Blommaert’s article discusses the strong link between language policy and national identity. It explores the tensions that result from the attempts of the state to define a national identity by promoting particular languages that are conceived to be instruments of ideological unification and it exposes the realities of multilingual societies that are incongruous to such movements. The case of Swahili is presented to illustrate that while the national language of Tanzania was successfully spread to shape ideal socialist citizens, it failed to eclipse English, the colonial language, and other local languages, pre-socialist forms of communication, because people continued to use them beyond the sphere of politics.
In the Philippines, Filipino is the national language, and it shares its throne as an official language with English as stated in the 1987 Constitution while regional languages serve as “auxiliary official languages in the regions” (quoted in Tollefson, 1991, p. 158). Based on the functions assigned to these languages, Filipino is at the top of the linguistic hierarchy, followed by English and the regional languages. However, as Tollefson (1991, p. 159) points out, Filipino is simply a “national integrative symbol” with English dominating the major realms of communication. This may be explained by the perception that English is the language of prestige, progress, and power. Filipino, although it is understood and spoken nationwide, does not seem to have the same stature as English, especially in the field of education. A student who is fluent in English usually receives more applause than a student who is brilliant in Filipino. Entrance tests and national exams focus on English communication skills and seldom or never on Filipino communication skills. The first language that many children learn is English because their parents have to train them for their target exclusive schools that conduct tests and interviews in English and condition learners that it is a big sin not to be able to communicate well in English. Thus, to rephrase a famous quote, to speak Filipino is human, but to speak English is divine. If Miss Japan mutilates the English language in the Miss Universe beauty pageant, she is forgiven, but if Miss Philippines commits a grammar slip in English, she is condemned.
Is Filipino, then, just a mere illusion created by the state to convince the country and the world that it is an independent nation with many islands linked by a distinct homegrown language? It is true that most Filipinos in the country use it, but do they do it as an expression of their cultural identity or simply as a tool of interaction? Does it really reign supreme in the linguistic repertoire of Filipinos, especially those who live beyond the boundaries of the National Capital Region where Filipino is often used?
I remember going to South Cotabato to conduct ELT training sessions. At night, the teachers would gather and speak in various languages such as Cebuano, Ilonggo, and Waray. Knowing only Kapampangan, Filipino, and English, I could not join the conversation. However, I listened to them, fascinated that they understood one another even if they spoke in different languages. There was some kind of linguistic kinship among them. That made me realize that in such regions, Filipino was overshadowed by the local languages. It made me understand why there was still resistance to Filipino as a national language by some sectors.
Will Filipino ever steal the glory away from English and conquer the hearts of Filipinos scattered in the various islands of the Philippines? The answer lies in the direction that Filipino language policy makers and educators will take in this inescapable age of globalization.
References:
Blommaert, J. (2006) Language policy and national identity. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: theory and method (pp. 238-254). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing
Tollefson, J.Q. (1991). “Revolutionary language policy.” Chapter in Planning language, planning inequality: language policy in the community. London: Longman.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Len, I'm not sure what you mean by "The answer lies in the direction that Filipino language policy makers and educators will take in this inescapable age of globalization."
ReplyDeleteCan you expound a bit more on this please?
Very nice, Len! Regarding "Filipino stealing the glory of English," I can't help wondering, is this even necessary? Looking at your essay, and it seems that all our local languages are wonderful! Maybe the direction you write about is really one toward multilingualism, where the idea of a single national language will not be necessary for our own national imagining. Parang sayang if Filipino is the only local language truly enthroned in our hearts and minds.
ReplyDeleteHi Len, just to go back to the question you chose to answer ("Can you identify such other sociolinguistic regimes as 'oppositional', that is, acting against state-imposed regimes?).
ReplyDelete1. You seem to have identified the tensions between a state-imposed regime on paper (Filipino/English) and in practice (mainly English). Would you consider the latter to be "oppositional" or acting against a state-imposed regime?
2. You have a great story at the end of your post. Would you consider this to be "oppositional" or acting against a state-imposed regime?
Very thought-provoking questions! I'll answer them and extend my discussion soon. SALAMAT!
ReplyDelete*The answer lies in the hands of policy makers and educators in this inescapable age of globalization in that the policy makers are the ones in charge of setting the directions when it comes to the use and positioning of Filipino and the educators are the ones responsible for either following the directions set by policy makers or deviating from them/challenging them. Globalization is one major factor that policy makers take into account and they have a tendency to follow popular trends and perceptions (e.g. English is the answer to economic progress) and thus, this kind of pressure will be felt by educators as well. Thus, the burden is primarily placed on the shoulders of policy makers and educators. Policy makers are the architects and educators are the engineers when it comes to language planning and policy.
ReplyDelete*All local languages should be acknowledged along with Filipino and English as I asserted in my second blog. However, it seems that Filipino is only owned by some sectors in the country and some still resist it. If it’s supposed to be the national language, then people should express more ownership of it. This is the reason why policy makers and educators should start thinking about the role of Filipino in our lives. We often reflect on the role of English in our country but seldom do we focus on the role of Filipino and the local languages in today’s times.
*Yes, actual language practices in the Philippines act against state-imposed regimes that are” written on paper.” As I’ve illustrated, Filipino which is supposed to be the national language is overshadowed by English and some people in different parts of the Philippines seem to resist it. Though the state claims that Filipino is the national language, what it promotes in reality is English. If you take a closer look at it, the state opposes its own declaration. Or it can be viewed this way: what is written in the constitution is simply a token statement to show evidence of nationalism and sovereignty. Many Filipinos probably feel the same way because the national language was imposed on them so there is no sense of ownership. Thus, when they resist it, it may be considered an act against a state-imposed regime.