The Utilization of the English Language in the Philippines - Essay Example

THE UTILIZATION OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN THE PHILIPPINES: DEMONSTRATING LINGUISTIC IMPERIALISM AND LINGUISTIC CAPITAL The English language is the predominating language in the Philippines, a third world nation in South-east Asia. Its dominance is seen in its usage in classroom instruction where students are not allowed to speak the vernacular unless for the courses Philippine History, Life and Works of Rizal, and Filipino. In some intermediate and secondary schools, students are made to pay a fine in a small amount if they happen to speak in their own language, even with just plain expressions, such as “Ay!” (Oh!). This is to discourage the students to speak in their vernacular and try harder to speak in English in classroom discussions, demonstrating a monolingual fallacy committed when adopting the English language (Phillipson 1992). It also goes with the insight that people will tend to be more and more comfortable in a particular language if they use it vehemently without being barred by another language. This usage of the English language is in cognizance with Philippine schools’ recognition of language competency in globalization trends, in which English is a predominating language. However, even before the onset of globalization, English has already been the medium of instruction in public and private schools. Currently, Philippine public schools experience a dearth in the English language and this is seen as a problem which must be addressed. Graduates of private high schools tend to have a higher chance of being admitted in good universities. They can also excel in debates and public speaking competitions, activities that use the English language. The usage of English started in the period of American civil government in1900s, in which Thomasites (American soldiers) served as teachers in the established public school system (Agoncillo 1986). Even though Pilipino (now changed to “Filipino”) was made to be the national language, English still thrived as the medium of instruction in which every student was not allowed to speak in Filipino in classroom discussions. At present, there are circumstances that even during recess and dismissal hours, when students simply await for their transport services to bring them home, they are required to talk to their friends in English– even when just plainly mingling with peer groups. This scenario is reflective of Phillipson’s “maximum exposure fallacy” of the English language (Phillipson 1992). Moreover, due to lack of regard given to it, the local vernacular could not cope with the fast-pacing changes in technology and economy, and failed to develop new terms in the context of technological age. It has no current equivalent for the terms “modem,” “keyboard,” “CPU,” “flask drive,” “hard disk,” “soft copy.” Even terms introduced by the early Americans in the American occupation have not been initially given an equivalent of, such as “sandwich” and “soft drinks.” The use of the English language shows power relations, amidst functionalist views of its usage about globalization and “global cooperation through language” (Canagarajah 1999). Its regard is within the sphere of cultural imperialism simplified in colonial mentality and a xenocentric regard for the English language as dominant, scholastic, superior, standard, and advanced. It is contrary to the regard extended to the Filipino language which whimpers in its existence caused by not being explored and utilized for scholastic pursuits. This condition holds true of Phillipson’s claim of the “subtractive fallacy” where if other languages are used much, standards of English will drop. In the case of the Filipino language, its standards continue to drop with the constant usage of English. With the English language utilized in Philippine schools, pupils in private schools in which the language is more reinforced tend to find it difficult understanding the Filipino grammar and writing in Filipino. What has been developed instead is a colloquial usage of the language, a mixture of both English and Filipino in sentences. To illustrate, a typical teenage student would say, “Fixed na ba today ‘yung schedule ng exam natin o tomorrow pa?” (Is the schedule of our exam already fixed for today, or is it for tomorrow?) Language assimilation results, which gives way to distortion of Filipino grammar. Aside from this effect, the lack of usage of the Filipino language results in dearth of Filipino terms, e.g. salumpuwit (chair), baraka (market), tatsulok (triangle), pulseras (bracelet), minindal (snack), bunsol (lamp) resulting from its colloquial usage since one who becomes comfortable with the English language tends to assimilate it with the Filipino language. The pervasive use of English not only in schools but also in the workplace results in lack of language identity (Gripaldo 2003). The latter could not strongly uphold the essence of patriotism and love for culture, and neither could the former. The Filipino language condition is reflective of Phillipson’s theory of linguistic imperialism which provides a strong critique of the anatomic spread of English in postcolonial and neocolonial contexts in countries like the Philippines (Phillipson 1992). Its pervasive spread is also reflective of the notion of cultural hegemony, aiming to hold captive the culture of the people through its language. It is clear that the complex homogenic processes experienced in the Filipino language continue to sustain the pre-eminence of English in the world today. Moreover, linguistic dominance is clearly a manifestation of continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and the Filipino language. This process is manifested in the mentioned drift of the language, which may be analyzed not only in linguistic terms, but more importantly, in economic terms (Holborow 1999). An important aspect of linguistic imperialism is the fact that the U.S. maintains its hold as a world power that needs to sell a massive production surplus through a globalized market where nations adhere to policies in an international language, called English. It reflects the English functional arguments which emphasize its usefulness as a gateway to the world (Phillipson 1992). Linguistic capitalism also pervades in the Philippine context in the sense that it represents ways of speaking, which can be understood as a form of embodied cultural capital (Bourdieu 1990). The tendency for a capitalist country like the United States to produce incessant amount of goods due to unplanned capitalist production calls for satellite markets, such as the Philippines. Cultural influence is a crucial part of this market-making so as to enable the natives to buy surpluses willingly through colonial mentality in liberalization schemes. This is accomplished under the notion that anything foreign is superior, both its products and its culture; and impliedly, its language. Just like the study of Chik (1998) where access to higher education and career opportunities are determined by proficiency in both Chinese and English, the Philippine setting is not different. In Hongkong, proficiency in English made parents to favor English-medium secondary education (Morrison and Lui 2000). This scenario is the same with what has been discussed earlier for the Philippine setting. The importance of English is clearly seen in some Korean and Japanese students who opt to go to the Philippines to study English since studying the language there is a lot cheaper. The mediums in which the English language is used in the Philippines are not only spoken and written, as other forms including technological and paper-based are used. Packages of locally produced products are written in English, and only small-scale products or those owned by cooperatives are in the vernacular, although very limited. The notions of linguistic imperialism and linguistic capitalism delve on a deeper motive, which is global economic control, pushed by the urge for world homogeny (Canagarajah 2004). The effects are dearth of national identity, colonial mentality, lack of patronization for local goods, elitist worldview (not mass-based), pervasion of Western culture rather than the local, and dependence to the United States for economic and social developments. More significantly, the declining importance of the Filipino language exists, which is regarded as non-scholastic, the language of the poor, of the uneducated, and of the backward rural economies. REFERENCES Agoncillo, Teodoro A., 1990. History of the Filipino people. 8th Edition. Garotech Publishing. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. In other words: essays towards a reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Canagarajah, Suresh A., 1999. Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford University Press. Canagarajah, A. Suresh [ed.] 2004. Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chik, Alice, 1998. Native English-speaking Students in Hong Kong EFL classrooms: a case Study. English Department, Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong. Gripaldo, Eden A., et al. 2003. Kasaysayan ng Filipinas at mga Institusyong Filipino. University of the Philippines. Holborow, Marnie, 1999. Politics of English. Sage Publications. Knowles, Gerald, Encyclopedia Britannica. Morrison, K. and Lui, I., 2000. Ideology, linguistic capital and the medium of instruction in Hongkong. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. Vol. 21(6). Phillipson, Robert, 1992, Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press. Read More