (9 respondents out of 62 in this grouping ll5%l).
Thc Ilocano group had only four respondents (7%) n this category. The aesthetic

appreciation for Filipino was shown by 12 students (8 %) ftom all three groups (most

ofthem Ilocanos \pith 8 students constituting 15 per cent of the group).English had an

overall appreciation from ten students (7 %o), only one of them was llocano.

Observations on the uniqueness, the sweetness, and the beauty of the Cebuano

language were expressed by three male (M¡ and six female (F) respondents (CM:I,
 349

also 7,12; F-l1, also 22,24,34,35, and 36). Beyond such brief comments, however,

other sentiments were manifested. For example, one male respondent stated,

Cebuano has been my home-grown language and can see its I

uniqueness and beauty. Using the Cebuano language makes a child
identifu him in the family and makes internalize the value of having a
Cebuano language (CM7).

Among the female respondents? one (CF34) commented, thus:

Icould see thc great arl. possessed by the language and that nothing is
sweeter and better than my home language.

Other female respondents expressed their love and commitment to Cebuano in

remarkably similar terms,

I am not blind to the fact that the Cebuano language is very beautiful
and expressive. In my heart, I will always be proud of the Cebuano
language (CFll).

I viill always remember and speak my language as I go to other places.

I won't be ashamed of it and I will always treasure it till the day I die
(cF36).

The richness of the Waray language ïves appreciated by a female respondent,

who manifested apprehensions with regard to its maintenance. She wrote,

The Waray dialect is a very rich one. I am very much afraid that the
Waray-waray people will fail to maintain its present statuS. Many of
the young folks now feel awkward if they use the words that have been
used by our ancestors ... When we invent and add new words to
vocabulary, we should also manage not to forget the old ones for they
resemble the richness of that particular language. (WF23)

Another female respondent talked about the literary heritage in the Waray

language,
 350

Table 31

Autotelic Meanings Given To Languages By Filipino Students from

Three Linguistic Communities

LanguagBs and Communities

Meanings
Reeional (Vern) Filipino Enslish
Auached
w I c T w I c T rü I C T
1% f% fYo f% f% f % f% fY" fVo f a/o
fYo f%
4 4 9 t7 I I J 12 4 I 5 l0
L Aesthetic ll 7 15 ll 3 15 5 I It 2 8 7
2.
a, 6 8 l0 24
t7 l5 l6 l6

4 2l l4 39 3 I 8 t2
us6 ll 38 23 26 I 2 13 8
l5 7 I7 j9
c.lnt'l langu¿se 43 t3 27 26
6 9 15 3 5 5 l3
ll l5 l0 I 9 I 9

e I 5 6
on 3 8 4
f.Sign of 2 I J 3 3
respect 6 2 2 I 2

2 4 l5 2t 7 30 ll 48 I J 7 ll
6 7 24 t4 20 55 l8 32 3 5 l1 7
J 3 6 2 2 l0
J 2 17 4 3 7
c.SmartresV 1 I I 3 2 2 4 I
confidence 3 2 2 2 6 4 6 5
4.
a. 22 t4 22 58 2 t2 l0 24 4 6 l8 28
18
63 25 35 38 6 22 16 t6 lt tl 29
II 8 15 34 I I I 2 3
3 I 15 24 22 2 I 3 3 2

c.Easy to 9 l0 23 42 I 4 2 7 4 2 19 24
understand 26 l8 37 28 3 7 3 5 ll 4 3l l6
*Linguistic communities :
W- Wara¡ N=35 I - Ilocano; N=55 C - Cebuano; N:62 T-Tdal = 152
Note: The percentages were computed from the number of respondents in each goup.
 351

Waray language is rich enough to be able to accommodate any and all

nuances pertaining to language use and applicability. In fact, there had
been (and they still continue to flourish) great compositions (both
musical and poetic) done in Waray. It gives us great pride to know
about these. (WF29)

While all the respondents from the Waray group who assigned the aesthetic

meanings to their language were females, those in the Ilocano group who all

recognize the beauty and richness of the Ilocano language were all males. They spoke

of Ilocano language's "musical tones" ([vf4) and its 'teautifi.rl idiomatic

expressions" (IM23).

The aesthetic appreciation for Filipino language was gfeatest among the

Ilocanos (14 % as against 3 per cent of the Waray and SYo of the Cebuano group).

TagalogÆilipino was claimed by Ilocanos to be 'beautiful and rich" (l-4,l-29), "a

unique Asian language having a sweet and melodious sound" (I-8),'lery oriental in

diction and is unique" (I-24),'1ery pleasant to the ear "(I-55 and also I-33), and

"sounding like tweeting birds in the early morn" (I-19).

On the other hand, aesthetic meanings of the English language lvere

recognized in the consçiousness of a few Cebuano and Waray respondents. English

was considercd to be 'þood" (C-19) and "excellent" (W-1, W-30), * beautiful and

interesting" (C-35), is'þleasant to the ea.C'and *quite remarkable" (C-36).

Socíucultur:øL The cultural meanings applied by students to the languages

under investigation related to their different levels of significance. A total of 24

respondents (16 %) viewed the vernacular as of regional significance, while 39 (26%)

applied national meaning to Filipino. A quarter of the respondents (also 26%) looked

upon English as of international significance. While the proportion of respondents

 352

who viewed the vernacular as of regional significance was almost the same for all the

three communities, the proportion of respondents that regarded TagalogÆilipino as of

national significance varied considerably among the communities, with Ilocanos

showing the greatest perception of Filipino as national (38%) and Warays, the least

(ll%). In contrast, Waray showed the greatest appreciation of English as an

international language (43Vo, as against Ilocanos with only 13olo expressing this view).

What is more, 9 per cent ofWarays and 13 per cent of Cebuanos accorded English the

meaning of a national language, as against only one Ilocano respondent taking this

stance.

The reinforcement of the socio-cultural meaning ofthe vernacular (PLOT) and

Filipino as of regional and national significance, respectively, is provided by the

responses which linked those tongues to the writers' origin and their cultrral past

(about IO Yo for each community).

Being of regional significance to the family, the local community, and the

regiorç the Cebuano respondents have these to say:

In our home, we use the Cebuano language. It is very easy for us to

talk and communicate with the different family members. And since
most of our neighbors are purely Cebuano we could easily
communicate with them (F-C13).

My feelings about the Cebuano language is that I am proud of it and I

feel comfortable using the language at home. It is very easy for us to
communicate not just at home but also in the neighborhood and in
church. It makes us close with each other since there is understanding
between each ofus (F-C9).

Cebuano helps the family to get along well everyday. It helps the
family to be strong and united. It is not only in our home though that
 353

we apply this but in the neighborhood as well. We are able to open our
hearts to them and that we become a big community and family @-
c22).

Being bom a Cebuano, I am proud using my dialect Cebu¿no. I find it

useful to everyday life. We can communicate with everyone in the
community and sustain a healthful and united life (M-C12)

These sentiments are shared by those from the Waray and Ilocano

communities as they said,

I feel comfortable if I use Waray as a language at home and in the

neighborhood. We understand each other well and we feel pleased
everytime we speak to each other in Waray (W9).

Since Waray is the regional dialect, I feel comfortable using it and I

can express myself verywell in the neighborhood. (Wl3 also Wl5).

Ilokano is our lingua franca at home and in the neighborhood. There

exists no gap and ba¡rier among ourselves (I-8).

PersonaüidentifrcølíonaL Cebuano respondents stood out from the others in

that a quarter of the students regarded Cebuano as a source of their pride and identity

(as against 6 to 7 Yo for the other two communities of respondents. This is

authenticated by some claims as...

We use to practice English at home but as a loyal øtizety I always

insist to speak the Cebuano dialect because I love to speak Cebuano
and I am comfortable in using Cebuano dialect towa¡ds the people in
our society (F-Cl4).

Being in Cebu City, my family and I always speak Cebuano at home. I

was born here, thus I learned to speak Cebuano. I fe€l great, relaxed
and happy every time am with my family talking to each other during
meals, free time and other family gatherings in Cebuano (C-F26).
 354

When I
speak Cebuano, I feel that I am free to speak that language
because I am a Cebuana and I should love and I should love my own
language because I grew up with this language (C-F35).

The use of Cebuano language at home makes me feel proud of what I

am and here I belong. Using our own language reminds me of the
Filipino who really fought for our freedom (C-Ml7).

Fot as many as 55 Yo of the Ilocano respondents, it was the Filipino language

in which they found their pride and identity. No more than a fifth of the respondents

in the other two communities saw Filipino in this light. Only a handful of respondents

perceived English as a sor¡rce of pride and identity, except for seven Cebuano

respondents who claimed to feel in this way (as against one Waray and three Ilocano

students). An Ilocano respondent who gave a strong association between the language

and people said,

My feelings about the Ilokano language being used at home is great. It

represents people who are sturdy in spirit and having their own identity
(r-16).

Affective. While only very few Waray respondents regarded the vernacular as

a sourcç of pride or as providing links with their cultural past, they showed their

attachment to their mother tongue by giving it a strong affective affrmation in

claiming that they felt comfortable and relaxed when using it (63%). As one

respondent (W2) claimed,

if
We can communicate well we use our native tongue. We can
understand and express well what we feel.

Similar feelings were expressed by other respondçnts. These are as follows

 355

I feel comfonable if I use Waray as a language at home and in the

neighborhood. We understand each other well and we feel pleased
everytime we speak to each other in Waray (W9)

I am definitely ît ease using tho Waray language at home. Well, for

one thing, I could be completely comfortable at home and so I should
use the language I am used to (W20).

Waray is very convenient because it is understood by everybody within

the locality. There is no misinterpretation because vre are really able to
say what we mean and what \¡ie say (W27).

The feeling of comfort and relaxation in the vernacula¡ were also expressed by

Cebuano respondents, although to a lesser extent (35o/o) and Ilocanos (25%), As two

Cebuano respondents claimed:

I feel great, relaxed and happy everytime I am with my family talking

to each other during meals, free time and other fanrily gatherings in
Cebuano (R26).

My feelings about the [Cebuano] language \¡/e use at home is that first,
I feel comfort¿ble in using it. Second, I am already an expert in the use
of my language C-M18).

On the other hand, only a few respondents reported this sense of comfort with

Filipino, with the greatest support for this view coming from Ilocanos (22Yo), as

against 16 per cent from the Cebuanos and six per cent from the Warays. Cebuano

respondents reported the greatest proportion of those feeling comfortable and relaxed

in English, 29%o as against 1l per cent ofboth Waray and Ilocano respondents,

Greatest proportion of Waray respondents also thought that their vornacular

provided them with'1rll expression of thoughts and feelings" (3lyù, with only 15 per
 356

cent thinking the same way about their vernacular, In relation to "ease of

understanding tlre vernaculat'', the Cebuano respondents have greatest support for this

view (37Yo), with Ilocanos again showing the lowest proportion of support (180/0). A

greatest proportion of Cebuano students (31 %) claimed that 'English was easy to

understand" with Ilocanos recording only two respondents (4W who thought the

same about English. As a female respondent from the Cebu community put it:

The languages used in school are always English and Filipino. With
these I feel comfortable because we can understand our teacher while
she is talking (C-F3)

A more focused claim regarding facility with English was written by another

female respondent from Cebu as she said,

In school, we use three languages-Cebuano, Filipino and

English. But the medium of instruction used is actually English.
Honestly speaking I really feel comfortable (C-Fl4).

Overall, Ilocano respondents showed the lowest enthusiasm for English

language and Cebuano the gr€atest, Warays, even if not ascribing "cultural past" to

the vernacular, showed their great affrnity for it in the number of meanings they
ascribed to it.

The Instrument¡l Meanings

The analysis revealed four categories of instrumental meanings that were

associated with the tluee languages. These related to their economic, political, social,

and educational significance as shown on Table 32.

 357

Economig. English was the language associated with economic significance

and it was claimed to be the language of business and employment by l0 percent and

the key to progress and a bright future by 14 percent of the total respondents. Twenty

years after Filipino was declared as an offrcial language alongside English in the 1973

Constitution, it was not recognized by any of the respondents as a language for

business and employment. Even the modest proportion of 5 percent of the respondents

who considered Filipino as a key to progress, contrasts with the 14 percent of those

who attached the same quality to English.

The meanings attached to English as a language of both "economic

significance" and as 'key to progress and bright future" were appreciated to a

considerable extent by the Cebuano and Waray respondentg in contrast to Ilocanos

who showed hardly any such appreciation. Combining the proportions of Cebuano

and Waray respondents reported in these two categories gives 32 per cent of Warays

and32 percent of Cebuanos sharing economic meanings for English, as against only 9

per cent of Ilocanos. This once again shows the distinø lack of enthusiasm for

English shown by Ilocano respondents on sevÊral variables reported in this study.

Many of the essays demonstrated the students' preoccupation of learning the

English language in order to find good jobs both within the country and, more
importantly, overseas. The Filipino language, which they observed was not being

regularly used in work places, or even during interviews ofjob applicants was seen to

limit their opportunities to work abroad, an obsession that was intensely ingrained in

the consciousness of almost wery Filipino.

 358

Table 32

Instrument¿l Meanings Given to Languages By

Filipino Students from Three Linguistic Communities

Lineuistic Communities*
Meanings Resional (Vem) Filipino Enelish
Attached w I T
C w I
T c w I
T c
f% f% f% f% f% f% f% f% f% f% î% f%
l.Economic
a.Language for
business/ 2 2 2 J II l6
emplovment 4 l 6 I I8 I0
b.Keyto
progress/ 4 3 7 9 2 l0 2t
brisht future 1l 5 5 26 4 16 14
2.Political
Promdes peace
and harmony
in..
i.home/local 7 7 t7 3l
oom 20 r3 77 20
6 lt
ü. national com ll t0 1l
3I
iii,global com 9 9
26 6
3. Social
Making
friends/en
tertaining 4 4
a
J 3 I I ll 20
visitors 6 J 5 2 23 2 18 I3

I I 9 6 l5
2 I 26 10 t0
b.Medium of
instruction
for some 4 1 4 9 1 I 2 4
subiects t1 2 6 6 3 I 3 3
c.Access to
knowledge/ I I 2 2 8 T8 II 37
issues 2 I 3 2 23 JJ
aa
18 24
+Linguistic communities :
W - Waray; N:35 I - Ilocano; N= 55
C - Cebuano; T-Total 152 N=62 :
NotE: The percentages were computed from the no. of reqpondents in each group.
 359

These results zupport the findings of Sibayan and Segovia (in Afendras

(ed) 1988:93) in a study focused on employees both from the government and

private agencies in Metro Manila who found that the top and middle

management respondents from both sectors were positive about English as a

contributing factor to their advancement.

The sfrong attachment of the students to English, as an economic

tool, is underst¿ndable when viewed within the context of the economio

dimension of the Philippine envfuonment. The students, aware of the counfry's

economic problems and high rate of unemplolmrent, were understandably

conscious of the linguistic dimension as a factor contributing to employability.

Soc¡øL Making ftiends and /or entertaining visitors is another usefulness of

languages that the studçnts claimed. This quaìity .r ¡as more often attached to the

English language as 13 perceirt of the respondents explained that it enabled them to

make friends overseas, as well as talk to visitors, especiall¡ foreigners. The other two

languages were also s€en as socially significant, but only by Cebuano respondents,

four of whom ascribed this meaning to the native language and three others to

Filipino, constituting 3 and 2 percent ofthe total number of respondents, respectively.

Polítìcø|. The respondents recognized that each language had a specific

domain of applicability. For example, the vernacular \^¡as associæed with the

promotion of peace and harmony in the home and in the local community; Filipino, in

the national community; and English, globally. these w€re meanings respectively

endorsed by 2O percent, l1 percent, and 6 percerit ofthe total number of respondçnts.

 360

'a
The tffaray respondents showed the clea¡est domain differentiation in meaning

among the three languages that formed their trilingual linguistic systems, with 20 yo

of them reporting their vernacular as "significant for their local commuoity," 31 per

cent regarding Filipino in this light for the national community, and 26Yo opting for

English to be of global significance. Although over a quarte,r of Cebuano respondents

gave a political meaning to their own regional language, only l0 p€r cent recognized

Filipino as a national language and none wrote ofEnglish to be of global significance

The hierarchically ordered magnitude of proportions where the largest related

to the home/ local oommunity probably reflects the faot that, at their age, the local

community was the focus of the students' lives and concerns. It is only to be expected

for family members living together in one household as well as for community

members to communicate with one another.

Harmony in the home includes the maintenance of closer family ties, a core

value in Philippine society (Smolicz, l98l; 1986). The closely-knit family is

maintained becausç the family struçture and the corresponding power relations

in that structure are defined through the language.

Filipino, and in some cases, English unite the wider community of people --

ultimately the nafional community. In srch a case, the language becomes an

overarching value which allows mutual understanding of individuals as well as groups

of what they think and what they reject, what they believe in and what they don't,

what they a¡e and what they ought to fulfill (Smolicz, 1984). In a plural society like

the Philippines, harmonious co-existence needs to be anchored on diversity --

basically language diversity. Logically, therefore, it has to be language that should

 361

-a

çonnect zuch a divide, in this case, FilipinÒ at a national level, but not at the er(pense

of driving the vernacula¡s into largely illiterate domains of home and the marketplace.

EducatíonøL The perception that language(s) allowed access to knowledge

seemed to be a monopoly of the English language, in the view of 24 percerrt overall,

as against a negligible one percent for vernacular and two per cent for Filipino. The

respondents expressed their observations, that the best knowledge in and about the

world a¡e found in books written in English; 'Even computers talk in English" (C-

Ml8).

English as a teaching medium for all subject areas was generally perceived to

be acceptable, as endorsed by l0 per cent of the respondents from all the groups.

There is a marked difference of acceptance of English as a medium of education, from

26Yo approval among the Warays, l0 per cent from Cebuanos, to no support at all

from Ilocanos. The appropriateness of using Filipino in some subject arêas, was

recognized by 6 percent from all three groups, with Warays showing greater
acceptance of Filipino more than the Ilocanos, (l I and two per cent, respectively).

The support for Filipino as a medium of instruction (as well as for English)

was not as great in this study, as against that reported by Pascasio (in Afendras, ed,

1988: l4a) in an earlier study on the attitudes of Filipino bilinguals toward Filipino

and English as media of instruction conducted among college students at the Ateneo

de Manila University. She found that English and Filipino as media of instruction was

approved by 87 percent, as against 12 percent who opposed it. The respondents in that

study came from a university regarded as more elite in the Philippines and hence,

from families which normally use English in everyday context, with some of them far
 362

removed from provincial linguistic influences and possibly made up of members with

different linguistic backgrounds. In such a milieu it is not very surprising that

Pascasio found no signifícant difference (p>.05) between the attitudes of Tagalog and

non-Tagalog speaking respondents towards English and PÆilipino as medium of

instruction in college. Since the respondents in the study reported here lived in the

regions where vernacular was spoken in everyday basis and were located within the

historical regions, it is not too unexpected that our results did not replicate Pascasio's

findings.

The Negative Meanings

Evidence of negative meanings being attributed to the languages was also

identified in the essays of the students. The vernacular, use of which was observed to

be limited to the home domain and in the local community> was perceived by ll
percent of the total population (mostly coming from the Waray aûd the Cebuano

groups) to be the oause of the respondents' dìsadvantaged position (Table 33). This

can be deduced from the expression of feelings that constant use of the vernacular

automatically excluded the application and eventually, successful learning of the otlrer

languages. Irr other words, it was perceived that the usç of the vernacular deprived

them of the ohance to use and learn such languages as Filipino and, more importantly,

English.

This finding represents an interesting example of the 'inversion of

responsibility' for the state of affairs. Instead of blaming the school, which denied

them the literacy in their home tongue and devalued it educationally, socially and
 363

politically, they blamed their home language (and perhaps their families and their

community) and ultimately themselves--for being saddled with such a useless totgue.

Filipino was felt to be of limited use but only by 6 per cent, majority of

whom come from the Warays (14% of the group). English, which is actually the

language of reference in so fa¡ as the two comments mentioned above are concerned

was naturally free from such perceptions. Similady, rtobody perceived Filipino as a

language that excluded other languages as it is the ong together with Englislq that can

also be fully and partly excluded in the constant use of the vernacular. However,

Filipino and any other vernacular were evaluated by some to be'hot as good," " not

as mature," and "not as developed as English."

Respondents who hold such views would be considered by Tove Skutnabb-

Kangas as 'brainw¿shed,' i.e. indoctrinated by the ruling language group(s) to regard

their language as inferior and incapable of finer forms of expression and intellectual

thought. Skutnabb-Kangas (1989: 455) counters what she considered as misconceived

self-denigration by asserting the potentially equal status for all languages:

From a linguistic point of view all languages spoken natively by a

group of people have equal worth. All are logical, cognitively
complex, and capable of er<pressing any thoughts, provided enough
resources a¡e devoted to cultivation (creation of new lexical itemg
rçference works, etc.). There is no such thirrg as primitive language.
On linguistic grounds all languages could have the same rights, the
same possibility of being accepted and respected, of being learned
fully and used in all situations by their speakers.
 364

Tabte 33

Negative Meanines Givon to Languages by Filipino Students ftom Three

Linguistic Communities

Meanings Filipino Fnslish

Atâched I C w T I c w T I c w T
f % FVo f o/o
f% f % f % f o/o
f o/o
f % f o/o
fY" 1%

l.Limiteduse I ll 4 l6 I 3 5 I
/not as sood 2 18 ll l1 2 5 t4 6 None None None None

5 3 8

None None None None None None None None None

8 8 5

3. Social 2 2 2 I 3 3 3
stigila None None 6 I None 3 3 2 None 5 None 2

4.DifficultieV 3 8 11 34 3 I 38
Confusion in
None None None None None
school 5 23 7 62 5 3 25

a. speaking I I I 2 3 2 2
2 1
Ncne 2 6 2 4 None None I
2 2 I 5 I I
b. readine 4 2 3 3 None 2 None I None None None None
2 3 2 7
c. writine 4 5 6 5 None None None None None None Nure None

5. Loss of
identitv None None None None None None None None None None None None

I I 2
None None None None None 2 J I None None None None

T.Useless/ 2 2 7 7
hated None None None None None 3 None I r3 None None 5
8.Feelingof
un-rofession
alisnr None None None None None None None None None None None None

Nme None None None None Nme None None None None Nqne None
*Linguistíc communities:
W - Waray; N: 35 I.Ilocano; N= 55 C - Çebuano; Nd2 T-Total = 152

Note: The percæniages were computed from the no. of respondents in each group.
 365

There ìilere respondents, however, who indicated that the glorification of

Englist¡ as the only language to be used by those educated, does not hold with some,

possibly even many, members of the cornmunity. In fact, the use of English may be

the cause of social stigma, at least, in the perception of some Cebuano respondents.

As one of them put it,

The disadvantage in using English is that many people dislike you for
using the language (C-M9).

Others reported simply feeling "awkward" and "embarrassed" when using English

during intimate and informal interaction. One female Cebuano respondent, who

recalled feeling like a cultural deviant when using Ënglish, wote,

Sometime ago, I prefçrred to speak in our native dialect at home which

is Cebuano... Speaking in English or in Tagalog made me so awkward.
I I
was afraid that friends and neighbors would think am acting
strangely (C-Fl2).

Such examples show that English is not commonly used in the ordinary day-

to-day face-to-face interaction among people, but in more formal exclusive circles as

in schools, work places (more particularly, offices), in some higher level transactions,

as well as in professional gatherings/conferences. Unfortunately, the majority of

children who study English at school rarely reach thç educational level that would

give them the chance to participate in such professional and select cirçles. Hence,

they lose many of the English language skills th¿t they have gained from their brief

period at school, From their point of view, the time spent learning the English

language is, in the final analysis, practically useless.

 366

Negative meanings related to difficulties with the English language were

expressed by 24 per cent of the respondents overall although this view was held

almost exclusively by the Ilocanos where over half of the group (58%) endorsed this

feeling, as against just one respondent from the Waray and threo ftom the Cebuano

groups. Many of them wrote that they felt nervous when they need to talk in English.

They were afraid being criticized for their fauþ diction and grammar and their

general defieiency in the language, There were three per cent of the Cebuano

respondents who expressed similar views about Filipino.

Some respondents in reading and in writing the vernaçular and in speaking and

in reading Filipino expressed similar difliculties. These observations illustrate the

dangers of semilingualism (Skutnabb-Kangas and Toukoma4 1976) which occtrs

when individu¿ls exposed to more than one languagg have no educational

opportunities to consolidate their linguistic skills, especially their literacy, in any

language. The consequences of semilingualism were clearly described by one female

Cebuano respondent, who wroto,

In our home, we oftentimes use the Cebuano and Filipino languages...

But when I go to shopping malls, I start feeling uncomfortable with it.
Usually teenagers, like myself, like to speak in English so I use the
English languagg too. Speaking these languages in and out of the
house has disadvantages. Some of us students can hardly speaþ read,
and write very well. I, for one, can not perfectly speak or use the
English language...Although I am used to speaking the Filipìno and
Cebuano languages, I can not perfectly read the Cebuano writings, I
am having a diffrculty in reading and in using it. (CF-40)

Theso comments illustrated well the drawbacks of the current Bilingual

Education Policy of the Philippines, where no instruction in the vernacula¡ is provided
 367

and children leave school illiterate or semi-literafe in their home language. Fílipino

language carried no educational or social prestige comparable to that of English

among most of the Cebuanos. Filipino was imposed upon the Cebuano children in

school without glving them the advantages, which many associated with Englistr-

English, in turrL inspite of many hours spent on learning it in school remained even

for those who never use it at home or kindergarten at an elementary level. An

institution is needed to provide them with skills needed to achieve adequate

competence for occupational and social advancement.

The general assessment of a situation whereby the first language is devalued

and the second forced inappropriately is clearþ described by Grosjean (1982: 223)

and Skutnabb-Kangas and Toukoma¿ (1976) who also suggest a way out of the
dilemma:

...there is a direct relationship between a child's oompetence in a first

language and competence in a second. If the first language is poorly
developed because, for instance, it is a minority language and there is
not enough linguistic input from the environment (books, televisior¡
community), then exposure to a sçcond language may well impede the
continued development of skills in the first. And in turn, the poor
development of skills in the first language will exert a limiting effect
on the development ofthe second language, hencg semilingualism.
This developmental interdependence hypothesis has lead researchers to
propose that linguistic minority children be given a good grounding in
reading and in writing in the first language before being introduced to a
second. If this is dong bilingualism will not result in any negative
effects,

The Filipino dilemma is even more complex than that suggested by the above

authors, since the students have to balance three rather than just two longuages
 368

THE MEANINGS ATTACHED TO I"ANGUAGES BY FILIPINO PARENTS

The Autotelíc Meanings

Aesthetic. Table 34 shows that from the total number of respondçnts across

communities, 7 per cent talked about the beauty of both their respective vernaoular

and the Filipino languages; 9 per cent talked about the beauty of the English language.

The difference may not be substantial, but it is obvious that a greater number of
parents expressed more appreciation for English than for any of the Philippine
languages,

It is interesting to note that greater proportion of Cebuanos consistently

showed appreciation for the vernacular and English, as compa¡ed to the other two

groups. In contrast the Ilocanos had the higher proportion (tl%ù of those who

expressed support for Filipino, as compared to the Warays (3%) and the Cebuanos

(6%)

SocíqcullurøL. A substantial proportion from all groups (56% of the Ilocanos

and 4U/o from both the Warays and the Cebuanos) endorsed each of their respective

vernacular to be of regional signific&nce, i.e., the vernacular was seen as the medium

through which people at home and in the community are able to communicate and

underst¿nd one another. The llocanos claim is that their vernacular, '1s the language

of the Viscayanos," and hence on a comparable footing to the other two groups' olaim

for their respective vernacular as the language of the Warays and of the Cebuanos. In

additiotç people from the three communitiss claimed that 'the vernacular is their

mother tongue and major dialect and is the most used language in the locality."
 369

Filipino, on the other hand, is recognized to be the language of nationwide use

by 57 per cent of the total number of respondents, with the Waray goup having the

highest proportion of 69 per cent, in contrast to the Cebuanos, who accorded Filipino

the lowest acceptance proportion of 52 per cent.

English is perceived to be the language for international communication by a9

per cent of the Warays and 40 per cent of the Cebuanos, but only 25 per cent of the

Ilocanog a substantial proportion of whom (18 per cent) also perceived English as a

language of nationwide use. This will suggest that at least some Ilocanos regarded

English as a possible supplement to Filipino for the inter-regional or even in intra-

regional communication.

Language is also perceived to provide link with the respondents' origin and

cultural past, both in the case of the vernaçular and Filipino languages which were

claimed by many respondents as the languages used by their parents and forefathers'

The vernacular is more substantially endorsed by the Cebuanos (15%> and the Warays

(14%) and Filipino by only the Warayg with a substantial proportion of 11 per oøt

(constituting 4 per cent of the total number of respondents).

Like the students, the parents also recognized that indigenous languages

reminded them of those who defended the country from foreign domination, and

saved the languages from probable extinction. As some four Ilocano respondents put

it, "it is important to speak the vernacular in order to preserve the llocano language'"

A socio-cultural quality attached to the English language by some respondents

from all groups was that'the use of English indioates good education."
 370

Table 34

Autotelic Meanings Given to Languages by Filipino Parents

in Three Linguistic Communities

Lann¡ages Filioino Enel

Meanings I c w T I c w T I C w T
Arached f o/" f o/o f% F o/o
EP/o f % r% f o/o
f o/o
ß% f % 1%
2 6 3 l1 6 4 I ll I 10 3 l4
l. Aesthetic 4 10 9 7 l1 6 3 7 2 16 9 I
2. S'ocio-
cultural
a.Of regional 3l 25 t4 70
simificance 56 40 40 46
b.Nation¿l
language/nati 31 32 24 87 l0 2 t2
onwide use 56 52 69 57 18 3 8
c. international t4 25 l7 56
Laneuase 25 40 49 37

J 5 17 4 4

J t4 ll 11 3

e.Indicates good 2 5 2 I
education 4 I 6 6

4 I4 l0 28 l3 10 l5 38 I I I 3
7 23 29 l8 24 l6 43 25 2 2 -t 2
b.Loyalty/ 4 4 13 2 I l6
nation¿lism 6 3 24 3 3 l0
c.SmaÌurcsV 6 4 10
confidence u 6 7

4.Affective
a.Comfo¡table 8 20 4 32 5 5 15 20 35
with/prefened l5 32 11 2l r4 3 24 57 23

2 4 4 10 4 , 6

4 6 11 7 6 6 4
c. Easy to 24 20 1l 55 18 ll 5 34 l1 t7 16 44
understand 44 32 3l 36 33 18 t4 22 20 27 46 29
communities:
W - Waray; N= 35 I - Ilocano; N= 55 C - Cebuano; lÉ62 T-Toal = 152

Note: The percentages were comprrtedfrom the no. of respondenls in each group.
 371

In many cases, English was judged as a measure of one's education and a person who

properly observed the grammar and diction was labeled as well educated.

Personal identifrcalìonal. Language is known to be one of the most potent

elements of personal identification for many, if not all, groups. In this study, the

respondents werç asked about the feeling of pride, an expression of nationalism, and

an identity of 'smartness and çonfidence'. As an expression of loyalty and

nationalism, it was observed in the experience of all gtroups for Filipino, with the

Ilocanos having significantly large proportion of 24Yo, and with comparable support

from the other two communities at only TYo each. Cebuano respondents stood out as

the only group where four respondents perceived their native language as a vehiole for

the expression of nationalism. For Ilocanos and Warays, Filipino was the only

language regarded as the symbol of loyalty and nationalism.

The respondents perceived their language(s) much more frequentþ as a

"source of pride" and identity rather than nationalism, with l8% support for the

vernacular, 25yo for Filipino and only 2%o fot English. The Warays (29/o\ anô

Cebuanos (23yù were much more likely to see their identity lìnked to their native

tongue than Ilocanoo (7%). Identification with Filipino was greater among the

Warays and Ilocanos than among the Cebuanos (Table 33).

It may be noted that English was perceived by some three respondents (one

from each of the communities) to be a source of pride and identity as well as

smartness and confidence, But in the experience of the researcher, this kind of feeling

is probably not because of an attachment to a particular group of people or nation, but

is more of an elitist orientatiorq where onç who speaks the English language is taken
 372

to be smart; such a feeling is likely to make such an individual confident and able to

identiS himself with the elite's, made up of people who were able to go through

extensive formal schooling. As claimed by one ofthe respondents,

Educated people find it more interesting in English. (I-11)

Affeaíve. The last cluster of autotelic qualities attached to languages is the

feeling of comfort and facility in the use of the language. All three languages are

substantially endorsed by all groups as "easy to understand". But while the Ilocanos

have the highest proportion of those who attached this particular quality to vernacular

(44%) and Filipino (33Yo), the Cebuanos closely followed by the Warays, also give

this meaning to English, in addition to the indigenous languages.

The vernacular is perceived to allow firll expression of thoughts and feelings

by 7 per cent of the respondents from all three groups, while nobody endorsed this

quality for Filipino. This result implies that parents from these three communities

never feel as free to express their ideas in using Filipino as they do in the vern¿cular

and English. Ilocanos stand out as a gÍoup with not a single respondent feeling either

'comfortable' or able to o(press their thoughts in English.

'Easy to understand" was given as a meaning to the vernaculars by all the

three groups, 36 per cent overall, with English so defined by 29 per cent and Filipino

22 per cent. These overall rezults do not reveal the extent of difference among the

three groups in evaluating Filipino, with Ilocanos once again registering 33 per oent

support against Warays and Cebuanos with 14 and l8 per cent, respectively. This

order was reversed in the case of English, with 46 per cent of Warays claiming

English as "easy to understand" as against 2O per cent for Ilocanos.

 373

The Instrumental Meanings

Four clusters of instrument¿l meanings surfaced from the reasons provided by

the parents in the open-ended questions. The respondents attached meanings to the

languages on the basis of their economic, political, social, and of educational

significanoe as shown in Table 35.

Economic. Surprisingly, it is only English that is recognized as having an

economic meaning by more than a handful of respondents, with gfeater proportion of

Warays (31%) and the Cebuanos (19 %) than Ilocanos (11%) regarding it as a
"language for business, occupatior¡ and employment." Similar support by Waray and

Cebuano parents was forthcoming for the belief that English was the "key to progress

and bright future."

Parents placed premium on English as a language in school because they were

always conscious that English was needed at work. As the researcher's own

experience testifies, applicants for job opportunities are, in many cases, evaluated in

thei¡ ability to speak English. Many parents specifically mentioned that English

provided an easy access to overseas employment opportunities. In addition, they were

conscious that board and other government examinations were hcld in English and not

in Filipino or any other language(s).

Polìtìcal. The focus rilas on Filipino as the language of national significance,

at least as fa¡ as lVarays were concerned, vrtfh 29 per cent perceiving it as the

o'
language to promote peace and harmony in the national community," just as

English \¡vas recognized as 'þromoting peace and harmony in the global community,"
 374

by only a small proportion of parents drawn from Waray (8%) and Cebuano (3 W

groups.

Table 35

Instrumental Meanings Given to Languages by Filipino Parents in

Three Linguistic Communities

Languages
Meanings Resionål(Vern) Filipino Enslish
Aüaohed
I c w T I c w T I C w T
1Y" f % 1% f% 1% fYo f% f% f % F % fVo f o/o

2 2 6 t2 ll 29

4 I 11 19 3l 19
b. Key to progresV I I 1 14 7 22
brislü future 2 I ) 22 20 t4

I 2 l3 2l
b. national com. I 7 ll 10 r0 20
t6 28 l3
c. slobal com. 23 38 53
3. Social
lvlalre frie,ndV I I 1l t2 7 13
enærtainingvisitor 2 I 20 19 20 20

2 2 3 2 5 l0

6 I 5 3 l4 6

I 3 6 l0 I I
2 5 n 6 2 I
c. Access to I I 1 I 2 L2 9 2t
lnowledee/ issues 2 I 2 3 I l9 26 t4
*Linguistic Communities :

W-Waray; N:35 I -Ilocano;N =55 C - Cebuano; N:ó2 T-Total; N= 152

Note: The p€rcefi¿ges were oomputed from the number of respondelrts in each group.
 375

Sc¡¡øI In terms of social meanings, only English was viewed as the language

used in entertaining visitors and making friends especially those coming from foreign

oountries (20 % of the respondents overall). Parents expressed their desire for thç

English language being the medium for talking to people from other countries. It is

surprising that nobody attached this kind of meaning to the vernaculax, which is more

commonly used in entertaining local visitors. Observations, however, show that the

vernacular is very seldom used, if ever, in writing to friends, especially, pen friends.

Reasons may not only be due to the limited understanding of those who are being

written to but because of the genuine difficulty that the writers thernselves experience

with their respective regional languages. This handicap is the result of the exclusion

of PLOT from all efforts to encourage greater literucy in the country since theso are

solely limited to English and Filipino. However, there were no parental comments on

this issuc illustrating what could be regarded as the result of the centuries old

indoctrination that devalued the people's own native languages. Instead, some typical

claims from the Ilocano group \ilere as follows:

Ilocano is only good for conversation, not for writing to anyone, (I-4 )

It is hard to write and to read in llocano, (I- 23)

I like to speak in Ilocano but not to write or read. (I48 )

Similar selÊdeprecating comments \¡iere also observed in the Waray and the

Cebuano groups in so far as communication activities in the vernacular referrcd to any

literary skills.

Ed,ucolíonaL The educational significance of the language(s) is more

particularly attached to English, as qualified to be the appropriate medium of

 376

instruction in all subjects in schools. Filipino was viewed as appropriate medium of

instruction in some subjects only. In additior¡ English was recognized by 26 per cent

of the Warays and 19 per cent of the Cebuanos as providing access to krtowledge

more especially world knowledge through books ¿nd other scientific reports. As

general reference books, as well as professional joumals, are not readily available in

Filipino, much less in any of the regional languages, English was likely to continue to

be of educational significançe and a priority language.

This situation is parallel to that prevailing in India, where English is a most

palpable legacy of the British rule. India fought British imperialism but it has retained

English as a window to wider knowledge, a tool of international understanding and as

a language of intellectual status, commerce and diplomacy @attanayak, 1981:160).

As Phillipson (1998) argues, this opens the way for the formal colonial master to

dominate the country culturally and hence inferiorizing the very core of its substance

as an independent st¿te.

The Negative Meanings

Parents attaohed negative meanings to the vernacular and Filipino since both

these languages of the Philippines were perceived to be 'bf limited use and not as

good." Seven per cent of the total respondents, fairly distributed ernong the three

communities, attached this negative meaning to the vernacular and ó per cent to
Filipino. The latter were made up of eight per cent ofthe Cebuanos and six per cent of

the Warays but not a single Ilocano respondent made such negative assessment of

Filipino.
 377

Table 36

The Negative Meanings Au¿ched to Languages by Filipino Parents

Languages
Meanings Regional Language(Vern) Filipino Enelish
Aüached I c w T I c w T I c w T
f% f o/o
f o/o
f% f o/o
f o/o
f o/o
f o/o
f o/o
f o/o
f% f o/o
e 4 4 3 ll 5 2 I
7 6 9 7 8 6 6

2 2 I I .'
2 4
J I 2 6 3

3. Social 2 2 4 I I
,,
stiema 4 6 3 I

es
2 5 5 l3 3 6 9 6 6
5 8 L4 8 5 T7 é 11 4
a. speaking 23 2t
b. readine 59 23 75
t4 5 5 24 I I 2
c. writing 25 I t4 16 2 3 I

5. Loss of 1 1 2 I 1 4
identity 3 I 4 2 3 3

6.Not maturo/ 2 2 4 1 2 J
developed 3 6 J 2 6 2

T.Useless/ 3 1 4 I 1 I 3 1 I
hated 5 2 J 2 2 3 2 2 I

I I 2 2 2 3 7 2 2
2 2 I 4 3 9 5 3 I

ou
6 8 4 72 I I
11 I3 ll I 2 I
Legend:
W-Waray; N =35 I -Ilocano; N = 55
C - Cebuano; N = T -Total; N = 152 62
NcÉe: The percentages were computed ftom the number of respondents in each group.
 378

Derogatory comments such as "not as good," "it is cheap," "comy," and'hot

my type" surfaced in all communities as an attribute of the vernacular (7% overall). A

few parents feel that focussing attention on learning Filipino and the vernacular will

deprive their children in lea¡ning other languagesn more particularþ, English.

Respondents reported experiencing "difficulties" with the vernacular in all

communities, constituting 8 per cent of the total respondents and with Filipino by 6

per cent overall. The difficulties with Filipino were limited to the Cebuano and

Waray parents since there \ryas not a single Iloca¡ro respondent who reported any

diffrculty in Filipino. Deficiencies in the literacy skills in the vernacular were

particularly remarked upon both in reading and writiug, but it was the writing skills

that were found to cause more problems. These were reported by the greatest

proportion of the Ilocano parents Qsyù in contrast to only E per cent among the

Cebuanos and 14 per cent ¿rmong the Warays.

Ironically, no one complained of experiencing any reading or writing

diffïculties with English, a language that is foreign to all the three commurrities. This

situation is surprising in view of the status of English as an official but foreign

language. In view of what the respondents say about the ftequency of usage of the

three languages and their linguistic systems, and their acknowledged difftculties of

associating certain important events in their lives with English, it may be imputed that

such diffrculties did in fact exist but that the highest status of English made the

parents unwilling to admit to such a failing.

Sharp contrast is observed befween the many negative qualities attached to the

vernacular and Filipino as opposed to the minimal occurrenee of similar perceptions

 379

about English. In fact, it was only the "loss of identity'' which evoked in the minds of

four individuals (3 per cent overall) a negative meaning for English. It is also
remarkable that 'þeneral difticulties" with the English language rrere commented
upon by only six (11 per cent) Ilocano respondents overall and by none of the

Cebuano and Waray parents.

,Although reporting on the perceived proficiencS this illustrates the general

preference of Cebuano and Warays for English, over and above Filipino, and the selÊ

avowed confidence in their rnastery of English. In contrast, while no Ilocano could

remember having any difficuþ in Filipino, some did report such diffrculty in English,

but not to the extent of admitting any problems with reading or writing either in

Filipino or in English, This confïdence in the "school languages" brings into sharp

relief the low estimates of the respondents' abilþ to handle their own vernacula¡s--

languages that they speak everyday--and yet in which they feel so tittle confidence in

the literary area. However, rather than blaming the school system which has deprived

them of the ability to read and write fluently in the home languages, some respondenfs

seemed to attach the blame to the vernacular itself which they have described as

monotonous, corny, boring, and awful. Some four respondents (three of them

Ilocanos) have even found their own language '1¡seless and hateful," while a similar

number overall regarded it as "immature and underdeveloped", Some four

respondents even viewed the vernacular as conferring upon them a social stigma with

two commenting about its unprofessional status and with ¿N many as eleven

concluding that its limited use rendered it as'hot as good" as the other languages.
 380

In conclusion" from a historical perspective, we çaî deduce how this

denigration of the respondents' home larrguage was fostered by the official policies,

firstly of Spain through the limitation of the vernacular solely to the religious sphere,

and of USA in its attempts to supplant the indigenous languages with English. This

policy would seem to be continued under the auspices of the bilingual education

policy which in trytng to protect and intellectualize one of the Philippine languages

namely TagalogÆilipino, jeopardizes all the others and in doing so condemn so mony

parents and children to a situation where frequent cases of semilingualism and lack of

educational progress are blamed not upon the misguided policies but on the home

languages and therefore upon themselves.

 Chapter 7
a

SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW

The concluding chapter seeks to provide an overview of the results presented

in the two previous chapters.and to discuss their significance in the light of the

policies and theories outlined in the earlier sections of the thesis. Central to this

discussion are comparisons of the activation and attitude variables with regard to the

languages Filipino, English and PLOT in the contexts of the different socio-cultural

communities - the Filipino-Australiart community in Adelaide and the threc language

communities in the Philippines.

The first part of this chapter provides a summary of the activation and attitude

results in each of the four community contexts, beginning with that in Australia.

Among these respondents, it proved important to distinguish differences between

individuals from endogamous and exogamous marriages and to compare the student

and parental generations.

THE AUSTRALIAN CASE

Proficiency in the Languages

As evidenced by the results of the study, the Filipino respondents in Australia

were mostly at least bilingual, that is, they spoke English and Tagalog, the former

being the language of their country of settlement and the latter being the lingua

franca ofthe Filipino community. Some were trilingual, more specifically those who
 382

came from non-Tagalog speaking a¡eas in the Philippines where the native language

could be, for example, Ilocano, Cebuano, Hilongo ftIiligaynon) or Waray. A few of

the wives who wçre married to husbands of rton-English speaking background had

also learned their spouse's language to a limited extent.

Both students and parents affrrmed a generally sound knowledge of English.

On the part of the parents, English language skills had been acquired in the

Philippines and were further augmented in Australia. Although all the parents
claimed knowledge of the English language, those who were of non-Tagalog

speaking background (NTSB) showed a higher proficiency in it for all three

communication activities compared to those who came from a Tagalog speaking

background (TSB). This finding is consistent with the high valuation of English

among the respondents from non-Tagalog speaking parts ofthe Philippines, especially

from the Visayan region. The students, whether born in Australia or the Philippines,

acquired the English language through exposure to its constant use in mainstream

Australian society and as the medium of instruction in schools in both countries.

In addition to English, most of the Filipino students in Australia displayed

some degree of pro{iciency in speaking FilipinoÆagalog, which acted as the medium

of communication across the Filipino community. The students who belonged to

endogamous families all claimed a 'þood" knowledge of Tagalog, except for one

respondent whose parents came from a Cebuano speaking area in the Philippines and

who knew Cebuano, but not Tagalog. Even in Êxogamous families, over a third of the

students claimed to be able to speak Filipino/Tagalog, although their proficienoy was

at levels much below that of the children from endogamous Filipino households. In

the case of the parents, all but one claimed to know Filipino and proficiency in all
 383

tluee communication activities wâs at the level of 'Îery good", noticeably above that

reported by the sû¡dents.

All of the parents of non-Tagalog background, but only a third of those whose

native tongue was Tagalog, claimed to know a PLOT. Among these respondents,

levels of oral proficiency were at the 'Iery good" level. Only about a third of the

students, however, knew another Philippine language, usually the native language of

their rnothers. Those from endogamous families revealed higher levels of proficiency

than those from exogamous homes, but in all cases speaking the language was better

developed than reading and writing. In terms of speaking proficiency in PLOT was

comparable (and occasionally even higher) than that in TagalogÆilipino. The claimed

proficiency in reading and writing was lower than for speaking but it was at similar

levels to those for Filipino/Tagalog, despite the lack of any formal education in PLOT

both in the Philippines and lu¡stralia. overall, a definite deoline in the knowledge and

proficiency levels of Filipino languages was evident among the studsnts in the

Australian context, compared to their parents, and to their peers in the Philippines'

Yet it is also important to emphasise thæ a good number of families had zucceeded in

keeping FilipinoÆagalog as a language that their children knqv; a few had even

achieved this for PLOT.

Students' Usage of Languages

In the case of those who did know Philippine languageq the students from

endogamous families revealed a higher me¿n in the use of Filipino/Tagalog for all

tfu'ee communication activitios, at the "sometimes" lovsl, compared to those students

*seldom" level'
ftom exogamous families, lryh€re it was at the
 384

Among the comparatively small number using PLOT, those from endogamous
a

families revealed a greater us¿ge of PLOT in speaking than those from exogamous

families. However, those coming from exogamous families had slightly higher levels

of reading and writing compared to students coming from endogamous families

Surprisingly, students from non-Tagalog speaking background (NTSB),

mostly Cebuanos, were more likely to activate PLOT when communicating with their

pareûts, brothers/sisters and relatives/friends than those of Tagalog background (TSB)

were to use Tagalog in home communication. This was the case in both endogamous

and exogamous households. In additiorU activation in all households tended to be

higher with parents than with brothers/sisters or with rcl¿tives/friends.

P¡rentst Usage of Languages

Almost all the Filipino-Australian parents used English at the level of "oftert"

to "alwayd'particularly in relation to writing and speaking. TagalogÆilipino, on the

other hand, was used "often" in speaking but "sometimes" io reading and in uniting.
o'seldom" in reading and uniting.
PLOT, too, was "often" used in speaking but only

Generally, those of the non-Tagalog speaking background (NTSB), regardless

of whether they were from endogamous and exogamous households, used English

more often than those who were of Tagalog speaking background, a situation that

was compa¡able to the preference for English over Filipino shown by NTSB

respondents in the Philippine part of this study. Predictably, TSB parents who

belonged to endogamou$ households, used TagalogÆilipino more than those from

exog¿moug families. In the case of NTSB parents however, the levels of speaking

TagalogÆilipino were higher than those found emong their counterparts in the
 385

Philippines, due to its role as the cofirmon language of communication among the

Filipino-Australian community.

PLOT was understandably âctivated more by the NTSB respondents. It should

be noted also, that those from exogamous households showed greater usage of PLOT

than those from endogamous families. This could be explained in terms of the móther

being more likely to use her vernacular when her partner was of non-Filipino origin.

When her spouse was Filipino ¿nd particularly if he came from a different Philippines

language background, there appeared to be a greatertendency to use Tagalog.

In both endogamous and exogarnous families, TagalogÆilipino wrÌ$ used least

with children, in comparison with other interlocutors. This could be regarded as a

manifestation that the parents did not fecl the need for their children to acquire

communication skills in Tagalog for their future occupational success or social

aaceptance in Australiq or simply that they did not have the time or patience to teach

their children to become bilingual. Alternatively, some parerrts used English with

their children in orden to improve their own English language skills. In oontrast,

NTSB parents showed a greater tendency to use PLOT with their childrer¡ showing

their desire to maintain their native language within the family.

English emerged as th€ major language of oral díscourse, not only with non-

Filipino husbands in exogamous families, but also with children, even ìn endogamous

families.

Pattcrns of Language Use

The majority of the Filipino-Australian students who belonged to TSB

endogamous households, demonstrated the activation of Tagalog in at least some

dom¿ins of their lives - mainly involving primary social relatiortships. Among the
 386

NTSB students, those who activated Philippino languages were fairly evÉnly

distributed between the activation of either TagaloglFilipino or PLOT, and the co-

activation of either of these Philippine languages with English. The lattor took two

forms, where the respondents werç either PlOT-dominant or balanced bilinguals. The

students who belonged to o<ogamous households either actívated PLOT or co-

aptivated Filipino with their dominant PLOT.

The majority of the parernts, in both endogamous and exogamous families,

demonstrated the activation of English. Some co-activated twCI or three languages

alongside English, In certain rituations, ono language was dominant ovgr the other

two in hierarchical order, as when lagalogÆilipino was the dominant language for

parents in communicating with their spouse in endogamous hotrseholds or when

students used English in communicating with parents in exogamous households. In

othen contexts, there was evidence of the equal dominance of tr¡vo languages, over a

third less used. In the case of interaction with husbands and ethnic pe€rs, fior orample,

Engfish and ragalogÆilipino acted as the two dominant languages,

Attltudes toward¡ Languages

The Filipino-Australian student respondents generally manifested positive

attitudes ûowa¡ds Tagalog. Although the attitudes were held with varying intensities,
the largen proportion constitut€d those with a "higlf' positive attitude level. With

regard to Englis[ the students had either a'high" or'?noderate" positive attitude. No
respondent manifested "lort''positivg much less, negative aüiüdes.

Likewisg the great rnajority of the Filipino-Australian parents had 'high"

positive attitude towards English; nobody rwealed a'low', or negative attitude. The

same trend was observed with regard to parents' attitudes to the use of English in
 387

school, although the distribution was not so highly skewed, with over a third being

"moderately" positive and half revealing a high'þositive" attitude.

lryith regard to Tagalog/Filipino, over three quarters of the Filipino-Australian

parents held a 'figh" positive attitude to it. This was more frequently found ¿mong

the TSB mothers. 'Negative" or "lou/'positive affitudes were observed only among

some of the NTSB respondents. In contras, almost half the parents, including both

NTSB and TSB, manifested a "low'o positive attitude towards PLOT' Thore was,

however, a quartÊr of the NTSB mothers who gave evidence of a "high" positive

attitude to the PLOT which was thçir mother tongue.

Thc Mcanings of langüsgec

Fach languÊge was perceived to have rather different ar¡totelic andlor

instrumental significance for the Fitipino-Australian respondents. Arnong the

shrdents, instrurnerrtal meanings predominated, with two fifths linking

Tagalog/Filipino to communication within the family, both in Australia and overseas,

and to the educåtional benefits of being bilingual. It was also seen by a third of the

sh¡dents to have sooial advantages in entertaining visitors, making friends and acting

as a secret language. A smaller number saw it as enhancing job opporttrnities.

Although autotelic meanings were less frequently expressed, a third of tho Filipino-

Australian students emphasised FilipinoÆagalog'r link to their cultural origins or

their sense of Filipino identity. A few spoke of thc aesthetic qualities of

FilipinoÆagalog and of their sense of feeling comfortable and easy in using it. There

was, however, just over a third of the studonts who attached a negative meaning to

Filipino/Tagalog, mainly because they felt it was of limitod use.

 388

Autotelic-inspired meanings were more often expressed in relation to English,

with almost two fifths of the Filipino-Australian students perceiving its importance as

an international language and another third as the dominant/national language in

Australia. A small number linked English to a sense of smartness and confidence or

saw it as easy to understand. Three of the students revealed in their cornments that

they regarded English as their mother tongue. In tenhs of its instrumental qualities, a

few recognised that English was important as a language of instruction at school, as a

language of business and as useful for travel and family communication. About a

third of the respondents attached a negative meaning, mainly on the grounds that it

tended to erclude the use of other languages'

The Filipino-Australian mother$ were particularly fotthcoming ín indicating

the meanings they associated with FilipinoÆagalog with ovcr 90 positive citations

recorded, as against 28 for English and lt for PL,OT. Most often the meanings were

ar¡totelic: two thirds linked FilipinoÆagalog with their sense of Filipino identity and

loyaþ, a half spoke of its link with the Philippines and their cultural origins so that

its usc elicited a feeling of nostalgia for the past. A third claimed it as their mother

tongue, even though they were settled in Australia, In terms of instrumental

meanings, a third mentioned its family signifiçance, while a sm¿ller number

recognised the educational advantage of being bilingual. FilipinoÆagalog was also

awarded the greatest number of negative meanings (l l), all of which originated ftom

NTSB respondents who claimed thaf it was confusing and useless.

In relation to English, about a quaf,t€r of the parents recognised its

international significance, while another quarter $aid thât it was their preferred

language and easy to understand. A few gave it an instnrmçntal meaning by reforring

 389

to its importance for business, None of thc respondents gave a negative meaning to

English. The comparatively few comments made on PLOT related to its meaning as a

mother tongue, linked to a sense of pride and identíty and its importance in family

life. In contrast, there was one respondent who attributed a strongly negative nteaning

to PLOT which she olaimed lva$ a useless language.

 390

THE PHILIPPINE CASE

In the overview of the Philippine data which follows, the results from the tfuee

communities for each of the activation and attitude variables are presented together

for comparative purposes.

Proficiency and Usage of the l"anguages

Since the Filipino students were in their final year of secondary schooling in

non-Tagalog speaking areas, the focus of investigation was on their level of

proficiency and usage of Englistr, Filipino and the relevant vernacular (PLOT). In

the use of PLOT, a significant difference in speaking skills was observed among the

three groups, where the mean for the lVaray respondents showed nexcellentn

proficiency, while the Cebuano and Ilocano means were at the "very good" level. In

regard to reading and writing the vernacular, all three groups indicated a similar

profïcienc¡ but at the level of "good" rather than "very good," with the Ilocano gtroup

having the highest mean and the Cebuano the lowest.

In relation to FilipinolTagalog, tlso, there were no sþificant differences

between the three gtroups of respondents, all of whom revealed "very good"

proficiency. The Ilocano students, however, showed the highest proficiency in all

three communication activitips in Filipino/Tagalog while the Warays were lowest in

speaking and the Cebuanos in reading and in writing. The common proficiency level

across all the respondents could be attributed to the fact that all the students were

required to leern Filipino as a major language medium in school.

The three groups of students were found to be significantþ different, however,

in their levels of English proficiency. The Cebuano and Waray students were

observed to have "very good" proficiency in all three communication activities in

 391

English significantly higher thân the llocano respondents who were more at the good

level, with the Cebuano levels also being sþificantly above the Waray students in

speaking and in uniting.

Among the th¡ee parental groups, there wene no signifïcant differçnces in the

ilreans for speaking their respective rçgional languages, which were all at the "very

good" level of profïciency. For uriting, the mean values for all three groups also

indicated very good proficiency in the vernaculars. Hourever, a significant difference

was observed in reading the vernacular between the Cebuano and the Waray

respondents, a result thaÎ could be traceable to the availabilþ of Cebuano reading

materials in contrast to the absence of the same in the Waray community.

With regard to proficiency in FilipinoÆagatog, all tluee groups recorded

me&ns in the "very good" range. Although the Ilocano parents had the highest mean in

speaking, the Waray in reading and the Cebuano in writíng, the respondents could be

regarded as being at a comparable level of proficiency in the national language.

In the case of Englisll the differences among the means in all communication

activities were significant, with the Waray parents being highest in speaking and

reading ani the Cebuanos in writing. Proficiency in English for both these groups

was at the "very good" level, while the Ilocano parents yielded the lowest mean

values, mainly at the "good" level.

Students' Usage of Languages

The extensive spoken use of the vernacular was authenticated in all three

communities. The results ftom the student respondents indicated very similar levels

of speaking, in the *often" to "always" range, for the three regional languages. It is

noteworthy that in relation to the communication activity of speaking in all three

 392

communities, the means for the use of the regional languâges were above those for

Filipino/Tagalog and Englísh. In the case of reading and in writing, however, student

usage of regional languages w¿s minimal, in favour of English arnong the Warays and

the Cebuanos and in favour of Filipino/Tqgalog among the llocanos. However, the

Ilocano mean usage for reading and writing their vernacula.r (at the "seldom" to

"sometimes" level) was sþificantly higher than the "seldom" to "nev€r" range

which predominated among the Waray and the Cóuano stt¡dfÍrts.

In the case of FilipinoÆagalog, usage by the Ilocsno student respondørts in

alt the communication activities was at the "often* level, significantly higher than

the mainly "sornetimes" level to be fourrd among the Cebuano and thÊ Waray gtoups.

The situation was reverd in relatiorr to tlre use of English . The higbly significant

difference between the Cebuano and the Waray students, on the one hand, and the

Ilocanos, on the other, wes appar€rrt in all communication activities, hrt most striking

in the case of writing in English. Cebuano and Waray students claimed to write

English "ofteû" to "alwayq" while the Ilocano students' responses were in the

"sometimes' to "oftefl" rango, which was lower than ttre usage they indicated for

writing in TagalogÆilipino.

Parents' Usege of Languagoe

A slmilar pattern of language usage was observed among the parental

respondents from the three comrnunities. The spoken use of the regional language

was high, in the "oftefln to "always" rang€, while its use for reading and writing was

much lower, Ilocano aud Cebuano respondents uscd the vernacular in reading and

writing around the "sometimÊs" lovel, which was signifïoantly higher than the Wamy

parents who claimed to use the literary forms only "seldom-"

 393

In relation to TagalogÆilipino, the usage among llocano parents was at the

"som€times" to "often" level, statistically higher then that found for speaking among

the Cebuano group and among both the Wa¡ay and Cebuano parents in the case of

reading and vniting. For English, the pattern wâs r€versed; usage in reading and

writing was in thc often to always rarige for Cebuano and Waray parents, both of

which represented statistically significant differencos from tho sometimes to often

range evident among the Ilocano parents. Although the levels for spoken English

were lower overall, tho difrerence bstwqr the Iloçano and both the Waray and

Ce.buano responses was statisticalty significant.

Pettems of Langurge Uae

The analysis of data on overall spoken language usagc confirmed that the

Filipino rospondents, both parents and studßnts, were overwhelmingly trilingual in

their languageactivation in the domains ofeveryday life at homeo at school, as well as

shops and offices- Moreover, for the most part, the püterns w€re comparable across

the generations. Occ¿sionally, there was evidence of the sole activation of one

language, aswith about athird of the Waray and Cebuano respondents who used their

vernacular orrly in the ma¡ket plaoe. At the other extr,emg there was a few

respondents who claimed a balanced usage of all three languages in domains such es

the office and the school.

Most often, however, cornmunication in all the stated domains involved the

co*cúivation of the tlrree languages irr ways where one or two of the languages were

dominant over the other(s). For the llocsno respondents the most common pattern

revealed was the hioræchical use of vernacular-Filipino-English in that order,

where¿s forthe Waray group the usage was divided between this and the rather more
 394

frequent order of vernacular-English-Filipino. Among the Cebuano respondents the

vernacular-English-Filipino hierarchy olearly predominated.

A,ttitudes towards Lrnguages

The attitudinal responses gathered from the Filipino respondents provided

personalised inform¿tion that complemented and reinforced the acÉivation data. In the

case of the students, their attitudes to çach language were evaluatd on the basis of the

essays they .wrote. Over three quarters of the Waray students revealed moderately

positive attitudes to their regional languagg in contrast to the Ilocano studentg a

quarter of whom had high positive attitudes while another half wøe moderateþ
positive. The Cebr¡¿no group most often expressed high positive attinrdcs (over two

fifths), but also recorded the highest number of low positive attitudes to their

vernacular. There rrvas tro evidence, howwer, of negative attitudes to the regional

languages &om any ofthe respondents.

In relation to FilipinoÆagalog, two thirds of the llocano shrdents expressed

high positíve attitudes and another third were rnoderately positive. Among the

\ilaray respondents, over a third revealed high positive attitudes, with just under a

third being moderately positive. The least positive responses were found among the

Cebuano studerüs, with over half having moderately positive and ¿lmost a quarter

low positivo anitudes to the Filipino national language. In additío4 negative attitudes

were apparent in a fifth of the Waray and two ofthe Cebu¿no sh¡dents.

Positive attitudes to E4glish were highest among the Waray, with half being at

the level of high and another h¿lf moderately positive. the Cebuano students were

not far behind, since two fifths were high positive and close to half were moderately
 395

positive. Iû contrast, almost half of the llocano studerrts expressed low positive

flttitudes and approximately a fifth wero actually negative.

The parental attitudes, which were gauged from questionnaire responses,

revealed similar patterns among the three communities. Ilocano parents demonstrated

the highest level of positive attitude toward their regional language, followed by the

Cebuano group, with the Waray respondents revealing more moderately positive

attitudes. High positive attitudes towards Filipino/Tagalog w€r€ most frequently

expressed by llocano, followed by Waray perents, while the Cebuano response$ were

most ofren at the moderateþ positive level. In relation to English, it was the \Varay

parenß who overwhelmingly revealed high positive attitudes, as did the majority of
the Ccbuarto group. About a third of the Ilocano parerits, however, were either

moderate or low in their attitude to English.

The parental questionnaire also sought to investigate attitudes towa¡d the use

ofthe three languages in school. In contrast to thçir high to moderate support for

the vernacular (PLOT) as ô language Wr w, parents from all three groups expressed

generally negative attitudes to the use ofthe regional language in the school situation.

In relation to the two ofücial school languages (English and Filipino), a clear

attitudinal distinction was found between the llocano, on the one hand, and Cebuano

and Waray language comrnunities, on the other. Cebuano parerús showed the highest

evaluation of English as a medium of teachirrg in school and the lowest evaluation of

Filipino as a means of instruçtion. The llocano parents, in contrast, exhibited the

highest evaluation of Fílipino as a medium of instruotion and a lower walu¿tion of

English in the school than the other two groups. The Waray parents appeared to have

comparable attitudes to th€ Cebuanos in relation to school language use, although

 396

revealing a slightly more positive attitude to Filipino. Overall, however, the parents

in all three groups appeared to be more positive in attitude to English as a school

language than to Filipino.

The Me¡nings of Lrngurgef

In the case of the studentq the atrtotelic meaning most frequently given to th€

regional languages related to the sense of its being essy to use and under$and,
enabling full eirpression of thouglrts and feelings. This range of meanings lvas

endorsed by over h¿lf of the students in all three groups, but was most pronounced

among the Waray and Cebuano students. There was also some recognition of the

regional significance ofthe vernacula¡s. For a quarter ofthe Cebuano respondentg

their lang¡rage uras seen ar¡ a source of identity and pride.

In relation to Filipino, its role as the national language and a consequent

source of pride and identity proved to be the meanings most commonly attributed by

the students, but rrn¡ch more by those from the Ilocano community than by the Waray

and Cebuano students. English was most frequently recognised as an international

languegg chiefly by the Waray students and least often by the llocenos. For abow a

third ofthe Cebuano studentq English appeared as a language which was comfortable

to use and easy to understand.

Aesthetic meanings were m€ntioned only rareþ, but the language to which

they were attributcd varied. Àmong those who did consider this aspect, the Cóuano

students most ofteir associated apsthetic meaning with their vernacular and the

Ilocano students with Filipino, while the Waray students gave this meaning to both

rffaray and English.

 397

Students from all three groups attributed more instrumentel meanings to

English than to the other two lamguages. There was soûrc recognition of the

importance of regional languages in promoting peace and harmony within the local

community among lüaray and Cebuano respondents. A fen' of the Waray students

attributed a similar meaning to Filipino at the national level and to English in the

global coritext, However, the most çomÍron instrumental meaning given to English

was th¿t it provided access to knowledge, This was endorsed by a third of the Ilooa¡ro

students, and just under a quarter of the Warays and Cebuanos.

Another instrumcntal meaning anachcd to English by about a third of lüaray

and Cebuano students, but by very few of the llocanos, was that English was the

language of business and the key to progress. Some of the Waray and a fsw of the

Cebuano respondents also gave English a social significance in that they associated it

with making friends and entertaining visitors.

Each of the languages had some negative meanings attached to it, but mainly

by a minority of the respondents. In relation to the vernacular, some Cebuano and

T9ar¡y respondent$ commented on its limited use and exclusion of other languages. A

few students from all groups nlso claimed specifïc diffrculties in relation to reading

and writing the vernactrlars, a situation th¿t is attributable to the non-introduc'tion of

the vernacular in the sohool curriculum.

Negative moaningswere less ftequently expressed in relation to Filipino. They

camc almost exclusively &om Cebuano and Waray students, who claimed that it was

of limited use, caused difficutties at school, or in the view of rwo Cebuanos, useless.

In contrast, the negative meanings attributed to English oamç mainly from the Ilocano
 398

students, as many as two thirds of whom claimed it caused confusion at school. A few

of the Ilocanos w€lrt as far as saying that English wos a useless or hated language.

The meanings endorsed by the parsrits followed a similar pattem to those of

thc students. In the case of the regional languageg the rnost comûlonly expressed

autotelic meaning was their regional significance, endorsed by over a half of the

Ilocano parefis and just under a h¿lf of the Warays and Cebuanos. The vernaculars

wçre also s€en ûs comfortable to use or easy to undcrstand by over half of the Ilocano

and Cebuaro respondents, but by fewer of the Warays. For around a quarter of the

Waray and Cebuano parents, but genorally not the llocanos, the vernacular was linked

to their identþ as well. Filipino was o'verwhelmingly seen by parents from all tlrree

groups as the national language, linked to ftelings of national pride and loyalty. A
third of the Ilocanosr but far fewer of the Cebuano and rffaray par€nts, claimcd

Filipino lüas easy to understand. English lvas sÊen &s an international language by

almost half of the Cebu¿no and Waray parents, but only a quarter of the lloc¿nos.

Over half of the ïVaray parents and a quarter of the Cebuano associated English with

being comfortable to use and easy to understand - a meaning that these two groups of
respondents also attributed to their vernacular.

With regard to the aesthetics ofthe languages, a small number of Cebuano and

Waray parents linked this quality to their regional language; about the same number

of Ilocano pâf,ents m¿de this link to Filipino, while sorne Cebuanos and fewer lVarays

g¿ve an aesthetic meariing to English.

The instrumental meanings recognised by the parents were associæed almost

entirely with English. The one exception was the political significance of Filipino in

promoting the peace and harmony in the national community, which was
 399

acknowledged by a quarter of the Waray parents and rather less of the Cebr¡anos.

English ü''as seen as a language for business and key to progress by half of the Waray

parents, slightly fewer of the Cebuanos, but very fçw of the Ilocanos. The social

significance of English was mentioned by about a fifth of the parents from all three

groups. The importance of English as an access to knowledgs was seen by about

quarter ofthe Waray and Cebuanos, but by none ofthe Ilocano parents'

As witlr the students, the negative meanings expressed by the parents were

associated predominantly with the regional languages. Most often this centered on

diffrculties of writing and confusion at school, whioh was mentione.d by about a

quarter of the focano and Waray pa.rents, in partiollar. Although only a few

commerrted onthe limited use of thç vernacultr, over l0% from each group claimed

that it was boring and monotonous. In the case of Filipino, a srnall number of

Cebuano parents saw it as limited, while a similar proportion of Warays thought it

caused diffrculties at school. The negative meaníngs attributed to English came

mainly from Ilocano parents, who saw it as causing difficuhies at school or the loss of

identity.

OVERVIEW

This study revealed that the majonty of the respondents from the Philippines

appeared to activate the three languages @nglistr" TagalogÆilipino and their

respective vernacular (PLOT) in different domains and to recognise the rospective

benefits of each. There was general acceptance of this kind of triglossia within the

reþnal communities, although there was cvidence that English was the least
 400

tolerated language among the Ilocano respondents and Filipino/Tagalog the least

accepted among the Cebuano and Waray.

The study was conducted from a sociological, rather than linguistic,

perspective and a degree of influence of former colonial languages (Spanish and

English) upon the Philippine languages, and of the latter upon eaoh other, was beyond

the scope of this investigation. There is little doubt, however, that such interaction

does occur and that English in the Philippines is increasingly influenced by Filipino,

while the Philippine languages borrow a variety of terms and construction from

English (Gonzaleg 1996a). Similar influences bear upon PLOT, which, left outside

the educational systen¡ have little opportunity for literary support that would help

determine the integrity of these languages.

The findings also provide a clear indication that the three regional languages

ofthe Philippines under investigation, namely Waray, Ilooano, Cebuano were actively

used and that they were being held in high regard as mother tongues in the home and

in informal domains of living. At the same time, there was little sign of open demand

for these regional languages to be included in the school curriculum. Thc non-Tagalag

Filipino group's placid acquiescence to the virtual absence of any teaching of their

tongues in schools, may need an explanation when compared with deriands for the

recognition of linguistic rights by minorities in many other parts of the world. When

pressed to explain tho omission of any kind of formal instruction in their mother

tongue, people such as students and parents adopt what can be taken as a
ch¿racte¡istically polite way of dealing with awkward questions: they deflect it
uWe treasure our
without gving a direct answer. This is done, for example, by saying,

own language so much that we wish to keep it for ourselvcs at home.'l

 401

A possible reason for the lack of teaching of vernaculiars was given by those

student respondents who explained that it was due to their inzuffioient confidence in

the maturity of their horne tongue as a litorary language and the sense of its

inadequacy in the learning situation. Such diffidence among speakøs of the various

Filipino ventaculars may be quíte understandablo, especialty in view of over three

cen[rries of subordination to the Spanish language in public administration and

education, subæquont imposition of English as tho literary language of the country

over ttre greeter part ofthe twentieth century and the mole recçnt Bilingual Education

policy direcnives that opørly propagate Tagalog/Filipino as the only indigenous

literary language for all the Filipinos (whatever their own linguistic baokground)-

An additional explanation is that amoug the more inftuential sections of the

population in all the regions of the country, Engtish is often used at home, so th¿t

chrldren have a background knowledge of that language when they start school at six,

or €ven earlier, if they have ¿ formal introduction to English in a fee-paying pre-

school.

The initiators of the Bilingrral Education Policy which designated Tagalog/

Filipino as the only indigenous language in the cr¡rrictrlum appeared to have been

under the aszumption that by omitting regional languages othcr than Tagalog (PLOT)

from formal education, ôrid official functions and relegating their speakers to virtual

illiteracy in thçir horne tongue, they were preventing English from completely

dominating the life of the counfy. In fact, it would app€Er from the data presented
here thaL by their policies, they may be producing the opposite effect. f,)enied the

opportunity to study and advance in their own languages, educAted young people,

especially in the Visayan provinces, wore turning toEnglish in preforence to Filipino,

 402

which they did not peroeive as of core value significance for their Cebuano and

Waray communities. Rather, they regarded it as much less useful than English in their

quest for education and work outside of the Philippines. In this way, advocates of

TagalogÆilipino as the only worthy partner alongside English, would appeaf to be

furthering the interest of those forces within their couutry and outside of it, which

already acknowledge English as the global language and as suffrcierrt orr its own for

most of tlrc needs of the Philippines.

The agitt¡dinal data frorn this study suggest that the regional minority

communities in the Philippines interpret the empowerment offercd by education in

different ways. For many of the Visayan respondents, Filipino was regarded as the

language imposed on tlrem by the ceûtral ar¡thorities, while English was seen as the

language of empowerment which opened up to them global possibilities for

interaction and employment. In communities suoh es the llocano, on the other hand,

English was more frequently seen as one of the language of the former colonial

domination Filipino, in contras! was embraced as the language of empowerment,

which freed them to express their Filipino qulture in their own distinctive way.

In ttre Australian conte>ú, an outstanding feature of the data was the high

levels of usage and positive ¿ttitudes to English. The mothers in this study wero

typical of Filipino immigrants to Austratia in terms of their comparatively high levels

of education and their competence in English. The English language education they

hâve received in the Philippines in the p€riod before the introduction of the Bilingual

Education Program could be secn to have empowered them for living in the

Australian contçild. Their English language competencc had not only increased tlreir

oppofn¡nities to b€ accepted es perm¿nent residerts in Australiq but also enabled

 403

them to find appropriete employment quickly and adapt quite readily into mainstream
'a

Australian life, thereby facilitating their children's chances for educæional sucsess

and social advancements.

The results also point to a role for Tagalog/Filipino in the Australian context -

but one that would appçar to be essentialty transitional. It was being used both by

parents and childreri as the lilguafranæ for Filipinos in Australia" the language they

used when they wished to stress their identity as Filipinos in specific cultural

contexts. However, the position of Filipino could be seen to be affeøed adversely by

the srdsteoce of the other regional languages of the Philippines, just as the role of

st¿ndard Italian among ltalian migrant families was diminished by tho fact that many

parents spoke their regional dialects, rather than standard Italian (Smolicz, 1999:161;

Chino and Smolicz, 1999).

Although the Fitipino communities in Australia est¡blished ethic sohools to

teach Filipino to ohildren, the focus of their efforts was at the primary school lwel.

There have been no attønpts to make use of opportunities to learn Filipino at the

secondary level whioh do exist in the Australian educational context. In South

Australi4 for examplg minority languages are taught as Yea¡ 11 and Year 12
subjects in the speoial South Australian Seoondary School of Ianrguages (SASSL),

but in the absence of comrnunþ request for it, Filipino \¡va$ not includd among the

langu4ges being offered. Furthermore, the community has failed so far to press for

Filipino to be included as a Year 12 university cntrancê zubject, as ¡nost European

minority groups and many of the recently anived Asian gfoups have succeoded in

doing. It would seern, thereforc, that both parents and students were regarding

Filipino in Australia as they regarded PLOT in the Philippines - as ¡n oral language

 4M

linked to family and communig domains, while English was accepted as tho language
'a

of literary skills.

Among the most obvious findings is the decline in PL'OT arnong the childrøt

of Filipino immigrants. These results clearly illustrate the difücuhies of maintaining a

territorially based, predominantly oral language in a new crrltural and linguistic

environment. A contributing factor was the frequency of exogamous marriages where

English was the husband's only language of communication with wife and children,

The difference in the prospects of the Philippine languages in the two

countries was that in the Philþines the vcrnaculars had their historically defined

territorial bases that assured their survival, while in Australi4 no Philippine language

(whether Filipino or PLOT) held such a base - a situation which applied to all the

minority languages in Australia save for a few Aboriginal languages (Fesl, 1988;

Clyne, 1991; Mulhausler, t999).

The precarious multilingualism of Australi4 advocated to some extent in the

country's multioultural policies, contrasts with the stable, if educationally

unsupported, multilingualism of the Philippines. In this respect, it might be more

appropriue to compare Phitippines to a aountry such as Spain before the long-

standing myth of Castillian monolingualism was ultimately terminated by the

constitutional recognition of the country's pluralistic heritage (Conversi, 1998). It

could be sugested that while the data presentod in this pepar show that at this stage

in their identity developmørt, most speakers of the vernaculars lackcd confidence in

the literacy status of their languages, an enlightened policy would be to ceas€

excluding PLOT from educational curricula and instead, to wo,rk towards developing

literacy in PLOT througlr school instrustion, at least at primary level. Denial or even
 405

belated recognition of the linguistic human rights of the minorities can give rise to

biüer harvest of tension, conflict and separatist aspirations (as, for exarnple, in the

sas€ of Corsic4 tlre Basque country and Tamil areas within Sri Lanka) (Skutnaab-

Kangas & Philippsor¡ 1994, 1996, 1998). A policy of linguistic pluralism that

forestalls in advance demands for thc recognition of minority languages rights, before

they become vociferouq would seem to be the best policy to recommend for the

Philippines.
 406

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Books

Aboud, F.E. (1976). 'social Development Aspects of Language.' papers in

Linguistics, vol. 9, pp. 15-37 in Ryan, E. B. & Giles, H. (eds.) (19g2)
Attitudes ftwards Innguage variation. London: Edward Arnold, p. ll7

Acuña, J. & Mi¡anda,B. (1994) 'A Closer Look at the Language Côntroversy, Acuña,
et. al. (ed.) The Innguage Issue in Education, Quezon City: Congressional
Oversights Committee in Education.

Afendrag E. (ed) (1980) Patterns of Bitinguatism. Singapore: university press

Alip, E. (1949) Political and cultural History of the Philtppines. Manila: Alip and
Brion Publications

Ammon, U. (ed) (1989). Stans and Functions of Innguages Varieties. New york:
Walter de Gruyter

Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs (19S2) Evaluation of Post-Arrival

Programs ønd Services. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Multicultural
Affairs

Baker, C. (1988). Key Issues in Bilingaalism and Bitinguat Education. Philadelphia:

Multilingual Matters.

Barcelon4 H. (1977). T-anguage Usage and Preference Patterns of Filipino

Bilinguals, in: Pascasio, E, (ed) The Filipino Bitingual: Studies on Philþpine
Bilingualism and Bilingual Fiucation Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila
Universit¡ pp. 64-71

Bautista, M L s., (1981), 'An Explanatory Note: Round-Table conference on

Philippine National Language Development,' in: Gonzales, A. & Bautistq M.
L. s. (eds), Aspects of l"anguage planning and Development in the
Philippiræs. Manila: Linguistic Society of the philippines

Bautista, M. L.S. (1996) Readings in Philippines Sociolinguistics. Manila: De la

Salle University press

Baetens Bea¡dsmore, H. (1986) Bilingualism: Basic Principles. Clevedoq England:

Multilingual Matters

Bates, E. (1976) Language and Context: The Acquisition of Pragmafrcs. New york:
Academic Press
 407

Becker H.S. (1973) Outsiders : Study in the Sociologt of Deviancq New York: The
Free Press.

Ben-Zeev, Z. (1977) Mechanism by which Childhood Bilingualism Affecrs

Understanding of Language and Cognitive Structures,' in: Horvath (1980)
The Education of Migrant Children: A Intguage Planning Perspective.
Canberra: C. J. Thompson, Commonwealth Government printer

Bernsteir¡ B. (1971) Classes, Code and Control, vol l, London.: Routledge & Kegan
Paul

Berthold, M. (1995). 'The Concept of Immersion' FJsing Ío the Bilingual Challenge .

Berthold, M. (ed) Canberra: The National Languages and Literacy Institute of
Australia.

Bierdstedt, R (1969). In Znaniecki,F. Humanisric Sociologt Chicago: University of

Chicago Press

Black (1979). Status of Austrølian Languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of

Aboriginal Studies

Blair, E. &, Robertson, J. (eds) (1903-1909) The philippine Islønds (55 vols.),
Cleveland: Arthu¡ H, Clark Co.

Borrie, W. (1954). Italians ond Germans in Australia. Melbourrre: Cheshire-

Landsdowne

Bostoch W. (1981)'Ethnicity, An Issue of the Eighties and Beyond,' in Sherwood, J

(ed) Perspective in Multicultural Education. Perth: Creative Research

Bourhis, R. (1982), 'T-anguage Policies and Language Attitudes : le Monde de la

Francophonie" in Ryan, E. and Giles, H. (eds) (1982) Attitudes Towards
Language Variation. London: Edward Arnold, pp 36-42

Bourke, c., Bourke,E. &, Edwards, B. (eds) (1994) Aborigirnl Australia. st. Lucia:
University of Queensland Press.

Bowering, J Sir., (1963> A Visit to the Philippine Islands in 1858. Manila: Filipiniana
Book Guild Inc. (reprint).

Bradac, J. (1982) 'A Rose by Another Name. Attitudinal Consequences of Lexical

variation,' in Ryan, E. &, Giles, H. (eds) Attitudes Towards Løngnge
Variation. London: EdwardArnold, pp. 99-l1S

Bullivant, B. (1981) The Pluralist Dilemma in Education: Six Case Studies. Boston:
George, Allen and Unwin
 408

Carey, S.T. (ed) (1974) Bilingualism, Bilculturalism and Education. Edmonton:

University of Albcrta Press.

Castillo, E. &, Chan-Yap. (1971). 'Attitudinal Survey on Pilipino as Medium of

Instruction.' In Pascasio, E. (ed) (1977) The Filipino BilinguaL Manila:
Ateneo de Manila University Press

Chomsky, N. (1968). I'anguage andMind. New York: Hartcourt Brace Jovanovich

Clyne, M. (1982). Multilingual Australia: Resources Needs , Policies. Melbourne:

River Seine Publishers

Clyne, Michael.(1991) Bilingual Education for All: An Australian Pilot Study and Its
Policy Implications" in Garcia, O. (ed) Bilingual Mucation (Focuschrift in
honor of Joshua Fishman on the occasion of his 65th birthday) vol. l.
Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

clyne, M, (1991) Community Ianguages: The Australian Experience, cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Congressional Commission on Educatioa (1991) Making Edueation \lork. Congress

of the Philippines, Manila and Quezon City.

Constantino, E. A. (1981). 'The \il'ork of Linguists in the Development of National

Language of the Philippines,' in: Gonzales, A. & Bautista, M.L.S. (eds)
Aspects of Langaage Planning and Development in the Philippines. Manila:
Linguistic Society of the Philippines.

Constantino, R. (1982). The Miseducation of the Filipino. Manila: Philippines:

Foundation for Nationalist Studies.

conversi, T. (1997) The Basques, The catalans and spain. London: Hurst

Craig, A. (ed) (1917) rhe Former Philippines Through ForeignEyes. New york: D.
Appleton and Co.

Cummins J. & Gulutsan, M. (1974) 'Some Effects of Bilingualism on Cognitive

Functioning,'in Carey, S.T. (ed) Bilingualism, Bilculturalism and Fducation.
Edmonton: University of Alberta Press.

Da¡ R. R. (1982) 'Children's Attitudes Toward Language,' in Ryan, E B. & Giles,

H. (eds) Attitudes Towards Language Yariation. London: Edward Arnold, pp
716-t47.

De la costa, H. (1961) The Jesuits of the Philippines, 158I-1768. cambridge:

Harvard University Press.
 409

Dorg J. (1976). ' Children's Illocutionary Acts,' in Freedle, R. (ed) Discourse:

Comprehension and Production Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaun Associates,
pp.227-24

Edwards, A. (1957) Techniques of Attitude Scale Constraction New York: Appleton-

Century Crofts

Edwards, I. (1992) 'sociological Aspects of Language lVlaintenance and Loss:

Towards A Typology of Minority Language situation,' in Fase, w. et. al.
(eds.) Maintenance and Loss of Languages. Amstcrdam. John Benjamins
Publishing Co.

Epstein, Noel. (1977) Innguage, Ethnicity øttd the Schwls: Poticy Alternatives
for
Bilingual-Biculturql Mucation. Washington D. C.: The George Washington
University.

Ervin-Trip¿ s. (1977)'wait for me Roller Skate!,'in Ervin Tripp et al (eds) Child

Discourse. New York: Academic press, pp. 165-88

Falk, B. & Ha¡ris, J. (eds,) (1983) lJnity in Diversir). Melbourne: College of

Education.

Fase, w. Koen, J. & Kroon, s. (eds.) (l9gz) Maintenance and Loss of l-anguages.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Fesl, E. (1983)'Policies and Programs for Teaching of Languages,' in Falk, B. &,

Harris, J. (eds.) unity in Diversity. Melbourne: college of Education.

Fishman, J. A. & Nahirny, v.c. (1966) Language Loyalty in the us. The Hague:
Mouton

Fishmaru J. (1972). Language and Nationalism. Rowley: Massachusetts: Newbury

House,

Fishman, J. (1976). Bilingual Education: An International Perspective

Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.

Fraser, M. (1981) 'Inaugural Address on Multiculturalism to the Institutè of

Multicultural Affairs ' Melbourne, 3f November,' in Keeves, J. (ed)
Australian Mucation: Review of Recent Research. Melboume: Allen and
Unwin Australian Pty. Ltd.

Freire, P. (1970) cultural Actionfor Freedom. Harmondworth: penguin

Fromkin, v. & Rodman, R. (1978) An Introduction to Language. New york: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston
 410

Gaardner, B. (1977) Bilingual Schooling qnd the Survival of Spanish in the United
State s. Massachusetts: Newbury House publisher

Gaardner, R. (1982)'Language Attitudes and Language Learning,,' in Ryan, E. B. &

Giles, H. (eds) Axitudes Towards Language Variation. London: Edwa¡d
A¡nold pp 132-147

Ga¡cia, O. (ed) (1991) Bilingual Education. @ocuschrift in honor of Joshua Fishman

on the occasion of his 65th birthday) vol. l. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John
Benj amins Publishing Co.

Gardner, R. C. & Lambert, W. E.

(1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second
Language Learning. Rowley: Newbury House

Genessee, F. (1987) Learning Through Two Innguages: Studies of Immersion and

Bilingual Education. Cambridge MA: Newbury House

Giles, H. (ed) (1977) Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Reløtions, London:

Edward Arnold

Giles, H., Bourhis, R.Y., & Taylor, D.M. (1977). 'Towards A Theory of Language in
Ethnic Group Relations"- In Giles, H. (ed) Language, Ethnicity and
Intergroup Re løtions, London: Edward Arnold

Gonzales, A. (1930) Language and Nationalism: The Philippine Experience Ihus

Fqr. Manila: AdeMU Press

Gonzales, A. (1996a) 'Bilingual Communities: National/Regional Profiles and Verbal

Repertoires,' inBar¡tista, M.L.S. (ed.) Readings in Philippines
Sociolinguistics. Manila: De la Salle University Press, pp.38-62

Gonzales, A. (1996b) 'Langaage and Nationalism in the Philippines: An Update,' in

Bautist4 M.L.S. (ed.) Readings in Philippines Sociolinguistics, Manila: De la
Salle University Press, pp. 225-239

Gonzales, A. & Bautist4 M L s., (lgsl) Aryects of Language Planning and

Development in the Philippines. Manila: Linguistic Society ofthe Philippines.

Gonzales, A. & Bautista, M.L. (19s6). Innguage Sumeys in tlre Philippines (1966-
1984). Manila: De La Salle University Press

Grassby, A. J. (19S4) The Tyranny of Prejudice. Melbourne: A.E. press

Grimes. B. (1984). Languages of the World: Ethnologue. Dallag Texas: Wycliffe

Bible Translators
 4tI

Grimshaw, A. (1971) 'Sociolinguistics,' in Fishman, L Advances in Sociologt of

Language. Paris: Mouton & Co.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1974). Language and Natiornlism. Rowley, Massachusetts:

Newbury House.

I{alliday, M.A.K. (1975), Learning How To Learn: Explorations in the Development

of Innguage. London: Edward Arnold, in Ryarq E. B. & Giles, H. (eds)
(LgBz)Attitudes Towards Language Variation. London: Edward Arnold

Haugen, B. (1972).The Ecologt of Language. California: Stanford University Press,

Harding, E. & Riley, P. (19s6). The Bilingual Fømily: A Handbook for parents.
New York: ,Cambridge University Press

Hendrickson, G. & Newell, L. (eds) (1991). A Bibliography of Phitippine Innguage

Dictionaries and ï/ocabulari¿s. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines

Honeflbrd, R. (1988). Integration or Disintegration? Towørds A Non-Racist Society.

London: The Cambridge Press

Horvath, B. M. (1980). The FÅucation of Migrant Children: A lønguage Ptanning

Perspective. Canberra: C. J. Thompson, Commonwealth Government Printer

Hymes, D. (1972) 'Models of the Interaction of Language ¿nd Social Setting,' in

Gumperz, J.J. &, Hymes, D. (ods) Dlrections in sociolinguistics: The
Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp.
35-7t

Jacobson , M. & Imhoof, M. (1974). ?redicting Success in Learning A Second

Language.' Iournal, vol. 58, pp. 329 -36, in Ryan, E. B. & Gles, H (eds)
(1982) Attitudes Towards Language Variatian. London: Edward Arnold

Janssen, c. &
Pauwels, A. (1993) Røising Children Bilingualty. Monash: NLLIA
Language and Society Centre

Jupp, J. (ed.) (1988) The Australian People. An Encyclopedia of the Nation, Its
People and rheir origins. Australia I7B8-IùBB, Sydney: Angus and
Robertson.

Kaplan. R. (ed). (1996) Annuøl Review of Applied Linguistlcs. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press,

Keenan, E, O. (1977) Making it last; Repetition in Children's Discourse.' In Ervin-

Ttipp, S. et al (eds) Child Discourse. New York: Academic press
 412

Keeves John, (ed) (1981) Australian Education: Review of Recent Research.

Melbourne: Allen and Unwin Australian Pty. Ltd.

Lacuestq G. (1967). Filþino (Manila Lingua Franca ) Versus Pitipino (Abaftada

Tagaloþ. Quezon City: The National Language Anti-Pr.¡rism Movemenf, in:
Gonzales, A. (1980). Language and Nationalism: The Philippine Experience
T?rus Far. Manila; Ateneo deManila University press

Lambert, Iw. &. Tucker, G. R. (1972) Bilingual Edacation of chitdren : The st.
Lambert F*periment. Rowley MA: Newbury House

Lambert, Wallace. (1980). In Afendras, Evangelio. (ed) Patterns of Bilinguatism

Singapore: University Press

Lewis, E. G. (1975). Attitude To Language Among Bilingual Children and Adult in

Wales. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 4,103-21, in Ryan,
E- B. & Gles, H. (ed) (1982) Attitudes Towøds l^anguage variation.
London: Edward Arnold, p.122

Lewis, E. G. (1981). Bilingualism andBilingual Mucation. Oxford: Pergamon Press

Liddicoat, A. (ed) (1991) 'The Sociolinguistic Aspects of Education,' Bilingualism

and Bilingual Fàucation. Melbourne: National Languages Institute of
Australia

Lieberson, S. (1981) Language Diversity øndLonguage Contact. California: Stanford

University Press

Llamson, T. &
Koh Beng Lee (1980) 'Patterns in the Acquisition of Bilingual Ability
and Language Use in Three Southeast Asian Countries.' In Afendras,
Evangelio (ed.) (1980) Patterns of Bilingualism. Singapore: University Press

Lo, Bianco J. (1987). Natioral Policy on Languages. Canberra: Australian

Governmçnt Publishing Services

Lo Bianco, J. (1996). Consolidoting Gains, Recovery Ground: Languages in South

Australia. Canberra: Nation¿l Languages Learning Institute;

Macnamara, J. P. (1970). 'Bilingualism and Thought,' in Horvatl¡ B. (l9so) The

Hucation of Mgrant Children: A Lønguage Planning Perspective. Canberra:
C. J. Thompson, Comrnonwealth Government Printeq p. 30

Manuel, L L' (1974) Department of Education and Culture, Department Order No.
25, s. 1974, 'Tmplementing Guidelines for the Policy on Bilingual Education "
reprinted in Sutaria, M.C., Guerrero, J.S., & Castario, P.M. (19S9) (eds./,
Philippine Education: Vision and PerspectÌves. Manila: National Bookstore,
pp.350-352.
 413

Marjoribanks, K. (1980). Ethnic Families qnd Children's Achievement. Sydney:

George, Allçn and Unwin

ozolins, U. (1991). National Langoage Policy and planning: Migrant Languages.'In

Romaine, S. (ed) Languages in Australiq. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp.329-348

Ozolins, U. (1993). The Politics of Languøge in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

Pandharipande, R. (1992). 'Language Shift in India: Issues and Implications,' in Fase,

et. al, (eds.) Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages. Amstcrdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Co.

Pascasio, E. (ed) (1977) The Filipino Bilingual. Manila: Ateneo de Manila

University Press

Pascasio, E. (1980) T-anguage Attitudes and Motivations of Filipino Bilinguals

Towards Filipino and English: The Philippine Context.' In Afendras, E. (ed)
Patterns of Bilingualism. Singapore: University press

Pauanayak. (1981). Multilingaalism and Mother Tongue Education. Delhi, Oxford

University Press

Paulston, C. B. Linguistic Minorities and Language Policies: Four Case Studies.

John Edwards

Peñalosa, F. (1981). Introduction to the Sociologt of Innguage. Massachusetts:

Newbury House Publishers

Pfaf[ W. (1993) The \ltrath of Nations: Civilization attd the Furies of Nationalism.
New York: Simon and Schuster

Phillipson, R. & skutnabb-Kangas T. (19s6) English: The Language of wider

Colonization,' in Philippsoq R. & skutnabb-Kangas, T. Linguicism Rules in
Education,3 vols. Roskilde: Roskilde university centre, Institute vI

Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pri9e, C.A. (1983). 'Multicultural Australia: Demographic Background.'In Falk, B. &

Harris, J, (eds). Unity in Diversity : Multicultural Educøtion in Australia.
Melbourne: Australian College of Education
 4t4

Quisumbing, L. (1987) 'Department of Education Culture and Sports (DECS)

Department Order No. 52, s. 1987 (The 1987 Policy on Bilingual Education/i
in Sutaria, M.C., Guerrero J.S., and Castano, P.M. (eds.) (1989) Philippine
Educslion: Vision ønd Perspectives. Manila: National Book Store, pp. 353-
3s5.

QuisumbinE, L, (1989). 'The DECS Bilingual Education Policy.' In Sutaria M.c.,

Guerrero, J.S. & Castaño, P.M. (eds.), Philippine Mucøtion: Vision and
Perspectives. Manila: National Book Store

Romaine, S. (ed) (1991). Languages in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press

Rubin, J. & Jernudd, B (eds) (1971). Can Language Be Planned? Honolulu: The
University Press of Hawaii

Ryan, E. and Giles, H. (eds) (1982) Attitudes Towards Innguage Variation. London:
Edward Arnold

Salinas, R. Rev. (1980) 'Review of the State of the Art of EducationalResearch: The
Philippine Experience.' In Sutaria M. et. al (eds) Philippine Education: Ilision
and Perspective. iùdamla: National Book Store

SEAMEO. (1977) Bilingual Mucation. (Ed, by Arthur Yap) Singapore: Regional

Language Center and University of Singapore Press

Segovia, L. Z. (1988) 'The Implementation of the BEP at the Tertiary Level,'

Gonzales and Sibayan (eds) Evaluating Bilingual Mucation in the
Philippine s : 197 4-1985. Manila: Linguistic Society of the philippines

Sevilla, J. C. (1988) T-evel of Awareness of the BEP Among P¿rents and Among
Gos and NGos,'in Gonzales, A. and sibayan, B.(eds) Evaluøting Bilingual
Education in the Philippines: 1974-1985. Manila: Linguistic Society of the
Philippines

Sherwood, J. (l9Sl) Multiculnral Fducation: Issues and Innovations in Creative

Re search. Perth: Perspectives in Multicultural Education

sibayan, B. (1978) 'views on Language and ldentity: Limited Metro Manila

Example in Language Education in Multilingual Societies,' in Gonzales, A. &
M.L.S. Bautista. (1986). I^anguage Sumeys in the Philippines. Quezon City.
Adriana Printing Co., Inc.

Sibayan, B. P. (1985) 'Linguistic Minorities and Bilingual Communities in the

Philippines,' in Kaplan, R. (ed). Anmtal Review of Applied Linguistics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 475

Sibayan , B. & Segovia, L. (1980) r,anguage and socio-Economic Development:

Resulting Patterns of Bilingualismilvlultilingualism,' in Afendras, Evangelio
(ed) Patterns of Bilingualism. SEAMEO Singapore: Singapore University
Press

Sibayan, B.P. (1994) 'Philippine Language Problems', in Acuña, J.E. (ed.) The
Ianguage Issae in Education, Manila Congressional Oversight Committee in
Educatioq Congress of the Republic of Philippines, pp.47-86.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1984) Bilingualism or Not, Clevedon, England: Multilingual

Matters.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1988) 'Multilingualism and the Education of Minority

children,' in Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & cummins J. (eds) Minority Education:
From Shørne to Struggle. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp.9-44.

Skutnabb-Kangaq T. & Phitlipson, R. (1994) Linguistic Human Rights: Ovqrcoming

Linguistic Discrimfutøtion. Berlin: Mouton'de Gruyter,

SmittL A. D. (1981). The Ethnic Revival. Cambridge: Cambridge Universþ Press, in

Honeyford, R. (1981). Integration or Disintegration? Towards A Non-Racist
Society. London: The Cambridge Press

Smith, A.D. (1986) The Ethnic Origin of Nations. London: Basil Blackwell.

Smolicz, J.I. (1974) Humanistic Sociologt: a Review of Concepts and Methods.

Melbourne: Department of Sociology, La Trobe University

Smolicz, J.J. (1979). Cuhure ønd Education in A Plural Socíety. Canberra:

Curriculum Development Centre

Smolicz, J.J. (1986) Multilingual Policy in the Philippines,' in Spolsky, B. (ed.)

Løngaages ønd EÅucation in Multilingual Settings, Clevedor¡ Avon, England:
Multilingual Matters, pp. 97 -116.

Smolicz, J. J. (1987). 1t{ational Language Policies in Australia and the Philippines

-
A comparative Perspectivg' in omar, Amah Haji (ed) National Languøges
and Communication in Multilingual Societies, Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka:
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur

Smolicz J. J. (1992). Australian Diversity: Language- A Bridge or A Barrier?

Adelaide: State Print SA 1992.

Smolicz, J.J. & Learu R. (1977) 'Australian Languages other than English: A
Sociological Study of Attitudes in Bilingual Education.' SEAMEO Bitingaal
Education. Singapore: Singapore University Press
 4t6

smolicz, J.J. and Secombe, M. J. (1985) 'community Languages, core Values and
Cultural Maintenance : The Australian Experience with Special Reference to
Greek, Latvian and Polish Groups,' in clyne, M. (ed). Australia-Meeting
Place of languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics

Smolicz, J.J. and Secombe, M. J. (19S5a) 'folish Culture in Australia: A Review of

some Recent Research and Educational Developments,' in sussex , R. &
Zubrzycki, [.(eds.), Polish People ønd Culture in Australia. Canberra:
National University Press

Smolicz, J.J. &. Secombe, M. J. (1989). 'Types of Language Activation and

Evaluation in an Ethically Plural society,' in Ammon, u. (ed), Status øtd
Function of Languages ønd Language Varieties. Berlin and New York:
Mouton de Gru¡er,pp 478-514.

Spolsþ, B.
(ed) (1936) Language and Mucation in Muttilingual Settings. San
Diego, California: College-Hill Press

st. clair, R. N. (19s2) Trom Social History to Language Attitudes,' in Ryan and
Giles (eds) Affindes Towørds Language Vsriation. London: Edward Arnold
pp 164-174

sutaria, M., Guerrero, J. s., &. castaño, P. M. (19s9). Philippine Educqtion: vision
ard Perspectives.Manila: National Book Store

Theophanous, A. C. (1995) Understønding Multicalturalism and Australian ldentity

Melbourne: Elikia Books

Tombiah, S.J. (1996) 'The Nation-State in Crisis and the Rise of Ethnonatìonalism,'
in McAllister, E.N. (ed.) The Politics of Difference. Chicago and London: The
University of Chicago Press, pp. 124-143.

UPROBE & SFSW (1983) National Forum andWorkshop on Hucatiortol Research:

Policy Formulation and Implementation. Quezon City: U.P. Research for
BetterEducation

Ward, J. (1971) A Bibliography of Philippine Linguistics and Minor Languages.

Ithaca" New York: Cornell University

Weinriclr, U. (196ó). Languages tn Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague:

Mouton and Co.

Weinrict¡ Uriel. (1963). Innguages in Contact The Hague: Mouton

Yap, F. A. (1990) A Comparative Study of the Philippine Lexicons. Manila: Institute

of Philippine Languages, Department of Educatior¡ Culture and Sports
(DECS),.
 417

zaide, G. (1951) Philippine Politicøl and Cuhural History (2 vols.) Manila:

Philippine Education Co.

Zirkel, P. A. (1972). An Evaluøion of the Effectiveness of Selected Experimental

Bilingual Education Programs in Connecticut. West Hartford: The University
of Hartford,

znariecki, F. (1952). Mdcrn Nationalities: A Sociological study of How

Nationalities Evolve. Urbana: University of Illinois press

Znaniecki, F. (1958). The Polish Peasant in Europe and America: New York Dovèr
Publications.

Znaniecki, F. (19ó8) The Method of Sociolog,t New York Octagon press

Zubrzycki, J. (1964). Settlers in the La Trobe Valley. Canberra: Australian University

Press

B. Periodicals

Adler, P.S. (1974). 'Beyond Cultural Identity: Reflections Upon Cultural and
Multicultural Marq' Topics in Culture and Learning, vol. 2, pp. 23-40

Alburo, Erlinda (1990) lrlotes on the Language Issue, Cebuano Literature, and
National Identity,' Philippine Quarterly of Eúrcation and Society. vol. 1g

Altus, G. T. (1953). \mSC Patterns of a Selective Sample of Bilingual School

Children.' Jourunl of Genetics Psychologt, vol. 83, pp.2al-24t

Arcilla, J. S. (1990). 'The Hispanic Contribution to Philippine Life.' Newsday View,

February 17,l99O

Arsenian, S. (1937). tsilingualism and Mental Development.' Teachers College

Country Hucation, no. 7 12

Baumgartner, J, S\ID (1983). nrhe controversy About The National Language: some
Observations,' Philippine. Quarterly of Culture md Society,vol. 17, no. Z

Betoni, C. Maintaining and Developing Italian in Australia. Vox: Journal of the

Australiqt Advisory Council on Language and Multicultural Development,
vol. 3, pp 48-53.

Bostocþ W.. (1973). Monolingualism in Australia,' The Australian Quarterly, vol.

45.
 418

Callan, V. &, Gallois, C. (1987) 'Anglo-Australian and Immigrants' Attitudes

Towards Language and Accent: A Review of Experiments and Survey
Ressarch,' Interrntional Migration Review, vol 21, pp' 45-69

Clement, R. Gardner, R. C. &

Smythe, P.C. (1977), 'Motivational Variables in
Second Language Acquisition: A Study of Francophones Learning English'.
Canadiæt Journal of Behavioral Sciences, vol. 9, pp. 123-33

Clyne, M. & Kipp, S. (1995). 'The Extent of Communìty Language Maintenance in

Australia,' in Peoples and Place, vol. 3, no. 4, p. 48

Clyne, M. & Kipp, S. (1996) 'Language Maintenance and Language Shifr in

Australi4 l99l', Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 19, no. I, pp.
1-9.

Clyne, M. & Kipp, S. (1997) 'Trends and Changes in Home and Language Shift in
Australi4' Journøl of Multilinguøl and Multicaltural Developmen( vol. 18,
no. 6, pp.451-473.

Coher¡ A.D. (1974).'Mexican-American Evaluational Judgments About Language

Varieties. International Journal of the Sociologt of l-anguages, vol. 3, pp.
33-5 I

Connor, rW. (1993) 'Beyond Reason: The Nature of the Ethnonational Bond. Ethnic
and Racial Studies,vol. 16, pp. 373-389.

- N. (194ó). 'The Effect of Bilingualism

Darcy, Upon the Msasurement of the
Intelligence of Children of Pre-school Age.' Journal of F'ducational
Psychologt, vol. 37, pp. 2l-44

Darsie, M. L. (1926). 'The Mental Capacity of American Born Japanese Children.'

Comparative P sychologt. Monograph,

Davies, M, & Hughes, A. G. (1927). 'An Investigation Into the Comparative

Intelligence and Attainment of Jewish and Non-Jewish School Children.'
British Journal ofPsychologt, vol. 18, pp. 134-146

Duy, R. (1980). 'The Development of Linguistic Attitude and Preferences.' TESOL

Quarterly, vol. 14, pp.27-37

De Veyra, V. (1967)'The Leyte-Samar Dialect,' Leyte-Sarnm Studies, vol.l, no' 1,

pp.15-36

DogarU M. (1993) 'Comparing the Decline of Nationalism in Western Europe: The

Generational Dynamic,' International Socìal Science Journal, vol. 36, pp.
177-198.
 479

Fesl, E.D. (1988) 'Language Death Among Australian Languages'. Australian

Review of AppliedLinguistics, vol. 10, no' 2,pp.12'23.

Gardner, R, C., Lambert, W. E & Santos, E. H. (1970) 'Motivational Variables in

Second Language Acquisition: A Philippine Investigation.' Research Bulletin
No. I49,Dept. of Psychology, University of Western Ontario

Gonzales, A, (1974) 'The 1973 Constitution and the Bilingual Education Policy of the
Department of Education and Culture', Philippine Studies, vol.22, no. 4, pp.
22-3r.

Graham, V. T. (1925) 'The Intelligence of Italian and Jewish Children,' Journal of

Abnormal Social Psychologt, vol. 20, pp, 37 | -37 6

Crr¿nt, N. (1997) 'Some Problems of Identity and Education: A Comparative

Examination of Multicultural Education.' Comparative Education, vol. 33,
no.l, pp. 9-28-

Gumperz, J. (1970) 'Verbal Strategies in Multilingual Communication.'

'
Monograph Series on Longuage and Linguistics, 2I'1 Annual Round Table,
No. 2i. Georgetown University School on Languages and Linguistics

Harris, R McL and Smolicz (1976).'Anglo-Australian Views of Ethics,' Australian

and New ZealmdJournal of Sociologt, pp. 148-151.

Hill, H. S. (1936). 'The Êffects of Bilingualism on the Measured lntelligence of

Elementary School Children of Italian Parentage.' Journal of Experinental
Education,vol. 5, pP. 7 5-79

Isidro, A. (1955). Philipptue Jwrrral of Education,p.514

Jayaswiya" D. L. (1936). 'Mental Health in a Multicultural Society: Some Key Issues

and Policy and Practice, CHOMI Reprints

Jones W. R, (1950a). 'Attitudes Towards Welsh As A Second Language: A

Prelimanry Investigatìon.' British Journal of Mucational Psychologt, vol 19,
pp.44-52

Jones \ry. R.(1950b). 'Auitudes Towards Welsh As A Seco¡rd Language, A Further

Investigation.' British Journal of Educatiornl Psychologt, vol. 20, pp. ll7-32

Journal ofMultililingualism Matters. Yol 12, no. 4 pp 253'269-

Kessler, C. & QuiffL M. E. (1987)'Language Minority Children's Linguistic and
Cognitive Creativity.' Journal of Multilingual and Multicaltural Development,
vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 173-18ó
 420

Kloss, H. (1966) 'Types of Multilingual Communities: A Discussion of Ten

Variables," rn Sociological Inquiring,vol. 36, pp. 13 5-145

Korporowicz,L. (1982). 'Cultural Competence as a Research Problem.' The Polish

sociological Bulletin, PP. l-4

Kundera, M. (1984) 'A Kidnapped West or Culture Bows Out,' in Burford,

B.(ed) Granta. Cambridge U.K' vol. I l, pp. 95-118

Lambert, W. (1963). Psychological Approaches to the Study of Language,' The

Modern Lønguage Journal, vol' 47, no. 3

Landry, R.G. (1974)'A Comparison of Second Language Learners and Monolinguals

on Divergent Thinking Tasks at the Elementary School Level. The Mdent
Language Journol,vol. 58, pp. 10-15

Lansang T 4., (1988) 'Retelling Philippine History.' Trends: Journal of ldeas of the
Polytechnic University of the Philippines, vol. 2, pp 15-32.

Levinson, B. M. (1959) 'A Comparison of the Performance of Bilingual and

Irrionolinguat Native Born Jewish Pre-school Children of Traditional
Parentage on Four Intelligence Tests,' Journal of Clinical Psychologt, vol.
15, pp. 74-76

Llamson, P.- Piczon, (1976). 'Elements of Modern Wafay,' Leyte-Samar Studies'

vol. 12, no. l, pP.38-56

LyrL I. & Ellis, N. (1991)'Parental Attitudes Towards the Welsh Language,' Journal
ofMultilingual and Ìululticaltural Developmenl, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 239'281

Manhiq B J,, (lgB0) 'The Case of Reading: A Socioaolitical Perspective,' Education

Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 4

Manhit, B. J. (1981). 'Alternatives for Functional Literacy: A Sooio-Psycho-

philosophical Perspectivg' Education Quarterly,vol. 27, no. 4 pp. l-25

Martin, (1978). 'Review of Post Anival Programs and Services for MigrarÚs,'
CHOMI RePrinl, no. SIO,P. 2.

Muhlhausler, P. (lg7g). R.emarks on the Pidgin and Creole Situation in Australia,'

Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Newsletter, no. 12,pp. 4l-53

Mead, M. (1957) 'Group Intelligence and Linguistic Disability Arnong Italian

Children,' School Sociologt, vol' 25, pp. 465-468

Mojares,
- R. (1990). Trom Cebuano/To Cebuano: The Politics of Literary
Translatioq' Philippine Quafierly of Culture ønd Society, vol. 18, pp' 75-81
 421

Montejo, C. (1967) 'Random Thoughts on Leyte-Samar Writers,' Le¡e-Samar

Studies, vol. I, no. l, pp.37'45

Mueller, T. H. & Miller R. I . (1970) A Study of Student Attitudes and

Motivation in a Collegiate Frençh Course Using Programmed Language
Instruction. International Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 88, pp. 297-
320

Multicultural Life. 1997. Vol. 8, No. 3

Neidt, C. O. & Hedlund, D. E. (1%7) 'The Relationship Between Changes in

Attitudes Towards a Course and Final Achievement.' Journal of Mtcational
Research,vol. 61, pp. 56-8

Noone, M. J. (1989) 'The Cultural Confliø: The Life and Times of Mchael
O'Doherty, A¡chbishop of Manila.' Manila: Hi storical Conservation Socieft,
vol. 48, General History of the Philippines, Part V, vol.3

Norst, M. (1983). 'Ethnic Schools: Where Are They and What Would They Like to
B,e?' Journal of Intercuhural Studies,vol. 3, no.2, pp. 6-16

Peal, E. & Lambert 'The Relation of Bilingualism to Intelligence'

, W. (1962)
Psychological Monogrøphs: Generql and Applied. vol. 76, no, 27, pp 246'
281

Pettman R. (1984) 'What Being "Multicultural" Means,' Newsletter of the Human

Rights ÇommissiorL no. 11 pp 8-9

Pitman, G. (1952). Methods Developed in Teaching of English to New Australians,'

M&rn Innguage Teachers Association of Victoria Newsletter, vol. l5
Quetchenbach, R. (ed) (197a; 1976;1978;1979) T-eyte-Samar Bibliographies,' Leyte
SamarStudies,vol.S,no. l; vol. 10,no. l,vol. 1l,no- 1;vol. 13,no. I
Roberts, A. (1991) ?arental Attitude To Gaelic Medium of Education in the Western
Isles of Scotland,' Journøl of Multilingual Multilingaal and Multicultural
Development, vol 12, no. 4, PP 253'269

Rosenthal, M. (L974)'The Magic Boxes. Pre-school Children's Attitudes Towards

Beach and Standafd English,' Ihe Florida FL Reporter, vol. lL,pp. 55-62,

Ryan, E. B. and. Can:at:øa, M.A. (1975) Evaluative Reactions towards Speakers of

Standard English and Mexican American Accented English,' Journal of
Personality and Social Psychologt, vol. 31, pp" 855-863

Saer, D.J. (1923) 'The Effeøs of Bilingualism on Intelligence,' British Journal of

Psychologt, vol. 14, pp.25'38
 422

Salazar, V. (1967)'Iluminado Lucente,' Leyte-Samar Studies, vol. l, no.2, pp. 139'

156

Selleck, R.J.W. (19S0) 'The Trouble with my Looking Glass: A Study of Australians'
Attitudes to Germans During the Great W4r,' Journal of Australian Studies,
vol.6, pp.l25

Sheldrake, P. (198ó). 'Meeting Needs in A Multicultural Society,' Multiculturøl

Australian Pa¡ters (CHOMI: Clearing House of Migration Issues) Richmond,
Victoria

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & Phillipson, R. (1996)'Minority Workers or Minority Human

Beings? A European Dilemma,' International Review of Education, vol. 42,
no. 4, pp.29l-307.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & Phillipson, R. (1998) 'Language in Human Rights', Gazette:

The Internotional Jourrnlfor Communicqtion Studies, vol. 60, no. 1, pp.27-
46.

Smitb F. (1923). Bilingualism and Mental Development,' British Jounwl of

Pqtcholog,,, vol. 13, pp.27O-282.

Srnolicz, J. J. (1981a) 'Core Values and Cultural Identity,' Ethnic and Racial Studies,
vol. 4, no. l, pp. 75-90. See also: Language As a Core Value of Culture.
RELC Journal (Regional Language Centre, Singapore), 1981, l1(l), l-13

Smolic4 J. J. (198lb) 'Multiculturalism: The Three Phases,' Mucøtion News, vol. 17,
no. 8, pp.23-27

Smolicz, J. J. (1933) 'Linguistic Diversity in Australia: Changing Attitudes and

Policies,' Polycom, vol. 35, pp.14-20

Smolicz, J.J. (1983). 'Modification and Maintenance: Language Among School

Children of Italian Background in South Australia,' Journal of Multilingual
andMulticwltural Development. vol.4, no. 5

Smolicz, J.J. (1934).' Minority Language and the Core Values of Culture: Changing
Policies and the Ethnic Response in Australia,' Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development,vol.5, no. l, pp 23'41.

Smolicz, J. J. (l9S4a). 'Is the Monolingual Nation-state Out-oÊdate? A Comparative

Study of Language Policies in Australia and the Philippines. Comparative
Education, vol. 20, pp. 265-86

Smolic4 J. J. (1984 b.) Mnority Language and the Core Values of Culture: Changing
Policies and Ethnic Responses in Australia,' Journal of Mukilingual and
Multicultural Development, vol.5, no. I, pp. 23'41
 423

Smolicz, J. I. (19S4c) Multiculturalism and an Over-arching Framework of Values :

Some Educational Responses for Ethnically Plural Societies. European
Journol of Education, vol. 19, no. l, pp' I 1-23

Smolicz, J.J. (1936) l.{ational Policy on Languages: A Community Language

Perspective,' Austrølian Jourrnl of Education' vol. 30, no.l

Smolicz, J.J. (1990) ?olarity of Fiþino Values,' Asian Migrønt,vol. 3, no. 1

Smolicz, J.J. (1991) 'Language Core Values in a Multicultural Setting',International

Review of Mucation,vol.3T no, l, pp.35'52.

Smolicz, J.J. (1995a) 'The Emergence of Australia as a Multicultural Nation. An

International Perspective,' Journal of Intercultural Studies, vol. 16 nos' l-2,
pp.3-23.

Smolicz, J.J. (1995b) 'Language - a Bridge or a Ba¡rier? Languages and Education in

Australia from an Intercultural Perspective,' Multilingua, vol. 14 no. 2, pp'
151-182'

Smolicz, J. & Harris, R. (1975). Migrant Cuhures and Australiøn Mucation News

Smolicz J.J. & I-eax, R. (19S0) 'Parental and Student Attitudes to the Teaching of
Ethnic Languages in Australi\' ITL Review of Applied Linguistics. Belgium'
Afdeling Tólgepaste Linguistick at the Katholieke Universiteit. Leuvert

Stnolicz, J.J. and Nical, I. (1997) 'Exporting the European Idea of a National
Language'. Some Educational Implications for the Use of English and
Indigenóus Laûguages in the Philippines,' Internotional Review of Mucation,
vol. 43, nos. 5-6. pP. l-21.

Smolicz, J.J. & Wiseman (1971). European Migrants and their Children: Interaction
and Assimilation Education,' Quarterly Review of Australian Mucqtion, vol- 2
&.3

-
Smythe, P. C, , Stennet, R. G. and Feenstrq H. l. (1972).'Attitudes, Aptitudes, and
Type oi Instructional Program in Second Language Acquisitiorq' Canadian
Journal of Behavioral Sciences,vol- 4, pp.307'21

Spoerl, D.T. (1944).'The Academic and Verbal Adjustment of College-age Bilingual

Students,t Journal of Genetic Psychologt,vol. 64, pp. 139-157

Starh W. A. (1940). 'The Effect of Bilingualism on General Intelligence : An

Investigation Carried Out in Certain Dublin Primary Schools. British Journol
of Mucatìonal Psychologt Vol. 10, pp' 78'79
 424

Stretton, P. and Finnimore, C. (1983). 'Votes for Aborigines,' The Adelaide Review,
no.4ó, pp. l0-ll

Sydiongco, R. C. (1973) 'Linguistic Studies in the Leyte-Samar Langoage 1600'

1974,' Leyte-Samar Studies, vol 12, no.2,pp. 1-13

Tenazas, R.C.P. & -

Ramas, L.L. (L974) 'A Map of the Better Known Cultural
Minorities of the Philippines,' Quarterly of Culture and Society, San Carlos
Publications, vol, 2, nos. 1-3, P. 3-

The Adelaidean,1994

The Canberra Times, 7 August 1948

'The Constitutional Programs of Mabini,' (1932) The Philippine Social Science

Review, vol. 4, PP. 314'332

(1926). 'A Demonstration of the Language Diffrculty Involved in

-- S. L.
Wang
Comparing llacial Groups by Means of Verbal Intellþnce Tests. Journal of
Applied Psychologt, vol. 10, pp. 102-106

Wolff, J.lJ. (1972) 'The Historical Development of the Samar-Leyte Bisayan Vowel
Systerq" Leyte-Samar Studies

Zialcit4F.N. (1995) 'State Formatior¡ Colonialism in Vietn¿m

and National Identity
and the Philippines ,' Philippine Quarterly of Culnre and Society, vol. 23, pp.
17-117.

B. Special Reports

Anisfeld, M.E. (1964). 'A Comparison of the Cognitive Functioning of Monolinguals

and Bilinguals,' Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Montreal, McGill
Univøsity

Australian Institute of Multicultur¿l Affairs Report, ( 1 986)

Bernabe, E. (1978). 'Language Planning in the Philippines:1565-1975'. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation. Dilimar¡ Quezon City: University ofthe Philippines

Bulatao, R. (1973) Ethnic Attitudes in the Philippine Cities (A Report submitted to

íre nÌritippine Social Science Council Research Committee. University of the
Philippines. Social Science Research Laboratory
 425

Caballero, Ma. G. (1983). Language Usc and Attitudes of Selected Cebuano and non-
Cebuano Families in Barrio Camaman-an, Cagayan de Oro Cþ. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Ateneo de Manila University-University of the Philippines-
de la Salle University Consortium for a Ph.D. in Bilingual Education. Metro
Manila

Castañeda" E. (1968) Survey of Philippine Educatorg Views Concerning the

Language Problems of the Philippines, San Diego California

Census of the Philippines,1990

Galbally Report. (1978). Report of the Review of Post Arrival Programs and
Services for Migrants, Committee on Review of Migrant Services and
Programs. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service

Dumarân, C. (1980). A Linguistic Profile in Dagupan City in 1979, Unpublished Ed.

D. dissertation, University ofPangasinan, Dagupan Cþ

Dumol, P.A. (1996) 'English, Filipino or Cebuano?', Paper presented at UNTV Final
Conference, Cebu City (22 February).

Elias-Oliveres, L. (1975). Chicano Language Varieties and Uses in East Austin. Paper
presented to Southwest Area Linguistics Workshop, San Diego California.

Fantini, A. ( I 93 5).'Language Acquisition.' Multilingualism Matters.

Galon, M.T. (1975). A Study of the Reaction of the Bayawan and Basay Teachers on
the Use of Pilipino as a Medium of Instruction in the Public Elementary
Schools. Unpublished master,s thesis, Siliman University, Dumaguete, Negros
Oriental.

Hodges A. (1982). Opening Address, National Language Policy on Languages.

Canberra: by Federation ofEthic Communities Council.

Jayasuriya, D. L. (1936). 'Ethnic Minorities and Issues of Social Justice in

Contemporary Australian Society,' Keynote address at Australian Adult
Education Conference on Learning for Social Justice, Australian National
University, Canberra 7 -9 Dec. 198ó, Mimeo

Mercer G. V. (1975). 'The Development of Children's Ability to Discriminate

Between Languages and Varieties of the Same Language,' Unpublished
master's thesis, McGill University, Montreal

Olonan, Z. A.. (1978). Language Use in Multilingual Community, Unpublished

Ph.D. dissertatiorq University of Sto. Tomas, Manila
 426

Otanes F. & Sibayan, B. (1969). 'Language Policy Survty of the Philipjnes,' An

Initial Report. Manila. Language Study Center, Philippine Normal University
Towards
Reyes, A. (1983). 'Attitudes of the Students of Cebu Institute of Technology
' filþino in Tertiary Education.' Unpublished master's thesis , De La Salle
UniversitY, Manila

as a Language,'
samonte, J. B. (1981)',Attitudes of coltege students lgwards English
Únpubliìhe¿ Þfr. O. dissertation, University of Sto. Tomas, Manila

seidl,' (1937). 'The Effect of Bilingualism on the.Measurement of Intelligence,'

I.c.
unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham university,

Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts (1984). Repgrt o-n Aì{ational
Languages Policy. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service

Silliman, Rachel. (1976). 'The visayans and Pilipino: A study o! Rgsiolal

Elite
Attitudes, Nationalism and ianguage Pla-nning in the Philippines,' Ph' D'
dissertation" Claremont Graduate School, California

Smolicz, J.J. (1984). Report To Minister ofEducation

Philippines.' A
Smolicz, J.J. (1995) 'Language and Minority Rights: Australia and the
paper presented in the European conference in Language Planning,
Barcelona.

1984'
South Australian Ministerial Taskforce on Multiculturalism and EducatiorL

C. Orders/Bulletins/directives
o BPS BulletinNo. 12, s. 1953
o BPS Bulletin No. 14, s. 1953
o BPS BulletinNo. 16, s. 1953
o BPS Bulletin No. l, s 1954
o BPS BulletinNo. 5, s. 1955
o BPS Bulleting No. 9, s. 1955
 427

-a

APPENDIX A

STUDENT INTERYIE1V FORM

Part I. Background Information

Please supply the needed information

Name: Sex Male Female

(Optional)
Age: _ Place
Parents'/Guardians' country of origin:
Father Mother

How long have you been Australia? _ yrs.

Philippine Language(s) your parent(s) speak? Please check.

Mother Fathe{

Tagalog
Waray
Cebuano
Ilocano
Bicolano
Hilongo
Pangasinan
Pampango
Chavacano
Others (Speci$)

Part II. The use oflanguages

Please answer the questions that follow

If you parent(s) Tagalog oqly; answer the question in Soction A only; if speaking
Philippine language(s) other than Tagalog, please answer Section A and B.
 428

Seclìon A. The Use of Tageloe

l. Can you speak Tagalog? Yes No

If your answer is yes, please answer Question No. 2 to No. 4 below; if 49, go direct to
question No. 5 and 6.

2. Do you, at times, speak Tagalog? Yes No

2.1 If yes, who to and how often? (Please circle yorrr response).

a.parents Always Very often Sometimes Rarely Never

b. Brothers / Always Very often Sometimes Rarely Never
sisters
c, relatives / Always Very often Sometimes Rarely Never
friends

3. How often do you use Tagalog in the following communication activities? (Please
circle your answer).

a. speaking Always Very often Sometimes Rarely Never

b. reading Always Very often Sometimes Rarely Never
c. writing Always Very often Sometimes Rarely Never

4. How well are you able to use Tagalog in these communication activities? (Please circle
your answer)

a. speaking Always Very often Sometimes Rarely Never

b. reading Always Very often Sometimes Rarely Never
c. writing Always Very often Sometimes Rarely Never

5. Do you want to learn Tagalog? Yes No

5.1Ifyes, why?

5.2 if no, why?

 429

6. If you want to learn Tagalog, what method do you think you can learn best?

l. Can you speak the language of your parent(s) which is other than Tagalog?

Yes No
If your answer is Es, please answer Question No. 2 to No. 4 below; if no, go direct to
question No. 5 and 6.

2. Do you, at times, speak the language? Yes No

2.I Who do you speak the language and how often? (Please circle your response)

a. parents Always Very often Sometimes Rarely Never

b. Brothers / Always Very often Sometimes Rarely Never
sisters
c. relatives / Always Very often Sometimes Rarely Never
füends

3. How often do you use the language in the following communication activities? (Please
circle your answer).

a. speaking Always Very often Sometimes Rarely Never

b. reading Always Very often Sometimes Rarely Never
c. writing Always Very often Sometimes Rarely Never

4. How well are you able to use the language in these communication aptivities? @loase
circle your answer)

a. speaking Very often Sometimes Never

b. reading Very often Sometimes Never
c. writing Very often Sometimes Never

5. Do you want to learn Philippine language(s) spoken by your parent(s) which is other
than Tagalog ? Yes Uncertain No
 430

5.1lfyes, why?

5.2 if no, why?

6. If you want to learn the language, what method do you think you can leam best?
 43t

APPENDIX B

INTERVIB}Y F'ORM
@or Filipino Parents in Australia)

L Personnal Circumstances:

Name Age
(Optional)
Lenght of stay in Australia:_ yrs. Resided ?
Residence ?
Highest educational attainment

Nationality of (e)spouse:

Philippine language(s) spoken at home. Please tick in left hand column those languages
that you know and encircle the frequency of their use.

Tagalog Always Very often Sometimes Seldom Never

Cebuano Always Very often Sometimes Seldom Never
Waray Always Very often Sometimes Seldom Never
Ilokano Always Very often Sometimes Seldom Never
Bikolano Always Very often Sometimes Seldom Never
Hilongo Always Very often Sometimes Seldom Never
Pangasinan Always Very often Sometimes Seldom Never
Chavacano Always Very often Sometimes Seldom Never
Pampango Always Very oftør Sometimes Seldom Never
Arabic Always Very often Sometimes Seldom Never
_Others( Please Specifr

Foreign language(s) spoken at home other than English and the Philippine language(s)
 432

II. The Use of Languages

Below are some question regarding the use of Tagalog, English and other Philippine
languages . Please answer each question by putting a circle to any of the alternative
responses that you choose.

If you speak only Tagalog as a Philippine language, please answer the questions in
SectionAandbonly.

If you speak Philippine language(s) other than Tagalog. please ans\iler the questiort in
Section d B, and C.

Section A. The Use of Taeølog

l Can you speak Tagalog? Yes No

2. Do you, at times, speak Tagalog? Yes No

2.1 If yes, who to and how often? (Leave blank if not applicable).

a. husband / wife Always Oftentimes Sometimes Rarely Never

b. parents Always Oftentimes Sometimes Rarely Never
c. ethnio peers / Always Oftentimes Sometimes Rarely Never
relatives
d. children Always Oftentimes Sometimes Rarely Never

2. How often do you use Tagalog in the following communication activities?

a. speaking Always Oftentimes Sometirnes Rarely Never

b. reading Always Oftentimes Sometimes Raroly Never
c. writing Always Oftentirnes Sometimes Rarely Never

3. How well are you able to use Tagalog in the following?

a. reading Excellent Very Good Sometimes Rarely Never

b. writing Excellent Very Good Sometimes Rarely Never
c, speaking Excellertt Very Good Sometimes Rarely Never
 433

Sectíon B. The Use of Enslìsh

l. Do you speak English? Yes No

1.1 If yes, who to and how often? (Leave blank if not applicable)

a. husband wife i Always Oftentimes Sometimes Rarely Never

b. parents Always Oftentimes Sometimes Rarely Never

c. ethnic peers / Always Oftentimes Sometimes Rarely Never

relatives

d. children Always Oftentimes Sometimes Rarely Never

e. other (please speci$)

2. How often do you use English in the following communication activities?

a. speaking Always Oftentimes sometimes Rarely Never

b. reading Always Oftentimes Sometimes Rarely Never

c. writing Always ofterrtimes Sometimes Rarely Never

3. How well are you able to use English in the following?

a, reading Excellent Very Good Sometimes Rarely Never

b. writing Excellent Very Good Sometimes Rarely Never

c. speaking Excellent Very Good Sometimes Rarely Never

Section C The (Jse of Lailsuase(sl Other thûn Tøsolos

l. Do you, at times speak Philippine language(s) Other than Tagalog?

No
 434

L I If yes, who to and how often? (-eave blank if not applicable).

wife
a. husband / Always Oftentimes Sometimes Rarely Never

b. parents Always Oftentimes Sometimes Rarely Never

c. ethnic peers / Always Oftentimes Sometimes Rarely Never

relatives
d. children Always Oftentimes Sometimes Rarely Never

e. other (please specify)

2. How often do you use Philippine Language(s) other than Tagalog in the following
communication activitie s?

a. speaking Always Oftentimes Sometimes Rarely Never

b. reading Always Oftentimes Sometimes Rarely Never

c. writing Always Oftentimes Sometimes Rarely Never

3. How well arc you able to use Philippine Language(s) other than Tagalog in the
following communication activities?

a. reading Excellent Very Good Sometimes Rarely Never

b. writing Excellent Very Good Sometimes Rarely Never

c. speaking Excellent Very Good Sometimes Rarely Never

III. Opinions on the Language(s) used

Below are some questions about the languages. Please encircle the answer that
you give for every item.

A. On the Trealos laneuaee

1. Do you like to speak Tagalog? Yes Uncertain No

1.1 If , yes why?

l.2If no. why?
 435

2. Do you think that Tagalog should be maintained and develop by Filipinos here in
Australia? Yes Uncertain No

2.lIf ,yes why?

2.2If ¡o. why?

3. Do you recommend that Tagalog should be spoken by all people in the Philippines?
Yes Uncertain No

3.1 If yes, why?

3.2If no, what would you recommend?

4. Would you like your children to learn and/or use Tagalog when talking to fellow
Filipinos? Yes Unçertain No

4.1 If yes, why?

4.2Lf no, why?

5. Do you like listening to the Following in the Tagalog language?

a. radio Yes Uncertain No

b. music Yes Uncertain No
c. stage play Yes Uncertain No
d. dialogues Yes Uncertain No
e. Holy mass Yes Uncertain No

5.1 Please give reason(s) why you like/dislike listening to the above activities in
Tagalog.
 436

6. Would you yourselfwelcome the following:

a. more opportunities for adult education in Yes Uncertain No

Tagalog
b. Tagalog used in notices, signs and Yes Uncertain No
advertisements
c. more money to encourage the use of Tagalog in Yes Uncertain No
the Filipino communíty
d. movie and TV programs in Tagalog Yes Uncertain No
e. radio programs in T4galog Yes Uncertain No

7. Do you like to read newspaper/magazines in Tagalog?

Yes Uncertain No

7.1.If yes, why?

7.2.If no,why?

8. If you had the choioe, would you like talking to friends in Tagalog?
Yes Uncertain No

8.l.If yes, why?

8.2.Ifno, why?

9. Do you like to write letters to relatives and friends in Tagalog?

Yes Uncertain No

9.1. If yes, why?

9.2.\f ¡o,why?

A-7 On the Phílippíne lønsuaee(sl dher thøn Tasolog

Note: Answer this section only if you speak Philippine language olher than
Taeplog.

l. Do you like to speak your own Philippine language other than Tagalog?
Yes Uncertairt No

l.l. If yes, why?

 437

1.2. If no, why?

2. Do you think that your own Philippine language should also be developed her in
Australia? Yes Uncertain No

3. Would you like your children to learn and/or use your own Philippine language?
Yes Uncertain No

3.1. If yes, why?

3.2.lf no, why?

4. Would you like your Philippine language to be taught in schools in the Philippines in
addition to English and Filipino? Yes Uncertain No

4.1, If yes, why?

4.2.If no, why?

B. On the Enelish lansuaee

l. Do you perceive that doing the following in English is important?

a. speaking in English Yes Uncert¿in No
b. writing in English Yes Uncertain No
c. reading in English Yes Uncertain No

2. If you had the choice in Australia, would like to talk in a language other than English?
Yes Uncertain No

2.1 If yes, why?

2.2If no, why?

3. Do you like your children to learn to speak English?

Yes Uncertain No

4. Do you like reading newspaper and magazines written in English?

Yes Uncertain No

4.1. If yes, why?

 438

4.2.If no, why?

5. If there are rîagazines written in Tagalog or in in your own language in the

Philippines, would you prefer to read them rather than those written in English?
Yes Uncertain No

ó. Would you yourself welcome the following?

a. more opportunities for adult education in Yes Uncertain No
English
b. more money available to encourage the use of Yes Uncertain No
English among immþants from non-English
speaking

7. Do you like listening to the following in the English language?

a. radioprograms Yes Uncertain No
b. music/songs Yes Uncertain No
c. stageplays Yes Uncertain No
d. dialogues Yes Uncertain No
e. holymass Yes Uncertain No

7.1 Please give reason(Ð why do you like/dislike listening to any of the activity above
in English?

B - 1. On the use of Enslßh lønsuøee in school

1. Are you happy that your children are taught in school using English?
Yes Uncertain No

2. If you had the choice, would you feel happier if your children are taught in Tagalog?
Yes Uncertain No

2.1 If yes, why?

2.2lf no, why?

3. Do you think your children being taught in English will be better prepared in life?
Yes Uncertain No

3.l.If yes, why?

3.2.\f no, why?
 439

4. Do you think that children being taught in English will be better prepared in life?
Yes Uncertain No

4.1. If yes, why?

4.2.If no, why?

 440

APPENDIX C

STUDENT INTERVIEW F'ORM

(Philippines)

Part I. Background Information

Please supply the needed information.

Name: Sex: Male Female

(Optional)
Age Place ofBirth
- -
Please indicate the Philippine language(s) spoken at your home.
Check (/) all those used.

. WaraY
Cebuano
Ilocano
Others (Please specifu)

II. The Use of Languege

Below are some questions regarding the use of Warey, Pilipino, and English.
Please encircle the answer that you give for everv item'

1. To whom do you speak the \üaray language and how often?

a. parents Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never

b. relativeVfriends Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never

c. brothers/sisters Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never

d. fellow students Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never

e. market vendors Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never

f. sales people Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never

 441

g. offïce people Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never

h. school teachers Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never

2. To whom do you speak the Pilipino language and how often?

a. parents Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never

b. relatives/friends Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
c- brothers/sisters Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
d. fellow students Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Nçver
e. market vendors Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
f. sales people Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
g. offïce people Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
h. school teachers Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never

3. To whom do you speak the English language and how often?

a. parents Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never

b. relatives/friends Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
c. brothers/sisters Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
d. fellow students Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
e. market vendors Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
f. sales people Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
g. oftice people Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
h. school teachers Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
 442

4. How often do you use the languages given below in speaking, reading and
writing?

Communication of use

Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never

Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never

Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never

Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never

Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never

Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never

5. Please check (/) the language you use most often when you do the following;

a. praying privately Waray Pilipino English Others

b. confession (if RC) Waray Pilipirto English Others
c. praying with others Waray Pilipino English Others
 43

6. In your view, how well cân you make use the different languages given below in
speaking, reading, and writing?

Communication Frequency ofuse

Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor

Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor

Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor

Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor

Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor

Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor

7. In which language do you most prefer to listen to the foltowing?

a. radio programs Waray Pilipino English Othcrs

b. songs/music Waray Pilipino English Others
c. stage plays Waray Pilipino English Others
d. meetings Waray Pilipino English Others
e. holy masVchurch
service Waray Pilipino English Others

Thank you very much.

 444

APPENDIX D

INTERVIEW FORM
@or Parents in the Philippines)

I. Personal circumstances:

Name: Age .-- Place ofBirth

Residence No, of yrs. In present residence

Highest eduoational attainment Occupation

Language(s) used at home. Please check that which you use at home. If you use more
than one, please rank. Assign the rank of I to th¿t which is most used.

Ilocano
Pilipino
English
Spanish
Others (please speci$)

tr. The Use of Languages

Below are some questions regarding the use of Ilocano, Pilipino and English.
Please encircle the answer that you give fgryyjltlfqlg
1. Can you spealq read, write in the languages specified below?

a. Ilocano Speak Read Write

b. Pilipino Yes No Yes No Yes No
c. English Yes No Yes No Yes No

I.l To whom do you speak the Ilocano language and how often?

a. husband/wife Always Oftentimes Somstimes Seldom Never

b. parents Always Oftentimes Sometirnes Seldom Never
c. relatives/friends Always Oftentimes Sometimes Scldom Never
 445

d. children Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never

e. work/colleagues Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
f. market/ vendors Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
g. salespeople Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
h. ofüce people Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
i. school teachers Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
j. others (please specify)

7.2 To whom do you speak Pilipino language and how often?

a. husband/wife Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never

b. parents Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
c. rçlatives/friends Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
d. children Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
e. worVcolleagues Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
f market/ vendors Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
g. sales people Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
h. office people Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
i. school teachers Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Nwer
j. others (please specify)

1.3 To whom do you speak the English language and how often?

a. husband/wife Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never

b. parents Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
c. relatives/friends Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Nwer
d. children Always Oftentimes Sometimes Seldom Never
 446

Seldom Never
AlwaYs Oftentimes Sometimes
e. work/colleagues
Seldom Never
Sometimes
f. market/ vendors AlwaYs Oftentimes
Sometimes Seldom Never
g. sales peoPle AlwaYs Oftentimes
Sometimes Seldom Never
Oftentimes
h. offïce PeoPle AlwaYs
Sometimes Seldom Never
i. school teachers AlwaYs Oftentimes

j. others (Please sPecifY)

the following
the languages specifïed below in
2 On the whole, how often do you use
activities' Please encircle your aûswer'
"o*-rrni.ttion
of use

Sometimes Seldom Never

Always Oftentimes
Seldom Never
Always Oftentimes Sometimes
Sometimes Seldom Never
Always Oftentimes

Sometimes Seldom Never

Always Oftentimes
Sometimes Seldom Never
Always Oftentimes
Seldom Never
Always Oftentimes Sometimes

Sometimes Seldom Never

Always Oftentimes
Seldom Never
Always Oftentimes Sometimes
Sometimes Seldom Never
Always Oftentimes
 447

3. How well are you able to do the following communication activities in the different
languages? Please encircle your answer'

of use
Communication

Very good Good Fair Poor

Excellent
Very good Good Fair Poor
Excellent
Very good Good Fair Poor
Excellent

In Pilinino
Very good Good Fair Poor
a. speaking Excellent
Good Fair Poor
b. reading Excellent Very good
Very good Good Fair Poor
c. writing Excellent

In Enslish
Very good Good Fair Poor
a. speaking Excellent
Very good Good Fair Poor
b. reading Excellent
Good Fair Poor
c. writing Excellent Very good

Itr. Opinions on the Languages used

Below a"fe some questions. Please encircle the responSe that you choose'

a. On the vernacular (Ilocano)

1. Do you like the language Ilocano? Yes Uncertain No

1.1 If your answer is yes, what makes you like the language?

l.2lf no, why?

 448

if you had the choice?

2. would you rather speak in a language other than Ilocano
Yes Uncertain No

2.1 If yes, whY?

2.2Lf no, why?
you like writing in llocano?
J When you write to friends and relatives, do
Yes Uncertain No

3.1 If yes, whY?

3.2I,f no, why?
Ilocano language?
4 Would you like that people continue to speak the
Yes Uncertain No

4.1 If yes, whY?

4.2lf no, why?
in Ilo-cano?
5 Would you like to read newspapers and magazines
Yes Uncertain No

5.1 If yes, whY?

5.2If no, why?

in Ilocano should be encouraged?

6 Do you think the production of reading materials
Yes Uncertain No

6.1If yes, whY?

6.2If no, why?

7 Doyouliketolistentothefollowinginthellocanolanguage?
Yes Uncertain No
a. radio programs No
Yes Uncertain
b. song/music No
Yes Uncertain
c. stage PlaYs No
Yes Uncertain
d. dialogues No
Yes Uncertain
e. holy mass
 449

why you like or dislike listening

7,1 Please give reason(s) you want to emphasize
to eachìf the above in the Ilocano language'

A-l As regards the use of Ilocano language in school

in teaching the lower primary
1. Do you agfee that Ilocano language should be used
grades? Yes Uncertain No

1.1If yes, whY?

1.2If no, why?

2.Doyouthinkthatllocanolanguageshouldbetaughtasasubjectin
Yes Uncertain No
a. the elementary No
Yes Uncertain
b. the high school No
Yes Uncertain
c. college

2.1 If yes, whY?

2.2If no,why?
in like if they are taught in
3. Do you think that the children will be better prepared
Ilocano language? Yes
Uncertain No

B. On the PiliPino language

1. Is it important for you to learn to speak Pilipino?

Yes Uncertain No

1.1 IfYes, whY?

1.2If no, whY?

2.IsthePilipinolanguageimportanttotheFilipinopeopleasawhole?
Yes Uncertain No

2.1 If yes, whY?

2.2If no,why?
 450

3. Would you yourself welcome the following

for adult Yes Uncertain No

a. more opportunities

education Programs in PiliPino

Yes Uncertain No
b. more radio and TV Programs for
learners in PiliPino
Yes Uncertain No
c. Pilipino used in Public notices,

signs and advertisements

6.1 If yes, why?

6.2I;f no, why?

C. On the English language

I Do you think it is or it was necessary for you to learn to sgeak English?

Yes Uncertain No

1.1If yes, why?

1.2If no, why?
whole?
2. Do you agfee that English is important for the Filipino people as a
Yes Uncertain No

2.1 If yes, whY?

2.2If no, why?

- children learn to speak English?

3. Do you like that your
Yes Uncertain No

3.1 If yes, why?

3.2If no, why?

4 Do you like reading newspapers andmagazines written in_English?

Yes Uncertain No

4.1 If yes, why?

4.2If no, why?
 45t

5. Would you yourself welcome the following?

Yes Uncertain No
a. more opporh¡nities for adult

education Programs in PiliPino

Yes Uncertain No
b. more radio and TV Programs for
learners in PiliPino
Yes Uncertain No
c. Pilipino used in Public notices,

signs and advertisements

6 DoyoulikelisteningtothefollowingintheEnglishlanguage?

Yes Uncertain No
a. radio programs
Yes Uncertain No
b. song/music
Yes Uncertain No
c. stage plaYs
Yes Uncertain No
d. dialogues
Yes Uncertain No
e. holy mass

you like or dislike listening

6.1 Please give reason(s) you want to emphasize why
to each ofthe above in the llocano language'

C-l As regards the use ofthe English language in school

1. Do you agfee that the use of English in school is limited to the teaching of science
and Mathematics? Yes Uncertain No

1.1 If yes, why?

l.2If no, why?

2 WouldyourecommendthatEnglishbegivenmoreemphasisinschool No
Yes Uncertain

2.1If yes, why?

2.2I1no, why?
 452

J Do you think your children learn better than taught in English than any other
language?
Yes Uncertain No

taught fully
4 Do you think that your children will be better prepared in life if they are
in English?
Yes Uncertain No

4.1 If yes, whY?

4.2lf no,why?

Thank you very much

 453

APPENDIX E

LISTING OF TT{E EARLIER MATERIALS RELATED TO TIIE DEVELOPMENT OF

TFIE WARAY LANIGUAGE AS REVIEWED BY
FR. RAYMUND QUETCIIENBACH

A. In thefield of lexicograPhY

l. Diccionario Bisayan-Español by Juan Felix de la Encarnacion (1852) Bound

with Encarnacion's Bisaya-Español, I 85 I

2. Diccionario Español-Bisaya para las provincias de Samar y Leyte by Antonio

Sanchez de la Rosa (Manila, l9l4)

3. Waray-English Dictionary by Ger T. Ortiz (calbayog, Samar, 1962),

B. In thefield of grammatical standsrdization

1. Gramatiqa Hispano-Visaya by Antonio Sanchez de la Rosa (Manila, 1887)

C. In thefield of literary development

l.ArtedelalinguaBisa}¡adelaprovinciadeLe}¡tebyDomingoEzguerra
(Manila, 1663).

2. Arte del id-ioma Visaya de Samar y I-eite by Father Antonio Fþeroa

@inondo, 1872).

usa sundon ug ang usa. lic-yan by Juan Navarrete (1890)'

4. In thefeld of religton
l. Novena nguig-u*po ta sa Dios an mga calag sa purgatoryo, nga guinbinisaya
ru ,rru ngà devoto nga cura palroco, satuig 1868, Manila, Sto. Tomas,
1869,40 pages
Z. Novena can San Vicente Ferrer. Guinbinisaya San Padre nga si Fr. Antonio
sanchez. Tambobong, Asilo de Huerfanos, L895.42 pages.

3. Novena sa Nuestra Señora del Rosario. Guinbinisaya san Padre nga si Fr'
 454

Antonio Sanchez. Manila, Amigo del Pais, 1892. 32 p.

4. Novena sa pagtahud can Maria santisima sa iya uray nga pagpanamgun
guinbinisaya sa usa nga padre nga Franciscano sa tuig 1868. Tambobong,
Asilo de Huerfanos, 1892. 39 pages.
 456

16 1941. Iloko Weaving Dictionary." An Lat,5

22-252

l7 1947. Sounds in lloko" Pr. M, 20(l-2):26-38

18. 1949. Adverbds and prespositions in Iloko."

PJS,78: 167-205

T9 1955. Iloko Grammar. Baguio: Catholic School-

Press

20 1956. A dictionary... Kankanay-English,

English-IlokoThesaurus, Iloko-English dictionary. Baguio

21. Balbin, Victorino . 1940. Gramatica Ilocana fundamental: O Jenio o

Filosofia del Idioma Samtoy. Manila: Commonwealth Press, Inc.

22. Calip, Jose Resurrecion and Pena Calip. lg4l.English-Tagalog Ilokano

VocabularLManila: Metrpolitan Publication

23. Bloomfield,,Leonard.. 1942 "Outline of Ilocano Syntax" Lan8'18: 193-200

24. Nenir, Juan O. 1949. Dictionary in three languages: English-Ilocano-

Spanish. Dagupan City, Philippines: n.p.

25. Cacdaø Bonifacio and Fausta Arce Cacdac.960. Pagitarusan Ilokano-

Ingles-Pilipino (Ilocano-English-Pilipino dictionaryt Agoo, La Union,
Philippines: Agoo Fashion Art School, Inc.

26. Afenir, Juan and Reynaldo de Dios. 1967. English-Tagalog-Ilokano

Pocket Dictionary. Manila: Manalili Booksellers

2T.Interchurch Language School. 1963. Ilocano Outline guide Part I.

Description. Manila

28. 1965..Ilocano grammar and Vocabulary. Manila

29 1966. Ilocano Conversation Patterns Manila

 457

30. Constantino, Ernesto et, Al., 1965. The,grammar of the pronounç of Iluka.qo-
Isinni. Kapampangat.and Tagalog. Page 19 in the Otley Beyer Syposium
U. P. Quezon CttY

3 1. Eyestone, IVlaynard . 1965.lokpno Gra{nma¡ and Vocabulary- Manila:

Inte,rchurch Lanmguage Sohool

32. Constantino, Ernesto. 19?1. Ilokano Þictionw. lst Printing. Pali

Language Texts: Philippines' Honolulu: UH Press