Mc Farland, Curtis.2004 .The Philippine Language Situation PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Mc Farland, Curtis.2004 .The Philippine Language Situation PDF

Description

World Englishes, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 59±75, 2004.

0883±2919

The Philippine language situation CURTIS D. McFARLAND*

ABSTRACT: The Philippines is a country rich in languages, more than 100 distinct languages. Linguists note that there are large differences among the languages, and that they may be grouped into language families, include a northern group (including Ilokano, Pangasinan, and Kapampangan), and a central group (including Tagalog, Bikol, Hiligaynon, and Cebuano). The linguistic diversity of the Philippines arises from natural processes broadly relating to language change, the divergence between linguistic communities caused by lack of communication, and the converse convergence caused by a high rate of communication between communities. The people of the Philippines are experiencing a period of language convergence, marked by high levels of borrowing from large languages such as English, Tagalog, as well as from regionally important languages. In this process, for better or worse, some languages are abandoned altogether and become extinct.

The Philippines is a rich country, at least if wealth is measured in the number of languages it has. People sometimes tell me with pride, `You know, we have 77 (or some other number) dialects.' Letting them know that I am a linguist, I correct them politely, `Actually they aren't dialects, but separate languages.' In this context, we might ask what the difference between a language and a dialect is. Various definitions of both terms exist, depending on one's field of study. Sociolinguists have given us a number of criteria for deciding whether a speech variety should be classified as a language or as a dialect. 1 According to certain of these criteria, only Tagalog (in the guise of Filipino) would qualify as a language, by virtue of the fact that it is the only indigenous official language, and has a high degree of standardization. Other criteria, such as autonomy, vitality, and the existence of an extensive body of written literature might also serve to mark out certain varieties as `languages', but such distinctions are often indeterminate. In order to more accurately determine the degrees of difference among the Philippine languages and the range of differences over the entire set, we can apply two different tools or concepts. The first of these is the idea of mutual intelligibility, formulated by Bloomfield many years ago, when he noted that: Every language changes at a rate which leaves contemporary persons free to communicate without disturbance. . . . Among persons, linguistic change is uniform in ratio with the amount of communication between them. . . . If linguistic change results in groups between which communication is disturbed, these groups speak dialects of the language. . . . If linguistic change results in groups of persons between which communication is impossible, these groups speak related languages. (Bloomfield, 1926: 162)2

Although questions of mutual intelligibility are quite clear in many cases (e.g. Tagalog and Cebuano are clearly not mutually intelligible), this issue is difficult to determine in borderline cases, and to my knowledge has not been extensively tested for most Philippine languages. * School of Science and Engineering, Waseda University, Japan. E-mail: [email protected] A Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

60

Curtis D. McFarland

A second tool that can be applied to the identification of languages and varieties in this context involves the theory of glottochronology or lexicostatistics, 3 in which it is assumed that the basic `core' vocabulary of a language is replaced at a fairly uniform rate. Therefore the percentage of core vocabulary shared by two languages can serve as a measure of the degree of distance between the languages and as an indication of the time depth or at least the order of separation of a proto-language into a language family. This method also makes predictions about the existence and/or degree of mutual intelligibility between two languages. The subgroupings contained in A Linguistic Atlas of the Philippines (McFarland, 1980) relied heavily on Walton (1977), which used lexicostatistics. Using his data, I made the assumption that a shared core vocabulary of 70 per cent indicated the loss of mutual intelligibility between languages. It was on this basis that I identified 118 languages. More recent studies have produced different numbers. Constantino (1998) shows about 110. Ethnologue 2002 lists 163 (including a large number of Negrito languages not included in the Atlas) (Grimes, 2002). To understand the degree of difference among the Philippine languages, we might begin by considering the characteristics of some of the largest ones, bearing in mind that there are other languages which are more different than these. 4 As we would expect there are major differences in many items of vocabulary among these languages. For example, the word for `brother' is variously realized in a number of Philippine languages: e.g. Tagalog kapatid, Hiligaynon utod, Cebuano igsoon, Bikol tugang, Kapampangan kapatad, Pangasinan agi, and Ilokano kabsat. On the other hand, since they are related languages, there are some words shared by all if not most Philippine languages, such as the word for `eye': Tagalog mata, Hiligaynon mata, Cebuano mata, Bikol mata, Kapampangan mata, Pangasinan mata, Ilokano mata. In addition, there are differences in the historical development of the sound systems so that some shared words have strikingly different pronunciations, such as the word for `rice (husked or polished)': Tagalog bigas, Hiligaynon bugas, Cebuano bugas, Bikol bagas, Kapampangan abyas, Pangasinan belas, Ilokano bagas. The distribution of vocabulary, shared and distinctive, forms many complex patterns, and these patterns frequently give us clues about the arrangement of the Philippine languages in families and sub-families. The word for `water' in Tagalog is tuÂbig, compared with Hiligaynon tuÂbig, Cebuano tuÂbig, Bikol tuÂbig, Kapampangan danum, Pangasinan danum, Ilokano danum. At the grammatical level, one might not expect to find major differences in the basic grammatical structures of the various languages. We tend to think of translation from one Philippine language to another as a simple matter of substituting a word in one language for the corresponding word in the other language. Such is not the case, as may be demonstrated by an examination of two aspects of the grammatical structure, i.e. casemarking through particles and negation. Tagalog has three case-marking particles, ang, ng (pronounced /nang/), and sa. The primary function of ang is to mark or identify the grammatical subject (the subject is almost always assumed to have definite reference), as in the first sentence below: 1. MatalõÂno ang titser. `The teacher is intelligent.'

The particle ng has three major functions: 2. `Possessor' of a noun: anak ng titser `child of the teacher'. A Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

The Philippine language situation

61

Table 1. Case-marking particles in Tagalog Function

1

2±3

Indefinite Definite

ang (mga)

4 (5)

6±7

sa

(mga)

ng (mga)

Table 2. Case-marking particles in Cebuano Function

1

Indefinite Definite

ang (mga)

2±3±4 (5)

6±7

ug (mga) sa (mga)

Table 3. Case-marking particles in Hiligaynon Function

1

2±3±4 (5)

6±7

Indefinite Definite

ang (mga)

sing (mga) sang (mga)

sa (mga)

3. `Actor' of a `passive' verb: NakõÂta ng titser si Ramon. `The teacher saw Ramon.' 4. Indefinite object: Bumili ng computer ang titser. `The teacher bought a computer.'

The particle sa also has three major functions: 5. Definite object (found only in a relativized clause): ang titser na bumili sa computer `the teacher who bought the computer'. 6. `Indirect object': Ibinigay ko ito sa titser. `I gave this to the teacher.' 7. Location or direction: Pumunta ang titser sa Cebu. `The teacher went to Cebu.'

The particle mga (pronounced /manga/) expresses the plurality of nouns, among other things, in Tagalog, and this particle is placed between the case-marking particle and the noun. Plurality does not have to be explicitly shown. These points can be displayed in Table 1, where the numbers refer to the functions discussed above. Like Tagalog, Cebuano has three case-marking particles (ug instead of ng) and the plural particle mga. In contrast to Tagalog, Cebuano sa expresses definiteness in all of the functions of ng, including the possessor and actor (see Table 2). Hiligaynon has a similar pattern, but with sing for indefinite ng and sang (not sa) for definite ng (see Table 3). Bikol (Legazpi) adds another form to this pattern, which is an emphatic form for the subject corresponding to ang in Tagalog (see Table 4). As we move to the northern languages the differences become more striking. A feature found (in the Philippines) only in Kapampangan and languages closely related to it is the redundancy of pronouns. That is, if the nominative or genitive referent (functions 1±5) is personal and definite, then the third person pronoun must be stated along with the noun: ya `he'; na `his/her, by him/her'; la `they'; da `their, by them'. A second difference is that A Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

62

Curtis D. McFarland Table 4. Case-marking particles in Bikol Function

1

Indefinite Definite Emphatic

an (mga) su (mga)

2±3±4 (5)

6±7

ki (mga) kan (mga)

sa (mga)

Table 5. Case-marking particles in Kapampangan Function

1

2±3±4 (5)

6±7

Indefinite Definite Plural

(ya) ing (la) ding

ning na  ning da  ding

king karing

Table 6. Case-marking particles in Pangasinan Function

1

2±3±4 (5)

6±7

Indefinite Definite Emphatic

su say

na

ed

plurality is expressed with distinctive case-marking particles ding and karing. The pattern shown in Table 5 appears. In Pangasinan the pattern is much simpler, without all the definite and plural distinctions. However there is an emphatic nominative form say which seems to behave like su in Bikol. Plurality is expressed in Pangasinan through reduplication in the nouns (bii `woman'; bibii `women'), which can be supplemented by the plural form of a deictic (demonstrative) pronoun, of which Pangasinan has many. In addition common nouns are treated as personal names and are marked accordingly (si, nen, etc.), as illustrated in Table 6. In Ilokano the case-marking system is virtually non-existent. There are two singular particles, ti and iti. For the most part, ti performs functions 1±5, and iti 6 and 7. (Case marking is similarly limited with personal names, but is maintained in the pronouns.) No definite/indefinite distinction is made; however iti is also used for emphasis in the genitive functions (2±5) and occasionally even in the subject (function 1). There are plural particles dagiti and kadagiti, corresponding to ti and iti. Plurality is also expressed, as in Pangasinan and many Northern languages, through reduplication in the noun (babaÂi `woman'; babbaÂi `women') and with plural deictic pronouns; contributing to a system that may be represented as in Table 7. The system of negation is a somewhat complicated matter in the Philippine languages. In Tagalog the general negator is hindõÃ (short form dõÃ ) placed in front of the word being A Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

The Philippine language situation

63

Table 7. Case-marking particles in Ilokano Function

1

Indefinite Definite Emphatic Plural

iti dagiti

2±3±4 (5)

6±7

ti

iti kadagiti

negated. However, some words have their own negators which replace the original words in the process of negation. These negators are walaà `there isn't' (mayroon `there is'); aÂyaw `not want' (gusto `want') and huwag `don't' (negative command). In Cebuano and Hiligaynon walaà expresses `there isn't', but is also the negator for some verbs (mostly perfective-aspect verbs). The rest of the range of Tagalog hindõà is covered by dõÂlõÃ. But dõÂlõà (or dõÂlõà buut) also corresponds to aÂyaw `not want'. And aÂyaw in the Bisayan languages corresponds to huwag `don't' in Tagalog. Bikol has a separate negator bakoà for nouns and adjectives (in fact for everything but verbs). Verbs are negated by dai, which also corresponds to huwag and (in Legazpi) to walaà in Tagalog. Bikol (Naga) has maÂyoÃ, corresponding to Tagalog walaÃ. Bikol haboà corresponds to Tagalog aÂyaw. Kapampangan has a long negator alõà and a short one e corresponding to Tagalog hindõÃ. These words also express `don't'. `There isn't' is alaÃ; and `not want' is e buri or e bisa. Like Bikol, Pangasinan has a distinctive negator aliwa for nouns and adjectives, with ag for verbs. However, remarkable as these agreements between Bikol and Pangasinan are, they do not indicate a close relationship. The two languages are very different and quite distant cousins within the Philippine family. Ag also expresses `don't'; and ag labay, `not want'. A somewhat interesting and potentially humorous feature of Pangasinan is that wala means `there is' (opposite of Tagalog walaÃ), and `there isn't' is expressed by anggapo (short form andi). Corresponding to hindõÃ, Ilokano has a long form saan (which again creates the potential for humor as Tagalog saan means `where') and a short form di which combines with pronouns and enclitic pronouns. These two negators also express `don't'; and `don't want' is di kayat. `There isn't' is awan. The system of negation across such languages is illustrated in Table 8. From this brief discussion, readers should be able to appreciate that the Philippine languages are indeed very different, more different than simple `dialects', and that communication between the groups of speakers of various languages, in the absence of another known language, would be impossible. Table 8. Negation in Philippine languages Tagalog

Cebuano

Hiligaynon

Bikol

Kapampangan

Pangasinan

Ilokano

hindõà walaà  yaw a huwag

dõÂlõÃ/walaà wala à dõÂlõà (buut) Âayaw

dõÂlõÃ/wala à walaà dõÂlõà (buut) aÂyaw

bakoÃ/dai dai (ma  yoÃ) habo à dai

alõÃ/e alaà e buri alõÃ/e

aliwa/ag anggapo/andi ag labay ag

saan/di awan di kayat saan/di

A Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

64

Curtis D. McFarland LINGUISTIC RELATIONSHIPS AND LANGUAGE FAMILIES

On the basis of data such as those presented in the preceding section, linguists are able to make hypotheses about the closeness of relationships between different languages, their arrangement into families and sub-families, and the historical developments that produced these arrangements. For example, while Cebuano is classified as a Bisayan language, and considered by many people to be the primary Bisayan language, it is more closely related to Tausug than to the other Bisayan languages (Hiligaynon, Samar-Leyte, etc.). At the same time, other Bisayan languages may be as closely related to Bikol and Tagalog as they are to Cebuano. Cebuano-speaking people are the dominant group throughout the central Philippines, with the result that many Cebuano words have been borrowed into the other Bisayan languages, making them appear to be more closely related than historically they actually are. Taken together Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Bikol, and Tagalog are more closely related to each other than any of them is to any of the northern languages. This is an indication of a major separation between the proto-language (the language that was the ancestor) of the northern languages and that of the languages further to the south. If Kapampangan seems more like Tagalog and the central languages, it is again only because that language has borrowed heavily from Tagalog. Our three northern languages ± Kapampangan, Pangasinan, and Ilokano ± are less closely related to each other than are the central languages. The comparative study of Philippine languages is still very incomplete, partly as a result of the large number of languages involved, and the small number of linguists available. However, at this time we are able to suggest a number of conclusions, namely: 5 1. All Philippine languages except Chavacano and the imported languages (Chinese, English, Spanish, etc.) are Austronesian languages (along with most Indonesian and South Pacific languages) and Hesperonesian (Western Austronesian) languages. Chavacano is a creole language spoken in a number of places, including Cavite and Zamboanga, which is purported to have an essentially Spanish vocabulary combined with a basically `Philippine' grammar. 2. It is not clear whether the Philippine languages, that is, the Austronesian languages found in the Philippines, constitute a subgroup or not. It is possible that some of the southern languages are more closely related to some Indonesian languages. 3. There are three large groups of Philippine languages: northern Philippine, meso-Philippine, and southern Philippine (including Maranao and Manobo). The predominant feature of the Philippine linguistic landscape is the boundary separating Tagalog and the languages to the south from Kapampangan and the languages to the north. 4. The meso-Philippine and southern Philippine groups probably combine into a single group. 5. The Ivatan languages, the south Mindanao languages (Bagobo, Blaan, Tboli, and Tiruray), the Sama languages, and Sangil do not belong to any of the three large groups of Philippine languages. 6. The relationship between the northern Philippine languages and the groups/subgroups named in (4) and (5), and the relationships between these languages and other Austronesian languages, cannot be determined at this time. 7. Within the northern Philippine group there is a Cordilleran subgroup which includes the Dumagat languages, the northern Cordilleran languages (including Ibanag), Ilokano, the central Cordilleran languages (including Kalinga, Bontok, Kankanaey, and Ifugao), and the southern Cordilleran languages (including Pangasinan). Contrary to popular belief there is no sharp division between upland (Igorot) languages and lowland languages. There are close A Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

The Philippine language situation

65

relationships between lowland Pangasinan and upland languages such as Inibaloi, and between lowland Ibanag and upland languages such as Isnag. Kapampangan and the Sambalic languages form a subgroup on a parallel level with the Cordilleran subgroup within the northern group. 8. Within the meso-Philippine group, there is a central Philippine subgroup which includes Tagalog, the Bikol languages, the Bisayan languages, and the east Mindanao languages. 9. Within the central Philippine subgroup, the west Bisayan languages (including Hiligaynon) and the central Bisayan languages (including Samar-Leyte) combine to form the north Bisayan subgroup. Cebuano lies outside of this subgroup.

A tentative and partial subgrouping of the Philippine languages, with the locations of the fifteen largest (by population) languages is shown in Table 9 (abridged from McFarland, 1980: 59±61), and in Figure 1 which provides a sketch map of Philippine languages for reference. THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF PHILIPPINE LANGUAGES.

One question that is central in this context is: How does the kind of diversity in the Philippine languages described above (and indeed the diversity of a...