In the month of celebrating the Pambansang Wika ,an essay by Ateneo
senior James Soriano was published in The
Manila Bulletin (MB) trumpeting the privileged status of English over Filipino in the Philippines from
his point of view, a young adult/student from a common Filipino middle- and
upper-class. It received mixed reactions from Filipino netizens which led to
MB’s withdrawal of it and to other Filipino columnists’ responding to it.
This essay is an analysis of the
assumptions about English and the Filipino language and other Philippine
languages that are embedded in Soriano’s essay and the response essays of the
columnists. The analysis is guided by Martin’s (2010) book chapter on the four
myths about English in the Philippines. Overall, she suggests that the combined
power of curriculum, western literary canon, and pedagogy during the American
colonial period propagated present-day myths about the English language in the
Philippines. These myths are originally conceptualized by Kachru (cited in
Martin, 2010).
The response essays were written by
columnists from diverse background, each having different approach in
responding to Soriano’s essay. A professor of English and teacher of writing, Butch
Dalisay responds to Soriano’s essay as if it was an essay in his writing class.
In his piece entitled A testimonial to
alienation, Dalisay commends the student for confessing that he is a
“split-level Filipino” yet thinks that Soriano’s essay “needs more
thinking-through” as it embodies significant social truths that need to reach its intended audience
effectively. In The Filipino is
multilingual, creative writer and former U.P. professor Mila Aguilar stands
for multilingualism and revealed Soriano’s “revelation of a princely life with
English” as a push for “the superiority of English in the Philippine scene.”
Dennis Clemente approached Soriano’s essay from the perspective of someone in
Filipino-American community in New York. In her essay entitled The Filipino boy who doesn’t want to speak
Filipino is what, exactly?, she sees Soriano as a symptom of a bigger
problem of the country’s social stratification and the dispassionate teaching
of the Filipino language in the country. Columnist William Esposo in his article,
Anti Filipino article reaps the whirlwind,
highlights arguments which he thinks some of the Filipinos lose sight of
due to pressures of economic deprivations, namely arguments on the loss of
identity and on the non-necessity of English in some Asian countries. All too
often, these articles seem to agree on major points that circulate in these
essays but approach these assumptions in a different perspective.
Methodology
I picked the controversy over James
Soriano’s essay for two reasons. First, the debate about the status and
functions of languages in the Philippines has been a classic one which still is
very vibrant until today. Second, this controversy gained national attention
and nationwide involvement of almost all of the Filipino netizens especially in
this Facebook era. For a considerable amount of time, this has become the topic
of discussion among social networking sites and blogging sites, not to mention
the plethora of emotion-charged comments that come with the posts.
Choosing the response essays to be
included in this paper underwent a system. First, I looked for the websites
that has to do with James Soriano’s essay. The search led me to various
personal blogs and Philippine online newspaper websites which contain essays
that respond or discuss James Soriano’s essay. Second, I decided to only
analyze the column articles from Philippine online newspapers and exclude
personal blogs because column articles are in the mainstream and are more
accessible to the most of the Filipino people across the country. Comments of
the readers on the selected essays are not included in the analysis to make
this paper more manageable. Third, I then looked at the background of these
writers to make sure that I have a pool of diverse perspectives to be analyzed.
Indeed, the writers are an educator, a creative writer, a member of the
Filipino-American community in New York, an activist, and a veteran journalist.
The analysis started by identifying the
assumptions embedded in Soriano’s essay. In my close reading, I identified
three main assumptions about English language in relation to other languages in
the Philippines, learning and development, and national identity. I then read
closely the response essays and checked whether the writers affirm or refute
those assumptions.
Myth 1: English and
Filipino are languages in opposition.
Martin (2010) summarizes this myth as
“the [English] language. . . in direct opposition with other Philippine
languages, especially the national language” (p. 257). In his article, Soriano
highlighted the privileged status of English in the Philippines and took it against
the Filipino language, positing that the two operate in mutually exclusive
domains. He said that English is the language of learning while Filipino is the
language of the streets. Filipino is a language portrayed as ‘the other’
subject which is to be learned for his survival in the outside world.
All of columnists seem to agree on the
importance of utilizing these languages yet they appear to vary in the way they
value each of these languages. All of them agree that English is important but
it is not the only language “that will save” the nation. Aguilar recognizes
that English is the language that “the upper classes of the Philippine society”
need to deal with CEOs from China and Japan in the same way that Clemente
mentions that English is the language of “our educational system and form of
business communication”. Dalisay confesses, “I have no problem valuing and
promoting English as the language of global business”. He says “[W]e need to
master [English] . . . so it doesn’t master us”. As a professor of English, he
says he teaches the English language and
(American) literature for his students “not to try and become Americans, but to
become better Filipinos.” Esposo, while initially claiming that Philippines’
neighbors in Asia “did not need English to excel economically”, he later on
said that “[b]oth Filipino and English can be learned” as long as the Filipino
language is not sacrificed.
Even as they see English as important,
they all agree that treating English as the nation’s only panacea and superior among the languages is dangerous. Dalisay
said that he has seen Filipino children being raised in solely English in the
hopes of “turning them into globalized Filipinos” yet they turned to be
“socially maimed individuals who can’t relate to their own people and who don’t
feel at stake in their own country’s future.” Aguilar cites US’s bilingualism
policy as its recognition to the notion that “monolingualism makes of a dumb
population”. Esposo argues that, “Using English as the medium of instruction
[in the tertiary level] ” not only is ineffective in facilitating English
language acquisition but “merely adds
another impediment to progress [ delivering the content of the courses]”.
Clemente said that “[t]he use of English among the rich sets them apart from
the rest who speak Tagalog” thus creating or reinforcing the social
stratification of the country.
Although they seem to agree on the
economic functions of English in the Philippines and
the potential harms of English monolingualism,
they seem to have varying pictures of an ideal linguistic scene in the
Philippines. Aguilar and Dalisay both champion explicitly multilingualism for
the Philippines. Aguilar’s thesis has always been that “the Filipino is
multilingual”, using herself as an example of a Filipino who easily adapts and
learns languages that s/he is exposed to. Dalisay “believe[s] in a bilingual –
indeed, a multilingual – policy, not only it’s nationalistic, but because it
works, and kinder to the child in the long term” as it allows the child to be
‘a globalized” Filipino while being socially capable of dealing with the
Filipinos across the nation.He
adds that:
“The
real tragedy of the James Soriano episode for me is that despite both the
academic and anecdotal evidence, many Filipinos keep clinging to the illusion
that only English will save us, and that any proposal to promote Filipino and
other Philippine languages in the classroom alongside English is a step back
into the jungle.”
The other two columnists appear to
have no explicit stance in terms of what they want to do with these languages
but the bulk of their analyses would suggest that Soriano’s article is just
“the struggle over the Filipino language”. Therefore, the balancing act is just
between English and Filipino with little or no reference to the “other
Philippine languages”.
Clement seems to shift stances from
bilingualism to Filipino-only. She claims the Filipino language is at a
disadvantage. It was the ‘interventions’ of foreign colonizers which hindered
the development of the Filipino language. She said that the development of the
language should not stop especially that Filipino-English code switching is
“already acknowledged” (without specifying where and by whom). She seems to
endorse the idea that “having one language” is ideal, thus, catapulting
Filipino language to an important place. For the Filipinos in the Philippines,
she believes that using Filipino (more), this one language, is beneficial in “break[ing]
down social divisions” between the rich and the poor because the poor now have
access to knowledge. Here she establishes a parallel with America’s monolingualism
without taking into account the Philippines’ some of the poor students who also
are foreign to Filipino. She said that “[i]f the use of one language can be
ultimately unifying and there are more Filipinos speaking Filipino, some sort of
compromise could be reached” although she did not specify or discuss what sort
of compromise the situation entails (probably compromising other Philippine
languages in certain ways). She suggests that “[t]eaching Filipino has to
evolve” as teachers dispassionately teach Filipino leading to the decrease of
motivation in learning the language and respect for the language among
students.
On the other hand, Esposo seems to
endorse multilingualism but with a marked emphasis on the Filipino language. He
seems to favor multilingual education as he says: “More Filipinos can achieve
levels of excellence when taught in the tongue they’re most familiar with.” Yet,
this multilingual statement fades in the background as Esposo constantly refers
to the Filipino language as the “country’s native tongue” and “the language of
our Filipino soul” which confuses
Filipino as not only the national language but also “the language of the mind
and soul” of all Filipinos across the
nation. His being caught in the Filipino-English dichotomy was further
reinforced when he said that “[b]oth Filipino and English can be learned and
this need not be at the expense of losing the natural language of the Filipino
mind and soul.” This means that only the Filipino language is endangered once
English is learned by Filipinos; other Phillippine languages are definitely out
of the picture.
Overall, all of them seem fine with
English co-existing with Filipino and the rest of the Philippine languages as
English proves to be valuable to the country. However, Clemente and Esposo
appear to be caught in the Filipino-English dichotomy and have tendencies to
brush aside the languages that many Filipinos speak as their first language. More
important to note is the two columnists’ portrayal of Filipino as the ideal
language in education for the rich and the poor (Clemente) and as “the language
that capture the Filipino national spirit” (Esposo). This shows that the two suggest
that the Filipino language is not just good as the lingua franca of the country
but also as the ideal language for education and the only language for
capturing the Filipino spirit which is a setback to multilingualism.
Myth 2: English is the
only language of learning.
This myth is the assumption that the
English language is the only language which provides access to knowledge,
especially in Mathematics and Science (Martin, 2010). The first sentence of
Soriano’s article clearly reflects this myth: “English is the language of
learning”. He recalls his childhood experiences in learning his Math, Science,
and Religion lessons in English. He went on to say that Filipino is not the
language of the learned in the classroom, the boardroom, the courtroom or the
operating room.
All of the columnists believe that it is
not true that English alone is the language that can provide access to
necessary knowledge. The Filipino language and the rest of the Philippine
languages are equally intellectual. With the exception of Clemente, all explicitly
claim that quality education comes easier when instruction is “in the tongue
they’re most familiar with”. All also believe that the Filipino language is
equally intellectual. Aguilar says she uses Filipino to translate Bible verses
and to write underground tracts. She also gives the example of professors of
University of the Philippines (U.P.) teaching Chemistry, Biology, and Physics
in Filipino in the same way that Dalisay mentions that “Filipino is the
language of many of my learned friends and colleagues at university”. Esposo
highlights Rolando Tinio’s creative use of the language in translating foreign
classic literature. Clemente even projects a hypothetical scenario in which Filipino
is the only medium of instruction which
would make the poor Filipinos “more functional members of the nation, able to
compete against our most educated.”
With the exception of Esposo, the three
columnists point out that James Soriano’s essay and the view that English is
the language of learning are “just a symptom of a larger problem”. Although Dalisay
considers this an “insult”, he boldly concedes that Soriano is just describing
a social truth:
“[W]e
are bringing up and training many of our kids to join the social, economic, and
political elite, which has spoken English as its language for the past century,
and wears English proficiency as its badge of honor.”
Aguilar realizes that “life today is
no different from life centuries ago” when the datu families, “a privileged class
bragging about how good they are in the language of conquistador.”
Finally,
Clemente points out that the essay is just a manifestation of the “glaring
social stratification in the Philippines” which is closely connected to “one’s
chosen language.” Dalisay maintains that James Soriano is not to be blamed but
“our society and its priorities”, placing so much premium on English and on its
speakers in a country where only a few get to access English and the prestige
and the resources that come with it.
Myth
3: English is not a Philippine language.
Technically, the third ‘myth’ is not
one of the myths suggested by Kachru (in Martin, 2010) and Martin (2010). I am not
even sure to call it a ‘myth’ to begin with. But as the essay of Soriano and of
the columnists heavily talk about the connection of language and identity, I
felt it is imperative that a discussion of this connection be included here. This
is the view that English is still a possession of the Filipinos’ colonizers and
therefore, does not represent our identity. By implication, the mastery of
English at the expense of other Philippine languages is a betrayal to the
Filipino identity. This runs counter to the notion of English being one of the Philippine
languages. English is not anymore owned by its native speakers (the colonizers)
but appropriated by different communities that use it (Widdowson, 1994). In
particular, Philippine English “began to develop as a ‘variety of English in
its own right, associated with a distinct accent, a localized vocabulary, and
even a body of creative writing by Philippine writers in English” (Bolton and
Bautista, 2009: 9) and is recognized as a distinct variety of Asian English
(Bolton, 2011).
Soriano
calls himself “a split-level Filipino” for having English as his mother tongue.
He realizes that he “smell[s] than a malansang
isda” and “may be disconnected from my [his] being a Filipino”. This
reveals the premises that 1) only the Filipino language and other Philippine
local languages give identity to Filipinos; and 2) one’s mastery and preference
of English is necessarily a detachment from the Filipino identity.
All of the columnists appear to
still consider English as the language of the colonizers or a detached language
as revealed by looking closely at how they refer to the English language. English
took different labels in their articles such as “the language of the
reconquistador” (Aguilar), “the language of the empires” (Clemente), “a foreign
language” (Esposo), and a language which comes with “a persona, a social mask,
every time I write and speak English” (Dalisay).
As they already recognize the value
of English to the country, they maintain that the loss of Filipino identity
only happens when we trade our Philippine languages with English for prestige
and development. This is why they agree with James Soriano’s calling himself as
a “split-level Filipino”. For Esposo, “[t]he nation pays a greater price for
the loss of its identity when we allow a foreign language to replace what is
the very soul of Filipino communication – our native tongue[.] . . . English
can never capture the Filipino national spirit.” While Aguilar was allergic
with Soriano’s pushing of the “superiority of English in the Philippine scene”,
Clemente was sorry for Soriano for putting himself “in a mental box too final
and unduly conclusive”. However, Dalisay does not just stop at agreeing with
Soriano’s admission of self-alienation as a Filipino; he goes beyond that and expresses
his respect and admiration for the young writer’s courage and honesty. He
writes:
“[The
essay] would have been perfect as a confession of sorts, as the testimony of a
self-aware Filipino alienated within his own society by his family’s and even
by the educational system’s single-minded insistence on English as the key to
success and happiness. Those who’ve heaped scorn on James for raising himself
above the common lot are glossing over the key point: James realizes and
acknowledges his alienation, which is frankly more than what many Filipinos in
his situation seem to be capable of.”
Here, it is clear that English is seen
as an important language and one that can co-exist with “our nation’s
languages”. Dealing with English is dealing with a language that is not ours,
not one of the Philippine languages, not a language that embodies our identity
as a nation.
Conclusion
Analyzing essays written about the
roles and functions of the English language in the Philippines reveals a lot about our conceptions
and assumptions about languages that are at play in the Philippine linguistic
scene. Indeed, the grip of English in our education, business, and
socio-political sectors has been widely recognized by the writers above. Nonetheless,
they are still vigilant of the possibility of the loss of the nation’s identity
and the perpetuation of the nation’s social stratification once English is
treated as the only language that will save the nation.
References
Aguilar,
Mila (2011). The Filipino is Multilingual. Retrieved from http://philippinehistory.ph/the
Bolton,
Kingsley. (2011). Introduction: The study of Philippine English: The
contribution of
corpus linguistics. In Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista
(Ed.), Studies of Philippine English:
Exploring the Philippine Component of the
International Corpus of English (pp. xi-xiv).
Mandaluyong City: Anvil.
Bolton,
Kingsley and Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista. (2009). Philippine English: Linguistic
and literary
perspectives. In Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista and
Kingsley Bolton (Eds.), Philippine
English:
Linguistic and Literary Perspectives
(pp. 1-9). Pasig City: Anvil.
Clemente,
Dennis (2011). The Filipino boy who doesn’t want to speak Filipno is what,
exactly?
Retrieved
from http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/13471/the-filipino-boy-who-doesn%E2%80%99t-wato
speak- filipino-is-what-exactly
Dalisay,
Butch (2011). A testimonial of alienation. Retrieved from
Esposo,
William (2011) Anti Filipino article reaps the whirlwind. Retrieved from
Martin,
Isabel. (2010). Periphery ELT: The politics and practice of teaching English in
the
Philippines. In Andy Kirkpatrick
(Ed.), The Routledge handbook of world
Englishes
(pp. 247-264). New York: Routledge.
Soriano, James (2011). Language, learning,
identity, privilege. Retrieved from
Widdowson, H. G. 1994.
‘The ownership of English’. TESOL Quarterly 28: 377–88.
No comments:
Post a Comment