Notes for: Language use and preference in the multilingual context of Davao City, Philippines

Introduction and Context

  • Study focus: language use and preference among Davaoeños from Generations X (born 1965-1979) and Z (born 1995-2015) toward Cebuano, Filipino, and English.
  • Context: Davao City is linguistically diverse and hosts the emerging contact language, Davao Filipino.
  • Research approach: mixed methods (quantitative survey + qualitative focus group discussions) to capture language use and preferences across two generations.
  • Key finding highlights:
    • Both generations report fluency in Cebuano, Filipino, and English.
    • Cebuano is the predominant language for everyday communication; English is dominant for formal communication.
    • A language shift is observed: older generation relies more on Cebuano; younger generation shows increased use and preference for Filipino.
    • Both generations favor maintaining Filipino as the Philippine national language due to its role when conversing with Filipinos from other provinces who speak diverse Philippine languages.
  • Keywords: language preference, Davao Filipino, Cebuano, English, Philippines.

Theoretical Framework and Background

  • Prior scholarly debate on Davao language situation:
    • Rubrico (2011) hypothesized the hybrid language is not Tagalog or Cebuano but the germination of Filipino as per the 1973 Philippine Constitution, potentially leading to variation of Filipino.
    • Dolalas (n.d.) referred to the language as “Davao Tagalog,” predicting Tagalization of Cebuano and eventual death of Cebuano in Davao.
  • Demeterio & Dreisbach (2017) offered convergence and divergence as core concepts (Communication Accommodation Theory, CAT):
    • Convergence: adapting communicative behavior to be more similar to interlocutors.
    • Divergence: maintaining one’s linguistic identity and culture through non-adaptation.
    • In language contact contexts, divergence can contribute to language loss; authors argued Davao Filipino would not endanger Cebuano as a whole but is a historical outcome of multilingual interaction.
  • Authors’ stance: Davao Filipino emerged as a variety of Filipino in Davao City due to convergence between Cebuano and Tagalog/Filipino populations; it does not necessarily strengthen Filipino as a national language nor trigger widespread Tagalog-based hybrids across the Philippines.
  • English context: English remains widely spoken, rooted in historical education policy under American influence; embedded as a medium of instruction in the Philippine education system.

Literature and Conceptual Ground

  • Davao City’s linguistic landscape includes ten leading languages, five brought by Christian settlers (Cebuano and Tagalog among them) and five local languages.
  • Davao City’s population composition: the two largest groups are Cebuano and Tagalog settlers, comprising 74.56 ext{ ext%} and 3.86 ext{ ext%} respectively (Demeterio & Dreisbach, 2017).
  • Geographic and historical context: waves of internal migration from the north and central Philippines between the 1930s and 1950s; the presence of Japanese communities (Davaokuo) and nikkei (nikkeijin); contemporary inclusion of a Japanese college offering undergraduate programs in the Philippines.
  • Research gap: limited empirical data on the language use and preferences of Davaoeños beyond the initial theoretical work; this study addresses that gap with empirical data.

Methods

  • Research design: concurrent mixed-methods (QUAL + QUAN) design to collect complementary data on language use and preferences.
    • Rationale: simultaneous collection allows triangulation and validation across data strands.
  • Participants: Generations X (born 1965-1979) and Z (born 1995-2015).
    • For younger generation, data collected from those born 1995-2000 to ensure participants are of legal age for the study.
    • Sample size: n=100 per generation (total N=200).
    • Demographic snapshot (older generation): mean age ar{A}{X}=45.99; mean years of residency in Davao ar{R}{X}=38.28; education: majority college graduates (n=66) and public higher education graduates (n=62); income mostly in the range 0–P250,000 (USD 4,800).
    • Demographic snapshot (younger generation): mean age ar{A}{Z}=20.65; mean residency years ar{R}{Z}=13.04; all respondents college graduates or undergraduates; majority in private HEIs (n=56); income range 0–P250,000 to P800,000.
    • Focus group: 4 respondents per generation (n=8 total); all in private universities; all reported fluency in Cebuano, Filipino, and English; incomes in P250,000-800,000; diverse residence backgrounds.
  • Sampling: convenience and snowball sampling, leveraging networks of the lead author (from southern Mindanao with ties in Davao City) to distribute surveys and recruit focus group participants.
  • Instruments:
    • Quantitative: survey questionnaire (Appendix B) capturing demographics, fluency (Likert scale), language use in everyday and formal contexts, and language preferences; included an item on national language attitudes.
    • Qualitative: 26-question structured interview guide (Appendix A) for focus group discussions exploring the same language domains.
    • Data collection method for qualitative: digitally recorded FGDs using a smartphone and laptop.
  • Data analysis:
    • Quantitative: t-tests to identify generational differences in Likert-scale items; chi-square tests for categorical language preference data; interpretation scales: 4.50+ = Strongly Agree, 3.5–4.49 = Agree, 2.50–3.49 = Neutral, 1.50–2.49 = Disagree, 1.00–1.49 = Strongly Disagree.
    • Qualitative: RITA (Rapid Identification of Themes from Audio recordings) to extract primary arguments and themes from FGDs, focusing on verbal and nonverbal cues and keywords.
    • Triangulation: integrating quantitative and qualitative results to form comprehensive conclusions; rationale grounded in mixed-methods design literature (e.g., Ivankova & Greer, 2015; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).

Results and Discussion

  • Overall framing: analysis focuses on two dimensions for Cebuano, Filipino, and English—language fluency and language use (in everyday and formal contexts) and language preferences (for everyday, formal, and national language contexts).

4.1 Language Fluency and Use

  • Table 2: Mean fluency (and SD) by generation and language:
    • Cebuano:
    • Davao X: ar{X}_{ ext{Cebuano}}=3.93, ext{ SD}=0.99
    • Davao Z: ar{Z}_{ ext{Cebuano}}=3.99, ext{ SD}=1.07
    • Filipino:
    • Davao X: ar{X}_{ ext{Filipino}}=4.02, ext{ SD}=0.76
    • Davao Z: ar{Z}_{ ext{Filipino}}=3.37, ext{ SD}=0.94
    • English:
    • Davao X: ar{X}_{ ext{English}}=4.15, ext{ SD}=0.72
    • Davao Z: ar{Z}_{ ext{English}}=4.10, ext{ SD}=0.82
  • Interpretation:
    • Both generations report fluency in Cebuano and English with high means (near or above 4 on the Likert scale).
    • Filipino fluency is high for the older generation ($ar{X}{ ext{Filipino}}=4.02$) but notably lower for the younger generation ($ar{Z}{ ext{Filipino}}=3.37$), indicating a generational shift in perceived fluency or emphasis.
    • T-tests indicate no significant generational difference in fluency for any of the languages (values reported: t=0.68, 0.80, 0.64 for Cebuano, Filipino, English respectively).
  • Qualitative note: Focus group discussions corroborate that respondents typically mix all three languages in casual settings, reflecting Davao Filipino as an emergent sociolinguistic reality.

4.1 Language Use in Everyday Communication

  • Table 3: Everyday use means (SD) by generation:
    • Cebuano: X ar{X}=4.23, ext{ SD}=1.04; Z ar{Z}=4.17, ext{ SD}=1.18
    • Filipino: X ar{X}=3.76, ext{ SD}=0.97; Z ar{Z}=3.60, ext{ SD}=1.17
    • English: X ar{X}=3.40, ext{ SD}=0.94; Z ar{Z}=3.15, ext{ SD}=0.99
  • Interpretation:
    • Both generations use Cebuano and Filipino for everyday communication, with Cebuano slightly higher in mean use for both groups.
    • English usage in everyday contexts is neutral to moderate, slightly higher among X, but not strongly differentiated.
    • The elder generation tends to use Filipino at home with children, signaling a home-language policy and intergenerational transmission pattern; the younger generation shows more use of Filipino in everyday contexts, contributing to the observed shift.
  • Implication: supports the emergence of a Cebuano–Filipino hybrid dynamic (Davao Filipino) in daily language practices.

4.1 Language Use in Formal Communication

  • Table 4: Formal communication use means (SD) by generation:
    • Cebuano: X ar{X}=3.25, ext{ SD}=1.17; Z ar{Z}=2.58, ext{ SD}=1.18;
    • Filipino: X ar{X}=3.73, ext{ SD}=1.20; Z ar{Z}=3.08, ext{ SD}=1.22;
    • English: X ar{X}=4.12, ext{ SD}=0.89; Z ar{Z}=4.21, ext{ SD}=0.82
  • Key statistically significant differences:
    • Cebuano: p=0.000078 (significant)
    • Filipino: p=0.0002 (significant)
    • English: p=0.46 (not significant)
  • Interpretation:
    • In formal contexts, the younger generation shifts away from Cebuano toward Filipino, while English remains highly dominant for formal communication across both generations.
    • The older generation uses Cebuano more in formal settings than the younger generation (significant shift), while Filipino formal use increases among the younger cohort (significant).
  • Qualitative complement: participants note that formal domains (education, administration) have English as a strong medium due to historical education policies and global lingua franca expectations; Filipino is valued for national connectivity, with some resistance or caution about English in rural or countryside contexts.

4.2 Language Preferences

  • Everyday communication preferences (Table 5): distribution across Cebuano, Filipino, English by generation shows a significant shift from Cebuano (older) to Filipino (younger):
    • Davao X: Cebuano 57; Filipino 32; English 11
    • Davao Z: Cebuano 38; Filipino 61; English 1
    • Pearson chi-square: igl( ext{χ}^2 = 0.0000252 igr)^* (significant)
  • Interpretation:
    • A strong generational shift in everyday communication preferences: older generation leans toward Cebuano; younger generation favors Filipino.
    • This shift aligns with the observed formal-use shift and with the Davao Filipino emergence concept.
    • The older generation still communicates with younger speakers in Cebuano at home, but they also use Filipino at home with their children; the younger generation prefers Filipino more broadly.
  • Formal communication preferences (Table 6): distribution shows English as the dominant choice in formal contexts for both generations, with no significant generational difference (χ^2 = 0.821).
    • Interpretation: English remains the strongest formal medium due to long-standing educational and international contact norms; Filipino and Cebuano show less uniformity in formal contexts across generations.
  • National language preferences (Table 7): attitudes toward the Philippine national language (Filipino) show broad support across generations, with some differences in other languages:
    • Davao X: Cebuano 20; Filipino 77; English 2; Other 1
    • Davao Z: Cebuano 17; Filipino 78; English 3; Other 2
    • Totals: Cebuano 37; Filipino 155; English 5; Other 3
    • Pearson chi-square: igl( ext{χ}^2 = 0.853 igr) (not significant)
  • Interpretation:
    • Filipino is recognized as the national language per the 1987 Philippine Constitution; no conflict between intergenerational preferences and national language policy.
    • Older generation emphasizes Filipino for inter-provincial communication and acknowledges Cebuano in Davao as distinct from Cebuano in Cebu; describes Cebuano as a regional language rather than a national vehicle.
    • Younger generation expresses idealistic support for Filipino as national language to spur development, drawing on examples from Germany and Japan where local languages underpin development; they advocate Filipino as a tool for national advancement rather than English as the sole engine of development.

4.3 Convergences, Divergences, and Implications

  • Language shift dynamics observed: greater Filipino use and preference among younger speakers; ongoing Cebuano use among older speakers.
  • Emergence and stabilization of Davao Filipino as a contact variety: convergent interactions between Cebuano and Filipino/Tagalog populations in Davao City, with divergent maintenance of Cebuano in everyday contexts among older speakers.
  • Educational implications: English remains central in formal education; Filipino is positioned as the national language and a potential vehicle for national development; Cebuano remains a regional backbone in Davao City, especially in home and informal settings.
  • Societal and policy implications: the results underscore the need to assess MTB-MLE (Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education) materials for contextually relevant southern Mindanao usage; considerations for mother tongue maintenance versus national language goals; attention to language attitudes in multilingual communities.

Conclusion and Implications

  • Central findings: both generations report fluency in Cebuano, Filipino, and English; Cebuano dominates everyday speech, English dominates formal contexts; a generational shift toward Filipino in everyday use; Filipino is retained as the national language due to its role in connecting speakers across provinces.
  • Language use pattern: older generation adheres more to Cebuano in daily life; younger generation shifts toward Filipino for everyday interaction, with continued English prominence in formal contexts.
  • Policy and educational implications:
    • Maintain Filipino as the national language to facilitate inter-provincial communication and national development.
    • Recognize Davao Filipino as a localized contact variety arising from ongoing language contact dynamics; monitor its evolution and its impact on Cebuano vitality.
    • Reassess MTB-MLE materials to reflect local linguistic realities in southern Mindanao and ensure usability for basic education.
  • Future directions:
    • Extend research to Generation Alpha (born from 2012 onwards) to understand ongoing language-use trajectories.
    • Analyze MTB-MLE teaching materials vis-à-vis actual language use among basic education students.
    • Consider broader regional surveys to map the scope and trajectory of Davao Filipino across different communities.

Appendices and Data Details

  • Appendix A: Demographic profiles
    • A1: Davaoeño quantitative respondents (Generations X and Z)
    • Generation X births and age spread; education type; income brackets; mean ages: X ar{A}=45.99; Z ar{A}=20.65.
    • Education: mix of public and private institutions; older cohort skewed toward public HEIs; younger toward private HEIs.
    • A2: Focus group respondents demographics (X and Z)
    • Example: X1 (1975) Female, 43 years, public school, college graduate, income PHP 400K-800K, languages: Cebuano, Filipino, English; similar patterns for X2–X4, and Z1–Z4.
    • A3: Self-reported languages spoken by respondents
    • Davao X (n=100): Cebuano 95; Filipino 98; English 97; Other 22.
    • Davao Z (n=100): Cebuano 96; Filipino 90; English 91; Other 19.
  • Appendix B: Survey instrument for the quantitative aspect
    • Sections include language fluency, reading and writing proficiency in Cebuano, Filipino, and English; everyday and formal use; language attitudes about national language; and demographic questions.

Key Theoretical and Practical Takeaways

  • The study provides empirical support for a shifting linguistic ecology in a highly multilingual city, with a visible shift from Cebuano-dominant everyday speech among older residents toward Filipino-dominant everyday speech among younger residents.
  • English remains the dominant formal medium, reflecting historical and ongoing educational policy effects.
  • Filipino’s role as the national language is affirmed across generations, while local identities and regional languages (Cebuano) retain vitality in informal/domestic contexts.
  • The Davao Filipino contact language is positioned as a natural byproduct of multilingual interaction rather than a conspiratorial threat to Cebuano or to the national language system.
  • Methodologically, the study demonstrates the value of mixed methods to capture both measurable trends and nuanced attitudes in language use, reinforced by qualitative thematic analysis (RITA) and robust triangulation.

Important Definitions and Concepts

  • Davao Filipino: a hybrid or contact language emerging from interactions between Cebuano and Filipino/Tagalog-speaking communities in Davao City.
  • Convergence: adapting linguistic behavior to be more like interlocutors; a mechanism by which language contact can lead to shared features.
  • Divergence: maintaining distinct linguistic identities in the face of contact; can contribute to language maintenance or loss depending on context.
  • Language shift: a process whereby a community gradually transitions from using one language to another in daily or formal domains; evidenced in this study as a shift from Cebuano to Filipino in everyday use among younger generations.
  • Mixed-methods triangulation: combining quantitative (surveys, statistics) and qualitative (focus groups) data to produce more robust conclusions.

Notable Numbers and References (selected highlights)

  • Generations X and Z birth years: X: 1965-1979, ext{ }Z: 1995-2015
  • Sample size: n=100 per generation (total N=200);
  • Older group mean age: ar{A}{X}=45.99; years of residency: ar{R}{X}=38.28; education: many graduates from public HEIs; income ranges mainly 0-250{,}000 PHP per year.
  • Younger group mean age: ar{A}{Z}=20.65; years of residency: ar{R}{Z}=13.04; many in private HEIs; income ranges up to 800{,}000 PHP per year.
  • Population context: Davao City population includes major Cebuano and Tagalog-speaking communities; Cebuano makes up 74.56 ext{%} and Tagalog 3.86 ext{%} of city population.
  • Language fluency means (example values):
    • Cebuano: X ar{X}=3.93, ext{ SD}=0.99; ext{ Z }ar{Z}=3.99, ext{ SD}=1.07
    • Filipino: X ar{X}=4.02, ext{ SD}=0.76; ext{ Z }ar{Z}=3.37, ext{ SD}=0.94
    • English: X ar{X}=4.15, ext{ SD}=0.72; ext{ Z }ar{Z}=4.10, ext{ SD}=0.82
  • Statistical results (selected):
    • Formal use differences significant for Cebuano and Filipino between generations (p-values p=0.000078 and p=0.0002), but not for English (p = 0.46).
    • Everyday use shows significant generational shift in preferences (Pearson chi-square for everyday communication: ext{χ}^2 = 0.0000252^*).
    • National language preferences: no significant generational difference (χ^2 = 0.853).
  • The study cites foundational works on language attitudes, mixed methods, and CAT, including Giles & Ogay (2007), Ivankova & Greer (2015), Johnson & Onwuegbuzie (2004), and related Philippine sociolinguistic literature.