Social Linguistics of Philippine English
Social Linguistics of Philippine English
Dr. Ruanni Tupas and the Politics of Philippine English
Dr. Ruanni Tupas is a notable Filipino sociolinguist based in London.
His article, "The Politics of Philippine English: Neocolonialism, Global Politics, and the Problem of Postcolonialism," addresses the political aspects of Philippine English.
Purpose of the Study
Tupas aims to push Philippine English studies beyond their current concerns to reconceptualize the nature of Philippine English itself.
He seeks to provide renewed strength amidst historical unfreedom and existential fine-tuning.
Context of Philippine English
There's a shift from racially induced discussions of language to modern linguistic views that treat all languages equally.
This perspective uses the World Englishes paradigm, which asserts the linguistic equality of all languages and their varieties.
Ashcroft, Griffith, and Tiffin's "The Empire Writes Back" politically expresses this ideology of linguistic diversity, decentering imperial norms through abrogation and appropriation.
Abrogation:
Denial of the privilege of English.
Rejection of metropolitan power over communication.
Appropriation:
Reconstitution of the language of the center.
Capturing and remolding the language for new usages.
Using English for practical purposes and linguistic instrumentalism (e.g., education, business).
This theoretical impetus drives the World Englishes Paradigm, promoted by Braj Kachru and seen in research journals like World Englishes, English Today, and English Worldwide.
Kachru stated, "The empire not only talked back, but it actually wrote back."
Tupas argues that despite the ideology that all languages and varieties are equal, this isn't the reality.
Philippine English is assigned a postcolonial role, but the Philippines remains neocolonial, with conditions of life and expressions beyond the control of most Filipinos.
Neocolonialism implies a continued high dependency on the U.S., especially economically and governmentally.
There is a discrepancy between the rhetoric of freedom and the reality of unfreedom.
Philippine English studies often avoid the politics of Philippine English, perpetuating structures of inequality.
Studies mainly focus on linguistic descriptions of Philippine English rather than its political context.
Studies on Philippine English
Studies by Ramson, Gonzales, and Bautista primarily focus on lexical, phonological, and syntactic features of oral and written English among educated Filipinos.
Tupas argues that a major inadequacy is the historic silencing of class-based, regionally marked, and other differentiating varieties of Philippine English.
Philippine English signifies nationwide cultural and sociolinguistic significance, but scholars generally limit it to the educated few.
Assumptions of World Englishes
The spread of English through globalization has resulted in the diffusion of language.
This diffusion has produced different Englishes through nativization, hybridization, localization, acculturation, and indigenization.
These processes are part of decolonization, where owning English may signify independence for formerly colonized countries.
Postcolonial Englishes have been a legitimate medium through which various significations of nationalism, resistance, and local histories and cultures have been voiced.
Legitimized and institutionalized Englishes are linguistically and sociolinguistically equal.
Tupas believes that the World Englishes paradigm has been seen as a conduit of nationalism and ethnicity, but we cannot justify the continued use of English without examining the structures of inequality.
Tupas promotes the "unequal Englishes" paradigm, focusing on the realities of a nation in terms of English usage rather than mere linguistic descriptions.
Politics of Philippine English
During Liamson's study, the Philippine government under Marcos restructured the educational system to serve foreign interests, with English used largely as a medium of instruction.
The agenda of Philippine education has remained the same, aiming to create global citizens or workers.
English skills are advantageous for Filipinos working abroad (e.g., maids, OFWs).
The Philippine educational system serves as a factory for manpower through English.
Tupas discusses a neocolonial Philippines instead of a postcolonial one.
Conceptual Dimensions
Cacique Democracy: Dominated by a small group of Filipino caciques, mestizo elites, and oligarchs.
Elite Democracy: Capitalism where globalization is propelled by strong nation-states and powerful local actors.
Globalization is essentially a continuation of the past.
Gonzales' essay on content in English language materials in the Philippines was a case study of cultural and linguistic emancipation but was not seen in recent surveys of Philippine English.
The essay discussed how Filipinos have appropriated English for their cultural needs, emancipating themselves from American English.
Tupas questions whether such appropriation becomes a form of linguistic imperialism from a national perspective.
Gonzales suggests that choosing English as an official language is a form of linguistic emancipation, not linguistic imperialism.
Tupas argues there is an implicit separation between linguistic emancipation and economic/cultural emancipation, limiting emancipation through language to lexis, syntax, and semantics.
Gonzales stated that Philippine cultural content should emerge in the classroom, with Philippine English taught in domains where English is used in the Philippines.
Tupas argues that while Filipinos can and should change English forms and meanings, such appropriation is not always socially and politically accepted.
Basilectal English is often frowned upon in professional domains, where acrolectal Englishes are preferred.
American English remains the standard, even in modern Philippine society.
Redefining Studies of Philippine English
Philippine English has been treated as a reified sociolinguistic abstraction disconnected from the lives of its speakers.
Studies on Philippine English are positivist, celebrating deviations from American English but not examining its actual usage in the Philippines.
Directions for Research
Continue working within positivist linguistics, describing and analyzing English usage while ignoring the conditions of the people who use or do not use the language.
Explore the possibilities of locating work within enduring economic and historical unfreedom.
New Grounds for Research
Focus on major varieties of English used by:
Minimally functional re-literate Filipinos.
Filipino OFWs.
White-collar workers.
Middle and upper classes.
Intellectuals.
Focusing solely on educated English has led to elitist sociolinguistics.
Move from a postcolonial to a neocolonial perspective of Philippine English.
Include the politics of marginalized varieties.
Neocolonial and global conditions are not merely external powers but are also acted upon by the speakers themselves.
Conclusion
Embracing this nature of Philippine English will hopefully encourage scholars to form alliances with scholars from other fields and with those directly grappling with the realities of unfreedom for social reform and change.
This involves collaborations between historians, ethnographers, and those concerned with social sciences.
Isabel Pefianco Martin and Philippine English: Supra-ethnic
Introduction
Review of Kachru's three circles model, describing the spread of English geographically and historically.
Presents language as diverse with shared ownership.
Ownership of English is not exclusive to inner circle countries.
Criticisms of Kachru's Three Circles Model:
Jenkins (2003): Fails to account for how speakers identify with and use language; demarcations between circles are increasingly gray.
Ruffio: Draws on historical events that only partially correlate with current sociolinguistic data; a twentieth-century construct that has outlived its usefulness.
Panagaraju: The three circles have started leaking outside their borders due to globalization, transnationalism, multinationalism, and migration.
Hafer, Kamwangamalu, and Micheka: Does not describe the unique sociolinguistic situation of Continental Europe, South Africa, and Kenya.
Martin aims to build on Kachru's model by taking a developmental stance, providing an explanation of the sociolinguistic reality of the Philippines using concentric circles.
Redefinition of Concentric Circles Model
Martin proposes three circles within the outer circle (Philippines belongs to the outer circle in Kachru's model).
Inner Circle: English used by educated and elite Filipinos.
Outer Circle: Filipinos aware of Philippine English but powerless to support it (i.e., teachers).
Expanding Circle: Users of English in the Philippines for whom the language remains a requisite for upward mobility but is often inaccessible.
Inner Circle
Characterized by a Manila-centric perspective, equating metropolitan Manila with the entire Philippines.
Studies focused in Manila are often generalized to represent the whole country.
Bogisa notes a growing acceptance of Philippine English among university students and professors in a private university in Manila.
Borrongan finds that English dominates numerous domains among private university students in Manila, with a growing awareness of Philippine English as a language that is efficient and may represent Filipino identity.
Inner Circle Mindsets:
Elitism and subscription to American English.
Hizon's acceptance speech for a Toastmaster International award, expressing pride in Filipino English diction, contrasts with reactions suggesting Filipinos should be proud of Philippine English but mixing English and Filipino is unacceptable.
Soriano (2011) states that Filipino is the language of the streets, implying English is the language of the elite and educated.
A socioeconomic rift in Philippine society trickles down to issues of language.
Inner circle English is seen as the language of the elite and educated, who have access to good English education and resources.
Outer Circle
Filipinos belonging to the educated class who are aware of Philippine English as a distinct and legitimate variety and use both standard and nonstandard forms.
Examples: "Close the light," "Go red/Go ahead," "For a while."
4006 finds that seven Filipino student teachers believe Philippine English is not an ideal model in the English language classroom; standardized English should be taught because it is empowering.
Standardized English should be taught as form, but Philippine English should be used as content.
Code-switching should be used whenever necessary to communicate local content.
English is largely not accepted in terms of how it is taught in the classroom.
Martin (2010) found similar attitudes about Philippine English among 185 public school teachers.
Most teachers think American English is the universal and international language, universally accepted, internationally understood, preferred by companies, clear, and realistic as a communication goal.
Expanding Circle
Filipino users of English for whom the language, in any variety, is largely inaccessible, even as it remains a requisite condition for upward mobility.
Examples: Senator Manny Pacquiao, Miss Philippines World Shamcey Supsup.
Expanding Circle Mindsets:
Using English may become a painful and humiliating experience.
Marilyn Braganza, a public school teacher, describes how English has created low self-esteem among her students, particularly those with local accents.
A student named Jolan from the Baguio tribe in Northern Philippines refused to participate in oral drills because of his local accent.
Conclusion
In exploring the issue of acceptability of Philippine English, there is a need to keep in mind each of these circles of English in the country.
These three circles within the outer circle experience of the Philippines do not exactly match the circles in Kachru's models.
This nuanced description of English in the Philippines provides insights into issues relating to the acceptability of Philippine English within the Philippine society.
There is a need to look at Philippine English in a way that adequately describes the experiences and narratives of those who are stigmatized and those whose English education is largely inaccessible to them.
Okay, let's break down the notes on the social linguistics of Philippine English in simpler terms:
Overall Idea: These notes discuss how English is used and seen in the Philippines, focusing on how it relates to society, culture, and politics. It looks at different viewpoints on Philippine English and how it affects different groups of people.
Key People:
Dr. Ruanni Tupas:
A Filipino expert who studies how language (specifically English) is used in the Philippines and how it connects to things like history, power, and inequality.
Isabel Pefianco Martin:
Another researcher who looks at how different groups in the Philippines use and view English.
Main Points from Dr. Ruanni Tupas's Work:
Not Everyone is Equal:
Tupas argues that even though many people say all languages and ways of speaking are equal, that's not really true in the Philippines. The way people speak English can affect how others see them and the opportunities they get.
History Matters:
The Philippines has a long history of being influenced by other countries (especially the U.S.). This history affects how English is used and who benefits from it.
It's Political:
Tupas thinks it's important to look at how English is used in politics and power structures. For example, the education system in the Philippines often prepares people to work abroad, which benefits the economy but also continues a system where Filipinos might feel pressured to leave their country to find good jobs.
Neocolonialism:
Tupas uses this idea to explain that the Philippines is still very dependent on the U.S., even after it became independent. This dependence affects many things, including language and education. It means that even though the Philippines is technically free, it's still influenced by outside forces.
What Should Be Studied:
Tupas suggests that researchers should focus on how different groups of Filipinos use English, including those who don't speak it perfectly or who have been marginalized. He wants to understand how English affects people's lives and opportunities.
'Unequal Englishes':
Tupas promotes studying the real-world effects of English usage, not just describing the language itself. This means looking at how English creates or reinforces inequality.
Key Points from Isabel Pefianco Martin's Work:
Expanding on the 'Three Circles' Model:
Martin takes an existing idea about how English is used around the world (the Three Circles model) and applies it specifically to the Philippines. She divides Filipinos into three groups based on their English skills and attitudes.
The Three Circles in the Philippines:
Inner Circle: Educated, elite Filipinos who speak English well.
Outer Circle: Filipinos who know about Philippine English but may not fully support it (like teachers who feel they need to teach 'standard' English).
Expanding Circle: Filipinos who need English to get ahead but often can't access good English education.
Manila-Centric View:
Martin points out that many studies focus on Manila and don't represent the whole country.
Language and Social Class:
Martin shows how your social and economic status can affect how you speak English and how others see you.
Acceptability Issues:
Martin emphasizes that we need to consider all these different groups when we talk about whether Philippine English is 'acceptable'.
In Simple Terms:
Think of it like this: English in the Philippines isn't just a language; it's tied to history, power, and social class. Some people have an advantage because they speak