Firth McEachern - Diversity Shock, Part 27
In the past few weeks we've taken a look at the history of the national language up until 1950, and how by then it was still essentially synonymous with Tagalog. Today, some people will tell you that the national language, Filipino, is now different from Tagalog.
It's a romantic idea to think that the national language is a rich, representative mix of all Philippine languages, uniting the nation. So let's take a look at events since 1950, and see if this notion stands up to scrutiny.
In 1950, the National Language–English Vocabulary had its fourth printing, courtesy of the Institute of National Language. Like the 3 versions before it, it contained almost no words from other Philippine languages besides Tagalog.
In 1959, 19 years after Tagalog became a subject in the fourth year of all Philippine high schools and 13 years after it became a subject in all grade levels, the education secretary Jose E. Romero issued Department Order No. 7. This Order officially designated the national language as Pilipino. Before this order, the classes teaching Tagalog were called "national language" classes, even though, as I explained in the last column, the language being taught in these classes bore very little difference from Tagalog.
The name change to Pilipino, however, was not accompanied by steps to reincarnate the language such as the release of a new grammar or vocabulary book incorporating elements from other languages. While altering its name may have intended to portray a national character and dissociate it from Tagalog, it was only an aesthetic change. The national language, now called Pilipino, continued to be taught in the same way as before. In fact, this de facto Tagalog instruction was extended from being just a subject to a medium of instruction from grades 1-4!
In the 1973 Marcos Constitution, the official language retained the name "Pilipino." But since members of the Constitutional Assembly correctly pointed out that Pilipino was basically Tagalog, the development of a national language was seen as unfulfilled. They therefore tasked the Batasang Pambansa to "take steps toward the development of a common national language to be known as Filipino" (Article XV, Sect. 3).
Do you think a new national language was successfully developed, one that was different enough from Pilipino/Tagalog to warrant a new name? Did the "universalist" Filipino ever arrive? Well if you read the 1987 Constitution you would be forgiven in thinking that Filipino---a new language supposed to be synthesized by language experts and naturally enriched---was realized. After all, the 1987 Constitution refers to Filipino in the present tense, as if it already exists: "The national language of the Philippines is Filipino," it bluntly states (Article XIV, Sect. 14).
What was the language meant by "Filipino" in the 1987 Constitution? If you read the records of the Commission's debates on language, you will find that Wilfrido V. Villacorta (the Chairman of the Committee on Human Resources, which drafted the language provision) and one Commissioner Ponciano Bennagen are the main defenders of the idea that Filipino was already a language in 1986. And their main basis was a letter submitted to the Commission by Dr. Ernesto Constantino, a Professor of Linguistics from the University of the Philippines, who claimed:
"The term Filipino refers to the Philippine national lingua franca, i.e. the language used all over the country as a medium of communication…. Filipino is different from Pilipino which in accordance with the 1935 Constitution is based on only one language, Tagalog. Filipino, on the other hand, is based on the language usage, similarities, and peculiarities of the different Philippine ethnic groups."
Before getting deeper into what else Dr. Constantino said in his letter and what it's consequences were, let's analyze his claim. Despite the fact that the 1973 Constitution obligated Congress to wean the country off Tagalog/Pilipino and develop a pluralistic language called Filipino instead, there was not a single act passed to create a National Language Commission between 1973 and 1986, by either the Interim Batasang Pambansa of 1978 or the elected Batasang Pambansa of 1984. In other words, Congress failed to create any mechanisms for the development of Filipino.
What justification did Dr. Constantino have, therefore, to state that Filipino existed, and that it was different from Pilipino/Tagalog? If Congress didn't take any steps to evolve Pilipino/Tagalog into something new, and never even released an official name change from Pilipino to Filipino, what so-called "Filipino" was Dr. Constantino talking about? It's an important question, because ultimately Villacorta, Bennagen, and most of the rest of the Constitutional Commission believed him, and went ahead to declare it as the national language. Wouldn't you love to find out that Dr. Ernesto's letter was largely inaccurate?
In the past few weeks we've taken a look at the history of the national language up until 1950, and how by then it was still essentially synonymous with Tagalog. Today, some people will tell you that the national language, Filipino, is now different from Tagalog.
It's a romantic idea to think that the national language is a rich, representative mix of all Philippine languages, uniting the nation. So let's take a look at events since 1950, and see if this notion stands up to scrutiny.
In 1950, the National Language–English Vocabulary had its fourth printing, courtesy of the Institute of National Language. Like the 3 versions before it, it contained almost no words from other Philippine languages besides Tagalog.
In 1959, 19 years after Tagalog became a subject in the fourth year of all Philippine high schools and 13 years after it became a subject in all grade levels, the education secretary Jose E. Romero issued Department Order No. 7. This Order officially designated the national language as Pilipino. Before this order, the classes teaching Tagalog were called "national language" classes, even though, as I explained in the last column, the language being taught in these classes bore very little difference from Tagalog.
The name change to Pilipino, however, was not accompanied by steps to reincarnate the language such as the release of a new grammar or vocabulary book incorporating elements from other languages. While altering its name may have intended to portray a national character and dissociate it from Tagalog, it was only an aesthetic change. The national language, now called Pilipino, continued to be taught in the same way as before. In fact, this de facto Tagalog instruction was extended from being just a subject to a medium of instruction from grades 1-4!
In the 1973 Marcos Constitution, the official language retained the name "Pilipino." But since members of the Constitutional Assembly correctly pointed out that Pilipino was basically Tagalog, the development of a national language was seen as unfulfilled. They therefore tasked the Batasang Pambansa to "take steps toward the development of a common national language to be known as Filipino" (Article XV, Sect. 3).
Do you think a new national language was successfully developed, one that was different enough from Pilipino/Tagalog to warrant a new name? Did the "universalist" Filipino ever arrive? Well if you read the 1987 Constitution you would be forgiven in thinking that Filipino---a new language supposed to be synthesized by language experts and naturally enriched---was realized. After all, the 1987 Constitution refers to Filipino in the present tense, as if it already exists: "The national language of the Philippines is Filipino," it bluntly states (Article XIV, Sect. 14).
What was the language meant by "Filipino" in the 1987 Constitution? If you read the records of the Commission's debates on language, you will find that Wilfrido V. Villacorta (the Chairman of the Committee on Human Resources, which drafted the language provision) and one Commissioner Ponciano Bennagen are the main defenders of the idea that Filipino was already a language in 1986. And their main basis was a letter submitted to the Commission by Dr. Ernesto Constantino, a Professor of Linguistics from the University of the Philippines, who claimed:
"The term Filipino refers to the Philippine national lingua franca, i.e. the language used all over the country as a medium of communication…. Filipino is different from Pilipino which in accordance with the 1935 Constitution is based on only one language, Tagalog. Filipino, on the other hand, is based on the language usage, similarities, and peculiarities of the different Philippine ethnic groups."
Before getting deeper into what else Dr. Constantino said in his letter and what it's consequences were, let's analyze his claim. Despite the fact that the 1973 Constitution obligated Congress to wean the country off Tagalog/Pilipino and develop a pluralistic language called Filipino instead, there was not a single act passed to create a National Language Commission between 1973 and 1986, by either the Interim Batasang Pambansa of 1978 or the elected Batasang Pambansa of 1984. In other words, Congress failed to create any mechanisms for the development of Filipino.
What justification did Dr. Constantino have, therefore, to state that Filipino existed, and that it was different from Pilipino/Tagalog? If Congress didn't take any steps to evolve Pilipino/Tagalog into something new, and never even released an official name change from Pilipino to Filipino, what so-called "Filipino" was Dr. Constantino talking about? It's an important question, because ultimately Villacorta, Bennagen, and most of the rest of the Constitutional Commission believed him, and went ahead to declare it as the national language. Wouldn't you love to find out that Dr. Ernesto's letter was largely inaccurate?
Firth McEachern - Diversity Shock, Part 28
Pilipino was dismissed by the '73 Constitutional Commission as insufficiently distinct from Tagalog and not an acceptable national language. Hence, while the '73 Constitution recognizes Pilipino as an official language for the mean time, it demands that a new, universal language named "Filipino" should be created in its place to serve as the national language. UP Prof. of Linguistics Dr. Ernesto Constantino agreed in a note to the 1986 Constitutional Commission that Pilipino was based only on Tagalog and had been "developed almost exclusively by the so-called Tagalistas." However, he claimed that the Filipino that the '73 Constitution aspired to, based on the language characteristics of all Philippine ethnic groups, had actually been realized---that it was a living language "used all over the country as a medium of communication." As an invited resource person to the Committee on Human Resources (which drafted the language provision of the '86 Constitution), he further recommended that Filipino already be declared the national language. This recommendation was also stated in a letter to the Con-Com written by him and several other UP folks. In the end, the Constitution followed his advice.
It is interesting to compare his recommendation with the opinions of other resource speakers/groups invited by the Committee on Human Resources. Director Ponciano Pineda of the Institute of National Language said Pilipino (with a `P') should be named the national language, because much time/money had been invested in it, it was already taught in schools, and had already been serving as an official language since 1935. In other words, the INL favoured Pilipino in its traditional purist Tagalog form to be the national language. In a letter sent to the Con-Com, the INL resisted the idea of "Filipino" (with an `F') being declared the national language, because such a language didn't exist yet! They write:
"Ang Filipino ay wikang konseptuwal na nahati sa dalawang paniniwala. Filipino na batay sa lahat ng mga wika sa Pilipinas. Ang Filipino ay bubuuin pa lamang sa paraang walang kaseguruhan. Ito'y walang gramatika, walang sariling bokabularyo, at walang masasabing literatura sa pasalita o pasulat man. Hindi magagamit karaka-raka bilang kasangkapan sa programa ng pagpapaunlad."
The Linguistic Society of the Philippines was also in support of Pilipino---not Filipino---being declared the national language. The President of LSP, Dr. Bonifacio Sibayan, explained to the Committee on Human Resources (during the same 18th of June 1986 meeting in which Dr. Pineda and Dr. Constantino offered their opinions) that the lingua franca used to be English and now it was Pilipino. He further mentioned that Pilipino was quite different from Tagalog as
it has borrowed from English and other languages.
So what is behind the discrepancy between the comments made by the resource persons? Constantino said Pilipino was just a pure form of Tagalog. Sibayan said Pilipino was a diverse language with lots of borrowings. This is a direct contradiction. Constantino said Filipino existed as the national lingua franca and Pineda said Filipino didn't exist yet and was not likely to ever. This is also a direct contradiction. Were these people living on different planets?!
This extreme array of conflicting statements is the classic symptom of a semantic argument. In a situation with a lot of terms but not much to distinguish them, definitions are what you make them. That's exactly what these men appear to have done, and what countless people continue to do when it comes to the national language debate. While `Filipino' was the term ultimately chosen in the '86 Constitution (and most of the Commissioners were persuaded into thinking that it was an existing language distinct from Tagalog/Pilipino), one can continue to find many inconsistencies within the Committee and Plenary session minutes---enough to arouse deep misgivings about the legitimacy of the whole language provision, especially regarding the choice of `Filipino.' Most of the Commissioners didn't seem to know exactly what they were voting for when they approved the language provision, while a small eloquent minority spent most of the time trying (successfully I might add), to depict `Filipino' as a realistic, inclusive, and grand truth. I shall offer snapshots of the Commissioners' revealing comments in my next column.
Firth McEachern - Diversity Shock, Part 28
No comments:
Post a Comment