See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369384323
Philippine English and the attitudes and perceptions of college students
Article · October 2022
CITATIONS
READS
2
7,474
4 authors:
Angelo Ramos Umayam
Thea Blache Michaela Icamen
Polytechnic University of the Philippines
Polytechnic University of the Philippines
1 PUBLICATION 2 CITATIONS
1 PUBLICATION 2 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Charles Merano
Airil Haimi Mohd Adnan
Polytechnic University of the Philippines
Universiti Teknologi MARA
1 PUBLICATION 2 CITATIONS
144 PUBLICATIONS 1,016 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Airil Haimi Mohd Adnan on 21 March 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
SEE PROFILE
Philippine English and the attitudes and perceptions of college
students
Angelo Ramos Umayam1, Thea Blache Michaela Navales Icamen1, Charles Claveria Merano1,
and Airil Haimi Mohd Adnan1,2&3*
College of Arts and Letters (CAL), Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP)
College of Arts and Letters, Polytechnic University of the Philippines, 6/F Room 601, South Wing Main
Building, A. Mabini Campus, Sta. Mesa, Manila 1016
3
Akademi Pengajian Bahasa, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
1
2
* admin@uforia.edu.my
* Corresponding Author: Prof. (III) Dr. Airil Haimi Mohd Adnan, PUP CAL
How to Cite: Umayam, A. R., Icamen, T. B. M. N., Merano, C. C., & Adnan, A. H. M. (2022). Philippine
English and the attitudes and perceptions of college students. International Journal of Advanced Language and
Educational Linguistics, 3(1), 1-16.
Abstract: Philippine English is a variety of English that is unique in the Philippines. Finding the perception and
attitude of Filipinos, specifically, the students, is important to the improvement, growth, and future of PhE. This
research focuses on the attitude and perception towards the Philippine English of students from Bachelor of Arts
in Filipinology, and Bachelor of Arts in English Language Studies. The findings of the researchers show that the
difference of focus of language between those fields does not affect the general preference, attitude, and perception
about the native language and Philippine English of the population of students. The stigma of continuous usage of
the English language will result in the loss of identity; a concept of diversification, is somehow being broken. The
usage of PhE, in this research, shows not just that this variety of English can decolonize all the influence of the
colonizers, but also to polish and grow the native language.
Keywords: Philippine English; attitude; perception; identity; college students.
1. Introduction
The English language spreads worldwide through globalization, migration, and colonization [1].
English language is used in everyday communication and different fields of study and economy, such
as technology, science, and business [2]. In that sense, with the English language being an international
language for multiple fields, its users increased significantly over the years as well to a rate that the nonnative speakers surpass the native speakers in great count difference [3-5].
1.1. Emergence and progress of Philippine English
The Philippines was colonized by Spaniards and Americans respectively. While the former focused
on spreading and developing religion, the Americans focused on education. In order to teach Filipinos,
they taught them how to speak in English first. In 1921, Philippine English (PhE) started to develop [6].
It is the time when the Filipino English teachers have increased and only 10 percent of American English
teachers have left and remained. Collins and Borlongan, together with Llamzon [7] made a clear
distinction between PhE from American English when they noticed that the pronunciation and its lexical,
grammatical, and discourse is different from the American English.
As the Philippines is a multilingual nation, Filipinos are, minimally, trilingual, because beside their
mother tongue (if not, their parent’s mother tongue) they also study English and Filipino [8]. Philippine
English (PhE) is not only about the lexical, phonological, and the articulation of English language but
also about how Filipinos depicts and develop their distinct English, and thus developing their own
English vocabulary [9].
1
2. Literature Review
This section will cover pertinent research literature to set the stage for a research project on
Philippine English by our research team.
2.1. English in the Philippines
When talking about the varieties of English in the Philippines, one must think about these two:
‘Taglish’ and Philippine English. Filipinos often code-mix from one dialect to English, thus the term
they clip one syllable from the other dialect and the ‘-lish’ in English, and the most common example is
Tagalog English, or the one that was mentioned above, Taglish. According to Tangco and Ricardo
Taglish was first described as a globally and prominently spoken code-mixed language [10] and as it is
commonly used by the Tagalog speakers in the Philippines, it was considered by the largest part of the
community as a normal and acceptable style to converse in speaking and/or writing informally.
To expand the difference between Taglish and Philippine English, we will see these two in
Ferguson’s diglossia [11] that was used to identify the Singapore English (Standard Singapore(an)
English or SSE) and Singlish (Colloquial Singaporean English or CSE) explained by Tan [12] in his
study about English in Singapore. Based on Britannica, diglossia is “the coexistence of two varieties of
the same language throughout a speech community.” One of those is often used in a formal setting
(business, academic writing, etc.) or in literature (defined by Ferguson as ‘High’) and the other one is
the most commonly spoken by the citizens in the community (defined by Ferguson as ‘Low’). By this
explanation, we can categorize that the Philippine English is considered taking the ‘High’ position as it
is used in academic writing and any formal settings and Taglish in the ‘Low’ as it is a colloquial language
in the Philippines.
2.2. Philippine English as a local variety
According to Kachru [13], diversification terrifies the purist that perceives the emergence of
different and diverse varieties of English will result into disagreement and lack of unity, or divisiveness.
As a sign of a decaying language that is waiting for its doom, an endangering factor to Eurocentric,
Judeo-Christian ethos of the language
But diversification, especially in the Philippine’s history and context, the emergence of Philippine
English served as a tool for decolonization; defusing the cultural bomb that the colonizers planted to the
local language and identity of the Philippines such as names of people, places, streets, events, and the
environment (Thiongo, as cited in Kachru). English, specifically Philippine English, allowed its people
to forge a new and personal identity that shows their culture and color without disregarding the newly
equipped tool against colonization, and embracing the lingua franca.
English is an international language, and this fact alone means that no sole country should hold
custody of it [14]. As Jindapitak and Teo [14] assert, English has long since been shifted from being
used intra-nationally by native speakers to communicate to being a lingua franca’s international medium
for communication [15-16]. Thus, the pluralizing of the word English to ‘Englishes’ becomes a custom
to emphasize the diversity of the language [17].
In most Asian countries, English has become one of their official languages. One contribution for
that is those countries who adopted English as their official language were colonized before [18]. A
clear example is Singapore, which reached phase 4 in Scheider’s ‘five steps’ in characterization of the
spread of English, which is endonormative stabilization. Although Singapore English is not distinctly
different from other native or standard Englishes, its syntactic and lexical features can be considered as
“standard” and at the same time, sounds distinctively from other Englishes [19].
2.3. Attitudes and perceptions toward Philippine English
According to Deutschmann and Zelime [20] an individual’s language attitude is influenced by
many factors and is not a random attitude or aesthetics that they come up with themselves. Gardner as
cited in Bhaskar and Soundiraraj [2] argued that a person’s attitude is an evaluative reaction to some
referent or attitude object on the basis of the individual’s beliefs or opinions about the referent. It is also
a motivation inside one’s attitudes towards other ethnic groups and/or other language learning contexts.
Chapman and McKnight [2] also said that attitude is one’s general disposition, their ‘mental starting
point’ in viewing life, people, and the events in it.
Therefore, from a person’s standpoint, attitude is the way you look at things, how you feel or how
you interpret it mentally. Much research has shown that attitude is closely linked to the economic status
International Journal of Advanced Language and Educational Linguistics, 2022, 3(1), p. 2
Copyright © 2022 by the AMCS Research Center & AMCS Press, Yogyakarta, Republic of Indonesia
that is associated with the languages; a desire of an individual to obtain a social recognition and/or
profitable benefits. Language attitudes are also related to one's desire to be with others in a higher
language community and culture, in the so-called ‘integrative attitudes' by Gardner and Lambert [20].
Baker [21] also emphasized the importance of attitude in language. Baker said that attitude is one of the
central variables since attitude towards language gives importance to language restoration, preservation,
or decay.
On the other hand, Martin said that when Kachru presented the World Englishes (WE) to the world,
Filipino scholars and teachers finally had an opportunity to resist the dominance of the native speakers’
accent and norms in the classroom. In 2004, scholars like Bautista brought her team to get more
information about Philippine English, dug up the Philippine’s kind of English, and because of this, PhE
stabilized its position in the Philippine languages [22-23].
However, while it is true that a lot of people are aware of its existence, it does not come with people
accepting it. Thus, exploring the attitude of different people towards PhE is important. Exploring the
attitude of an individual towards a language and/or a variety will provide them [scholars] information
that is crucial in analyzing linguistics scenes and will see where conflicts may exist [24-25].
Hence, in the Philippine English context, a prior study by Martin [26] proves the importance of
language attitude, especially for Philippines who recently shifted the medium of instruction from English
to local languages. This only brings about the notion of the improvement of Philippine English.
Furthermore, according to a study conducted by Somblingo and Alieto [27], Filipinos tend to show a
favorable attitude towards the English language and are inclined to study the language further to gain
fluency in the said language. The findings of Alieto and Somblingo align with the findings of Jindatipak
and Teo [14] that Englishes that are outside the Inner Circle are perceived as intelligible Englishes. That
being said, in the same study Choomthong and Manowong observed that non-native speakers who
participated in the study preferred the accents coming from the Englishes from the inner circle such as
British English, American English, and Canadian English [28].
3. Research Methodology
This section discusses the techniques of data gathering and processing that are required to
comprehend the Attitude Perception towards Philippine English. Additionally, this chapter states the
instruments necessary for the development of this study. Indicated in this chapter are the instruments
necessary for this study which are outlined as follows: Research Design, Area of Study, Research
Approach, Population, Sampling Technique, Sampling Size and Data Collection. Specifically, our
research sought to answer the following guiding / research questions:
1st Research Question: What language do the students prefer to use when speaking to different
people?
2nd Research Question: Does the students’ major interfere with their attitude towards other
languages?
3rd Research Question 3: How do the students perceive Philippine English on the whole?
The general intention of this study is to know the attitude perception of Bachelor of Arts in English
Language Studies (ABELS) and Bachelor of Arts in Filipinology (ABF) students from Polytechnic
University of the Philippines, focusing on their frequently used language between native English,
Philippine English, and Filipino and/or other local dialects in the Philippines in different domains of
relationship, what they feel towards PhE, and how deep their knowledge in PhE is.
This study mainly analyzes the data the researchers have gathered and see how they actually
perceive Philippine English despite the differences in their program specializations. This study might
also prove to be a useful study for future research about Philippine English and attitude towards it. The
study is conducted via different online platforms, with researcher’s limited connection towards the other
program and year levels.
International Journal of Advanced Language and Educational Linguistics, 2022, 3(1), p. 3
Copyright © 2022 by the AMCS Research Center & AMCS Press, Yogyakarta, Republic of Indonesia
3.1. Research design
This study utilized the mix-methods research design since this study will cover descriptive data
analysis as well as quantitative data. Hence utilizing descriptive research design to provide descriptive
analysis of the data and results of the study. The study aims to determine the attitude and perception of
students from the courses Bachelor of Arts in English Language Studies and Bachelor of Arts in
Filipinology from Polytechnic University of the Philippines towards Philippine English. This will be
examined by answering questions about their language preference in different domains as follows:
•
Family domain - This domain will tackle one's language attitude and perception towards
Philippine English among their families and other relatives.
•
Academic domain - (subcategory: verbal & non-verbal) - This domain will tackle one’s language
attitude and perception towards Philippine English with regards to their academic experiences.
For example, class recitation and presentation for verbal aspect and as for non-verbal aspect,
essay writing and other academic papers.
•
Social media domain - This domain will tackle one’s language attitude and perception towards
Philippine English when they make interaction, conversations, and posts in social media.
•
Other relationships domain - This domain will tackle one’s language attitude and perception
towards Philippine English with regards to their other relationships such as their interactions
and conversations with their: romantic partners, acquaintances, and friends. A clear distinction
was intentionally made between acquaintances and friends to know whether the strength of their
relationship somehow affects their language use towards one another.
3.2. Area of study
Polytechnic University of the Philippines, also known as PUP, has made a name for itself
throughout the years, making itself known throughout the country and internationally. The said
university produced many competent graduates and scholars and has contributed a lot with the universal
corpus of knowledge. The researchers picked Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Sta. Mesa
branch, as their area of study for their own convenience. The researchers are enrolled in the said
university and picked the said university for easier access and convenience at looking for respondents
and convenience of access.
3.3. Research approach
This study utilized the qualitative-quantitative research approach or mix-method approach.
Descriptive interpretation of the data will be shown as well as quantitative interpretation of the data. For
the data showcase, the data will be shown through charts and the data will be gathered through the survey
conducted through a questionnaire in Google Forms.
3.4. Population
The population or respondents were invited and chosen from different language programs namely
Bachelor of Arts and English Language Studies (ABELS) and Bachelor of Arts in Filipinology (ABF).
The reason behind this is to make respondents who frequently use different languages such as ABELS
and ABF to know of their attitude towards other languages.
3.5. Sampling size and technique
This study covers 20 university students, 10 from ABELS and 10 from ABF to balance the data
about Filipino language and English language. As for the sampling method, convenience sampling
method is utilized to increase the relevance of collected data. However, as the mentioned programs are
immense in volume, individual respondents among the different programs will be randomly selected.
And thus, utilize the random sampling method.
3.6. Data collection
The research will be gathering data through a set of questions that are answerable in a scale of
1 to 5 response anchors. The number 5 on the scale signifies the highest contact to the stated variety of
International Journal of Advanced Language and Educational Linguistics, 2022, 3(1), p. 4
Copyright © 2022 by the AMCS Research Center & AMCS Press, Yogyakarta, Republic of Indonesia
English in the question, while the number 1 is the lowest. This method of answering is also known as
the Likert Scale, the questionnaire utilized is a questionnaire that uses many sets of closed-ended
questions. The questionnaire will also include different specific domains such as Family, Academic,
Social Media, and Other Relationships domain.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Results
The data presented in this section are the data collected from the survey conducted for the students
of the courses, Bachelor of Arts in English Language Studies (ABELS) and Bachelor of Arts in
Filipinology (ABF) from Polytechnic University of the Philippines. This test was done to determine the
attitude and perception of the said target courses. This test is intended to have at least 20 respondents as
its target population.
The survey was done through Google Forms as the medium of deployment. Hence all the data that
were collected are digital instead of physical. The survey consists of form domains named as follows:
Family domain, Academic domain: (subcategory: verbal and non-verbal), Social media domain, Other
relationships domain (see part 1.3 for specifics). Each domain contains many factors in the questions
that the researchers deem significant in order to determine the language attitude and perception of the
respondents towards Philippine English. The data presentation is divided according to the domains and
the questions within the specific domains are also presented under and following the heading of specific
domains.
The researchers divided the respondent’s attitude and perception by dividing the questions in four
different domains: Family Domain, Academic Domain, Social Media Domain, and Other Relationship
Domain. The intended number of respondents is 20; 10 for ABELS and 10 for ABF. However, as the
researchers had limited connection and access for respondents, the number of respondents that was
gathered was 15 respondents out of the 20 target respondents: 9 ABELS students and 6 ABF students.
4.1.1.
Data for ‘Family Domain’
For item number 1 (as shown in Figure 1), 60% or 9 out of 15 respondents answered ‘1’ on the
Likert Scale. Indicating that most of the respondents does not prefer or use Native English when they
are talking to their parents. Meanwhile, only 1 answered ‘5’ on the Likert scale. This person might be
under the factor that either allows or forces them to use Native English most of the time.
Figure 1. Family domain, item number 1
For number 2, the numbers were almost equally distributed. The numbers ‘3’ to ‘5’ on the Likert
scale all got 3 answers. Indicating that most of the respondents, either moderately or always use
Philippine English when they are talking to their parents. However, the majority of the respondents still
prefer to use other languages when talking to their parents.
International Journal of Advanced Language and Educational Linguistics, 2022, 3(1), p. 5
Copyright © 2022 by the AMCS Research Center & AMCS Press, Yogyakarta, Republic of Indonesia
For item number 3 (see Figure 2), almost all of the respondents, or 12 out of the 15 respondents
answered ‘5’ or always on the Likert scale. Indicating that they always or often use Filipino or any local
dialect whenever they talk to their parents. Filipino, and all the dialects under it, are commonly spoken
in the Philippines.
However, for item number 4, more than 50% or 8 out of the 15 respondents answered ‘1’ on the
Likert scale. Most of the respondents do not use Native English when they are communicating with their
siblings.
Figure 2. Family domain, item number 3
For item number 5 (in Figure 3), ‘5’ on the Likert scale got the highest percentage of answers
(33.3%) or got the most answers (5 out of 15 respondents). While the number ‘1’ on the Likert scale got
26.7%, or 4 out of 15 respondents. Numerous reasons or factors can be considered on the huge difference
in numbers of Philippine English use whenever the respondents talk to their siblings. One of the possible
reasons is the difference in the relationship between the respondents and their siblings.
Figure 3. Family domain, item number 5
Same as item number 3, item number 6 showed the same results as Filipino language being used
all the time whenever they talk to their siblings. As for item number 7, 11 out of 15 respondents or
73.3% answered ‘1’ on the Likert scale. Most of the respondents do not use Native English in their
conversation with relatives outside the main family.
For item number 8, respondents tend to use or not use Philippine English rather than Native English
when conversing with their relatives. The data show that 10 respondents are leaning towards scale ‘5’
from scale ‘3’.
International Journal of Advanced Language and Educational Linguistics, 2022, 3(1), p. 6
Copyright © 2022 by the AMCS Research Center & AMCS Press, Yogyakarta, Republic of Indonesia
Finally, for item number 9 (in Figure 4), just like items 3 and 6, most of the respondents, 12 out of
15 respondents (80%) answered ‘5’ in the Likert scale. This shows that the Filipino language and other
local dialects are still the preferred language when talking to relatives.
Figure 4. Family domain, item number 9
4.1.2.
Data for ‘Academic Domain’
For item number 1 (refer to Figure 5), number ‘3’ on the Likert scale got the most answers, 6 out
of 15 respondents or 40% of the sample. While Likert scale number ‘1’ got the second highest percentage
of answers of 33.3% or 5 out of 15 respondents. This shows that most of the respondents moderately to
never incorporate Native English when they recite and express themselves in class.
Figure 5. Academic domain, item number 1
Interestingly, for item number 2 of the Academic Domain, the graph shows a mountain-like image
(as shown in Figure 6). With Likert scale number ‘3’, with a percentage of 33.3% or 5 out of 15
respondents moderately using Philippines English whenever they recite in class.
For item number 3, most of the respondents answered almost always (Likert Scale #4) and always
(Likert Scale #5) on the Likert scale, with Likert scale number ‘5’ getting the highest percentage of
answers of 46.7% or 7 out of 15 respondents. And Likert scale number ‘4’ getting 33.3% or 5 out of 15
respondents.
This shows that most of the respondents recites and expresses themselves in class using the Filipino
language. This can be the cause of the language policies in the Philippines. Specifically, the BEP or The
International Journal of Advanced Language and Educational Linguistics, 2022, 3(1), p. 7
Copyright © 2022 by the AMCS Research Center & AMCS Press, Yogyakarta, Republic of Indonesia
Bilingual Education of the Philippines that allows educators to use both English and Filipino to teach
their subjects if it is necessary (see Figure 7).
Figure 6. Academic domain, item number 2
Figure 7. Academic domain, item number 3
For Academic Domain Question #4, most of the respondent’s answers leans toward always; with
scale number ‘3’ getting 3 out of 15 respondents (20%), scale number ‘4’ getting 5 out of 15 respondents
(33.3.%), and lastly, scale number ‘5’ getting 3 out of 15 respondents or 20 %. This can be due to
academic writing requiring such formality; prestige that might not be accomplished by PhE or Filipino.
For item number 5, Likert scale number ‘5’ got the highest percentage of answers with 33.3 % or
5 out of 15 respondents. The respondents might have multiple occasions where the respondents are
required to write something about the Philippines such as its politics, culture, language, economy, etc.
Thus, writing in Philippine English allows them to fully explain and contextualize ideas that can be
achieved using PhE.
In Academic Domain Question #6, both Likert scale numbers ‘4’ and ‘5’ got the highest percentage
of answers with both of them at 33.3% which is 5 out of 15 respondents. The respondents, with 40%
coming from the AB Filipinology, most of the schoolwork that are required to them to write might be
or should be written in Filipino. And 60% of the respondents coming from the AB English Language
Studies, some of the schoolwork is required to integrate and/or connect their mother tongue in learning
the English Language.
International Journal of Advanced Language and Educational Linguistics, 2022, 3(1), p. 8
Copyright © 2022 by the AMCS Research Center & AMCS Press, Yogyakarta, Republic of Indonesia
4.1.3.
Data for ‘Social Media Domain’
In this domain, the researchers ask the respondents about how frequent they use the Native English,
Philippine English, and Filipino or any local dialect when posting and/or chatting, commenting, and
sharing in social media.
For question number one (see Figure 8 below), 26.7% (4 out of 15) of the respondents, the highest
percentage in this question, answered 1, which is equivalent to never using native English when talking
to people online. On the same percentage, respondents answered 4 or often, indicating that they often
use native English when talking to people online. 13.3% (2 out of 15) of the respondents answered 2,
indicating that they sometimes use native English. On the same percentage, respondents answered 5 or
always, indicating that they are always using native English when talking to people online. 20% (3 out
of 15) of the respondents answered 3 or neutrality, indicating that they are okay to use it when talking
to people online.
Figure 8. Social media domain, item number 1
For question number two (as illustrated in Figure 9), 6.7% (1 out of 15) of the respondents answered
1 or never, indicating that they never used Philippine English (PhE) when talking to people online. There
are also 6.7% respondents who answered 2 or sometimes, indicating that they are using PhE when
talking to people online. There are 26.7% (4 out of 15) of the respondents answered 3 and 4. 33.5% (5
out of 15) of the respondents answered 5 or always, indicating that when talking to people online, they
always use Philippine English, the highest percentage in this question.
Figure 9. Social media domain, item number 2
For question number three, none of the respondents chose 1 or never, indicating that at some point,
they used Filipino or any local dialect when talking to people online. 6.7% (1 out of 15) of the
respondents chose 2, 3, and 4 respectively. The remaining 80% (12 out of 15) of the respondents, the
International Journal of Advanced Language and Educational Linguistics, 2022, 3(1), p. 9
Copyright © 2022 by the AMCS Research Center & AMCS Press, Yogyakarta, Republic of Indonesia
highest percentage in this question, chose 5 or always, indicating that when talking to people online,
they always use Filipino or any local dialect.
For question number four (see Figure 10), 26.7% (4 out of 15) of the respondents answered 1 or
never, indicating that they never used native English when uploading and/or sharing posts online. 6.7%
(1 out of 15) of the respondents answered 2 or sometimes and also the same percentage of respondents
answered 5 or always. 20% (3 out of 15) of the respondents choose 3, or neutrality. And lastly, the
highest percentage in this question, 40% (6 out of 15) respondents chose 4, indicating that they often
use native English when uploading and/or sharing posts online.
Figure 10. Social media domain, item number 4
For question number five, 13.3% (2 out of 15) of the respondents chose 1 or never, indicating that
they never used PhE when they are uploading and/or sharing posts online. No one chose 2, or sometimes.
20% (3 out of 15) of the respondents chose 3 and 5. 46.7% (7 out of 15) of the respondents chose 4 or
often. This is also the highest percentage in this question.
For question number six (as depicted in Figure 11 below), none of the respondents chose 1 and 2.
20% (3 out of 15) of the respondents chose 3, indicating that they are okay, or they frequently use
Filipino and/or other local dialects when uploading and/or sharing posts online. 26.7% (4 out of 15
respondents) of the respondents chose 4, indicating that they often use Filipino and/or other local dialects
when uploading and/or sharing posts online. And the highest percentage, 53.3% (8 out of 15) of the
respondents chose 5, indicating that they always use Filipino and/or other local dialects when
uploading/sharing online.
Figure 11. Social media domain, item number 6
For question number seven, 26.7% (4 out of 15) of the respondents chose 1 or never, indicating that
they never used native English when commenting in social media posts. 33.3% (5 out of 15) of the
respondents chose 2 or sometimes, indicating that they sometimes use native English when commenting,
International Journal of Advanced Language and Educational Linguistics, 2022, 3(1), p. 10
Copyright © 2022 by the AMCS Research Center & AMCS Press, Yogyakarta, Republic of Indonesia
and this is also the highest percentage in this question. For the options 3, 4, and 5, there are 13.3% (2
out of 15) of the respondents who chose them.
For question number eight (as shown in Figure 12), 20% (3 out of 15) of the respondents chose 1
or never, indicating that they never used PhE when commenting in social media posts. 6.7% (1 out of
15) of the respondents chose 2. 13.3% (2 out of 15) of the respondents chose 3. 26.7% (4 out of 15) of
the respondents chose 4 or often. And lastly, the highest percentage in this question, 33.3% (5 out of 15)
of the respondents answered 5 or always, indicating that they always use Philippine English when
commenting in social media posts.
Figure 12. Social media domain, item number 8
For question number 9 (as highlighted in Figure 13 below), none of the respondents we asked chose
1 and 3, indicating that they all used Filipino and/or any local dialects when commenting in social media
posts. 6.7 (1 out of 15) of the respondents chose 2 or sometimes. 13.3% (2 out of 15) of the respondents
chose 4 or often. And the highest percentage in this question, 80% (12 out of 15) of the respondents
chose 5, indicating that they always use Filipino and/or any local dialect when commenting in social
media posts.
Figure 13. Social media domain, item number 9
4.1.4.
Data for ‘Other Relationships Domain’
In this final domain, the frequency of the respondents’ uses of Native English, Philippine English,
and Filipino or any local dialect with their other relationships: to their friends, acquaintances, and
romantic partner will be presented in detail.
For question number one, 40% (6 out of 15) of the respondents, which is also the highest percentage
in this question, choose 1 or never, indicating that they never used native English when talking to their
friends. There are 20% (3 out of 15) of the respondents who choose 2 and 3 respectively. 13.3% (2 out
of 15) of the respondents chose 4, indicating that they often use native English when talking to their
friends. And lastly, 6.7% (1 out of 15) of the respondents chose 5 or always, indicating that they always
used native English when talking to their friends.
International Journal of Advanced Language and Educational Linguistics, 2022, 3(1), p. 11
Copyright © 2022 by the AMCS Research Center & AMCS Press, Yogyakarta, Republic of Indonesia
For question number two (as explained further in Figure 14), 6.7% (1 out of 15) of the respondents
chose 1 and 2, indicating that they never or sometimes use Philippine English when talking to their
friends. 20% (3 out of 15) of the respondents chose 3. And the highest percentage in this question, 33.3%
(5 out of 15) chose 4 and 5 respectively, indicating that they often or always use PhE when talking to
their friends.
Figure 14. Other relationships domain, item number 2
For question number three (refer to Figure 15), none of the respondents chose 1 and 2, indicating
that they use Filipino or any local dialect when talking to their friends. And there are 6.7% (1 out of 15)
of the respondents who chose 3 and 4. The highest percentage in this question 86.7% (13 out of 15) of
the respondents chose 5, indicating that they always use Filipino or any local dialect when talking to
their friends.
Figure 15. Other relationships domain, item number 3
For question number four, 40% (6 out of 15) of the respondents chose 1, which indicates that they
never used native English when talking to an acquaintance. This is also the highest percentage in this
question. 33.3% (5 out of 15) choose 2 or sometimes. 13.3% (2 out of 15) of the respondents chose 3
and 4. And lastly, none of the respondents chose 5.
For question number five, 13.3% (2 out of 15) choose 1 or never, indicating that they never used
PhE when talking to acquaintances. There are 20% (3 out of 15) respondents who chose 2, 3, and 4 in
this questionnaire. And the highest percentage belongs to 5 or always, as there are 26.7% (4 out of 15)
respondents who say that they always use Philippine English when talking to their own or close
acquaintances.
For question number six, none of the respondents chose 1 and 3, indicating that they speak in
Filipino or any local dialect when talking to acquaintances. 6.7% (1 out of 15) chose 2. 13.3% (2 out of
15) of the respondents chose 4. And the highest percentage, 80% (12 out of 15) of the respondents chose
International Journal of Advanced Language and Educational Linguistics, 2022, 3(1), p. 12
Copyright © 2022 by the AMCS Research Center & AMCS Press, Yogyakarta, Republic of Indonesia
5, indicating that they always use Filipino or any local dialect when talking to personal or close
acquaintances.
For question number seven (see Figure 16 for further explanation), 40% (6 out of 15) of the
respondents chose 1, and is the highest percentage, indicating that they never talked to their romantic
partner in native English. 13.3% (2 out of 15) of the respondents chose 2, 4, and 5 in the questionnaire,
indicating that they use native English when talking to their native partner. And the remaining 20% (3
out of 15) answered 3.
Figure 16. Other relationships domain, item number 7
For question number eight (as shown in Figure 17), 26.7% (4 out of 15) of the respondents, which
is the highest percentage in this question, chose 1 and the same percentage of respondents chose 5.
26.7% are talking to their partner in Philippine English and 26.7% never talked to their partner using
Philippine English. For choices 3 and 4, there are 20% (3 out of 15) respondents who chose that on the
Likert scale. And lastly, 6.7% (1 out of 15) of the respondents chose 3.
Figure 17. Other relationships domain, item number 8
For question number 9, there are 20% (3 out of 15) of the respondents who chose 1, indicating that
they never used Filipino or any local dialect when talking to their romantic partner. None of the
respondents chose 2. 6/7% (1 out of 15) of the respondents chose 3 and the same percentage of
respondents chose 4. The highest percentage in this question chose 5, which has 66.7% (10 out of 15)
votes, indicating that they are always using Filipino or any local dialect when talking to their romantic
partner.
International Journal of Advanced Language and Educational Linguistics, 2022, 3(1), p. 13
Copyright © 2022 by the AMCS Research Center & AMCS Press, Yogyakarta, Republic of Indonesia
4.1.5.
Data from the open descriptive (qualitative) prompts / questions
To complement the numerical data above, some qualitative questions were also posed albeit
through the online data collection website as explained earlier in this paper. The questions posed and
the analysis are provided below.
For the question: Did you know, or do you have any idea about Philippine English before this? Out
of the 15 respondents who answered the question, 15 of the respondents know about Philippine English.
While 12 out of the 15 respondents are sure of their knowledge about Philippine English, the remaining
also knows about Philippine English but with only little information or as a respondent phrased it
“somehow of a gist of it”.
Another question posed was: What do you feel about Philippine English? Out of the 15 respondents
who participated in answering the survey, 14 out of 15 respondents gave their answers about their
feelings about Philippine English. For the responses that used the Filipino Language as its medium, the
response for this question will be translated in English with the quotation of the original response in
Filipino alongside the translation.
According to one respondent it felt like Philippine English is a common ground between Filipino
and native English. The language acts as a connector for the ethnicities to understand each other. Some
responded by defining Philippine English as a variety of English that was nativized.
A respondent followed this notion by saying that, “Philippine English is a variety of the English
language, with the structure of the Filipino language. Meaning this has been long used by us Filipinos
and eventually will be shaped and polished for us Filipinos. English today has been smoothened to fit
with Filipino tongues” (Original response: Ang Philippine English ay isang barayti ng wikang Ingles,
na mayroong estrukturang wikang Filipino. Ibig sabihin, ito ay Ingles na matagal nang ginagamit ng
mga Pilipino at kalaunan ay nahuhubog o nahuhugis nang maka-Pilipino. Ingles na pinadulas sa dila
ng mga Pilipino).
Generally, all the other respondents followed this notion. Some also said that Philippine English is
easier to use and understand than native English, hence it is a unique variety made for Filipino use, as
one of the respondents said, “It’s okay, as long as it is understandable by the Filipinos” (Original
response: Ayos lang. Ang mahalaga ay nauunawaan ito sa konteksto ng mga Pilipino).
Additionally, a respondent also said that “I think Philippine English is simpler than native English
where you need to follow a certain kind of rules,” perhaps it is because as another respondent said,
Philippine English is structured like the Filipino language which is why this respondent did not notice
that there are still rules to be followed, just as the same as the Filipino language.
Furthermore, a respondent said that instead of looking at the Philippine English in the negative
light, it is not the problem nor the enemy. Another said that it is very amusing that we have created a
variety of English for our own, thus giving the English language a new variety of identity and a new
strength of identity for the Filipinos.
From a different perspective, some respondents said that people should talk more about Philippine
English and how it affects the people’s daily lives. Since for those who wish to achieve mastery in
Philippine English one must utilize it and incorporate it in their daily lives. However, out of all the
respondents, one respondent said that they use it but feels uncomfortable with using it since it feels as if
they do not give justice to the actual pronunciation of words, but in times of need then there is no problem
in utilizing Philippine English as the language medium.
4.2. Final remarks
Overall, the respondents’ attitude and perception towards Philippine English has been positive.
Most of the respondents do not use any other native English in any of the domains except for the
Academic Domain, specifically when they have to write academic papers. There was great favor of
preference use towards Philippine English in all of the domains aside from the Family Domain,
specifically when the respondents talk to their parents. However, even when the respondents prefer the
use of Philippine English in most domains, this does not hinder them from also utilizing the use of the
Filipino language.
A noteworthy finding also showed that despite being in different language majors, the respondents
from Bachelor of Arts in English Language Studies (ABELS) would prefer using Filipino or other local
dialects when expressing themselves in class despite being English majors but also in some contexts,
despite the respondents from Bachelor of Arts in Filipinology (ABF) being Filipino majors.
International Journal of Advanced Language and Educational Linguistics, 2022, 3(1), p. 14
Copyright © 2022 by the AMCS Research Center & AMCS Press, Yogyakarta, Republic of Indonesia
5. Conclusion and Future Work
The researchers covered all possible and relevant domains where people would practice or utilize
the use of language and made a test about their preference in order to determine their attitude and
perception towards Philippine English. According to the findings of the researchers, the respondents
prefer to use both Philippine English and Filipino language in different contexts despite being different
in their course major. A noteworthy data from the test shows that the respondents would only use
Filipino language or other local dialects when speaking to their parents, a possible reason for this would
be the difference in the level of relationship between the respondents and their siblings and the
respondents and their parents. It is also possible that it is because their parents are not as knowledgeable
in English as their siblings. The researchers recognize the limitation of not being able to determine
whether the difference on the level of relationship could really affect the attitude of the speakers towards
language.
The researchers designed this study to intentionally balance the number of respondents between
people with different language they major in, this is to determine whether the course they major in would
affect their attitude and perception towards language. However, due to the lack of access and connection
with respondents, the researchers failed to meet the target number of respondents and were only able to
gather a total of 15 respondents: 9 respondents from ABELS and 6 people from ABF. After collecting
and analyzing the data, the results showed that the difference in majoring language does not make a
difference in language attitude and perception as per preference. This was shown as ABELS respondents
would prefer to use Filipino language or any other local dialects when reciting in class. As for the ABF
students, the results showed that they would mostly use Philippine English in most contexts.
The test results of the research showed that the respondents perceive Philippine English as
something positive. The respondents perceive Philippine English as something that we should take more
seriously, especially if this has an effect in our everyday lives. Moreover, they said that people should
look more into Philippine English since this is not only a language that was modified to be nativized but
also this could help to polish their own native language.
Last but not least, the researchers also acknowledge the limitations of the study, such as the lack of
the number of the respondents and the lack of population coverage of the study. In addition, the inability
to account for more factors to thoroughly determine the attitude and perception towards Philippine
English of the respondents. Thus, future studies in this same area of interest should be improved with
many similar research participants so as to bear better results for determining the attitude and perception
towards Philippine English.
How to Cite: Umayam, A. R., Icamen, T. B. M. N., Merano, C. C., & Adnan, A. H. M. (2022). Philippine
English and the attitudes and perceptions of college students. International Journal of Advanced Language and
Educational Linguistics, 3(1), 1-16.
Acknowledgement: This academic research project is carried out as part of the ENGL 30053: ‘Varieties
of English (Philippine English)’ degree level course at the College of Arts and Letters (CAL),
Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP). The lead tutor for this course, for our particular group,
is Associate Professor / Professor Dr. Airil Haimi Mohd Adnan acting as the Visiting Special Lecturer
from UiTM Shah Alam, Malaysia, tutoring together with Dr. Rafael Michael O. Paz, Chairperson of the
Department of English, Foreign Languages, and Linguistics at CAL, PUP. The original draft of this
paper was presented to / at the first edition of the International Paper Competition (IPC) 2022 hosted
by the Division of Research and Technology, Sekolah Tinggi Pariwisata Ambarrukmo Yogyakarta
(STIPRAM) Indonesia in October 2022.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
Bolton, K., Botha, W., and Kirkpatrick, A. (Eds.), “The Handbook of Asian Englishes”, John Wiley &
Sons, 2020.
Bhaskar, C.V., and Soundiraraj, S., “A Study on Change in the Attitude of Students towards English
Language Learning,” English Language Teaching 6 (5), 111-116 (2013).
Adnan, A.H., “The use of, and attitudes toward, the English language in Bumiputera Malay boarding
schools in Malaysia: reality of the Malaysian ‘English language dilemma’,” Master of Arts dissertation,
Faculty of Education, University of Leicester, England, 2001.
International Journal of Advanced Language and Educational Linguistics, 2022, 3(1), p. 15
Copyright © 2022 by the AMCS Research Center & AMCS Press, Yogyakarta, Republic of Indonesia
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
Adnan, A.H.M., “Language use and workplace participation in the identity construction of Bumiputera
Malay undergraduates in Malaysia,” Doctor of Philosophy thesis, Faculty of Arts, University of
Auckland, New Zealand, 2013.
Zamari, Z.M., and Adnan, A.H.M., “Fusing CALL with SALL: The Good English Language Learner
community on Facebook as a case in point,” English Language Journal (UPSI Sultan Idris Education
University) 4, 126-146 (2011).
Collins, P, and Borlongan, A.M., “Has Philippine English attained linguistic independence? The
grammatical evidence,” The Philippine ESL Journal 19, 10-24 (2017).
Llamzon, T. A., “English and the national languages in Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines: A
sociolinguistic comparison,” Cross Currents 5 (1), 87-104 (1978).
Dimaculangan, N.G., “Speakers’ Ambivalent Attitude toward Philippine English: An Issue for
Integrating the Variety into ESL Instruction,” Journal of World Englishes and Educational Practices 4
(2), 97-104 (2022).
Dayag, D., “Philippine English,” In E. L. Low and A. Hashim (Eds.), English in Southeast Asia: Features,
policy and language in use, John Benjamins Publishing, 91-100, (2012).
Lesada, J., “Taglish in Metro Manila: an analysis of Tagalog-English code-switching,” Doctor of
Philosophy thesis, University of Michigan, 2017.
Wardhaugh, R., and Fuller, J.M., “An introduction to sociolinguistics”. John Wiley & Sons, 2021.
Tan, P.K.W., “English in Singapore,” International Journal of Language, Translation, and Intercultural
Communication 1, 123-138 (2012).
Kachru, B.B., “The sacred cows of English,” English Today 4 (4), 3-8 (1988).
Jindapitak, N., and Teo, A., “The emergence of world Englishes: Implications for English language
teaching,” Asian Journal of Social Science and Humanities 2 (2), 190-199 (2013).
Adnan, A.H.M., “Language use and identity construction in a ‘micro-community’ of Malay
undergraduates,” In R. Machart, C. B. Lim, S. N. Lim, and E. Yamato (Eds.), Intersecting Identities and
Interculturality: Discourse and Practice, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge, 91-110, (2013).
Mohd Adnan, A.H., Abd Karim, R., Mohd Tahir, M.H., Mustafa Kamal, N.N., and Yusof, A.M.,
“Education 4.0 technologies, Industry 4.0 skills and the teaching of English in Malaysian tertiary
education,” Arab World English Journal 10 (4), 330-343 (2019).
Mesthrie, R., and Bhatt, R. M., “World Englishes: The study of new linguistic varieties,” Cambridge
University Press, 2008.
Adnan, A. H. M., “Perdre sa langue, perdre son identité, se perdre. Le cas des enfants Orang Asli
(aborigènes) de Malaise,” Droit et Cultures 63 (1), 87-109 (2012).
Leimgruber, J.R.E., “Singapore English,” Language and Linguistics Compass 5 (1), 47-62 (2011).
Deutschmann, M., and Zelime, J., “’I used to like writing in Kreol but now I only use English’: An
exploratory study of language attitudes and examination performance among primary and secondary
school pupils in the Seychelles,” Island Studies (University of Seychelles) 1 (2), 36-45 (2015).
Baker, C., “Attitudes and language: Vol. 83,” Multilingual Matters, 1992.
Parkinson, D.J., “Philippine English”, Oxford University Press, 2012.
Gonzales, W.D.W., “Philippine Englishes,” Asian Englishes 19 (1), 79-95 (2017).
Hernandez, H., “Awareness of Filipino Graduate Students towards Philippine English,” The
Normal Lights 14 (2), 7-8 (2020).
Dimaculangan, N.G., “Another look into Philippine English: Towards users’ awareness and celebration,”
International Journal of Advanced Research and Publications 2 (1), 17-22 (2018).
Martin, I., “Philippine English Revisited,” World Englishes 33, 50-59 (2014).
Somblingo, R.A., and Alieto, E.O., “English Language Attitude among Filipino Prospective Language
Teachers: An Analysis through the Mentalist Theoretical Lens,” Asian ESP Journal 15 (2), 23-42 (2019).
Choomthong, D., and Manowong, S., “Varieties of English Accents: A Study of the Degree of Preference
and Intelligibility Among Second-Year English Major Students at Maejo University,” Manusya: Journal
of Humanities 23 (2), 151-169 (2020).
How to Cite: Umayam, A. R., Icamen, T. B. M. N., Merano, C. C., & Adnan, A. H. M. (2022). Philippine
English and the attitudes and perceptions of college students. International Journal of Advanced Language and
Educational Linguistics, 3(1), 1-16.
International Journal of Advanced Language and Educational Linguistics, 2022, 3(1), p. 16
Copyright © 2022 by the AMCS Research Center & AMCS Press, Yogyakarta, Republic of Indonesia
View publication stats