Main Argument For Preserving Our Languages - by Jed Pensar, a.k.a. Dr. Jose Dacudao - Languages - http://phatbowling.com/defender/JedPensar

Language defines a people. A Visayan who cannot speak a Visayan
language, even if he or she was born and grew up in the Visayas-
Mindanao area, where there have been Visayans for more than a
thousand years, is not Visayan. He has been cut off from an ancient
cultural identity that remains one of the oldest in the world. Or how
can a person be an Ilocano if he cannot speak it? You can't speak
Kapampangan? Then you are not Kapampangan. Ditto for Bicolanos,
Warays, and all the rest. Without our language, we have no culture,
we have no identity; we are nothing.

No one can artificially create an ethnolinguistic people. Only the
Creator can. Each ethnolinguistic people is unique, irreplaceable,
and priceless. To kill off an ethnolinguistic people because of
nationalist ideology or economic expediency is abominable. The
survival of our ethnolinguistic peoples in a Creation of diverse
beauty is not even a matter of right or wrong but a matter of
existence or oblivion. A hundred years from now, any debate as to
whether the existence of an ethnolinguistic people is right or wrong
when it has ceased to exist is completely inutile, because what is
being discussed is already dead.

Likewise, any discussion on the so-called ancestral lands issue loses
its essence when the ethnolinguistic people involved has ceased to
exist because of the death of its language. For example, a Manobo is
by definition as a person whose native language is Manobo. So how can
you talk of the ancestral lands of Manobos when the Manobos have been
obliterated with the death of their language? How can you talk about
a people's ancestral lands if the people do not exist? A person who
keeps on talking about defending an ancestral land of the Manobos but
opposes the teaching of the Manobo language is plastic. He may in
fact only be interested in landgrabbing or making political capital
out of the issue, but is not really genuinely interested in the
survival of the Manobo people.

Will you make your faces identical with those of your neighbors and
seatmates just because an ideology says we all would look nicer if we
had the same face? Of course not, as we were created with different
faces and personalities. Similarly with languages, will we homogenize
all Philippine languages just because an ideology says we ought to?
Of course not! Instead we must accept that there is something wrong
with that ideology, even if it has been taught to us since elementary
school by a system that does not respect its own peoples.

The basic argument for preserving a people is the same as that for
preserving a species, that is, a conscious decision to stand for the
diversity of Creation. A renowned paleontologist once said: I can see
and study the fossil bones of now extinct birds, but never will I see
the colors of their feathers nor hear the sweetness of their songs.
Costumes and artifacts are dead things we keep in museums and show to
tourists, but the living soul of a people is its living identity
carried by its language. A government that makes a minority people
wear native costumes and dance in front of TV cameras for the sake of
attracting tourists, but does not teach its language in schools, is
utterly hypocritical and exploitative. If we are sincere in helping
our ethnolinguistic peoples to survive, we must teach their language
in schools in their traditional areas. Once a people is dead, we will
never ever see the bonds that they formed, nor ever hear the melody
of their tongue.

Another Argument For Preserving Our Languages:

There is another argument for preserving the diversity of Creation,
albeit a more practical and perhaps selfish one. We can never know
the possible future uses of a specific species or language. A plant
that seems to have no practical use now may suddenly be the source of
an important antibiotic in the future. The following are examples of
the use of a specific language:

1. Some languages, especially those which are difficult to learn, can
form the basis for codes. During World War II, the Americans suddenly
found Navajo (a native North American tongue spoken by the Navajo
people) a useful language in creating a code that the Japanese never
broke, because Navajo is a difficult language to learn and no
Japanese knew Navaho. The Japanese never broke the code and it became
a significant factor in the Americans' Pacific battle victories.

2. Some languages, which are intrinsically user-friendly, can form
the basis of a trade or scientific language in the future if the need
arises. A few examples: Latin is in some ways easier to learn for a
non-native speaker than English, mainly because English has so many
irregular verbs. Likewise, almost any Philippine language is
intrinsically easier to learn for a non-native speaker than any
Chinese language because of the tonal characteristic of Chinese
languages, wherein differences in pitch distinguishes different
meanings in what are otherwise the same words. As an example among
Philippine languages, Hiligaynon, which is the closest linguistically
related language to 'Filipino', is much easier for an outsider to
learn than 'Filipino,' because Hiligaynon has a relatively simpler
conjugation pattern.

Tagalog Nationalism:

The bill in issue is the epitome of Tagalog nationalism. Tagalog
nationalism is a unitarian ideology based on the precept of unity in
uniformity. (We are for unity in diversity.) In brief, Tagalog
nationalism tries to create a Philippines whose citizens all speak
the same language. It is a nihilistic ideology because it annihilates
the self respect of our natural peoples and eventually their very
identities, and it is chauvinistic because it stomps on their dignity
and promotes a pathetic sense of inferiority complex and colonial
mentality amongst them. It turns all non-Tagalog Filipinos into
second class citizens, and is hostile to their existence. It
transgresses the language rights of the more than 150 ethnolinguistic
peoples in the Philippines. It violates one of humanity's basic
freedoms, one that is protected in our Bill of Rights, the freedom of
expression.

The main issue here is the very survival of the non-Tagalog
ethnolinguistic peoples of the Philippines, at least 3 of which have
become extinct since 'Filipino' was forcibly rammed into our
educational system in World War II, ironically by Japanese colonizers
who wished us weaned off from English. Successive census figures show
that practically all ethnolinguisitic peoples of the Philippines,
except the one whose native tongue is 'Filipino,' is decreasing as a
percentage of the population.

Tagalogs vs. Tagalistas:

The Tagalogs are an ethnolinguistic people, who have the right to
preserve and develop their language. In the same context, so do other
ethnolinguistic peoples in the country. For example, the Kapampangans
also have the right to preserve and develop their language. Tagalogs
and Kapampangans are equal, and are equal to the other Philippine
ethnolinguistic peoples. The State should not institute laws and
practices that will make one of the Philippine's ethnolinguistic
peoples in social majority over the rest, as this will mean that the
rest will become social minorities and second class citizens. More
seriously, such a discriminatory policy eventually pushes the
neglected languages into extinction.

Thus we are not against Tagalogs as an ethnolinguistic people. If by
a twist of history, the Tagalog language becomes endangered sometime
in the far future, we should come to their succor. On the other hand,
Tagalistas desire to spread the ideology of Tagalog nationalism.
Tagalistas do not have to be Tagalogs themselves; there are many
Visayan Tagalistas for example, native Visayans who adhere to Tagalog
nationalism.

We love the Tagalog ethnolinguistic people for what they are. If the
state were to legislate a law inimical to the existence of the
Tagalog ethnolinguistic people, naturally we surely would oppose it.
On the other hand, Tagalistas do not respect the language rights of
the peoples of the Philippines, and who, if they have their way, will
kill off all the other ethnolinguistic peoples of the Philippines in
the name of their perverted sense of nationalism. If we are to oppose
a bill that is inimical to the existence of one of the peoples of the
Philippines, the Tagalog people, surely (based on the same principle)
we should oppose a bill that is inimical to all the peoples of the
Philippines, except one.

Language vs. Dialect:

Is Filipino a separate language? Dialects are mutually intelligible
versions of a language and cannot exist outside the context of a
language. For example, Batangueno and Bulakeno are mutually
intelligible tongues, and thus are dialects or versions of the same
language, which we call Tagalog. Similarly, Cebuano exists as several
dialects. Thus Cagayan Cebuano and Boholano are clearly different in
accent, vocabulary, and idioms, but are mutually intelligible,
meaning their speakers can understand each other without previous
language lessons. Thus, Cagayan Cebuano and Boholano are dialects of
the same language, which is called by linguists as Cebuano. On the
other hand, no Tagalog dialect is mutually intelligible with any
dialect of Cebuano. Thus Tagalog and Cebuano are two separate
languages, and co-equal to each other.

All international linguists (including the linguists of the highly
regarded Summer Institute of Linguistics in the Philippines),
adhering to international standards, agree that Filipino is a Tagalog
dialect. Filipino is mutually intelligible with all Tagalog dialects
and mutually unintelligible with all non-Tagalog languages. Given the
differences in vocabulary, grammar, syntax, idioms, conjugation
patterns, and even accent and intonation that make each language
unique, it is impossible to create a Filipino from all the Philippine
languages without retaining each component language's unique
identity. Unity in diversity means giving freedom to the peoples that
these languages define to preserve and develop their own languages.
Unity in uniformity means killing all of them except one, whether
that language is an existing one or an artificial one.

Are Our Languages Really Dying?

Yes.

One, there is a dearth of literature and official use of the
provincial Philippine languages. Many of these languages do not even
have a written literature, and are not used in government and schools
in their own territories. Residents can hardly read and write in
their own language. New songs, movies, TV shows, essays, poems, and
books are not being composed in the provincial languages, and the few
that are being made, because of the minority status attached to them
by state policy, are not being patronized by their own speakers.

Two, National Statistics Office surveys shows that every Philippine
ethnolinguisitic people is decreasing in percentage of the Philippine
population, except the one that speaks 'Filipino' as its native
tongue. When the natural birth rate of these peoples finally
approaches zero, as is the trend at present, their absolute numbers
will also decrease, eventually to extinction if we do nothing now.

Three, minority peoples are losing territory fast to the center's
ethnolinguistic group. For example, Puerto Princesa in Palawan, which
used to speak Cuyonon, no longer does, and the Cuyonons (a Western
Visayan people) are becoming confined to a small group of islands off
Palawan and will inevitably die out should we do nothing. Same story
for the rest of the native Palawan, Mindoro, and Zambales languages.
Likewise, the rich array of native languages of Romblon (including
Romblomanon, Unhan, Asi, Odiongon) are dying out. Transplanted
Tagalog is fast replacing the indigenous tongues of Davao and
Cotabato. Even traditionally big and influential ethnolinguistic
peoples such as the Kapampangans of Pampanga and the Bicolanos of
Camarines Norte are in the process of getting wiped out.

Banalities and Bogeys of Tagalistas:

A. Filipino is not a Tagalog dialect. Wrong. It is. This has been
answered above. Tagalistas often use this bogy, honey-coating one
Philippine language (Tagalog) as "Filipino" to justify imposing
monolingual uniformity in a way that avoids hostile reaction among
the non-Tagalog peoples.

B. We need "Filipino" as a national language because we are one
nation. There are three models that refute this banality.

One: It is an empirical fact that the USA does not have a national
language (because any national language in the minds of the founding
fathers of the USA infringes on an even more fundamental freedom,
that of the freedom of speech and expression), and each local State
is free to choose its official languages, or none at all. Thus there
is no legal barrier to, say, the teaching of Spanish or a Native
American language like Navajo. Many such native languages in North
America, as well as Hawaii, are now being taught in the schools, and
as a result their native speakers are fast increasing in numbers.
This policy of teaching the minority languages in American schools
has saved their peoples from extinction.

Two: Many countries with a keener sense of justice have multiple
official languages, in recognizance of their native peoples. For
example, India has almost 20, Switzerland has four, etc. Why can't we?

Three: Many areas of the world, including pre-WW II Philippines, use
a neutral language as a common means of communication for its
leveling effect. (A neutral language is an outside language that is
not spoken as a native language by any of the ethnolinguistic peoples
in a common area.)

Tagalistas insist that we need one common national language in order
to communicate with each other, and this is simply false. It is an
empirical fact that we, the peoples of the Philippines, have been
communicating with each other for more than 300 years before there
was a national language, and even long before there was a
Philippines. How did 20th century Filipinos communicate before WWII?
(It was ironically the Japanese who pushed in `Filipino', which was
and is clearly a Tagalog dialect, in Philippine schools in an effort
to wean us off from English, and from this point of view `Filipino'
is a colonial weapon that is the legacy of Japanese colonizers, and
undemocratically enforced by the collaborationist Philippine
government of World War II. No democratic consultation was done, no
plebiscite was held, although it was clear that the framers of the
1935 Constitution did not intend `Filipino' to be a Tagalog dialect.
The war is over, but alas the Manila government has continued
this colonial policy and our languages are now dying fast.
Tagalistas who claim that they are battling American colonialism by
enforcing `Filipino' are hypocrites who are engaged in their own
colonialism.) We used English, which happened to be the language of
the American colonizers but which also fortunately happened to be the
international language of science and trade, and multiple Philippine
languages. If you were an Ilocano and went to trade in Cebu, you
quickly learned Cebuano, and so on. Filipinos, including Tagalogs,
respected the local culture of the region that they went into, by
learning the native tongue. The usage of a neutral language like
English also made for a leveling effect among Philippine languages;
none was socially superior to the rest. Today, in many multilingual
areas in Africa and Asia, English and French are used for their
leveling effect, thus protecting the status of smaller
ethnolinguistic peoples who would otherwise be pushed into oblivion
had a
neighboring tongue been imposed on them.

Because there is no indigenous ethnolinguistic people that speaks
English or French in these areas, use of these neutral languages
places all of the native peoples in a linguistically equal level, and
affords protection for the smaller groups. Did using English as a
common tongue make the Philippines poor? Obviously not; and we were
more economically well off at this period. The peoples of the
provinces also took pride in their local languages, and thus their
ancestral identities, which made it more difficult for the center to
step on their economic and political rights.

C. To learn English is to stop being patriotic. Again, false. English
is the international language of science and trade. There have been
precedents. Before English, Latin was the international language of
science and trade for perhaps 1500 years. Before Latin, it was Greek.
Science classes were often taught in Latin until the early 20th
century. The great seminal works of science, including Newton's
Principia Mathematica, Linnaeus's taxonomic naming of species, and
many early medical books were in Latin. Newton was definitely a
patriotic Englishman, but to communicate with the rest of the
scientific world, he used Latin without a qualm.

D. The 'Filipino' that is being rammed into the minds of all Filipino
children is easy and convenient to learn, as evidenced by most
Filipinos having learned it. This is twisted reasoning. Everyone who
has gone through the Philippine educational system knows 'Filipino',
not because it is easy and convenient to learn, but precisely because
it is taught in the educational system. Any language taught to
elementary and high school children as an academic subject will be
learned by them. Even if we pretend to be a devil's advocate and
espouse a unity in language uniformity for the
Philippines, 'Filipino' is not the easiest Philippine language to
learn, as mentioned above. Furthermore, the reason why the national
media is in 'Filipino' is because everyone has been forced to learn
it by an educational system that flunks you if you don't.

Recommendations:

We should implement a program to save our natural and ancient pre-
Spanish languages and the ethnolinguistic peoples that they define:

1. Teach our languages in schools in their traditional areas,
especially for history and literature, and many of the arts and
humanities, while retaining English for the Sciences. This is the
only sure way to save a language. Empirical evidences from Iceland
(Icelandic), Ireland (Irish), Hawaii (the Hawaiian languages),
mainland America (native American languages), Switzerland (Romance),
and so on have repeatedly shown that minority languages can be
consistently saved in this way.

2. Create a dictionary, syllabus, and eventually literature for all
the languages. This is necessary if we are to teach our languages in
schools. For the larger Philippine ethnolinguistic peoples and some
of the smaller ones, this is no problem because foreign religious
missionaries from various Christian denominations and foreign
linguists have often taken the time and effort to create such
dictionaries and syllabuses, and to save these languages it is a
matter of mass producing them and introducing them into school
curricula. (It is such irony that non-Filipino foreigners have done
more for our languages than so called nationalistic Filipinos, and
incredibly the national government has not funded the creation of
even a single non-Tagalog dictionary or syllabus.)

3. Promote economic prosperity for all our ethnolinguistic peoples so
that they take pride in preserving their language and identity.

4. Promote political freedom for our ethnolinguistic peoples so that
they are free to move to save their language and identity.

5. Teach one or two Philippine language electives in the Tagalog
regions so that Tagalogs in general will learn to tolerate and
respect their fellow Filipinos as brethren and peers, and not as
inferior races and provincianos.

Sign Guestbook

View Guestbook

Visitors: 00594

Page Updated Thu May 26, 2005 2:03pm EDT