Filipino as global language

This weekend, numerous linguists from all over the world will converge at the CSB International Conference Center in Malate, Manila, to discuss the status of Filipino as a global language.

Historically, the global languages were Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Greek, Latin, Persian, Russian, Sanskrit, and Spanish, because for a certain number of decades or centuries they were spoken by millions of people outside the country in which they were the mother tongues. If we consider the 20th century as history (it was, after all, the last century), then English qualifies as a historical global language, too.

Why is Filipino a global language in the 21st century? Primarily because of the overseas Filipinos that speak it. Since Filipinos are found in every corner of the globe, the language of Filipinos is now considered a global language. Anywhere in the world, if you stay on a sidewalk long enough, somebody will answer your greeting of “Kabayan!”

The international conference this weekend is actually the third of its kind. The earlier conferences were held in Hawaii in 2008 and in California in 2010.

This year’s conference is sponsored by the Global Consortium for the Advancement of Filipino Language and Culture (GLOCAFIL) and the Pambansang Samahan sa Linggwistika at Literaturang Filipino (PSLLF), in coordination with the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA).

Slated to speak at the conference are Brother Armin Luistro, FSC, Virgilio S. Almario, Catherine Q. Castañeda, Michael Corosa, Santiago Flora Jr., Teresita F. Fortunato, Phillip Kimpo Jr., Remedios Lorica, Ruth Elynia S. Mabanglo, Cynthia Y. Ning, Vicente L. Rafael, Teresita S. Ramos, Alvin Ringgo Reyes, Nicanor G. Tiongson, Mary Grace Ampil-Tirona, Patrocinio Villafuerte, Robert Bley-Vroman, and others.

I will be speaking tomorrow and this is what I intend to talk about (in Filipino, of course):

I will deal with three particular issues related to the theme of the conference. First, the legal issue. Second, the problem raised by some Cebuanos and Ilocanos. Third, the problems brought about by the Mother Tongue Based Multilingual Education (MTBMLE).

In 2007, the organization Wika ng Kultura at Agham (WIKA), of which I am the president, filed a case in the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of Executive Order 210 and DepEd Order 36, both of which attempted to make English the main medium of instruction in our public schools. There were all sorts of technicalities, leading eventually to a second suit against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and then DepEd Secretary Jesli Lapus. Recently, the Supreme Court sent us a notice that the case had become moot and academic, because both Arroyo and Lapus were no longer in office. The Supreme Court did not discuss the merits of the case and, therefore, left the question of constitutionality still hanging.

The second issue has to do with the difference between Filipino and Tagalog. Linguists often say that the two languages are identical structurally but different socio-linguistically. The mutual intelligibility of Filipino and Tagalog has emboldened some non-Tagalogs to claim that Tagalog, which is only a regional language, should not be the national language. Understandably because of the size of the population that speaks the two language, speakers of Cebuano and Ilocano have been actively campaigning on cyberspace against Filipino.

I am on record as saying that Filipino is structurally different from Tagalog, but my argument, admittedly based on minor grammatical points, has not been taken seriously by the anti-Tagalogs. All I can say is that, having been born and raised in Manila, I speak a language (which is Filipino) that my Tagalog friends insist is not Tagalog. If Tagalogs do not consider Filipino as Tagalog, why do Cebuanos and Ilocanos think that Filipino is Tagalog?

The third issue has to do with the policy (first ordered during Lapus’s time and finally fully implemented by Brother Armin Luistro) of using the mother tongue as the medium of instruction for all subjects from Grade 1 to Grade 3.

My colleagues in WIKA wonder why I support MTBMLE, when it appears to dilute the importance of Filipino as a medium of instruction. I keep failing to convince them that, in government, no change occurs overnight. It is important to do major changes one step at a time. The MTBMLE is a step in the right direction. Why? Because the real medium of instruction in all our schools until last June was English. To wean teachers, students, and parents from the colonial mentality that English is a good medium for learning, the MTBMLE is a good tool, because it will show dramatically that students do not need English in order to learn how to read, write, add, and subtract.

Far be it from me, however, to say that we should not teach English. English is the simplest (though not the only) way to raise one’s standard of living. (Think taipans or sheikhs.) But to teach English, other countries use their own languages as medium of instruction. Those who say that China teaches English should ask what the medium of instruction is in Chinese schools. Ask the same question of Japan, Germany, France, and any other country where English is not a mother tongue. Using English as a medium of instruction is one thing; learning English is quite another thing. Of course, we should learn English, but let us not use it as a medium of instruction.