Summary
Highlights
The panel "Counter-Babel: Linguistic Practices in Multilingual Philippines" focuses on challenges and issues in multilingual communities, specifically within the Philippine context. The discussion begins by addressing the pervasive bias towards monolingualism in linguistic practices, theories, and policy, often viewing linguistic diversity as a 'curse' akin to the Tower of Babel story. The speaker emphasizes the necessity of reframing linguistic practices to embrace the norm of multilingualism, which offers unique insights into language and its use.
The Philippines is a linguistic hotspot, characterized by high linguistic diversity, language endangerment, and low levels of documentation. The country boasts over 180 languages, including indigenous languages, Spanish-based creoles, Filipino Sign Language, and national languages like Filipino and English. Speakers from various regions introduce themselves and their research, setting the stage for a deep dive into the practicalities and challenges of multilingualism.
The complex nature of linguistic boundaries in the Philippines is discussed, particularly the difficulty in distinguishing between languages and dialects. Mutual intelligibility is often used as a criterion, but political and cultural factors also play a significant role. The term 'dialect' can carry negative connotations, leading to a preference for 'language.' The concept of 'macro languages' is introduced to describe groups of strongly divergent dialects or closely related languages. The migration of people also leads to language contact situations and the emergence of hybrid languages, highlighting the dynamic and fluid nature of language use, especially in urban areas and small-scale communities where multilingualism can be egalitarian or influenced by prestige.
Multilingualism extends beyond spoken language to multimodalities, particularly in online communication. The speaker argues that rather than teasing apart individual languages like distinct monolingual units, it's more useful to focus on 'communicative repertoires' to understand how people genuinely communicate and create meaning. This perspective challenges traditional views of linguistic competence. The conversation then shifts to language endangerment, noting that high linguistic diversity often correlates with high levels of endangerment. Factors like language shift due to economic benefits or dominant languages contribute to attrition, with intergenerational transmission being a key component of revitalization.
Panelists share personal anecdotes and ethnographic observations of everyday multilingual communication. Luward Zubiri describes how Bicolanos navigate different Bicolano languages and Tagalog based on communicative needs, demonstrating a high degree of linguistic awareness. Vinci Santiago details the unique characteristics of Porohanon, emphasizing the constant interplay with Cebuano due to historical and migratory patterns. Jaco Drysdale highlights the mixed linguistic landscape of Southern Mindanao, where hybrid languages emerge from contact between various Philippine languages and English, influenced by prestige and the history of settler colonialism, leading to language inequalities.
The challenges within education are explored, particularly the 'knowledge gap' between real-world linguistic practices and classroom assumptions. The discussion emphasizes the need to view students' linguistic and cultural repertoires as resources rather than barriers to learning. The Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) program is critically examined for its applicability in highly diverse contexts like Southern Mindanao, where standardized materials may not align with local language varieties. Discrepancies between national language policies and family language policies, often influenced by socio-economic factors and language prestige, are also highlighted, leading to language attrition and social injustice for some indigenous groups.
Researchers face challenges in language mapping, where traditional methods can oversimplify complex linguistic situations. The difficulties in assessing multilingual competence and intergenerational transmission using monolingual-based tools are discussed. The need for comprehensive language documentation that captures the diversity of 'macro languages' and under-documented languages is stressed. The panel criticizes colonial practices in language research, advocating for a shift away from 'static' linguistic data towards understanding everyday 'languages in use' and diverse communicative repertoires. This involves treating language users as individuals with agency, rather than mere data sources, and promoting collaborative, community-led research.
The conversation shifts to reframing language policies by 'decentering language' and focusing on the lives of people. This approach prioritizes understanding the everyday rhythms and diverse needs of communities, including their literacy needs, which can drive language policies more effectively than top-down mandates. The panel stresses that researchers should collaborate with communities, acknowledge past mistakes, and be accountable. Academics have a crucial role in bridging the gap between community realities and policymakers by advocating for inclusive, bottom-up policies that reflect the true linguistic landscape of the Philippines. The discussion concludes by describing "reframing linguistic practices as the first step in decolonizing the discipline" of linguistics in the Philippines.
The open forum addresses questions about the effectiveness of MTB-MLE. Panelists acknowledge the program's good intentions but highlight its monolingual underpinnings and practical challenges in truly multilingual settings. They advocate for a focus on facilitating learning through any and all available linguistic and cultural resources, de-emphasizing the 'which language' question. The discussion then moves to language endangerment, emphasizing its multicausal and multi-dimensional nature, intertwined with social-cultural issues, migration, and power relations. There's a call for researchers to acknowledge their past errors and adopt more holistic approaches that recognize the complex interplay of factors contributing to language shift, even when it's not overtly visible.