S IN PHILIPPINE LINGUISTICS · STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE LINGUISTICS Volume 5 Number 2 1984 The...

SSTUDIESTUDIES ININ P PHILIPPINEHILIPPINE LLINGUISTICSINGUISTICS

Volume 5 Number 2 1984

The elaboration of a technical lexicon of Pilipino 248 pp.

by Alfonso O. Santiago; Fe T. Otanes, series ed.

Acknowledgment, Abstract, Table of Contents, Appendices, List of Tables, and List of Figures

© LINGUISTIC SOCIETY OF THE PHILIPPINES and SUMMER INSTITUTE OF L INGUISTICS

ISSN: 0119-6456

Sample Citation Format

Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista. 1977. “The noun phrase in Tagalog—English code switching”. Studies in Philippine Linguistics 1:1, 1–16. Online. URL: http://www.sil.org/asia/philippines/ [etc.] + access date.

The researcher acknowledges with g r a t i t u d e the invalusble help extended t o him by the following:

The Asia F d a t i o n aad t h e Phi l ippine Normal College-Language Study Center, f o r t h e scholarship g ran t s f o r h i s doctora l s tud ies ;

D r . Bonifacio P. Sibayan, President of t h e Phi l ippine Normal College, f o r having repoeed utmost f a i t h and t r u s t i n t h e researcher , giving him every opportunity t o r e a l i z e h i s academic obsession i n l i f e . Dr . Sibayan was responsible f o r the in t roduct ion of t h e researcher iaeo the f i e l d of l i n g u i s t i c s which, without doubt, has broadened h i s outlook on and deepened h i s ine ights in to language, &re espec ia l ly P i l i p i m . To him, the researcher o f f e r s t h i s work a s a humble t r i b u t e ;

D r . Fe T. Otanes, Director of t h e P?JC Language Study Center and Co-Director of the LSC-EDPITAF Textbook Development Projec t i n Canmmiurtion A r t s , f o r her d i l igence i n guiding the researcher i n h i s study; f o r having gone over t h e d r a f t of t h e study painstakingly i n s p i t e of her very t i g h t schedule. The r m r c h e r benefi ted enormously from her suggestions ;

D r . Andrew B. Ganzalee, FSC, President of De La S a l l e University, f o r h i s abiding and undiminished i n t e r e s t i n help%% t h e researcher during the formative s tage of the study; f o r p a t i e n t l y prodding him to go on, s e t t i n g deadlines f o r him t o meet, showering him with encouraging words t h a t inspired him a g rea t deal. Brother Andrew's scholar ly suggestions and criticisms were taken i n t o account i n t h i s study;

D r . .leeus A. Ochave, EDPITAF Consultant on S t a t i s t i c s and PNC Graduate School prafessor of S t a t i s t i c s , for meticulously going over t h e s t a t i s t i c a l aspect of the study and giviag suggestions f o r i ts improvement.

Prof. Rr i la G. Punsalan, PNC professor of S t a t i s t i c s , who so kindly and obl ig ingly helped him i n f inding the appropr ia te s t a t i s t i c a l treatment f o r the survey da ta , a problem t h a t f o r a t i m e snagged the progress of the research ;

Prof. Lorna 2. Segovia, Bead, Research Department, and Chairman, Measurement and Evaluation, f o r giving hfm some important ideas on sampling and data-gatheriztg techniques during the planning s t age of the study;

D r . Consuelo P. Ledesma, Dean of t h e PRC Graduate School, f o r insp i r ing the researcher t o go on and f o r o f fe r ing the help of her s t a t i s t i c i a n which thereby led t o t h e e a r l y completion of t h i s study;

iii

Prof. Ri ta R. Madlansacay, PNC Dean of Student Af fa i r s and professor of Spanish, D r . Teodora S. Col lantes , Chairman of t h e PNC Spanish Department. and Prof. Hilagroe J. Santiago, PNC professor of Spanish, f o r helping the researcher with t h e Spanish opt ions i n t h e study;

The members of t h e examining panel f o r t h e i r he lp fu l c-ts a d suggest ions;

Atty. Ponciano B. P. Pineda, Direc tor of the I n s t i t u t e of Mational Language, f o r h i s continuing i n t e r e s t i n t h e r e s u l t of t h e s tudy and f o r giving h i s sanct ion to the brand of P i l i p i n o that t h e researcher used i n h i s ques t ionnai res ; and

Atty. Benjamin M. Pascual, writer of note and PNC Graduate School professor , not only f o r h i s c a r e f u l e d i t i q s but d s o f o r h i8 i rmigh t fu l camments and suggest ions which have g r e a t l y enhanced the expos i tory merits t h e work may have.

For t h e i r g i f t s of a s s i s t a n c e and expertise, the researcher i s most s i n c e r e l y g r a t e f u l . It may be added that none of them a i n any way respons ib le f o r the e r r o r s and weaknesses t h a t r-in i n t h i s s tudy, an these a r e t h e r e sea rche r ' s mle respons ib i l i t y .

The researcher i s a l s o indebted t o t h e following:

D r . Alejandrino Q. Perez, Chairman, Language and L i t e r a t u r e S t r e o r , AIC Graduate School, f o r the moral support and f i n a n c i a l a s s i e t a n c e given by the Pambansang Zbnahan 8s Linggwistikang P i l i p i n o , Ink. of which he i s the pres ident ;

The Phi l ippine Socia l Science Council, Inc., f o r t h e d i ~ c r e t i o n s r y research award which made poss ib le the reproduction of s i x t y copies of t h e s tudy;

The adminis t ra tors , professors , and s tuden t s concerned of t h e following schools , f o r the splendid cooperat ion they extended t o t h e researcher : the Universi ty of the Phi l ippines , Universi ty of Santo Toms, Mapua I n s t i t u t e of Technology, Adamson Univers i ty , Far Eas tern Univers i ty , De La S a l l e Universi ty, and Ateneo de Manila Universi ty;

Miss A. Co le t t e Condon. Ass is tant Dean of t h e Graduate Schcol and College of A r t s and Sciences, aud Dr . Glor ia Chan-Yap, Chairman of the L ingu i s t i c s Department, both of t h e Ateneo de Manila Universi ty, f o r t h e i r deep concern f o r and c m p s s i o n a t e a t t i t u d e tovard graduating s tuden t s l i k e the researcher ;

The researcher 's colleagues and f r i ends , f o r the varied help they extended to him when most needed; h i s s tudents i n t h e Graduate Schools of the Phil ippine Normal College and the Univermity of SanCo Tomam. f o r helping him i n the data-gathering;

Bis wife and chi ldren, f o r t h e i r i n s p i r a t i o n , and f o r t h e i r understanding and patience i n t h e course of t h i s work;

And mst of a l l , t he researcher thank6 the Almighty God f o r l i s t e n i n g t o h i s prayem t o s u s t a i n him throughout the durat ion of cooducting the research and wri t ing the r e s u l t s i n t o w h e t i s now t h i s work.

ABSTRACT

This s tudy sought to f ind out how the intended use r s of P i l i p i n o ( P i l ) would react t o t h e d i f f e r e n t p o s s i b i l i t i e s i n t h e development of i ts s c i e n t i f i c lexicon.

The d i f f e r e n t l e x i c a l e l abora t ion p o s s i b i l i t i e s assumed i n t h i s s tudy, a s ide from t h e n a t u r a l way of g e t t i n g t h e exact o r near equivalent of the English (Eng) term from Current Tagalog (a), were as f o l l o w : (1 ) borrowing d i r e c t from Eng i n the following manner: ( a ) without s p e l l i n g a l t e r a t i o n , coded E-1, and (b ) v i t h s p e l l i n g a l t e r a t i o n , t o conform t o t h e Abakada, coded E-2; (2) borrowing v i a Spanish (Spa) a l s o i n the following manner: ( a ) without s p e l l i n g a l t e r a t i o n , coded S-1, and (b) with s p e l l i n g a l t e r a t i o n , coded S-2; and (3) National Science Develop=nt Board's 'Maugnayin' way, coded U, charac ter ized by borrowing from the vernaculars , coded V , coining o r der iv ing , coded CD, o r r e t r i e v a l of a rcha ic terms, e s p e c i a l l y from Tagalog, coded AT.

A survey of preferences on t h e above-specified l e x i c a l e l abora t ion p o s s i b i l i t i e s was conducted i n t h e d i s c i p l i n e s o r f i e l d s of medicine (WD), biology (BIO), chemistry ((BE), physics (PHY), and mathematics (MAT), involving 100 col lege s tuden t s (STUD), 100 profesaors (PROF), and 100 p r a c t i t i o n e r s (PRAC) wi th in t h e Greater Manila Area, making a t o t a l of 300 S s who were c l a s s i f i e d i n t o two l i n g u i s t i c groups -- Tagalog (TAG) and non-Tagalog (NTG).

The survey ques t ionnai res were prepared i n two versionn (Eng and P i l ) with randomized d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e vers ions among t h e respondents a s a safeguard from possible context -sens i t iv i ty . The s e t of ques t ionnai res f o r each of the f i v e d i s c i p l i n e s contained 20 technica l terms, thus making a t o t a l of 100 terms.

The da ta gathered reveal t h a t next t o Cl', both S-2 and E-1 a r e the two competing 'most prefer red ' opt ions , with t h e former s l i g h t l y favored over the l a t t e r . The phenomenal r i s e i n rank of E-1 forms i n t h i s s tudy a s cmpared t o t h e r e s u l t s of t h e Ph i l ipp ine Normal College-Language Study Center , Rivero-Labigan, and Sumayo s t u d i e s , may mean t h a t preference f o r these forms g e t s s t ronger a s one goes higher i n any sphere of knowledge.

The ' l e a s t prefer red ' opt ions a r e M, E-2, and S-1. ranked dovnvard i n that order. It would seem t h a t what was r e j ec ted i n t h e E-2 and S-1 options was t h e s p e l l i n g , considering t h a t S-2 and E-1 came out a s the two 'most prefer red ' opt ions. 00 t he o the r hand, what appear t o have been unfavored i n t h e M optiona were the unnecessary coining and r e t r i e v a l of a rcha ic words, and the a r b i t r a r y manner of borrowing from the vernaculars .

The da ta a l s o show t h a t euphemisa is s t i l l an important mode of language behavior i n F i l i p i n o c u l t u r e , e s p e c i a l l y on mat ters pe r t a in ing t o sex , considering t h a t t h e Ss r e j ec ted taboo terms i n favor of euphemistic t erms .

Fina l ly , t h e preferences of t h e d i f f e r e n t types of S s i n each of the following groups show i d e n t i c a l pa t t e rns , t h e trend being sirilar t o what has a l ready been discussed e a r l i e r : (1) STUD, PBDP. and PRAC, (2) neD, BIO, CXE. WY, and MT, (3) TAG and NIG. The di f ferences i n tbe preferences of the groups i n (1) and (2) a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , uh i Ie t h a t i n (3) is not. The s ign i f i cance i n (1) may have been due t o t h e d i f fe rence i n the preferences of the STgD group a s againnt the PBDF a d PBM: groups - the STUD group opting more favorably f o r E-1 options and both t h e PROF and PRAC groups opting more favorably f o r S-2. On t h e o the r hand, t h e s igni f icance i n (2) appears t o have been due mainly t o t h e BSD group opting more favorably f o r CT term.

The study culminates i n a suggested general procedure t o be followed i n the development of a P i l i p i n o s c i e n t i f i c lexicon.

TABU 01 a3tnmTs

CHAPTER PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Dwelopment of P i l i p i n o Lexicon:

Major P o s s i b i l i t i e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 The Prcblem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 Importance of t h e Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Scope and D e l i a i t a t i o n 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Def in i t ion of Terns 5

2 BA~ROUM)OFZBE~TUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.0 In t roduct ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.1 The Contact S i t u a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2 The Development of P i l i p i n o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.2.1 P u r i s t i c Ba la r i l a : Precursor of Language Controversy . . . . 11 2.2.2 Language Issue. a Full-scale Controversy . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.2.3 The INL's a d t h e P u r i s t s ' Side of the I s s u e . . . . . . . . 18

. . . . 2.2.4 The Provisionn on Language of t h e 1973 Count i tu t ion 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.5 Resum6 of I s sues 23

3 RELATED LITERATURE AND STmlIBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.0 In t roduct ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.1 S a e P r a c t i c e s I n t h e Elaborat ion of a H l i p i n o Lexicon . . . 27 3.1.1 Lupon s a Agham of the UNESCO Ph i l ipp ines . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.1.2 LSC-PNC Survey 011 S d e n c e Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.1.3 LSCIPNC-EDPITAF Criteria 011 Word Se lec t ion . . . . . . . . . 33

Table of Contents cont .

CEAPTER PAGE

3.1.4 Sope INI. Publicationo On Pilipino Lexical Developrent . . . . 37 3.1.4.1 Mga Katawagan sa Edukasyong Bilinggval . . . . . . . . . . 37 3.1.4.2 Patnubay sa Korespondensiya Opisyal . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3.1.5 Glossary of Medical Termn. PGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 3.1.6 De La Salle Survey On Population Terms . . . . . . . . . . . 40 3.1.7 Scientific Dictionary: English-Pilipino. UST . . . . . . . . 41 3.2 Some Thenes On the Elaboration of Pilipino Lexicon . . . . . . 42 3.2.1 Cervantes Study. PNC 1971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 3.2.2 Rivero-Labigan Study. RH: 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 3.2.3 Stmeyo Study. De La Salle 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

4 METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 4.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 4.1 Population/Respoldeats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 4.2 Sampling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 4.3 Survey Instruments Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 4.4 Tryout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 4.5 Data Gathering/Analysie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

5 PRESENTATION AND I ~ B E T A T I O N OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 5.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 5.1 M w t and Least Preferred Optiow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 5.2 Borrowing Style Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 5.3 Other Lexical Elaboration Possibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Table 'of Contents coat .

CabPTEB PAGE

5.4 Group Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.4.1 Students. Professors . Practitioners . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.4.2 Medicine. Biology. Chemistry. Physics. Mathastics . . . . 100 5.4.3 Tagalog8 and Non-Tagalogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 5.5 Questionnaires' Possible Context-Sennitivity . . . . . . . . 114

6 SUMURY. COIPCLUSIfMS. IIECaiMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 6.0 Suaary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 6.1 Pindings and Coocluetous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 6.2 Reccseodstioas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

REFERWCBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

A Q u e s t i o n m i r e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l36 B Ranking of the I t e m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 C Sumary of Borrowing Sty l re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

. . . . D Sunmary of Preferences ( S t u d l s t s Professors . Practitioners) 195 . . . . . . . . E S m a r y of Preferences (Tagalogs and Ron-Tagalogs) 198

F L e t t e r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 G Sunuiary of English Ponrativea Used I n t h e Study . . . . . . . . . 207 H I l l u s t r a t i o n s of Usage of t he Foreign L e t t e r s Added t o t h e

20-Letter Ababda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 I C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Items Used I n t h e Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 J Result of t h e Chi Square Tes t On t h e Responses of t h e I?I'Gl

and NlC2 Pract i t ionCr Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 K P r o f i l e of Rseposdents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

Sumary of t h e Mont Prefer red Elaborat ion P o s s i b i l i t i e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n Each of t h e Four Science Disc ip l ines Sumary of t h e Least Prefer red Elabora t ion P o n s i b i l i t i e ~

I n Each of t h e Pour S d e n c e Disc ip l ines . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sumary of t h e Respondents' Borrowing S t y l e P n f e r e n c e a . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n Each of t h e Five Science Disc ip l ines

. . . . Subc lass i f i ca t ion of t h e Indigenous T e r w Used I n t h e Study Sunmary of Responses On t h e Indigenous T e m s I n t h e Four

Disc ip l ines Subclasnif ied I n t o Four Typca . . . . . . . . . . . . Sumary of Responses On t h e Indigenous T e m s

I n MED Subclass i f ied I n t o Four Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preferences of STUDS, PROFS, and PRACS I n t h e Four

Science Disc ip l ines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Result of Chi Square Tes t On t h e Respowes of STUD,

PROP, and PRAC Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Result of the 2-test of Independent Proport ions On

E-1 and S-2 Options k o n g STUDS, PROFS, and PRACS . . . . . . . . Result of the 2- tes t On E-2, S-1, and X Options Among

STUDS, PROFS, and PRACS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preferences of Respondents I n HID, BIO, CBE, PEY, and MT . . . . . Result of t h e Chi Square Tes t On the Preferences of MED,

BIO, CBE, PHY, and MAT Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R w u l t of t h e 2-test On Each of t h e B-1, S-2, and X / I

Respowes by t h e MED, BIO, GEE. PRY, and MAT Groups . . . . . . . Preferences of t h e TAG and WIG Respoudenta I n t h e

Five Science Disc ip l ines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Result of t h e Chi Square Tes t On t h e Responses of

TAG and Nn: Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Result of the Chi Square Tes t On t h e Tim Types of

Ques t ionnai res Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage of Responses I n Each of t h e Five Optionn

. . . . . . . . . . . . by the Two Groups - English and P i l i p i n o

LIST OF PIGUmS

PAGE

1 H a ~ t Preferred and Least Prefer red Elaborat ion Ponn ib i l i t i en . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

. . . . . . . . 2 Graphic Cmparinon of Borrowing S t y l e Preferencen 73 3 Graphic Coaparinon of t h e Respondents' Preferences On t h e

Four Typen of Indigenous T e n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 4 Graphic Comparison of t h e Overal l Reupowen of STUDS. PROPS,

and PRACS I n Each of t h e r i v e OptiorTypen . . . . . . . . . . . 93 5 Graphic C a p a r i s o n of t h e Prefereacea of Respondentn I n MtD,

B I O , (BE, PRY, and M T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 6 Graphic Cmparinon of t h e Preferences of agel lo^ and

Aon-Tagalog R e n p o A n t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 7 Graphic Canparinon of Renponsen On Five Lexical Elabora t ioa

Option-Types Between Quent ionndrea A and B . . . . . . . . . . 116





Introduction 1


ISSN: 0119-6456



1.0 I n 1974, when P i l i p i n o was o f f i c i a l l y prescribed u one of the two pr incipal w d i a of instruction i n Phi l ippine schools - the o ther being English - (vide Department of Education and Culture Order 110.25. s.1974). one of the se r ious problems t h a t inevi tably came up was the lack of technical terms i n the language. It becaw q u i t e obvious then t h a t P i l i p i n o would have t o be i n t e l l e c t u a l i z e d o r modernized i f i t was t o be a language capable of expressing the s c i e n t i f i c and technological thinking of the F i l ip inos i n the modern world. A major component of such w d e r n i z a t i o n is the development of the lexicon. e spec ia l ly i n t h e spheres of science and technology.

1.1 Development - of - a P i l i p i n o S c i e n t i f i c Lexicon: P o s s i b i l i t i e s The following are major p o s s i b i l i t i e s o r techniques t h a t can be

availed of i n the e labora t ion of a P i l ip ino s c i e n t i f i c lexicon:

1.1.1 Borrowing from 8ngl ish i n the following s t y l e s :

1.1.1.1 Mo change i n spe l l ing of the borrowed term - 1 ) e.g. c h e n i s t q .

1.1.1.2 Borrowed term respelled t o conform t o the Abakada o r P i l i p i n o alphabet (E-2); e.g. kemistr i .

1.1.2 Borrowing v i a Spanieh i n the following s ty les :

1.1.2.1 The Spanish equivalent of the English t e r n is taken with no change i n spe l l ing (S-1); e.g. quimica.

1.1.2.2 The Spanish equivalent of the English term is taken and respel led t o conform t o the Abakada (S-2); e.g. kimika.

1.1.3 Borrowing from the Phi l ippine vernaculars (V); e.g. f o r nucleus, a Visayan word borrowed by the 'Lupon s a Agham' ('Lupon') of the National Science Development Board (RBDB).

1.1.4 Retrieving of archaic Tagalog terms (AT) from disuse; e.g. &, meaning e, as re t r ieved by the 'Lupon'.

1.1.5 Coining or deriving (0); e.8. kapnayan, meaning chemistry, derived by the 'Lupon' from sangkap and hanayan.

2 A Technical Lexicon of P i l i p i n o

1.2 The Problem - This s tudy is c h i e f l y concerned with a s c e r t a i n i n g how t h e intended

users of P i l i p i n o would r eac t t o the above-mentioned p o s s i b i l i t i e s i n the e l abora t ion of t h e s c i e n t i f i c lexicon of P i l ip ino .

To be able t o r e a l i z e the ob jec t ive , t he fo l loving s p e c i f i c quest ions w i l l have t o be answered.

1.2.1 Which of the p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r l e x i c a l e l abora t ion are most o r l e a s t prefer red by the intended users?

1.2.2 Confronted with an English t echn ica l term, which of the four borroving s t y l e s -- E-1. E-2, S-1, and S-2 - w i l l t h e intended use r s p r e f e r ?

1.2.3 Aside from d i r e c t l y borrowing English t e r n s and i n d i r e c t l y borrowing English terms v i a Spanish, how w i l l t he intended use r s react t o the following o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r l e x i c a l e l abora t ion?

1.2.3.1 Gett ing t h e equivalent o r near equivalent of the English term from the following sources:

1.2.3.1.1 Current Tagalog

1.2.3.1.2 Archaic T-alog

1.2.3.1.3 Vernaculars

1.2.3.2 Coining o r der iv ing

1.2.3.3 Euphemisms f o r taboo terms on sex

1.2.4 W i l l there be d i f f e rences i n the preferences of each of the following groups with regard t o the d i f f e r e n t p o s s i b i l i t i e s of developing a P i l i p i n o technica l lexicon?

1.2.4.1 Students , professors , p r a c t i t i o n e r s

1.2.4.2 Nedicine, biology, chemistry, physics , n e t h e a s t i c s

1.2.4.3 Tagalog, non-Tagalog

1.2.5 What guide l ines can be formuhted i n the Qvelopment of a P i l i p i n o s c i e n t i f i c lexicon?

1.3 Importance -- of t h e Study The present b i l ingua l educat ion pol icy of t h e Ph i l ipp ine Government

(vide Department of Education and Cul ture Order No.25, 8.1974, and i ts supplement, Department Order No.50, s.1975), a l l o c a t e s sepa ra te and s p e c i f i c funct ions t o English and t o P i l i p i n o a s media of i n s t r u c t i o n .

A Technical Lexicon of P i l i p i n o 3

Thus, the sub jec t s which a r e considered t echn ica l and nonculture-loaded a r e t o be taught i n English, whereas the s u b j e c t s which are considered nontechnical and culture-loaded a r e t o be taught i n P i l ip ino .

The r a t iona le f o r a l l o c a t i n g s p e c i f i c functiooll t o the two languages was c l e a r l y expressed by Sibayan -- et al . (1975). thus:

Domains having t o do with family, s o c i a l , a d na t iona l l i f e a s wel l as everyday l i v i n g , and doaains having t o do with the elements of Phi l ippine c u l t u r e w i l l be a r t i c u l a t e d i n P i l i p i n o . Domains having t o do with t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l body of knowledge i n science and technology w l l l be a r t i c u l a t e d i n English... The policy, i f properly implemented, w i l l ensure the continuing use of English a s a language of wider communication and a s a language of technology and the development and s tandardiza t ion of P i l i p i n o a s a means of a r t i c u l a t i n g the i d e a l s of the fu ture .

This dichotomous a l l o c a t i o n f o r P i l i p i n o and English, as t h i s researcher sees i t , seems to be the most p r a c t i c a l pol icy t h a t any well-meaning language planner could conceive f o r the present needs of Ph i l ipp ine education. B i s t o r i c a l determinism has ac ted upon the l i v e s of F i l i p i n o s such t h a t they cannot do away with e i t h e r one of the two languages i n t h e i r educat ional program and still expect optimal r e s u l t s .

The present b i l ingua l pol icy, however. is not without writ and demerit . While t h e advantages expected t o accrue from the use of both languages by reason of the pol icy a r e q u i t e apparent (Sibayan, supra, p.4), some disadvantages which may still be undiscerned f o r the present could su r face l a t e r on. That is, the r e s t r i c t i v e app l i ca t ion of English t o t echn ica l and nonculture-loaded s u b j e c t s could ye t has ten its a l i e n a t i o n from the masses, eventual ly l imi t ing i t s use t o only a t h i n upper c l a s s s t ra tum of Phi l ippine soc ie ty (Myrdal 1968:81-2). A foreseeable consequence of t h i s pol icy is t h a t English would be re legated t o a s t a t u s not d i f f e r e n t from the o the r languages being taught i n t h e schools only a s a fore ign language, a consequence which is not i n accord with the r a t i o n a l e of the b i l ingua l education pol icy e i t e d above.

Conversely, t he present b i l ingua l se tup could develop a nontechnical P i l i p i n o language, a kind of language which would not be t r u l y funct ional because l imi t ing i ts use t o nontechnical mat ters would d e t e r i ts i n t e l l e c t u a l i z a t i o n . Generally, a t y p i c a l F i l i p i n o does not express h i s acquired knowledge i n capsules o r even modules. I n o ther words, he usual ly t ranscends various domains, mlxing t echn ica l and nontechnical words, t o express h i s ideas during a communication process.

The present pol icy should, t he re fo re , be regarded only a s an in termedia te o r t r a n s i t i o n a l s t e p towards developing P i l i p i n o a s a t once a language of c u l t u r e and of sc ience and technologyi I n f a c t , a v i s i o n on the development of P i l i p i n o was expressed by no l e s s than Minister Gerardo P. S i c a t of the National Economic and Development Authority (S ica t 1976:7) who sa id :


Bilingualism...appeals t o me a s a temporary dichotomy t h a t must be in tegra ted i n some way. I do not mean mixing English and P i l i p i n o i n some form of pidgin, but developing P i l i p i n o so t h a t i t becomes a language of both a u t h o r i t y and convenience, perhaps t o d i sp lace English i n i ts f u t u r e a c c e p t a b i l i t y . I am c e r t a i n t h a t the new P i l i p i n o (language) vill develop i n i t s o m uniqueness and a e s t h e t i c appeal t o those of u s who ma9 f e e l ill a t ease v i t h the t r a n s i t i o n .

The formal use of P i l i p i n o a s a medium of i n s t r u c t i o n i n the schools would no doubt a c c e l e r a t e its development, although i n the meantime i t may not ye t serve a s a language f o r sc ience and technology. Such an arrangement would give P i l i p i n o a chance t o gradual ly become capable of handling sc ience and technology courses i n t h e schools .

A s s t a t ed e a r l i e r , P i l i p i n o can not ye t e f f e c t i v e l y handle sc ience and technology because i t s t i l l lacks the needed t echn ica l vocabulary f o r the purpose. The problem, the re fo re , t h a t besets P i l i p i n o today is with respect t o how the technica l lexicon can be developed and elaborated i n order t o hasten its i n t e l l e c t u a l i z a t i o n ; hence, t h i s study.

I n case, however. P i l i p i n o would not d i sp lace English a s a medium of i n s t r u c t i o n f o r sc ience and technology wi th in the foreseeable f u t u r e , t h i s s tudy could nonetheless be of he lp t o w r i t e r s of I n s t r u c t i o n a l ma te r i a l s i n P i l i p i n o who a r e usua l ly befuddled by the problem of how t o borrow English words i n t o P i l ip ino .

Moreover, t h i s s tudy could be of he lp t o t r a n s l a t o r s from English t o P i l i p i n o , an a c t i v i t y which has acquired momentum v i t h the implementation of the b i l ingua l educat ion policy.

1.4 Scope and Del imi ta t ion of t h e Study - This s tudy merely a t tempts td a s c e r t a i n the preferences of co l l ege

s tuden t s , professors , and p r a c t i t i o n e r s with regard to the d i f f e r e n t p o s s i b i l i t i e s of developing a t echn ica l lexicon of P i l i p i n o i n t h e spheres of medicine, biology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics. It does not go f u r t h e r i n t o inqui r ing from the respondents t h e i r reasons f o r l i k i n g o r d i s l i k i n g c e r t a i n terms.

The respondents ' r eac t ions t o t h e i t e m s used i n t h e survey a r e t o be i n t e r p r e t e d , the re fo re , a s mere ind ica t ions of the d i r e c t i o n s that the intended users favor o r d i s favor with regard t o the enrichment of the technica l vocabulary of P i l ip ino .

Some quar ters could claim that not a l l of t h e i tems used i n the survey could be considered t echn ica l ; t h a t terms which a r e more technica l o r more current should have been used i n the survey ins t ead . This , admit tedly, i s a l i m i t a t i o n of the s tudy because of the following c o n s t r a i n t s t h a t had t o be considered i n t h e s e l e c t i o n of every item:


F i r s t l y , the term, f o r obvious reasons, should be spe l l ed d i f f e r e n t l y i n each of the following option-types: E-1, E-2, S-1, and 5-2. The medical terms c a r d i t i s and meningit is , f o r ins tance , could not be included because they would be spel led the same i n both E-1 and S-1; l ikewise so with the term adrena l in which would be spe l l ed t h e same i n both E-1 and E-2.

Secondly, t he term o r i t s equivalent should be found i n the 'Maugnayin' book. The chemistry term stoichiometry. f o r ins tance . i s apparent ly highly t echn ica l and may be considered s u i t a b l e i n s o f a r a s E-1, E-2, S-1*, and S-2 a r e concerned because i t would be spe l l ed d i f f e r e n t l y i n each of these four option-types. But the term is not l i s t e d i n 'Maugnayin' so t h a t i t had t o be discarded.

Thirdly, a s many formatives a s poss ib le ( see Appendix G) should be included i n the 100 English s c i e n t i f i c tel-88 used i n the survey t o f ind o u t , a s a per iphera l s tudy, i f a p a t t e r n could be e s t ab l i shed i n the manner of ass imi la t ing English formatives i n t o P i l ip ino . An i t e m could thus be considered s u i t a b l e y e t nonetheless have t o be excluded because another item o r items with the same formatives had a l r eady been included.

Fourthly, t he eleven ' fore ign ' l e t t e r s - 2, f. J. ii, q, v , x, z, ch. 11, rr - should a s much a s poss ib le be included and spread among the items a l s o t o f ind out i f they would be accepted by the respondents f o r s c i e n t i f i c technica l terms. I n t h i s s tudy, only t h e Spanish l e t t e r ii was not included because no s c i e n t i f i c term conta in ing t h a t letter coLld be found by t h i s researcher . (A sample of usages of the fore ign l e t t e r s is shown i n Appendix R.)

F i f t h l y , t he re could of course be o the r poss ib le sources i n the e l abora t ion of a P i l i p i n o lexicon, l i k e borrowing from o t h e r more developed languages of o the r na t ions , such a s German. French, Russian, Japanese, e t c . However, they were not considered a s t h e s tudy would haye become unwieldy. Besides, i f technica l words from i n t e r n a t i o n a l languages a r e ever borrowed i n t o P i l i p i n o , they a r e borrowed through the English language.

1.5 Def in i t ion of Terqs

The following t e r n s a r e defined conformably with t h e i r use i n t h i s study:

1.5.1 Language modernization. One of the th ree dimensions f o r measuring 'language development' ( t h e o the r two being g raph iza t ion and s t andard iza t ion ) t h a t dea l s with the development of wcabu la ry and forms of d iscourse (Ferguson 1968: 27) .

1.5.2 Language s tandardiza t ion . The process whereby one v a r i e t y of a language becanes widely accepted throughout the speech community a s a s u p r a d i a l e c t a l norm -- t he ' bes t ' form of the language - ra ted above regional and s o c i a l d i a l e c t s (Ferguson 1968:31).


1.5.3 I n t e l l e c t u a l i z a t i o n . The requirement of increas ing accuracy along an ascending sca le of funct ional d i a l e c t s from conversat ional t o s c i e n t i f i c (Gamin i n Bymes 1964:521). This may have some s i m i l a r i t i e s with Haugen's e l abora t ion of funct ion (1966:249-52) and a l s o with Ferguson's modernization ( i n FishG 1968:27) which includes expansion of the lexicon and development of new s t y l e s and forms of d iscourse .

1.5.4 Tagalog. A term used t o r e f e r to e i t h e r t h e language o r the people: the Phi l ippine language v a r i e t y t h a t was made the b a s i s of the na t ional language (now ca l l ed P i l i p i n o ) , o r a F i l i p i n o c i t i z e n whose f i r s t language i s any of the Tagalog v a r i e t i e s , such a s Manila Tagalog, Bulacan Tagalog, Batangas Tagalog, Nuevs Ec i j a Tagalog, e t c .

1.5.5 Non-Tagalog. A F i l i p i n o d t i z e n whose f i r s t language is not Tagalog -- i t may be English, Spanish. I locano, Cebuano, Chavacano, Chinese, e tc . ; he can, however, a l s o cotmnunicate i n Tagalog.

1.5.6 Consistent orthography. A spe l l ing system having a 'one-to-one correspondence between each phoneme and the symbolization of t h a t phoneme'; i . e . , there i s a ' separa te symbol t o each u n i t proved t o be phonemically d i s t i n c t ' (Pike 1964:208). P i l i p i n o has a cons i s t en t s p e l l i n g system because every phoneme i n t h i s language (with t h e exception of the g l o t t a l s top - ed.) is r e g u l a r l y represented by only one symbol; e.g. - b y , s iko , - batok. -

1.5.7 Incons is tent o r thographp A s p e l l i n g system wherein a s i n g l e phoneme i n a language can be represented by more than one symbol (Gelb 1963:225, Bloomfield 1956:501). English has an incons i s t en t orthography because the phoneme /k/ , f o r in s t ance , can be represented by more than one symbol, such a s i n - k i t , c a r , s p a t t e r , c h o l e r a , chick, - b u r l e s ~ , e t c .

1.5.8 Technical o r S c i e n t i f i c term. An English term t h a t when read o r - heard i n i s o l a t i o n i s r e c o g n i z e d t o belong t o a p a r t i c u l a r sphere of knowledge. This terminology i s loose ly used i n t h i s s tudy i n the sense t h a t some of the terms employed i n the s u w e y ques t ionnai res may not s t r i c t l y belong t o one s p e c i f i c d i s c i p l i n e o r sphere of knowledge.

1.5.9 Current Tagalog. A term s t r i c t l y used i n t h i s s tudy t o r e f e r t o terms t h a t do not have t r a c e s of fore ign markedness. Medisina, f o r example, i s not considered CT f o r purposes of t h i s s tudy because it is recognizable t o F i l ip inos a s a Spanish loanword; a l s o matematisyan a s an English 1 oanword .

1.5.10 Intended users . A term used i n t h i s s tudy synonywusly with ' t a r g e t populat ion ' . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t r e f e r s t o a group of people who a r e i d e n t i f i e d a s having spec ia l i zed o r a r e s t i l l spec ia l i z ing i n a p a r t i c u l a r d i s c i p l i n e o r sphere of knowledge, such a s a medical s tuden t , a mathematics professor , o r a chemist (chemical p r a c t i t i o n e r ) .

1.5.11 Random sampling. The s e l e c t i o n of cases from the population i n such a manner t h a t every indiv idual i n t h e populat ion has an equal chance of being chosen (Gullford 1973:122).

A Technical Lexicon of P i l ip ino 7

1.5.12 Purposive sampling. A sampling technique wherein a sample is 'expressly chosen because...it mirrors some Larger group with reference t o a given charac te r i s t i c ' (Garret 1967:207). For instance, 'newpaper ed i to rs a r e believed to r e f l ec t accurately public opinion upon various soc ia l and economic questions i n t h e i r ~ e c t i o n s of the country'. In t h i s study, the responses of the sample of 'pract i t ioners ' a r e taken to mean tha t they 'mirror' the preferences of a larger group i n t h e i r respective areas of specia l izat ion.

1.5.13 Pil ipino. This is the Tagalog-based national language. The 1935 Philippine Constitution provides t ha t ' the National Assembly shall take s teps toward the development and adoption of a c o s o n national language based on one of the exis t ing native languages'. Tagalog was made the basis i n 1939. In 1959, the department of education ordered t ha t the national language s h a l l be called P i l ip ino ' to impress upon the national language the indel ible character of our nationhood' and presumably t o erase the regional connotation of the term Tagalog a s the basis of the national language.

1.5.14 Fil ipino. This is the eavisioned national language i n the 1973 Revised Philippine Constitution, a 'much m r e l ibera l ized , m r e f lex ib le and more representative language', a fu r ther development of Pi l ip ino a s the nstional language (Unrcos 1974 : 31).

NOTES

*There is no Spanish dictionary fo r chemistry available to t h i s researcher. A Spanish-sounding term, however, could ea s i l y be derived from the English term, such a s s t o i c h i m e t r i a since the EQglish combining form -metry usually corresponds with the Spanish -metria.





Background of the study 8


ISSN: 0119-6456



CBBPTEB2

BACKGROUND OF TEE STUDY

2.0 In t roduct ion

This chapter at tempts t o present a capsule h i s t o r y of t h e development of P i l i p i n o , h igh l igh t ing t h e a spec t s t h a t p e r t a i n t o the type of na t ional language being developed, s p e c i f i c a l l y those t h a t deal v i t h purism, s p e l l i n g , the Abakada, borrowing, and o t h e r issues re l a t ed t o t h e present study.1

This chapter a l s o seeks t o show t h a t the manner of development of a lexicon f o r the na t iona l language has been a perennial problem, t r igge red by the publ ica t ion of the ' p u r i s t i c ' Ba la r i l a ng Uikang Pambansa f o r use i n the elementary and high schools a s e a r l y a s 1939, two years a f t e r Tagalog had been o f f i c i a l l y adopted as the basis of t h e na t iona l language.

This researcher be l ieves t h a t the sub jec t of i n t e l l e c t u a l i z a t i o n of P i l i p i n o can be b e t t e r appreciated i f viewed a g a i n s t t h e backdrop of the l e x i c a l development i n the na t iona l language. It may be s t a t e d t h a t the s tudy is i n no way concerned v i t h t h e na t iona l language controversy, ss i ts purpose i s c h i e f l y t o throw l i g h t on the development of the t echn ica l lexicon of P i l i p i n o a s a language. This researcher merely seeka t o present he re in the opposing views held by a u t h o r i t i e s and s p e c i a l i s t s .

This chapter culminates with a resumz of issues on the l e x i c a l development of P i l i p i n o a s t h i s researcher sees them from a d is tance .

2.1 The Contact S i t u a t i o n - The Phil ippinee is a developing country i n Southeast Asia which

was success ive ly dominated by a t l e a s t t h ree foreign coun t r i e s - Spain. t he United S t a t e s , and Japan. For many hundreds of years it underwent not only p o l i t i c a l but a l s o c u l t u r a l and economic coloniza t ion .

The two coun t r i e s , however, t h a t have l e f t i n d e l i b l e imprints of co loniza t ion i n the l i v e s of the F i l i p i n o s a r e S p i n and t h e United S t a t e s (Panganiban 1970: 21).

The extent of the F i l i p i n o s ' con tac t s with S p i n and the United S t a t e s is mirrored i n the indigenous Phi l ippine languages.2 In f a c t , t o an ordinary Spanish o r American l i s t e n e r , P i l i p i n o , t h e Tagalog-based na t iona l language, w i l l not sound a l toge the r fore ign because he w i l l be ab le t o r e t r i e v e a medley of Spanish o r English w r d s woven i n t o i ts i n t r i c a t e system of a f f i x a t i o n . Be may even suspect t h a t P i l i p i n o i s an Indo-European language, belonging t o t h e same family of which Spanish and English a r e pa r t (Goulet 1971:l-2).


A l i t t l e knowledge of Ph i l ipp ine h i s t o r y , hovever, w i l l umke one understand t h a t the Spanish a d English words in t e r spe r sed i n P l l i p i n o u t te rances a r e merely loan word8 from the t v o fore ign languages; t h a t such is the r e s u l t of the con tac t s of Tagalog with Spanish f o r almost four c e n t u r i e s and subsequently with Eagl ish f o r mre than ha l f a century.

Theore t ica l ly , t h e l o a e r t h e period of con tac t , t he g r e a t e r would be the l i n g u i s t i c inf luence of the co lon ize r ' s language on that of the colonized. During the almost four c e n t u r i e s of Spanish ru le i n the Phi l ippines , t he colonizer ' s language could have c o l p l e t e l y na t iv i zed and replaced t h e na t ive languages. This , howver , d id not take place. Frske ( i n Hymes 1972:223), i n t r ac ing the o r i g i n s of the Spanish c r e o l e s i n the Phi l ippines , says :

I n the Phi l ippines , i n s p i t e of the rapid Spanish conquest, almost t o t a l conversion t o Chr i s t i an i ty . and over t h r e e hundred years of occupation, the Spenish language f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h i t s e l f . Spanish replaced no indigenous Ph i l ipp ine language, and its r o l e a s an a u x i l i a r y language was s u f f i c i e n t l y tenuous t h a t i t -8 quickly supplanted by English a f t e r the American occupation. Today, a p a r t from the many Spanish loan words i n Ph i l ipp ine languages and f e v speakers of Spsnish i n t h e upper echelons of soc ie ty , t he l i n g u i s t i c legacy of Spain i n the Phi l ippines is l imi ted t o t h e exis tence of seve ra l communities that speak a Spanish c reo le language3 a s t h e i r mother tongue.

The ex ten t of inf luence of Spanish on the indigenous Phi l ippine languages is i n sharp c o n t r a s t v i t h t h a t of English 'which became more videspread even a f t e r only tvo dacades of American r u l e i n the Ph i l ipp ines ' (Forbes 1928:1:416). In a r e l a t i v e l y shor t period, English became the medium of cognunication. English-speaking F i l i p i n o teachers gradual ly replaced American educators. And a f t e r a q u a r t e r of a century of American occupation, t h e Phi l ippines produced a good crop of F i l i p i n o w r i t e r s and speakers of English, which w a s f a s t becaming t h e common tongue from Aparri t o Jo lo (Kiunisala 1963:58).

The d i f f e rences between the Spanish and the American co lon ia l phi losophies, i n genera l , and educat ional and language p o l i c i e s , i n p a r t i c u l a r , may perhaps account f o r t h e d i f f e rence i n impact of the two languages on the F i l ip inos . The Spanish e r a i n the Ph i l ipp ines may be charac ter ized simply a s one of ' r a i s i n g the c ross and th rus t ing v i t h the sword' and preserving Spanish a s an a r i s t o c r a t i c language a v a i l a b l e only t o t h e few el i te and not t o t h e ' Indios ' . On t h e o the r hand, one of t h e f i r s t a c t s of the Americans when they colonised the Phi l ippines was t o provide educat ion t o the F i l ip inos and i n so doing teach them t h e English language s i d e by s ide with t h e p r i n c i p l e s of democracy on a massive sca le (Forbes, 49:395:II, Appendix -1).

There were, t o be su re , o the r f a c t o r s t h a t charac ter ized the na ture of Spanish and American coloniza t ion i n t h e Phi l ippines , besides t h e i r d i f f e rences i n p o l i c i e s and a t t i t u d e s toward language. One of them was the na ture of contact i t s e l f , 1.e.. t he incent ive t o l e a r n , &ere the impact of t h e English language and American c u l t u r e vas g r e a t e r . Another f a c t o r was


the quant i ty of i n s t r u c t i o n a l reading materials; the re was a dea r th of such ma te r i a l s i n Spanish, whereas there was a deluge i n English (Phelan 1959:132).

Present ly , a f t e r only s l i g h t l y more than ha l f a century of contact with English, and i n s p i t e of the f a c t t h a t t h e Ph i l ipp ines is no longer under American domination, English remains a s the p r inc ipa l medium of i n s t r u c t i o n i n the Phi l ippines . This nay be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e f a c t t h a t English continues to be an i n t e r n a t i o n a l language - t he language of educat ion, science and technology, diplomacy and fore ign r e l a t i o n s - serving a s the F i l i p i n o s ' l i n k with the outs ide world. Moreover, unl ike the Spaniards, t he Americans l e f t no legacy of ha te among the F i l ip inos . Hence, the F i l i p i n o s continue t o look t o the English language a s a source of knowledge and means of advancement. This has been confirmed i n a study conducted by Tucker (1968:16-7) among sophomore s tudents of the Phi l ippine Normal College who associa ted the a c q u i s i t i o n of s k i l l s i n English with success and advancement i n l i f e , showing t h a t a F i l i p i n o who i s 'not s k i l l e d i n English would be unable t o e n t e r such professions a s teacher , doctor , secre tary . e tc . ' Tucker f u r t h e r s t a t e s t h a t i n the Phi l ippines , ' s o c i a l mobil i ty depends upon t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of s k i l l i n English. Righer educat ion, b e t t e r employoent oppor tun i t i e s , and t r a v e l abroad a r e e a s i l y access ib le only t o those who possess the necessary s k i l l s i n English ' .

Other s o l i d proofs t h a t English s t i l l holds a premier s t a t u s i n the Phi l ippines a r e a s follows: 1 ) a l l P r e s i d e n t i a l Decrees, a s well a s s t a t u t e s , have been promulgated i n English; 2) the 1973 Phi l ippine Const i tu t ion was o r i g i n a l l y w r i t t e n i n English although i t was o f f i c i a l l y promulgated i n English and i n P i l ip ino ; i t provides t h a t ' i n case of c o n f l i c t , the English t e x t s h a l l p r e v a i l ' ; 3 ) i n the convention of the Batasang Bayan (held a t Malacaiiang Heroes B a l l , October 29-30, 1977), English was the language used by the de legates who represented the d i f f e r e n t e t h n i c groups o r regions of the country; and 4 ) most de l ibe ra t ions and all measures presented a t t h e Batssang Pambansa i n i ts sess ions i n 1978 were i n English, although the assemblymen had been exhorted to l ea rn t o speak P i l ip ino . These a r e c l e a r i l l u s t r a t i o n s t h a t P i l i p i n o a s a na t iona l language has not yet taken over the p o l i t i c a l funct ions of English.

2.2 - The Development - of P i l i p i n o The need f o r having a comon language dawned upon the F i l i p i n o s

toward the end of the 19th century when communication among the ' i n su r rec tos ' o r freedom f i g h t e r s of the I locos , t h e Visayas, and the Tagalog provinces was poss ib le only with the he lp of i n t e r p r e t e r s (Kiunisala 1963:2). Apparently, t h e m u l t i p l i c i t y of languages spoken by the d i f f e r e n t e t h n i c groups was one of the major stumbling blocks to the F i l i p i n o s ' e f f o r t s t o l i b e r a t e t h e i r countrymen from Spanish domination. Under the circumstances, t he F i l i p i n o leaders were obliged t o employ Spanish i n most of the laws of t h e f i r s t Phi l ippine Republic, and t o use Tagalog i n some decrees.


Then the United S t a t e s supplanted Spain i n t h e co lon iza t ion of the Phi l ippines . Through l e g a l means, t he F i l i p i n o s worked f o r t h e i r independence. Af ter a t r a n s i t i o n period of t en years , known a s the Commonwealth Period, the F i l i p i n o s gained t h e i r independence i n 1946. The opportunity t o develop a na t iona l language could now be rea l i zed . I n f a c t , t he framers of the 1935 Ph i l ipp ine Const i tu t ion , imbued with t h e v i s i o n of t h e i r forebears , mandated the Collaonwealth National Assembly ( A r t i c l e XIV, Section 3) t o ' take s t e p s toward t h e development and adoption of a ccmnon na t iona l language based on one of the e x i s t i n g na t ive languages'.

A year l a t e r , i n consonance with the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l provision, Commonwealth Act No. 184 was passed, e s t ab l i sh ing t h e National Language I n s t i t u t e (NLI - l a t e r changed t o I n s t i t u t e of National Language (Ih'L) -- and giving i t the a u t h o r i t y t o s tudy and analyse t h e p r i n c i p a l Phi l ippine languages and t o choose therefrom t h e b a s i s of the Ph i l ipp ine na t iona l language.

Another year l a t e r , i n 1937, the seven members of t h e Board of the INL, s i x of whom were n o n - ~ a g a l o ~ s 4 , recommended Tagalog a s the b a s i s of the na t ional language. The INL Board believed t h a t Tagalog bes t f i t t e d the requirements s t i p u l a t e d by law a s regards s t r u c t u r e , mechanics, l i t e r a t u r e and number of speakers.

The decis ion of the INL Board, apparently, w a s not t a i n t e d by regionalism, although President Quezon's advocacy of Tagalog might have influenced i t .

2.2.1 P u r i s t i c Ba la r i l a : Precursor of Language Controversz. Two years l a t e r . t he INL. i n conformitv with s o n w e a l t h Act 184. oublished a - . . grarmaar book t i t l e d B a l a r i l a UJ Wikang Pambansa and a Tagalog-English Vocabulary. The two books were t o be used i n the schools. This was the beg inn iw of the l o w drawn-out language controversy because a v u r i s t i c - - tendency-was very evident i n the f i r s t two products of ;he INL. The term b a l a r i l a i n the t i t le of the book i t s e l f , f o r example, was derived from b a l a ' b u l l e t ' and d i l a 'tongue' (Panganiban 1970:14). A s an a l t e r n a t i v e , - - t h e Spanish word gramatica (gramatika) could have been borrowed.

That the book w a s r e a l l y p u r i s t i c i s f u r t h e r evidenced by pages 13 and 14 where even the proper nauies were respel led according to the 20- l e t t e r Abakada i n s p i t e of t h e provision i n Commonwealth Act 184 t h a t '... s p e l l i n g of family names of fore ign o r i g i n and form used by F i l i p i n o s s h a l l be preserved i n order not t o render t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of persons d i f f i c u l t ' . Examples: Euse ins t ead of Jose, ins tead of Juac, Kint in - i n s t ead of Quintin, Maksimo ins tead of Maximo, Ka l i s to ins tead of Cal ix to , e t c .

I n f a c t , i t is colanon knowledge amng F i l i p i n o language scholars t h a t when a copy of the B a l a r i l a w a s brought by the members of the INL Board t o Malacaiiang and shown t o Pres ident Quezon. he a n g r i l y b lur ted out h i s f a v o r i t e curse word i n Spanish and almost threw the book i n the Pasig ~ i v e r 5 . That was a f t e r h i s va in e f f o r t s t o pronounce the word b a l a r i l a c o r r e c t l y and a f t e r b r i e f l y thumbing through the pages of the book and

1 2 A Technical Lexicon of P i l i p i n o

occas ional ly lip-reading a passage here and t h e r e with kn i t t ed eyebrows. President Quezon was fu r ious because i f he, a Tagalog, could not understand the book, how much more could the r e s t of the F i l i p i n o s , e s p e c i a l l y the non-Tagalogs, understand i t ?

Meantime the s t i p u l a t e d d a t e f o r t h e pub l i ca t ion of a grammar book f o r the na t ional language would soon l apse and t o w r i t e another one vaa a l r eady impossible. Actually, t he B a l a r i l a did not even have a s e c t i o n on syntax.

Sibayan ( i n Fishman 1974:224), however, has t h i s t o say about the Balar i la :

Under the able leadership of Lope K. Santos, one of the Ph i l ipp ines ' best Tagalog scholars a t t he time, ... a grammar t i t l e d Ang B a l a r i l a qg Wikang Pambansa (was produced) ... Given the s t a t e of the a r t of graumar wr i t ing a t t he time and the speed required t o ccnnply with t h e P r e s i d e n t i a l d i r e c t i v e , the grammar was en exce l l en t product, though having it o f f i c i a l l y accepted has made i t d i f f i c u l t to introduce improvements a s b e t t e r grarmars have become a ~ a i l a b l e . ~

A t any r a t e , t he B a l a r i l a and the Vocabulary were used i n teaching the na t ional language i n t h e schools. But a s t h e years went by, i t became obvious t h a t the 'na t ional language being taught i n the schools was p u r i s t i c -- n e i t h e r Tagalog-based ( e . t he na t ional language should incorpora te many loans from o the r Phi l ippine languages and a l s o from fore ign languages) nor Tagalog a s spoken and understood by the Tagalogs' (Sibayan 1967:136, esp. footnote) .

Yet the Ihn should not be held s o l e l y blameworthy f o r t h i s manifest a t t i t u d e regarding the manner of development of the na t iona l language. I ts ac tua t ions must have been d i c t a t e d by what had been provided i n Sect ion 8 of Caumonwealth Act 184, which reads a s follows:

Special a t t e n t i o n s h a l l be given t o the p u r i f i c a t i o n and enrichment of the National Language i n accordance with the following procedures :

( 2 ) To purify - t h e vocabulary of the na t iona l language, the National Language I n s t i t u t e s h a l l safeguard t h e proper meaning and use of the words and expressions of the na t iona l language and s h a l l c leanse the same of unnecessary foreign terms, words, and cons t ruc t ions . (Underscoring supplied. )

To the F i l i p i n o s who had been dominated by fo re igne r s f o r so long a time, any planning on language would n a t u r a l l y be t a in ted with n a t i o n a l i s t i c undertones, u sua l ly a manifes ta t ion of t h e subconscious among freedom-hungry minds. This merely confirms what Fishman (1972:66) says , t h a t ' n a t i o n a l i s t i c language planning reveals a pervasive abhorrence of fore ign inf luence ' . Foremost l o t he minds of the language planners and implementors during those times must have been ( t o borrow a term from Fishman aga in ) the ' au thent ice t ion ' of the na t iona l language; t h a t is , i f a


na t iona l language had t o be developed, i t had t o be one t h a t vas recognizably indigenous, f r e e from admixture and adu l t e ra t ion . And t h i s is c l e a r l y evident i n what IM. Director J a i a e C. De Veyra s t a t e d i n the foreword of the Ba la r i l a :

Ang may-akda ( r e f e r r i n g t o Lope K. Santos) ay n a p i l i t a n g gumamit ng mga bagong s a l i t a , upang tayo'y mahimalay man lamang k a h i t sa diwa, sa pagkaal ipin ng mga ba la r i l ang banyaga. Ang b a l a r i l a . . . pa lasu r i an , palaugnayan , palabigkasan, a t p a l a t i t i k a n ay m i p a l a l a g a y na aga bagong a a l i t a , pal ibhasa sa wikang katutubo ay wala tayo ng gangganyang mga bigkasin. Lalo kayang tumpak M gamitin ang mga sali ta na r ing pinalalaganap ng mga mangangastila a t mang-iingles? Bintayin na t ing mga pangyayari M ria ang magpasiya.

De Veyra had hoped t h a t the t e r n s used by Lope K. Santos vould survive . Indeed a t present , t he following t e r n s together with m e t of the so-called p u r i s t i c terms of Santoa, are a l r eady c-only used: p a n t i g ( s y l l a b l e ) , pangangkop ( l i g a t u r e ) , pantukoy ( a r t i c l e ) , pangngalan (noun), sag-uri (adjec t ive) , panghalip (pronoun), pandiwa (verb) , pang-sbay

fadverb) , p a n m t n i g (conjunct ion) , pang-ukol (p repos i t ion ) , a t e .

A t any r a t e , it might be s a i d t h a t t h e B a l a r i l a of Santos is a good example of what Fishman (1974:22-3) says i n suming up the ' s o c i a l t roub le and t r a v a i l ' t h a t accompany language planning processes:

Every one of the system-building o r revis ing triumphs of language planning has been c a r e f u l l y cloaked i n sent iment , has appealed t o a u t h e n t i c i t y r a t i o n a l e s , has claimed indigenousness. Obviously, a speech comuni ty wants its language t o be more than nea t and t r i m and handy. It a l s o wants i ts language t o be t h e i r s , i.e., them i n some way, r e f l e c t i v e of t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l i t y i n some way, p ro tec t ive of t h e i r h i s t o r y i n some way.

The ' au thent ica t ion ' e f f o r t s . however, appeared t o have been ca r r i ed too f a r by the ; they were in t e rp re ted a s leaning towards 'purism' and were thus repudiated by even the simon-pure Tagalogs themselves.

For ins tance , former Senator Francisco Rodrigo, a Tagalog w r i t e r and radio commentator who has t r a n s l a t e d Cyrano - de Bergerac i n t o Tagalog, vehemently berated t h e schools f o r propagating a na t ional language which was so p u r i s t i c that, much t o h i s embarrassment, he could not he lp h i s son with t h e l a t t e r ' s homework because of so many s t r ange words which he could not comprehend, such a s tuldok, - kuwit, tuldukuwit, p a r i r a l a , panakloag, e t c . Senator Rodrigo wrote (1963:3):

Was my face red when I saw t h e lesscns! I could not yt a passing mark i f I were t o take a t e s t on it. To be more honest. I would not r a t e even 40 percent. I n f a c t , I could not even understand the words which I read.. . I f e l t q u i t e embarrassed.


There I was, supposed t o teach Tagalog gratmaar t o my son, and I ended up by asking him vhat those queer-sounding words meant.

Ex-Senator Rodrigo claims t h a t the bas ic philosophy behind t h e establ ishment of a na t ional language is t o have a common medium of expression t h a t is e a s i l y understood, learned and used by a l l segments of the population. It i s f o r t h i s reason, he f u r t h e r a s s e r t s , t h a t the F i r s t Const i tu t ion uses the words 'development and adoption ' of a cammon na t iona l language and not the words ' invention and imposi t ion ' . This i s a l s o one of the reasons, he says, vhy the the framers of the 1935 Const i tu t ion deemed i t advisable t o provide t h a t the na t ional language be 'based on one of the e x i s t i n g na t ive languages' .

The former Senator be l ieves t h a t the teaching and learn ing of the na t ional language vould be much e a s i e r i f t he people were t o use words a l r eady well known t o them, l i k e gramatika ins tead of b a l a r i l a , diksyunaryo instead of t a l a t i n i g a n , kana ins tead of kuwit, kolon and semikolon ins tead - of tutuldok and tuldukuwit, e t c . He even r a d i c a l l y proposes t h a t 'we should fol low what President Quezon wanted t o do from t h e very beginning: Throw the B a l a r i l a Uikang Pambansa i n t o the Pasig River and s t a r t a l l over again with an e n t i r e l y new approach'. The B a l a r i l a , he concludes, w i l l forever be an obs tac le ins tead of a he lp t o the propagation and development of t h e P i l i p i n o language. Unless we change it r a d i c a l l y and bas ica l ly , w e s h a l l forever be chained t o a ' shor ts ighted , i s o l a t i o n i s t and j i n g o i s t i c pol icy vhich renders t h e s tudy of our language not only d i f f i c u l t but repuls ive t o our ovn people' .7

Even before 1963 when former Senator Rodrigo expressed h i s views i n the Phi l ippines - Free -* Press Secre tary of Education Jose E. Romero, ev ident ly aware of the raging na t iona l language controversy, had a l ready issued Department Order No.19, s.1959, t o the e f f e c t t h a t henceforth the na t ional language vould be ca l l ed P i l i p i n o ' t o impress upon the na t iona l language the i n d e l i b l e charac ter of our nationhood'. It would seem, however, t ha t the change had been designed t o e rase the i s sue t h a t the language being developed by the INL and the schools was p u r i s t i c and 'presumably to e l iminate the regional connotation of the term Tagalog (Sibayan 1974:225).

The terminological s h i f t d id not p c i f y the c r i t i c s . Soon they ra ised another i ssue : P i l i p i n o should be - F i l i p i n o - another way of saying t h a t - P i l i p i n o is s t i l l Tagalog.

By then i t became obvious t h a t the i ssue on purism was being beclouded by e thnic loya l ty and colonia l menta l i ty on the pa r t of some educated F i l ip inos . With a touch of sarcasm, they claimed t h a t a f t e r having been l i b e r a t e d from three c o l o n i a l masters - Spain, t h e United S t a t e s , and Japan -- here came another colonizer : t he Tagalogs. They deeply resented some Tagal i s tas t h o , they claimed, behaved a s i f they were the self-anointed and God-sent p ropr i e to r s of the na t iona l language, Tagalogs who equated nat ional ism with f luency i n P i l ip ino .


Their undisguised vehemence i n condemning the Tagalogs, however, was in terpre ted by those on the opposi te camp a s a mere c a t h a r t i c outburs t of emotions, f o r i n r e a l i t y , as products of an a l i e n a t i n g system of educat ion, they were advocating nothing but English - t he language that had moulded them i n t o what they were.

Even i n a very recent survey, S i l l iman (1977) says t h a t a number of her respondents expressed t h e view t h a t a na t iona l language need not be one t h a t i s indigenous t o t h e Ph i l ipp ines , implying t h a t English should be the na t iona l language. Also, during the na t ional conference on 'Language Planning and Development i n the Phi l ippines '8 Casi lda Luzares, a n a t i v e of Cebu who was one of the p a n e l i s t s , claimed t h a t when she was i n the Vieayas r ecen t ly she was asked i f t he re i s any l a w i n the Phi l ippines which p roh ib i t s the adoption of a fore ign language a s t h e na t iona l language. This is reminiscent of an e r s twhi l e movement which quickly f i z z l e d ou t , t h a t the Phi l ippines be ceded o r federa ted as one of t h e s t a t e s of t h e United S t a t e s , l i k e Uawaii.

Regarding e t h n i c loya l ty , Sibayan (1974:250-I), i n assess ing the thoughts and sentiments expressed by the 1972 Cons t i tu t iona l Convention de legates i n terms of the vorldwfde search f o r i d e n t i t y by peoples of emerging o r developing coun t r i e s , of which t h e Phi l ippines is one, has t h i s t o say:

It is clear t h a t while they i d e n t i f y themselves wi th t h e i r e t h n i c languages, languages they have in t ima te ties with, they have not ye t i d e n t i f i e d themselves with a language that is based on a ' r i v a l ' Ph i l ipp ine language. It is not u n f a i r t o say t h a t it is t h i s jealousy of the 'advantages' t h a t they f e e l a r e given t o Tagalog speakers t h a t made them r e j e c t the language ... The search f o r i d e n t i t y with symbols l i k e language c a r r i e s with i t so many emotional involvements t h a t even the educated human mind cannot seem t o transcend e thn ic o r parochial attachments.

2.2.2 Language Issuel a Full-Scale Con t rove r sp The years during the s i x t i e s saw the surge of r e s i s t a n c e becoming s t ronger aga ins t t he brand of na t iona l language being propagated by the -m and-the schools . On February 8 , 1963 (Const i tu t ion Day). l e s s than a month a f t e r the -- Free Press ' s p e c i a l i s sue on language, Congressman Inocencio V. Fer re r , a Visayan, f i l e d a case i n cour t with t h e following a s respondents: Jose V i l l a Panganiban, Direc tor of the I n s t i t u t e of National Language; Alejandro R. Roces, Secre tary of Education; Emarmel Pelaez, Secre tary of Foreign A f f a i r s ; and Carlos P. Romulo, President of the Universi ty of the Phi l ippines . The complaint i n e f f e c t s t a t e d t h a t the language which the respondents were propagating was pure Tagalog; t h a t t h i s was a l s o what they ca l l ed ' P i l i p i n o ' ; and t h a t the respondents were cheat ing the people i n thus developing and propagating Tagalog a s the na t iona l language when Tagalog was only intended t o be the bas i s .


The case , however, was dismissed (by Judge Gregorio T. Lantin, Court of F i r s t Ins tance , Manila) i n a dec is ion , t h e d i s p o s i t i v e part of which was t h a t t h e respondents' pos i t ion i n t h e development of the na t iona l language was i n accordance with law and the h i s t o r y of t h e development of o the r languages of the World, hence they were not culpable (Pineda 1965:3-4).

The a g i t a t i o n , however, d id not ebb i n s p i t e of the Court 's dec is ion upholding the pos i t ion of t h e INL. A concrete manifes ta t ion of t h e undiminished re s i s t ance agains t p u r i s t i c P i l i p i n o was the experiment conducted by the Taliba newspaper sometime i n 1967.

The Tal iba , one of the o ldes t vernacular d a i l i e s t h a t used to conform with the s p e l l i n g r u l e s of t h e B a l a r i l a was p a r t of a newspaper chain owned by t h e Manila Times Publishing Company. I ts average d a i l y c i r c u l a t i o n i n 1967 was no more than 28,000 i n s p i t e of an est imated more than two mi l l ion Tagalog readers i n the metropoli tan a rea alone. The publ isher , Joaquin Roces, surmised t h a t t h e reason f o r i ts comparatively low c i r c u l a t i o n w a s t h a t i t was f a i l i n g t o communicate with i t s readers owing t o i t s use of pure, formal Tagalog.

Accordingly, publisher Roces launched an experiment by adopting a mixture of easy Tagalog and fore ign words i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l s p e l l i n g which had entered the language through frequent and popular usage. The experiment was so successfu l t h a t the c i r c u l a t i o n of Tal iba soared by 30 percent (Roces 1967:5).

Then on March 6, 1967, Congressman Aguedo F. Agbayani, Chairman of the Committee on Education of the House of Representat ives, del ivered a speech imputing f a i l u r e t o the INL i n t h e develpment of a na t iona l language a s prescribed by law. Agbayani s a i d i n part:

The I n s t i t u t e of National Language, a f t e r these past 30 years , has not t r u l y developed a na t iona l language ... t h e I n s t i t u t e having accepted a v e r y i n s i g n i f i c a n t number of words from the o ther na t ive d i a l e c t s and has i n s i s t e n t l y refused t o r e v i s e the 20- le t te r a lphabet , t he Abakada, i n order to accommodate fore ign words.

Agbayani, l i k e Rodrigo, accused the ' p u r i s t s ' of developing a language which was not understandable even t o t h e Tagalogs themselves. The Congressman c i t e d the r i s e i n c i r c u l a t i o n of Tal iba from 19,000 t o more than 65,000 i n l e s s than ten months a f t e r the newspaper switched t o funct ional P i l i p i n o from the p u r i s t i c , c l a s s i c a l Tagalog. The r i s e i n c i r c u l a t i o n , Agbayani contended, was an eloquent proof t h a t purism had no place i n the developwnt of P i l ip ino .

Agbayani's speech which subsequently appeared i n the Manila - Times (March 10, 1967) prompted the Committee on Education and the Committee on National Language of the House of Representat ives t o conduct j o i n t hearings t o reexamine the procedures u!:ed i n the development of P i l ip ino .


D r . Jose Vi l l a Panganiban, who was then t h e IBL Direc tor , t e s t i f i e d before the J o i n t C o m m i t t e e t h a t everything being done by the INL was i n accordance with the provisions of law. C a r l a P. R a u l o , a s President of the Universi ty of the Phi l ippines and concurrent ly Secre tary of Education, a l s o t e s t i f i e d and proposed a f o u r p o i n t program f o r t h e dereloppent of the na t ional language: 1 ) conduct an a u t h o r i t s t i v e inventory of borrowed fore ign words and present corresponding l i n g u i s t i c r u l e s of b o r r d o g a t t he end of each f i v e or ten-year period; 2 ) f o r the dura t ion of each subsequent period, a l low the process of n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n of new words t o be borrowed and conduct a debate amng scho la r s , l i n g u i s t i c s o c i e t i e s , and exper ts ; 3) compile a d publish as soon a s pors lb le a caoprehensive d ic t iona ry of P i l i p i n o t o ensure a continuous and o rde r ly growth, and t o record such growth, of the na t iona l language; and 4) author ize t h e use of the na t ional language a s medium of i n s t r u c t i o n a t t he elementary, secondary, and c o l l e g i a t e l e v e l s (Rmulo 1967 as swmarilced by Sibayan 1974:234-5).

The speech of Congressman Agbayani must have been insp i red by the running feud between i(atas Edi tor Lacuesta and INL Direc tor P q a n i b a n , a s may be gleaned from t h e e d i t o r i a l of t h a t journal (August 1971 i s sue ) . The e d i t o r i a l says i n part:

From 1961 t o 1963, was under the inf luence of the I n s t i t u t e of National Language and so i ts language was p u r i s t i c sbakada Tagalog. I n i t s June 1964 issue, however, - ~ a t a s 9 r a i sed the banner of r evo l t aga ins t t he I n s t i t u t e of Nations1 Language standard and began t o write i n the Manila Lingua Franca. The Katas lead w a s followerl by t h e o the r mass media, including t h e - Taliba d a i l i e s . Soon, t h i s mixed Manila language which we call ' F i l i p i n o ' a s d is t inguished from t h e INL's ' P i l i p i n o ' ( p u r i s t i c abakada Tagalog) was i n a s t a t e of r i o t o u s bloom. The mass media threw i n t o the Pasig River the 'Ba la r i l a ng Wikang Pambansa' of Lope K. Santos, doing exac t ly what Quezon wanted many years ago when the f i r s t copy was presented t o him f o r approval.

Saee years a f t e r the speech of Congressman Agbayani and a f t e r subsequent hearings conducted on language, a b i l l (8. B. No.11367) was f i l e d i n Congress providing amng other th ings the a b o l i t i o n of the INL and i ts replacement by another body t o be c a l l e d Akademya ng Wilrang Pambansa. The b i l l a l s o provided t h e add i t ion of t h e following l e t t e r s t o the - 20- le t te r Abakada: -* c - ch, f, g, 2, 11, n, q, z, 1, x, and - z (Polotan 1966:7).

It was very obvious a t t h a t time t h a t much opposi t ion had been b u i l t up aga ins t t he INL. Yabes (1974:4), who was an English professor a t t he Universi ty of the Phi l ippines , l ikewise claimed t h a t the developmsnt of the na t iona l language would have been more rap id , s teady, and harmonious i f the l eade r s of the movement, e s p e c i a l l y those whose na t ive language was Tagalog, had not been su f fe r ing from shor ts ightedness . A t best, Yabes claimed, they were i n s u l a r i n menta l i ty ; a t worst they were provincia l or parochia l .


2.2.3 The I N L ' s and t h e P u r i s t s ' Side of t h e Issue . The INL and ---- -- indiv iduals iden t i f i ed by the ' a n t i p u r i s t s l % 'Taga l i s t a s ' , on t h e o the r hand, did not take the invect ives and- accusa t ions of t h e i r c r i t i c s without r a i s i n g a hand. Thus, t h e late Jose V i l l a Panganiban, who was then INL Di rec to r , answered h i s c r i t i c s on t h e i s sues r a i sed a g a i n s t t h e I n s t i t u t e . On the i s s u e of purism, he explained t h a t the re was no pure language being spoken by any c i v i l i z e d people f n the world, and t h a t Tagalog, with a l l t he inf luences of f a c t o r s t r aceab le t o t h e eleventh century, could not poss ib ly remain pure. Of course, Panganiban pointed ou t , P i l i p i n o , being Tagalog-based, would sound l i k e Tagalog but i t would not be so a l l t he ti= a s F i l i p i n o s would develop i t n a t u r a l l y through borrowings f r a o the r languages, be they indigenous o r fore ign , and through o t h e r lrnovn processes i n language development (Panganiban 1970:182).

A s t o t h e i s s u e of s p e l l i n g and t h e 20-letter alphabet ( inva r i ab ly ca l l ed by the a n t i - p u r i s t s the 'Tagalog Abakada' o r ' a t a v i s t i c Abakada'), Panganiban explained t h a t its composition was i n i t s e l f a recent product of the f luc tua t ing development of the P i l i p i n o system of wr i t ing a f t e r i t had passed through modif icat ions and changes brought about by e a s i l y t r aceab le h i s t o r i c a l , educat ional , l i t e r a r y , and l i n g u i s t i c inf luences s ince t h e seventeenth century.

Panganiban pointed out t h a t t h e a c t u a l composition of the cu r ren t P i l i p i n o wr i t ing consisted of two pa r t s :

F i r s t , t he Bomanized Abakada cons i s t ing of 20 l e t t e r s : a , b, k, A, e, g, h, L, 1, Q, P, x, 2, 21 I , a, t. E n =. p These l e t t e r s a r e used t o spell colmpon words, be they indigenous o r ass imi la ted loan words.

Second, borrowed l e t t e r s from English and Spanish wr i t ing systems, - composed of 11 l e t t e r s : c, &, f. A, 11, 2, q, c, v, 5, fi These l e t t e r s a r e used i n unassimilable borrowed proper and t echn ica l terms mainly from Spanish and English.

Panganiban explained f u r t h e r t h a t the P i l i p i n o wr i t ing system is cons i s t en t i n the sense t h a t it follows the simple r u l e of one l e t t e r , one sound. I n o the r words, t h e r e i s a one-to-one correspondence between the s i g n i f i c a n t sound o r phonemic t m i t of the language and the symbol o r l e t t e r . It is d i f f e r e n t from the incons i s t en t English wr i t ing system wherein a l e t t e r o r symbol can represent mul t ip le sounds.

The r e spe l l ing of borrowed common words t o conform t o the Abakada, according t o Panganiban, was mistakenly in t e rp re ted by some people a s p u r i s t i c and/or a t a v i s t i c . Every language, according t o him should have i t s own system of r u l e s on s p e l l i n g t o fol low i n borrowing loan words, e s p e c i a l l y from languages t h a t do not use t h e Boraanized system of spe l l ing .

Paraluman Santos-Aspillera, daughter of Lope K. Santos himself , the author of the p u r i s t i c B a l a r i l a , had t h e following t o say on the so-called ' p u r i s t i c abakada' which is v i r t u a l l y i n accord with Panganiban's statement :


The I n s t i t u t e of National Language Board i n 1939 decided to adopt /c , ch, f , j, 11, n, q, rr, v, x. 21 from Spanish and English a lphabets t o be used p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the names of persons and geographical placee ... The wri t ing sydtea of P i l i p i n o , the re fo re , had from the very beginning consisted of the o r i g i n a l romanized abakada and eleven (11) cha rac te r s adopted from Spanish and English. There has been no a c l u s i o n a s the Phi l ippine romanized wr i t ing system (not t h e a lphabat ) c o n s i s t s of thirty-one (31) cha rac te r s , twenty (20) of which a r e based on na t ive phonology and eleven (11) taken from influencing c u l t u r e s ( b p i l l e r a 1968:8-9).10

One se r ious problem t h a t b e e t s the F i l i p i n o s with regard t o orthography, a s t h i s researcher sees i t , is how t o treat borroved uords, e s p e c i a l l y those from English. The problem does not su r face i n t h e o r a l or spoken phase of the language. The moment, however, when what one says o r a l l y is w r i t t e n down, the problem suddenly present6 i t s e l f . Should one r e t a i n the spe l l ing of borrowed words o r w r i t e them according t o the B a l a r i l a rules on s p e l l i n g - t h a t is, i f the words theaselves a r e not r e j ec ted and replaced with o the r words by the user?

This phenomenon confirms what Pishman, Ferguaon, Dee Gupta (1968:29f) sa id : I... t h e use of wr i t ing adds another v a r i e t y of language t o the community's reper tory ' . They f u r t h e r wrote:

Linguis ts l i k e t o point out that speech is primary and wr i t ing secondary and that w r i t t e n language is always i n some sense a representa t ion of speech. Although t h i s is t r u e i n a general way, ... t h e f a c t i s t h a t wr i t ing almost never r e f l e c t s speech i n an exact way - w r i t t e n language f r equen t ly develops c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s not found i n t h e corresponding spoken language, and it may change along l i n e s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from changes i n the spoken language. Af ter t h e spread of wr i t ing , v a r i e t i e s of the spoken language can no longer be described i n vacuo; they w i l l i n t e r a c t with the w r i t t e n form t o a g r e a t e r o r lesser degree.

The foregoing observat ion i s t r u e i n t h e case of P i l ip ino . Spoken P i l i p i n o has some degree of d i f f e rence from w r i t t e n P i l i p i n o , i.e., borrowed words which a r e normally acceptable t o an ordinary F i l i p i n o i n spoken form w i l l be r e j ec ted by t h e sane indiv idual when shown t o him i n w r i t t e n form. In a simple s tudy conducted by t h i s researcher involving 40 s tudents a t t he Universi ty of t h e Phi l ippines and another 40 s tuden t s a t t he Phi l ippine Normal College, words l i k e Iprinopos, pagdebelop, madiskas, inaprub, adapsyon, e t c . were r e j ec ted by the same s tudents who used them i n t h e i r o r a l speech (Santiago 1976:96-7).

This brings us t o the poin t where some of the c r i t i c s of P i l i p i n o might have been r e f e r r i n g t o t h e spoken r a t h e r than the w r i t t e n v a r i e t y of the language.


Ponciano B. P. Pineda (1970:14;28-30), cu r ren t INL Di rec to r , i n h i s own fashion c l a s s i f i e d the cri t ics of t h e na t iona l language i n t o t h r e e groups :

2.2.3.1 'Salumpuwit' - and 'Salipawpaw' Critics. This group, according t o Pineda, is a l s o known a s the ' a n t i p u r i s t s ' . They claim t h a t the people sumnarily r e j e c t ' p u r i s t i c Tagalog', c i t i n g ha l f i n j e s t salumpuwit and salipawpaw a s ready examples. They a r e t h e same group of people who contend t h a t t h e n a t i o n a l language should be an amalgamation of a l l t h e indigenous Ph i l ipp ine languages and t h e inf luencing fore ign languages l i k e English and Spanish; and t h a t the na t iona l language should f i r s t be developed before it i s taught i n the schools. This group advocates a r t i f i c i a l mixing of languages, s i m i l a r t o the invented Esperanto, Volapuk and El Mondo languages which, of course , have not survived.

2.2.3.2 Prophets of Darkness. This group is l a r g e l y composed of w r i t e r s and professors?n English, and of some l i n g u i s t s . They claim t h a t P i l i p i n o is not y e t developed a s t o be capable of handling i n t e l l e c t u a l s u b j e c t s , e s p e c i a l l y those t h a t a r e h igh ly t echn ica l and s c i e n t i f i c , considering t h a t t h e r e is not even an encyclopedia i n P i l i p i n o . They f u r t h e r claim, according t o Pineda, t h a t t h e F i l i p i n o s w i l l be cu t of f from the mainstream of m d e r n i z a t i o n , s i n c e t h e world's knowledge accumulated through the years i s a v a i l a b l e t o F i l i p i n o s only through English. And t o t r a n s l a t e the world's knowledge i n t o P i l i p i n o w i l l be imprac t i ca l , expensive, and time-consuming. Inadequacy, Pineda pointed o u t , is not i n t h e language p e r s e , but i n t h e user . Moreover, t h e n a t i o n a l language t h a t i s developing now is not f o r the present only but f o r succeeding generat ions.

2.2.3.3 Regional i s t s . These a r e the non-Tagalog e thn ic l o y a l i s t s , Pineda s t a t e d . Educated a s they a r e , they cannot shed o f f t h e i r e t h n i c i t y such a s t o accept P i l i p i n o a s a na t iona l language over and above t h e i r f i r s t and/or reg ional languages, claiming t h a t t h e i r own languages a r e j u s t a s good i f not b e t t e r than Tagalog. This group, according t o Pineda, reasons t h i s way: It is b e t t e r not t o have an indigenous n a t i o n a l language a t a l l than t o a l low t h e Tagalogs t o enjoy a n advantageous p o s i t i o n over non-Tagalogs. It is b e t t e r t o have English s o t h a t everybody i s on equal foo t ing , Tagalogs and non-Tagalogs a l i k e .

Gonsalo de l Rosario, Vice-President of t h e Pamantasan ng Takarang Araneta (Araneta Foundation Univers i ty) , proponent of 'Technical P i l i p i n o ' a s epitomized i n t h e NSDB's Maugnaying T a l a s a l i t

S IN PHILIPPINE LINGUISTICS · STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE LINGUISTICS Volume 5 Number 2 1984 The...

Documents

Transcript of S IN PHILIPPINE LINGUISTICS · STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE LINGUISTICS Volume 5 Number 2 1984 The...