EdData II
PhilEd Data: Strengthening
Information for Education, Policy,
Planning and Management in the
Philippines
Local languages and literacy in the Philippines:
Implications for early grade reading instruction and
assessment
EdData II Technical and Managerial Assistance, Task Number 17
Contract Number: AID-492-M-12-00001
December 31, 2013
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for
International Development. It was prepared by RTI International.
PhilEd Data: Strengthening
Information for Education, Policy,
Planning and Management in the
Philippines
Local languages and literacy in the Philippines:
Implications for the early grade reading instruction and
assessment
Education Data for Decision Making (EdData II)
Task Order No. 17
Prepared for
Mirshariff Tillah, Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)
USAID/Philippines Office of Education
mtillah@usaid.gov
Prepared by
Firth McEachern, for
RTI International
3040 Cornwallis Road
Post Office Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views
of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States
Government.
Table of Contents
Preface........................................................................................................................................ 2
I.
Philippine languages: A background and history ................................................................ 4
About the Philippines ............................................................................................. 4
Evolution of Filipino languages and colonial influences ....................................... 5
Languages in education in the Philippines ............................................................. 7
Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) in the Philippines. 11
II. Characteristics of Philippine languages: Implications for Reading and Assessment......... 14
Phonology ............................................................................................................. 15
Orthography.......................................................................................................... 17
Morphology & Syntax .......................................................................................... 22
Vocabulary ........................................................................................................... 26
Typology .............................................................................................................. 28
III. Sociolinguistic Factors: Implications to Literacy and Assessment................................... 31
Multilingualism and multiliteracy in the Philippines ........................................... 31
Oral language environment of Filipinos inside and outside the classroom .......... 33
Literacy Environment of Filipinos Inside and Outside the Classroom ................ 38
Appendix A: Philippine Language Maps................................................................................. 47
All ethnolinguistic groups (northern Philippines) ................................................ 47
All ethnolinguistic groups (southern Philippines) ................................................ 48
Principal geographic areas of L1 speakers of major Philippine languages .......... 49
Appendix B: Population of Philippine ethnolinguistic groups of over 100,000 people .......... 50
Appendix C: Population of Provinces and Chartered Cities of the Philippines, with
each of their top five ethnolinguistic groups................................................................ 53
References ................................................................................................................................ 58
1
Preface
As part of the Strengthening Information for Education, Policy, Planning and Management in
the Philippines (PhilEdData) project, USAID has provided the Philippines Department of
Education over a two-year period (2012-2013) with a comprehensive set of resources and
guidelines that will support the use of the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) in the
country for national (or regional) sample-based diagnostic purposes. A key output of this
project is an “EGRA Toolkit” adapted to the Philippine context and needs. In developing this
toolkit, RTI International, the organization contracted by USAID to support the Department
of Education through the PhilEdData project, requested the services of a consultant to prepare
an introduction that would provide background on existing experiences with the teaching and
assessment of reading in the Philippines. The scope of work specified:
“Using the existing EGRA toolkit (2009, Section III: “Conceptual Framework and
Research Foundations”) and its adaptations in French and Spanish (available through the
website: www.eddataglobal.org) the consultant will draft a new introduction relevant to
the Filipino context. This will involve:
-
conducting an extensive literature review of Filipino and international research on
reading acquisition in the languages of the Philippines (including English, but specific
to Filipino learners).
-
summarizing research findings in early reading acquisition and assessment in the
languages of the Philippines.
-
providing a brief overview of the 12 official languages of the MTB-MLE program in
use in the Philippines and the implications for the teaching of reading .”
This report is the product of that research, which took place between September and
November 2013. The author reviewed Philippine and international journals and textbooks
related to language, education, and reading; publications written or commissioned by
organizations known for work in international education such as UNESCO, SIL, RTI
International, and Save the Children; attended conferences and reviewed conference
proceedings and abstract books; used Philippine census data from the National Statistics
Office, and reviewed research studies produced by students, particularly of the University of
the Philippines College of Education in Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines. The result is a
report that may be one of the most comprehensive literature reviews covering language and
literacy in the Philippines. While the purpose was to gather information about language
characteristics and existing research on reading acquisition in Philippine local languages to
inform the development and implementation of early grade reading assessments, the
relevance of information collected in this paper goes far beyond just reading assessment. By
wedding linguistic information (e.g. language characteristics, acquisition, use, and changes),
sociopolitical context (historical background, law, and education, language, and cultural
rights), and the reality of Philippine classrooms, this report could also inform curriculum,
teaching methods, and policy development, particularly with regards to mother tongue-based
multilingual education.
About the author. Firth McEachern lives and works in the Province of La Union,
Philippines, helping local government units support the implementation of the Department of
Education’s new K-12 curriculum and Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MLE).
2
Over the past three years, he has also assisted the provincial government in formulating a
multilingual policy to improve information dissemination and expand the public’s
communication options. In 2012, in coordination with local Social Welfare and Development
Offices, he organized a language-in-education training for all day care workers in La Union
to harmonize the transition between pre-school and the elementary level. Recently, he has
facilitated Early Grade Reading Assessments as part of the PhilEd Data Project, and has
assisted in teacher trainings and classroom observations for the Basa Pilipinas Program that
aims to improve the reading of 1 million Filipino children by 2016. Both the PhilEd Data
Project and the Basa Pilipinas are funded by the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID). Firth teaches a course on MLE for teacher education students at
Saint Louis College twice weekly. He completed his bachelor degree at Harvard University
and is finishing a Master in Public Management from Ateneo de Manila University,
concentrating in language-in-education policy. He is fond of learning languages, reading,
surfing, and thinking about the marginalized periphery.
The research was supervised, and the report reviewed and edited by Sarah Pouezevara of RTI
International. Ms. Pouezevara has been supporting the use of EGRA under the PhilEdData
project since 2012.
Please address questions or comments on this report to : spouez@rti.org
3
I.
Philippine languages: A background and history
About the Philippines
The Philippines is a multilingual and multi-ethnic country spread across an archipelago of
more than 7,000 islands, measuring 1,850 km from north to south. The largest 11 islands
make up 94% of the total land area of approximately 300,000 km2. Being on the Pacific Ring
of Fire and the Northwest Pacific typhoon belt, the country is prone to natural disasters that
hamper development (Rappa & Wee, 2006). The Philippines is a developing nation with high
population density and growth rate. Metro Manila, the seat of the national government,
media, and most of the country’s biggest corporations, is home to 12 million of the country’s
total population of 92 million people (National Statistics Office, 2013). About a quarter of the
total population lives in poverty, and high income inequality has persisted for decades (ADB,
2009). As of 2011, the Philippines had a net enrollment ratio of approximately 91% in
primary education, and a primary completion rate of 71%.
The Philippines is one of the ten most linguistically diverse countries in the world, and
second most diverse in South East Asia after Indonesia (Lewis, Simons, & Fennig, 2013). It
is noted as being one of 44 nations where no single language group exceeds 50% of the total
population (Robinson, 1993). While the exact number of native Philippine languages is
difficult to count, estimates range from 110 (Constantino, 1998) to 185 (Lewis, Simons, &
Fennig, 2013). Different estimates arise from ambiguities in classification, whereby similar
speech varieties may be classified as separate languages, dialects of the same language, a
macrolanguage, or a dialect continuum (McFarland, 1983). New research can improve the
classification and enumeration of languages, and also identify languages that are no longer
used. Indeed, of the 185 native Philippine languages listed in Ethnologue (an online database
of world languages managed by the Summer Institute of Linguistics [SIL]), four have gone
extinct, 10 are dying, and 13 are “in trouble.” These numbers are likely an underestimate, as
Headland (2003) lists all 32 languages of the Negrito peoples—the earliest inhabitants of the
archipelago—as endangered, while others have observed symptoms of language loss among
numerous non-Negrito languages too (see Anderson & Anderson, 2007; Bas, 2007; Cabuang,
2007; Cruz, 2010; Lapid, 2009; Lomboy, 2007; Quakenbush, 2007; Rappa & Wee, 2006;
Ronquillo, 2013; Scebold, 2003).
Linguists believe that Philippine languages evolved from an Austronesian language imported
by migrants from Formosa around 2,500 B.C. (Bellwood, 1995) or earlier1. While groups
such as the Negritos have inhabited the archipelago for much longer (up to 40,000 years),
these early populations must have abandoned their original languages because, today,
practically all native Philippine languages belong to the Austronesian language family. The
one exception is Chabacano, a Spanish creole that developed within the Philippine islands in
the last few hundred years. The Austronesian family includes over 1000 languages spanning
the Pacific and Indian Oceans, including Taiwanese indigenous languages, Malay, Tetum,
Maori, Hawaiian, and Malagasy.
1
Gray, Dummond, & Greenhill (2009) applied Bayesian phylogenetic methods to lexical data from 400 Austronesian
languages, placing a common origin in Taiwan (Formosa) about 5230 years ago.
4
Evolution of Filipino languages and colonial influences
Notwithstanding the uncertain future for some Philippine languages, the country owes its
present linguistic diversity to a combination of physical, historical, and socio-political factors.
Its island geography, with populations dispersed by both water and mountain chains, was
conducive to the evolution of many ethnolinguistic groups, as in the case of Indonesia. Unlike
many of its mainland neighbors, the Philippine islands were never under the complete
suzerainty of an autochthonous empire that might have subjugated these ethnolinguistic
groups. Even though the archipelago eventually became consolidated under one polity, the
Spanish authorities’ support of local languages in religious life (Anderson, 1998; Gonzalez,
2003), coupled with no wide provision of Spanish language education until 1863 (Dolan,
1991) and generally few numbers of Spanish-speaking immigrants, ensured continued use of
the native languages. At the end of 377 years of Spanish colonization, it is estimated that only
2-4% of Filipinos could use Spanish fluently (Collantes, 1977; Gonzalez, 2003), although
these low figures are disputed (Andrade, 2001).2
While the Spanish language did not replace the indigenous languages, it influenced them in
important ways. Philippine languages have a large number of Spanish loan words (up to one
third of various word counts conducted3) and have incorporated a few Spanish grammatical
patterns. These patterns include gender in select nouns (e.g. pinoy/pinay, tisoy/tisay); certain
clause combinations (e.g. pero and maske in Tagalog; por iso, miyentras tanto, and este in
Cebuano); some derivational affixes (e.g. –ero, -eno, -eño, konsi-, konde-, sin-, de-); a few
devices (e.g. like the comparative morpheme mas and the preposition para in several
languages); and even phonology (Schachter & Otanes, 1983 in Bautista, 1986; Rubino,
2001). The vowels [o] and [u] are now recognized to be separate phonemes in Tagalog,
Ilokano, and many other languages, whereas in Pre-Hispanic times these vowels were not
contrastive; a similar divergence has occurred in the vowels [i] and [e] (although, again, not
for all languages).
The Spanish also had a major impact on writing. As far back as 10 century AD, some
Philippine languages had already been written down using one of several non-Roman
alphasyllabic writing systems vaguely resembling the Vedic scripts of India (Malatesha &
Aaron, 2006). The Ilokanos, Tagalogs, Pangasinenses, Visayans, Kapampangans, and
Tagbanuas shared a similar curvilinear script, while the Mangyans had their own lineoangular script. Rather than adopt the existing scripts, the Spanish applied their own writing
system to transliterate local languages, predominantly for proselytization. Due to destruction
of local writing materials, the inability of local scripts to absorb new Spanish sounds, and the
economic and social attraction of learning the Roman alphabet, the indigenous scripts
(commonly referred to as “Baybayin”) fell out of use by the 18th century (Santos, 1999). The
isolated Mangyan tribe of Southern Mindoro, also referred to as Hanunóo, is the only group
who continue to pass on their native writing system (Mangyan Heritage Center, 2002).
2
Andrade (2001) cites the 1903 Philippine census, among other historical accounts, as evidence for higher Spanish use at the
turn of the 20th century. The 1903 census published a literacy rate of 20.2% Filipinos who could read and write (in any
language) and 44.5% who could read but not write. Seeing that English medium education had just barely begun and that
Philippine languages had never been formally included in the education system, one can assume that these literacy data
relate primarily to the Spanish language.
3
Bautista (1986) cites Llamzon and Thorpe (1972), who studied 9129 word roots in contemporary Tagalog. 58% were
autochthonous (indigenous origin) and 33% derived from Spanish, 4% from Hokkien, 4% from Malay, 1% from English,
and less than 1% from Sanskrit and Arabic. In reviewing his 1972 Cebuano Visayan dictionary, Wolff (1973) reckoned that
approximately 25% of all lexical entries were Spanish in origin, and slightly less than 10% came from English. See also
Lopez (1965).
5
At the conclusion of the Spanish-American War in 1898, Spain transferred authority of the
Philippine islands to the United States. The American administration established an Englishmedium public education system with imported teachers, methods, and even textbooks from
the United States (Bernardo, 2004). A few attempts were made to include local languages in
schools: in 1900 the General Superintendent of Schools recommended to officials of the
American Military Government to use the native “dialects” as co-mediums of instruction, but
this only resulted in limited printing of bilingual English-vernacular primary books which the
American teachers had little capacity to use (Lopez, 1959). In 1907 the Philippine Assembly
introduced a bill providing for instruction through the local “dialect” of each municipality,
but it was not approved by the Philippine Commission. In 1925 the Monroe Education
Survey Commission stated that “…the foreign medium of instruction was the greatest
handicap in schoolwork,” but contradictorily, the “most serviceable solution and the one open
to the fewest objections.” In 1931, Vice Governor Butte advocated for elementary teaching in
native “dialects” but subsequent legislative proposals were defeated. In 1939, Secretary of
Public Instruction Jorge C. Bocobo started to encourage the use of vernaculars for auxiliary
purposes in the first and second grades, but substantive changes to the medium of instruction
policy was stymied by World War II (Jardenil, 1962). English continued to dominate
education, higher levels of government, and national media throughout the American period
and even after Philippine independence in 1946 (Gonzalez, 2003). Nevertheless, English
remained a second or third language to the vast majority of Filipinos, who used their native
languages in the home and neighborhood (Otanes & Sibayan, 1969).
As part of the worldwide trend towards decolonization in the 20th century, the Philippines
exercised several popular methods of nation-building, including the identification of a
national language, based on Tagalog (Executive Order 134, 1937). Tagalog is a Philippine
language native to Central Luzon, including Metro Manila and the provinces of Rizal, Cavite,
Laguna, Batangas, Quezon, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, and parts of Tarlac and Camarines Norte
(Gonzalez, 1998). While the national language has gone through different phases of
acceptance and even names (known officially as National Language, Pilipino, and then
Filipino), the l987 Philippine Constitution defines it as a language that will be enriched from
other local and non-local languages.
Over the past few decades, several academics have proposed ways in which this enrichment
could be realized (see, for example McFarland, 1994; Miranda, 1994; Santiago, 1984), while
the University of the Philippines has published Filipino dictionaries that have intentionally
inserted new words coming from other native languages. In practice, however, the structural
base and majority of its lexicon—as used in media, education, and formal communications—
is still Tagalog, with a significant number of loan words from Spanish and English
(Gonzalez, 1998). While there are a large number of cognates across Philippine languages
(McFarland, 1994), very few uniquely non-Tagalog words of Philippine origin have entered
common usage in the formal register of the national language, apart from place or culturallyspecific vocabulary like food. Understandably, therefore, Filipinos informally refer to the
national language as Tagalog. In other cases, the distinction between Filipino and Tagalog is
geographic. People may use the term “Tagalog” when referring to the language as spoken in
its native region, and use “Filipino” in the context of its wider use across the country.
Similarly, the Department of Education distinguishes between implementing the language as
a mother tongue in Tagalog areas and its use at higher levels in all schools, by referring to the
former as “Tagalog” and the latter as “Filipino.” This semantic distinction may reflect the
6
intention that “Tagalog” as a mother tongue should be taught in its vernacular form,
embracing the dialect peculiar to an ethnic Tagalog locality; whereas, “Filipino” represents a
more standardized Tagalog taught to various populations. According to Bloomfield’s metric
of language change, Filipino is not (yet) a separate language from Tagalog because Filipino is
mutually intelligible with the regional varieties of Tagalog (Bloomfield, 1926; McFarland,
2004). It is possible that in future the Filipino language as taught in schools will be further
enriched with lexical, phonological, or morphological features of other Philippine languages,
although this would take concerted planning, execution, and coordination, particularly by the
Commission on Filipino Language (CFL, or KWF in Filipino).4
The second half of the 20st century witnessed an expansion of the domains of the national
language at the expense of English (Bautista, 1986; Florangel, 1993; Jones, 1989), and to
some extent, other Philippine languages. However, the recognition of the importance of
English in trade, foreign policy, science and technology, business process outsourcing,
tourism, the English teaching industry, and overseas work has prompted counter-measures to
militate against weakening English proficiency, such as President Macapagal-Arroyo’s
Executive Order 210 in 2003 to make English the main medium of instruction throughout
basic education. As competing interests collide, neither English nor Filipino has managed to
monopolize education since 1974, despite many policy issuances in support of each.
Interestingly, the lack of consensus on what should be the main language in education has
likely slowed the disappearance of the Philippines’ other language groups. Asia-Pacific
countries with policies that institutionalize a single dominant language even more
aggressively than the Philippines, have presided over accelerated loss of their indigenous
languages; in fact, most of the world’s countries have witnessed declining linguistic diversity
in the face of monocultural policies and the homogenizing effects of globalization (Krauss,
1992; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2004; UN Economic and Social Council, 2008). The Philippines is
one of the few countries in South East Asia that boasts an array of widely used regional
lingua francae. Interspersed among these lingua francae are many smaller indigenous
languages found throughout the archipelago, with highest diversity found in the mountainous
areas of northern Luzon and central and southern Mindanao (Lewis, Simons, & Fennig,
2013). In addition to the native Philippine language groups, there is a community of Chinese
Filipinos who commonly use Hokkien among the adult population, having primarily
emigrated from the Hokkien-speaking region of China in the last century. Finally, classical
Arabic is used in religious activities among Muslim Filipinos, although it is not generally a
home language (Gonzalez, 1998).
Languages in education in the Philippines
Following its proclamation in 1937, the national language was incrementally inserted into a
range of domains by government decree. It was added as a subject in the fourth year of high
school and teacher colleges in 1940; the subject was then expanded to all levels during the
Japanese occupation (1942-1944) (Gonzalez & Villacorte, 2001); an annual National
4
For example, the non-standard varieties of Filipino used outside Metro Manila could be studied and codified as natural
sources of enrichment. Some linguists, however, believe that attempts to enrich the national language with elements from
other languages (the so-called “Fusionist” model) are unrealistic, impractical, and will not change the way that the national
language is actually used. Cena (2014) argues that it is hence misleading to imply that the national language is different from
Tagalog or that it ever will be. If preemptive manual enrichment is ineffective, perhaps the best strategy is to invest in the
promotion and development of other Philippine languages simultaneously. If native languages flourish, they are much more
likely to influence the development of the national language, through natural contact and borrowing.
7
Language Week was established in 1954 (extended to a month’s duration in 1997); In 1967,
President Marcos signed a law to name all edifices and buildings in Pilipino, shortly followed
by several memoranda to use the same in all government letterheads and public service oaths;
A few years later, Pilipino was made the medium of instruction for an array of subjects at all
levels of basic education (Department of Education and Culture, Order 25, 1974); in 1978 the
Minister of Education demanded all higher education institutions to teach 6 units of Pilipino
in all degree programs, which was later expanded to 9 units in 1996 (Commission on Higher
Education, Memorandum Order 59, 1996); a Presidential Executive Order No. 335 was
released in 1988 enjoining all government departments and agencies to use Filipino in their
official communications (with patchy implementation). At about the same time, national
television media began to shift to broadcast primarily in Tagalog/Filipino, instead of English.
In the 1970s and 1980s a large volume of international research emerged on the potential
benefits of bilingual education, accompanied by an increase in bilingual education programs
around the world. These research studies and programs mostly involved the use of the first
language alongside a national or foreign language. Tupas (2011) notes that nationalists drew
upon these international experiences to justify the further integration of the national language
in Philippine education, leading to an unorthodox version of bilingual education in which two
relatively dominant languages were placed side-by-side—the national language and
English—neither of which in fact are mother tongues for most Filipinos:
Filipino was packaged as ‘the mother tongue’ which was superior to English,
‘the second language’ (Fuentes and Mojica, 1999) in terms of facilitating better
learning outcomes in school…. In the process, this argument provided a broad
framework for the use of Filipino, the national language, as medium of
instruction leading to the institutionalization of bilingual education in the early
1970s where English and Filipino would be used as media of instruction in
particular subjects in school. Meanwhile, the rest of the mother tongues
were…relegated to secondary roles to play in literacy development. (p. 112)
Research demonstrates that maintaining first language (L1) abilities and enhancing them
through the development of literacy and academic language skills in L1 can lead to better
academic outcomes in L1 (Palmer et. al., 2007), faster literacy development (International
Reading Association, 2001), and better outcomes in second language learning (LindholmLeary & Borsato, 2006). Moreover, mother tongue-based instruction can improve a child’s
self-esteem (Appel, 1988; Cummins, 1989, 1990; Hernàndez-Chavez, 1984), foster cultural
identity (McCarty, 2008), reduce drop-out rates (Benson, 2004), and narrow achievement
gaps between rich and poor, urban and rural, and male and female learners (Lopez & Küper,
2000; Hovens, 2002; UNESCO 2005b).
The plethora of first languages among Filipinos—coupled with the recognized difficulty of
learning through second languages—has motivated at least a dozen mother tongue or
vernacular pilot programs since Philippine independence, including the First Iloilo
Experiment (1948-1954); the Cebu Experiment (pre-1960’s), the Antique Experiment (1952);
the First Rizal Experiment (1953-1959); another Rizal experiment (1960-1966); the First
Language Component Bridging Program (FLC-BP) Pilot Project in Ifugao (1986-1993); the
Lubuagan Multilingual Education Program (1998-), the Lingua Franca Project (1999-2001),
the Culture-Responsive Curriculum for Indigenous People–Third Elementary Education
8
Project (2003-2007), the Double Exposure in Mathematics Initiative of Region IV-B (20042007); and others.
These experiments had varied yet generally positive results. In the Iloilo Experiment, children
who learned in their mother tongue (Hiligaynon) surpassed English-taught pupils in
arithmetic, reading, and social studies, and demonstrated greater emotional stability,
extroversion, and emotional maturity. Secondly, the Hiligaynon-taught pupils had no
statistical disadvantage in their English language abilities (Aguilar 1949, 1961). In 1956,
Jardenil (1962) conducted a follow-up study involving some subjects (both control and
experimental) of the original Iloilo Experiment. Fifteen judges listened to anonymous audio
recordings of the subjects, speaking and reading in English. The judges’ were unable to
distinguish between the students who had been taught in the vernacular from those who had
been taught purely in English; the researcher suggests that the teaching of the vernacular did
not prevent good diction and fluency in English.
In the Cebu Experiment, which focused on social studies, it was found that teaching the
subject through the vernacular (Cebuano) was one-third to two-thirds more efficient than
teaching it through English. In the Antique Experiment, three language-in-education models
were employed with different amounts of vernacular use. The experimental group in the
school that used vernacular the most (70% of daily instructional time) scored higher than the
control group in arithmetic, reading, language, and social studies; it was also found that the
vernacular served as a “facilitator or catalyser for learning English” (Jardenil, 1962).
The First Rizal Experiment featured two sets of experimental schools and one set of control
schools, sharing similar age and mental ability profiles. One set of experimental schools used
the vernacular (Tagalog) as medium of instruction (MOI) in grades one and two, thereafter
switching to English, while the other set used the vernacular as MOI up to and including
grade three, followed by English. The control schools used English as MOI for all grade
levels. During the first few years, pupils in the experimental schools outperformed the other
group in all four areas measured—language, reading, social studies, and arithmetic—but this
lead reduced in the upper elementary grades once the MOI switched to English. This result is
expected considering current knowledge about the recommended length of mother tongue
instruction: using the mother tongue as a MOI yields benefits in the first few years, but gains
in student performance can be undermined if the mother tongue is removed too early
(Halaoui, 2003; Ramirez, Ramay & Dena, 1991; Sampa, 2003; Thomas and Collier, 1997,
2002). Nevertheless, children in the vernacular models were noted to be better adjusted
socially, extroverted, more interested in their studies, and had higher survival rates between
Grades 1 and 6.
The second Rizal experiment consisted of similar groups as the first: a group that used
Tagalog in Grades 1-2 followed by English in Grades 3-6, another group that used Tagalog in
Grades 1-4 followed by English in Grades 5-6, and an all-English group (English medium in
Grades 1-6). Tested in English at the end of Grade 4, the all-English group performed highest
in language, reading, social studies, health and science, and arithmetic computation.
However, for arithmetic problems, the all-Tagalog group (Tagalog medium in grades 1-4)
attained the highest level of achievement. In the Tagalog version of the tests, the three
groups showed about the same reading proficiency levels, but the all-Tagalog group attained
the highest achievement levels in social studies, health and science, and arithmetic
problems. The results indicated that the match (or mismatch) between medium of instruction
9
and medium of assessment has a strong impact on measured levels of achievement.
Assessment at the end of Grade 6 revealed a different pattern, however. Despite showing
strengths in the early years, the Tagalog groups performed more poorly in most subject areas
regardless of the medium of assessment. Aguilar (1961) attributes the lackluster performance
of the vernacular groups to the training received by the teachers and the instructional
materials. Teacher training was concentrated in English and ignored in the home language.
Hence, vernacular teachers spoke in Tagalog but followed methods based on English
teaching. Similarly, Tagalog materials were anchored and made equivalent in quantity to the
English materials. The Tagalog materials were mere translations of the English ones;
linguistic and sociocultural differences were not considered in their development.
The principles espoused by the (FLC-BP) Pilot Project in Ifugao were: to teach and learn
through the child’s first language during Grades One and Two; to use the child’s cultural
model of the world to help process information; and to introduce new concepts and skills that
build on existing knowledge structures (Hohulin, 1993). Both explicit and implicit bridging
was practiced by teachers to help pupils transition from the Tuwali mother tongue to English
and Filipino. Pretests and postests revealed greater improvements in English, Filipino,
Grammar, and Maths among the children in pilot schools compared with the traditional
(bilingual English and Filipino) schools in the division (Baguingan, 2000).
The Lubuagan program—involving several schools in Kalinga Province—aims to break
down educational barriers through sequential steps of building on the native language
(Lilubuagen) and culture of the learners (Walter & Dekker, 2011). Oral development of L1
continues as literacy in the L1 is introduced. Secondly, Filipino and English are taught
through the mother tongue, rather than through immersion. After achieving oral proficiency
in Filipino and English, literacy in these second languages is introduced. Content subjects,
meanwhile, are taught in L1, integrating culturally-appropriate concepts. Data as early as
2001 showed that the experimental Lilubuagen-taught Grade 1 pupils outperformed control
pupils in reading comprehension tests in all three languages—Lilubuagen, Filipino, and
English (Dumatog & Dekker, 2003). The authors also note enhanced involvement among
parents, greater pupil participation in class, and improved attendance. In 2008, tests were
administered in Reading, Math, English, Social Studies, and Filipino for experimental and
control pupils in Grades 1, 2, and 3. The experimental group scored 21 to 22 percentage
points higher than the control group, averaged across all subjects and participating schools.
Among all the pupils, 80% of the top 40 students were in experimental classrooms, while
90% of the lowest performing students came from traditional English-Filipino classrooms
(Walter & Dekker, 2008).
In School Year 1999-2000, the then Department of Education, Culture, and Sports launched
the Lingua Franca Project. Thirty-two schools (16 experimental and 16 control) were selected
from 15 regions to participate. The experimental schools used one of three lingua francae—
Tagalog, Ilokano, or Cebuano—as medium of instruction in Grades 1 and 2. The control
schools continued the status quo of using Tagalog-based Filipino and English as medium of
instruction. Gonzalez (2001) described the results of the project as “encouraging”. When
compared to control classes, achievement in all subjects was slightly better and observations
suggested an increased enthusiasm and vitality among pupils. Deeper conceptualization was
said to begin within the first few weeks of school rather than the traditional focus on rote
learning and memorization (Young, 2002).
10
The Culture-Responsive Curriculum for Indigenous People–Third Elementary Education
Project (CCIP-TEEP) was a project from 2003 to 2007 in the southern island of Mindanao.
Its main objective was to develop and implement an indigenous curriculum for a Manobo
community—coupled with the use of the Minanubu indigenous language and the
incorporation of indigenous knowledge and practices in the curriculum. Two multigrade
schools used Minanubu as a medium of instruction in Grades 1 and 2. The CCIP-TEEP
teachers inculcated spiritual and civic values in the children, witnessing a positive effect on
their perception towards their culture, traditions, and values. Pupils showed consistent and
significant increases in the Mean Percentage Scores in Division and National Achievement
Tests. Drop-out and repetition rates also decreased (Quijano, 2010).
Despite the largely positive results of the aforementioned programs, projects, and
experiments, English and Filipino maintained a near-monopoly on classroom instruction
nationwide, except for the period of 1957 to 1973 in which vernaculars were patchily
implemented as medium of instruction in Grades 1 and 2. Bautista, Bernardo, and Ocampo
(2008) describe how the education system eluded reform for decades:
For over 80 years, the recommendation to use the native (Monroe Survey, 1925),
local (EDCOM, 1993 [sic]), mother (PCER, 2000) or the child’s (BESRA, 2006)
language in schools (in the early years) as the medium of learning has been
consistently disregarded. From the 1920s to the present, the political pressures
exerted by different sectors and advocates in the name of national unification,
global participation, regional identity, cultural integrity, or economic progress
and overseas employment caused the policy decision-making on the language
issue to swing from one extreme to another (Bernardo, 2004; Bernardo and
Gaerlan, 2008). After such swings, the pendulum stopped dead center in 1973,
resulting in the poorly formulated and unrevised Bilingual Education Policy
(BEP). (p. 20)
Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) in the Philippines
Amid low levels of comprehension in Philippine classrooms, declining participation rates,
and low cohort survival (ADB, 2009), the medium of instruction policy changed appreciably
in July 2009 with the issuance of Department of Education Order No. 74: “Institutionalizing
Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE)” (Department of Education,
2009). The Order cited the use of the learner’s mother tongue in improving learning
outcomes and promoting Education for All—a tenet also highlighted in President Benigno
Aquino’s 10-Point Education Agenda when he took office in 2010. This reform coincides
with global movements towards the recognition of pluralistic societies, language and cultural
rights (Stavenhagen, 1995; Thornberry & Gibbons, 1997; Kontra et al., 1999; Phillipson
2000; May, 2003; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2004), the importance of language to sustainable
development (UNESCO, 2012), and a surge of multilingual education initiatives in various
parts of the world (e.g. South America—see De Mejia, 2005; Asia—see UNESCO 2005a,
UNESCO 2007).
In early vernacular education experiments, the mother tongue was seen as merely a bridge to
learning other languages, but there has been growing recognition of its wider purposes. The
Philippine Department of Education cites four forms of child development fortified by its
MLE program: Language, Cognitive, Socio-cultural, and Academic (Department of
11
Education, Order No. 16, 2012). It also represents a shift from an exclusively bilingual
orientation to a multilingual one, in which literacy in multiple languages is a key goal.
Finally, the MLE program has somewhat liberated language-in-education policy from a
nationalist political ideology (Tupas, 2011); ideally, the experience of children and education
outcomes are now the central focus of language practices in elementary schools.
Following the release of Department Order 74, a Strategic Plan for implementation of the
multilingual education program was completed in 2010. The Strategic Plan laid out specific
activities to be undertaken, including advocacy, pre- and in-service teacher training, materials
development, policy development, resource mobilization, and assessment, monitoring and
evaluation5. In School Year (SY) 2011-2012, over 900 schools across the country began
using one of 12 major languages as mediums of instruction (MOIs) in Grade 1. In SY 20122013, these pioneer schools proceeded to do the same in Grade 2; simultaneously, all public
schools began implementing the program in Grade 1, as the pioneer schools had done the
year before. In SY 2013-2014, at least 7 languages were added as MOIs in Grade 1, while the
first 12 languages are being used in Grade 2 classrooms across the country and in the Grade 3
classrooms of pioneer schools. In SY 2014-2015, all public schools will be implementing one
of several mother tongues in grade K-3, both as a medium of instruction and as a separate
language subject. The languages prioritized by the program are the most widely spoken and
also have working orthographies, one of the requirements of inclusion. Additional languages
may be added with time as capability and demand warrant. In addition to the languages that
have been officially selected by the national government for implementation, a handful of
smaller mother tongues are being used with the help of local governments and NGOs.
Originally, the mother tongue would only be implemented in Kindergarten to Grade 3,
transitioning to English and Filipino as the mediums of instruction by Grade 4 (Department
of Education, Order No. 31, 2012). Given the advantages of reinforcing the first language for
longer (see ADEA, 1996; Baker, 2002; Bamgbose, 2000; Elugbe, 1996; Fafunwa, 1990;
Garcia & Baker, 1996; Hartshorne, 1992; Heugh, 2003, 2010; Macdonald, 1990; Malherbe,
1943; Malone, 2008; Ramirez, Ramay & Dina, 1991; Sparks et al., 2009, 2012a; Thomas &
Collier, 1997, 2002), the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013 tasks the Department of
Education to formulate a mother tongue transition program from Grades 4-6. This shall yield
a realistic pace for developing cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) in multiple
languages and is expected to ease the transition from mother tongue to the prescribed MOIs
in high school.
The distribution of subjects according to language varies. Most public schools, in line with
policy, are now using a mother tongue as medium of instruction in the early grades of
elementary school, and English and Filipino thereafter. In some areas, however, a language
has been chosen as the “mother tongue” when in fact it is not the first language of the pupils.
In addition to cases of language shift in which a minority language might be being used as
MOI for an area in which a dominant language has become the principal mother tongue (see
section “Sociocultural influences”, further in this paper), there are also cases in which a
dominant language is being used as the mother tongue when in fact the mother tongue is a
minority language. Tagalog, for instance, is being implemented as the mother tongue in
Romblon, but Romblomanon, Inonhan, and Bantoanon are the first languages of different
5
Republic of the Philippines, Department of Education. Mother Tongue Based Multilingual Education Strategic Plan. 13
February 2010
12
parts of the province. Similarly, Ilokano—a lingua franca—is being implemented as a mother
tongue for much of the Cordillera region, but many areas retain indigenous languages as first
languages.
The practices of private schools are wide-ranging too. Few private schools have implemented
the mother tongue policy, choosing instead to continue the status quo. Depending on the
private school, the status quo is English as the medium of instruction for all grade levels and
almost all subjects (except the Filipino language subject), or using English for half the
subjects and Filipino for the other half. Some private schools have partially implemented the
mother tongue policy, incorporating the local language as a separate language subject but not
formally as a medium of instruction in other subjects. A few bold private schools are in the
process of switching to a local language as a full-fledged medium of instruction in the early
grades. On the other hand, there may be private schools that legitimately retain English as a
medium of instruction in compliance with Department of Education Order No. 74, s. 2009, as
English is the predominant home language of the pupils.6
It is important to note that the language environment of elementary schools is not the first
setting in which children are exposed to language in an academic, group setting. Many
Filipino children attend preschool (day care) for one or two years before entering
Kindergarten. Paralleling the diversity of school language practices, preschools range from
pure English, ‘Taglish’ (Tagalog-English mix), or predominantly mother tongue
environments depending on the location of the pre-school, the socio-economic class of its
pupils, and the teacher. Early childhood education has been required by law to be delivered
in the mother tongue since the year 2000, more than a decade before the mother tongue was
introduced in elementary school through DepEd Order No. 74, but this mandate has never
been systematically implemented.7 Preschools are run by a hodgepodge of private
entities/individuals and local government units, with some oversight by the Department of
Social Welfare and Development. De facto, they operate with greater autonomy than
elementary and high schools in the formal education system, which are answerable to the
highly centralized Department of Education. With the Department of Education’s EnglishFilipino bilingual system in effect from 1974-2012, however, preschool teachers in some
areas became habituated to using English and Filipino as well. This convergence of bilingual
language practice occurred—despite the fact that preschool was never beholden to the
bilingual policy—because preschool teachers were likely trying to prepare their pupils for the
elementary level in which the mother tongue was largely absent. It is crucial that preschools
are made aware of the Department of Education’s nascent mother tongue policy to facilitate a
6
Some parts of the country have linguistic divisions along socioeconomic class lines. For example, the upper class may
speak English or Filipino to their children (who mostly attend private schools), even if the wider community and public
school children speak a local language. The retention of English or Filipino as MOI in such “language-island” private
schools is theoretically sound from a pedagogical standpoint, but it may give rise to serious complications. The exclusive use
of English or Filipino in private schools and the concomitant ghettoization of local languages in public schools may widen
the class divide and undermine the MTBMLE policy. Li (2010) noted that when Hong Kong allowed some schools to not
implement the 1998 mother tongue policy, the demand for enrollment in these schools skyrocketed and mother tongue
schools became synonymous with second rate education. Secondly, future graduates of private schools using just English or
Filipino will likely not have the language background to teach in public schools nor hold public office. It would be judicious
therefore if private schools formulate ways to integrate local languages in their curricula so as not to subvert support and the
utility of the MTBMLE policy in the public school system.
7
Republic Act No. 8980 or the “ECCD Act” of 2000 states that the early childhood care and development curriculum shall
focus on “children’s total development according to their individual needs and socio-cultural background” and that “it shall
use the child’s first language as the medium of instruction” (Section 5a).
13
re-convergence of language practice.8 The embrace of the mother tongue in preschools would
not only ease the transition from early to basic education, but would also fulfill the law.9
While stipulated in the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013, the mother tongue transition
program in the upper elementary years has not yet been formulated by the Department of
Education. The role of the mother tongue in Grades 4 to 6 will need to be harmoniously
designed alongside other ongoing reforms—most notably the expansion of basic education
from 10 years to 13 years (K-12, as opposed to 1-10), revised curricula for all subjects, and a
new assessment framework.
II. Characteristics of Philippine languages:
Implications for Reading and Assessment
How do Filipino children learn to read? Regardless of language, all children who learn to
read advance from being nonreaders (unable to read words) to partial readers (can read some
items but not others) to readers, whereby they can read all or a majority of items (RTI
International, 2009). Research on reading acquisition highlights several key component skills
that a child must have to read proficiently. The U.S. National Reading Panel of 2000
identified these skills, specific to alphabetic writing systems, as: phonological awareness,
decoding and word recognition, vocabulary knowledge, oral reading fluency, and
comprehension. While these terms can vary, and can be combined or broken down into
different groupings, there is wide consensus that such skills—in addition to a variety of
literacy practices including oral language development—are necessary for children to garner
meaning from text.
Early reading skills are acquired in phases. The foundation skill of phonological awareness
(the ability to hear, distinguish, and manipulate the sounds of a language) is usually acquired
first, and helps support subsequent word decoding (the ability to read words based on
knowledge of the letters of the alphabet and their corresponding sounds) and word
recognition (being able to recognize a word in its entirety, without sounding out each letter).
Once children begin to read parts of words, whole words, and sentences, they can be
introduced to strategies that improve reading fluency (the ability to read accurately at an
appropriate pace) and comprehension. All of these skills depend on mastery of the oral
language as a prerequisite.
The Integrated Language Arts Curriculum of the Philippines’ new K-12 basic education
system identifies fourteen “Language and Literacy Domains”, including: Oral language;
Phonological awareness; Book and Print knowledge; Alphabet knowledge; Phonics and word
recognition; Fluency; Spelling; Writing and composition; Grammar awareness and structure;
Vocabulary development; Reading comprehension; Listening comprehension; Attitude
towards language, literacy and literature; and Study strategies. While small adjustments are
currently being made to the number and labels of these domains, they cover the 5-7 key
8
Some local government units, like the Provincial Government of La Union, have sponsored trainings of day care teachers
about mother tongue-based education to align preschool language practices with the K-12 reform in the formal education
system.
9
In its own right, the use of the vernacular or first language at the preschool level has shown to have positive effects on the
acquisition of early literacy in young Filipino children, as demonstrated by Ocampo’s early reading program in urban poor
day care centers (1996).
14
reading skills cited by reading experts and include additional domains pertaining to reading
practices. The curricula, teacher guides, and learning materials for the individual language
subjects from Kindergarten to Grade 3—Mother Tongue, English, and Filipino—have been
designed to incorporate all fourteen domains in progressive fashion. Relevant to the
Philippine goal of multilingual literacy, research indicates that development of reading in a
second language draws on similar underlying skills as reading in a first language (ArabMoghaddam & Senechal, 2001), and several skills transfer across languages, such as
phonological awareness, decoding (August & Shanahan, 2006), and reading comprehension
strategies (Royer & Carlo, 1991).
Phonology
Most Philippine languages have simple phonologies, with fewer consonant and vowel
phonemes than English. Consonant clusters, such as /str/, /pr/, /ks/, /sp/ and /br/, are rare and
found mostly in loan words. While it is relatively easy for Filipino children to learn the full
set of sounds in their respective languages (given the small number of phonemes, which they
are continually exposed to), they may face difficulty in the identification and manipulation of
sounds in English. The more than 10 vowel sounds of British and American English varieties
tend to be approximated to the nearest vowel sound familiar to a Philippine language speaker,
typically: [i], [a], [ε], [o], or [u] (Gonzalez & Rafael, 1980). For example, the common
unstressed central vowel in English, the schwa, is pronounced as a full vowel [o], [a], or [ε]
(e.g. the final syllables of “tricycle” are pronounced /-sikol/ or /-sikεl/ instead of /-sikəl/). The
phonetic tendency toward unreduced vowels is related to the fact that Philippine languages
are typically syllable-timed, so each syllable is given equal prominence. This isochronic
characteristic influences the way Filipinos speak English. Syllables that would otherwise be
shortened in the stress-timed rhythm of British and American English are granted more time
and fuller pronunciation in Philippine English.
Many Philippine languages lack the labial-dental fricatives [f] and [v], so when Filipinos say
English words that would normally employ such phones, they are often converted to the
bilabial stops [p] and [b], respectively (e.g. “fern” is pronounced /pεrn/ and “very” is
pronounced /bεri/). Similarly, the sounds [θ], [ð], and [ʒ], which are used in most native
varieties of English, are typically converted to [t], [d], and [∫] in Philippine English,
respectively. Hence, “bath” is pronounced /bat̚ /, “that” is pronounced /dat̚ /, and “measure” is
pronounced /mε∫ur/. Note that the stops (/p/, /t/, /k/, /b/, /d/) are typically unaspirated, and
remain unreleased at the end of words (denoted by the diacritic ̚ ).
Consonant blends are often spoken with epenthetic vowels inserted between them (e.g.
“brown” is spoken as /baraun/, “glass” as /galas/) or have a vowel placed in front (e.g. /isport/
for “sport”). Syllable-final blends may have a consonant removed altogether, thus “absent”
becomes /absεn/ and “compact” becomes /kompak/ (Bautista, 1986).10
The aforementioned under-differentiation of phonemic contrasts, including lack of vowel
reduction, are distinguishing features of Philippine English largely influenced by the
phonologies of Philippine languages. In a study of phonological difficulties of Grade 2 pupils
in Tabaco City, Albay Province, Durana (2013) found that public school pupils could not
replicate most of the American English vowel sounds and nearly one-third of the consonant
10
For a general description of Philippine English, see Bautista & Gonzalez (2006).
15
sounds. These difficulties are not universal, however. First, educated groups may distinguish
and reproduce sounds more closely to that of American English (Bautista, 1986). Second, the
way a Filipino child approximates a foreign sound varies according to the specific phonology
of his or her first language.11
Unique phonological characteristics may also be observed when Filipinos speak Philippine
languages that are not their own. For example, the absence of the sound [h] in Kapampangan
leads to the sound’s frequent removal when Kapampangans speak other languages (Gonzalez,
2005). Similarly, Kapampangan has no native /r/ phoneme and makes minimal use of glottal
stops. The author notes that Kapampangan accent is principally defined by vowel length,
whereas in Tagalog, vowel length is accompanied by changes in intensity (loudness) and
pitch too. Despite having fewer contrasting phonemes, Kapampangan has a richer
morphophonemic subsystem than Tagalog, employing many allomorphs.
In common with their ancestral language, proto-Austronesian, most Philippine languages
have four native vowel sounds. There are many exceptions however. Tina Sambal only has
three contrastive vowels, whereas Tagabawa has six, T’boli seven, and Casiguran Dumagat
has eight.12 Reid (1973) enumerates at least five Philippine languages with only three vowels,
twenty languages with five vowels, a dozen with six vowels, three with seven vowels, and
one with eight vowels. Common vowel sounds are [i], [ε], [a], [u], or [o], but other vowel
sounds are also represented in Philippine languages, such as the close (high), back,
unrounded vowel [ɯ] (e.g. Ilokano, Pangasinan, Cuyonon) and the close/high-mid back
unrounded vowel [ɤ] (e.g. Aklan). Many of the Sama languages, unlike most Philippine
languages, have the mid-central vowel [ə], the schwa.
Most Philippine languages have fewer than 18 consonants (Reid, 2005). Common consonant
sounds in Philippine languages are [b], [k], [d], [g], [l], [m], [n], [ŋ], [p], [r], [s], [t], and [ʔ],
distinguishable by speakers as separate unit phonemes. Other consonant sounds are also
found in Philippine languages, either as the realization of distinct phonemes or allophones of
the common ones. Several Northern Philippine languages (such as Ivatan, Finallig, Balangao,
Ga’dang, Tuwali, Southern Kalinga) have one or more of the phonemes /f/, /v/, and /t∫ /; a
few languages even have the velar fricatives, [x] and [ɣ], and bilabial fricatives, [β] and [ɸ]13;
in Guinaang Kalinga, the sound [d͡ ɮ] can be heard as a variant realization of the /l/ phoneme;
Mamanwa has the phoneme /z/; Sibitu Sama has complex phonemes /d͡ ʒ/ and /n̠ ʲ/, voiced
implosive stops, and lengthened contoids (and lengthened vocoids too); Pangutaran Sama
also includes /d͡ ʒ/ and /n̠ ʲ/, as well as the bilabial fricative /x/; Maranao has both aspirated
stops /kh/, /th/ and unaspirated stops /k/, /t/, which are contrastive.14 Ibanag has the complete
inventory of English consonant sounds (Dita, 2010)
11
Gonzalez (1983) takes the view that differences in the way Filipinos hear and speak English is not problematic if they do
not hamper communication. In teaching English, however, a standard (General American English) is necessary to adopt as a
target, even if it is never fully reached. This contrasts with the views of Davidson (2006), Kachru & Nelson (2006), and
Lowenberg (1993), who advocate for a more inclusive approach to teaching and assessing English, recognizing local
varieties of English as legitimate. Swain, Kirkpatrick, & Cummins (2011) argue that local languages themselves should be
included in the teaching of English. According to Canagarajah (1999, 2006), teaching English as a second language
nowadays should approach ‘error’ as the learner’s active negotiation of choices, should focus on communicative strategies,
and should strive for the learner’s competence in a repertoire of codes and the ability to shuttle between speech communities.
12
The examples of Tagabawa and T’boli phonologies are taken from Dubois (2006) and Forsberg (1992), respectively.
13
In Kapampangan, [x], [ɣ], [β], and [ɸ] are allophones of the phonemes /k/, /g/, /b/, and /p/, respectively (Gonzalez, 2005).
14
The examples of Guinaang Kalinga, Mamanwa, Sibitu Sama, and Pangutaran Sama, are taken from Gieser (1987), Miller
& Miller (1991), Allison (1979), and Walton (1979), respectively.
16
The most common syllable patterns in Philippine languages are CV (consonant followed by
vowel) and CVC (a vowel nucleus sandwiched between two consonants). Other syllable
patterns like V, VC, CCV, CCVC also exist. Tboli and Blaan, for example, have unusual
double consonants at the beginning of some words (Forsberg, 1992). The majority of
common nouns in Philippine languages are two syllables long, but many multi-syllabic words
can be constructed with affixes that provide both syntactic and semantic information.
Philippine languages are non-tonal, but some have lexical stress15 and can distinguish
between vowel length (Reid, 2005). Gemination (consonant elongation) occurs in some
languages, such that two words that differ only in the audible length of a consonant can have
distinct meanings. For example, /lalaki/ and /lalːaki/ mean man and men, respectively, in the
Ilokano language.
Phoneme distribution—the positions in which phonemes can be found within syllables or
words—vary. Most consonants can be found at the beginning (onset) and end (coda) of
syllables, although there may be restrictions to the possible positions of some consonants,
such as /h/ and /ʔ/, restrictions to what consonants can occur in clusters (if any), restrictions
to what vowels can combine to form diphthongs, and restrictions to what vowels can appear
with what consonants. For example, Manide and Inagta Alabat allow both preconsonantal
glottal stops [ʔC] and postconsonantal glottal stops [Cʔ] in morpheme-internal clusters,
whereas most other Philippine languages only allow one of the two combinations, if any
(Lobel, 2013). In Tagabawa, /w/ is observed as a syllable coda but only when followed by the
vowel /a/; whereas in Ilokano, /w/ can follow /a/ or /i/; in Pangasinan, /w/ can follow /a/, /i/ or
/e/. In most Philippine languages, /r/ can be found in word-initial, word-medial, and wordfinal positions, but in Blaan, /r/ can only be found in the middle of words (Galzote et al.,
2012). Many more phonological patterns could be compared and contrasted among Philippine
languages, but their intricacies cannot be accommodated in this report.16
The effect of native language phonology on phonological awareness and literacy
development, both in the first and second languages, remains a hitherto unstudied topic for
the majority of Philippine languages, including the largest ones
Orthography
In written languages with transparent or “shallow” orthographies (that is, alphabetic systems
with near one-to-one letter-phoneme correspondence), it is easier to predict the pronunciation
of a word based on its spelling, and therefore easier to decode. One can learn how to read a
language with a transparent orthography in less than a year; for languages with more complex
or “deeper” orthographies, the process can take several years (RTI International, 2009).
In 1939, the Institute of National Language (INL) published a grammar book titled Balarila
ng Wikang Pambansa and a Tagalog-English Vocabulary, made by Lope K. Santos. The
Balarila became a gold standard textbook for teaching the national language, and it espoused
a 20-letter Romanized alphabet called Abakada representing the limited number of phonemes
found in Tagalog (Santiago, 1993). Essentially, the Abakada was an alphabetized version of
the ancient Baybayin alphasyllabary. The spelling of all words, including loan words and
proper nouns, was constrained to this 20-letter alphabet. Confusingly, the names assigned to
15
For example, the Tagalog word ['pito] (spelled pito) means ‘whistle’, but if the stress is shifted to the second syllable, a
different word is formed, [pɪ'to], meaning ‘seven’ (also spelled pito).
16
For useful reference on the phonology of Philippine languages, see Reid (1973).
17
the letters were the same as the syllables that their ancient Baybayin counterparts represented.
For example, the name of the letter B was pronounced as /ba/, K as /ka/, D as /da/, and so
forth. Thus, despite the fact that each letter of the Abakada did in fact represent a single
phoneme, teachers emphasized the syllabic nature of the language when teaching it; words
were constructed and broken down into their component syllables rather than individual
sounds and letters.
The official Filipino orthography has since undergone several revisions, including in 1976,
1987, 2001, 2006, 2009, and 2013. The latest 2013 national orthography (Ortograpiyang
Pambansa) promulgated by the Commission on Filipino Language (Komisyon sa Wikang
Filipino, or KWF) specifies a 28-letter alphabet. The alphabet adopts the English names for
all the letters, except for Ñ, which derives from the Spanish alphabet. Below is the Filipino
alphabet showing capital letters, small letters, and the letter names written according to the
Filipino orthography (in italics):
Aa
ey
Hh
eyts
NGng
endyi
Tt
ti
Bb
bi
Ii
ay
Ññ
enye
Uu
yu
Cc
si
Jj
dyey
Oo
o
Vv
vi
Dd
di
Kk
key
Pp
pi
Ww
dobolyu
Ee
i
Ll
el
Qq
kyu
Xx
eks
Ff
ef
Mm
em
Rr
ar
Yy
way
Gg
dyi
Nn
en
Ss
es
Zz
zi
Source: Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino, 2013.
Most words in the Filipino language are written using the 5 vowels and the consonants B, D,
G, H, K, L, M, N, Ng, P, R, S, T, W, and Y. The letters C, F, J, Ñ, Q, V, X, and Z are letters
reserved for spelling proper nouns, words from various Philippine languages that include
sounds represented by such letters; technical terms (e.g. “carbon dioxide”), and recent loan
words from foreign languages, particularly English.
Except for recent loan words and proper nouns that retain their original and often opaque
spellings, Filipino is transparently spelled. Spelling words the way they sound has been one
of the guiding principles of the development of its orthography since the INL published the
Balarila back in 1939. Hence Gonzalez & Rafael (1980) note that decoding a text written in
the national language is “relatively easy since the spelling system of Pilipino corresponds
very closely to its sound system, so that there is almost a one-to-one correspondence between
phoneme and grapheme.” This contrasts with English, which has a deeper (less transparent)
orthography. English phonemes can be represented by several graphemes, and English
graphemes can represent many different phonemes, hence there is a more complex interplay
between phonology, orthography, and meaning. Readers of English cannot rely entirely on
phonetic decoding to correctly identify printed words, but also make use of context, visual
memory, and explicit knowledge about the quirks of the orthography. Accordingly, teachers
must diversify their strategies in teaching English reading.
Nevertheless, there are a few elements in Filipino orthographies that diverge from the ideal
one-to-one correspondence. First, the glottal stop [ʔ] is not usually indicated in the spelling,
unless it is found at the start of an internal-word syllable that begins with a [ʔV] combination
and is preceded by a syllable that ends with a consonant; in this case the glottal stop is
18
signified by a hyphen (e.g. Tagalog pag-ása, Ilokano tig-áb). Second, while the sounds [ŋ],
[tʃ], [∫ ], and [dʒ] exist in many Philippine languages, the national orthography generally
employs digraphs to spell them: ng, ts/ti/ty, sy/si, and dy/di, respectively. Words containing
these digraphs pose a challenge to beginning readers who expect to be able to decode them by
sounding out each grapheme separately, without realizing the digraphs should be read as one
sound. It can also be seen from these digraphs that several orthographic elements can
represent the same phoneme (e.g. ts, ti, and ty can all represent the phoneme /tʃ/), resulting in
reduced sound-letter correspondence. With the acceptance of foreign words and their original
spelling into the Filipino lexicon (e.g. pizza, duty-free, feng shui, jam), there is further loss in
sound-letter and letter-sound correspondence, albeit in limited cases. Finally, accents are not
usually written, so children have to rely on their oral language knowledge and contextual
clues to anticipate the correct stress pattern of words, as in English. Children’s ability to
differentiate stress is important in semantically and phonologically distinct words that share
the same spelling (i.e. heterophones, also known as heteronyms). (i.e. heterophones, also
known as heteronyms). In many Philippine languages, for example, the words for ‘read’ and
‘wet’ are both spelled basa but pronounced /lba:.sa/ and /ba.lsaʔ/ respectively.17
There are some common confusions in Filipino orthography, even among adult writers.
Because the vocoids [o] and [u] are not always contrastive in Philippine languages, choosing
to spell words with an O or a U (e.g. kumporme vs. komporme, from the Spanish conforme)
can be a guessing game. For native words the regular pattern is to use an O in final syllables
and a U for all other syllables, as this closely follows pronunciation in speech (e.g.
tumutulong, pitu-pito, tuturo). Borrowed words, however, tend to be pronounced and spelled
more liberally. The 2013 orthography provides guidelines for the use of these two vowels:
words should retain the original Spanish vowel, unless the loan word has undergone a
consonantal substitution, in which case the preferred vowel is U. For example, kontrata
should be spelled with an O because the original Spanish word (contrata) is spelled with an
O, and none of its consonants have shifted phonemic value in Filipino speech; whereas,
kumporme should be spelt with an initial U (followed by an M) because the original [n] sound
in the Spanish word conforme has evolved into an [m] sound in Filipino speech.
The letters I and E are likewise often interchanged in spelling. One may see the spellings
eskandalo and iskandalo, escolar and iskolar, menudo and minudo. Again, the guideline is to
preserve the vowel in the original Spanish word. Thus, eskandalo is correct because the
original Spanish word begins with an E, not an I (escandalo). If however the loan word
derives from English, and the English word begins with a sibilant-lead consonant cluster (e.g.
/sk/, /sm/, /st/, etc), then the Filipino spelling affixes an initial I (e.g. iskul, istandard).
Most Philippine languages have diphthongs. Phonologically, vowels may combine with
secondary vowel sounds (usually close vowels [u] or [i]), to form the diphthongs /au/, /ai/,
/iu/, /ui/, /oi/ and others, which are typically represented in orthographies as AW, AY, IW,
UY, OY, and so on. When close vowels are themselves followed by another vowel, they
often become glides /ua//wa/; /ia//ya/. The following paragraph describes how these
phonological environments are dealt with in spelling.
Foreign languages have introduced a variety of diphthongal settings in Philippine phonology,
which pose spelling challenges. The Spanish term for water carrier is aguador, spelled with
17
Note: the latest 2013 revision of the national orthography advocates for the use of accents for clarity, which can assist
phonics instruction.
19
UA. But how should this loan word be spelled in Filipino? The 2013 Filipino orthography
specifies that Spanish-like vowel combinations U+(A, E, I) should be spelt as W+(A, E, I).
The pertinent vowel combinations in the Spanish words agUAdor, chinigUElas, and
prejUIcio are therefore rendered in Filipino as agWAdor, sinigWElas, and perWIsyo.
Similarly, Spanish-like vowel combinations I+(A, E, O) should be spelt as Y+(A, E, O), so
the Spanish words acacIA, tenIEnte, and beneficIO are rendered as akasYA, tenYEnte, and
benepisYO. The 2013 orthography provides 4 exceptions to this rule: if the diphthong is in the
first syllable of the original word; follows a consonant cluster; follows the glottal fricative /h/;
or is not a true diphthong (that is, the two adjacent vowels in the original word span two
syllables), then the Filipino spelling requires an epenthetic glide placed between the vowels
(e.g. pIAnopIYAno; imfIErnoimpIYErno; collegIOkolehIYO; economIAekonomIYA,
respectively). If one would like to remove a vowel, say, to match pronunciation better, then
one should signify its absence with an apostrophe (e.g. imp’yerno, p’wersa).
In practice, one will encounter spellings that do not conform to the above rules, even in
textbooks and media, because previous orthographic reforms have advocated different
conventions. For example, the 1986 orthography favored the replacement of U with W and I
with Y in all diphthongal settings of the type U+(A, E, I) and I+(A, E, O), even in the first
syllable and near consonantal clusters. Hence, the orthography preferred the spellings bwitre
and eleksyon over buwitre and eleksiyon, in contrast with the 2013 orthography. As in 1986,
the 2001 orthography introduced new rules that are not retained in the 2013 orthography. It
advocated for use of the letters F, J, V, and Z to spell not just recent loan words like fax, jam,
vase, and zoo, but even loan words that have long been given indigenous pronunciations and
spellings: revisyon instead of rebisyon, alfabeto instead of alpabeto, jeep instead of dyip, etc.
There are several spelling issues for which rules have not yet been clearly defined. On one
hand the 2013 Filipino orthography says that new loan words should not be respelled (hence,
vertebra, zigzag, jazz, and folder should be spelt as is when writing in Filipino). This
principle is emphasized for technical or niche words. On the other hand, the orthography
explicitly allows and encourages experimental respelling, such as iskul (school), anderpas
(underpas), gradweyt (graduate), tsanselor (chancellor), and masinggan (machine gun),
unless the respelling is: 1) laughable or silly; 2) harder to decipher than the original; 3)
undermines the cultural, religious, or political significance of the word; 4) is not popular; or
5) creates confusion because the respelling is similar to an existing Filipino word with a
different meaning. These guidelines require knowledge about which loan words are old and
which are new (old is defined as all loan words that were already found in the Diccionario
Tagalog-Hispano of 1914 or the Diksyunaryo Tesauro Pilipino-Ingles of 1972).18 If the loan
word classifies as old, then the Filipino version should be spelt in the indigenized way (e.g.
keso, instead of queso); if new, then the individual must judge the relative appropriateness of
adopting the original spelling or “filipinizing” it instead. Considering this subjectivity, one
can anticipate the emergence of two parallel spellings of recent loan words; hence, neither
highway nor haywey can be considered incorrect in Filipino orthography at this time.
The above conventions and irregularities pertain to the national language orthography. If
history is to serve as a guide, future adjustments will be made. Scholars propose a range of
18
The authors of Diccionario Tagalog-Hispano and Diksyunaryo Tesauro Pilipino-Ingles are Pedro Serrano-Laktaw and
Jose Villa Panganiban, respectively.
20
reforms in the Filipino spelling system. Cena (2010; and in press), for example, presents
spelling rules based on the phonotactics of Tagalog as an alternative to the 2013 KWF rules.
The status of orthographies of other Philippine languages is mixed. NGOs like the Summer
Institute of Linguistics (SIL) and Translators Association of the Philippines (TAP) have been
assisting communities in developing orthographies for many decades. Numerous Philippine
languages, even minor ones, have orthographies. Some are more developed than others,
providing extensive detail of spelling rules, while others are cursory. Orthographies may
diverge in their treatment of vowels, diphthongs, complex phonemes, digraphs, geminations,
loan words, and other features.
The largest regional languages, such as Cebuano, Hiligaynon, and Ilokano, have fairly stable
spelling systems as they have a longer history of publication.19 But the existence of an
orthography that has been agreed upon and used by writers for decades is no guarantee for
consistent spelling practices. The long exclusion of local languages in the education system
has deprived the wider public from knowing the spelling conventions of their languages.
Even dictionary compilers may be ignorant of the established orthography; it is thus
important that education authorities 1) check what orthographic systems exist for a language,
if any; 2) if some exist, identify which one is most widely recognized as the standard; 3)
acquire or make materials according to that standard; 4) train teachers and teachers-to-be on
the established orthography. If an orthography does not exist, or the existing ones are not
acceptable to users, then one should be developed by the community in a participatory way
with educators, linguists, information technology experts, and whoever else may positively
contribute to the process. Questions to consider in the making of an alphabet (and a spelling
system in general) are: Is it easy to teach, read and write? Can it be typed? Will words be too
long? Do people like it? What are the conventions and possible influences of other languages
and their writing systems? (Easton & Wroge, 2012).
The Department of Education’s institutionalization of Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual
Education (MTB-MLE) has spawned a flurry of activity to make or improve upon standard
language orthographies. Language congresses have been held in many parts of the country for
this purpose, including in the Bicol, Waray, and Cebuano regions. Children now have a better
chance of being taught how to read and write their own languages than ever before. Questions
of authority have arisen, however. The Department of Education’s Order 74 s. 2009
emphasized community acceptability in the choice of an orthography, but has made recent
announcements that orthographies should be approved by the Commission on Filipino
Language (KWF). So as not to impede the implementation of MTB-MLE, schools have
proceeded to use “working orthographies” (Ocampo, 2013). This may be the most practical
decision given the potentially long process of seeking approval from an agency that may not
have the capability to guide, monitor, and approve community-acceptable language
orthographies in a short period of time.
Another uncertainty has arisen from the promulgation of the new national orthography to all
schools through Order No. 34 (Department of Education, 2013). The Order suggests its use
for all languages of the Philippines, despite the fact that the preface of the orthography itself,
published by the KWF, states that the national orthography pertains to the national language
and not necessarily to all Philippine languages. While the thrust of Order 34 for a unified
orthography would ideally aid consistency, it might be impossible to prescribe a single
19
Some languages, such as Kapampangan, have been subject to major orthographic disputes (Pangilinan, 2006).
21
orthography for all languages. Many languages have their own orthographies, some of which
have already been approved by past administrations of KWF. Will the users of the existing
orthographies want or even be able to abandon established conventions? Secondly, is the
2013 national orthography versatile enough to account for all the phonological and
morphological quirks of Philippine languages? The adherence to one principle of the national
orthography may simultaneously violate another principle when applied to a different
language. For example, many Philippine languages share similar loan words, which are
sometimes pronounced differently. Should loan words be faithfully spelt how they are
pronounced, thereby resulting in many spellings of the same loan word across languages (e.g.
eskwela, eskuwela, eskuyla, etc.); or should they be consistently spelled, regardless of
pronunciation? Adhering to one principle or another will affect the experience of reading and
bridging.
That said, the national orthography can act as a guide to the development or revision of other
Philippine language orthographies. In fact, since the government began developing an official
orthography for the national language as far back as 1937, it has naturally served as a
precedent for other orthographies made since. Fortunately, therefore, existing orthographies
tend not to diverge radically from the Filipino orthography. It is natural that they exhibit
some innovations in order to appropriately address spelling issues specific to each language.
In terms of assessment, it would be prudent to accept either spelling in the few instances in
which the working orthography and the national orthography differ. This is in light of the fact
that the Department of Education has already begun using language-specific orthographies in
schools and has also endorsed the national orthography.
Morphology & Syntax
Morphology refers to the structure of words: specifically, how words are constructed and how
they are distinguished from other words. Relevant to this topic are the boundaries between
prefixes, suffixes, and infixes in relation to root words, and the boundaries between words
themselves. Syntax refers to the structure of sentences, such as the arrangement of words and
their inter-relationships (Aitchison, 2010).
“Philippine-type” languages are generally predicate-initial languages with complex, headmarking, highly affixing morphologies. Many derivations of root words can therefore be
made with the addition of prefixes, infixes, suffixes and circumfixes, to create new semantic
forms; roots themselves also exhibit reduplication patterns. In Ilokano, for example, the root
turog means “sleep” (n), which can be transformed into maturog “to sleep”, makaturog “to be
able to sleep”, makapaturog “sleep-inducing”, pagturogan “sleeping place”, katurog
“sleeping companion”, mannaturog “good sleeper”, agpaturog “to put to sleep”,
pannakiturog “the act of joining someone in sleep”, etc. Prefixes are the most abundant
affixes.
Philippine languages have been described by linguists as morphologically ergative-absolutive
(Aldridge, 2002; De Guzman, 1988; Gerdts, 1988; Payne, 1982; Reid & Liao, 2004). That is,
the argument (i.e. subject) of an intransitive verb usually behaves like the object (i.e. patient)
of a transitive verb. This contrasts with most Indo-European languages, including English,
which are nominative-accusative languages. In English, for example the argument of an
intransitive verb takes the same nominative case as the agent of a transitive verb. Hence, the
nominative form “She” is used for the subject of both an intransitive clause (e.g. “She slept”)
22
and a transitive clause (e.g. “She scolded her”). The object of a transitive clause, on the other
hand, takes a different case: the accusative case. Hence, the accusative form “her” is used as
the object of the verb “scolded” in the given English example. Compare this pattern with a
Cebuano example:
Example 1: Intransitive sentence
Natulog
ang=babaye.
PFV-slept
ABS=woman
“The woman slept”
The argument of the intransitive verb natulog (“slept”) is ang babaye (“the woman”), which
takes the absolutive case as indicated by the absolutive case particle ang20. In another
Cebuano example we have a transitive construction:
Example 2: Transitive sentence
Gidayeg
sa=tawo
ang=bata.
PFV-praised
ABS=the child
ERG=person
“The person praised the child”
In the above example, tawo (“person”) has the case particle sa instead of ang in front of it.
Notice that the agent (tawo) of the transitive verb (gidayeg) does NOT take the same case as
the argument in an intransitive clause, as dealt with in Example 1; instead, it takes the
ergative case as indicated by the case particle sa. It is the patient (in this case, bata) of the
transitive verb that takes the same case as the argument of an intransitive verb. This is why
the absolutive case particle ang is used with bata (“child”) in the transitive example and also
with babaye in the intransitive example21. This pattern of case alignment is common among
Philippine languages.
Not all linguists agree that Philippine languages should be classified as “ergative-absolutive.”
Some linguists have analysed them as nominative-accusative languages (Guilfoyle, Hung, &
Travis, 1992; Kroeger, 1993; Rackowski, 2002; Rackowski & Richards, 2005). Others have
argued that Philippine languages exhibit their own alignment system that is neither accusative
nor ergative (Foley 1998, 2008; Kaufman, 2009; Naylor, 1980). Machlachlan (1996) presents
examples, particularly in Tagalog, simultaneously showing elements of both ergativeabsolutive and nominative-accusative clause structures.
20
If one interprets and analyzes Philippine languages as having ergative-absolutive morphosyntax, then the argument of an
intransitive verb and the patient of a transitive verb are in a case known as absolutive. Meanwhile, the agent of a transitive
verb is in the ergative case. Some authors however prefer to use the terms nominative and genitive, respectively. The term
‘nominative’ is preferred because it is more general. ‘Genitive’ is used because in Philippine languages, the case-marking of
agents of transitive verbs is usually identical to the case-marking of possesors of nouns. For example, the case marker ng of
the agent bata (‘child’) in the Tagalog construction Kinain ng bata ang pizza (‘The child ate the pizza’) is the same case
marker used for the classically genitive possessor bata in the construction Ang buhok ng bata (‘The hair of the child’).
Declaring the noun bata to be in the ‘ergative’ case in the first construction and ‘genitive’ in the second might imply a
constrast between the two, when in fact they look and behave the same; hence, authors like Reid & Liao (2004) opt to use
just one term, ‘genitive’, for both types of constructions. In this report we use absolutive for the arguments of intransitive
verbs and the patients of transitive verbs; and ergative for the agents of transitive verbs.
21
Although many descriptions of Philippine languages identify the determiner (e.g. ang) preceding the head of a Nominative
noun (e.g. bata) as a case marker, Reid & Liao (2004) claim that most Nominative full noun phrases are unmarked
morphologically, and are distinguished primarily by position.
23
There are several possible types of intransitive constructions in Tagalog (Cena, 2012); if
viewed in terms of verb voice marking, the lone argument of these constructions can behave
like the patient, agent, or even indirect object of a transitive construction. This complexity,
among other debated processes like topicalization, has lead to debates about what should be
labeled the syntactic “subject” in a Tagalog sentence. In English, the actor (i.e. agent)
automatically assumes the function of subject, as agency is generally considered to be a
defining property of the subject of the basic clause. Some linguists, such as Carrier-Duncan
(1985), Gerdts (1988), Guilfoyle, Hung, and Travis (1992), and Richards (1995), have
applied the same definition for Tagalog (and other Philippine languages), assuming the
subject is whatever/whoever is the actor in a sentence. But the agent-as-subject definition is
not universally recognized as the most appropriate paradigm for Philippine languages. In the
early years of Philippine linguistics, Bloomfield (1917), Blake (1925), and McKaughan
(1973) treated nominals like ang and si as markers of the grammatical subject. Sparking an
influential shift in thinking, Schachter (1976, 1977) pointed out that the syntactic role- and
reference-related properties of the typical English subject do not converge on one noun
phrase in Philippine languages, but rather, the role- and reference-related properties are
divided between the actor and the "topic", which is most often the patient. Kroeger (1993)
subsequently suggested that the topic of the sentence is the subject, while Foley & Van Valin
(1984) and Cena (1995) argued that Tagalog sentences are subjectless. These numerous
perspectives highlight how syntactic concepts like subject and object, which are well defined
in English, are not easily transferable to other languages as they may map differently to
semantic concepts like patient and agent.
The salient point is that the morphosyntax of Philippine languages contrasts significantly with
English, which has important implications for language learning and literacy. Jarvis and
Odlin (2000) studied the written compositions of Swedish and Finnish adolescent learners of
English. Finnish has a complex verb and case system, whereas Swedish more closely
resembles English in terms of number of cases, subject-verb agreement, and prepositions.
The authors found that the morphological and syntactic differences in the learners’ native
languages resulted in different patterns of their written English. In another study, McDonald
(2000) found that the much greater structural differences between English and Vietnamese
children in mastering English compared with Spanish children. In the Philippines, Barrios
and Bernardo (2012) discovered that Chabacano children had more difficulties using
Filipino/Tagalog case markings than Cebuano children. Chabacano is a nominativeaccusative language like English and Spanish, while Cebuano’s case system is more like
Tagalog’s (the authors describe Cebuano and Tagalog as ergative-absolutive). When asked to
judge the grammaticality of correct and incorrect Tagalog case markings in intransitive
clauses, both Chabacano and Cebuano children performed well. However, when confronted
with transitive clauses, Cebuano children outperformed the Chabacano group. Difference in
morphosyntactic alignment, which manifests itself in the transitive condition, was cited as the
cause of the more confused use of Tagalog case markers (ang, ng, sa) among Chabacano
pupils when presented with transitive clauses.
While grammatical differences between native and foreign languages bear significance for
foreign language learning, it is important to note that Filipinos can also encounter
grammatical differences when learning each other’s languages. Morphology may differ in
terms of the number and function of affixes, and their relation to roots. Tboli, for example,
has very few prefixes compared to other Philippine languages (Forsberg, 1992). The
24
versatility of affixes may vary too. Depending on the language, some affixes may be widely
used while others have more restricted applications. Native speakers usually have no
difficulty in identifying the root of a word, although sometimes it is altered when affixed,
making it less transparent (Rubino, 2000). Languages may also differ in their degree of
agglutination. Ilokano is more agglutinative than Tagalog, with a myriad of morphemes for
location, number, abstraction, concomitance (shared participation), reciprocity, resemblance,
ownership, origin, kinship, intensification, comparison, distribution, verbal focus, aspect,
potential, stasis, inchoativity, frequency, immediacy, causation, pretense, smell, and other
information that are integrated or attached to the root word they modify, rather than stand
alone. Enclitics, both adverbial and pronominal, are also attached to other words. For
example, the English statement “We (exclusive) are bathing now” translates as:
Agdigdigoskamin
Ag-dig~digos=kami=n
(Ilokano)
ACTFOC.INTR-IPFV~bathe=1PL.EXCL=ADV
Bathing=we (excl)=now
Naliligo na kami
Na-li~ligo=na=kami
(Tagalog)
ACTFOC.INTR-IPFV~bathe=ADV=1PL.EXCL22
Bathing=now=we (excl)
The adverbial clitics =n (Ilokano) and =na (Tagalog) both mean “now” in these statements,
and the pronomial clitic =kami, meaning “we”, is the same for both languages. The main
difference is that many clitics in Ilokano morphosyntax (and indeed orthography) are bound
to words, whereas in Tagalog/Filipino they are free. In this example, therefore, three Tagalog
forms convey the same information that a single, albeit longer, Ilokano form does.
As previewed above, Philippine languages can differ in the average number of morphemes
per word. Those languages with more morphemes/word will tend to have longer words. This
has several implications to reading. Early readers may be intimidated by longer words and
may struggle to read them with speed and accuracy, hampering understanding. Conversely,
Gonzalez (1980) notes that the extensive reduplication in Philippine languages can be a boon
to beginning reading. While sometimes long, words can be easily broken down into digestible
and often repetitious components. Nevertheless, the variety in word length must be
considered in the assessment of reading skills, particularly the fluency measure. A child
reading 50 correct words per minute (cwpm) may actually be processing the same amount of
information as a child reading 70 cwpm in another language, depending on how words are
defined and how long they tend to be. Test construction must determine an operational
definition of a word (e.g. will enclitics count as individual words, whether or not they are
orthographically attached to other words?) and analysis must use different standards of
assessment for languages that exhibit significant differences in word length. Benchmark
values for fluency in a particular language can be established by determining the average
cwpm rate that correlates with a certain level of comprehension, as measured by tools like
EGRA.
22
Provided is a morpheme-by-morpheme gloss to provide information of the meanings and grammatical properties of the
example Ilokano and Tagalog statements. Note that linguists may characterize the morphemes slightly differently depending
their school of thought. Philippine linguists disagree, for example, on the use of the terms “focus” “voice,” and “topic”
(Quakenbush 2005).
25
Besides word length, Philippine languages exhibit a range of other syntactic differences.
They may have different sets of determiners (articles, demonstratives, etc.) that convey
information about their associated nouns (or noun phrases), including case, number,
definiteness, personal vs. impersonal, specificity, and spatial reference (Reid & Liao 2004).
Tagalog has three main case-markers for impersonal nouns (ang, ng, and sa), Cebuano also
three (ang, ug, and sa), Hiligaynon has four (ang, sing, sang, sa), and Central Bikol has five
(an, su, ki, kan, and sa). The particle mga is used alongside these to express plurality. Each of
these languages also has a set of case markers for personal nouns. Some languages have
determiners that indicate several attributes of the nouns to which they refer, simultaneously.
The Ilokano determiner kadagidiay, for instance, expresses plurality, distal location, and the
oblique case (e.g. kadagidiay lugan = “to/with those vehicles”). The most diverse determiner
systems are found among northern Philippine languages and some Negrito languages, while
the simplest are found in the south, such as Cotabato Manobo, Tboli, and Blaan (Reid & Liao
2004).
Commonalities and differences among Philippine languages are exhibited in many more
features of their syntax. See Reid & Liao (2004) and their follow-up monograph for a
thorough characterization of Philippine verb clauses (transitive and intransitive), verbal
complementation structures, existential verbal structures, causative structures, topicalized
constructions, noun phrase structure, clause combinations, negation systems, and more. In the
introduction of the 2004 paper, the authors comment, “despite considerable overlap in syntax
and morphology, there is a wide range of typological variety found among the more than one
hundred Philippine languages.”
Vocabulary
Languages of the Philippines share considerable lexical similarity. When the Commission on
National Language was created in 1936, they were tasked to study the major ethnic languages
and compare their vocabularies. In descending order, the Commission estimated Tagalog as
having 59.6% lexical similarity with Kapampangan, 48.2% with Cebuano, 46.6% with
Hiligaynon, 39.5% with Bikol, 31.3% with Ilokano, and so forth (Bernales et al., 2013).23
Despite their lexical overlap, these languages are not mutually intelligible. McFarland (2004)
estimates that at least 70% of core vocabulary must be shared between two speech varieties in
order for their speakers to understand each other properly.
Lexical similarity is greatest among basic words (see Table 1, adapted from McFarland,
198324). One may gain a better sense of the diversity of Philippine languages, at least
superficially, in translations of complete sentences (Table 2).
English
Ivatan
Ibanag
Ilokano
Pangasinan
head
oho
ulo
ulo
ulo
bone
tuhang
tulang
tulang
pukel
water
danum
danum
danum
danum
person
tawu
tolay
tao
tuo
cat
pusak
kitaw
pusa
pusa
night
mahip
gavi
rabii
labi
23
For other lexicostatistical studies, see Dyen (1963), Walton (1977), and the online Austronesian Language Database
(Greenhill, Blust & Gray, 2008) wherein different estimates of lexical similarity are made. Dyen, for example, reported a
shared vocabulary between Tagalog and Kapampangan of 39.2%.
24
Whereas McFarland (1983) spells the example words using his own universal orthography, we have chosen to spell the
words in the respective orthographies of the languages. Please note that there may be variant spellings for some words.
26
Kapampangan
Alangan
Hanunoo
Tagalog
Bikol
(Central)
Aklanon
Hiligaynon
Waray
Cebuano
Tausug
Mamanwa
Maranao
Maguindanaon
Kalamianon
Blaan
Tboli
Yakan
English
Ivatan
Ilokano
Kapampangan
Tagalog
Cebuano
Maguindanaon
Blaan
Yakan
buntuk
ulo
ulu
ulo
payo
butul
bitol
butul
buto
tulang
danum
sapa
danum
tubig
tubig
tawu
mangyan
tawu
tao
tawo
pusa
kuti
kuti
pusa
ikus
bengi
yabi
yabi
gabi
banggi
ugo
ulo
ulo
ulo
uuh
olo
olo
ulu
kulu/kulo
ulu
kulu
kok
tug-an
tul-an
tul-an
bukog
bukug
bikig
sowag
suwag/suag
duli
tulan
tiol
tulang
tubi
tubi
tubig
tubig
tubig
sapa
ig
ig
wai
eel
el
bohe
tawo
tawo
tawo
tawo
tao
tao
tao
taw
tau
to
tau
aa
kuring
kuring
misay
iring
kuting
piya
bidong
bedung/[anguyu]
uti
yaw/kuku
kuku
meyong
gabii
gab-i
gab-i
gabii
duum
kahabzin
gagawii
magabi
labii
butang/kifuh
kifu
sangem
I heard something there in the tree.
Tayto madngey ko do atngih naw no kayo.
Adda nangngegko dita ayan ti kayo.
Atin kung dindam king tanaman.
May narinig ako diyan sa punong kahoy.
Duna koy nadunggan dia sa kahoy.
Aden nakineg ku san sa kayu.
Sebe nun lingegu dee di kayu ye.
Niya takale ku lai si poon kayo.
A quick survey by Lopez (1974) estimated that about 400 of the top 2000 Tagalog words
correspond to identical or cognate words in at least one other major Philippine language. In
some cases, almost all languages share the same word or a close variation thereof, such as the
word for ‘eye’ (mata), ‘tongue’ (dila), and ‘head’ (ulo). Nevertheless, the corollary of
Lopez’s finding is that over 1000 of the commonest Tagalog words do not have cognates in
the other major Philippine languages. In some cases, the other regional languages share
similar forms but Tagalog does not. The word for ‘shoulder’ is abaga in most regional
languages but balikat in Tagalog. Similarly, the word for ‘roof’ is atop/atep in most
languages but bubong in Tagalog.
McFarland (1994) constructed a list of the 2000 most frequent Tagalog words based on a
corpus of written Tagalog literature. Of these, 300 have Spanish origin and 50 have English
origin. Loan words are found in semantic categories of color, employment, time, religion,
politics, transport, trade, technology, and others. Spanish-derived loan words include such
examples as berde—‘green’; guwapo—‘handsome’; kusina—‘kitchen’; lola—‘grandmother’;
misa— ‘mass’; and pulis—‘police’. English examples include apartment, baby, okey, order,
and miss. McFarland surmises that the majority of these borrowed words are used across
Philippine languages. The author also notes that the number of English borrowings into
Philippines languages continues to rise through contact.
27
Shared native and borrowed words mean that Filipino children already have a battery of
familiar words when they learn to read another Philippine language. This is a partial relief for
children from migrant or minority groups whose mother tongue is not among the languages
of instruction and literacy in a particular area. Lexical commonalities can also assist in the
reading of the national language by non-Tagalog children. Finally, the large number of
English loan words used regularly in Filipino speech means that, even if a child is not
conversationally fluent in English when she enters school, she has stored vocabulary which
can help her connect printed words to meaning.
A caveat should be made however that despite the sharing of forms between languages, a
child must be aware of differences in pronunciation, spelling, and meaning. While pusa is the
spelling for ‘cat’ in both Tagalog and Pangasinan, the former carries stress on the first
syllable while the latter carries stress on the second—a common stress pattern of Pangasinan
words. This is problematic for cases when a mispronunciation is in fact a different word in
the target language. Secondly, children may make spelling errors in their second language(s)
if they sweepingly apply the spelling conventions of their mother tongue. While eskuyla may
be considered correct spelling in Waray orthography, it is not standard in Filipino (eskuwela).
Thirdly, there are a multitude of shared forms between languages that in fact have completely
different meanings. For example: pating means ‘dove’ in Hiligaynon but ‘shark’ in various
other languages; sira means ‘fish’ in Bikol but ‘broken’ in Tagalog; diri means ‘no’ in Waray
but ‘here’ in Cebuano; labay means ‘like’ in Pangasinan, ‘mix broth’ in Ilokano, ‘pass by’ in
Hiligaynon, and ‘dispose’ in Cebuano; and so on. Such false cognates may confuse children
when reading ambiguous text in a Philippine language that is not their own. The above
examples illuminate why English and Filipino should be taught as second languages to
children who speak, read, and write other languages as first languages, so differences may be
overtly flag-posted by teachers. And whatever the designated medium of instruction is in a
particular place, grade level, or subject, teachers should be conscious of the language
backgrounds that may be represented among their pupils and how these backgrounds may
affect learning. This awareness would allow the teacher to adjust the pace of instruction,
emphasize problematic areas in both instruction and assessment, and interpret assessment
results holistically.
Typology
Typology refers to the classification and grouping of languages based on patterns of word
order, morphology, vocabulary, and other characteristics (Aitchison, 2010). The more
similarities two languages have, the more related they are likely to be; that is, they share a
common ancestral language. Languages that have recently evolved from a common ancestor
tend to have more overlap in phonology, morphology, syntax, and lexicon than languages that
diverged a long time ago. By comparing languages and noting how they may have changed
over time, linguists can attempt to construct a family tree illustrating what languages are
related to each other, and how closely.
While linguists agree that all the languages spoken natively in the Philippines belong to the
Malayo-Polynesian branch of the Austronesian language family,25 they still debate on how
these languages fit within the Malayo-Polynesian branch and how they can be further
subdivided.
25
Except Chavacano, a Spanish creole.
28
Assuming that the languages found in the Philippines and nearby areas form a distinct
macrogroup (a hypothesis for which there is strong evidence), McFarland (1983) proposed
dividing them into 7 sub-groups: Ivatan languages, Northern Philippine languages, MesoPhilippine languages, Southern Philippine languages, Sama languages, South Mindanao
languages, and Sangil. Rubino (2008) consolidated them into only 5 sub-groups: Northern
Philippines, Meso-Philippines, Southern Philippines, South Mindanao, and Sama-Bajaw. In
Adelaar and Himmelmann (Eds., 2005), the languages are divided into 6 sub-groups:
Northern Philippine, Kalamian, Greater Central Philippine, South Mindanao, Sangiric, and
Minahasan. Blust (1991) proposed 9 sub-groups of Philippine languages: Bashiic,
Cordilleran, Central Luzon, Inati, Kalamian, Greater Central Philippine, Bilic, Sangiric, and
Minahasan. The 2013 edition of Ethnologue lists a slightly modified set of 9 sub-groups:
Bashiic, Northern Luzon, Central Luzon, North Mangyan, Kalamian, Greater Central
Philippine, Bilic, Sangiric, and Minahasan (Lewis, Simons, & Fennig, 2013).
Most of the languages in the proposed groupings are natively spoken in the Philippines, but a
few of them are spoken in neighboring countries like Taiwan (e.g. Yami language) and
Indonesia (the Minahasan languages and some Sangiric languages). These may be considered
Philippine languages in a linguistic sense, as part of the Philippine macrogroup, even if they
are found outside the modern borders of the Philippines. Conversely, there are languages
spoken in the Philippines that may not actually belong to the group of “Philippine-type”
languages identified by some linguists. Ethnologue lists the Sama-Bajaw languages—which
include Yakan, Abaknon, Mapun, Sama Central, and other Sama languages spoken in the
southern part of the Philippines—as members of the Greater Barito group of the MalayoPolynesian languages, not the Philippine group.
A standout feature of the existing proposals is that the majority of Philippine languages
belong to just two sub-groups. In the nomenclature of Ethnologue, these are the Northern
Luzon and the Greater Central Philippine (GCP) sub-groups. The former sub-group includes
Ilokano, Pangasinan, and the languages of the Cordillera mountain range. The latter subgroup includes Hiligaynon, Kinaray-a, Aklanon, Waray, Cebuano, Tagalog, Tausug, Bikol
languages, and others. Taken together, the aforementioned GCP languages are more closely
related to each other than any of them are to the northern languages (McFarland, 2004).
It is important to note that the sub-groups are not equally diverse in terms of the number and
characteristics of their languages, and the internal diversity of individual languages is also
quite varied. McFarland (1983) notes that Tagalog and Ilokano exhibit relatively low internal
variation compared with Bikol and Waray, for example. Some languages have high internal
variation, composed of dialects that are in fact not all mutually intelligible with one another.
In these so-called ‘language complexes’, each speech variety is mutually intelligible with at
least one other variety in the complex but not to all, making the boundaries between one
language and another hard to define (Hockett, 1958). Kalinga, Bontok, Kankanaey, Ifugao,
and Subanun may be considered language complexes or a group of closely related languages,
for they each have an assortment of speech varieties that are partially intelligible to one
another. Language complexes (also known as L-complexes, dialect continua, or dialect
chains) pose a challenge to educators in the selection of the medium of instruction: while it
would be easier to produce learning materials in a single standard variety of the L-complex,
this may undermine comprehension for speakers of some of its more divergent varieties.
29
The linguistic relationships between languages found in the Philippines are relevant to
language acquisition and literacy. Many of the Visayan and Mindanao languages are more
similar to Tagalog than the northern Luzon languages are, despite the fact that most parts of
Visayas and Mindanao are geographically further away from native Tagalog-speaking areas.
The Sama languages of the deep south, however, are even more distinct from Tagalog than
the northern Luzon languages. In summary, the linguistic ‘jump’ that children need to make
in learning to speak and read Tagalog-based Filipino or any other Philippine language is not
the same for all ethnic groups. Likewise, it is a reasonable assumption that there would be
some variation across Philippine language types in the way English (and other foreign
languages) are acquired and used by children. Finally, the complexities of a language or
language group may affect how long students need to acquire early reading skills in their
mother tongue (Seymour, Aro, & Erskine, 2003).
Significant advances have been made in characterizing, comparing, and classifying native
Philippine languages in the last century. Belated realization of their importance to education,
however, has left gaps in our knowledge of how individual languages shape language
acquisition, literacy, and learning. The late Dr. Jose Aguilar, former dean of the University of
the Philippines College of Education, Director of the Philippine Center for Language Studies,
and the principal investigator of the First Iloilo vernacular experiment (1948-1954), realized
early on the importance of research:
We must now look to academic research in institutions of higher learning to
motivate a continuous study of the linguistics not only of the second but also of
the first languages. Such study should include administrative decisions, based on
certain criteria, on what native languages may be used for lower-grade
instruction. It should also include writing in depth of teaching materials in the
native languages, which research shows to be capable of wide and workable use,
in all subjects of the lower grades to ensure mutual transfer of training between
first and second languages. (Aguilar 1961)
Aguilar asserted that universities and colleges need to prepare teachers in using local
languages in education in order for them to succeed:
Should not the Elementary teacher be given courses in vernacular teaching? The
teacher is trained in English; he cannot be expected to make a proper transition
to the vernacular by himself. So far the practice has most often been that English
teaching materials are merely translated into the vernacular. In the early grades
these materials are bound to be of the ‘This is a boy/This is a girl’ variety
designed to teach English as mere language. The basic difference between using
English and using the vernacular is this: the teacher using English is like the
builder who has first to make the tool that she needs; the teacher using the
vernacular finds the tool already made and ready to use.
With the implementation of MTBMLE, Aguilar’s appeal is equally germane today. There is
ample opportunity and demand for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to conduct research
on appropriate pedagogy, standards setting, and assessment of reading in local languages.
This is in addition to the need for formal instruction of local languages, exposure to literature,
instructional material-making, and language enrichment for teacher education students before
they can use the local medium as an effective vehicle for literacy.
30
III. Sociolinguistic Factors: Implications to Literacy
and Assessment
Multilingualism and multiliteracy in the Philippines
Filipinos are impressively multilingual. Outside traditionally Tagalog areas, such as in
Northern Luzon, Bicol, Visayas, and Mindanao, the majority can speak a regional language,
Tagalog (Filipino), and English to varying proficiencies. Minority groups in these areas
commonly speak a fourth language as their mother tongue.
In native Tagalog areas, most people speak Tagalog as their first language, and know how to
speak English to varying degrees. Minority groups in these areas, as with non-Tagalog areas,
can usually communicate in their own languages too. In the 2010 Census, approximately 55%
of inhabitants of the National Capital Region claimed to be ethnically Tagalog (National
Statistics Office, 2013). The other 45% are made up of migrant Ilokanos, Visayans,
Bikolanos, and other ethnicities. Even in the national capital region, therefore, a large number
of people are likely bi-or tri-lingual.
To have more than one language in one’s linguistic repertoire is common. One’s languages
can fulfil different social functions (Rappa & Wee 2006). A resident of Mt. Province, for
example, may use Kankanaey in the home, Ilokano at church, and learn English and Tagalog
in school. A second-generation immigrant in Manila may use Tagalog in the home and
streets, Hiligaynon when he visits his relatives in Bacolod, and English at church and school.
A child from an affluent family in Baguio may grow up speaking English as his first
language, learn Tagalog and Chinese at school, and pick up basic Ilokano on the street. A
native of Jolo who transferred to Zamboanga City in elementary school may use Bahasa
Tausug with his parents, Chavacano and Cebuano with his friends, and Chavacano, English
and Filipino in the classroom.
Out of the 116 statistical areas (provinces and highly urbanized cities) in the 2010 National
Census, 91 areas had a dominant ethnic group representing more than 50% of the population.
The other 25 areas did not have any dominant ethnic group. These are provinces and cities
that tend to be highly multilingual, either with delineated areas of separate languages, or a
true linguistic potpourri without clear geographic boundaries. In such multilingual areas,
there can be several community languages used side-by-side or just one—typically a
dominant lingua franca. In the Surigao provinces, for example, where no ethnic group
comprises a majority, Cebuano (also known as Sinugbuanong Binisaya) is the most common
community language. In Apayao province, also without a majority, Ilokano serves as the
lingua franca. On the multi-ethnic island of Palawan, Tagalog is the most dominant lingua
franca, and Cuyonon to a lesser extent. In North Cotabato province, Hiligaynon, Cebuano,
Maguindanaon, and Tagalog are all used as community languages. In Pangasinan province,
Pangasinan is the lingua franca in one half of the province, Ilokano is the lingua franca in the
other half, and Tagalog serves as an overall lingua franca between the two halves.
One phenomenon occurring in some areas is language shift. While the area around Baguio
City is traditionally Ibaloy-speaking, most villages now predominantly use Ilokano; in the
City’s center, one can frequently hear Kankanaey, Ibaloy, Ilokano, and Tagalog—the latter
two being the dominant trade languages and, increasingly, home languages. In Bukidnon
province and other parts of Mindanao, speakers of minority languages like Bukidnon,
31
Cagayanen, and Higaonon are shifting mostly to Cebuano. In Tarlac, which is traditionally a
part-Kapampangan and part-Ilokano province, many children are being raised as first
language Tagalog speakers. In areas in which English has a popular image and obvious
economic potential (e.g. cities with many call centers), some families, especially the upper
class, use English inside the home. Language shift tends to be more pronounced in areas of
greater ethnic mixing and closer to urban areas. The trends of language shift are not known
precisely, however, for there has been no recent large-scale data collection on language shift
vis-à-vis geographical location, socioeconomic status, gender, age, and other variables.26
Language shift complicates the implementation of multilingual education (MLE) and early
literacy. Typically, mother tongue-based MLE programs start with first language—the one
the child speaks and understands best since birth—and subsequently introduce others.
According to this metric, the language to which the community has shifted should be used as
the initial language of literacy, not the native or heritage language27. However, language shift
is a gradual process, and only in the most advanced stages of language shift can one say that
children no longer know their native language. In cases where language shift is still ongoing,
there are children whose first language (L1) may be the indigenous language, while others’
L1 may be the encroaching dominant language. Even those children who speak the dominant
language as their L1 may demonstrate competence in the native language. In such cases, the
native language may still be a viable option as a language of early literacy.
In the case when children are no longer familiar with their community’s traditional language,
is education in that language completely ruled out? Most of the research that supports using a
familiar (home) language for developing literacy applies to linguistic minorities, for whom
the home language typically has a lower prestige than the second languages. Almost all
language groups in the Philippines fall under this category, as they are outnumbered by
speakers of the national language, and moreover, their native languages have limited access
to the controlling domains of education, media, and government. In contrast, language
majority students (eg. L1 speakers of international or widespread languages like English or
Filipino) can effectively cope in a second language school environment under well-resourced
conditions (Genesee, 1987; Ovando & Collier, 1998). Therefore, it is possible for children
who have shifted to a dominant language to learn and use their ancestral language in school,
provided sufficient resources. There are abundant examples of MLE programs that
successfully use heritage languages as vehicles of learning, as in New Zealand, Hawaii,
continental U.S., Canada, Wales, Ireland, and Rapa Nui, In these programs, cross-linguistic
transfer of literacy skills, positive correlation in language proficiencies, and pupil confidence
are observed (Boseker, 2000; Choosri & Sisombat, 2003; Hinton & Hale, 2001; Holobow,
Genesee, & Lambert, 1987; McCarty, 2002, 2008; Usborne, et al., 2009). In formulating a
role for heritage languages in education, planners should consider the level of support of the
community, teacher availability, the country’s international obligations28, and the legal rights
of minorities and indigenous groups in using and developing their own languages, cultures,
26
Old surveys that looked into language shift, among other inquiries, include Caballero (1983), Dumaran (1980), Mendoza
(1978), Llamzon (1984), Olonan (1978), and others.
27
Heritage language is used in this paper to refer to a native and historically-dominant language of a community or region
that might still be valued culturally even if it is no longer dominant. Heritage languages are often tied to ethnic identity.
Some children in a community in which a non-local language has become dominant may still speak the heritage language as
a first language, learn it alongside the dominant language, or learn it after having acquired the dominant language.
28
Some international conventions and declarations enjoin signatories to respect and protect diversity, such as the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (1992) and the
UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2002).
32
and education systems.29 Indeed, the exclusionary education policies of the past are partly
responsible for language shift phenomena; the incorporation of heritage languages in
education can be a vehicle to redress this marginalization. In choosing the dominant language
as the exclusive medium of instruction, on the other hand, authorities run the risk of erasing
what remains of the communities’ linguistic heritage.
The teaching approaches employed in heritage MLE programs and typical mother tonguebased MLE programs are not identical. Children may have difficulty in learning to read if
they are being taught in a poorly-understood heritage language without the support of explicit
strategies found in successful heritage MLE models. If a school is using a particular medium
of instruction under the assumption that it is the pupils’ first language, when in fact it is not,
this may contribute to poor reading outcomes. While involving a heritage language in early
reading can produce good results in both the heritage and dominant language, programs need
to be conscientiously designed to account for the unique conditions of children of
communities undergoing language shift.
Related but not identical to language shift is the issue of language change. There are
languages that are transforming due to contact with other languages. The Kapampangan
language, for example, has been heavily influenced by Tagalog in the last few decades,
phonologically, lexically, and syntactically (Gonzalez, 2005; Coloma, 2011). Rubrico (2011)
has described an emerging variety of Filipino or “Bislog” in Davao City, retaining the
morphosyntax of Cebuano (Bisaya) with lots of lexical borrowings from Tagalog and
English. Wolff (2012) reflects on the diminution of grammatical complexity in urban
Cebuano over the last 50 years. Likewise, the Tagalog spoken on the streets of Manila in the
21st century is not the same as the Tagalog spoken there when the nation became
independent.30
Oral language environment of Filipinos inside and outside the classroom
Ocampo (1996) outlines three basic realms of awareness or knowledge necessary for reading:
i) life experience; ii) oral symbols (language); and iii) printed symbols. Life experience
develops a child’s understanding of the concepts and processes of the world, a prerequisite
for realizing that things can be labeled, described, and explained. Language is a tool for this
purpose, and enriches life experience itself in a two-way feedback. The potential of a
language to translate the world around us and deepen our understanding of it is limited by a
child’s mastery of the language. Mastery of language likewise limits how much meaning can
be obtained from a series of printed symbols, i.e. text. If a child does not have a stored set of
oral vocabulary, with known sounds and meanings, reading is futile. Even if a child has been
taught the link between sounds and printed symbols, she will not understand what she is
29
Hogan-Brun & Wolff (2003) provide insight on aligning policy with rights: “Language rights and language policy,
therefore, are two important aspects within a wider framework of minority protection, and only if this framework is right,
will it be possible to put the conditions in place in which language minorities can preserve their language as part of their
identity, if they so wish. That is, members of minorities should be able to make a choice, individually and collectively, about
how important a component their language is for their identity. Thus, while the protection of a minority language may not be
the most important criterion for the preservation of a minority identity, its forced absence will leave a void in this identity
with consequences not just for the individual, but also for society as a whole.”
30
A question for makers of instructional materials is: what form of language should be adopted on print? Should materials
reflect as close as possible the informal language on the street, or adopt a more stilted language that is nevertheless
recognized by the public as more ‘correct’? How open to loan words should our textbooks be? Do rural varieties of speech,
which tend to be less subject to change, have more legitimacy, or do urban varieties serve as more practical standards
because they typically have wider influence on the population?
33
reading if she is not already familiar with most of the words being represented on the page.
Hence, if a child’s mastery of the oral language is weak, progress in reading is difficult and
slow (Angeles-Bautista, 1999; Ocampo, 1996).
Oral language begins in the home, but continues to develop substantially through all years of
elementary education (McLaughlin, 1992). Numerous studies have shown correlations
between first language (L1) development and literacy in both L1 and L2 (see Gabriele et al.,
2009). As children learn to read in their L1, oral L1 continues to support all learning
activities. Walqui (2006) explains that oral language, both L1 and L2, are involved in the
learning of L2. The home language is a supportive language that can precede and follow the
L2 lesson. Swain & Lapkin (2005) identify several functions of the L1 in general academic
environment: developing strategies to manage the task, helping learners scaffold each other,
maintaining intersubjectivity, externalizing inner speech, and socializing. The authors discuss
many examples of how the L1 is used by pupils in preparation of superior L2 written and oral
output.
Overall, it is hard to generalize the oral language condition of Filipino children when they
begin school. The languages a Filipino child learns to speak and to what level depend on the
community in which he grew up, the home environment, and the school environment.
Communities may be effectively monolingual, bilingual, or multilingual. Some of the
remotest and/or poorest areas are monolingual in daily life. In multilingual communities, both
urban and rural, the domains of life (home, church, market, etc.) may be open to multiple
languages, or there may be clear divisions whereby each domain is dominated by a specific
language. Communities may also differ in attitudes towards language. In a survey of
secondary school students from different regions, Smolicz and Nical (1997) found that the
Ilokano group used and preferred Filipino (Tagalog) more than English, while the Cebuano
and Waray groups used and preferred English over Filipino. All groups used and maintained
a positive attitude towards their respective vernaculars.31 The vernacular was reported to be
dominant in the market and home domains for all groups. For the school and office domains,
Filipino dominated for the Ilokano group while English dominated for the Cebuano and
Waray groups. A similar result was found by Barcelona (1977), in that linguistic
communities in Luzon favored ‘Pilipino’ as a second language, whereas communities in
Visayas preferred English.
As for the home environment, the paramount factors affecting oral language development are
the language interactions between members of the family (parents, children, grandparents,
siblings, others), which may be influenced by socioeconomic status, intermarriage, and
migration. Some children do not grow up with the mother tongue of their parents; most
children do. Media also plays a role in the development of children’s oral language in the
home. Children with access to cable TV have greater exposure to English than children with
31
Smolicz & Nical’s respondents’ positive view of their mother tongue is not universal. Other authors, such as Pangilinan
(2009), have observed an increasingly negative attitude of Kapampangan youth towards their native language, calling it
“vulgar”, “unromantic”, and even “unpatriotic”. McEachern (2011) notes that some Ilokanos in La Union consider their
language to be low-class, corny, and uneducated. These self-deprecating views are predictable under the structures of
marginalization which historically existed in the Philippines and continue to exist to some extent, such as: the exclusion of
local languages in the education system, including the fining of students for speaking their native tongues; the focus of the
national government on English and Filipino; the mandated celebration of Filipino Language Month without a corresponding
celebration for other native languages; the dominance of Tagalog and English in television and film; etc. Similar
mechanisms are in place in many post-colonial countries. Rahman (2003) and Alexander (2005) explore the negative effect
state-facilitated marginalization can have on the value people assign their linguistic and cultural identities.
34
access to the standard channels, which broadcast in Tagalog, a few regional languages, and
rarely in English (except in commercials). Radio, which is a significant medium especially in
rural areas, is commonly in the regional language.
The environment of schools also affects the oral language development of children, including
the language proficiency of teachers32, the extent to which teachers and students code
switch33, the language of a child’s peers, and language practices outside the classroom
(administration, informal interactions between teachers and pupils, extracurricular activities,
and so on). Researchers have taken both positive and negative stances on code-switching
among pupils: traditionally, it has been viewed as a symptom of insufficient command of an
individual’s languages (Gonzalez, 1983), but it can also be a manifestation of expanding
verbal repertoire, modelling multilingualism. Code-switching among teachers is also a
controversial topic. While there is ample evidence for the facilitative effects of first language
in second language reading (Kern, 1994) and writing (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 1992; Qi 1998),
evidence about the benefit of first language in second language oral development is mixed.
According to Turnbull & Dailey-O’Cain (eds., 2009), one school of thought calls for the
exclusive use of the target language when teaching children a new language (the “virtual”
position); other scholars consider a little use of the first language a necessary evil (the
“maximal” position), while a growing amount of research supports the “optimal” position—
whereby the first language is used in explicit and strategic ways to help learn the target
language. Macaro (2009) concludes,
What emerges is an increasing possibility that banning the first language from the
communicative second language classroom may in fact be reducing the cognitive
and metacognitive opportunities available to learners” (p. 49).
We are reminded in the same volume that
…too much focus on teacher target language use, with long periods of input
modification, may result in teacher-fronted lessons in which individual learners
may only be speaking the second language for limited amounts of time…which
goes against the very nature of communicative classrooms. (p. 5)
In summary, some children have multiple mother tongues, learning several languages
simultaneously at a young age; others have only one mother tongue and learn additional
languages sequentially at a later age. Some children learn Filipino as a first language, many
learn it as a second language, and some even learn it as a third language—the same for
English. Children may be trained to use specific languages in certain domains or may
approach language use more fluidly. A few children may grow up to be balanced bi-/multi32
According to a 2013 study by the National Educational Testing and Research Center (NETRC), teachers’ English
proficiency in the Philippines was rated low to moderate on measures of “structure,” “written expression,” and “reading
comprehension.” De Guzman (2005) investigated the English vocabulary knowledge of pre-service teachers in both private
and public teacher education institutions in seven regions across the country. On average, the subjects did not even
demonstrate mastery-level knowledge (85%) of the 2000 high frequency words necessary for daily communication in
English. Scores were higher among subjects from public vs. private institutions, senior level vs. freshman level, and Regions
II, VI, XI, and NCR compared with Regions III, VIII, and X. The generally low scores do not augur well for the teachers’
own reading comprehension, for which vocabulary knowledge is essential (Laufer & Sim 1985; Hu & Nation 2000).
Language proficiency is not only a concern of English. Bañez (2013) found that while La Union teachers’ Ilokano language
competence was enough to teach the mother tongue, there is a need to further improve their language, particularly their
orthographic knowledge.
33
Code-switching has been extensively observed in the Philippines. See examples: Bacorro & Villazor (1979); Barrios et. al.
(1977); Caballero (1983); Sibayan & Segovia (1980); Sobolewski (1982); Bautista (1991, 1995); Pascasio (1973, 1977,
1984, 1996); Sarreal (2008); and Thompson (2003). Most studies analyze English-Tagalog (Filipino) code-switching, but the
phenomenon also exists for other language combinations.
35
linguals, equally proficient in their languages, but most will have a hierarchy. Children learn
language in different environments, such as the home, neighborhood, and community;
sometimes there is continuity in the languages present across these domains, sometimes there
is not.
In an effort to respond to the linguistic complexity of the country, the Department of
Education issued guidelines on the selection of the medium of instruction in the early grades.
Department Order No. 16. s. 2012 presents two models. Ideally, one of the 12 (now 19) major
languages in the MTB-MLE program is the majority mother tongue of students in a school,
so that will be the MOI selected. In schools were there are three or more mother tongues and
no obvious majority, the lingua franca in the area is to be selected. In such cases, the
Department Order states that “Special classes offering the children’s MT may be held twice a
week if a teacher is available for the development of oral fluency.” The oral fluency skills
shall be bridged to the designated MOI for the “development of reading and writing.”
Department Order 16 further states:
When an approved orthography of the [mother tongue] MT is available and
learning resources have been developed with trained teachers, the schools are
encouraged to use the desired MT. In such situation [sic], the school head (SH)
shall inform the Division Office (DO) so that technical assistance could be
provided and learning resources could be evaluated to meet the national
standards for learning resources.
It thus appears that the selection of a single medium of instruction across a multilingual
division (such as Tagalog in Romblon province) may be a temporary measure while
orthographies are developed and teachers are trained in the division’s other prominent mother
tongues—resources providing. Afterall, policy allows for schools to select a medium of
instruction not included in the program’s current 19 major languages. If schools in minority
language areas exercised this allowance, there would be fewer instances of mismatch
between the language of instruction and the native language of children. Nevertheless, the
inclusion of 19 languages is still a significant improvement in access to first language (L1)
education and literacy. In the former bilingual Filipino-English system before 2011, only
26% of Filipino children had access to L1 education, the third lowest rate in South East Asia
(Kosonen, 2005). These were the children with Tagalog/Filipino as their mother tongue. With
19 languages in formal use, around 90% now have access to L1 education, an estimate based
on the population sizes of corresponding ethnic groups (National Census, 2010).
Although applicable to many, Department of Education’s schema for language progression
(L1=MT, L2=Filipino, L3=English) does not reflect the real sequence of language acquisition
for everyone; nuanced language-in-education policies informed by reliable data are needed to
adapt to the wide-ranging backgrounds of children. Even so, no matter what policy is
employed, there will always be classrooms containing some pupils whose first language is
not the medium of instruction and who may require additional support in vocabulary
development and the other key components of reading.
A child’s linguistic repertoire can definitely affect the process of reading. Sanchez (2013)
found that while Waray was the dominant medium of communication among thirty-seven 5
to 7 year-old pupils in Tacloban, 83.78% used a combination of Waray, English, and Filipino
at home. The pupils knew the Waray words for most of the pictures presented to them, but
sometimes the English or Filipino translation would be said automatically (e.g. ‘flower’
36
instead of ‘bukad’). This weakened the efficacy of the primer that Sanchez developed
following the “Accuracy Track” of the two-track method (Malone, 2010). New letters,
according to the frequency of their use in the Waray language, were introduced one-by-one to
the pupils. Pictures, meanwhile, would ideally spark recognition of key Waray words that
contained the new letter. However, when the pupils would associate a picture with an English
word instead of a Waray word, there was no guarantee that the English utterance contained
the lesson’s featured symbol. This would spark confusion as to what sound the symbol was
supposed to represent—a lost opportunity to relate print to sound. Sanchez therefore
recommended that teachers explicitly solicit pupils for mother tongue words (if the teacher is
teaching reading in the mother tongue), conduct vocabulary-building exercises (particularly
for those with weaker oral language), and be cautious with the use of pictures in prompting
keywords.
Aquino (2012) analyzed the literacy skills of Filipino-speaking preschoolers before and after
an 8-week literacy program following the ‘Four-Pronged Approach’ (Licmo, 1994). The
preschoolers were divided into three groups, each treated with a different medium of
instruction: monolingual English, monolingual Filipino, and bilingual English and Filipino.
Each group took post-tests in both English and Filipino. All three groups improved their
literacy skills in both languages, giving weight to the central processing theory of biliteracy
described in Wagner & Torgesen (1987) and others. That is, underlying cognitive and
linguistic skills (e.g. verbal memory, speed of naming, phonological awareness, etc.) support
the development of reading skills in any language; furthermore, literacy skills developed in
one language can predict literacy skills in another language, regardless of the language or
script involved. Interestingly, however, Aquino did not encounter uniform improvement in all
three groups. The group taught monolingually in Filipino (the pupils’ L1) improved the most
after 8-weeks, followed by the English group, and then the bilingual group, highlighting the
effectiveness of mother tongue-based instruction.34 Moreover, both the Filipino-medium and
English-medium groups demonstrated greater gains in the Filipino post-test than the English
post-test, on average. This agrees with the idea that characteristics of the language itself, such
as the greater orthographic transparency of Filipino compared to English, affect the speed of
acquisition of literacy skills. While this ‘script-dependence’ may seem contradictory to the
central processing theory, Aquino concludes that her study exhibits complementarity in the
two theories: both underlying skills and the specific language influence literacy development.
In an investigation of nearly 500 bilingual Filipino-English children from Grade 1 to 6,
Ocampo (2005) found that a reading skill or underlying cognitive ability in one language (e.g.
rapid visual naming, recall, and other phonological processes) was highly correlated to the
same skill or ability when assessed in the other language, which supports the central
processing hypothesis. Some results, however, pointed to the language-dependence
hypothesis: i) the correlation between word-reading ability and underlying skills in one
language was higher than the correlation between word reading ability in the same language
with underlying skills in the other language; ii) Filipino non-word reading ability was higher
in Filipino, the children’s dominant language, than in English. In the third part of the study,
the author used step-wise regression analysis to determine the best predictors of word reading
34
The monolingual Filipino-medium group had the highest gains in 4 out of 8 skills in the Filipino post-test and 3 out of 8
skills tested in the English post-test. The monolingual English-medium group had the highest gains in 3 skills in the Filipino
post-test and 2 in the English post-test. The bilingual medium group had the highest gains in no skills in the Filipino post-test
and 1 skill in the English post-test.
37
ability. For Filipino word reading, these were English non-word reading, Filipino non-word
reading, Filipino rapid naming, and Filipino word span (recalling and repeating a series of
words). English word reading scores had the same set of predictors, plus English rapid
naming and English listening comprehension. Ocampo concludes that both hypotheses
explain word processing. That is, a focused number of factors predict reading ability, which
are similar regardless of language. On the other hand, script characteristics influence the
development of reading skills to some extent, as noted in Gholamain & Geva (1999) and
Geva & Siegel (2000).
Another researcher found that language background even has an effect on the reading process
of adult readers. Arias (2004) analyzed the way bilingual Filipino-English teachers processed
academic text written in English. Arias observed that no two readers process a text the same
way. Nevertheless, the participants utilized both their L1 and L2 in processing the L2 texts,
translating or code-switching as they read to fill lexical gaps. The author concludes that
readers should not be discouraged from employing their L1 when reading and discussing L2
texts, as it can aid comprehension. Multilingualism is a strength that can facilitate literacy
development. As Lo Bianco (2000) asserts “many children utilize complex literacy awareness
and talent daily; literacies which invoke ethnic, ideological, religious, script, technical and
national-identity statuses in [a] marketplace of authorized, traditional and hybrid forms…
Diversity in the plural literacy practices…have within them the power to open up new
intellectual worlds.”
Bearing in mind the variegated linguistic environments of Filipino children, more research is
needed about how language background responds to different approaches of literacy
instruction. The Department of Education’s encouragement of teachers and administrators to
conduct local research is providential. In a large recent conference35 on the new K-12
Philippine education system, Villarama & Peteza (2013) demonstrated the impact on literacy
performance of regularly regrouping pupils based on mother tongue oral reading tests;
Balacano & Daligdig (2013) tested the effectiveness of mother tongue storybooks on pupil
achievement; Regidor & Regidor (2013) presented an English remedial reading program for
Grade 2 non-readers; Lobis-Nieva (2013) outlined a planned investigation of mother tongue
instructional materials development; and Cabug (2013), Capobres (2013), Ladic (2013), and
Moises (2013) evaluated the implementation of Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual
Education (MTBMLE) in their respective schools/divisions. If methods are rigorous,
replicable, and scalable, even small-scale research—when considered collectively—can be
informative to policy and practice.
Literacy Environment of Filipinos Inside and Outside the Classroom
In order to become fully literate—that is, readily derive meaning from text (when reading)
and produce meaningful text (when writing)—building component skills is not sufficient.
Children must continue to develop their oral language abilities, be exposed to and engage a
wide range of texts, and have motivation to practice their literacy skills in an integrative way.
Many Filipino researchers have written on the ingredients for literacy development beyond
the component skills of phonological awareness, decoding and word recognition, vocabulary
knowledge, oral reading fluency, and comprehension.
35
1st International Research Conference on K to 12 Education, 20-23 Aug. 2013, hosted by Department of Education–
Region 5. Oriental Hotel, Legazpi City, PH.
38
Pado (2002) states that, while direct instruction of skills like decoding is necessary, children
should be exposed to print early and should be allowed to develop literacy non-linearly.
Comprehension skills (e.g. being able to sequence events, classify information, identify cause
and effect, etc.) can be practiced even before children know how to read, through oral-aural
activities. Likewise, writing can be practiced before reading, in light of observations that
children attempt to write very early when given the freedom to do so, and that many activities
like scribbling are now seen as bellwether literacy events, or “emerging literacy” (Medrano,
1997). Both Pado and Medrano encourage a focus on free error-tolerant engagement with
writing at the initial stage, instead of emphasizing the mechanics of writing such as
handwriting, capitalization, and punctuation. This inspires putting ideas to print, creativity,
and meta-cognitive appreciation for the purpose of writing.
Responding to international research on the schema theory of reading, Hermosa (1991, 1992)
agrees in adopting a broader perspective on reading in Philippine classrooms, focussing not
just on the written text and the component skills with which to tackle the text, but also on
what prior knowledge the reader brings to the reading process. The degree of comprehension
achieved by the reader is influenced by the degree of match between the reader and the text’s
schemas. Similarly, Ocampo (2006) cites Lipson & Wixson (1991) in the three factors that
influence reading performance and comprehension: the reader, the text, and the context. Poor
reading performance is not always the ‘fault’ of the reader, Ocampo stresses, as each of the
factors need to align synergistically. If the content and language of the text does not
sufficiently overlap with the child’s prior knowledge—conceptual, socio-cultural, and
linguistic—comprehension becomes harder. This is particularly relevant to readers of second
languages. According to Parmer (2005), an L2 reader might not understand the complete idea
of a passage because of unfamiliar content, form, and language. Context too is vital for good
reading performance. If the purpose of reading is not well conveyed, the physical setting is
not conducive to reading, and the instruction on how to read is poor, children will face an
uphill struggle to read well. Ocampo therefore recommends the expansion of the assessment
of reading to include all three factors, whereby the reader is assessed (formally and
informally, both skills and attitudes), the text is assessed (content and language), and the
context is assessed (quality of reading instruction and environment).
Traditionally, classroom and remedial reading instruction in the Philippines relied upon skill
development (Hermosa, 1992). A number of Filipino researchers have highlighted the role of
literature and literary practices to integrate such skills. Ediger (1990) and Aquino (2005)
discuss the importance of diverse, high quality literature to motivate children to read, attend
class, and master literacy skills. Basadre & Hermosa (2010) comment that different types of
texts can be used as teaching tools to scaffold learning and to build reading confidence.
Hermosa (1992) states, “We learn by reading real or authentic texts for real purposes,
whether for information or enjoyment.” Citing Bruner (1990), the author describes literature
as a doorway to literacy because it encompasses the wide range of human experience, distils
meaning from events, and is the driving force behind deeper language learning. According to
Sibayan (1991), one needs to have some knowledge and language before learning to read, but
one must also read to acquire more knowledge and more language. These insights are related
to the set of beliefs of the ‘whole-language’ movement, based on the following ideas: i)
language conveys meaning and has purpose; ii) writing is language; iii) the cuing systems of
language (phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics) are always present in language use; iv)
language use is situational; and v) situations are critical to meaning-making. Cullinan (1992)
39
breaks down ‘whole language’ into three ideas: i) children learn to read by reading; ii)
reading is a part of language and is learned in similar ways as other forms of language; and
iii) learning in one area of language helps learning in other areas. Through the lens of ‘whole
language’, reading instruction should naturally integrate reading with listening, speaking and
writing, and should help students enjoy the process of obtaining and generating meaning from
text. More concretely, whole-language reading programs typically consist of teachers reading
to children, shared book experience, sustained silent reading, guided reading, individualized
reading, language experience, children’s writing, modeled writing, opportunities for sharing,
and content area reading and writing (Hermosa, 1991).
In integrated literature-based reading and language programs like “whole-language,” reading
is viewed as a process of constructing meaning by encountering language through a whole
variety of real-life texts such as magazines, newspapers, signages, commercial labels, books,
and computer resources. In response to criticism about whole-language programs neglecting
direct skills development, Philippine reading experts have made attempts to integrate the two
philosophies of skills-based instruction and rich literature environments. The University of
the Philippine’s College of Education formulated the Integrated Literature-Skills Instruction
or “LINKS” framework, whereby specific reading skills are embedded in literature-based
lessons (Hermosa, 2005). Lessons follow the standard format of basal readers, with prereading, reading, and post-reading exercises, but are enriched to better integrate the four
language areas (listening, speaking, reading, writing). The reading material should be
authentic, interesting, purposeful, and well-motivated beforehand. Post-reading activities—
both by groups and individuals—galvanize more personal interaction of the reader with the
text, and target the development of specific reading skills. Teachers play a key role in
modelling skills and strategies to let the pupils ‘in on the secrets of good readers’.
Ocampo (1996) designed a 3-month literature-based program for the teaching of reading and
language in two poor day care centers. Children who underwent the program exhibited
significant gains in more areas of early literacy than the control group. Orencia (2005)
implemented a whole-language reading program for Grade 3 pupils, seeing improvement in
comprehension, attitudes about reading, recall of stories, creativity, individuality, and
ownership of the pupils’ output. Padilla (2010) ran a summer literature program for urban
poor children aged 7-10 based on LINKS lessons, observing high attendance, enthusiasm,
and at least 75% lesson mastery among 85-90% of the pupils. Such experiences inform us
that through explicit instruction of literacy skills and rich engagement with literacy materials,
most, if not all children can become successful readers at an early age. Indeed, Serquiña &
Ocampo (2010) identified 85 schools around the country that score high in National
Achievement Tests despite being in the most economically depressed municipalities (4th-6th
class). The schools share a set of attributes to which the researchers credit their high
performance: strong instructional leadership; knowledgeable, competent language teachers;
an in-school reading program protecting time for reading instruction, practice, and
intervention; and active parent/community involvement.
Reading and writing are cognitively challenging tasks. It is worth emphasizing that a wealth
of reading materials encourages individuals to become literate, gives them the chance to
practice their literacy skills, and hones their ability to discriminate between good and poor
writing (Chhetri and Baker, 2005; UNESCO 2005c). Unfortunately, the literacy environment
and literacy instruction for most Filipino children are not as nourishing as those found in the
aforementioned experiments and high-performing schools. To appraise the literacy
40
environment of a multilingual country, the environment of each language community should
be considered, both inside and outside school. While having ample texts in second languages
is better than nothing at all, a lack of L1 texts in particular is a missed opportunity for
children to experience reading as a richer meaning-making activity (Kosonen 2005).
Exposure to L1 print has been correlated with better L1 skills (particularly phonemic
awareness, word decoding, and spelling, but also reading comprehension, vocabulary, and
listening comprehension), L2 aptitude, L2 proficiency, and L2 classroom achievement
(Sparks, et al., 2012b).
The history of publication in Philippine languages is sporadic (de Ungria, 2009). Likewise,
the penetration of languages in contemporary literacy domains varies. Major languages such
as Cebuano, Hiligaynon, and Ilokano have larger corpuses than other local languages,
generated by a limited number of local newspapers, magazines, comics, and the occasional
novel. The Carlos Palanca Memorial Award for Literature—the most prestigious in the
country—currently includes the three aforementioned languages in the Short Story category.
Literature and language advocacy associations exist in most of the regions, such as
Akademiyang Bisaya (Cebuano), Gunglo dagiti Mannurat nga Ilokano (Ilokano), Timpuyog
dagiti Mannurat iti Iluko (Ilokano), Katik Waray (Waray), Amunang Sisuan (Kapampangan),
Ulupan na Pansiansay Salitan Pangasinan (Pangasinan), Sumakwelan Writers Association
(Hiligaynon), and others. Local government units, the National Commission of Culture and
the Arts (NCCA), and other organizations like the Unyon ng mga Manunulat sa Pilipinas
(Union of Writers in the Philippines) occasionally hold writeshops and competitions for the
production of literature in native languages, often in cooperation with the individual language
groups.
Because of the historical lack of state sponsorship of local languages—particularly in the
realm of education—levels, patterns, and trends of local language literacy are largely
undocumented. People can develop familiarity with the written form in some formal settings,
like church, and may have learned it in school if they attended Grade 1 and 2 during the
period of vernacular education from 1957 to 1973. Dictionaries exist in many Philippine
languages, but only those for the most prominent languages are commercially available.36
Local newspapers and magazines provide added opportunity to read in the major regional
languages, but the mere existence of such materials does not guarantee vibrant literacy
practices. Having not received formal training in their own language, many Ilokanos for
instance find it cumbersome to read local publications, hence readership is low (Almodovar,
pers. comm37). Sugbo (2003) adds that exclusionary language policy in the country has bred
an attitude against literature in their own languages, dating as far back as World War II. In a
national survey of different linguistic groups when Philippine languages had minimal role in
the education system, English was the most popular choice among respondents for reading a
range of materials (books, newspapers, religious texts, government info), as Filipinos were
not equipped to be literate in their mother tongues (Otanes & Sibayan, 1969). A bigger
percentage of respondents in the survey did not regularly read at all. As Shiohata (2010)
points out, “even if communities and households were filled with reading materials, it is
unlikely that people would automatically begin reading them. Whereas people can access
36
Unfortunately for teachers, the better the dictionary, the more prohibitive the cost! Local government units and school
boards are potential funders for the acquisition of dictionaries, grammars, books, and the making of in-house instructional
materials.
37
Eddy Almodovar is the publisher of Banat, an English-Ilokano weekly newspaper in San Fernando City, La Union.
41
electronic media such as television and radio without having been to school, they need
education before they can access reading materials.” Filipinos’ per capita consumption of
books and magazines is well behind its East Asian neighbors (Ople, 1993; Orencia, 2005).
Barring the individual’s own initiative to seek out mother tongue materials and develop his
own reading ability, most Filipinos’ exposure to the written vernacular is incidental, catching
sight of it on public notices and the rare commercial billboard. Particularly for smaller
language communities and rural areas, the literacy environment in the Philippines is similar
to most low-income countries: people are “unlikely to be confronted regularly with printed
matter in the home in newspapers and magazines, on covers of boxes and wrappings . . . and
outside in the forms of billboards and public signs” (Greaney, 1996). While upper-class and
urban denizens generally have more access to literacy materials (a pattern observed in both
developing and developed countries—see Neuman & Celano (2001) and Shiohata (2010),
they are predominantly in English. Sibayan (2002) describes a 7-level hierarchy of languages
in terms of literature wealth, with English occupying the top tier, followed by
Filipino/Tagalog, then large lingua francae like Cebuano, Ilokano, and Hiligaynon,38 smaller
regional languages like Waray and Bikol, provincial languages like Kankanaey, subprovincial languages like Tuwali, and finally languages that have not yet been reduced to
print—chiefly the smallest languages spoken in just a few villages.39
A paucity of local language materials in the general environment is a concern for early
reading development. However, even with regard to English and Filipino, which command
greater presence in the environment and have been used in the education system for many
decades, motivation to read outside the classroom is low and there are many frustration-level
readers. In 2002, 40% of Grade 1 children from the National Capitol Region (NCR) moved to
Grade 2 without knowing how to read (Pado, 2006).40 For perspective, the average Filipino
spends 3.6 hours reading the newspaper per week (Sunstar, 2011) but watches 5 hours of
television per day (Osorio, 2012). Sibayan (1991) laments the ubiquitous distraction of TV
and the culture against reading. Even in the highly urbanized area of Greater Manila,
broadsheet, tabloid, and magazine readership hovers around 20% (Inquirer 2011).
While technology can be a ‘distraction,’ it can also be a platform for literacy practices. A new
dimension to reading and writing is mobile and internet communication. Over 80% of
Philippine households have at least one mobile phone (Roa, 2013), and 35% have access to
38
Among the large lingua francae of Cebuano, Hiligaynon, and Ilokano, Cebuano is the most developed. It has more
speakers, more newspapers with greater circulation, larger music output, and is even included in the services of prominent
tech companies like Google Inc. and Globe Telecom.
39
Fortunately, non-government and religious organizations have worked many decades to put previously oral languages onto
paper. SIL has developed materials in more than 70 Philippine languages (UNESCO 2005a), has produced about 60
dictionaries and word lists as of 2002, and has published over 1000 vernacular literacy and translation-related materials
(Quakenbush, 2005). Another positive development is the growth of movements to use and promote local languages. Several
local governments—such as the Provinces of La Union, Pampanga, Pangasinan, and Zamboanga City— have passed
legislation promoting their respective native languages that could in theory enhance the visibility of local language in the
environment, allowing children to practice listening to and reading the mother tongue in a variety of contexts outside the
classroom and home. See Zamboanga Ordinances 109, 233, 374 and Resolutions 177 and 206; Pampanga Resolutions 138,
147, and 1193; Pangasinan Resolution 195; La Union Ordinance 026 and Resolutions 111 and 139.
40
This statistic is particularly worrying since NCR is among the best-performing regions in the country. Gove & Cvelich
(2011) describe how reading ability is much worse in Mindanao than in Manila. While the causes of the disparity are
manifold, Skoropinski (2013) identifies the former bilingual language policy as one of the vitiating factors: “Students in the
Manila area enjoy the benefits of being taught first in their first language and of having a substantial body of written
literature available in their mother tongue (MT), a luxury that most pupils in most other regions of the country do not have.
In particular, those in rural communities who are not regularly exposed to Filipino and English would seem to be most at risk
of failing to learn to read.”
42
internet in 2013, up from 29% in 2011 (Agcaoili, 2013). Around 50% of Filipinos in their 20s
access the internet. The increasing rates of usage of mobile and internet have lead to a surge
in informal typing in Philippine languages, big and small (Harvey? Lido?). Again for lack of
formal mother tongue education, mechanics of texting (especially spelling) is highly
divergent, as people infer the conventions of their language based on what they know of
Filipino/Tagalog; Gonzalez (1998) calls this transfer of literacy a “washback effect.” The
introduction of mother tongue-based instruction will likely reduce the need for such guessing
in future, and facilitate more literate use of vernaculars.
The literacy environment of the home varies tremendously. Parents who lack literacy skills
themselves (in any language) are limited in their capacity to assist their children in reading.
Children of challenged readers, which are more common in poor, rural, and minority
communities, have less support in learning how to read. Children of monolingual homes will
have more difficulty learning how to read second languages than those who have oral and
visual exposure to such languages. Children left alone at home by their parents, who have
limited reading materials at home, and have no time to read are more likely to experience
reading difficulties (Abraham-Mella, 2013). Parents who work as Overseas Filipino Workers
(OFWs) may be entirely absent to guide their children, even if they can provide for their
families economically. Several researchers have studied the parental and home effects on
language and literacy development (e.g. Basco 1993; Dugenia, 1987; Molina-Felix, 2012;
Pado, 1990; Yasay, 1991; Din-Garcia, 2013).41
Economic standing plays a significant role in the literacy development of children. The fact
that many poor children perform below grade level is not surprising given the disparities in
literacy environment, literate behaviors, and access to participation in literary events between
the lower and upper classes (Padilla, 2010). Maminta (2005) explored the types of
sociolinguistic environments in which cross-lingual transfer of literacy skills occurred under
the old bilingual system. Grade 3 bilingual English-Tagalog pupils of the affluent University
of the Philippines Integrated School (UPIS) scored higher in Tagalog (Filipino) reading
proficiency tests than their more disadvantaged peers at the Balara Elementary School, even
though the Balara pupils were more exposed to Tagalog as a community and home
language.42 Furthermore, there was stronger correlation in the English and Tagalog reading
scores of UPIS pupils, unlike the Balara pupils. Maminta refers to the literacy situation of the
Balara pupils as a “sad state of semi-lingualism”, characterizing their “impoverished
linguistic and conceptual background” as “restricting factors in promoting literacy skills in
both languages.” Interestingly, the Grade 3 pupils of another public school included in the
study—Vigan Elementary School— had similar result to UPIS, even though its pupils are of
lower socio-economic status and speak Ilokano as their native language. The Vigan pupils’
readings test scores were higher than the scores of the Balara pupils, and the scores correlated
across the three languages they were assessed in (Ilokano, English, and Tagalog). The author
cites strong community use, pride, and support for the local language which gives the pupils a
solid L1 foundation for the parallel development of their second languages.
Since home and community disparities are not easily fixed, it is vital that schools provide a
rich literacy environment—particularly in first languages—so that children who otherwise are
41
The importance of the home environment is also an obvious implication of Vygotsky’s socio-cognitive theory of language
development—that social interaction and communicative experiences with peers and adults facilitate children’s learning.
42
The author notes that, unlike the Balara pupils, many pupils in UPIS use English at home, and their pre-school education
was conducted in English.
43
starved of reading experiences are given the opportunity to practice skills and develop
positive attitudes towards reading as soon as possible. Sibayan (1991) describes a perennial
lack of classroom reading materials, but the Department of Education has made strides in
rectifying the shortage through the empowerment of the regional, division, and school units
to produce their own localized materials, particularly storybooks. Production varies
considerably, with some units taking a more active role in establishing targets, organizing
regular workshops, and sharing and digitizing outputs.
While quantity is important, quality of the materials is also an important consideration.
Providing children with interesting and meaningful texts is more important than simply
increasing their number (Elley, 1996). Sibayan (1991) observes that reading materials in
Philippine classrooms are often too hard, too easy, or not engaging enough. This complaint is
valid for new mother tongue materials too. Standards for text difficulty at each grade level
have not yet been made for many of the local languages, and readability tests like SMOG and
FRY for English have not been adapted to Philippine languages (Morauda-Gutierrez, 2013).
These gaps are corroborated by teacher comments, namely that language materials (mother
tongue, Filipino, and English) sometimes use stilted language and vocabulary not suitable for
the assigned grade level. A misconception of some writers of Philippine language texts
(including Filipino and other languages) is that in order for them to be ‘correct’ and ‘proper’,
they must not contain borrowed words from Spanish and English. In reality, loan words have
become integrated into the regular lexicon of Philippine languages and in some cases are used
far more frequently than the indigenous synonym (e.g. kolor, from the Spanish color, is more
familiar to Ilokano speakers than the native word maris). To completely avoid such loan
words makes for unnatural and more difficult text.43
Another aspect of instructional material quality is the harmonization of content between
subjects, particularly the language subjects. While the three language subjects (mother
tongue, Filipino, and English) are supposedly guided by an Integrated Language Arts
Curriculum, it is unclear to what extent the existing Teacher Guides (TGs) and Learner
Materials (LMs) of each subject complement each other. For example, certain domains or
literacy skills in the Integrated Language Arts Curriculum (e.g. ‘book and print knowledge’)
do not need to be taught in the English and Filipino subjects if they have already been
introduced early in the mother tongue subject. If TGs and LMs are not developed
strategically in relation to other subjects, teachers risk spending too much or not enough time
on teaching each literacy skill.
Aside from instructional materials, teachers greatly influence the environment and culture of
literacy in the classroom. According to Samuels & Farstrup (2002), teachers are one of the
most critical variables for pupil’s success in learning to read. Wray et al. (2002) assert that
teachers of reading should be knowledgeable of the subject just as teachers of regular content
subjects are.44 Brady & Moats (1997) state that teachers must have a conceptual foundation
43
Increasing the volume of mother tongue reading materials and maintaining quality are two very important goals in
improving the environment of reading in the elementary grades. Finding the correct balance between centrally and locallylead initiatives to achieve these two goals is an ongoing effort in the Department of Education (Ocampo, pers. comm.)
44
Specifically, teachers should be knowledge of the content of the subject (eg. What is that children need to learn to become
literacy? What is the relationship between written and spoken language? How is language organized, and how does it
change?), the pedagogy of the subject (e.g. What are the accepted principles and strategies of teaching children how to read?
What activities should be done, when, and how?), and the context of reading (e.g. How do children learn to read? How are
children similar and different in language learning and developing literacy? What external factors help or hinder this
development?).
44
of how reading is acquired and must know the causes of failure so that they may take
remedial action. Snow, Burns and Griffin (1998) similarly opine that a teacher’s knowledge
base is central to prevent reading difficulties. Unfortunately, Pado (2004) notes that preservice and in-service training in the Philippines is often not sufficient for producing good
reading teachers. Teachers hold many misconceptions about the normal pace of literacy
acquisition, differences in teaching reading in first and second languages, and the purpose of
writing, to name a few. Villanueva (2004) conducted a Subject Matter Knowledge Test on
preschool and elementary teachers, which displayed weak grasp of the concepts important to
teaching literacy.45 On the bright side, a post-test revealed that even after a brief training
teachers’ knowledge gained significantly.
Educators’ personal practices and attitude toward reading also matters. Hornedo (1999) notes
with distress that no one among the 300 school supervisors he encountered in Bulacan
province admitted to reading a book that year, a pattern likely shared by teachers. Low
readership among the people who are managing and implementing reading programs raises
questions about their own mastery and love of reading, their ability to inculcate the same in
children, and their capacity to model good reading practices. Teachers at all levels should be
encouraged to read. In the early grades, teachers should actively seek out and trade reading
materials, especially in the mother tongue as the language of initial literacy. Teachers’
individual efforts must be matched by programmatic initiatives to bolster the production and
availability of such materials. According to Elwert (2001), literacy campaigns in developing
countries often fail because they are carried out “without proper regard to the language and
learning needs of the communities concerned.” For sustainability, literacy campaigns should
institutionalize the spreading of writing, particularly in local languages (Olson & Torrance,
2001).
As much as possible, teachers should convey to their pupils enthusiasm about reading. One
factor that can help or hinder attitudes about reading in the mother tongue is the way it is
situated in education policy. Piper & Miksic (2011) point out that—because Kenya and
Uganda allocate little role for the mother tongue beyond Grade 3, and maintain English as the
medium of high-stakes national assessments—teachers, pupils, and students are ambivalent
about the utility of the mother tongue policy in the early grades. Thus, it is imperative that
governments that adopt mother tongue do so carefully and comprehensively so as not to
undermine the purpose of its inclusion. Piper & Miksic remark, “The failure (thus far) of
governments to deliver high-quality instruction in mother tongues tends to undermine the
potential that researchers know exists.” While communities may be resistant to the
proposition of a language reform, eventual support will prove elusive if the components
pivotal to the reform’s success are not in place. Such components for mother tongue-based
multilingual education include, but are not limited to: accurate demographic and linguistic
data for effective decision making; a high quality and volume of instructional materials;46
language and pedagogy training for pre-service and in-service teachers;47 adequate length of
45
The Subject Matter Knowledge Test included questions to test linguistic knowledge, literacy teaching approaches, and
concepts related to reading difficulties.
46
Building a repository of language materials involves corpus planning (Cooper 1989). Production of mother tongue
instructional materials should be institutionalized within the education system, centrally or devolved, and integrated in donor
projects, public-private partnerships, and NGO activities.
47
Training should endow teachers with the knowledge (content, pedagogy, and context), skills (best honed by practice), and
conducive attitudes for teaching literacy. As language is fundamental to literacy, training should also equip teachers with
proficiency in the first and second languages, a long process that extends all the way back to their own elementary schooling.
45
first language instruction;48 consistency in the medium of assessment;49 gradual introduction
of other languages;50 in-built policy flexibility to account for different sociolinguistic
conditions; an institutional culture valuing pluralism; information dissemination to raise
awareness and support of stakeholders; parent and community involvement in program
planning, implementation, and evaluation, a strong organizational structure,51 and research
that drives continuing improvement of the system.
Including the mother tongue as a language learning area in basic and higher education will aid future teachers in refining
their first language competency, just as with the second languages of English and Filipino.
48
A 2011 report (Pinnock, Mackenzie, et al.) on school language in low and middle-income countries states, “Robust
evidence from several countries shows that children who do not use mainstream languages at home need to learn in their
own language for at least six years, at the same time as being introduced to new languages that they will need later in life.”
(p.6). Ouane & Glanz (Eds.) (2011) provide the caveat: “Language education models which remove the first language as a
primary medium of instruction before year/grade five will facilitate little success for the majority of learners.”
49
The language of assessment normally matches the language of instruction. It is notable, however, that several approaches
to assessment vis-à-vis language exist. Assessment can be monolingual, bilingual, or multilingual. Language of assessment
could also be a choice at the level of a division, district, school, teacher, or even the pupil himself.
50
A 2011 UNESCO literature review on multilingual education states, “Research and theory support the gradual introduction
of L2, first through formal instruction in L2 as a subject of study, and subsequently, through the use of L2 in a gradually
increasing number of academic subjects in the curriculum. However, this second step should not be taken too soon.”
Although children may develop functional language for social situations within a year, achieving academic literacy has been
estimated to take 5 or more years for second-language learners (Cummins, 2000, 2001).
51
Ideally, there are people identified within the education system to facilitate the planning, implementation and monitoring
of MTBMLE in general, and language/literacy instruction in particular. The Philippine Department of Education’s
identification of MTBMLE coordinators at every level is beneficial. If resources allow, point people can be assigned to
handle each language included in the system so that they may serve as conduits of information about issues specific to a
language. With a linguistic rather than a geographic purview, they would also be able to coordinate activities like
instructional material making and assessment across the divisions in which the language is used.
46
Appendix A: Philippine Language Maps
All ethnolinguistic groups (northern Philippines)
Source: Ethnologue (2013)
47
All ethnolinguistic groups (southern Philippines)
Source: Ethnologue (2013)
48
Principal geographic areas of L1 speakers of major Philippine languages52
Source: Wikipedia (2013)
52
This is a map of the areas where most of the mother tongue speakers of the following regional languages reside: Ilokano
(ILO), Pangasinan (PAG), Kapampangan (PAM), Tagalog (TGL), Central Bicol (BCL), Waray (WAR), Hiligaynon (HIL),
Cebuano (CEB), Maranao (MRW), Maguindanaoan (MDH), Chavacano (CBK), and Tausug (TSG)
49
Appendix B: Population of Philippine ethnolinguistic
groups of over 100,000 people
Source: 2010 National Census 53
Ethnolinguistic group
Tagalog
Population
23268228
Cebuano/Bisaya/Boholano 21943948
Ilokano
(Ilocano/Iloko/Iluko)
8,074,536
Hiligaynon (Ilonggo)
7,773,655
Bikol (Bicol)55
6,299,283
Principal Provinces
and Highly Urbanized Cities54
Bataan, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Aurora, Zambales,
Olongapo City, Batangas, Cavite, Laguna, Rizal,
Quezon, Lucena City, Marinduque, Occidental
Mindoro, Oriental Mindoro, Puerto Princesa City,
City of Manila, Mandaluyong City, City of
Marikina, Pasig City, Quezon City, City of San
Juan, Caloocan City, Malabon City, Navotas City,
Valenzuela City, Las Piñas City, Muntinlupa City,
Paraãque City, Pasay City, Pateros, City of Taguig
Masbate, Bohol, Negros Oriental, Siquijor, Cebu,
Cebu City, Lapu Lapu City, Mandaue City,
Southern Leyte, Biliran, Leyte, Zamboanga del
Norte, Zamboanga Sibugay, Zamboanga del Sur,
Bukidnon, Camiguin, Misamis Occidental, Lanao
del Norte, Iligan City, Misamis Oriental, Cagayan
de Oro, Davao del Norte, Davao Oriental,
Compostela Valley, Davao del Sur, Davao City,
North Cotabato, Sarangani, General Santos City,
Agusan del Sur, Surigao del Norte, Surigao del Sur,
Dinagat Island, Agusan del Sur, Butuan City
Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, La Union, Pangasinan,
Cagayan, Isabela, Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino, Tarlac,
Aurora, Zambales, Abra, Apayao, Baguio City
Guimaras, Iloilo, Iloilo City, Negros Occidental,
Bacolod City
Albay, Camarines Norte, Camarines Sur,
53
The 2010 National Census (National Statistics Office, 2013) collected data on ethnicity, not language. While most people
of an identified ethnic group speak a language of the same name, the ethnic population and the language population are not
exactly the same. First, not all ethnic divisions are language based. Some ‘ethnicities’ included in the 2010 Census, like
Boholano, Cebuano, and Bisaya, typically speak the same language (i.e. Cebuano, the native name of which is
Sinugbuanong Binisaya). Moreover, some people identify as one ethnicity but speak a language associated with a different
ethnicity—a common occurrence in the cases of miscegenation, language shift, and migration. Over 200,000 people claimed
to be Mamanwa ethnicity but the number of people who actually speak Mamanwa is only a few thousand, according to
Ethnologue. Languages like Ilokano and Cebuano, on the other hand, have more speakers than the number of people who
identify as Ilokano or Cebuano, respectively, because they are regional lingua francae spoken by other ethnicities too. Thus,
while the ethnic data provided in the table can provide a rough idea of the magnitude of most language populations, it is not
an accurate proxy for some. In this data set, the Cebuano, Boholano, and Bisaya populations are combined as one
ethnolinguistic group. Likewise the estimated Tagalog-speaking population is a combination of the Census categories of
Tagalog and Caviteño (the latter being a geographically-based identity, the vast majority of whom speak Tagalog as their
first language).
54
The principal provinces and cities of an ethnicity are defined in this report as i) any province/city in which the ethnicity
comprises more than 25% of the province/city’s population, or, ii) any province/city in which the ethnicity’s population
makes up at least 10% of the ethnicity’s total national population. Places in parantheses almost meet either of the two criteria
and are recognized as important locations for the stated ethnolinguistic group.
55
Many Filipinos identify as ethnic Bikolanos, yet they speak several closely related languages—the same with ‘Manobo’,
‘Sama.’, ‘Ifugao,’ ‘Subanon’. The Census does not make any distinction between the different language communities that
make up the generic ‘Bikol’ or ‘Subanon’ ethnicities, so we cannot determine the number of speakers of each of the
languages that these generic labels comprise. On the other hand, the Census does include several Sama categories: for
50
Waray (Samar-Leyte)
3,660,645
Kapampangan
2,784,526
Catanduanes, Sorsogon
Eastern Samar, Northern Samar, Western Samar,
Biliran, Leyte, Tacloban City
Tarlac, Pampanga, Angeles City
Pangasinan (Pangasinense)
1,823,865
Pangasinan
Maguindanao
(Magindanawn)
Maranao (Meranaw)
1,456,141
1,354,542
Cotabato City, Maguindanao, Sultan Kudurat,
North Cotabato
Lanao del Sur, Lanao del Norte
Tausug (Bahasa Sug)
1,226,601
City of Isabela, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi
Capiznon (Capiseño)
710,273
Capizeño
Masbateño (Masbatenyo)
677,942
Masbate
Karay-a (Kinaraya/Hinaray-a)
Akeanon
(Aklano/Inakeanon)
Manobo
600,534
Antique
559,416
Aklan
549,784
Subanon (Subanen)
492,978
Zamboangueño
Chavacano
Ibanag
427,354
Agusan del Sur, (Agusan del Norte), (Butuan City),
Davao del Sur, Surigao del Sur, (North Cotabato),
Sultan Kudurat
Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga del Sur,
Misamis Occidental, Zamboanga Sibugay
Zamboanga City, City of Isabela
402,591
Cagayan, Isabela
Sama (Samal)
369,553
Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, Basilan
Surigaonon
367,278
Surigao del Sur, Surigao del Norte
Kankanaey
362,833
Mt. Province, Benguet, Baguio City
Higaonon
338,078
Bukidnon, Misamis Oriental,
Mandaya
304,210
Blaan
301,620
Davao Oriental, (Davao del Norte), Compostela
Valley, (Agusan del Sur)
Davao del Sur, Sarangani, South Cotabato
Cuyonon (Cuyonen)
278,349
Palawan, Puerto Princesa City
example, a survey respondent may choose the label ‘Sama Bangingi’, ‘Sama Laut’, ‘Sama Badjao’, or just simply ‘Sama.’
Still, we cannot determine for sure the population of each component group because some respondents may have selected
one of the more specific labels like ‘Sama Bangigi’ while others may have opted for the general identification ‘Sama’,
without revealing what category of Sama they are. The same problem pertains to the Ifugao and Manobo people. 102,030
and 549,784 people identified as ‘Ifugao’ and ‘Manobo’, respectively, but additional Ifugao and Manobo populations are
accounted for in other, more specific Census categories. For detailed descriptions of the inter-dialectical relationships of the
Manobo, Bikol, Sama, and Ifugao ethnicities, see Elkins (1974), McFarland (1974), Pallesen (1977), and Walrod (1979),
respectively.
51
Iranon (Iranun/Iraynon)
269,544
Maguindanao, Cotabato City
Davaweño
Itawis
Zambal
Mamanwa
Yakan
Ibaloy (Ibaloi)
Bukidnon
Kalinga
Romblomanon
Tboli (T’boli)
Tagakaulo
Bago
Teduray
Ifugao
263,744
253,016
204,610
204,416
202,314
189,730
168,234
163,167
157,398
144,951
121,420
103,388
103,139
102,030
Davao City, Davao Oriental, (Davao del Norte)
Cagayan
Zambales
Surigao del Norte
Basilan
Benguet, Nueva Vizcaya, Baguio City
Aklan, Negros Oriental, Bukidnon
Kalinga
Romblon
South Cotabato, Sarangani
Davao del Sur, Sarangani
Ilocos Sur, La Union
Maguindanao, Sultan Kudurat
Quirino, Nueva Vizcaya, Isabela
52
Appendix C: Population of Provinces and Chartered
Cities of the Philippines, with each of their top five
ethnolinguistic groups
Source: 2010 National Census
Region
Provinces and
Highly
Urbanized
Cities
1
Ilocos
Ilocos Norte
Ilocos Sur
La Union
567006
657902
740710
Pangasinan
2777449
Batanes
Cagayan
Isabela
16530
1123570
1488518
Nueva Vizcaya
420676
Quirino
176467
Bataan
685167
Bulacan
Nueva Ecija
2919370
1953716
Tarlac
1271743
Aurora
200799
Pampanga
2010219
2
Cagayan
Valley
3
Central
Luzon
Population
(Excluding
Angeles City)
Angeles City
324510
Zambales
532836
Top 5 Ethnolinguistic Groups (descending
order of population)
Ilocano (95%), Tagalog, Itneg, Isneg, Bisaya
Ilocano (83%), Bago, Kankanaey, Itneg, Tagalog
Ilocano (86%), Kankanaey, Bago, Tagalog,
Pangasinan
Pangasinan (49%), Ilocano, Tagalog, Bisaya,
Bikol
Ivatan (95%), Ilocano, Tagalog, Bisaya, Bikol
Ilocano (65%), Itawis, Ibanag, Tagalog, Malaueg
Ilocano (67%), Ibanag, Tagalog, Yogad,
Gaddang
Ilocano (56%), Kalanguya, Ifugao, Ibaloy,
Tagalog
Ilocano (64%), Ifugao, Tuwali Ifugao, Ayangan
Ifugao, Kankanaey
Tagalog (80%), Bisaya, Kapampangan, Ilocano,
Bikol
Tagalog (77%), Bisaya, Bikol, Ilocano, Waray
Tagalog (78%), Ilocano, Bisaya, Bikol,
Kapampangan
Kapampangan (43%), Ilocano, Tagalog, Bisaya,
Pangasinan
Tagalog (46%), Ilocano, Bikol, Bisaya,
Kankanaey
Kapampangan (82%), Tagalog, Bisaya, Ilocano,
Bikol
Kapampangan (64%), Tagalog, Bisaya, Ilocano,
Bikol
Zambal (30%), Tagalog, Ilocano, Bisaya, Ayta
(Excluding
Olongapo City)
4A
Calabarzon
Olongapo City
220118
Batangas
2374327
Cavite
Laguna
3078727
2665732
Rizal
Quezon
2480966
1738015
(Excluding Lucena
City)
Tagalog (71%), Bisaya, Ilocano, Zambal,
Kapampangan
Tagalog (95%), Bisaya, Bikol, Ilocano,
Hiligaynon
Tagalog (66%), Bisaya, Bikol, Waray, Hiligaynon
Tagalog (83%), Bikol, Bisaya, Ilocano,
Hiligaynon
Tagalog (61%), Bisaya, Bikol, Ilocano, Waray
Tagalog (90%), Bisaya, Bikol, Ilocano,
Masbateño
53
4B
Mimaropa
Lucena City
Marinduque
Occidental
Mindoro
Oriental
Mindoro
Romblon
245242
227582
450779
Tagalog (94%), Bisaya, Bikol, Ilocano, Waray
Tagalog (96%), Bisaya, Bikol, Ilocano, Waray
Tagalog (53%), Bisaya, Ilocano, Iraya, Alangan
784375
Palawan
768800
Tagalog (75%), Bisaya, Hanunuo, Ilocano,
Romblomanon
Romblomanon (39%), Bantoanon, Ati, Bisaya,
Karay-a
Cuyonon (25%), Hiligaynon, Bisaya, Palawano,
Tagalog
283482
(Excluding Puerto
Princesa City)
5
Bikol
6
Western
Visayas
Puerto Princesa
City
Albay
216910
Camarines
Norte
Camarines Sur
542315
Catanduanes
Masbate
245574
833638
Sorsogon
739688
Aklan
533573
Antique
545204
Capiz
718961
Guimaras
Iloilo (Excluding
162734
1803710
1231607
1818699
Iloilo City)
Iloilo City
421976
Negros
Occidental
2393087
Cuyonon (28%), Tagalog, Bisaya, Hiligaynon,
Ilocano
Bikol (96%), Tagalog, Bisaya, Agta-Tabangnon,
Ilocano
Bikol (83%), Tagalog, Bisaya, Ilocano, Waray
Bikol (94%), Tagalog, Agta-Tabangnon, Bisaya,
Agta
Bikol (96%), Bisaya, Tagalog, Waray, Ilocano
Masbateno (66%), Bisaya, Bikol, Hiligaynon,
Tagalog
Bikol (96%), Bisaya, Tagalog, Agta-Tabangnon,
Ilocano
Akeanon (91%), Bukidnon, Hilgaynon, Tagalog,
Romblomanon
Karay-a (81%), Cuyunon, Ati, Iranon, PanayBukidnon
Capizeño (94%), Panay-Bukidnon, Hiligaynon,
Bisaya, Akeanon
Hiligaynon (98%), Karay-a, Bisaya, Ati, Tagalog
Hiligaynon (95%), Panay-Bukidnon, Bukidnon,
Bisaya, Karay-a
Hiligaynon (98%), Bisaya, Tagalog, Capizeño,
Karay-a
Hilgaynon (93%), Bisaya, Bukidnon, Karulano,
Karay-a
(Excluding
Bacolod)
7
Central
Visayas
Bacolod City
510494
Bohol
1252793
Negros Oriental
1284351
Siquijor
90975
Cebu (Excluding
Cities)
2613842
Cebu City
860942
Lapu Lapu City
350422
Mandaue City
331213
Hiligaynon (95%), Bisaya, Tagalog, Karay-a,
Chinese
Bisaya (98%), Tagalog, Hiligaynon, Waray,
Davaweño
Bisaya (94%), Hiligaynon, Bukidnon, Karay-a,
Tagalog
Bisaya (98%), Hiligaynon, Tagalog, Waray,
Ilocano
Bisaya (99%), Hiligaynon, Tagalog, Waray,
Chavacano
Bisaya (96%), Hiligaynon, Tagalog, Waray,
Chinese
Bisaya (96%), Hiligaynon, Tagalog, Maranao,
Waray
Bisaya (97%), Hiligaynon, Tagalog, Waray,
Chavacano
54
8
Eastern
Visayas
Eastern Samar
427974
Northern Samar
Western Samar
Southern Leyte
587586
731669
398577
Biliran
161250
Waray (98%), Bisaya, Tagalog, Bikol,
Surigaonon
Waray (96%), Bisaya, Tagalog, Bikol, Yogad
Waray (93%), Bisaya, Tagalog, Bikol, Hiligaynon
Bisaya (98%), Waray, Tagalog, Surigaonon,
Hiligaynon
Bisaya (58%), Waray, Tagalog, Hiligaynon, Bikol
Leyte (Excluding
1563364
Bisaya (55%), Waray, Tagalog, Hiligaynon, Bikol
Tacloban City
Zamboanga Del
Norte
Zamboanga
Sibugay
City Of Isabela
219314
955668
Zamboanga Del
Sur (Excluding
957499
Waray (92%), Bisaya, Tagalog, Chinese, Ilocano
Bisaya (68%), Subanen, Kalibugan, Tausug,
Sama
Bisaya (60%), Hiligaynon, Subanen, Tausug,
Chavacano
Tausug (33%), Chavacano, Bisaya, Yakan,
Sama Bangingi
Bisaya (73%), Subanen, Maguindanao,
Hiligaynon, Tausug
Tacloban)
9
Zamboanga
Peninsula
583699
97690
Zamboanga City)
10
Northern
Mindanao
Zamboanga City
803282
Bukidnon
1294877
Camiguin
83676
Misamis
566340
Occidental
Lanao Del Norte 607116
(Excluding Iligan
City)
Iligan City
321156
Misamis
Oriental
812626
Chavacano (38%), Tausug, Bisaya, Sama,
Yakan
Bisaya (57%), Higaonon, Hiligaynon, Bukidnon,
Talaandig
Kamiguin (46%), Bisaya, Higaonon, Bukidnon,
Hiligaynon
Bisaya (88%), Subanen, Hiligaynon, Ati,
Maranao
Bisaya (56%), Maranao, Hiligaynon, Subanen,
Iranon
Bisaya (82%), Maranao, Higaonon, Hiligaynon,
Waray
Bisaya (79%), Higaonon, Kamiguin, Hiligaynon,
Maranao
(Excluding
Cagayan De Oro
City)
11
Davao
Cagayan De Oro
City
Davao Del
Norte
Davao Oriental
598803
Compostela
Valley
Davao Del Sur
686704
937785
516475
867695
(Excluding Davao
City)
12
SOCCSKSARGEN
Davao City
1443890
North Cotabato
1224279
Sultan Kudarat
746376
Sarangani
498459
Bisaya (82%), Higaonon, Hiligaynon, Maranao,
Bukidnon
Bisaya (64%), Hiligaynon, Ilocano, Mandaya,
Davaweño
Bisaya (42%), Mandaya, Davaweño, Kalagan,
Hiligaynon
Bisaya (66%), Mansaka, Hiligaynon, Mandaya,
Dibabawon
Bisaya (58%), Blaan, Tagakaulo, Manobo,
Bagobo
Bisaya (66%), Davaweno, Hiligaynon, Tagalog,
Ilocano
Hiligaynon (31%), Bisaya, Maguindanao,
Ilocano, Manobo
Hiligaynon (38%), Maguindanao, Ilocano,
Bisaya, Manobo
Bisaya (42%), Blaan, Maguindanao, Tboli,
55
A.R.M.M.
Cotabato City
271609
South Cotabato
General Santos
City
Basilan
825816
536566
(AutoLanao Del Sur
nomous
Region of Maguindanao
Muslim
Mindanao)
Sulu
13
Caraga
293204
928384
943486
718277
Tawi-Tawi
365436
Agusan Del Sur
655331
Surigao Del
Norte
Surigao Del Sur
441829
Dinagat Island
126699
Agusan Del
Norte (Excluding
332189
560140
Hiligaynon
Maguindanao (58%), Bisaya, Iranon, Tagalog,
Hiligaynon
Hiligaynon (50%), Bisaya, Tboli, Blaan, Ilocano
Bisaya (58%), Hiligaynon, Maguindanao, Blaan,
Ilocano
Yakan (52%), Tausug, Sama Bangingi, Bisaya,
Chavacano
Maranao (93%), Bisaya, Hiligaynon, Iranon,
Ilocano
Maguindanao (64%), Iranon, Teduray,
Hiligaynon, Bisaya
Tausug (91%), Sama, Badjao, Sama Bangingi,
Sama Badjao
Sama (52%), Tausug, Jama Mapun, Bisaya,
Sama Laut
Bisaya (44%), Manobo, Hiligaynon, Surigaonon,
Mandaya
Mamanwa (45%), Bisaya, Surigaonon, Manobo,
Waray
Bisaya (33%), Surigaonon, Manobo, Hiligaynon,
Mandaya
Bisaya (83%), Surigaonon, Waray, Hiligaynon,
Davaweño
Bisaya (78%), Manobo, Surigaonon, Higaonon,
Hiligaynon
Butuan City)
C.A.R.
(Cordillera
Administrative
Region)
Butuan City
308600
Abra
Ifugao
234000
190948
Kalinga
Mt. Province
201206
154063
Apayao
112523
Benguet
403129
(Excluding
Baguio City)
National
Capitol
Region
Bisaya (66%), Manobo, Surigaonon, Hiligaynon,
Higaonon
Ilocano (66%), Itneg, Maeng, Masadiit, Adasen
Tuwali Ifugao (37%), Ayangan, Ilocano,
Kalanguya, Henanga
Kalinga (66%), Ilocano, Bontok, Bago, Applai
Kankanaey (32%), Applai, Bonton, Balangao,
Baliwon
Ilocano (47%), Isneg, Malaueg, Kankanaey,
Kalinga
Kankanaey (45%), Ibaloy, Ilocano, Kalanguya,
Applai
Baguio City
315800
City Of Manila
City Of
Mandaluyong
City Of
Marikina
Pasig City
1642743
323372
Ilocano (33%), Tagalog, Kankanaey,
Pangasinan, Ibaloy
Tagalog (60%), Bisaya, Ilocano, Bikol, Waray
Tagalog (59%), Bisaya, Bikol, Waray, Ilocano
424150
Tagalog (64%), Bisaya, Bikol, Ilocano, Waray
668569
Quezon City
City Of San
Juan
Caloocan City
Malabon City
Navotas City
2751579
120898
Tagalog (59%), Bisaya, Bikol, Ilocano,
Hiligaynon
Tagalog (47%), Bisaya, Bikol, Ilocano, Waray
Tagalog (67%), Bisaya, Bikol, Ilocano, Chinese
1487245
352890
248831
Tagalog (56%), Bisaya, Bikol, Ilocano, Waray
Tagalog (60%), Bisaya, Bikol, Waray, Ilocano
Tagalog (70%), Bisaya, Waray, Bikol, Hiligaynon
56
Valenzuela City
City Of Las
Piñas
City Of Makati
574840
551886
Tagalog (54%), Bisaya, Bikol, Ilocano, Waray
Tagalog (57%), Bisaya, Bikol, Waray, Hiligaynon
526952
Muntinlupa City
438843
Parañaque City
Pasay City
586322
391456
Pateros
Taguig City
64020
642277
Tagalog (55%), Bisaya, Ilocano, Bikol,
Hiligaynon
Tagalog (62%), Bisaya, Bikol, Hiligaynon,
Ilocano
Tagalog (54%), Bisaya, Bikol, Hiligaynon, Waray
Tagalog (55%), Bisaya, Bikol, Hiligaynon,
Ilocano
Tagalog (76%), Bisaya, Bikol, Waray, Ilocano
Tagalog (44%), Bisaya, Bikol, Ilocano,
Hiligaynon
57
References
Abraham-Mella, J. (2013). Reading comprehension skills of Grade VI pupils: basis for a
differentiated school reading intervention [Poster]. Presented at 1st International Research
Conference on K to 12 Education, 20-23 Aug. 2013, hosted by Department of Education–
Region 5. Oriental Hotel, Legazpi City, Philippines.
ADB (2009). Poverty in the Philippines: Causes, constraints, and opportunities. Metro Manila,
Philippines: Asian Development Bank
ADEA. (1996). The role of African languages in education and sustainable development. ADEA
Newsletter, 8(4) Oct-Nov. Tunis, Tunisia: Association for the Development of Education in
Africa (ADEA).
Adelaar, K.A. & Himmelmann, N. (2005). The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar.
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Agcaoili, L. (2013, Feb. 2). Internet penetration rises to 35%. The Philippine Star. Retrieved from
http://www.philstar.com/business/2013/02/02/903770/internet-penetration-rises-35
Aguilar, J.V. (1961). The language situation in the Philippines: facts and prospects. Philippine
Journal of Education, 46(6): 412-470.
Aguilar, J.V. (1949). The Iloilo experiment with the vernacular. Philippine Journal of Education,
28(5): 265.
Aitchison, J. (2010). Aitchison’s linguistics. London, UK: Hodder Education
Aldridge, E. (2002). Nominalization and WH-movement in Seediq and Tagalog. Language And
Linguistics, 3.2: 393-426.
Alexander, N. (2005). Language, class and power in post-apartheid South Africa [Presentation].
Harold Wolpe Memorial Trust open dialogue event, 27 Oct. 2005. T H Barry Lecture Theatre,
Iziko Museum, Cape Town, South Africa.
Alidou, H., Boly, A., Brock-Utne, B., Diallo, Y.S., Heugh, K. & Wolff, H.E. (2006). Optimizing
learning and education in Africa – the language factor, a stock-taking research on mother
tongue and bilingual education in sub- Saharan Africa [Working document]. Paris, France:
ADEA.
Allison, E.J. (1979). The phonology of Sibutu Sama: A language of the southern Philippines (Vol. 3,
pp. 63–104). Manila, Philippines: Linguistic Society of the Philippines | Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www-01.sil.org/asia/philippines/plb_download.html#Slink
Anderson, B. (1998). The spectre of comparisons: nationalism, Southeast Asia, and the world.
London, UK: Verso.
Anderson, V.B. & Anderson J.N. (2007). Pangasinan - An endangered language? Retrospect and
prospect. Philippine Studies, 55(1): 116-144.
Andrade, P. (2001). Education and Spanish in the Philippines. Retrieved from
http://www.galeondemanila.org/index.php/es/estudios/111-education-and-spanish-in-thephilippines-by-pio-andrade
Angeles-Bautista, F.D. (1999). Laying the foundation for literacy: talking with our children. The RAP
Journal, 22(Oct.): 38-41.
Appel, R. (1988). The language education of immigrant workers’ children in the Netherlands. In
Skutnabb-Tangas, T. & Cummins, J. (Eds.), Minority education: from shame to struggle (pp.
57-78). Philadelphia, US: Multilingual Matters.
58
Aquino, L.F.Y. (2012, Jun.). The effects of bilingual instruction on the literacy skills of young
learners. ELTWorldOnline.com. Retrieved from http://blog.nus.edu.sg/eltwo/2012/06/14/ theeffects-of-bilingual-instruction-on-the-literacy-skills-of-young-learners
Aquino, L.F.Y. (2005). The effects of language of instruction on preschoolers’ acquisition of literacy
skills. The RAP Journal, 28(Oct.): 24-31.
Arab-Moghaddam, M. & Sénéchal, M. (2001). Orthographic and phonological processing skills in
reading and spelling in Persian/English bilinguals. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 25(2): 140-147.
Arias, M.L.J. (2004). Reading teachers’ reading beliefs, strategies and the use of L1 and L2. The RAP
Journal, 27(Jul.): 20-23.
August, D. & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners. Mahwah, US:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Baccoro, Z.A. & Villazor, M.V.V. (1979). Language use among Chinese high school students in
Greater Manila (Behavioral sciences thesis). De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines.
Baguingan, G. (2000). Grassroots legitimacy: The first language component bridging programme
pilot project of Region 2 and CAR. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 31(2): 93-105.
Baker, C. (2002). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism 3rd edition. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Balacano, R.C. & Daligdig, M.D. (2013). Juan Tama, MTB-MLE storybooks: their effectiveness on
pupils’ learning [Paper and electronic slide presentation]. Presented at the 1st International
Research Conference on K to 12 Education, 20-23 Aug. 2013, hosted by Department of
Education–Region 5. Oriental Hotel, Legazpi City, Philippines.
Bamgbose, A. (2000). Language and exclusion: the consequences of language policies in Africa.
Münster, Germany: LIT.
Bañez, R.C.G. (2013). Ilokano language competence of primary school teachers in the public
elementary schools of La Union. Saint Louis College, San Fernando, La Union, Philippines.
Barcelona, H.M. (1977). Language usage and preference patterns of Filipino bilinguals: an NMPC
survey. In Pascasio, E.M. (Ed), The Filipino bilingual: studies on Philippine bilingualism and
bilingual education (pp. 64-71). Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University
Press.
Barrios, A.L. & Bernardo, A.B.I. (2012). The acquisition of case marking by L1 Chabacano and L1
Cebuano learners of L2 Filipino: influence of actancy structure on transfer. Language and
Linguistics, 13(3): 499-521.
Barrios, M.A., Castillo, E.S., Galang, R.G., Santos, P.C., Tiangco, N.G., Vergara, E.C. & —Villamor,
E.O. (1977). The Greater Manila speech community: bilingual or diglossic? In E.M. Pascasio
(Ed.) The Filipino bilingual: studies on Philippine bilingualism and bilingual education (pp.
83-90). Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University.
Bas, R.Q. (2007, Sep. 2). Even Kapampangan and Pangasinan are now dying languages. The Manila
Times. Retrieved from http://archive.is/ezlo1
Basadre, P.A.M. & Hermosa, N.H. (2010). Confidence with the text and reading performance using
informational text. The RAP Journal, 33(Oct.): 43-52.
Basco, E.G.S. (1993). The effect of parent-child interaction: a prosumer approach to parent education
on the cognitive skills and concepts of selected preschool children. (Master’s dissertation,
unpublished). University of the Philippines – Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines.
Bautista, M.C.R.B., Bernarno, A.B.I. & Ocampo, D. (2008). When reforms don’t transform: reflection
on institutional reforms in the Department of Education. HDN Discussion Paper Series No. 2.
Quezon City, Philippines: Human Development Network (HDN).
59
Bautista, M.L.S. (1986). English-Pilipino contact: a case study of reciprocal borrowing. In Viereck,
W. & Bald, W.D. (Eds.), English in contact with other languages (pp. 491-510). Budapest,
Hungary: Akadémiai kiadó.
Bautista, M.L.S. (1991). Code-switching studies in the Philippines. International Journal of the
Sociology of Language, 88: 19-32.
Bautista, M.L.S. (1995). Tagalog-English code-switching revisited. Philippine Journal of Linguistics,
21(2): 15-29.
Bautista, M.L.S., & Gonzalez, A. B. (2006). Southeast Asian Englishes. In B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, &
C. Nelson (Eds.), Handbook of World Englishes (pp. 130–144). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Bellwood, P. (1995). Austronesian prehistory in Southeast Asia: homeland, expansion and
transformation. Bellwood, P., Fox, J.J., & Tryon, D. (Eds.), The Austronesians: historical and
comparative perspectives (pp. 96–111). Canberra, Australia: Department of Anthropology,
The Australian National University.
Benson, C. (2004). The importance of mother tongue-based schooling for educational quality.
Background paper for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005. Paris, France: UNESCO.
Bernales, R.A., Angeles, C. I., Balanza, M. A. A., De Vera, N. D., Fabrigas, N. P., Gabuyo, A. P., …
Villanueva, J. M. (2013). Akademikong Filipino para sa kompetetibong Pilipino. Malabon
City, Philippines: Mutya Publishing House.
Bernardo, A.B.I. (2004). McKinley's questionable bequest: Over 100 years of English in Philippine
education. World Englishes, 23(1): 17-31.
Bernardo, A.B.I., & Gaerlan, M.J.M. (2008). English medium of instruction in Philippine higher
education institutions: MOI policy development in an oligarchy. In Davison, C. & Bruce, N.
(Eds.), Language issues in English-medium universities across Asia. Hong Kong, Hong
Kong: University of Hong Kong Press.
Blake, F.R. (1925). A grammar of the Tagalog language. New Haven, Connecticut, US: Periodicals
Service Co
Bloomfield, L. (n.d.). Tagalog texts with grammatical analysis. University of Illinois Studies in
Language and Literature, 3.
Blust, R. (1991). The Greater Central Philippines hypothesis. Oceanic Linguistics, 30:73–129.
Boseker, B.J. (2000). The disappearance of American Indian languages. In Thomas, P.W. & Mathias,
J. (Eds.), Developing minority languages: the proceedings of the fifth international
conference on minority languages (pp. 432-445). Cardiff, Wales: Gomer Press.
Brady, S. & Moats, L.C. (1997). Informed instruction for reading success: foundations for teacher
preparation. Position paper of the International Dyslexia Association. Baltimore, US:
International Dyslexia Association.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, US: Harvard University Press.
Caballero, M.G.M. (1983). Language use and attitudes of selected Cebuano and non-Cebuano
families in Barrio Camaman-an, Cagayan de Oro City. (Doctoral dissertation). Ateneo de
Manila University / Philippine Normal College / De Le Salle University, Metro Manila,
Philippines.
Cabuang, F.S. (2007, Sep. 6). Saving Butuanon language. The Manila Times. Retrieved from
http://archive.is/mFUrM
Cabug, E. (2013). The effectiveness of mother tongue as medium of instruction to grade 1 pupils of
Amancio Aguilar Elementary school, division of Masbate City [Poster]. Presented at 1st
International Research Conference on K to 12 Education, 20-23 Aug. 2013, hosted by
Department of Education–Region 5. Oriental Hotel, Legazpi City, Philippines.
60
Canagarajah, S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Canagarajah, S. (2006). Toward a writing pedagogy of shuttling between languages: learning from
multilingual writers. College English, 68: 589-604.
Capobres, R.A.L. (2013). The impact of Intervida Philippines Foundation assisted instruction in the
implementation of mother tongue-based multilingual education in Donsol East and West
District in the Division of Sorsogon [Poster]. Presented at 1st International Research
Conference on K to 12 Education, 20-23 Aug. 2013, hosted by Department of Education–
Region 5. Oriental Hotel, Legazpi City, Philippines.
Carrier-Duncan, J. (1985). Linking of thematic roles in derivational word formation. Linguistic
Inquiry, 16, 1–34.
Cena, R.M. (in press). Morpolohya ng modernong Tagalog. Manila, Philippines: University of Santo
Tomas Press.
Cena, R.M. (1977). Patient primacy in Tagalog. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic
Society of America, 28-30 Dec. 1977, Chicago, Illinois, US.
Cena, R.M. (1995). Surviving without relations. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 26(1), 1–32.
Cena, R.M. (2010). Magbaybay ay di biro. Presented at the 1st Philippine Conference-Workshop on
Mother Tongue-Based MLE, 18-20 Feb. 2010, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines.
Cena, R.M. (2012). Sintaks ng Filipino. Manila, Philippines: National Commission for Culture and
the Arts.
Cena, R.M. (2014). The “misspelling” of the Filipino national language. Presented at the Linguistic
Society of the Philippines National Conference and General Meeting, 24-26 Apr. 2014,
Mariano Marcos State University, Batac, Ilocos Norte, Philippines.
Chhetri, N. & Baker, D.P. (2005). The environment for literacy among nations: concepts, past
research, and preliminary analysis. Background paper for Education for All Global
Monitoring Report 2006. Paris, France: UNESCO.
Choosri, I. & Sisombat, S. (2003). Growing fruit trees and an endangered language: a study of teacher
training in the Chong language revitalization program, Thailand [Presentation]. Presented at
the Language Development, Language Revitalization and Multilingual Education
Conference, 6-8 Nov. 2003, Bangkok, Thailand.
Collantes, R. (1977). Presente y futuro de la ensañza del Español en Filipinas (Present and future of
the teaching of Spanish in the Philippines). Cuaderno del Centro Cultural, 4(3): 26.
Coloma, A.M.S.Y. (2011). The emergent Tarlac variety of Kapampangan in Tarlac City: a descriptive
study [Presentation]. Presented at Wika 2011 Conference, 29-30 Apr. 2011. University of the
Philippines–Baguio, Baguio City, Philippines.
Commission on Higher Education. (1996). CHED Memorandum Order No. 59: New General
Education Curriculum (GEC). Manila, Philippines: Commission on Higher Education,
Republic of the Philippines.
Constantino, E.A. (1998). Current topics in Philippine linguistics [Presentation]. Revised version of
the paper read at the meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan, 31 Oct. 1998. Yamaguchi
University, Yamaguchi, Japan.
Cooper, R. (1989). Language planning and social change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Cruz, C.M.E. (2010). The revitalization challenge for small languages: the case of Isinai [Paper and
oral presentation]. Presented at 1st Philippines Conference-Workshop on Mother TongueBased Multilingual Education, 18-20 Feb. 2010. Capitol University, Cagayan de Oro City,
Philippines.
61
Cullinan, B.E. (Ed.) (1992). Invitation to read: more children’s literature in the reading program.
Newark, US: International Reading Association.
Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. Ontario, US: California Association for Bilingual
Education.
Cummins, J. (1990). Language development among Aboriginal children in northern communities
[Paper and electronic slide presentation]. Presented at the Circumpolar Education
Conference, June. Umea, Sweden.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (2001). Instructional Conditions for Trilingual Education. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4(1): 61-75.
Davidson, F. (2006). World Englishes and test construction. In Kachru, B.B., Kachru, Y., & Nelson,
C.L. (Eds.) The handbook of World Englishes. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
De Guzman, V.P. (1988). Ergative analysis for Philippine languages: an analysis. In McGinn, R.
(Ed.), Studies in Austronesian linguistics – Southeast Asia series, 76 (pp. 323-345). Athens,
US: Ohio University Center for International Studies.
De Guzman, E.S. (2005). Vocabulary dilemma of pre-service teachers. In Dayag, D.T. &
Quakenbush, J.S. (Eds.) Linguistics and language education in the Philippines and beyond: A
festschrift in honor of Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista (pp. 221-233). Metro Manila, Philippines: De
La Salle University Press.
De Mejia, A.M. (2005). Bilingual education in South America. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
De Ungria, R.M. (2009). Enriching knowledge by publishing in the regional languages. Asiatic, 3(1):
28-39.
Dumatog, R.C. & Dekker, D.E., (2003). First language education in Lubuagan, Kalinga, northern
Philippines. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Language
Development, Language Revitalization and Multilingual Education in Minority Communities
in Asia, 6-8 Nov. 2003. Bangkok, Thailand. Retrieved from http://www01.sil.org/asia/ldc/parallel_papers/dumatog_and_dekker.pdf
Department of Education and Culture. (1974). Department Order No. 25: Implementing guidelines for
the policy on bilingual education. Metro Manila, Philippines: Department of Education and
Culture, Republic of the Philippines.
Department of Education. (2009). Department Order No. 74: Institutionalizing mother tongue-based
multilingual education (MLE). Metro Manila, Philippines: Department of Education,
Republic of the Philippines.
Department of Education. (2012). Department Order No. 16: Guidelines on the implementation of the
mother tongue-based multilingual education (MTB-MLE). Metro Manila, Philippines:
Department of Education, Republic of the Philippines.
Department of Education. (2012). Department Order No. 31: Policy guidelines on the implementation
of Grades 1 to 10 of the K to 12 basic education curriculum (BEC) effective school year
2012-2013. Metro Manila, Philippine: Department of Education, Republic of the Philippines.
Department of Education. (2013). Kautusang Pangkagawaran Blg. 34: Ortograpiyang Pambansa.
Metro Manila, Philippines: Department of Education, Republic of the Philippines.
Din-Garcia, T. (2013). The correlation of parental involvement and the status of the school in relation
to language development of Grade-I pupils in the K to 12 curriculum [Poster]. Presented at 1st
International Research Conference on K to 12 Education, 20-23 Aug. 2013, hosted by
Department of Education–Region 5. Oriental Hotel, Legazpi City, Philippines.
62
Dita, S. (2010). A reference grammar of Ibanag. Saarbrücken, Germany: Lambert Academic
Publishing. Retrieved from http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=i-QaTwEACAAJ
Dolan, R.E. (Ed.) (1991). Philippines: a country study (Area Handbook Series). Washington DC, US:
United States Government Printing. Retrieved from http://countrystudies.us/philippines/
DuBois, C.D., & DuBois, L. J. (2006). Phonemic statement of Tagabawa. Summer Institute of
Linguistics, Manila, Philippines. Retrieved from http://www01.sil.org/asia/philippines/plb_download.html#Slink
Dugenia, M.E. (1987). Home factors affecting pupil performance: implications for educational policy
and practice (Doctoral dissertation). University of the Philippines – Diliman, Quezon City,
Philippines.
Dumaran, C.M. (1980). A linguistic profile of Dagupan City in 1979 (Doctor of Education
dissertation). University of Pangasinan, Dagupan City, Philippines.
Durana, A.C. (2013). Difficulties in segmental sounds of Grade II pupils [Presentation]. Paper
presented at 1st International Research Conference on K to 12 Education, 20-23 Aug. 2013 –
Hosted by Department of Education Region 5. Oriental Hotel, Legazpi City, Philippines.
Dyen, I. (1963). The lexicostatistical classification of the Austronesian languages. New Haven, US:
Yale University.
Easton, C. & Wroge, D. (2012). Manual for Alphabet Design through Community Interaction for
Papua New Guinea Elementary Teacher Trainers (2nd ed.). Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea:
SIL.
Ediger, M. (1990). Motivation, reading, and the student. The RAP Journal, 13(Nov.): 22-24.
Elkins, R.E. (1974). A proto-manobo word list. Oceanic Linguistics, 13: 601-641.
Elley, W.B. (1996). Using book floods to raise literacy levels in developing countries. In Greaney, V.
(Ed.), Promoting reading in developing countries. Newark, US: International Reading
Association.
Elugbe, B. (1996). The use of African languages in basic education in Nigeria with particular
reference to lower primary and functional literacy. In Legère, K. (Ed.), African languages in
basic education - Proceedings of the first workshop on African languages in basic education,
NIED, Okahanja, 18-23 Sep. 1995 (pp. 25-40). Windhoek, Namibia: Gamsberg Macmillan
Publishers.
Elwert, G. (2001). Societal literacy: writing culture and development. In Olson, D.R. and Torrance, N.
(Eds.), The making of literate societies. Malden, US: Blackwell.
Executive Order No. 134 (1937). Proclaiming the national language of the Philippines based on the
Tagalog language. Issued by Philippine President Manuel L. Quezon.
Executive Order No. 335 (1988). Enjoining all departments/bureaus/offices/agencies/instrumentalities of the government to take such steps as are necessary for the
purpose of using Filipino language in official transactions, communications and
correspondence. Issued by Philippine President Ma. Corazon S. C. Aquino.
Executive Order No. 210 (2003). Establishing the policy to strengthen the use of the English language
as a medium of instruction in the educational system. Issued by Philippine President Gloria
Macapagal B. Arroyo.
Fafunwa, A.B. (1990). Who is afraid of the use of African languages in education? In: Propos
Africains sur l’education pour tous. sélection d’articles présentés à l’occasion de la
consultation régionale sur l’education pour tous. Dakar, Senegal: UNESCO-UNICEF.
Florangel, R.B. (1993). Multilingual communication and its implications in socioeconomic
development. In Ravina, M.C.V. and Robles, F.C. (Eds.), Readings on trends and directions
63
in language education. Metro Manila, Philippines: Language Education Council of the
Philippines.
Foley, W.A. (1998). Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippine languages. Paper
presented at the 3rd Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) Conference, 30 June – 2 July 1998.
University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=C37DA4EEDB78FE6F53BBBD88
4F14085F?doi=10.1.1.7.7620&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Foley, W.A. (2008). The place of Philippine languages in a typology of voice systems. In Austin, P.
and Musgrave, S. (Eds.), Voice and grammatical relations in Austronesian languages.
Stanford, US: CSLI.
Foley, W.A., & Van Valin, R.D. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. New York, US:
Cambridge University Press.
Forsberg, V.M. (1992). A pedagogical grammar of Tboli. Studies in Philippine Linguistics 9(1): 1110.
Fuentes, G.G. & Mojica, L.A. (1999). A study of the language attitudes of selected Filipino bilingual
students toward Filipino and English. Bautista, M.L. and Tan, G. (Eds.), The Filipino
bilingual: a multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 65-69). Manila, Philippines: Linguistic Society
of the Philippines.
Gabriele, A., Troseth, E., Martoharjono, G., & Ortheguy, R. (2009). Emergent literacy skills in
bilingual children: evidence for the role of L1 syntactic comprehension. International Journal
of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(5): 533-547.
Galzote, B.M.R., Pandato, E.L.J., Baran, M.T., Labuaya, B.D., Alicaba, E.S., Garcia, E.M., …
Rañeses, P.L. (2012). Masa to: guide for teaching Blaan language. Save the Children.
Garcia, O. & Baker, C. (1996). Policy and practice in bilingual education: extending the foundations,
2nd edition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Gerdts, D. (1988). Anti-passives and causatives in Ilokano: evidence of an ergative analysis. In R.
McGinn (Ed.), Studies in Austronesian linguistics (pp. 295-321). Ohio University
Monographs in International Studies, Southeast Asia Series No. 76. Athens, US: Center for
Southeast Asia Studies, Ohio University.
Geva, E. & Siegel, L. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development of
basic reading skills in two languages. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12:
1-30.
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education.
Rowley, Massachusetts, US: Newbury House
Gholamain, M. & Geva, E. (1999). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development
of basic reading skills in English and Persian. Language Learning, 49: 183-217.
Gieser, C.R. (1987). Appendix C phonology. In Guinaang Kalinga texts (Vol. 4, pp. 116–118).
Manila, Philippines: Linguistic Society of the Philippines | Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Retrieved from http://www-01.sil.org/asia/philippines/plb_download.html#Slink
Gonzalez, A. (1983). When does an error become a feature of Philippine English?. In Noss, R.B. (Ed.)
Varieties of English in Southeast Asia (pp. 150-172). Singapore: RELC.
Gonzalez, A. (1998). The language planning situation in the Philippines. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 19(5&6): 487-525.
Gonzalez, A. (2001). Looking at some of DECS problems from a linguist’s point of view. Presented
at Bonifacio P. Sibayan Professorial Chair Lecture, 1 Feb. 2001. De La Salle University,
Manila, Philippines.
64
Gonzalez, A. (2003). Language planning in multilingual countries: the case of the Philippines [Paper
and electronic slide presentation]. Presented at the 1st International Conference on Language
Development, Language Revitalization and Multilingual Education, 6-8 Nov. 2003. Bangkok,
Thailand. Retrieved from http://www-01.sil.org/asia/ldc/plenary_papers/andrew_gonzales.pdf
Gonzalez, A. (2005). Contemporary Filipino (Tagalog) and Kapampangan: two Philippine languages
in contact. In Liao, H.C. & Rubino, C.R.G. (Eds.) Current issues in Philippine linguistics and
anthropology: parangal kay Lawrence A. Reid (pp. 93-114). Metro Manila, Philippines: LSP
and SIL.
Gonzalez, A. & Rafael, T.C. (1980). Transitional reading problems in English in a Philippine
bilingual setting. Presented at the International Reading Association’s Eighth World Congress
on Reading, 5-7 Aug. 1980. Metro Manila, Philippines.
Gonzalez, A. & Villacorta, W.V. (2001). The language provision of the 1987 Republic of the
Philippines. Metro Manila, Philippines: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Gray, R.D., Drummond, A.J. & Greenhill, S.J. (2009). Language phylogenies reveal expansion pulses
and pauses in Pacific settlement. Science, 323(5913): 479-483.
Greenhill, S.J., Blust. R, & Gray, R.D. (2008). The Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database: From
Bioinformatics to Lexomics. Evolutionary Bioinformatics, 4:271-283. Accessed online:
http://language.psy.auckland.ac.nz/austronesian/
Guilfoyle, E., Hung, H. & Travis, L. (1992). Spec of IP and spec of VP: two subjects in Austronesian
languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 10: 375-414.
Greaney, V. (1996). Reading in developing countries: problems and issues. In Greaney, V. (Ed.),
Promoting reading in developing countries. Newark, US: International Reading Association.
Halaoui, N. (2003). Relevance of education: adapting curricula and use of African languages
[Background paper]. Presented at ADEA Biennial Meeting, 3-6 Dec 2003. Grand Baie,
Mauritius.
Hartshorne, K. (1992). Crisis and challenge: black education 1910-1990. Cape Town, South Africa:
OUP.
Headland, T.N. (2003). Thirty endangered languages in the Philippines. Work Papers of the Summer
Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session, Vol. 47. Retrieved from:
http://arts-sciences.und.edu/summer-institute-of-linguistics/work-papers/2003.cfm
Hermosa, N.H. (1991). Current perspectives in reading education. The RAP Journal, 14(Oct.): 14-17.
Hermosa, N.H. (1992). The pendulum swings: literature or skills? The RAP Journal, 15(Oct.): 18-20.
Hermosa, N.H. (2005). Filling the ‘hole’ in whole language: explicit skills development within an
integrated framework. The RAP Journal, 28(Nov.): 52-58.
Hernàndez-Chavez, E. (1984). The inadequacy of English immersion education as an educational
approach for language minority students in the United States. In Office of Bilingual/Bicultural
Education (Ed.), Studies on immersion education: a collection of United States education (pp.
144-183). Sacramento, US: California State Department of Education.
Heugh, K. (2003). A re-take on bilingual education in and for South Africa. In Fraurud, K. &
Hyltenstam, K. (Eds.), Multilingualism in global and local perspectives: selected papers from
the 8th Nordic Conference on Bilingualism, Nov. 1-3, 2001 (pp. 47-62). Stockholm, Sweden:
Centre for Research on Bilingualism, Stockholm University and Rinkeby Institute of
Multilingual Research.
Heugh, K., Benson, C., Gebre Yohannes, M., Bogale, B. (2010). Multilingual education in Ethiopia:
what assessment shows us about what works and what doesn’t. In Heugh, K. and SkutnabbKangas, T. (Eds.), Multilingual education works: from the periphery to the centre (pp. 287315). New Delhi, India: Orient BlackSwan.
65
Hinton, L. & Hale K. (Eds.) (2001). The green book of language revitalization in practice (pp. 134144). San Diego, US: Academic Press.
Hockett, C.F. (1958). A course in modern linguistics. New York, US: The MacMillan Company.
Hogan-Brun, G. & Wolff, S. (Eds.) (2003). Minority languages in Europe. London, UK: Hampshire,
UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hohulin, E.L. (1993), The first language component: a bridging educational programme. Philippine
Journal of Linguistics, 24(1): 1-21.
Holobow, N., Genesee, F., & Lambert, W.W. (1987). Summary of Kahnawake test results.
Unpublished report. Montreal, Canada: McGill University.
Hornedo, F.H. (1999). Challenges to literacy education in the 21st century. The RAP Journal,
22(Nov.): 2-4.
Hovens, M. (2002). Bilingual education in West Africa: does it work? International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5(5): 249-266.
The Philippine Daily Inquirer. (2011, Mar. 10). Filipinos still glued to the tube, Nielsen survey says.
Retrieved from http://business.inquirer.net/money/topstories/view/20110310324626/Filipinos-still-glued-to-the-tube-Nielsen-survey-says
International Reading Association. (2001). Second language literacy instruction: A position statement
on the International Reading Association. Newark, Delaware, US: IRA
Jardenil, N.A. (1962). A survey of the use of the vernacular as medium of instruction in twelve
Philippine public schools with particular reference to Iloilo. (Master of Arts in Education
dissertation). College of Education, University of the Philippines – Diliman, Quezon City,
Philippines.
Jarvis, S. & Odlin, T. (2000). Morphological type, spatial reference, and language transfer. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 22(4): 535-556.
Jones, C. (1989, May 1). The Philippines: a new mother tongue? Christian Science Monitor
Kachru, Y. & Nelson, C.L. (2006). World Englishes in Asian Contexts. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
Kaufman, D. (2009). Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: a Tagalog case study.
Theoretical Linguistics, 35(1): 1-50.
Kern, R.G. (1994). The role of mental translation in second language reading. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 16: 441-461.
Kobayashi, H. & Rinnert, C. (1992). Effects of first language on second language writing: translation
versus direct composition. Language Learning, 42(2): 183-215.
Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino. (2013). Ortograpiyang pambansa – edisyong 2013. Metro Manila,
Philippines: KWF.
Kontra, M., Phillipson, R., Skutnabb-Kangas, R. & Várady, T. (Eds.) (1999). Language: a right and a
resource: approaches to linguistic human rights. Budapest, Hungary: Central European
University Press.
Kosonen, K. (2005). Education in local languages: policy and practice in Southeast Asia. In First
language first: community-based literacy programmes for minority language contexts in Asia.
Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO.
Krauss, M. (1992). The world’s languages in crisis. Language, 68: 4-10.
Kroeger, P.R. (1993). Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. (Dissertation in
Linguistics). Stanford, US: CSLI.
66
Ladic, R. (2013). The implementation of mother tongue-based multilingual education as medium of
instruction for Grade One in public elementary schools [Poster]. Presented at 1st International
Research Conference on K to 12 Education, 20-23 Aug. 2013, hosted by Department of
Education–Region 5. Oriental Hotel, Legazpi City, Philippines.
Lapid, M. (2009, Jan. 19). English as lesser evil / The Philippine language holocaust is NOW. Post to
online forum of Defenders of the Indigenous Languages of the Archipelago (DILA).
Retrieved from http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DILA/conversations/topics/ 21549 ;
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DILA/conversations/topics/21550
La Union, Province of (2011). Resolution No. 111-2011: Resolution enjoining the secretary to the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan to translate or cause to be translated into the Iluko language the
texts of the ordinances and resolutions enacted of passed by this august body pursuant to the
provision of the Local Government Code of 1991. San Fernando, La Union, Philippines:
Sangguniang Panlalawigan (Provincial legislative body).
La Union, Province of (2011). Resolution No. 139-2011: Resolution featuring in English, Filipino,
and Iloko languages, if practical, signages and other informational aspects in the new
legislative building and in all other Provincial Government properties. San Fernando, La
Union, Philippines: Sangguniang Panlalawigan (Provincial legislative body).
La Union, Province of (2012). Ordinance No. 026-2012: Establishing Iloko as an official provincial
language of La Union and institutionalizing its use in relevant sectors, alongside existing
national and official languages. San Fernando, La Union, Philippines: Sangguniang
Panlalawigan (Provincial legislative body).
Lewis, M.P., Simons, G.F., & Fennig, C.D. (Eds.) (2013). Ethnologue: languages of the world, 17th
edition. Dallas, US: SIL International. Retrieved from http://www.ethnologue.com/
Li, D.C.S. (2010). Towards ‘biliteracy and trilingualism’ in Hong Kong (SAR): problems, dilemmas
and stakeholders. Presented at Linguistic Society of the Philippines Annual Conference
(2010), First Languages First: Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) in
the Philippines, 19-20 Aug. 2010. Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, Philippines.
Licmo, M.A.A. (1994). The four-pronged approach: its effects on the reading performance of grade
one pupils (Master’s thesis). Philippine Normal University, Manila, Philippines.
Lindholm-Leary, K.J. & Borsato, G. (2006). Academic achievement. In Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary,
K., Saunders, W. & Christian, D. (Eds.), Educating English language learners: a synthesis of
research evidence (pp. 176-222). Washington DC, US: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Lipson, M.Y. & Wixson, K. (1991). Assessment and instruction of reading disability. New York, US:
Harper Collins.
Llamzon, T.A. & Thorpe, J.P. (1972). Review of Jose Villa Panganiban’s Talahuluganang PilipinoIngles. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 3(2): 130-139.
Llamzon, T.A. (1984). The status of English in Metro Manila today. In Gonzalez, A. (Ed.), Language
planning, implementation, and evaluation: essays in honor of Bonifacio P. Sibayan on his
sixty-seventh birthday (pp. 106-121). Metro Manila, Philippines: Linguistic Society of the
Philippines.
Lo Bianco, J. (2000). Multiliteracies and multilingualism. In Cope, B. and Kalantzis, M. (Eds.),
Multiliteracies: literacy learning and the design of social features (pp. 92-105). London, UK:
Routledge.
Lobel, J.W. (2013, May). Philippine and north Bornean languages: issues in description,
subgrouping, and reconstruction. University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Honolulo, Hawaii, US.
Lobis-Nieva, L. (2013). Instructional materials development for MTB-MLE curriculum [Poster].
Presented at 1st International Research Conference on K to 12 Education, 20-23 Aug. 2013,
hosted by Department of Education–Region 5. Oriental Hotel, Legazpi City, Philippines.
67
Lomboy, R.R. (2007). Is Pangasinan a threatened language? Presented at the First Conference on
Revitalizing the Pangasinan Language and Cultural Heritage, 8-9 Nov. 2007, hosted by
Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino and Dr Jose de Guzman Tamayo Foundation, Inc. Urdaneta
City, Pangasinan, Philippines.
Lopez, A.A. (1959). Problems of instruction in the vernacular in selected grade 1 classes in the
Baguio City public and private elementary schools. (Master of Arts in Education dissertation).
College of Education, University of the Philippines – Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines.
Lopez, C. (1965). Spanish overlay in Tagalog. Lingua, 14: 467–504.
Lopez, C. (1974). A comparative Philippine word-list. Quezon City, Philippines: University of the
Philippines – Diliman.
Lopez, L.E. & Küper, W. (2000). Intercultural bilingual education in Latin America: balance and
perspectives. Retrieved from http://www2.gtz.de/dokumente/bib/00-1510.pdf
Lowenberg, P. (1993). Issues of validity in tests of English as a world language: Whose standards?
World Englishes 12(1): 95-106.
Macaro, E. (2009). Teacher use of codeswitching in the second language classroom: exploring
‘optimal’ use. In Turnbull, M. & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (Eds.), First language use in second and
foreign language learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Macdonald, C. (1990). Main report of the threshold project. Pretoria, South Africa: The Human
Sciences Research Council.
Machlachlan, A. (1996). Aspects of ergativity in Tagalog. (Phd dissertation). McGill University,
Montreal, Canada.
Malatesha J. & P.G. Aaron (Eds.) (2006). Handbook of orthography and literacy. Mahwah, New
Jersey, US: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Malherbe, E.G. (1943). The bilingual school. Johannesburg, South Africa: CNA.
Malone, S.E. (2010). Guide to developing a ‘sounds of our language’ book for teachers to use in the
2-track method – accuracy track. Retrieved from mlenetwork.org/sites/default/files/Guide to
developing a primer for 2-track method.pdf
Malone, D. (2008). Mother tongue-based multilingual education in multilingual contexts: how strong
must it be? Presented at the International Conference on Multilingual Education, 5-8 Feb.
2008. Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.
Maminta, R.E. (2005). Program design and implementation of Philippine language education:
research and theoretical perspectives. In Dayag, D.T. & Quakenbush, J.S. (Eds.), Linguistics
and language education in the Philippines and beyond: a festschrift in honor of Ma. Lourdes
S. Bautista (pp. 335-348). Metro Manila, Philippines: De La Salle University Press.
Mangyan Heritage Center (2002). A primer to Mangyan script – 2nd edition. Calapan City,
Philippines: Mangyan Heritage Center.
May, S. (2003). Rearticulating the case for minority language rights. Current Issues in Language
Planning, 4(2): 95-125.
McEachern, F.M. (2011, Jul. 20). Defeating a people. SunStar Baguio. Retrieved from
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/baguio/opinion/2011/07/20/mceachern-defeating-people-167892
McCarty, T.L. (2002). Bilingual/bicultural schooling and indigenous students: a response to Eugene
Garcia. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 155/156: 161-174.
McCarty, T.L. (2008). Native American languages as heritage mother tongues. Language, Culture
and Curriculum, 21(3): 201-225.
McDonald, J.L. (2000). Grammaticality judgments in a second language: influences of age of
acquisition and native language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21(3): 395-423.
68
McFarland, C.D. (1983). A linguistic atlas of the Philippines. Manila, Philippines: De Le Salle
University.
McFarland, C.D. (1994). Defining a Filipino lexicon. In Sibayan, B. & Newell, L.E. (Eds.), LSP
Special Monograph Issue 35 [Papers from the First Asia International Lexicography
Conference] (pp. 241-254). Manila, Philippines: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
McFarland, C.D. (2004). The Philippine language situation. World Englishes, 23(1): 59-75.
McKaughan, H.P. (1973). Subject versus topic. In Parangal kay Cecilio Lopez: Essays in honor of
Cecilio Lopez on his seventy-fifth birthday (pp. 206–213). Quezon City, Philippines:
Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
McLaughlin, B. (1992). Myths and misconceptions about second language learning: what every
teacher needs to unlearn. Educational Practice Report 5. University of California, Santa Cruz,
US. Retrieved from http://people.ucsc.edu/~ktellez/epr5.htm
Medrano, Z.S. (1997). Literacy events and the early writing attempts of preschool children. The RAP
Journal, 20(Oct.): 16-22.
Mendoza, J.C. (1978). Language use and language attitude in interaction with social setting: a
sociolinguistic survey (Doctoral dissertation). University of Santo Tomas, Manila,
Philippines.
Miller, J., & Miller, H. (1991). Appendix A phonology. In Mamanwa texts (Vol. 5, p. 149). Manila,
Philippines: Linguistic Society of the Philippines | Summer Institute of Linguistics. Retrieved
from http://www-01.sil.org/asia/philippines/plb_download.html#Slink
Miranda, B.T. (1994). A tested scheme for creating the Filipino science vocabulary. In Sibayan, B. &
Newell, L.E. (Eds.). Papers from the First Asia International Lexicography Conference,
Manila, Philippines, 1992. LSP Special Monograph Issue, 35 (pp. 255-262). Manila,
Philippines: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Moises, E. (2013). The implementation of mother tongue-based multilingual education in Ligao City
division [Poster]. Presented at 1st International Research Conference on K to 12 Education,
20-23 Aug. 2013, hosted by Department of Education–Region 5. Oriental Hotel, Legazpi
City, Philippines.
Molina-Felix, C. (2012). Third graders’ literacy behaviour and their family literacy practices (Master
of Arts in Education dissertation). College of Education, University of the Philippines –
Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines.
Morauda-Gutierrez, M.R. (2013). An evaluation of the readability levels of English and Filipino texts:
implications on the preparation of the K-12 learning resource materials [Paper and electronic
slide presentation]. Presented at 1st International Research Conference on K to 12 Education,
20-23 Aug. 2013, hosted by Department of Education–Region 5. Oriental Hotel, Legazpi
City, Philippines.
National Statistics Office (2013). 2010 Census of population and housing. Manila: Philippines.
Naylor, P.B. (1980). Linking, relation marking and Tagalog syntax. In Naylor, P.B. (Ed.),
Austronesian studies (pp. 33-50). Ann Arbor, US: University of Michigan.
Neuman, S.B. & Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in low-income and middle-income communities:
an ecological study of four neighbourhoods. Reading Research Quarterly 36(1): 8-26.
Ocampo, D.J. (1996). Development of an early reading program for day care centers in urban poor
communities in the Philippines. Proceedings of the 1996 World Conference on Literacy.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED421693.pdf
Ocampo, D.S. (2005). Predictors of word reading performance in Filipino and English among grade
school children. The RAP Journal, 28(Nov.): 12-23.
Ocampo, D.S. (2006). The assessment of reading difficulties. The RAP Journal, 29(Oct.): 8-13.
69
Ocampo, D. S. (2013). Language, reading, and assessment within the current Philippine education
context: state of MTBMLE implementation and DepEd efforts to improve reading [electronic
slide presentation]. Presented at Workshop on Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA)
Results, 25 Jul. 2013. Soriano Hall, SEAMEO-INNOTECH, Quezon City, Philippines.
Olonan, Z.A. (1978). Language use in a multilingual community (Doctoral dissertation). University of
Santo Tomas, Manila, Philippines.
Olson, D.R. & Torrance, N. (2001). Conceptualising literacy as a personal skill and as a social
practice. In Olson, D.R. & Torrance, N. (Eds.) The making of literate societies. Malden, US:
Blackwell.
Ople, B. F. (1993). The battle for tomorrow. Philippine Panorama, 22(36): 26.
Orencia, M. A. R. (2005). Enhancing reading comprehension and attitudes through a Whole
Language-inspired reading program. The RAP Journal, 28(Nov): 38-50.
Osorio, B.R. (2012, Sep. 24). Filipino consumers in high definition. The Philippine Star. Retrieved
from http://www.philstar.com/business-life/2012-09-24/852140/filipino-consumers-highdefinition
Otanes, F.T. & Sibayan, B. P. (1969). Language policy survey of the Philippines. Manila, Philippines:
Language Study Center, Philippine Normal College.
Ouane, A. & Glanz, C. (Eds.) (2011). Optimising Learning: Education and Publishing in Africa: The
Language Factor. Hamburg, DE and Tunisia, TN: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning
and the Association for the Development of Education in Africa.
Ovando, C. J., & Collier, V. P. (1998). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural
contexts. Boston, US: McGraw-Hill.
Padilla, P.P. (2010). Reading experiences of urban poor children in a community-based literacy
center. The RAP Journal, 33(Oct): 34-42.
Pado, F. (1990). Home environment as literacy behaviors of preschool-age children (Doctoral
dissertation). University of the Philippines–Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines.
Pado, F.E. (2002). Guiding the Filipino beginning readers: revisiting effective teaching strategies. The
RAP Journal, 25(Nov): 44-48.
Pado, F.E. (2004). Grade 1 teachers’ pre-service preparation and practices in teaching beginning
reading. The RAP Journal, 27(Jul): 5-11.
Pado, F.E. (2006). Preventing reading failure through effective beginning reading instruction. The
RAP Journal, 29(Oct): 36-42.
Palmer, B.C., Shackelford, V.S., Miller, S.C., & Leclere, J.T. (2007). Bridging two worlds: reading
comprehension, figurative language instruction and the English-language learner. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50(4): 258-266.
Pampanga, Province of (2004). Resolution No. 138. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga requests
all AM and FM radio stations in the Province of Pampanga to play at least one (1) Original
Kapampangan Music (OKM) in the morning, afternoon, and evening everyday, as a way not
only of popularizing these songs but also of creating a sense of cultural awareness and pride
among Kapampangans. San Fernando, Pampanga, Philippines: Sangguniang Panlalawigan
(provincial legislative body).
Pampanga, Province of (2004). Resolution No. 147. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga requests
all Municipal Mayors and City Mayor, cinema/theatre operators/owners, schools and malls in
the Province of Pampanga to play at least one (1) Original Kapampangan Music (OKM) as a
way not only of popularizing these songs but also of creating a sense of cultural awareness
and pride among Kapampangans. San Fernando, Pampanga, Philippines: Sangguniang
Panlalawigan (provincial legislative body).
70
Pampanga, Province of (2008). Resolution No. 1193. A resolution declaring the last Friday of August
2008 and every year thereafter as the Aldo ning Amanung Sisuan in the Province of
Pampanga in celebration of the Kapampangan language. San Fernando, Pampanga,
Philippines: Sangguniang Panlalawigan (provincial legislative body).
Pangasinan, Province of (2008). Provincial Resolution No. 195-2008: authorizing the creation of an
ad hoc committee to conduct research, make recommendations and initiate action on the
establishment of a Pangasinan Language and Heritage Center, Pangasinan Museum and the
conduct of experimental classes with the use of Pangasinan language as a medium of
instruction in the elementary grades and appropriating the sum of P1 Million for said purpose.
Lingayen, Pangasinan, Philippines: Sangguniang Panlalawigan (provincial legislative body).
Pangilinan, M.R.M. (2006). Kapampangan or Capampangan: settling the dispute on the
Kapampangan Romanized orthography. Presented at the Tenth International Conference on
Austronesian Linguistics, 17-20 Jan. 2006. Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, Philippines.
Pangilinan, M.R.M. (2009). Kapampangan lexical borrowing from Tagalog: endangerment rather than
enrichment. Presented at 11th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, 22-26
Jun. 2009. Aussois, France.
Parmer, C. (2005). A comparison of reading in two languages. In J. Olson (ed) Allied Linguistics, 565.
Pascasio, E.M. (1973). Language maintenance and code-switching among bilingual speakers. In
Mackey, W. & Ornstein, J. (Eds.) Social factors in language contact (211-213). Montreal,
Canada: International Center for Research on Bilingualism.
Pascasio, E.M. (Ed.) (1977). The Filipino bilingual: studies on Philippine bilingualism and bilingual
education. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Pascasio, E.M. (1984). Philippine bilingualism and code switching. In Gonzalez, A. (Ed.) Panagani:
Essays in honor of Bonifacio P. Sibayan (pp. 122-133). Manila, Philippines: Linguistic
Society of the Philippines.
Pascasio, E.M. (1996). Dynamics of code-switching in the business domain. In Bautista, L. (Ed.)
Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics. Manila, Philippines: De La Salle University Press.
Payne, T. (1982). Role and reference related subject properties and ergativity in Yup’ik Eskimo and
Tagalog. Studies in Language, 6(1), 75–106.
Philippines, Republic of (2000). Republic Act No. 8980: An Act promulgating a comprehensive
policy and a national system for Early Childhood Care and Development (ECCD), and
providing funds thereof and for other purposes. Quezon City, Philippines: House of
Representatives.
Philippines, Republic of (2013). Republic Act No. 10533: Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013.
Quezon City, Philippines: House of Representatives.
Phillipson, R. (Ed.). (2000). Rights to language. equity, power, and education. Mahwah, New Jersey,
US: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Piper, B. & Miksic E. (2011). Mother tongue and reading using Early Grade Reading Assessment to
investigate language-of-instruction policy in East Africa.” In A. Gove & A. Wetterberg (Eds.)
The Early Grade Reading Assessment: Applications and Interventions to Improve Basic
Literacy (pp. 139-182). Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, US: RTI International.
Pinnock, H., Mackenzie, P., Pearce, E., & Young, C. (2011). Closer to home: how to help schools in
low- and middle-income countries respond to children’s language needs. Berkshire and
London, UK: CfBT Education Trust and Save the Children. Retrieved from
http://cdn.cfbt.com/~/media/cfbtcorporate/files/research/2011/r-closer-to-home-english2011.pdf
Presidential Commission on Educational Reform (2000). Philippine Agenda for Educational Reform:
The PCER Report. Pasig City, Philippines: PCER.
71
Qi, D.S. (1998) An inquiry into language-switching in second language composing processes.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(3): 413-435.
Quakenbush, J.S. (2005). Philippine linguistics from an SIL perspective – trends and prospects. In H.C. Liao & C.R.G. Rubino (Eds.) Current issues in Philippine linguistics and anthropology:
Parangal kay Lawrence A. Reid (pp. 3-27). Manila, Philippines: Summer Institute of
Linguistics.
Quakenbush, J.S. (2007). SIL International and endangered Austronesian languages. In Rau., D.V. &
Florey, M. (Eds.) Documenting and Revitalizing Austronesian Languages. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/10125/1352
Quijano, Y. S. (2010). MLE in the Philippines: history and possibilities [electronic slide presentation].
Presented at 1st Philippines Conference-Workshop on Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual
Education, 18-20 Feb. 2010. Capitol University, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines.
Rackowski, A. (2002). The structure of Tagalog: specificity, voice, and the distribution of arguments
(Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
US.
Rackowski, A. & Richards, N. (2005). Phase edge and extraction: a Tagalog case study. Linguistic
Inquiry, 36(4): 565-599.
Rahman, T. (2003). Language policy, multilingualism and language vitality in Pakistan. Paper
presented at Language Development, Language Revitalization and Multilingual Education in
Minority Communities in Asia, 6-8 Nov. 2003. Bangkok, Thailand. Retrieved from
http://ftp.sil.org/asia/ldc/parallel_papers/tariq_rahman.pdf
Ramirez, D., Ramay, S. & Dena, R. (1991). Final Report: Longitudinal Study of Structured English
Immersion Strategy, Early-exit and Late-exit Transitional Bilingual Education Programmes
for Language-minority Children. San Mateo, California, US: Aguirre International.
Rappa, A.L., & Wee, L. (2006). Language policy and modernity in Southeast Asia: Malaysia, the
Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. New York, US: Springer.
Regidor, C.S. & Regidor, R.J.S. (2013). Remedial reading program for Grade II non-readers in the
District of Dimasalang [Poster]. Presented at 1st International Research Conference on K to 12
Education, 20-23 Aug. 2013, hosted by Department of Education–Region 5. Oriental Hotel,
Legazpi City, Philippines.
Reid, L.A. (1973). Diachronic typology of Philippine vowel systems. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Current
Trends in Linguistics: Diachronic, areal, and typological linguistics (Vol. 11). The Hague,
Netherlands | Paris, France: Mouton and Co. Retrieved from
http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/32977
Reid, L.A. & Liao, H.-C. (2004). A brief syntactic typology of Philippine languages. Language and
Linguistics, 5(2): 433-490
Richards, N. (1995). Another look at Tagalog subjects. Presented at the 2nd annual meeting of the
Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Roa, A.G. (2012, Jul. 17). Philippines cited for mobile phone use. The Philippine Daily Inquirer.
Retrieved from http://technology.inquirer.net/14162/philippines-cited-for-mobile-phone-use
Robinson, C. (1993). Where minorities are in the majority: language dynamics amidst high linguistic
diversity. AILA Review, 10: 52-70. Retrieved from
http://www.aila.info/download/publications/review/AILA10.pdf
Ronquillo, M.V. (2013, Oct. 1). Zambales and Zamboanga City: tragedy and atrophy. The Manila
Times. Retrieved from http://manilatimes.net/zambales-and-zamboanga-city-tragedy-andatrophy/41265/
72
Royer, J.M., & Carlo, M.S. (1991). Transfer of comprehension skills from native to second language.
Journal of Reading, 34(6): 450-455.
RTI International (2009). Early grade reading assessment toolkit. Research Triangle Park (NC), US:
RTI International. Retrieved at
http://www.ineesite.org/uploads/files/resources/EGRA_Toolkit_Mar09.pdf
Rubino, C.R.G. (2000). Ilocano dictionary and grammar. University of Hawaii Press.
Rubino, C. (2008). Philippine languages. Carl Rubino’s homepage. Last update 20 Jan. 2008 as of 26
Dec. 2013. Retrieved from http://iloko.tripod.com/philtree.html
Rubrico, J.G.U. (2011). Filipino variety of Davao: a linguistic description. Paper presented at the 11th
Philippine Linguistics Congress, 7-9 Dec. 2011. University of the Philippines–Diliman,
Quezon City, Philippines.
Sampa, F. (2003). Country Case Study: Republic of Zambia. Primary Reading Programme (PRP):
Improving Access and Quality Education in Basic Schools. Paris, France: Association for the
Development of Education in Africa (ADEA).
Samuels, J.S. & Farstrup, A.E. (Eds.) (2000). What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd
ed.). Newark, US: International Reading Association.
Sanchez, A.S.Q. (2013). Literacy instruction in the mother tongue: the case of pupils using mixed
vocabularies. Journal of International Education Research, 9(3): 235-241.
Santiago, A.O. (1984). The elaboration of a technical lexicon of Pilipino. Studies in Philippine
Linguistics 5(2): 1-248.
Santiago, A.O. (1993). The 1987 spelling reform: key to the intellectualization of the Filipino
language. In M.C.V. Ravina & F. Robles (Eds.) Readings on Trends and Directions in
Language Education (pp. 112-121). Manila, Philippines: Ledco.
Santos, Hector. (1997) Our Living Scripts. In A Philippine Leaf, retrieved from
http://www.bibingka.com/dahon/living/living.htm.
Sarreal, M.L. (2008). English proficiency of information technology instructors and language use
(Master of Arts in Education thesis). University of the Philippines–Diliman, Quezon City,
Philippines.
Scebold, R.A. (2003). Central Tagbanwa: a Philippine language on the brink of extinction:
sociolinguistics, grammar, and lexicon. Manila, Philippines: Linguistic Society of the
Philippines.
Schachter, P. & Otanes, F.T. (1972). Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley, US: University of
California Press.
Schachter, P. (1976). The subject in Philippine languages: actor, topic, actor-topic, or none of the
above. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and Topic. New York, US: Academic Press.
Schachter, P. (1977). Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects. In P. Cole & J. M.
Sadock (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Grammatical Relations (Vol. 8, pp. 279–306). New
York, US: Academic Press.
Schachter, P., & Otanes, F.T. (1983). Tagalog reference grammar. University of California Press.
Retrieved from http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=E8tApLUNy94C
Serquiña, G.P. & Ocampo, D.S. (2010). Attributes of effective reading programs among highperforming, high-poverty public elementary schools. The RAP Journal, 33(Oct): 17-25.
Seymour, P.H.K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J.M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European
orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94: 143-174.
Shiohata, M. (2010). Exploring the literacy environment: a case study from urban Senegal.
Comparative Education Review, 54(2): 245-269.
73
Sibayan, B.P. (1991). Literate in what? The RAP Journal, 14(Oct): 4-9.
Sibayan, B.P. (2002). Literate in what? A redefinition of literacy. The RAP Journal, 25(Nov): 4-11.
Sibayan, B.P., & Segovia, L. (1980). Language and socioeconomic development: resulting patterns of
bilingualism/multilingualism. In E. Afendras (Ed.) Patterns of Bilingualism (pp. 57-119).
Singapore: University of Singapore.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2004). The right to mother tongue medium education - the hot potato in human
rights instruments. Paper presented at II Mercator International Symposium: Europe 2004: A
new framework for all languages?, 27-28 Feb. 2004. Tarragona, Catalunya, Spain. Retrieved
from http://www.ciemen.org/mercator/pdf/simp-skuttnab.pdf
Smolicz J.J. & Nical I. (1997). Exporting the European idea of a national language: some educational
implications of the use of English and indigenous languages in the Philippines. International
Review of Education, 43(5-6): 507-526.
Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children.
Washington (DC), US: National Academy Press.
Sobolewski, Frank A. (1982). Some syntactic constraints in Tagalog-English language mixing.
Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 13(2): 35-62.
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2009). Long-term cross linguistic transfer of
skills from L1 to L2. Language Learning, 59, 203-243.
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2012a). Do L1 reading achievement and L1
print exposure contribute to the prediction of L2 proficiency? Language Learning, 62:2: pp.
473-505
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2012b). Relationships among L1 print exposure
and early L1 literacy skills, L2 aptitude, and L2 proficiency. Reading & Writing, 25: 15991634.
Stavenhagen, R. (1995). Cultural rights and universal human rights. In Eide, A., Krause, C. & Rosas,
A. (Eds.). Economic, social and cultural rights: a textbook (pp. 63-77). Dordrecht,
Netherlands | Boston, US | London, UK: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Sugbo, V.N. (2003). Language policy and local literature in the Philippines. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Language Development and Revitalization of Languages, 6-8
Nov. 2003. Bangkok, Thailand. Retrieved from
http://ftp.sil.org/asia/ldc/parallel_papers/victor_n_sugbo.pdf
Sunstar, Manila (2011, Nov. 7). Filipinos spend more time surfing web that watching TV. The Sunstar
newspaper. Retrieved from http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/local-news/2011/11/07/studyfilipinos-spend-more-time-surfing-web-watching-tv-189174
Swain, M., Kirkpatrick, A. & Cummins, J. (2011). How to have a guilt-free life using Cantonese in
the English class: a handbook for the English language teacher in Hong Kong. Hong Kong:
Research Center into Language Acquisition and Education in Multilingual Societies, Hong
Kong Institute of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.ied.edu.hk/rcleams/handbook/handbook.pdf
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2005). The evolving sociopolitical context of immersion education in
Canada: some implications for programme development. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 15: 169-186.
Thomas, W. & Collier V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. NCBE
Resource Collection Series, 9. Washington (DC), US: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education.
74
Thomas, W. & Collier, V. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority
students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, California | Washington, DC: Center
for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Thompson, R.M. (2003). Filipino English and Taglish: language switching from multiple
perspectives. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Thornberry, P. & Gibbons, D. (1997). Education and minority rights: a short survey of international
standards. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 4(2): 115-152.
Tupas, T.R.F. (2011). The new challenge of the mother tongues: the future of Philippine postcolonial
language politics. Kritika Kultura, 16: 108-121. http://kritikakultura.ateneo.net
Turnbull, M. & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (Eds.) (2009). First language use in second and foreign language
learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
UNESCO (2001). Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. Paris, France: United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
UNESCO (2005a). First language first: community-based literacy programmes for minority language
contexts in Asia. Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2005b). Advocacy brief on mother tongue-based teaching and education for girls.
Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2005c). Literacy for Life: EFA Global Monitoring Report 2006. Paris, France: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2007). Mother tongue-based literacy programmes: case studies of good practice in Asia.
Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO Bangkok.
UNESCO (2011). Enhancing learning of children from diverse language backgrounds: mother
tongue-based bilingual or multilingual education in the early years. Paris, France: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2012). Why language matters for the millennium development goals. Bangkok, Thailand:
UNESCO.
UN (1992). Declaration on the rights of rersons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and
linguistic minorities. New York, US: United Nations.
UN Economic and Social Council (2008). Report of the international expert group meeting on
indigenous languages, E/C.19/2008/3. New York, US: United Nations.
Usborne, E., Caouette, J., Qumaaluk, Q., & Taylor, D. M. (2009). Bilingual education in an
Aboriginal context: Examining the transfer of language skills from Inuktitut to English or
French. International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, 12: 667-684.
Villanueva, V.A. (2004). How do teachers of literacy learn what they need to know? The RAP
Journal, 27(Jul): 12-19.
Villarama E. R. & Peteza R. C. (2013). The bridge for early reading success of Grade One sections 2
and 3 pupils: MTB-MLE regroup approach [Paper and electronic slide presentation].
Presented at 1st International Research Conference on K to 12 Education, 20-23 Aug. 2013,
hosted by Department of Education–Region 5. Oriental Hotel, Legazpi City, Philippines.
Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its casual role in
the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192 212.
Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: a conceptual framework.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 9(2), 159- 180.
Walter, S. & Dekker D.E. (2008). The Lubuagan mother tongue education experiment (FLC): a
report of comparative results. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from
http://www.sil.org/asia/philippines/lit/2008-02-27_Report_to_CongressLubuagan_FLC_Paper.pdf
75
Walter S.L. & Dekker D.E. (2011). Mother tongue instruction in Lubuagan: A case study from the
Philippines. International Review of Education, 57: 667–683
Walton, C. (1977). A Philippine language tree. Paper presented at the Austronesian Symposium, 1820 Aug. 1977. University of Hawaii, Honolulo, US.
Walton, C. (1979). Pangutaran (Sama) phonology (Vol. 3, pp. 189–217). Manila, Philippines:
Linguistic Society of the Philippines | Summer Institute of Linguistics. Retrieved from
http://www-01.sil.org/asia/philippines/plb_download.html#Slink
Wolff, J. (1973). The character of borrowings from Spanish and English in the languages of the
Philippines. Journal of Philippine Linguistics, 4(1).
Wolff, J. (2012, Nov. 21). Re: Panahom ni John Wolff. [Post to online Bisaya forum]. Retrieved from
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/bisaya/conversations/messages/20225
Wray, D., Medwell, J., Poulson, L. & Fox, R. (2002). Teaching literacy effectively in the primary
school. London, UK: Routledge.
Yasay, A. (1991). A parenting program in early reading for mothers of preschool children (Master of
Arts in Education thesis). University of the Philippines–Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines.
Young, C. (2002). First Language First: Literacy Education for the Future in a Multilingual Philippine
Society. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5(4): 221-232.
Zamboanga City Council. (1990). Ordinance No. 109: An ordinance preserving, restoring and
promoting Chabacano dialect, the history and culture of the City of Zamboanga. City of
Zamboanga, Philippines: Sangguniang Panlungsod (City Council).
Zamboanga City Council. (2001). Ordinance No. 233: An ordinance amending Section 6 of
Ordinance No. 109, series of 1990, entitled “An ordinance preserving, restoring and
promoting Chabacano dialect, the history and culture of the City of Zamboanga.” City of
Zamboanga, Philippines: Sangguniang Panlungsod (City Council).
Zamboanga City Council. (2008). Resolution No. 177 to earnestly request the different FM stations in
the City of Zamboanga, thru their respective Station Managers, thru His Honor, the City
Mayor, to play locally produced Chavacano songs on a regular basis labeling it as Original
Chavacano Music. City of Zamboanga, Philippines: Sangguniang Panlungsod (City Council).
Zamboanga City Council. (2011). Resolution No. 206 to respectfully request His Honor, the City
Mayor, to direct all employees and officials of the local government unit including barangays
and all sectors of the city to show equal magnitude of respect to the official seal of
Zamboanga City while singing the Zamboanga Hermosa Hymn, the way the Philippine
National Anthem is being sung. City of Zamboanga, Philippines: Sangguniang Panlungsod
(City Council).
Zamboanga City Council. (2011). Ordinance No. 374: An ordinance declaring every June 23 of each
year as the “Dia de Fundacion de Chabacano” and providing funds thereof. City of
Zamboanga, Philippines: Sangguniang Panlungsod (City Council).
76