See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301283322

Linguistic research in the Philippines: Trends, prospects, & challenges

Chapter · January 2012

CITATION READS
1 12,423

2 authors, including:

Shirley Dita
De La Salle University
23 PUBLICATIONS   57 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Intelligibility of Philippine English View project

Revitalizing the oral language traditions and cultural practices of Itawit, Aklanon, and Kinaray-a View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shirley Dita on 14 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The State of Linguistic Research in the Philippines:
Trends, Prospects and Challenges

DANILOT T. DAYAG, Ph.D.

SHIRLEY N. DITA, Ph.D.
Linguistic Society of the Philippines

1. Introduction
The production of knowledge in linguistics in the Philippines is largely the
preoccupation of the Linguistic Society of the Philippines (henceforth LSP), the only
professional organization of linguists and language researchers in the country. As
clearly stipulated in its Mission-Vision Statement, the LSP leads in the “advancement of
the scientific study of language in the Philippine context” (www.lsphil.org). Since its
founding in 1969, it has been at the forefront in research and publication involving
languages, especially those used in the Philippines. While knowledge creation in
linguistics has had some progress largely through the initiatives of the LSP, much
remains to be done, and the achievement of its goals is hampered by various factors.
This paper describes what has been done in recent years insofar as linguistic research
is concerned and charts directions for future research in the field. It also discusses a
number of factors that constrain the conduct of linguistic research in the country. It
should be noted that the survey of studies that follows is based on what has been
published in the Philippine Journal of Linguistics (henceforth PJL), the LSP’s official
scholarly publication, in the last ten years, i.e., from 2000 to 2009. Needless to say, the
paper makes no claim as to the comprehensiveness and exhaustiveness of the survey.

2. Trends

In this section, the trends in knowledge production in linguistics in the country are
analyzed in terms of the number of articles published in the PJL during the ten-year
period (i.e., from 2000 to 2009), areas and topics covered by these articles, and profile
of writers of the articles.

2.1 Number of Articles Published

A survey of the articles published in the PJL within the ten-year period reveals
that a total of 103 papers appeared in the journal during the period, excluding book
reviews. This number is broken down as follows:

1
Table 1. Number of articles published in PJL (2000-2009)
Volume Year Number of articles

31 2000 16
32 2001 13
33 2002 11
34 2003 9
35 2004 17
36 2005 6
37 2006 10
38 2007 8
39 2008 8
40 2009 5

Total 103

Average 10.3

As Table 1 shows, the PJL has published an average of approximately 10

articles per year. The table likewise reveals that the biggest output was recorded in
2004, followed by 2000 and 2001. This is due, in large part, to the publication of
selected papers from national and international conferences organized by the LSP,
such as the one in 2002, from which papers for issue number 1, volume 35 (2004), were
chosen.
Of the 103 papers published from 2000 to 2009, 58 (or 56.31%) deal with applied
linguistics, 39 (or 37.86%) are related to theoretical linguistics, and six (5.83%) are
state-of-the-art papers. Following traditional classification of domains of linguistics,
phonology, syntax, semantics fall under theoretical linguistics. Applied linguistics, on the
other hand, covers language teaching, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, second
language acquisition, and bilingualism. Most of these categories are used as rubrics for
the survey of studies that follows.
That a majority of the articles that appeared in the PJL were aligned with applied
linguistics seems to be both a positive and negative development. It is positive if one
looks at it as an expansion of the field, given the increasing interest of many scholars in
the application of linguistic theory to practical concerns such as teaching. However, it
does seem to be a negative development if one revisits the vision of the PJL and of the
LSP as an organization, for that matter, which is to lead in the promotion and
advancement of the scientific study of Philippine languages. From a traditional
2
perspective, such a vision may be interpreted as focusing on descriptions of Philippine
languages, especially the minority languages, at the phonological, syntactic, semantic
and pragmatic, and discourse levels. Simply put, the dominance of applied linguistics
papers, it may be argued, may be a digression from the original intent of the journal.
2.2 Survey of Studies in Linguistics in the Last Ten Years (2000-2009)

The Philippine Journal of Linguistics focuses on studies in descriptive,

comparative, historical, and areal linguistics. There is a clear multiplicity of topics,
themes, issues, research methodologies, approaches, and scope of papers published in
PJL in the last 10 years. Hence, this section will be divided according to the themes and
areas covered by the papers.

2.2.1 Special Issues and Themes

In the last decade, there have been eight special issues of the PJL, which are
mostly collections of selected papers from conferences organized by the LSP. These
are presented chronologically below.

The 30th Anniversary Symposium of the Linguistic Society of the Philippines

This special issue in 2000 compiled papers from a conference that had been held
a year earlier in celebration of the 30th anniversary of the organization. The issue
includes a Welcome Remarks from Fr. Bienvenido Nebres, S.J., President of Ateneo De
Manila University, and a Keynote Address titled “English, Filipino and other languages
at the crossroads: Facing the challenges of the millennium” delivered by Br. Andrew
Gonzalez, FSC, the then Secretary of what used to be Department of Education,
Culture and Sports, now Department of Education (DepEd). In addition, then president
of the organization, Emy Pascasio, came up with a state-of the-art paper on the 30
years of LSP. Here, she traced the historical background and objectives of the
organization, the range of research and publications, the training programs and the
other projects of the organization such as consultancy and advocacy. Another
significant contribution was made by Br. Andrew Gonzalez, Ma. Lourdes Bautista and
Emy Pascasio, which focused on the “Social sciences and policy-making in language.”
Equally significant are Emma Castillo’s ‘Language related recommendations of the
Presidential Commission on Educational Reform’ and Catherine Young’s ‘Local
participation as a basis for sustainable literacy among the cultural Communities.” There
were also two articles on the developments in Sociolinguistics and four in the
implementation of the Bilingual Education Policy.

Functional Literacy in a Multilingual Context

It should be noted that the notion of multilinguality in education is not something

new. In 2001, a special issue on this area featured important contributions which include
Allan B.I. Bernardo’s Keynote Address titled “Beyond functional literacy, towards a
multiliteracy pedagogy.” Other articles include ‘Literacy for development in multilingual
3
contexts: Five characteristics of sustainable programs’ (Susan Malone and Dennis
Malone); “The development of indigenized curricula” (Catherine Young); “A new
definition of functional literacy for Filipinos in the 21st century: Some implications for
development, language and education” (Maria Luisa C. Doronilla); “Language of
instruction used in non-formal education” (Rosario J. De Guzman; “Literacy for
development: A Western Subanon experience” (Melinda T. Awid); “Literacy in
multilingual communities” (Santanina Rasul); “Emergent literacy of Filipino preschool
children” (Lydia Lalunio). The topics of the papers in this issue show the depth and
breadth of work on functional literacy, which have contributed to ongoing discourses on
the role of the mother tongue in multilingual education especially at the basic education
level.

Special Issue on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Summer Institute of
Linguistics
In the Foreword of this special issue marking the 50th anniversary of the Summer
Institute of Linguistics (SIL) in the Philippines, Br. Andrew Gonzalez, FSC, on behalf of
the Filipino linguists and the Filipino people as a whole, expressed his immense
gratitude to the SIL for their unparalleled commitment in enriching Philippine linguistics
and for their efforts in establishing literacy education in the mother tongue. Appearing in
this issue are J. Stephen Quakenbush’s state-of the art of Philippine linguistics from the
SIL perspective. Here, he summarizes the topics that have been dealt with in the SIL
academic publications. Leading the list is morphosyntax, followed by discourse and
phonology among others. Quakenbush likewise stresses that there was a notable drop
in the number of studies on Philippine languages in the 2000s. Aside from a lexical
investigation on language families in the southern Philippines (by Scott Burton), there
are also three descriptive studies on some grammar points of Sama Bangngi’ (Joan
Gault) and Kankanaey (Janet Allen), and an essay on the experiences of writing a
communicative grammar (E. Lou Hohulin). Four other articles (written by Catherine
Young, Ellen Errington, Dianne Dekker, and Howard Shelden and Kay Ringenberg) on
the different issues and experiences in the basic literacy program of the organization
have been featured here.
LSP International Conference on Applied Linguistics and Language Education

As the theme suggests, this issue features articles that delve into applied
linguistics, specifically, language education. There are 11 articles that cover different
fields of applied linguistics. For instance, Emma Castillo proposes (then) new framework
in teaching English called the Communicative Approach (CA) and the Cognitive
Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) or the CACALLA approach, in short.
Other works on language teaching include Isabel Martin’s work on teachers’ way of
marking written works in content areas; Isagani Cruz’s reengineering Filipino, English,
and the lingua franca in basic education; Ikuo Koike’s English language education policy
in Japan; John Miles’s essay on developments of Test of Spoken English (TSE); and
Andrew Gonzalez’s state-of-the-art paper on applied linguistics and language teaching
in the Philippines. Other papers include Emy Pascasio’s analysis of the Filipino bilingual
4
from a sociolinguistic perspective, Leonisa Mojica’s description of apology strategies
perceived to be appropriate by Filipino-speaking couples, Alice Adeva’s conversation
analysis of doctor-patient interactions in a government hospital, and Thomas Kral’s
essay celebrating the 40th anniversary of the USIS’s publication Forum. Obviously, this
special issue has dealt with a wide range of topics, a testament to the vastness of the
field of applied linguistics and perhaps a manifestation of the great interest generated in
the area, especially among Filipino researchers and scholars.

The 10th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics

Two issues have been devoted to selected papers from the 10th International
Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (ICAL) held in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan,
in 2006, which was co-sponsored by the LSP and SIL. Appearing in these two issues
are the plenary lectures of the conference: Nicole Revel’s “Memory of voice: Archiving
and analyzing oral composition” and Lawrence A. Reid’s “On reconstructing the
morphosyntax of Proto-Northern Luzon.”
Other featured papers include creoles (Aireen Barrios’s “Austronesian elements
in Philippine Creole Spanish”), theoretical issues (such as Videa De Guzman’s
“morpheme-based versus word-based morphology’ and Masumi Katagiri’s “Topichood
of the Philippine topic revisited: from a cross-linguistic perspective’), discourse (Michael
Walrod’s “The marker is the message: The influence of discourse markers and particles
on textual meaning”), and Elizabeth Luquin’s “To be in relation: Ancestors” or the
polysemy of the Minangyan (Hanunoo) term 'apu’), sociolinguistics (Teresita Tajolosa’s
“The Tagbanua language in Irawan in the midst of globalization”), Philippine syntax
(Josie Clausen’s “Lexical relations in Ilokano for an Ilokano lexical database”), and
reduplication (Allan Johnson’s ‘Ayta Mag-anchi reduplication’).
Although these are the only featured articles in the journal, there was a wide
range of topics covered in the conference, such as Austronesian transitivity and
ergativity, noun phrase structures: functional elements and reference tracking, pronoun
ordering typology in Austronesian, dictionaries and dictionary making in Austronesian
languages, early Austronesian subgrouping, epics in Austronesian languages and
cultures, language endangerment in Central Maluku, languages and literature in
Palawan, and teaching Austronesian languages. Incidentally, two important articles also
appeared in these two issues: Bautista’s “In memoriam: Brother Andrew” and Vilches’s
“In memoriam: Emy Pascasio.” It should be noted that the LSP has been hosting
memorial lectures in honor of these two distinguished figures of Philippine linguistics:
Brother Andrew Gonzalez, FSC and Emy Pascasio.

World Englishes and Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference

Set against the World Englishes paradigm and its influence on second language
learning and teaching, this special issue of the PJL in 2008 is a collection of selected
papers from an international conference held in the same year. Articles are carefully
chosen in order to reflect the current researches in this field, not only in the Philippines
but throughout the whole world, as well.

5
 Claudia Kunschak and Fan Fang’s paper takes China as the center stage in their
investigation of teachers’ and students’ perspectives on the intelligibility, acceptability,
target-likeness of varieties of English and of the teaching of pronunciation within EIL
framework. Melvyn Alamis’s article deals with current perspectives on world Englishes
and their implications for second language teaching and learning. Yazid Basthomi’s
paper, on the other hand, focuses on Indonesian terms of address as used in the
acknowledgement section of theses. Iori Kobayashi’s article looks into Taiwanese
learners’ views on L2 varieties of English, specifically, how Taiwanese students view
their experiences of learning English in the Philippines. Two articles compare the
Philippines with other countries. Marianne Gaerlan looked into the discourse
organization of want ads in Qatari and Philippine English newspapers, whereas Maya
David and Francis Dumanig analyzed the nativization of English in Malaysian and
Philippine dailies. Gaerlan opines that Filipino writers provide more information in the
ads compared with Qatari writers. David and Dumanig, on the other hand, conclude that
English has become an Asian language, as evidenced by the intrusions and
assimilations of lexical items into the Philippine and Malaysian varieties of English. Two
articles explored features of Philippine English: Ariane Borlongan’s paper on tag
questions and Felixberto Mercado’s article about cognitive structuring of research
articles.

Special Theme: Contrastive Rhetoric

In this special issue in 2002, five articles have focused on various aspects that
compared the Philippines with other cultures. In Cecilia Genuino’s article, she surmises
that conjunctions as used by the Singaporean, Philippine, and American Englishes,
reveal the culture of these countries, specifically, those in the Outer Circles, as more
change-oriented and writer-responsible than the Inner Circle countries. Sydney
Gonzales, on the other hand, investigates politeness in letters to the editor of these
same countries. Arina Brylko and Leah Gustilo compare Philippine and American
Englishes in terms of cognitive structuring of criminal appeal cases and news leads,
respectively. In addition, Mildred Rojo-Laurilla delves into the presentation of self and
self-disclosure of Philippine advice columns in English and Filipino.

2.2.2 Philippine and Austronesian Linguistics

As stated in the Aims and Scope of the journal, studies on Philippine languages
are given priority in publication, in keeping with the mission-vision statement of the LSP.
Aside from the two issues from the international conference on Austronesian linguistics
that revolve mainly around Philippine languages, there are other papers that have
appeared in other issues that deal with various aspects of Philippine languages. These
are presented below.

Grammatical and Phonological Studies

Using an approximately one million- word corpus of Filipino novels, McFarland

(2001) investigates the form, word order, and syntax of Filipino enclitics, and concludes
6
that enclitics do occupy an important place in Filipino grammar. Hohulin and Donald
Burquest (2007), on the other hand, investigate the morphophonology of Tuwali Ifugao,
a language spoken by approximately 25,000 people in Kiangan, Ifugao province. In
order to describe the interaction of morphological and phonological phenomena, they
investigated the process of affixation, reduplication, gemination, syllabification, and
stress placements of excerpts from natural Tuwali Ifugao texts.
Allen (2007) explores the focus and activation of Kankanaey, a language spoken
in northern Philippines. This study describes how speakers of the language introduce
participants, refer to accessible entities, identify participants and their roles, and activate
referents for prominence, comment, or contrast in their discourses. Likewise, Mallorca
(2007) looks into the rhetorical questions used in Kalagan, a language spoken in Davao
with remarkably diminishing number of speakers, that is, approximately 20,000, based
on the 1990 census. By giving authentic texts that exemplify the issue at hand, Mallorca
lists seven specific functions of rhetorical questions in Kalagan: (1) to force the hearers
to think and thus be engaged in the topic, (2) to emphasize a known fact, (3) to express
an evaluation of a decision about to be made, (4) to express exasperation, (5) to
administer a mild rebuke or scolding, (6) to express strong negative emotion, and (7) to
indicate doubt and uncertainty.
Buck (2009) provides a phonemic description of Tobilung, a member of the
Dusun subgroup of Bornean languages. Buck describes both vowels and consonants,
and then moves on to a description of Tobilung’s syllable structure. The article also
touches on interpretation of vowels, consonants, and syllable, and the issues of vowel
harmony and neutralization.

Other Papers on Philippine Languages

Aside from grammatical descriptions, there are a few articles that provide other
facts about a certain language. For instance, Gonzalez (2001) provides bibliographical
sources for the study of Kapampangan language. Here, he classifies the 101 resources
into three: bibliographies of Philippine linguistics (6), nineteenth century (31), and
twentieth century (74), respectively.
Zorc (2004) exlpores historical linguistics by focusing on semantic reconstruction
in Austronesian linguistics. Here, he describes the semantic relationships in different
aspects, such as synonymy, antonymy, metonymy, polysemy, narrowing or
generalization, hyponymy, synecdoche, hyperbole, litotes, degeneration, elevation,
specialization, taboo, and idiomaticity. In another study, Signey (2005) attempts to trace
the evolution and disappearance of the “ğ” in Tagalog orthography since the 1593
Doctrina Christiana.
A truly innovative paper that departs from the traditional definition of language as
a verbal code and that expands the scope of the PJL is that of Martinez, Bernardo,
Puson and Tanjusay’s (2009) “Observations on regional variants and handshape
patterns of six signs in Filipino Sign Language.” This paper examines the variants of six
lexical items – ASO (dog), BITUIN (star), BATO (stone), BABOY (pig), DAMO (grass)
and MATALIM (sharp) – in the Filipino Sign Language.

7
Articles in Filipino
Although articles in PJL are typically written in English, there are occasional
papers written in the Filipino language. For instance, Oue’s (2001) Pagbabago ng wika
sa pamamagitan ng pakikipagkontak: Filipino sa bansang Hapon (2005) and Fischl’s
Pag-unlad ng Wikang Filipino sa Sakop ng Occupational Therapy (OT) both
investigated how the Filipino language has evolved over the years. The former reports
on the common Japanese words and phrases used in conversations among Filipinos in
Japan and the latter on the translation to Filipino of the common phrases used in OT.
Bonus-Adeva’s (2005) Mga Semantik Koreleyt ng Pagkatransitibo sa mga Kwentong
Sebwano, on the other hand, deals with the grammar of the Cebuano language.

2.2.3 Studies on Applied Linguistics

Language Teaching

Bautista (2002), continuing her previous work on the features of Philippine

English and grammaticality judgment test, investigates the treatment of the English verb
system in Philippine high school English textbooks. Using four series of English
textbooks, she focuses on the teaching of verb tenses and modals and shows how
some textbook series exhibit either adequacy or inadequacy in the teaching of the verb
system. She concludes her study by pointing out that apart from the textbook which is in
focus, the teacher, the learner, and the learning situation are equally important in the
whole scenario.
Two studies look into specific practices in English language classrooms.
Cusipag (2004) investigates peer-editing patterns in the English One compositions of
DLSU-Manila students and finds out that some forms of editing resulted in considerable
improvement in the students’ argumentative essays. She concludes that there is no one
best pattern that produces significantly improved writing. Balarbar (2005), on the other
hand, conducted a descriptive analysis of reflective essays as a metacognitive tool in
portfolio assessment and contends that DLSU students have the facility and ability to do
reflective thinking and writing even without prior training and that their metacognitive
knowledge is both experiential and cognitive.
As for the management side of language education, Plata (2007) explores the
assessment reform policy and its implementation in Philippine public secondary
education. Here, she evaluates the existing policies through the policy documents and
sample assessment tools and through a focus group discussion with public school
teachers in Metro Manila and Region 4, respectively.

Sociolinguistics

Among the studies in sociolinguistics is Mojica’s (2000) study on gender

differences in the description of male/female language in Filipino. She surmises that
there exist differences between men and women, such as stereotyping and linguistic
sexism. Along the same vein is Laurilla’s (2002) study on text messaging. She posits
that there are gender differences in the text messaging patterns, such as women
8
exhibiting longer conversations than men, women’s use of emoticons more than men,
among others. In her 2007 study, Laurilla looks into how Filipino texters observance of
the four Gricean maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relation (Relevance), and Manner. She
concludes that even in mediated contexts, there are cases of non-observance of these
maxims, especially Relevance.
Also utilizing the Gricean cooperative principles is Lising’s (2002) paper on
Cebuano jocularity. By looking at 30 jokes from a Visayan magazine, she ascertains
that most of the entries flout the maxim of Quality by using hyperbole and metaphor, the
maxim of Relation by intentionally making use of objects and symbols that have no
bearing on each other, and the maxim of Manner by purposely being unclear of their
referents.
On another note, Gustilo (2007) explores the language and self-presentation of
Filipino personal homepages (PHP) by looking at the sentence types and speech
functions used by the owners of homepages. Gustilo arrives at the conclusion that PHP
authors use linguistic features that present them as individuals who are mainly engaged
in material processes of ‘being.’ Victoria (2009), by contrast, explores linguistic
politeness and the power teachers wield in Philippine higher education classrooms,
using Brown and Levinson’s (1987) framework. Finally, Estipona’s (2009)
“Sociolinguistic centrifuge: Comparing language attitudes from urban center to urban
periphery” reports findings of a survey on attitudes towards English and Filipino of
students from two locales: urban center represented by Manila and urban periphery
represented by Romblon.

Discourse Analysis

Studies in this sub-area of applied linguistics have dealt with various topics, most
notably, the discourse of print ads (Dayag, 2001 and 2002) and evidentiality in
newspaper editorials (Dayag, 2004). Likewise, Suarez-Crizaldo (2005) examines the
linguistic and rhetorical features of televangelism as persuasive discourse. Gocheco
(2007) likewise comes up with a discourse analysis of mediated political advertisement
campaigns.
Madrunio (2004), on the other hand, compares Philippine and Singapore English
in their discourse organization of letters of complaint to editors. Although she asserts
that there are more similarities than differences in the discourse organization between
the two varieties, she concludes that Filipinos employ a more elaborate writing style as
opposed to the Singaporeans who are more direct and thus, curt and simple.

Bilingualism and Code-switching

Although these two areas are widely investigated in academic research such as
in theses and dissertations, there is an obvious paucity in the research of this area in
PJL. Two studies are noted here. Lorente (2000) revisited Tagalog-English code-
switching using a congruence approach and concludes that there is evidence to suggest
that ‘Taglish’ could be an emerging hybrid language in the Philippines. In a more recent
study, Doplon (2008) suggests that code-switching in Philippine tabloids could be

9
symptoms of subservience and resistance in a post-colonial society. Along a similar
line, Valdez’s (2009) views Tagalog-English code-switching from an ideological
perspective, using data from interactions in the business domain.
Pascasio’s (2000) study reports on an update on the language behavior profile of
the Filipino bilingual by attempting to identify the critical correlates of English and
Filipino language proficiency. She emphasizes that language use and a positive attitude
towards the language are important in achieving language proficiency. Castro’s (2004)
study, though focusing on the role of Tagalong in ESL writing, looks into the bilingual
nature of Filipino students in their composing behaviors as reported in their think-aloud
protocols. Castro concludes that the students’ first language, Tagalog, has played more
of a facilitative rather than interfering role as they wrote in English.
Dench (2004), on the other hand, describes the variations in hyphen usage when
writing ‘Taglish’ verbs and highlighted six different patterns in hyphen usage.
Interestingly, Dench is looking into the possibility of making ‘Taglish’ (a merging of
Tagalog and English with the former as the dominant language) as a creolized variety
soon.

Second Language Acquisition

Very little research has explored second language acquisition in recent years.
One study, that of Concepcion (2005), explored the impact of inflectional awareness on
syntactic bootstrapping and fast mapping of novel verbs in Filipino, English, and
Chabacano.

2.2.4 State-of-the-Art Papers

In addition to the reviews included in special issues mentioned earlier and the
empirical papers, grammars, essays and reports that the PJL has published, there is
also a considerable number of reviews and state-of-the-art papers.
There are three other important state-of-the-art papers that have appeared in the
last decade. First, Gonzalez (2000) reports on the overall success of the Philippines in
language teaching from 1898 to 1946. Here, he identifies the factors that contributed to
this success during the American period and the independence period. In addition, he
explains that the factors behind the success of the experience come from various
points. Second, Llamzon (2001) gives an update on the intellectualization of Filipino
through a quantitative report and a comprehensive analysis of the three representative
works on intellectualization of the language. He outlines these three works: (1) Ernesto
Constantino’s “The contemporary English-Filipino dictionary,” which gives 20,000
English lexical items in Filipino; (2) Roque J. Ferrriol’s “Pambungad sa metapisika,”
which contains many examples of word associations and collocations, as well as
expectancy chains; and (3) Florentino Timbreza’s “Intelektwalisasyon ng pilosopiyang
Filipino,” which uses mechanisms like loanwords, calques, derivations, paraphrases,
and compounding. Llamzon admits though that the process of Filipino intellectualization
has a long way to go.

10
 Finally, Bautista (2000) gives an update on the studies of Philippine English
(PhE). She divides the review into three strands, which she admits as either separate or
interweaving: (1) the status of PhE as a standard variety of English, (2) the linguistic
features of this variety, and (3) the intelligibility and acceptability of PhE. Bautista
argues that PhE, specifically the educated variety, is legitimate. Likewise, she describes
the phonology, grammar and lexicon, as well as the intelligibility and acceptability of
PhE. The review culminates with an account of what has been done and what needs to
be done in this area of linguistic research. In addition, Bautista also comments on the
different methods utilized in PhE studies.

2.3 Profile of Writers

A close look at the profile of the authors of the articles included in the foregoing
review reveals that a good majority of them are Filipino academics teaching in colleges
and universities in the Philippines. Most of these academics are teachers of English.
Aside from teaching, a few of them hold administrative posts. The only ones who are
not in the teaching profession are the staff of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL),
most of whom do translation work and research on Philippine languages, especially
those used by cultural communities. Their full-time job enables them to conduct field
work and to employ ethnographic methodologies, resulting in fine-grained descriptions
of Philippine languages.

3. Prospects

On the basis of the trends in linguistic research, based on the articles published
in the PJL in the last ten years, some directions are described below.

3.1 More Emphasis on Philippine Linguistics

As Quakenbush (2003) laments, there has been a significant drop in the number
of studies on theoretical linguistics involving Philippine languages since 2000, compared
with the output in the previous decades. A close examination of the papers published in
the PJL from 2005 to 2009, for example, shows that roughly 10 out of a total of 37
papers, i.e., less than one-third of the total, deal with topics in connection with Philippine
languages. With 171 living Philippine languages listed in the Ethnologue (Lewis, 2009),
some of which have yet to be codified, more theoretical papers should be published that
focus on Philippine languages as there is no shortage of topics for research in the field.
Possible areas of research include descriptions of so-called minority languages at the
phonological, morphological, syntactic, and discourse levels.
On the applied side of linguistics, more research should be conducted on how
first languages inform the teaching of other languages such as Filipino and English and
of content area subjects. This underscores the need for more studies on mother tongue-
based multilingual education, along the lines of the Lubuagan experiment (Dekker &
Dumatog, 2003). This study showed evidence that students gained higher scores when
the mother tongue was used in teaching content and English and Filipino. If more

11
studies involving other first languages in the Philippines are conducted, this will
strengthen arguments for mother tongue-based education at the basic level, which will
then translate to research-based language and educational policies affecting the entire
country. In particular, this would give way to a change in the English-only policy in most
schools in favor of a mother tongue-based basic education.

3.2 The Need for Filipino Academics to Conduct More Research on Philippine
Languages

Judging from the profile of PJL authors in the last ten years, it seems that the
task of doing research in linguistics in the country rest on the shoulders of Filipino
academics. This is because there are no existing research institutes in the country
devoted exclusively to linguistic research. The only organization which is at the forefront
of language development efforts including the description of languages, particularly
those belonging to the Austronesian family (Philippine languages included), is SIL
International, a non-sectarian, non-government organization “dedicated to a
professional, scholarly, community-based approach to language development”
(Quakenbush, 2007, p. 49). Working with cultural communities in the Philippines, SIL
staff do both academic work primarily through describing languages, especially the
minority ones, and community development tasks in the form of translation and literacy
development. Thus, inherent in their work is the opportunity to do fieldwork through
which SIL personnel live in local language communities for extended periods of time
and specialize in “the application of linguistic research to literacy and translation needs”
(Quakenbush, 2007, p. 49). No similar self-liquidating organizations operate at the
national level. If at all, research centers or institutes devoted solely to studies on
Philippine languages are based in, affiliated with, and receive funding from local
universities. In effect, personnel overseeing the operations of these institutes or centers
and those conducting research are academics who juggle between teaching and
research, and sometimes, administration.
Given that one of the overarching goals of a university is research, Filipino
academics have no choice but to conduct research, notwithstanding the challenges they
face in the light of their heavy workload and other concerns, as described below. With
special reference to Philippine languages, there is a wealth of information relative to
these languages that needs to be explored and disseminated to the larger community.
One interesting area of research involving Philippine languages, especially the minority
ones, is the documentation of endangered languages, i.e., those languages that are
likely to become extinct in the near future because they are falling out of use and are
being replaced by others that are more widely used in the region or nation (Woodbury,
n.d.). The latter include the Philippines’ official languages, Filipino and English, and the
regional lingua franca (e.g., Ilokano in Northern Luzon and Cebuano in the Visayas and
Mindanao). A number of minority languages in the Philippines are endangered.
Headland (2003), for instance, argues that there are thirty Negrito languages which are
endangered. It is these languages and others scattered all over the Philippines that
need documenting.

12
 As Quakenbush (2007) puts it, language documentation “has to do with
producing a lasting record of representative samples of [a] language” (p. 59). This
focuses on “the production of resources for the linguist or academician more than on
resources that directly benefit speakers of the language being documented”
(Quakenbush, 2007, p. 59). The resources produced may be in the form of grammatical
descriptions and text collections (Quakenbush, 2007). A key component of the process
is the publication of resources for future use by fellow linguists and academics. In the
case of endangered languages in the Philippines, the grammatical descriptions and text
collections may be published by SIL International, which has been at the forefront of this
endeavor in the last five decades, or publishing houses based in universities that have
an interest in Philippine languages, especially the endangered ones.
In addition to language documentation, more work needs to be done in
describing the languages of cultural communities. One promising direction that must be
taken is to employ corpus linguistics as a methodology in gathering naturally occurring
data. As used in this article, a corpus is a body of massive language data – usually
running to hundreds of thousands or even millions of words – stored electronically. In
the Philippines, a pioneering work is the Philippine component of the International
Corpus of English (ICE-PHI) compiled by a group of scholars based at De la Salle
University-Manila (Bautista, Lising, & Dayag, 2004). To date, there have been several
linguistic studies conducted – and many more are being pursued -- by both Filipino and
foreign scholars using this corpus, which points to the richness of the data stored in it.
Realizing the urgent need for a corpus on local languages, another research
team at De la Salle University-Manila, this time an interdisciplinary one – the La Salle
Corpus of Philippine Languages (LASCOPHIL) – is currently building corpora of
Philippine languages as a major step towards providing descriptions of these
languages. Each corpus comes from various texts and genres, both spoken and written.
Corpus-based descriptions of languages have the advantage of including and analyzing
only those language data that are authentic, i.e., they are actually used by speakers,
and filtering out those which are not. This then makes linguistics meaningful and
dynamic because language is authentic and dynamic, which is a departure from the
abstract and idealized notion of language in the 1950s and 1960s. The use of corpora in
language descriptions also allows for a more bottom-up, inductive approach to
analyzing language data because, rather than making general principles first and then
presenting carefully selected language samples, some of which may be idealized, to
exemplify the principle in question, the researcher lets the data speak for itself to arrive
at general principles and to build a model. The success of these corpus-building
projects should encourage other Filipino researchers to do the same for other Philippine
languages, especially the minority ones.
Another promising area of research on Philippine languages is the application of
theoretical models in the analysis of these languages. Well-known models such as the
Chomsky’s Minimalist Program for the Principles and Parameters Theory and Halliday’s
Systemic Functional Linguistics come to mind. The former may be used to test its
applicability in explaining the behavior of sentences in Philippine languages and their
learnability, whereas the latter may be employed in describing authentic texts in the
local languages. Grounding in these models presupposes, however, that linguistics
13
departments of local universities produce graduates at both the undergraduate and
post-graduate levels who are properly trained and are well-equipped and have the
necessary temperament to do real linguistics. This then raises the question of whether
the people giving the training, namely, the teachers themselves, have received the
proper training in doing linguistics which they can pass on to their students. Without
meaning to sound condescending and based on casual observation, perhaps the
Filipino teacher of linguistics needs some re-tooling.

3.3 More Research Activities by the LSP Involving Philippine Languages

As the premier organization of linguists and language researchers in the country,

the LSP has the responsibility of taking the lead in linguistic research. This is because it
enjoys a long tradition of excellence in research primarily through the efforts of its pillars
who were its former Board members – the late Br. Andrew A. Gonzalez, FSC, the late
Dr. Bonifacio P. Sibayan, the late Dr. Emy M. Pascasio, Dr. Teodoro A. Llamzon, and
Dr. Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista – whose studies have shaped national policies on language
and education. Their legacy must continue.
The need for the LSP to conduct more research activities is articulated in the
organization’s ten-year strategic directions and targets (“LSP’s strategic directions and
targets,” 2010-2020) approved by the Board recently. These include the conduct of
research by the Board members which is of national scope and significance, such as
mother tongue-based multilingual education at the basic level and code-switching in the
content classroom. To stimulate the interest of members and non-members of the LSP
in linguistic research, the LSP shall also continue to implement research dissemination
activities like the annual Br. Andrew Gonzalez and Dr. Bonifacio Sibayan distinguished
professorial chair lectures and the Dr. Emy Pascasio memorial lecture. This is on top of
capacity building initiatives of the LSP Board members involving linguistic research.

4. Challenges

The directions described in the previous section may be successfully carried out
in perhaps a very ideal situation. In reality, however, their implementation is constrained
by both external and internal factors. It is these factors that we now turn to.

4.1 Low Priority Given to Research in Many Philippine Universities

As has been mentioned, research is one of the goals of a university, the others
being instruction and extension or community service. This means that a university is
not only a consumer of knowledge, but a producer or creator of knowledge, as well. If all
local universities are faithful to this goal and are aggressive in implementing it, the state
of research in general and linguistic research in particular, will be in a much better
shape. The problem, however, is that many local universities rank research as the least
priority, thereby paying lip service to this goal. The problem will become more vivid if
one realizes the fact that most of those who have done research in linguistics, based on
the review of papers in the PJL in the last ten years, are also academics in local

14
universities who carry heavy teaching loads, as discussed in the section that follows.
That research ranks last in the hierarchy of priorities of universities stems from the fact
that research is expensive and the return of investment in it is slow and minimal. Unless
there are endowments from generous alumni and other stakeholders, the problem is felt
even more by universities that thrive only on tuition fees that students pay, thereby
leading to minimal support, if at all, for research, in general.
The lack of support for research, which is manifested in the absence of a
research agenda, has resulted in run-of-the mill studies on very generic and parochial
topics in education and the sporadic appearance of graduate research journals which
contain the outputs of research conducted by faculty members. Typically, there is
pressure from higher administration for faculty members to do research when the
university is up for accreditation and for them to publish their findings in the university’s
research journal for presentation during accreditation period. After accreditation,
research dies a natural death. The situation is, indeed, pathetic.
For some universities that have a well-articulated research agenda, the problem
is not so much the lack of support for research in general as research on languages. A
case in point is the situation at the University of the Philippines at Los Baños that has a
long tradition of excellence in research in agriculture and the natural sciences.
According to unverified feedback from teachers of the UPLB, language does not enjoy
as high a rank as agriculture and the natural sciences in the order of priorities, which
then translates to the lack of institutional support for research involving languages.

4.2 The Heavy Workload of University Faculty Members

In addition to and because of higher education institutions’ lack of support for

research, there is the challenge posed by the heavy teaching load carried by teachers.
In many colleges and universities, the normal full-time load is 24 units, and in some, as
many as 30 units or even more. In big universities such as De La Salle University-
Manila, Ateneo de Manila University, and the University of the Philippines-Diliman,
teachers carry a lighter load of 12 units, with the expectation that they do research as
part of their normal duties and responsibilities. The latter schools are more of an
exception to the rule as teaching is given emphasis in many Philippine schools.
Just by way of an example, if a college teacher carries of teaching load of 24
units which is equivalent to 24 hours a week and is expected to set aside consultation
hours for students and attend meetings and do committee work, there is hardly any time
left for research. It is even more problematic for those who have to teach part-time in
schools other than that in which they are working full-time in order to augment the
meager salary they receive from their mother unit.

4.3 The Filipino Academics’ Aversion to Linguistics and to Research

Apart from the challenges due to the two factors described above which are
external and institutional, a challenge which is attitudinal in nature and internal to
university teachers is the aversion to anything linguistic and to any endeavor involving
the conduct of research. Perhaps a large part of the reason is the kind of language

15
education these teachers received in college where language is typically taught as an
abstract system that hardly has relevance to a student’s life. Similarly, college teachers
are averse to research as the latter is perceived to be a highly cerebral activity not fit for
teachers who are more inclined to do practical activities such as teaching. The aversion
is compounded when one talks about research on languages.
This negative attitude was expressed at a national seminar-workshop organized
in April 2010 by the Department of English and Applied Linguistics, DLSU-Manila, that
had to do with teaching and researching on texts within the framework of systemic-
functional linguistics. The main speaker/facilitator is an internationally renowned scholar
who has done extensive work in the area. It was participated in by more than 100
teachers, mostly college faculty members, who had come all the way from various
regions of the country. A close look at both the numbers and qualitative comments in
the evaluation forms revealed that most participants hardly appreciated the linguistic
and research part of the speaker’s presentation, with several clamoring for teaching
strategies they could use in their English classes, the recipe-type collection of teaching
methodologies which they could adopt slavishly without regard for the specific context in
which they are teaching the language.

5. Concluding Remarks
In this paper we have described the state of knowledge production in linguistics.
Though by no means exhaustive and comprehensive, the survey is based on studies
that have been published in the PJL in the last ten years (2000-2009). The papers have
been classified under various headings, such as grammatical and phonological studies,
language teaching, sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, bilingualism and code-
switching, second language acquisition, and the like, in addition to special issues and
themes. The survey has highlighted the wide range of areas which researchers, mostly
Filipino academics, investigate and publish in. It has also underscored the focus of the
papers on themes and issues in applied linguistics.
On the basis of this survey of studies, we have then proceeded to charting
directions that linguistics may take in the next several years. We have suggested that
more emphasis be given to Philippine linguistics, in particular, theoretical papers on
Philippine languages, and that local researchers, most of whom are academics, conduct
more studies involving Philippine languages. As an organizational commitment, the LSP
as the professional organization of linguists and language researchers, must take the
lead in initiating research activities involving Philippine languages. We have, however,
argued that implementing these directions is constrained by factors internal and external
to the Filipino researcher of languages. These challenges include the low priority that
many Philippine universities give to research, the heavy teaching load carried by
university teachers, and the aversion of Filipino academics to research and linguistics.
It then goes without saying that, based on the limited information from the
published articles included in the survey, the state of linguistic research in the
Philippines, especially that in theoretical linguistics, leaves much to be desired. And
unless institutional cultures change, unless priorities are reassessed to pay more
attention to studies involving Philippine languages, and unless a more favorable attitude
is displayed by Filipino academics towards linguistic research and a greater interest in
16
languages is generated from them, we may be in the same or worse situation in years
to come. Meanwhile, we continue to lag behind Asian countries like India, Singapore,
Japan, China, and South Korea, in creating knowledge in linguistics, and to content
ourselves in consuming knowledge about our own languages that is being churned out
by researchers from these countries. The situation may also deprive us of the
opportunity to appreciate the richness and beauty of our local languages, and as
language and culture are intertwined, it may withhold basic information about who we
are as a people.

References

Adeva, A. B. (2003/2004). Conversation analysis of doctor-patient interactions at the

Department of Family and Community Medicine, Philippine General Hospital.
Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 34(2)/35(1), 41-46.
Alamis, M. M. P. (2008). Current perspectives on World Englishes and their implications
for second language teaching and learning. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 39,
99-108.
Allen, J. L. (2003). Operators and clause structure in Kankanaey. Philippine Journal of
Linguistics, 34(1).
Allen, J. L. (2007). Focus and activation in Kankanaey. Philippine Journal of Linguistics,
38(1-2), 116-134.
Awid, Melinda T. (2001). Literacy for development: A Western Subanon experience.
Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 32(2).
Baguingan, G. (2000). Grassroots legitimacy: The first language component bridging
program pilot of Region 2 and CAR. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 31(2).
Balarbar, C. V. (2005). The reflective essay as a metacognitive tool in portfolio
assessment: A descriptive analysis. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 36(1-2), 11-
27.
Barrios, A. L. (2006). Austronesian elements in Philippine Creole Spanish. Philippine
Journal of Linguistics, 37(1), 34-49.
Basthomi, Y. (2008). Interlanguage discourse of thesis acknowledgement section:
Examining the terms of address. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 39, 55-66.
Bautista, M. L. S. (2000). Studies of Philippine English in the Philippines. Philippine
Journal of Linguistics, 31(1).
Bautista, M. L. S. (2002). The treatment of the English verb system in Philippine high
school English textbooks. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 33(1), 1-16.
Bautista, M. L. S. (2006). Obituary: In memoriam: Brother Andrew. Philippine Journal of
Linguistics, 37(1).
Bautista, M.L.S., Lising, J.L.V., and Dayag, D.T. (comps.) (2004). International Corpus
of English-Philippines Lexical Corpus. CD-ROM. London: International Corpus of
English.
Bernardo, A. B. (2001). Beyond functional literacy, towards a multiliteracy pedagogy.
Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 32(2).
Bonus-Adeva, F. M. (2005). Mga semantik koreleyt ng pagkatransitibo sa mga
kwentong Sebwano. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 36(1-2), 101-156.

17
Borlongan, A. M. (2008). Tag questions in Philippine English. Philippine Journal of
Linguistics, 39, 109-134.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brylko, A. (2002). Cognitive structuring of criminal appeal cases in Philippine English
and American English. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 33(2), 39-51.
Buck, G. P. (2009). A phonemic description of the Tobilung language. Philippine Journal
of Linguistics, 40, 1-15.
Burton, S. L. (2003). A case study of lexical borrowing between language families in the
southern Philippines. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 34(1).
Castillo, E. S. (2000). Language-related recommendations from the Presidential
Commission on Educational Reform. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 31(2).
Castillo, E. S. (2003/2004). Experiencing powerful English through CACALLA. Philippine
Journal of Linguistics, 34(2)/35(1), 1-6.
Castro, C. D. (2004). The role of Tagalog in ESL writing: Clues from students' think-
aloud protocols. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 35(2).
Clausen, J. P. (2006). Lexical relations in Ilokano for an Ilokano lexical database.
Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 37(1), 50-68.
Concepcion, C. C. (2005). The impact of inflectional awareness on syntactic
bootstrapping and fast mapping of novel verbs in Filipino, English, and
Chabacano. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 36(1-2), 42-100.
Crizaldo, R. S. (2005). Linguistic and rhetorical features of televangelism as persuasive
discourse. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 36(1-2), 33-41.
Cruz, I. R. (2003/2004). Reengineering Filipino, English, and the lingua franca in basic
education. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 34(2)/35(1), 61-67.
Cusipag, M. N. (2004). Peer-editing patterns in the English One compositions of DLSU -
Manila students. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 35(2).
David, M. K. & Dumanig, F. P. (2008). Nativization of English in Malaysia and the
Philippines as seen in English dailies. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 39, 67-80.
Dayag, D. T. (2001). Persuasion as a macro-speech in print ads. Philippine Journal of
Linguistics, 32(1).
Dayag, D. T. (2002). Code-switching in Philippine print ads: A syntactico-pragmatic
description. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 33(1), 33-51.
Dayag, D. T. (2004). Evidentiality in Philippine English and Filipino newspaper
editorials. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 35(2).
De Guzman, R. J. (2001). Language of instruction used in non-formal education.
Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 32(2).
De Guzman, V. P. (2006). Morpheme-based versus word-based morphology. Philippine
Journal of Linguistics, 37(1), 69-86.
Dekker, D. E. (2003). A case study of the first language component bridging program in
rural Philippines. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 34(1).
Dekker, D. E. & Dumatog, R. C. (2003)). First language education in Lubuagan,
Kalinga, northern Philippines. Paper presented at the Conference on Language
Development, Language Revitalization and Multilingual Education in Minority

18
 Communities in Asia. Bangkok, Thailand. November 6-8, 2003.
http://www.sil.org/asia/ldc/parallel_papers/dumatog_and_dekker.pdf
Dench, A. (2004). Variations in hyphen usage when writing 'Taglish' verbs. Philippine
Journal of Linguistics, 35(2).
De Torres, A. (2000). The language situation in selected multicultural areas in
Mindanao. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 31(2).
Doplon, F. (2007). Code-switching in Philippine tabloids: Subservience and resistance
in a post-colonial society. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 38(1-2), 157-177.
Doronila, M. L. C. (2001). A new definition of functional literacy for Filipino in the 21st
century: Some implications for development, language and education. Philippine
Journal of Linguistics, 32(2).
Errington, E. (2003). How much is enough? The question for basic literacy providers.
Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 34(1).
Espina, R. (2000). A correlation study of selected variables affecting performance of
second language learners at the Ateneo de Davao University. Philippine Journal
of Linguistics, 31(2).
Estipona, M. I. B. (2009). Sociolinguistic centrifuge: Comparing language attitudes from
urban center to urban periphery. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 40, 63-83.
Fischl, C. (2005). Pag-unlad ng wikang Filipino sa sakop ng Occupational Therapy.
Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 36(1-2), 28-32.
Fuentes, G. (2000). Status of implementation of the 1987 Policy on Bilingual Education
in Cebuano and Hiligaynon tertiary schools. Philippine Journal of Linguistics,
31(2).
Gaerlan, M. J. M. (2008). Discourse organization of want ads in Philippine English and
Qatari English newspapers. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 39, 41-54.
Gault, J. (2003). Pronouns in Sama Bangingi' hortatory discourse. Philippine Journal of
Linguistics, 34(1).
Genuino, C. F. (2002). Cohesion: A revelation of cultural practices. Philippine Journal of
Linguistics, 33(2), 1-18.
Gocheco, P. (2007). Discourse analysis of mediated political advertisement campaigns.
Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 38(1-2), 86-115.
Gonzales, S. D. (2002). Politeness in letters to the editor in Philippine English, American
English, and Singaporean English. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 33(2), 19-37.
Gonzalez, A. FSC. (2000). Successful language teaching in Southeast Asia: The
Philippine experience (1898-1946). Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 31(1).
Gonzalez, A. FSC. (2000). English, Filipino, and other languages at the crossroads:
Facing the challenges of the new millennium. Philippine Journal of Linguistics,
31(2).
Gonzalez, A. FSC. (2000). The current language situation and policy making in
language. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 31(2).
Gonzalez, A. FSC. (2000). Bibliographical sources for the study of the Kapampangan
language. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 32(1).
Gonzalez, A. FSC. (2003/2004). Applied linguistics and language teaching in the
Philippines: Theory and implications. Philippine Journal of Linguistics,
34(2)/35(1), 87-92.

19
Gustilo, L. E. (2002). A contrastive analysis of American English and Philippine English
news leads. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 33(2), 53-66.
Gustilo, L. E. (2007). Language and self-presentation: A linguistic analysis of Filipino
personal home pages. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 38(1-2), 39-63.
Headland, T. (2003). Thirty endangered languages in the Philippines. In Work Papers of
the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session, vol. 47
(pp. 1-12). Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Retrieved August 9, 2010 from
http://www.und.edu/dept/linguistics/wp/2003Headland.
Hohulin, E. L. (2003). Writing a communicative grammar. Philippine Journal of
Linguistics, 34(1).
Hohulin, E. L. & Burquest, D. (2007). Morphophonology in Tuwali Ifugao. Philippine
Journal of Linguistics, 38(1-2), 1-38.
Jeffrey, D. M. (2002). Perspectives on the social and cultural impact of English as an
international language. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 33(1), 53-70.
Johnson, A. (2006). Ayta Mag-anchi reduplication. Philippine Journal of Linguistics,
37(2).
Katagiri, M. (2006). Topichood of the Philippine topic revisited from a cross-linguistic
perspective. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 37(2).
Kobayashi, I. (2008). "They speak 'incorrect' English": Understanding Taiwanese
learners' views on L2 varieties of English. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 39,
81-98.
Koike, I. (2003/2004). English language education policy in Japan: A particular type of
policy-making process. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 34(2)/35(1), 47-54.
Kral, T. J. (2003/2004). Celebrating forum @ forty. Philippine Journal of Linguistics,
34(2)/35(1), 55-59.
Kunschak, C. & Fan, F. (2008). Intelligibility, acceptability, target-likeness: Teacher vs.
student perspectives on the teaching of pronunciation within an EIL framework.
Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 39, 1-14.
Lalunio, L. P. (2001). Emergent literacy of Filipino preschool children. Philippine Journal
of Linguistics, 32(2).
Lewis, M. P. (Ed.) (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (16th edition). Dallas,
Tex.: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/.
Lising, J. L. V. (2002). Cebuano jocularity: A Gricean interpretation. Philippine Journal of
Linguistics, 33(1), 87-104.
Llamzon, T. A. (2001). Intellectualization of Filipino: An update. Philippine Journal of
Linguistics, 32(1).
Lorente, B. P. (2000). Revisiting Taglish na naman: A congruence approach to Tagalog-
English code-switching. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 31(1).
LSP’s strategic directions and targets (2010-2020). Unpublished manuscript.
Luquin, E. (2006). ‘To be in relation: Ancestors' or the polysemy of the Minangyan
(Hanunoo) term ‘apu’. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 37(1), 87-94.
Madrunio, M. R. (2004). The discourse organization of letters of complaint to editors in
Philippine English and Singapore English. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 35(2).
Mallorca, L. (2007). Rhetorical questions in Kalagan. Philippine Journal of Linguistics,
38(1-2), 64-85.

20
Malone, S. E. & Malone, D. L. (2001). Literacy for development in multilingual contexts:
Five characteristics of sustainable programs. Philippine Journal of Linguistics,
32(2).
Martin, I. P. (2003/2004). How content area teachers mark written work: Implications for
language curriculum and instruction. Philippine Journal of Linguistics,
34(2)/35(1), 15-26.
Martinez, L. B., Bernardo, Y., Puson, M. J., & Tanjusay, R. B. (2009). Observations on
regional variants and handshape patterns of six signs in Filipino Sign Language.
Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 40, 47-61.
McFarland, C. D. (2001). Filipino enclitics. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 32(1).
Mercado, F. M. (2008). Cognitive structuring of research articles in Philippine English.
Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 39, 15-40.
Miles, J. (2003/2004). TSE: Past, present, and future. Philippine Journal of Linguistics,
34(2)/35(1), 81-86.
Mojica, L. A. (2000). How do selected students describe male/female language in
Filipino? Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 31(1).
Mojica, L. A. (2000). Gender differences in students' constructed dialogues in Filipino.
Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 31(2).
Mojica, L. A. (2003/2004). Apology strategies perceived to be appropriate by Filipino-
speaking couples. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 34(2)/35(1), 27-40.
Nebres, B., S.J. (2000). Welcome Remarks. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 31(2).
Nivera, G. C. (2003/2004). Spoken discourse in the tertiary mathematics classroom.
Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 34(2)/35(1), 7-13.
Oue, M. (2001). Pagbabago ng wika sa pamamagitan ng pakikipagkontak: Filipino sa
bansang Hapon. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 32(1).
Pascasio, E. M. (2000). An update on the language behavior profile of the Filipino
bilingual: Correlates of language proficiency. Philippine Journal of Linguistics,
31(1).
Pascasio, E. M. (2000). LSP at 30. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 31(2).
Pascasio, E. M. (2003/2004). The Filipino bilingual from a sociolinguistic perspective.
Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 34(2)/35(1), 69-79.
Plata, S. M. (2007). Exploring assessment reform policy and implementation in
Philippine public secondary education. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 38(1-2),
135-156.
Quakenbush, J. S. (2003). Philippine linguistics from an SIL perspective: Trends and
prospects. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 34(1).
Quakenbush, J. S. (2007). SIL International and endangered Austronesian languages.
In D. V. Rau and M. Florey (Eds.), Documenting and revitalizing Austronesian
languages (pp. 42-65). Manoa, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press. Retrieved
August 9, 2010 from http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/sp01/
Rasul, S. T. (2001). Literacy in multilingual communities. Philippine Journal of
Linguistics, 32(2).
Reid, L. A. (2006). On reconstructing the morphosyntax of Proto-Northern Luzon.
Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 37(2).
Revel, N. (2006). Memory of voice. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 37(1), 1-33.
21
 Reyes-Wandless, M. (2002). An exploration of the conceptual associations in second
language learning among financially disadvantaged preschool learners.
Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 33(1), 17-31.
Rojo-Laurilla, M. A. (2002). "He texts, she texts": Gendered conversational styles in
Philippine text messaging. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 33(1), 71-86.
Rojo-Laurilla, M. A. (2002). The 'presentation of self' and 'self-disclosure': A contrastive
rhetorical analysis of Philippine advice columns in English and Filipino. Philippine
Journal of Linguistics, 33(2), 67-82.
Rojo-Laurilla, M. A. (2007). The realization of Gricean pragmatics in Filipino text
messaging conversations. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 38(1-2), 178-197.
Shelden, H. & Ringenberg, K. (2003). Measuring language of wider communication (L2)
and local community language (L1) literacy levels in a bilingual community of
Indonesia. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 34(1).
Signey, R. C. (2005). The evolution and disappearance of the "Ğ" in Tagalog
orthography since the 1593 Doctrina Christiana. Philippine Journal of Linguistics,
36(1-2), 1-10.
Tajolosa, T. D. (2006). The Tagbanua language in Irawan in the midst of globalization.
Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 37(1), 95-110.
Valdez, P. N. M. (2009). Ideological perspectives on the dynamics of code-switching in
the business domain. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 40, 33-46.
Victoria, M. P. (2009). Power and politeness: Social interaction in Philippine higher
education classrooms. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 40, 17-32.
Vilches, M. L. (2000). Promoting language learning in secondary ELT: The PELT project
experience. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 31(2).
Vilches, M. L. (2006). Obituary: In memoriam: Emy Pascasio. Philippine Journal of
Linguistics, 37(2).
Walrod, M. (2006). The marker is the message: The influence of discourse markers and
particles on textual meaning. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 37(2).
Woodbury, A. C. (n.d.). What is an endangered language? Retrieved August 9, 2010
from http://www.lsadc.org/info/ling-faqs-endanger.cfm.
Young, C. (2000). Sustainable literacy among indigenous cultural communities.
Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 31(2).
Young, C. (2001). The development of indigenized curricula. Philippine Journal of
Linguistics, 32(2).
Young, C. (2003). First language: A foundation for effective basic education. Philippine
Journal of Linguistics, 34(1).
Zorc, D. (2004). Semantic reconstruction in Austronesian linguistics. Philippine Journal
of Linguistics, 35(2).

22

View publication stats