Len’s Blog Assignment #2 (Tollefson)

According to Tollefson (1991, p. 163), English is a means of maintaining “economic inequalities within Philippine society.” This is very striking because it suggests that language policy can widen the barriers between the rich and the poor. However, if English ceased to be the official language, would it lead to fairer socioeconomic conditions? Another striking point is the NPA’s policy of promoting “the national language as the principal medium of communication in Philippine society…” (Tollefson, 1991, p. 144). However, if Filipino served as the more dominant official language of communication, would it stop linguistic elitism? These are some of the issues which Tollefson raises in his article.

Until now, it seems that the focus of the language debate in the Philippines has been on the use of either English or Filipino as the central medium of communication. However, I believe that the answer lies in language ecology that promotes linguistic diversity, liberty, and inquiry (Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas, 1996). How can the paradigm of language ecology work in the Philippines?

First, all languages used in the various regions in the Philippines should be considered as important as Filipino and English. These indigenous languages have to be integrated in our educational system to promote cultural awareness. The first step has to be the appreciation of local culture: for Filipinos to become more Filipino, they have to know how rich and deep their roots are. Let students have a taste of different indigenous languages and literatures such as Ilocano, Kapampangan, Bicolano, Cebuano, and Ilonggo in the primary and secondary levels and let them master one language as an elective in the tertiary level.

Second, continue immersing them in Filipino and English which may be useful to them when they pursue higher education, seek professional opportunities, and advance social justice around the world. Filipino should be positioned not as a language of the elite but as a symbol of national unity that bridges our islands. While English is the legacy of our American colonizer, it may be a powerful weapon of emancipation as used by our literary and cultural freedom fighters such as Carlos Bulosan and F. Sionil Jose. Thus, we do not have to junk English; instead, it should be exploited fully for noble ends. Meaningful and liberating Philippine works in English should be taught in all levels of education. Let students become acquainted first with Filipino literary giants such as NVM Gonzalez, Ben Santos, and Nick Joaquin before they are taught Shakespeare, Hemingway, and Faulkner. Let English be utilized as a crucial eye-opener instead of a cultural blindfold.

Third, as most institutions are already doing, official documents and communications need to be both in Filipino and English for practical purposes. Filipino is the common language of Filipinos and English is the common language shared by Asians and most of the world. For us to close our doors to English may not be wise, considering that all our Asian neighbors are opening theirs to this language to achieve pragmatic goals.

As for uplifting the state of the poor, the key is to educate them critically to enable them to find their place in the labor force. Filipinos have been conditioned to think that their only hope for progress is to find a spot in the corporate world or to seek greener fields abroad. The government has to be more aggressive in supporting entrepreneurship, agriculture, technology, and other industries that will provide solid livelihood for the people. Thus, it is not just a matter of language policy, but a matter of critical sense and practical action that may revolutionize the conditions of Philippine society.


Reference:

Tollefson, J.Q. (1991). “Revolutionary language policy.” Chapter in Planning language, planning inequality: language policy in the community. London: Longman.