evolution of tagalog
Renowl
by Jessie Grace U. Rubrico
Introduction
Filipino, the term used in both the 1973 and 1987 Philippine Constitution to
designate as the "national language" of the Philippines --whether in sense of
de jure, or de facto, it matters not-- has come full-circle to prick the
national consciousness and lay its vexing burden at the feet of our national
planners, as well as of the academe. For indeed, the past six decades (since
1935) has seen "Pilipino" (or, "Filipino," its more acceptable twin ) tossed in
the waves of controversies between the pros and and the antis as each camp
fires off volleys of linguistic cognoscente or even garbage, as the case may
be, while the vast majority watched with glee or boredom.
With a strong constitutional mandate to evolve, further develop, and enrich
Filipino "on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages" (Art. XIV,
Sec.6, 1986 Constitution), our language planners were supposedly equipped to
deal with the legal and administrative details of the problem, after the sad
episodes appurtenant to its admittedly emotional sideshows in the 1971
Constitutional Convention (Santos, 1976) and the polemical articles of Vicente
Sotto, et. al. (Rubrico, 1996), among others.
Key Issue and Sub-issues
But after more than 60 years, has Filipino truly metamorphosed into a
Philippine national language? To what extent? What has been its "success
stories"? Its failures? What is its current state or condition in the present?
What needs to be further done? What is in store for the future? What are the
development prospects of the other non-Tagalog languages of the Philippines for
integration into Filipino?What are the pervasive influence of English or of
other foreign languages on today's speakers?
This paper is an indicative study of of Filipino's current lexicon,
particularly borrowings from the English language --an ineluctable task, but
necessary nonetheless, if one has to face honestly the current phenomenon to be
described more fully in this study. The researcher fully agrees with the
observation that a national language can be a unifying concept of our
continuing struggle against our colonizers (Atienza,1996), of freeing ourselves
from our colonial mindset (Maceda, 1996). Still, the illusory pitfalls
(Constatino, 1996) warned about in the development of the national language
compendium can be cause for some soul-searching pause, even as others deny them
(Almario, 1996) with equal logic.
But if debates must continue, the let the "game" begin and may the best
argument -as perceived by its arbiters. the officials and the public,
especially--win. Language and culture are, after all, inseparable, with the
people's lexicon mirroring their culture.
The Corpus
Virtually everyone agrees that media -print, radio, and television (and now,
cyberspace) has had a profound influence on people, especially on their
language. The Filipino spoken today, especially by the young (35 years old and
below) is undeniably distinctive, to use a loose term, and may have been so
influenced by media to a greater extent. This Filipino is spoken by a
significant segment of the population and it warrants a linguistic inquiry.
Selected articles from Filipino tabloids and dailies, scholarly papers from
the University of the Philippines Press, candid and structured interviews of
college students, television news, sitcoms and talk shows, and radio programs
in Metro Manila are some of the culled sources for the Filipino words, phrase,
or sentences found in this study. Filipino, Tagalog, and Cebuano words are
arrayed for cognate purposes, with English juxtaposed as a meta- or reference
language. The corpus is found at the end of this paper as Appendix.
The conclusion derived therefrom form the bulk of the recommendations of this
researcher, particularly on the "key success variables" that could ensure the
continuing development and metamorphosis of Filipino as the national language
of the Philippines in the next century.
Historical Perspective
The issue of our national language has been around for the past 60, or maybe
even 90, years. The inhabitants of an archipelago with over a hundred languages
need a common language with which they could communicate with each other and
express themselves as a people of one nation.
The 1987 Constitution provides that, "the national language of the Philippines
is Filipino. As it evolves, it shall be further developed and enriched on the
basis oe existing Philippine and other languages."
Perhaps it is unfortunate that when the Philippine Commission passed a bill in
1908 providing for an establishment of an Institute of Philippine languages and
the training of public school teachers thereon, the Philippine Assembly
rejected it through Leon Ma. Guerrero, its Chairman on Public Instruction who
recognized the need for a common language for the Filipinos but who opted to
adopt a foreign language instead of the native ones. Through him, the
Philippine Assembly spoke, thus:
"The idea of studying the languages of the Philippine Archipelago is
very plausible; but the present aspiration of
those who are interested in these languages is to unite them or reduce them
into a single language which, based on the
principal dialects of the Islands, might constitute the means of
inter-communication of ideas in the entire Archipelago,
and which might obviate the absolute need now felt of using a common foreign
tongue as a means of transmission of
ideas, sentiments, and aspirations of the inhabitants of the Philippines."
(Romualdez,1936; p.302).
In 1931, the ex-officio Secretary of Public Instruction, Mr. Butte, addressing
the Catholic Women'sLeague, encouraged the use of the vernacular as medium of
instruction in the primary grades (I to IV). He opined:
"If we may assume that one of the national objectives of the Philippines
will be to preserve the important native languages, as far as practicable,
the schools may contribute to the realization of this national objective by
abondoning English as the sole medium of instruction in the elementary schools
. . ." (Romualdez,1936).
It must be noted that Lope K. Santos addressed the First Indepence Congress on
30 February 1930 by expounding on "The Vernacular as a Factor in National
Solidarity and Independence." In 1932, Representative Manuel V. Gallego
authored Bill No. 588 which provided for the use of the vernacular as the
medium of instruction in all public elementary and secondary schools. In 1934
and 1935 the national language issue was discussed during the Consti- tutional
Convention. And the Constitution mandated in Section 3, Article XIII: "The
National Assembly shall take steps toward the development and adoption of a
common language based on one of the existing native languages. . ."
The National Language Institute was established on 13 November1936 pursuant to
Commonwealth Act No. 184, and it was tasked with "the study of Philippine
dialects in general for the purpose of evolving and adopting a common national
language based on one of the existing native tongues." This involved studying
each language spoken by not less than half a million people, collecting and
collating cognate sets and phrases from these languages, adopting a system for
Philippine phonetics and ortography, comparing critically all Philippine
affixes, and selecting the language which was the most develop in structure and
literature and widely accepted and used by most Filipinos --which will be the
basis for the national language (Sec.V Art.1-5). The Institute was given a year
to accomplish this.
Once the language is selected, the Institute is to prepare its grammar and
dictionary within two years. Then it shall purify the language by weeding out
the unnecessary foreign words, phrases, or other grammatical constructions, and
enrich it through borrowing from the native languages and dialects, from
Spanish, and from English --in that order. And any word adopted into the
national language should be subjected to the phonological rules and ortography
of the Philippine languages.
In 1937, the Institute recommended Tagalog and came up with the Balarila and
the Tagalog- English Dictionary. In 1959, the Department of Education called
the Tagalog-based national language Pilipino. In 1965, some congressmen took
the cudgels againsts the propagation of Pilipino, which to them is "puristang
Tagalog," as the national language. This period witnessed the purists coining
words like salumpuwit (chair), salimpapaw (airplane), sipnayan (mathematics),
etc. In 1969, some non-Tagalog speakers, like the Madyaas Pro-Hiligaynon
Society and some Cebuano groups complained against the movement of Manila
toward "purismo." This gave rise to the problems that needed to be resolved
before the non-Tagalog speakers could accept Tagalog as their own "wikang
pambansa."
Be that as it may, the Board of National Education ordered in 1970 the gradual
shift to Pilipino as medium of instruction in the elementary starting with
Grade 1 in the school year 1974-75 and progressing into higher grades, a level
each year. It was also adopted as the medium of instruction for Rizal and
history subjects in colleges and universities. In 7 August 1973, the Board of
National Education introduced the bilingual approach to teaching --that is,
using two languages as media of instruction in the schools, to wit: the
vernacular for Grades I and II, Pilipino for Grades III and IV, Pilipino and
English for secondary and tertiary levels.
This bilingual approach serves to promote the intellectualization of the
national language --that is, to use it as medium of intellectual exchanges in
the academe, government offices, as well as in other disciplines in the process
of acquiring knowledge about the world which could be expressed by the said
language. In addition, it will bring about a national unity and identity among
Filipinos, as they can now express themselves and communicate with each other
in a common language.
The 1973 Constitution states the National Assembly should endeavor towards
developing and formally adopting a common national language to be called
Filipino. Meantime, Pilipino and English remain the official languages unless
repealed by law. Filipino is anchoredon Pilipino. Pilipino has borrowed and
adopted a lot of words from the Spanish lexicon, Spain being the country's
colonizer for over 300 years. These words are carried over to Filipino as
Pilipino, as these lexical items have now undergone phonological and
morphological processes and appear to be native terms. The borrowing from
Spanish has now somewhat waned. What is prevalent in Filipino today is the
rampant borrowing from English. Tabloids, dailies, weeklies, showbiz magazines,
even the Cebuano weekly Bisaya are awashed with English words. The academicians
as well as the newscasters in radio and television have adopted English words
freely and liberally (please refer to Exhibits A-F)
Filipino Today
The evolution of the Wikang Pambansa, now known as Filipino, has not remained
uneventful, as one finds out from the its historical perspective in the
previous section. From 1935 onwards, to the present 1990s we have seen this
language develop, first as Tagalog-based that barely ill-disguised itself as
the "national language"--a clear victory of Manuel L. Quezon and the espousal
of the tagalistas over the Bisayan hopes of Sotto and his Ang Suga advocates--
then, in 1959 acquiring the term "Pilipino"given to it by executive fiat to
remove the last vestiges of "tagalogism" and imprint its national character. In
1965, when the "puristas" (purists) attempted to enhance the vocabulary through
artificial wordsmithing and thereby intensifying the 'word war" with their
critics. Then, beginning in the 1970s which saw Pilipino finally being used as
medium of instruction at the primary and secondary levels of public and private
schools. And, lastly, from its 1987 constitutional enshrinement as "Filipino"
to the present --an amalgamation of Pilipino/Tagalog, Spanish, and a
preponderance for English in respelled forms.
Some lexical items given in the Appendix will now be discussed here as
representing a type of dominant Filipino written or spoken in: (a) the
academe;(b) a language journal; (c) a Cebuano weekly of general circulation;
(d) an article written by a noted Filipino linguists; (e) a series of TV news
broadcasts, and (f) someMetro Manila daily tabloids. The choice of sources for
these lexical items is rather arbitrary, albeit on firm linguistic ground that
the best sources of data are the people themselves --what they speak, what they
read, and so on. In this study,Tagalog and Cebuano speakers are taken as a
combined language group comprising more than 50 per cent of the Philippine
population (Atienza, 1996, citing NSO 1989 figures) with 92 per cent of
Filipinos being able to speak the wikang pambansa, thus effectively
establishing Filipino as the lingua franca of the country, if not, as the
national language itself.
Exhibit A (please see Appendix) presents some lexical items used by professors
of the University of the Philippines in their publications in Filipino on the
same topic. These terms are arrayed alongside their English equivalent. Thus,
konsiderasyon is "consideration" (respelled form), natural is, likewise,
"natural" (adopted form). The original data of about 600 terms show consistency
on the aforementioned forms.
Exhibit B, with lexical items sourced from the writings of of a distinguished
group of Filipino writers, exhibits the same forms --respelled, affixed, or
adopted (e.g., diyagram, kategorya, and minimal). Exhibit C, with lexical items
from the highly popular and widely-circulated Cebuano weekly, Bisaya, shows a
close congruence of Filipino usage as its staid counterparts above (Exhibits A
and B). For instance, anowonser for "announcer," ideposito for "to deposit,"
and tiloring for "tailoring."
Exhibit D shows some lexical items from one of the works of the foremost
proponent of the "universal approach" to Philippine languages (Constantino,
1974). These items are unabashed borrowing from the English language, such as
fyutyur (future), vawel (vowel), tsok (chalk), sabjektiv (subjective), and
diksyunari (dictionary).
Exhibit E is a transcription of terms used in selected, highly-rated TV
newscasts in Filipino.Typically, the commentary is fast-paced, accompaniedby
live "on the spot" camera footages, with words pouring out in staccato manner,
like administrasyon, kovereyj, masaker, trafik apdeyt,insedente, aprobahan, and
the like. (The respelling of these English equivalent in Filipino is the
researcher's alone, consistent with the phonological rules of Philippine
languages.)
Exhibit F lists lexical terms from the proliferating Metro Manila tabloids
written in Filipino and read by the masa, the "man in the street" literally.
Familiar words like mentaliti (mentality), sektor (sector), isyu (issue), and
abroad (abroad).
Taken as a whole, the lexical items drawn from Exhibits A toF reveal a common,
tell-tale pattern of usage one can ignore at his/herown peril. All point ot a
heavy and consistent borrowing from the English language. Why this phenomenon
is so will be explained in the next section.
Towards a Theory of Filipino
What do academicians say about Filipino? Dr. Ernesto A. Constantino, a
distinguished Filipino linguist says: "Ang pinili naming wika na idedebelop
bilang wikang pambansa natin, ang tinawag naming linggwa prangka o Filipino."
[We chose to develop as national language Filipino, that which we refer to as
the lingua franca] (Constantino, 1996:p.180). Atienza (1996) describes it as
"isang wikang kompromiso, o lingua franca." Flores(1996) points out that
Filipino is the language of the "kulturang popular na nagmula sa Metro Manila
at pinapalaganap sa buong kapuluan." Another view is that of Isagani R. Cruz
of DLSU who states that for him Filipino is the English-Tagalog code switch. On
the other hand, Alegre (1989) expresses that "contemporary Manila Tagalog is
the basis of Filipino." He claims that Tagalog is developing into the national
language as it is the lingua franca of the non-Tagalog provinces.
Is the Tagalog-based Pilipino really Filipino? Dr. Constantino cites the
differences between Pilipino and Filipino, to wit: Filipino (1) has more
phonemes; (2) has a different system of ortography; (3) manifests a heavy
borrowing from English; (4) has a different grammatical construction. Based on
the trend of development of Filipino as manifested in the data presented in
this study, as well as the actual usage by the linguistic trendsetters in
Philippine society --newscasters (both in radio and television), Filipino
writers andsome academicians, showbiz personalities--it would appear that his
theory is closest to reality.
There is a consensus, however, among the academicians above that Filipino is
the lingua franca in MetroManila which is inexorably pervading the regional
centers through the print and broadcast media, through the songs that the
local bands sing, through intellectual discussions among academicians, etc. It
is the language through which a prominent Filipino linguistcommunicates
(Exhibit D), as well as the medium of expression among academicians (Exhibit
A), and of the "caretakers" or "authority" of national language development in
the University of the Philippines System, namely, the writers and editors in
the Sentro ng Wikang Filipino(Exhibit B).
Even the leading Cebuano weekly, Bisaya (which has been around for the past 68
years) has now printed in its pages loan words from English which, more often
than not, retain their original spelling despite their being subjected to the
Cebuano rules of grammar. One can safely say that Cebuano, like Tagalog, is
undergoing linguistic change through lexical borrowing from English. Right now
the Cebuanos adopt two alternate forms --the original spelling and the
modified. Soon only one form will be retained, by theory of simplification as
embodied in the universals of language.
At the moment, it is very clear that English borrowing has a dominant and
pervading influence in the shaping of the lingua franca which is the
penultimate form of Filipino, the national language. But will this trend
continue? Language is dynamic. This researcher is of the opinion that as long
as English remains the official language of commerce, science,and technology
the trend will continue.
Unfortunately, there isn't much borrowing from other Philippine languages.
Maceda (1996) introduces some Cebuano words and phrases in her discourse. So
natural was the insertion, the reader can contextualize the meaning. Atienza,
in the same book included in his text "pakikipag- lakipan," the rootword of
which. "lakip", is also found in the Cebuano lexicon. At the UP campus, one
sees Cebuano signs like "Balay Kalinaw" and "Ugnayan sa Pahinungod." Would a
little bit more adoption of words from other Philippine languages foster
goodwill and unity among the etnolinguistic groups in the country in the
future? Being a Cebuano, the researcher feels proud that some Cebuno terms are
now significant in the national context. Probably members of disparate
ethnolinguistic groups would most likely feel the same.
On the other hand, there are expressed illusory hindrances to the concept of a
unifying language, to wit: (1) it is impossible to develop a national language
from one of the country's 100-plus languages; (2) the emergence of a national
language will wither the other languages; (3) it is equally impossible to
develop a national language based on two or more languages; (4) regionalistic
pride prevails over nationalistic aspiration --like the Cebuano who insists on
using his own language over Pilipino.
But considering the rapid linguistic development of both Cebuano and the Metro
Manila Filipino, there seems to be hope for Filipino. And this is manifested in
the perceived convergence of Pilipino and Cebuano through their respective
borrowings from English. A few examples are given below:
English Terms Pilipino Form Cebuano Form Filipino (convergence)
abroad abroad abroad abroad
advertisement adbertisment adbertisment adbertisment
announcer anawnser anawonser anawnser
category kategorya kategorya kategorya
effect epekto epekto epekto
One is confident that the converging process will continue, not only for
Pilipino and Cebuano but likewise for other Philippine languages like
Hiligaynon,Bikol, Ilokano, Waray, Kapampangan, and so on. Language change is,
however, gradual and it will probably take several years before a substantive
convergence can occur.What is apparent for now is that the convergence is
already taking place.
Meanwhile, Almario (1997, p.9) gives an update on Filipino:
"Nasa kalooban ngayon ng Filipino ang paglinang sa "sanyata" at "ranggay"
ng Iloko sa "uswag" at "bihud" ng Bisaya, sa "santing" ng
Kapampangan,"laum" at "magayon" ng Bikol at kahit sa "buntian" ng Butanon at
"suyad" ng Manobo. Samantalay hindi ito hadlang sa madaliang pagpasok ng
"shawarma" "shashimi," "glasnost," "perestroika," "shabu," "megabytes."
"odd-even," at iba ang idadagsa ng satelayt at FAX sa globalisasyon."
What does one make out of this assertion? Are we now to believe that the
process of borrowing from other Philippine and foreign languages is now a
linguistic reality? Judging from the data gathered and presented here, perhaps
this is only partially true. That is, borrowing is almost exclusively from the
English language. And why is this so? It is difficult to give a substantive
answer to this particular question, given the limited scope of this study.
Perhaps one indication why there is a lot of borrowing fro English compared to
other Philippine languages is the facility and appropriateness or
applicability of English terms to modern day-to-day living of the average urban
Filipino. More so because the urbanized Filipino is constantly exposed to the
trappings --high technology, media, etc.-- of modern society which adopts
English as its medium of communication, commerce, and education. As for
Filipinos living in rural communities, the far-reaching radio and television
broadcasts bring to them the linguistic trend emanating from the urban centers.
Thus is the metamorphosis of our national language, Filipino. Quick to adapt
and change with the times and the demands of its speakers' culture and
politics, it had initially lain quiescent beneath the controversies and debates
over its birth and composition. But now, thanks to globalization and the rising
quality of life of the average Filipino, it has, like the moth, grown
uncomfortable inside its cocoon prison and longed for freedom of expression.
Much may yet have to be done, but Filipino as national language of unity has
arrived.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT F
Copyright@ 1998 Jessie Grace U.Rubrico
<jag...@broline.com>
<www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Field/4260>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
REFERENCES:
ALMARIO, VIRGILIO S. 1997. "Mulang Tagalog hanggang
Filipino."In Daluyan. Vol. VIII, No.1-2 (1997).
Quezon City: Sentro ng Wikang Pilipino, University of the
Philippines System. pp.1-10.
ATIENZA, MA.ELLA. 1996. "Ang Pulitika sa Paggawa ng
Palisi ng Wika." In Constantino and Atienza (eds.) Mga
Piling Diskurso sa Wika at Lipunan. Quezon City: UP
Press. pp. 133-156.
CONSTANTINO, ERNESTO A. 1996. "Mga Linggwistik na
Ilusyon sa Pilipinas." In Constantino and Atienza (eds.). Mga
Piling Diskurso sa Wika at Lipunan. Quezon City: UP
Press. pp.179-186.
_____________, Rogelio Sicat and Pamela Cruz. 1974.
Pilipino o Filipino? Manila: Rex Bookstore.
CRUZ, ISAGANI R, 1997. "Ang Filipino sa Internet." In
Daluyan, Vol VIII, No 1-2 (1997). Quezon City: Sentro ng
Wikang Filipino. UP System. pp. 69-74.
FLORES, PATRICK D. 1996. "Pamamangka sa Maraming
Ilog: Ang Deseminasyon ng Filipino atang mga Daluyan nga
Kulturang Popular." In Constantino and Atienza (eds.).Mga
Piling Diskurso sa Wika at Lipunan. Quezon City: UP
Press. pp. 219-230.
LIWAYWAY PUBLISHING HOUSE. BISAYA (Nag-unang
sinemanang Magasin sa Binisaya). Oktubre 16, 1996;
Marso 26, 1997; and Hunyo 25, 1997. Makati:
LOPEZ CECILIO. 1932. "Our Language Problems." Philippine
Social Science Review, Vol. IV. No. 2 (April 1932).
pp. 93-100.
MACEDA, TERESITA G.1996. "Wikang Pambansa:
Pagpapalaya kay Bighani." In Constantino and Atienza (eds).
Mga Piling Diskurso sa Wika at Lipunan. Quezon City:UP
Press. pp 187-194.
RUBRICO, JESSIE GRACE U. 1997. "An Annotated
Bibliography of Works and Studies on the History, Structure,
and Lexicon of the Cebuano Language: 1610 to1996." Thesis
(MA Linguistics),University of the Philippines, Diliman,
Quezon City.
SANTOS, EMMANUEL. 1976. The Constitution of the
Philippines: Notes and Comments. Manila: The Philippine
Society of Constitutional Law, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Copyright (c) 1998 Language Links. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
undefined
undefined
More...
ADVERTISEMENT
[Close]
ADVERTISEMENT
[Close]
Click Here