Professional Documents
Culture Documents
History Language Planners and Strategies of Forget
History Language Planners and Strategies of Forget
net/publication/233544572
CITATIONS READS
19 1,883
1 author:
Ruanni Tupas
National Institute of Education (NIE), Singapore
68 PUBLICATIONS 985 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Durable and changing views of English: A diachronic discourse analysis of Language Policies in Singapore View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ruanni Tupas on 25 March 2015.
<TARGET "tup" DOCINFO AUTHOR "T. Ruanni F. Tupas"TITLE "History, language planners, and strategies of forgetting"SUBJECT "LPLP, Volume 27:1"KEYWORDS ""SIZE HEIGHT "220"WIDTH "150"VOFFSET "4">
T. Ruanni F. Tupas
National University of Singapore
Many language planners and language scholars in the Philippines suffer from
imperial amnesia — the inability or refusal to confront the complexity of
history from which emerged various discourses on language and education
in the country. Work on language planning is ideologically and politically
positioned through various discursive strategies of forgetting. Forget the War.
Forget the Pain. Forget the Fight. An examination of these strategies will
enable us to understand why language planning practitioners in the Philip-
pines argue the way they do concerning critical language issues in the coun-
try. However, it takes more than changing (historical) consciousness to
change the world. In the case of the Philippines, such discursive strategies of
forgetting are deployed across complex structures of relations shaped by
decades of colonization, Filipino elite collaboration, and current neocolonial
and global conditions. This paper argues for a critical historiography of our
ideas and work on language because, after all, whether we like it or not, we
are both products and makers of our own histories. In language planning, we
need to remember.
In a recent seminal essay on the origin, status, context and features of ‘post-
imperial’ or ‘post-colonial’ English in the Philippines, Sibayan and Gonzalez
(1996: 165) declare that:
In our view, linguistic imperialism (on the use of English) in the Philippines is
a thing of the past: it was characteristic of the imperial (colonial) period…
Today, Filipinos have taken over their own affairs including what to do with
English. The Filipinos today are doing with English what they want to do and
not from any dictation of outsiders (foreigners).
The same summative paper of Sibayan and Gonzalez, however, also demon-
strates that the pastness of linguistic imperialism on the use of English in the
country occurs in a ‘post-colonial’ context characterized by the continuing and
widening gap between the Filipino elite and the poor majority of Filipinos. It is
within such structures of relations, in fact, that English continues to be domi-
nant. Sibayan and Gonzalez detail the following realities of English language use
in the Philippines: (1) English is a social stratifier; (2) despite the bilingual
education in Filipino and English, all economic rewards accrue to English; (3)
the Filipino elite continue to hold on to their power partly through English; (4)
it is from the English-competent economic and political elite that the leaders of
the country most likely emerge.
How then do we make sense of Sibayan and Gonzalez’ pronouncement that
linguistic imperialism in the country is a thing of the past? In the essay, the two
prominent scholars reveal how English proficiency is intricately tied to struc-
tures of power relations in the Philippines. They show the continuing cultural
and structural dominance of English in the country. For them, ‘post-imperial’
English occurs in a context in which the attainment of political independence
of a country does not really translate to economic and cultural liberation (164).
How could Filipinos have attained linguistic independence in the midst of a
socially stratified context which the dynamics of language use themselves help
both to reflect and to perpetuate?
This paper aims to configure the ideological/narrative structure that
grounds the seemingly contradictory remarks about, on the one hand, the end
of linguistic imperialism in the Philippines and, on the other, the continuing
cultural, economic, and military dependence of the country on the United
States despite ‘independence’ on July 4, 1946. The paper argues that such
inconsistent views on the role and status of English in the post-colonial Philip-
pines cut across generations of research and practice in education and language
policy-making and teaching. Such views, in fact, are not inconsistent or
contradictory at all if located within the ideological/narrative structure of
colonial history and collective memory, both of which continue to dominate
Philippine politics, society and culture today. This ideological/narrative
structure embodies imperial amnesia from which emerge prevailing notions of
‘English,’ ‘education,’ ‘democracy,’ ‘nationalism,’ ‘Philippine-American special
relations’ and, lately, ‘linguistic imperialism’ and ‘post-colonial English.’
<LINK "tup-r22">
"tup-r26">
4 T. Ruanni F. Tupas
when, where, how and why. Works of many scholars in other fields like educa-
tion (Rains 1999–which maps out relations between historical amnesia,
indigenous knowledge, and social inequality), nationalist politics (e.g., Stanzel
2001–which demonstrates how remembering of past defeats fuels ethnic
nationalism, as in the case of Kosovo), and international relations (e.g., Chai-
bong and Seog-gun 2001–which illustrates how security alliances in the Asia-
Pacific region reflect changing ideological structures of memory), detail varying
configurations of forgetting and remembering emerging from different histori-
cal directions, ideologies and sociopolitical needs (see Gong 2001; see also
Mayer 1993, and Elon 1997: 267–274). Depending on such particularities, our
‘ethico-political’ ‘duty to remember,’ to use the words of Ricoeur (1999), also
necessitates asking if we also have any ‘duty to forget.’ Our case against forget-
ting in this paper, thus, is worked through a web of issues pertaining to particu-
lar historical experiences of Filipinos, and does not in any way endorse the idea
that all forgetting is bad and all remembering is good.
This paper is part of a larger research project on “The Study of English and
the Problem of Consciousness in the Philippines” which has brought the
author to prolonged archival work in Manila. The texts chosen for analysis
below, therefore, are not whimsical choices but represent certain ideologi-
cal/discursive tendencies in English language work in the country before and
after ‘independence’ in 1946. “Thanks to colonial education,” the eminent
historian Reynaldo C. Ileto (2001: 106) remarks, “the official US justifications
of the conquest are still being reiterated today in various forms” (108). Times
indeed may have changed, but many ideologies and structures of relations
remain fundamentally the same.
Strategies of forgetting
Critical appraisals of language planners and their work have often failed to look
into the historical assumptions of much of language planning in the world.
While we need to unpack ideologies in language policies and map out their
relations with politics and local histories in order to reorient our work towards
“contextual sociologies” (Pennycook 2000: 118; see Ricento 2000), it is also
important to investigate how such ideologies and practices are themselves
positioned by particular views of the past and present.
Since the country’s ‘independence’ from the United States in 1946, many
Filipino scholars have embarked on a massive (re)visioning of the country’s past
<LINK "tup-r17">
"tup-r1">
"tup-r27">
"tup-r28">
"tup-r32">
"tup-r23">
"tup-r6">
"tup-r24">
"tup-r9">
6 T. Ruanni F. Tupas
Around the same time, the United States was waging a fierce battle against
Spain in Cuba, allegedly to free Cuba of a corrupt foreign government. US
officials saw in this war an opportunity to dispatch warships to the Philippines
on the pretext that Spain was an enemy of the United States. In the preceding
years, of course, many American officials, including Theodore Roosevelt, were
already lamenting America’s weak presence in the ‘Far East,’ having been
outrun by fellow imperialist countries like Great Britain, France, Germany, and
Japan, in the scamper for China. The Philippines, strategically located in the
heart of the ‘Far East,’ would give the United States an immense military and
economic advantage over much of the region, thus flexing its imperialist arms
beyond its own shores.
Through the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898, Spain formally turned
over the Philippines to the United States with a payment of twenty million
dollars. Filipinos, in other words, would become colonial subjects of the United
States (Pomeroy 1970: 54). The Filipinos found themselves fighting another
group of foreigners, the Americans, beginning on February 4, 1899. Dewey
(quoted in Lopez 1966: 14), commander of an American fleet tasked to fight the
Spanish, would later write in his autobiography:
The growing anger of the natives had broken into flame. Now, after paying
twenty million for the islands, we must establish our authority by force against
the very wishes of the people whom we sought to benefit.
The war became “one of the longest and bloodiest wars in the sorry history of
imperial aggression” (Schirmer and Shalom 1987: 10) and thus would become
the “essential starting point for US-Philippine relations in modern times” (7).
Hundreds of thousands of Filipinos lost their lives, directly and indirectly, in
the war. Nonetheless, the ‘official’ version of Philippine history does not
mention the war. For example, in the grand parade of floats representing crucial
moments in the country’s past during the country’s centennial celebration of
independence in 1998, the twentieth century was depicted as having been
ushered in by Philippine-American ‘friendly’ relations, completely ignoring the
war and the many lives lost (Ileto 2001: 104–105). Only recently, a documentary
film entitled Memories of a Forgotten War, by Camilla Griggers and Sari Luch
Dalena, serves to remind its viewers that the Philippine-American War actually
did happen, and it was brutal (de Quiros 2002). Mojares (1999: 1), reflecting on
many Filipinos’ lack of critical understanding of the relationship between the
war and contemporary Philippine life, writes:
<LINK "tup-r13">
"tup-r7">
"tup-r34">
"tup-r16">
8 T. Ruanni F. Tupas
except perhaps for a few who attended exclusive schools in urban areas.
Education was given fully in English and children were punished for speaking
in the vernacular.
Sibayan himself admits that children were Americanized, taught literary
masterpieces by American and British writers, and required to sing the Star-
Spangled Banner ahead of the Philippine National Anthem every morning; that
they recounted Western-oriented stories like Grimm’s fairy tales and Aesop’s
fables, and so on. The immersion of children in English, Sibayan (286) recalls,
“was practically forced on us,” and involved learning both the English language
itself and subject content through it. Smolicz (1986: 99) calls these techniques
of immersion “pressure cooker” techniques because “Filipino school children
were subjected to massive language indoctrination campaigns.” There were
“apprehensions and fears, the struggle and the frustrations sometimes mixed
with anger and resentment of being forbidden to speak one’s language”
(Sibayan 1991, p. 296). This mixture of cultural and psychological effects of
learning English upon the Filipino child was clearly articulated by the earliest
comprehensive colonial survey of education, A Survey of the Educational System
of the Philippine Islands (Board of Education Survey 1925: 128):
This Filipino child, we emphasize, must learn to read and write and speak a
difficult foreign language — English is a very difficult language — before he
can proceed in his school studies. He learns the meaning of number and
develops skill in manipulating numbers in a foreign language. He learns to
write from dictation in a foreign language. He learns to spell, to compose ideas,
in a foreign language. His notions of the social world in which he lives, his
relations to his neighbors, the economic and political problems of his people,
the world situation, especially the critical Far Eastern phase, of which his
people form an important element — all these must be obtained in a language
not only new and strange but one in which the spirit and mental attitude of the
Malay people have never been expressed. If he is to come from the school a
well trained thinker, he must be taught to think in a foreign language.
10 T. Ruanni F. Tupas
learning are more than enough compensation for the difficulties I went through
in learning the English language” (296; emphasis supplied).
12 T. Ruanni F. Tupas
1975, Castillo 2000), the same standard analysis sustains particular arguments.
Tollefson (1986: 177), however, asserts that the standard analysis is very limiting
and thus prevents us from broadly examining the many dimensions of the
language problem in the country:
The standard analysis of the Philippine language question, namely, that English
has instrumental value and Pilipino/Filipino has symbolic and integrative
value, fails to consider the competing economic interests that benefit from the
use of English or Pilipino/Filipino.
14 T. Ruanni F. Tupas
do and to what extent their beliefs and ideologies (as revealed in the data)
replicate the status quo in education and society. The sociohistorical construc-
tedness of people’s choices is taken out of the picture, resulting in decisions
regarding language use and language education which are historically unsympa-
thetic. Through the unassailable choices of the people, then, language planners
and language scholars confirm and legitimize their own beliefs and ideologies,
helping to reproduce language and educational policies in the country from
which ‘more of the same’ people’s choices once again emerge in the form of
‘new’ data awaiting appropriation by dominant forces in society. Alternative
visions of language, education, and society — those which confront the historici-
ty of our thoughts and actions — are rarely taken up by many Filipinos.
16 T. Ruanni F. Tupas
critical historiography of our ideas and work — especially our ideas and work
on language — because we are, after all, whether we like it or not, products and
makers of our own histories.
So, what needs to be done? The preceding theoretical discussion on the thorny
relation between consciousness/discourse and social action complicates this
question. On the one hand, our case against forgetting may enable us to
envision a kind of counter-consciousness in the form of remembering, whose
pathology will probably bring us to a democratic struggle towards a more
equitable Philippine society through a redistribution of languages. In such
remembering, Filipino, the national language, will not only be ‘dominant’ in the
sense that it is used by a great number of Filipinos, but also in the sense that it
helps re-allocate resources and wealth across the broad spectrum of Philippine
society. This sort of remembering is not difficult to articulate since anti-colonial
politics and nationalist movements throughout twentieth-century Philippine
history have often placed, alongside the need to remember the pains of colonial-
ism, the use of a national language (and indigenous languages for that matter)
at the forefront of such political struggles.
But this same discussion also locates consciousness within structuring
conditions. This means that struggles against particular forms of consciousness,
discourses, and structures of relations must be worked out within realities of
unfreedom. While practices of forgetting in the sense we outlined in the paper
help reproduce social inequities partly through a particular (class-based)
allocation of languages and their varieties, any sociolinguistic reconfiguration
of Philippine society through ‘a duty to remember’ also cannot be done in
isolation from all other facets of Philippine society. Any discursive change will
have to be dealt with from ‘within’ (i.e., conflicts, limiting conditions and
possibilities), and not from an idealized world of counter-consciousness. Such
polemics of remembering may bring us to two possibilities of action, both
exemplified in the works of Canieso-Doronilla (1989) and (1998).
In a piece of pioneering educational research on a group of Filipino pupils,
Canieso-Doronilla (1989) discovers that educational objectives of the Philip-
pine government intended to socialize students into a national identity have not
been successfully carried out and, in fact, have produced startling and painful
results. The pupils have very weak affinity with being Filipino, including their
<LINK "tup-r6">
preference not to fight their own war and instead fight other people’s wars.
Canieso-Doronilla’s findings show that “over 94 percent of the responses to all
the questions focus on options other than Filipino, particularly the United
States” (74). The respondents’ attachment to the nation is not strong, their
regard of fellow Filipinos is low, their pride in Filipino cultural traditions is
ambiguous, and their knowledge of history is very small. All these findings,
Canieso-Doronilla says, are made possible through the necessary deletion in the
schools of past imperial aggressions and current experience with the neocolo-
nial domination of the Philippines (80). She envisions a kind of historical
remembering in Philippine education to allow a more complex understanding
of the past and present problems of Philippine society in order for Filipino
students to respond critically to such social concerns. Canieso-Doronilla thus
concludes that (110)
The refusal of the majority of the population and especially of dominant
groups within the society to confront questions of neocolonial domination and
to gain lessons from the country’s historical experiences will most certainly be
reflected in the nature and content of national identity formation especially
through the schools. Put in another way, the colonial and ethnically fragment-
ed character of the nation finds support and is reflected in the consciousness of
its members, among others.
From this perspective, therefore, we can define an important role for language
policy-making and second-language education in helping facilitate such
remembering, for example (1) through a stronger orientation towards language
teaching as a ‘content’ course through which learning how to speak a second
language like English is closely linked with national identity formation premised
on our duty to remember, and (2) through an interrogation of the politics of
knowledge in the field by confronting the multilingual realities of the classroom
from which innovative pedagogical initiatives and solutions to local problems
may emerge. In short, disengaging ourselves from the problem of historical
amnesia may bring us the possibility of revamping the ‘content’ of language
planning and second language education by infusing it with counter-discourses
or alternative voices that speak for most, if not all, Filipinos. In this sense,
remembering helps address both nationalist and pragmatic concerns regarding
the continued teaching of English in the Philippines: teach English as a weapon
against itself.
Canieso-Doronilla’s (1998) other work, however, provides us with another,
but complementing, way to address the theoretical nuances of the relation
between discourses and social action, between resistance and unfreedom. While
18 T. Ruanni F. Tupas
relevant topics like rice and vegetable culture into content subjects like practical
arts, mathematics, and so on. Such community initiatives, which consider both
the objectives of the national core curriculum and the regional/local interests
and cultures of various communities, make education relevant to the people
and enable them to participate more efficiently and conscientiously in the
decision-making processes of their localities. The medium of instruction that
helps link such an integrative comprehensive education and community
development is, first, the learners’ first language at the basic literacy level, and
second, Filipino in the elementary and secondary levels — except for English
language skills and English in science and mathematics in high school if the
students choose it. To such English instruction “greater attention…will have to
be made to ensure that the country’s edge in this area is not dulled” (79). Pilot
projects of comprehensive education and community development have indeed
produced striking results: in the case of one town, for example, there has been
much improved tax collection, delivery of social services, social organization,
and literacy rates — with 79% of Grade One pupils in all schools being able to
read and write in the first six months of the project.
“The initial distortion of our education process within the colonial con-
text,” Canieso-Doronilla says, “was the singular act of rendering whole popula-
tions of Filipinos illiterate through the introduction of a new script [in the case
of Spanish] and the use of a foreign language [in the case of English] encoding
a foreign cultural system” (76). But, with many successful local initiatives in
education and community development, a new, context-specific but broader
view of literacy has been adopted to situate its practice “in the rhythm of
community life itself” (77). The major indicators of this new definition of
functional literacy are communication skills, problem solving and critical
thinking, sustainable use of resources/productivity, development of self and a
sense of community, and expanding one’s world vision (78). It is within such a
broadening view of literacy, education and community development, derived
from the contradictions and challenges of the educational and socioeconomic
status quo, that we can appreciate the transformation of the educational system
as a whole and the various specific initiatives emerging from lived experiences
of local communities — leading us to re-evaluate the role of languages in this
transformation.
<DEST "tup-r8">
"tup-r1">
"tup-r2">
"tup-r3">
"tup-r4">
"tup-r5">
"tup-r6">
"tup-r7">
20 T. Ruanni F. Tupas
Conclusion
References
Agoncillo, T. 1956. The Revolt of the Masses — The Story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan.
Quezon City: University of the Philippines.
Anderson, B. 1988. Cacique Democracy in the Philippines: Origins and Dreams. New Left
Review 169: 3–31.
Barrows, D. 1907. History of the Philippines. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Bello, W., et al. 1982. Development Debacle: The World Bank in the Philippines. San Francisco:
Institute for Food and Development Policy.
Board of Education Survey. 1925. A Survey of the Educational System of the Philippine Islands.
Manila: Bureau of Printing.
Canieso-Doronilla, M. 1998. The emergence of schools of the people and the transformation
of the Philippine educational system. UP-CIDS Chronicle 3/1: 63–97.
———. 1989. The Limits of Educational Change — National Identity Formation in a
Philippine Public Elementary School. Philippines: University of the Philippines Press.
Castillo, E. 2000. The Philippines. In W. Ho and R. Wong (eds.), Language Policies and
Language Education. Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Chaibong, H. and Seog-gun, K. 2001. Remembering Japan and North Korea — the politics
of memory in South Korea. In G. Gong (ed.), Memory and History — Issues of Identity
in International Relations. Washington, D. C.: The CSIS Press, 101–112.
<DEST "tup-r16">
"tup-r9">
"tup-r10">
"tup-r11">
"tup-r12">
"tup-r13">
"tup-r14">
"tup-r15">
Constantino, R. 1975. A History of the Philippines: From the Spanish Colonization to the
Second World War (with the collaboration of Letizia Constantino). New York and
London: Monthly Review Press.
———. 1970. The Mis-Education of the Filipino. Journal of Contemporary Asia 1/1: 20–36.
De Quiros, C. 2001. Keeping the Flame Alive (There’s the Rub). The Philippine Daily
Inquirer. http://www.inquirer.net/issues/feb2001/feb02/opinion/qui.htm.
Elon, A. 1997. A Blood-dimmed Tide. New York: Columbia University Press.
Fast, J. 1973. Imperialism and bourgeois dictatorship in the Philippines. New Left Review 78:
69–96.
Frei, E. 1950. The historical development of the Philippine national language (Chapter
Three). Philippine Social Sciences and Humanities Review 15/1: 45–79.
———. 1949. The historical development of the Philippine national language (Chapter
One). Philippine Social Sciences and Humanities Review 14/4: 367–400.
Fullante, L. 1983. The National Language Question in the Philippines, 1936 to the Present.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of California Los Angeles.
Gong, G. (ed.). 2001. Memory and History — Issues of Identity in International Relations.
Washington, D. C.: The CSIS Press.
Gonzalez, A. 1999. Philippine bilingual education revisited. In M. Bautista and G. Tan (eds.),
The Filipino Bilingual: A Multidisciplinary Perspective — Festschrift in Honor of Emy M.
Pascasio. Manila: De La Salle University Press, 11–15.
———. 1997. The history of English in the Philippines. In M. L. Bautista (ed.), English is an
Asian Language (Proceedings of the Conference held in Manila on August 2–3, 1996).
Australia: Macquarie Library, 25–40.
———. 1994a. English and education in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN) Region: Past, present, and future. In T. Kandiah, and J. Kwan-Terry (eds.),
English and Language Planning: A Southeast Asian Contribution. Centre for Advanced
Studies: National University of Singapore, 92–105.
———. 1994b. Language and nationalism in the Philippines: An update. In A. Hassan
(comp.), Language Planning in Southeast Asia. Malaysia: Ministry of Education, 253–267.
———. 1988a. English and economics in the Philippines. In A Gonzalez (ed.), The Role of
English and its Maintenance in the Philippines. Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House,
105–113.
———. 1988b. English language teaching and the New Constitution. Philippine Studies 36:
485–493.
———. 1984. Language dilemma in Philippine Academia: nationalism or modernization?
In J. Pride (ed.), Language for the Third World Universities. New Delhi: Bahri, 23–38
———. 1980. Language and Nationalism: The Philippine Experience Thus Far. Quezon City:
Ateneo de Manila.
———. 1976. Content in English language materials in the Philippines: A case study of
cultural and linguistic emancipation. Philippine Studies 24: 443–454.
——— and M. Bautista. 1986. Language Surveys in the Philippines (1966–1984). Manila: De
La Salle University Press.
——— and B. Sibayan (eds.). 1988. Evaluating Bilingual Education in the Philippines
(1974–1985). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
<DEST "tup-r29">
"tup-r17">
"tup-r18">
"tup-r19">
"tup-r20">
"tup-r21">
"tup-r22">
"tup-r23">
"tup-r24">
"tup-r25">
"tup-r26">
"tup-r27">
"tup-r28">
22 T. Ruanni F. Tupas
Hau, C. 1998. Literature, nationalism, and the problem of consciousness. Diliman Review
46/3–4: 3–24.
Ileto, R. 2001. Colonial wars in Southern Luzon: remembering and forgetting. Hitotsubashi
Journal of Social Studies 33: 103–118.
Ileto, R. 1999. Knowing America’s Colony — A Hundred Years from the Philippine War
(Philippine Studies Occasional Papers Series No. 13). Center for Philippine Studies,
School of Hawaiian, Asian and Pacific Studies, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.
Ileto, R. 1979. Pasyon and Revolution: Popular Movements in the Philippines 1840–1910.
Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Jose, V. 1982. The World and the University. Diliman Review March-April: 14–16.
Kandiah, T (1994). English and Southeast Asian language planning practice: extracting
regional patterns and theoretical principles. In T. Kandiah, and J. Kwan-Terry (eds.),
English and Language Planning: A Southeast Asian Contribution. Singapore: Centre for
Advanced Studies, National University of Singapore, 281–305.
Lopez, C. 1980. Foreword. In A. Gonzalez, Language and Nationalism: The Philippine
Experience Thus Far. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila. v–vi.
Lopez, S. 1966. The colonial relationship. In F. Golay H. (ed.), Philippine-American Relations.
Manila, Bombay, New York: Solidaridad Publishing House, 7–31.
Mayer, A. 1993. Memory and history: on the poverty of remembering and forgetting the
Judeocide. Radical History Review 56: 5–20.
Mazrui, Alamin M. 1997. The World Bank, the language question and the future of African
education. Race & Class 38/3: 35–48.
Mojares, R. 1999. The War Against the Americans — Resistance and Collaboration in Cebu
1899–1906. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila Press.
Mulder, N. 1990. Philippine textbooks and the national self-image. Philippine Studies 38:
84–102.
Peet, R. 1999. Theories of Development (with Elaine Hartwick). New York and London: The
Guilford Press.
Pennycook, A. 2001. Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction. Mahwah, N. J.: L.
Erlbaum.
———. 1998. English and the Discourses of Colonialism. London and New York: Routledge.
Pomeroy, W. 1992. The Philippines: Colonialism, Collaboration, and Resistance. New York:
International Publishers.
———. 1974. An American Made Tragedy — Neocolonialism & Dictatorship in the Philip-
pines. New York: International Publishers.
———. 1970. American Neo Colonialism — Its Emergence in the Philippines and Asia. New
York: International Publishers.
Rafael, V. 2000. White Love and Other Events in Filipino History. Quezon City: Ateneo de
Manila University Press.
———. 1992. Confession, conversion, and reciprocity in early Tagalog colonial society. In N.
Dirks (ed.), Colonialism and Culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 65–88.
Raines, F. (1999). Indigenous knowledge, historical amnesia and intellectual authority:
deconstructing hegemony and the social and political implications of the curricular
“Other”. In L. Semali and J. Kincheloe (eds.), What Is Indigenous Knowledge? Voices
from the Academy. New York and London: Falmer Press, 317–331.
<DEST "tup-r38">
"tup-r30">
"tup-r31">
"tup-r32">
"tup-r33">
"tup-r34">
"tup-r35">
"tup-r36">
"tup-r37">
Ricoeur, P. (1999). Memory and forgetting. In R. Kearney and M. Dooley (eds.), Questioning
Ethics — Contemporary Debates in Philosophy. London and New York: Routledge, 5–11.
San Juan, E. 1998. One hundred years of reproducing and reproducing the ‘Filipino’.
Amerasia Journal 24/2: 1–35.
Schirmer, D. and S. Shalom (eds). 1987. The Philippines Reader — A History of Colonialism,
Neocolonialism, Dictatorship, and Resistance. Quezon City: KEN incorporated.
Schott, J. 1964. The Ordeal of Samar. Indianapolis and New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
Sibayan, B. 2000. Resulting patterns of sociolinguistic, socioeconomic, and cultural practice
and behavior after more than four hundred years of language policy and practice in the
Philippines. In M. L. Bautista, T. Llamzon, and B. Sibayan (eds.), Parangal Cang Brother
Andrew. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines, 247–261.
———. 1999a. The Intellectualization of Filipino and Other Essays on Education and Socio-
linguistics. Manila: The Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
———. 1999b. Language planning in the Philippines: A historical perspective with English
in focus. Journal of Asian English Studies 2/1&2: 1–16.
———. 1994a. Philippine language problems. In The Language Issue in Education. Manila:
Congressional Committee on Education.
———. 1994b. The role and status of English vis-à-vis Filipino and other languages in the
Philippines. In T. Kandiah and J. Kwan-Terry (eds.), English and Language Planning:
Southeast Asian Contribution. Singapore: Centre for Advanced Studies, National
University of Singapore, 218–241.
———. 1991. Becoming bilingual in English in a non-English environment (a retrospective
essay in honor of Joshua A. Fishman). In O. Garcia (ed.), Focus on Bilingual Education
— Essays in Honor of Joshua A. Fishman on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, Vol. 1.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 283–296.
Sibayan, B. and Gonzalez, A. 1996. Post-imperial English in the Philippines. In J. Fishman,
A. Condrad and A. Rubal-Lopez (eds.), Post-Imperial English — Status Change in
Former British and American Colonies, 1940–1990. Berlin and New York: Mouton de
Gruyter, 139–172.
Smolicz, J. 1996. The national language in the Philippines — a comparative study of the
educational status of “colonial” and indigenous languages with special reference to
minority tongues. In B. Spolsky (ed.), Language and Education in Multilingual Settings.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 96–115.
Sta. Maria, F. 1999. On the teaching of English. Journal of Asian English Studies 2/1&2: 84–89.
Stanzel, Volker. 2001. Remembering and forgetting — But will the past forget about us? In
G. Gong (ed.), Memory and History — Issues of Identity in International Relations.
Washington, D. C.: The CSIS Press, 3–15.
Tollefson, J. 1986. Language policy and the radical left in the Philippines: The New People’s
Army and its antecedents. Language Problems & Language Planning 10/2: 177–189.
Yabes, L. 1970. The English program in the university. Education Quarterly 18/1&2: 15–33.
24 T. Ruanni F. Tupas
Buod
Resumo
Author’s address
Centre for English Language Communication
National University of Singapore
10 Kent Ridge Crescent
Singapore 117570
elcttr@nus.edu.sg