Linguistic Society of the Philippines

In a country where more than one hundred languages are spoken, Filipino linguists have their job cut out for them. There are a number of linguists in the Philippines - linguists are those people who study and analyze languages scientifically and they should not be confused with polyglots, people who can speak many languages - and some 400 belong to the Linguistic Society of the Philippines.

The organization was the brainchild of Dr. Bonifacio Sibayan of the Philippine Normal College (now University) and Dr. Ernesto Contantino of the University of the Philippines, two linguists who were working on their respective research projects in the Pacific and Asian Languages Institute of the University of Hawaii in 1968. Far away from home and very conscious of the linguistic work going on in the US, they had several discussions on the need for an organization of linguists that would do research and write on Philippine languages.

The Linguistic Society of the Philippines (popularly known as the LSP) was formally organized in school year 1969-1970, with Teodoro Llamzon (Ateneo de Manila) as President, Bonifacio Sibayan (PNC) as Vice-President, Edilberto Dagot (PNC) as Secretary, and Fe Otanes (PNC) as Treasurer.

The organization was off to a rousing start, with a lecture series and a five-day seminar-workshop on linguistics and language teaching held in SY 1969-1970, and with the LSP's journal called the Philippine Journal of Linguistics (or PJL for short) coming out in June 1970. The LSP also initiated discussions for a Consortium between the Ateneo de Manila University and Philippine Normal College that would offer a Ph.D. in Linguistics, with assistance from the Ford Foundation and the Asia Foundation. The first group of scholars in the Ateneo-PNC Linguistics Consortium started their program in SY1971-1972 and several completed their doctorates starting in SY1974-1975.

The LSP has been blessed with dynamic officers, starting with its first group of officers. Special mention should be made of the contribution of Bro. Andrew Gonzalez, FSC, of De La Salle University, who was its Executive Secretary for seventeen years and editor of the PJL for twenty-one years. It was Bro. Andrew who provided a home for the LSP Secretariat at De La Salle University, an institution he was associated with for a long time as Academic Vice-President and President. It was through his initiative that many of the research and training programs of the LSP got underway. Brother Andrew Gonzalez is presently the Secretary of the Department of Education and Culture.

Significant research on Philippine languages (including a frequency count and etymological dictionary of Filipino, a linguistic atlas of the Philippines, a dictionary of Cebuano Visayan), language planning in the Philippines, the implementation of the Bilingual Education Policy, and the Philippine variety of English has been conducted and published under the auspices of the LSP.

Training has constituted an important part of the LSP's agenda. From practically the very founding of the organization, the LSP has sponsored in-service training programs, annual conventions, and regular lectures for its members and for all those interested in language. These training programs have been held with the assistance of such agencies as the Fund for Assistance to Private Education, the Philippine Social Science Council, the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, the Summer Institute of Linguistics, the British Council, the United States Information Agency, and in cooperation with other linguistic and language teaching organizations.

The LSP has organized Summer Workshops for Teachers, Workshops for Senior Linguists, Summer Workshops in Translation, Roving Seminars on Language Teaching, Lecture Series, Annual Conventions, and has been able to invite distinguished scholars from all over the country and the world to speak at these public fora. With the assistance of the Fund for Assistance to Private Education, a group of 20 teachers completed their Master of Arts in Teaching English Language at De La Salle University through a summer program lasting four summers.

The language situation in the Philippines being a very complex one, the LSP has been at the vanguard of groups that are trying to clarify positions and chart directions in the formulation of language policy. It has been involved in policy discussions on the national language and the medium of instruction. Several LSP members appeared before the Constitutional Convention of 1971 and again before the Constitutional Commission in 1986 to discuss the national language issue.

The LSP was involved in the formulation of the Bilingual Education Policy in 1974 and conducted a formal evaluation of its implementation for the period 1974 to 1985; based on the results of that evaluation, the Policy was revised in 1987. Several of its recent round-table discussions have focused on the Philippine language agenda for the 21st century: even as the role of the ethnic languages is recognized and upheld, the concern remains the development of Filipino as a national language and the maintenance of English as the global language remain key concerns.

The LSP continues to contribute to the professionalization of the discipline of linguistics and its allied sub-disciplines, especially language teaching, in the Philippines. It has built up a network of linguists at the national and international levels, and has been able to reach out to other social scientists inside and outside the Philippines. Finally, it has helped shape policy on language and education in very important ways.

Language Policies in the Philippines

Language Policies in the Philippines
Clemencia Espiritu, Ph.D.
The Language provision in the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines which are embodied in Article XIV, Sec. 6 and 7 provide the legal basis for the various language policies that are being implemented in the country.
The ratification of the above-mentioned constitution resolved the issue on what the national language is, since the 1935 and 1973 Philippine Charters were not clear about this.
The provision are as follows:
1. Section 6. The national language of the Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages.2. For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English.
The Philippine Bilingual Education Policy (BEP)
Consistent with the 1987 constitutional mandate and a declared policy of the National Board of Education (NBE) on bilingualism in the schools (NBE Resolution No. 73-7, s.1973) the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) promulgated its language policy.
The policy was first implemented in 1974 when DECS issued Dept. Order No. 25, s. 1974 titled, "Implementing Guidelines for the Policy on Bilingual Education."
Bilingual education in the Philippines is defined operationally as the separate use of Filipino and English as the media of instruction in specific subject areas. As embodied in the DECS Order No. 25, Pilipino (changed to Filipino in 1987) shall be used as medium of instruction in social studies/social sciences, music, arts, physical education, home economics, practical arts and character education. English, on the other hand is allocated to science, mathematics and technology subjects. The same subject allocation is provided in the 1987 Policy on Bilingual Education which is disseminated through Department Order No. 52, s. 1987.
The policy is as follows:
The policy on Bilingual Education aims at the achievement of competence in both Filipino and English at the national level, through the teaching of both languages and their use as media of instruction at all levels. The regional languages shall be used as auxiliary languages in Grades I and II. The aspiration of the Filipino nation is to have its citizens possess skills in Filipino to enable them to perform their functions and duties in order to meet the needs of the country in the community of nations.The goals of the Bilingual Education Policy shall be:
1. enhanced learning through two languages to achieve quality education as called for by the 1987 Constitution;
2. the propagation of Filipino as a language of literacy;3. the development of Filipino as a linguistic symbol of national unity and identity;4. the cultivation and elaboration of Filipino as a language of scholarly discourse, that is to say its continuing intellectualization; and
the maintenance of English as an international language for the Philippines and as a non-exclusive language of science and technology.
Filipino and English shall be used as media of instruction, the use allocated to specific subjects in the curriculum as indicated in the Department Order No. 25, s. 1974.
The regional languages shall be used as auxiliary media of instruction and as initial language for literacy, where needed.
Filipino and English shall be taught as language subjects in all levels to achieve the goals of bilingual competence.
Since competence in the use of both Filipino and English is one of the goals of the Bilingual Education Policy, continuing improvement in the teaching of both languages, their use as media of instruction and the specification of their functions in Philippine schooling shall be the responsibility of the whole educational system.
Tertiary level institutions shall lead in the continuing intellectualization of Filipino. The program of intellectualization, however, shall also be pursued in both the elementary and secondary levels.
The Department of Education, Culture and Sports shall cooperate with the National Language Commission which according to the 1987 Constitution, shall be tasked with the further development and enrichment of Filipino.
The Department of Education Culture and Sports shall provide the means by which the language policy can be implemented with the cooperation of government and non-government organizations.
The Department shall program funds for implementing the Policy, in such areas as materials production, in-service training, compensatory and enrichment program for non-Tagalogs, development of a suitable and standardized Filipino for classroom use and the development of appropriate evaluative instruments.
Guidelines for the implementation of the 1987 Policy on Bilingual Education are specified in the DECS Order No. 54, s. 1987. Among these are the need to intellectualize Filipino and the concrete steps suggested towards its realization.
Executive Order No. 335
On August 25, 1988, then President Corazon Aquino signed Executive Order No. 335 enjoining all departments/bureaus/offices/agencies/instrumentalities of the government to take such steps as are necessary for the purpose of using the Filipino language in official transactions, communications, and correspondence. The order was issued on the belief that the use of Filipino in official transactions, communications and correspondence in government offices will result to a greater understanding and appreciation of government programs, projects and activities throughout the country, thereby serving as an instrument of unity and peace for national progress.
All departments/bureaus/offices/agencies/instrumentalities of the government are enjoined to do the following:
1. Take steps to enhance the use of Filipino in official communications, transactions and correspondence in their respective offices, whether national or local;
2. Assign one or more personnel, as maybe necessary, in every office to take charge of communications and correspondence written in Filipino;
3. Translate into Filipino names of offices, buildings, public edifices, and signboards of all offices, divisions or its instrumentalities, and if so desired, imprint below in smaller letters the English text;
Filipinize the "Oath of Office" for government officials and personnel;
Make as part of the training programs for personnel development in each office the proficiency in the use of Filipino in official communications and correspondence.
The Commission on the Filipino Language, formerly Institute of Philippine/National Language, is ordered to formulate and implement programs and projects for the full and effective implementation of the objectives expressed in the Executive Order.
The Language Policy of the Commission on Higher Education
In 1994, Republic Act No. 7722, creating the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) was signed. This Act which is know as the "Higher Education Act of 1994" provides that the CHED shall be independent and separate from the DECS and attached to the Office of the President for administrative purposes only. Its coverage shall be both public and private institutions of higher education as well as degree-granting programs in all post-secondary educational institutions, public and private.
One of the first steps undertaken by CHED was to update the General Education Curriculum (GEC) of tertiary courses leading to an initial bachelor's degree covering four (4) curriculum years. This was done to make the curriculum more responsive to the demands of the next millenium.
The requirements of the new GEC are embodied in the CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 59, s. 1996. Listed under miscellaneous of this CMO is its language policy which is as follows:
In consonance with the Bilingual Education Policy underlined in DECS Order No. 52, Series of 1987, the following are the guidelines vis-a-vis medium of instruction, to wit:
1. Language courses, whether Filipino or English, should be taught in that language.
2. At the discretion of the HEI, Literature subjects may be taught in Filipino, English or any other language as long as there are enough instructional materials for the same and both students and instructors/professors are competent in the language.
Courses in the Humanities and Social Sciences should preferably be taught in Filipino.

Why bilingual education?

What is bilingual education?Bilingual education refers to the practice of teaching non-English speaking children in their native language. Developed in the 1960's, such programs were intended to allow children to progress in subjects such as math, science and social studies while they learned English in a separate class. Bilingual education was meant as a transitional program, but students frequently linger in such programs for most of their school years.Why does ProEnglish oppose bilingual education?After 30 years of experimentation and billions of dollars spent on bilingual education these programs have failed to do an acceptable job of teaching English. Far too few students meet the goal of transitioning out of the programs. Moreover, students in bilingual education programs consistently score lower on standard achievement tests. Many of the students remain socially isolated and frequently drop out. Millions more graduate without learning fundamental English skills. This deprives them of opportunity in an English-speaking country.ProEnglish supports state initiatives to end bilingual education. We believe the federal government should stop funding bilingual education programs exclusively, and leave such decisions to states and local school districts. While we endorse the teaching of second languages, ProEnglish believes the first responsibility of our public school system is to teach children English.What programs do work?English immersion programs work. An Arizona study showed that students were lingering in bilingual education programs. In response, the voters of California and Arizona passed "English for the Children" initiatives, which mandated English immersion programs. In these programs, students spend one full school year intensively learning English. After that, they continue to perfect their English skills by using them in English-language classrooms. While Arizona has yet to implement their new law, results are already coming in from California , where voters virtually ended bilingual education in 1998. In just two years, achievement test scores have soared, in all content areas tested. The other option is an "English as a Second Language (ESL)" program. In such a program, students attend English-language classes in core subjects, such as Math and Social Studies. They also attend special classes in their native language. In these classes, they receive remedial help in their English-language subjects, and learn new English skills.In New York, ESL and bilingual education are both commonly used. In 2000, The New York City Board of education released a study comparing the two programs . The study found that ESL students scored far higher on achievement tests. ESL students were also much more likely to successfully be placed in mainstream classes. Students who weren't placed in mainstream classes were far more likely to drop out. The New York study was so compelling that former Rep. Herman Badillo (R-NY), who authored the federal laws funding bilingual education, now opposes bilingual education altogether. So why do schools still use bilingual education?A large, well-funded and politically powerful bureaucracy has grown up with a vested interest in the continuation of bilingual education programs. Federal funds for programs to help English-language learners are directed exclusively at bilingual education. If a school replaces bilingual education, it may lose much of its federal funding.Many educators promote bilingual education as a way of "maintaining cultural heritage."But bilingual education fails to provide students with the basic education they need to explore culture. The result is often students culturally illiterate of both of their cultures. Unfortunately, politicians often are afraid their votes against bilingual education would be perceived as hostile to minorities. This is ironic, since a READ Institute survey showed that 81% of Hispanics wanted their children to learn English first; only 12% wanted their children taught in Spanish. These immigrants have come to this country seeking the blessings of our society, yet our public schools often fail to give them the skills needed to prosper and participate in our democratic discourse.Resources:How ProEnglish is fighting to end bilingual education The current status of bilingual education in America English for the Children ballot initiative , with official arguments for and against California's Proposition 227. Papers on the effectiveness of bilingual education Test results show benefits of Proposition 227, which banned bilingual education Report to the Arizona legislature concerning bilingual and "English as a Second Language" programs Comparison of Bilingual and ESL students in New York City Hispanic dropout rates remain steady while others' drop Critique on bilingual education by Peter Duignan of Stanford University's Hoover Institute

bilingual education

For many Americans, bilingual education seems to defy common sense – not to mention the Melting Pot tradition. They ask:
If non-English-speaking students are isolated in foreign-language classrooms, how are they ever going to learn English, the key to upward mobility?
What was wrong with the old "sink or swim" method that worked for generations of earlier immigrants?
Isn't bilingual education just another example of "political correctness" run amok – the inability to say no to a vociferous ethnic lobby? Some English Only advocates go further, arguing that even if bilingual education is effective – which they doubt – it's still a bad idea for the country because bilingualism threatens to sap our sense of national identity and divide us along ethnic lines. They fear that any government recognition of minority languages "sends the wrong message" to immigrants, encouraging them to believe they can live in the U.S.A. without learning English or conforming to "American" ways.
Such complaints have made bilingual education a target of political attacks. One of the most serious to date is now under way in California, a ballot initiative that would mandate English-only instruction for all children until they become fully proficient in English.
No doubt many of the objections to bilingual education are lodged in good faith. Others reflect ethnic stereotypes or class biases. Sad to say, they all reflect a pervasive ignorance about how bilingual education works, how second languages are acquired, and how the nation has responded to non-English-speaking groups in the past.
Reinforcing popular fallacies requires less space than deconstructing them. That's why my writing on these issues grew from a handful of newspaper articles into a 310-page book, Bilingual Education: History, Politics, Theory, and Practice (3rd ed., 1995). Nevertheless, a few points:
Science is often counterintuitive. Its breakthroughs tend to upset common-sense notions, not to mention cherished myths. Linguistics is no exception. In fact, it invites more than its share of opposition from nonspecialists – witness the "Ebonics" controversy – because most people feel like experts when it comes to language. Our reactions are often visceral. Perhaps that's because our speech defines us ethnically, socially, and intellectually. It's tied up with a sense of who we are – and who we are not – evoking some of our deepest emotions.
What once seemed obvious about bilingualism – for example, that it handicaps children's cognitive growth – has usually proved unfounded. Since the 1960s, research has shown that multiple language skills do not confuse the mind. Quite the contrary: when well-developed, they seem to provide cognitive advantages, although such effects are complex and difficult to measure (Hakuta 1986).
Another discredited notion is that children will "pick up" a second language rapidly if "totally immersed" in it. For generations, this philosophy served to justify policies of educational neglect – assigning minority students to regular classrooms, with no special help in overcoming language barriers. Disproportionate numbers failed and dropped out of school as a result. The sink-or-swim approach was ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lau v. Nichols (1974).
Research has shown that the quality – not the quantity – of English exposure is the major factor in English acquisition. That is, the second-language input must be comprehensible(Krashen 1996). Otherwise, it's just noise.
English as a second language (ESL) is best taught in natural situations, with the second language used in meaningful contexts rather than in repetitious drills of grammar and vocabulary. One variant of ESL, known as "sheltered subject-matter instruction," adapts lessons to students' level of English proficiency. This approach is common in bilingual education programs, coordinated with lessons in students' native language.
Native-language instruction also helps to make English comprehensible, by providing contextual knowledge that aids in understanding. When children already know something about dinosaurs, a lesson on the subject will make more sense when instruction shifts to English. Not only will they learn more about dinosaurs; they will also acquire more English.
The same principle applies when it comes to acquiring literacy. Teaching in the native language can facilitate the process, as the linguist Stephen Krashen (1996) explains:
We learn to read by reading, by making sense of what we see on the page. ...
If we learn to read by reading, it will be much easier to learn to read in a language we already understand.
Once you can read, you can read. The ability to read transfers across languages. "Language is not a unitary skill, but a complex configuration of abilities" (Hakuta and Snow 1986). Social communication skills – a.k.a. playground English – should not be confused with academic English, the cognitively demanding language that children need to succeed in school. While playground English tends to be acquired rapidly by most children, academic English is typically acquired over a period of five to seven years (Cummins 1989).
Research on the effectiveness of bilingual education remains in dispute, because program evaluation studies – featuring appropriate comparison groups and random assignment of subjects or controls for pre-existing differences – are extremely difficult to design. Moreover, there is considerable variation among the pedagogies, schools, students, and communities being compared. While numerous studies have documented the benefits of bilingual programs, much of this research has faced methodological criticisms – as noted by an expert panel of the National Research Council (August and Hakuta 1997a).
Certain critics of bilingual education have interpreted the NRC report to mean that, despite a generation of research, "there is no evidence that there will be long-term advantages or disadvantages to teaching limited-English students in the native language" (Glenn 1997). This conclusion – widely circulated by the so-called READ Institute – has been rejected by the NRC study directors. To the contrary, they say, the expert panel concluded that "a great deal has been learned from the research that has been conducted on English language learners." Moreover, there are "empirical results . . . support[ing] the theory underlying native language instruction" (August and Hakuta 1997b). According to the panel's chairman, the "attempt by READ to place its own political spin" on the report hardly advances the cause of objective research (Hakuta 1997).
Other critics continue to deny that such empirical support exists. A recent "review of the literature" (Rossell and Baker 1996) reports that bilingual education is inferior to English-only programs of all kinds, including sink-or-swim. Yet these conclusions owe more to the manipulation of program labels than to student performance in the classroom. Critiques of Rossell and Baker by Cummins (1998) and Krashen (1996) show that, among other distortions, the researchers rely heavily on studies of French immersion in Canada – bilingual or trilingual approaches that they portray as monolingual "immersion" or "submersion" models. Meanwhile, a meta-analysis of the same body of research reviewed by the critics, but using a more rigorous methodology, found quite different results: a significant edge for bilingual education (Greene 1998).
The most sophisticated evaluation study to date – a four-year, longitudinal study of 2,000 Spanish-speaking students in five states – found that "late-exit," developmental bilingual programs proved superior to "early-exit," transitional bilingual and English-only immersionprograms (Ramírez et al. 1991). That is, in programs that stressed native-language skills, students' growth in English reading and mathematics continued to increase long after it had leveled off among their peers in the other programs. While this study has been praised by many, others have rejected the comparison as invalid because all three programs were not tested in the same school districts.
Nevertheless, a consensus of applied linguists recognizes that the following propositions have strong empirical support:
Native-language instruction does not retard the acquisition of English.
Well-developed skills in the native language are associated with high levels of academic achievement.
Bilingualism is a valuable skill, for individuals and for the country. Bilingual education was adopted by many local school districts in the 1960s and 1970s to remedy practices that had denied language minorities an equal educational opportunity. Yet it was hardly a new invention designed to replace the Melting Pot with the Salad Bowl or some other model of ethnic pluralism. There is a long bilingual tradition in the U.S.A., in which minority-language schooling has played a central, albeit largely forgotten, role.