And the Words Become: Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formation towards Expanding...

77
And the Words Become: Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formation towards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English .. Camilo M Villanueva Jr [email protected] ENG535M Foundations of Language Studies Leah E Gustilo, PhD Final Paper 13 December 2010

description

The paper explores language trends to expose possible language planning measures through a survey of the word-formation processes and characteristics of winning words in the Sawikaan Salita ng Taon that have entered into the monolingual UP Diksiyunaryong Filipino while at the same time an entry in the Oxford Dictionary to expand and codify Filipino as a language-in-progress evolving and growing with its twin language-in-the-making Philippine English to being tracing, tracking, and documenting their move toward convergence.

Transcript of And the Words Become: Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formation towards Expanding...

And the Words Become: Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formation

towards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

..

Camilo M Villanueva Jr

[email protected]

ENG535M Foundations of Language Studies

Leah E Gustilo, PhD

Final Paper

13 December 2010

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

2

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

And the Words Become: Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formation

towards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Introduction

The Philippine educational system has been plagued with the dilemma brought about by

bilingual education (Bautista, 1995; Benton, 1980; Gonzalez, 1990a, 1990b; Sibayan, 1991; and

in Bolton & Bautista, 2009, by Tinio, 1990; Tollefson, 1991; and, exhaustively discussed and

problematized by Bernardo, 2009, in “English in Philippine education: Solution or problem?”),

which leaves learners having a hard time internalizing and applying concepts due to less than

satisfactory comprehension of either of two languages that may not be their first language and

therefore alienate learning more than they make learning accessible.

This dilemma is captured in the apparent paradox—even a series of little ironies—in the

title, specifically on how (a) Words—sound and sense, both intangible thus temporal—become;

and, (b) Filipino word-formation works to expand and lead to codify the lexicon of—not Tagalog

or Pilipino or some such, but—Philippine English. The first an issue of idea turning into palpable

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

3

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

reality and the second an issue of one local national(ist) language-in-progress forming another

erstwhile foreign colonial(ist) language: both digression and dissent and, therefore, catalytic of

change.

Thus, this paper tries to problematize word-formation as it describes trends and

observations that, in the end, tells us what simple words really do or effect or mean not only for

us being familiar with them but knowing them and using them and finding them in print and in

dictionaries of our language(s).

We learn using and through words and we use words to manifest and make use of what

we have learned. In using words we communicate not only what we are saying but effect what

we meant and achieve what we intended. In the process, we form and fortify our identity not

only as persons but as a people, not only as individuals but as a culture.

This jump from one to whole is not mere rhetoric and will not be as traitorous as it is my

fervent hope that you realize with me as we read on—and, hopefully, learn anew.

Theoretical Framework

The issue then of pedagogy is not a simple issue of language choice, but of national

language planning that entails the simultaneous cultivation of both corpus and domains of use—

what Ponciano B P Pineda (1985) describes as the two macro areas in language planning and of

which lexicon and education are the primary items on each list, respectively—and what I say

should be grounded, most importantly, on two key elements:

1. Filipino psychology—a sensitive understanding of how Filipinos see themselves as

learners and users of languages (first, second, and foreign); how Filipinos construct the

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

4

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

self in relation to and in a position opposite other learners, users, and teachers of

language (native, nonnative, and foreign); and, how Filipinos view education as an end in

itself useable right after and as means towards some higher goal; and,

2. Pragmatic sociolinguistics—a sensitive understanding of how Filipinos make sense of

things by and in the way they creatively use language; how Filipinos create, project, and

assert inner selves (loob) and empower their external selves (labas) in their spontaneous

use of language with others; and, how Filipinos understand, remember, and pass on

knowledge by comfortably and lightheartedly using the language that first comes to

mind.

These two foundations simply privilege both the individual and the social aspects of

language and, thus, may be said to be informed by the propositions of Sapir (1949), Saussure

(1915), Venuti (1998), Joshua Fishman (1971), Corder (1982), Basil Bernstein’s deficit

hypothesis, William Labov’s variety concept, and Howard Giles’ accommodation theory.

At the most basic, however, the study may be said to take its shape from Elmer Haugen’s

language standardization paradigm (1966), as most other dissertations on the subject (e.g.,

Matienzo, 1980; Catacataca, 1981; Dela Peña, 1984; Mercado, 1992) have so acknowledged and

which we shall see more of in the following discussions.

Conceptual Framework

The search for the best language for more effective teaching, however, seems not quite

the focus of two national directives in:

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

5

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

1. Playing up the use of English as the useful, global, and formal language that will

ensure users of being accepted into the circle of bright, in, and successful Filipinos—

and therefore the language to learn (equipped for a future in diaspora as global

citizens—with the view perhaps to get all learners take over the world leaving behind

the archipelago’s vast agricultural lands and resources to multinational investors and

developers); and,

. . . President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order 210. [Signed 17 May 2003 and supported byDepEd Order No. 36 S.2006. —Annotation Mine] Its most important point is the establishment of “the Englishlanguage as the primary medium of instruction in all public institutions of learning at the secondary level.” (“Primeron the Filipino Language”)

2. Downplaying the use of Filipino, or any Philippine language for that matter, as the

limited, parochial, and informal language that will ensure users of being accepted into

the circle of simple, traditional, and content Filipinos—and therefore the language to

clear out what the use of English had so cluttered in learners’ minds.

On 29 September . . . announced that “two congressional committees had approved and endorsed to the Houseof Representatives the report prescribing the use of English as the medium of instruction in Philippine schools, frompre-school to college, including technical and vocational courses.” According to the report, the Committees onHigher Education and on Basic Education agreed to consolidate related proposals into House Bill 4701. “If enactedinto law,” the report continued, “the bill will supersede the ‘bilingual policy’” which is in effect today. (“Primer onthe Filipino Language”)

Sending the two languages in opposite directions as if the two are binaries, yet with effort

to privilege both in the educational setting, has ultimately turned off learners from seeing the real

merit of being proficient in both and end up graduating without any firm hold on either language.

Since both are difficult and with technology intervening to make things easier, language

has sought the comfort zone of, on the one hand, the less demanding, loosely structured, and

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

6

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

unchecked “conventions” of text messaging, emailing, and chatting as written discourses for

Filipinos as users and producers of language.

While a great majority has been lured to adopt the ease of instant messages as genre of

choice, many have remained passive consumers and receivers of language in their greater

preference for the visual and auditory media—although tabloids and broadsheets remain popular

reading fare, along with popular novels and entertainment or lifestyle magazines, their visual

appeal remains the primary bait to dissimulate the reading act or the processing of language—as

in the cable, video game, Facebook, and iPod culture in urbanized locales with the continued

mass appeal of television and radio taking decidedly linguistic twists to maintain hold of a more

mobile and erratic 24/7 audience.

Background of the Study

Media has taken to lionize the generation’s limited language abilities—ergo creating

more, and more passive, consumers instead of producers and creators—by supplying less

demanding alternatives where language plays minor or lesser roles:

1. Mobile and Internet communication are user-friendly functionalities based media that

breaks down language to yield more sound than sense (text) or more signal than

message (web design); and,

2. Audiovisual media are audience-friendly media that breaks down the language barrier

by transforming linguistic codes into visual scripts and beats and rhythms that remain

communicative as they are entertaining by putting language in the background as

dialogues or lyrics, such that even news reports—a formal TV genre—have not only

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

7

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

taken to Filipino (the informal, more personal language) but have also been

dramatized by the anchor’s verbal voice play.

Less demands, more audience. Lesser need to pay attention to the fineprint or nuance of

language, more entertaining and better appreciated. The farther detached the discourse process is

from the individual, the safer and more comfortable people are—the freer people are to imitate,

emulate, or take after those they hear, watch, or see as larger than life or bigger than them and

quite out of reach.

While the majority of the objects of language teaching—Filipino learners and users of

English and of Filipino—are comfortably couched in the language variety spawned and spread

by the telecommunications and mass media industries, the educational and linguistic sectors are

busy working out possible solutions by looking at upgrading language teachers (who are likewise

couched in the same comfort zone), lobbying government cultural and educational officials,

reengineering curriculum designs, and institutionalizing two of the most important clearings

opened for the codifying of the national language:

1. Intellectualization of Filipino—through the continuous use and application of this

language-in-progress in learning content areas, translation, and discourse while

continually propagating the lexical corpus with the most useful words to embody

knowledge and establish familiarity to encourage use; and,

2. Standardization of Philippine English.

These two languages, divergent at first and heading towards different directions, are

actually coming full circle and, thus, by realizing their divergent goals are actually converging:

very much like a snake now trying to bite and swallow its own tail!

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

8

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

This “direction” has been worded a bit differently in the following observation in Bolton

and Bautista (2009):

Perhaps most interesting of all in the case of the Philippines (though it is not unique, as a similar situation isfound in Singapore) is that a second language, English, has become a permanent feature of society, and that the useof English remains so important in higher education, business, and international diplomacy. The transplantation hasnow reached full circle, not in linguistic extinction, not in deterioration or return to a foreign language, but as asecond language with specific domains and standards. (Gonzalez, “A favorable climate,” p 25)

What is crucial is to look at these two languages as works-in-progress, much the same

way as the English language grew to its mammoth proportions by taking in all the oceans’

planktons carefully filtering but generously accepting, and therefore only achieved by tirelessly:

1. fueling their wide and persistent use in various institutionalized and informal

linguistic endeavors, settings, and genres;

2. flexing their adoption by and adaptation in being assimilated across demographic

boundaries, social strata, discourse communities, and media/technological formats;

3. recording these uses, applications, and variances/varieties for testing in and eventual

application of these languages-in-progress in embodying learning content areas by or

through translation of technical knowledge and literature and discourse; and,

4. propagating regularly and religiously the lexical corpora of Filipino and Philippine

English with the most useful words to embody Filipino knowledge and establish

general familiarity to encourage use not only in spoken but also written discourse in

both formal and informal settings until such time that the forking paths of the twin

corpora feed each other and diverge in Filipino—the Philippine National Language.

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

9

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

Again, these “directions” have been worded a bit differently, and quite summarily, in

Dayag’s observation of several observations in “English-language media in the Philippines”

(Bolton & Bautista, 2009), which includes not only on the source of words feeding the lexicon

but also implications for research—a discussion that runs from page 55 to page 63—and which

begins thus:

It is widely acknowledged that along with creative literature (fiction and nonfiction), the Philippine media are arich source of words and expressions, especially those of contemporary lusage, that have become part of thePhilippine English lexicon. This seems to have been affirmed by Bolton (2005: 101), who argues that `perhaps themost important source for contemporary language . . . particularly at a less formal level, is the Philippine Englishnewspapers [or Philippine media, in general], whose distinctive style of journalism rests not only on the creativeutilization of local vocabulary, but on a range of other resources as well.’ (2009: 55)

Dayag (2009) continues to describe in his observations some valuable clues—and, for

this paper, pathways—to the nature and movement for the development of a Philippine national

language, namely:

1. Source or font of words feeding the lexicon:

A close examination of the citations of the above lexical entries [referring to Bautista (2007) study presentingwords from the Macquarie corpus of Asian English or ASIACORP to describe the lexicon of Philippine English.—Annotation mine.] reveal that most of these words and expressions were taken from news stories and columns inEnglish-language newspapers in the Philippines. This suggests the potency of the Philippine media, especially printmedia, as an instrument in the development of the Philippine English lexicon. (p 56)

2. Processes by which these words are formed or created—and the relationship of these

processes to the Filipino language:

[C]oinages abound in Philippine English. Perhaps this indicates lexical creativity and innovation in PhilippineEnglish, and the fact that they appear in the print media underscores the media’s invaluable contribution to thedevelopment of the Philippine English lexicon. This is made more meaningful if one considers the ubiquity ofindigenous or Filipino-based words and expressions in the media, such as the ones that appear in . . . front-pagenewspaper headlines . . . . (p 56)

3. Implications for research and the need for studies to update and follow through the

seminal studies conducted in this research area:

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

10

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

And while the ASIACORP used data more than a decade ago, the evolution of the lexicon of Philippine Englishis a continuing process. (p 56)

This [WTNID, see below.—Annotation mine.] dictionary, however, fails to capture Philippine Englishvocabulary used in this contemporary era because, as Bolton and Butler (2004: 98) put it, `the vocabulary . . .represents an archaic and petrified version of Philippine vocabulary, dating from the 1910s and 1920s.’ . . . theWebster’s dictionary may not be a reliable dictionary, given that its Philippine English entries are not only date, `butalso totally inadequate to capture the vibrant creativity of a hybrid and irreverent tropical English in full flight’(Bolton and Butler, 2004: 99). (p 56)

It is the ACCENT Corpus and the Anvil–Macquarie Dictionary that reflect Philippine culture, makingPhilippine English a truyly indigenized variety of world Englishes. And while they may have been instrumental incodifying this institutionalized English variety, more attempts should be made by scholars to publish nationaldictionaries that are authentic, adequate, and current. After all, languages evolve, and as such, dictionary-making is adynamic process.

4. Move towards standardization, into lexical legitimacy:

Many of these words that appear in English-language newspapers and magazines in the Philippines haveentered dictionaries and even corpora, a crucial step in the process of codifying Philippine English, making it aninstitutionalized and legitimate variety of world Englishes, if one goes by the criterion set by Quirk (1990) (cited byBolton and Butler 2004: 92). One such dictionary is the Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, whichcontains a fairly large number of Philippine English words. (p 57)

Happily, a corpus and a dictionary were evolved in the early years of the twenty-first century. The corpus, titledthe Asian Corpus of Computerized English Newspaper Texts (the ACCENT Corpus), developed in Hong Kong,aims `to investigate the English-language press in Asia’ (Bolton and Butler, 2004: 99). (p 57)

5. Characterization of Philippine English words “currently” codified in legitimate

dictionaries of International and/or Philippine Englishes:

Indeed, perhaps with the exception of Filipinos who belong to the older generation, lexical items such as . . .cacique (a powerful landowner) . . . are no longer part of the lexicon of the average Filipino. Another observationthat can be made about the list of Philippine words in the Webster’s dictionary is that most of them have Philippineflora (e.g. anahau, anonang, dao, salak) and fauna (e.g. kabaragoya, maya, mural), and cultural communities (e.g.Yakan, Kulaman, Hantik, Bangon) as referents, and that, unless Filipinos live in places where these plants andanimals exist or unless they have encountered members of communities, Filipinos can hardly relate to them becausethey are simply not part of their reality. (p 57)

Lexical items from the Philippine English newspapers include ambush interview (`a surprise interview’),economic plunder (`a large-scale embezzlement of public funds’), and topnotcher (`high achiever’). These and otherwords from the newspapers included in the ACCENT database attest to the lexical creativity and innovationa thatmay underline the `Filipino-ness’ of Philippine English. By the same token, the Anvil–Macquarie Dictionary ofPhilippine English for High School (Bautista and Butler, 2000), which lists words taken presumably from written

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

11

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

texts such as newspapers and magazines, is regarded as a truly Filipino dictionary in that it `has consciouslyattempted to adopt an explicitly Pinoy (i.e. `Filipino) perspective (Bolton and Butler 2004: 93). . . . (pp 57–58)

With that vision, ambitious only without concerted effort of concerned agencies and

perhaps in the absence of a political will but not altogether far-fetched to be viewed a dream, we

are brought back to terra firma standing on three soft spots, namely, that:

1. Filipino is growing and it is contributing not only to the lexicon of Filipino but more

importantly to the lexicon of Philippine English,

2. Word-formation is one way by which Filipinos make meaning and sense of things, and

3. Words are cultural artifacts that not only create individual vocabularies but a national

cultural identity, a record of the nation’s living history, and a mirror of society’s changing

times.

Review of Related Literature

The foundations, therefore, of this short empirical study are the triumvirate language

pairs of learning–teaching, production–reception, and use–study with each coupling embodying a

different set of key concepts crucial to understanding the larger and deeper dynamics of our word

search.

LanguageEntry Point

Premise Significance Goal Variable Framework ResearchArea

Learning–Teaching

new familiarspokenwords mayhelp easecontentlearning &

standardizationof Phil Englishas Filipino /expansion ofstandardFilipino

identifyFilipinomeaningcodes &drawassertions--

register &acceptance

Discourseanalysis //sociolinguistics// standardWorld English

negotiatingidentity &cultureformation //Filipinopsychology //

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

12

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

writing academicregister

& expandstandardFilipino

SLL/SLA

Production–Reception

new wordsspoken areeasy tocreate, fun,easy to use,& easilyaccepted &passed on

codification ofFilipino intostandard PhilEnglish

identifyproductivemeaningmakingprocess--&drawpatterns forstandard PhilEnglish

usability &potential formeaning-making

Filipinopsychology //standard PhilEnglish

wordformation &meaning-making //sociolinguistics

Use–Study new wordsspoken–written bysubgroupsget intomainstreamspoken

expansion ofFilipino & PhilEnglishlexicons

identify thekinds–usesof newwords--&see newfeatures ofPhil Eng

form,function, &variance

features of PhilEnglish(Gonzalez,1996) //standardEnglishes

new words &their L–Gfeatures //lexicography

Table 1.1. Concept Matrix of Related Literature Review

The key concepts outlined in Table 1 will be defined in the review of literature along with

the terms most crucial to our understanding

1. linguistic areas within which the study will fall into and take off from, and with whose

body of knowledge the study will be informed and contributing to;

2. parameters within which the study will revolve and expand, and with whose limitations

the study will be guided and benchmarked; and,

3. frameworks within which the study will be read and explained, and with whose criteria

the study will, hopefully, reveal new facts and validate or debunk the old.

However, despite the breadth of factors influential to and affecting the issue of present

trends in word-formation processes towards the codification of Filipino towards expanding the

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

13

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

lexicon of Philippine English I will try to restrain myself from going any deeper or broader than

the more immediate issues.

Hence, so from the all-encompassing concept matrix I have laid out—which I hope have

already established the scope and importance behind the seemingly trivial matter of how words

are formed and what new words are formed thereby—I shall focus my review discussion only on

word-formation in the Philippines and give readers a survey of what has been done and achieved

in this area.

Language planning. To start off, however, the word formation needs to be put in the

context of the gamut of topics that have been discussed earlier; that is, as part of larger design

though smaller (or more specific) is nonetheless vital and, I daresay, nothing accidental or even

incidental. Words—and how they are formed—represent the complex historic-cultural

developments that necessitated their present form and are, therefore, as dynamic and changing as

the socio-cultural conditions that sustain its existence, to paraphrase from Yule (2009).

Before we see that larger picture, it will be helpful for us to borrow three diagrams from

Ponciano B P Pineda’s “Pagpaplano ng wika ukol sa pambansang pagsulong” (1985, pp 254–

268) to serve as our maps—to show us precisely where we are, in our excursion into Philippine

word formation, in the vast field of linguistics. The first two gives us a bird’s eye view of the

topography while the third zooms in on elements population this terrain.

1. Surian ng Wikang Pambansa’s typology of language planning (p 255)—which I took

the liberty to synthesize as Table 2 to show a comparative–developmental picture of

the end process’s source and evolution.

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

14

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

Factors that NecessitateForming a National

Language

Three Steps in theNational

Language Act No.184

SWP’s Typologyof Language Planning

Jernudd’s Typologyof Language

Planning (1971)

1. Necessity of a nationallanguage

Preparation Paghahanda Determination

2. Official support Development Paglilinang/Pagpapaunlad Development

3. Finding a dialect which issufficiently developed andwhich will satisfy theexigencies of a nationaltongue

Supervision Pamamanihala Implementation

Table 1.2. Comparative Development of SWP’s Typology of Language Planning

2. Haugen’s typology of language planning (1966; p 255)—whose quadrants present the

very steps involved and taken by a language in its move towards national status, so to

speak, as in Table 3. Pineda identified the counterparts of these four steps in the

SWP’s three steps (represented in the tables as matching colored cells).

Linguistic Area Initiation Implementation

Form 1. Selection of Norm 2. Codification of Norm

Function 3. Elaboration of Function4. Acceptance by Intended

PopulationTable 1.3. Haugen’s Typology (1966)

These steps will help us understand better what happens to language—more specifically

to a word—when it becomes, more than itself yet more basic: for instance, when it becomes a

building block of a national(ist) cultural construct or identity or a symptom of a national

educational malaise wanting to be diagnosed and prescribed a cure or a tool for identifying the

best language to adopt for optimum mass proficiency. This last item is the case of Pineda (1985,

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

15

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

pp 262–263) in the SWP’s search for the best model Wikang Pilipino for Filipino, whose

highlights I am sharing with you below.

Research Sub-Question Findings Implications toLanguage Policy

Vocabulary,Lexicon, & Word

Formation1. What model Pilipino is

being used now by peoplein communicating?

Model 1 is mostdesirable.

Cultivation of NationalLanguage should startfrom Model 1 nucleus,whose core vocabulary andform is Pilipino.

• It uses the corevocabulary ofthe Pilipinolexicon.

• Privilegesnative lexicon,but borrowsfrom local andforeign streams.

• Loan words arespelledfollowingPilipinoorthography.

2. What model Pilipino isideal for all forms ofcommunication(written/oral,formal/informal)?

Model 1is ideal forall forms ofcommunication.

Model 1 should beused in teaching allother subjects, exceptfor math and thesciences whichshould be taughtusing Model 5.

Curriculum materialsshould be written andpublished usingModel 1 as used invariouscommunicativesituations and inteaching differentsubjects and courses.

Model 1 should beused in preparingcurriculum materialsfor teaching mathand the sciences.

3. Which model Pilipino is Expanding/moderni Expanding and enriching Borrowing from

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

16

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

the best method/step toenrich and modernize thelanguage?

zation will beoptimal bycombining Method3 (Borrowing frominfluencing foreignlanguage) andMethod 1(Rigorous selectionof lexical elementsfrom local orindigenouslanguages)

Pilipino should be bycombined Methods 3 and1.

Englishcapitalizes onwords, phrases,and idiomsreadilyunderstandable.

Table 1.4. SWP’s Search for Model Pilipino for Filipino (SY1978–1979) Result Highlights

I am mentioning these because I want to call your attention to a couple of the SWP

study’s fascinating results—that not only would later shed light on aspects of our analysis,

results, and conclusions but also foreground our appreciation of the third typology, hence, of the

foregoing sections of this chapter—that may well be keys that at this point in time (or farther

back to school year 1978–1979 when the descriptive study was done) have already revealed to us

quite uncannily glimpses of the future.

This will be more apparent in the actual paragraphs used for Models 1 and 5 in .

Model 1 Model 5

Isang elektronik gadyet na inimbento ng isang

Pilipino na magsasaayos sa pagtulog ng mga taong

hindi mapagkatulog ang malapit nang ipakilala sa

publiko.

Ang elektronik gadyet na nginalanang `Dormitron

922’ ay may patente ng pamahalaan.

Ipinakikita sa mga pagsusuring klinikal ng

`Dormitron 922’ na ang mga karamdamang insomiya,

Isang Filipino-invented electronic gadget na

magno-normalize sa sleeping pattern ng mga taong

suffering from sleep disorders and malapit nang i-

introduce sa public.

Ang electronic gardget known as `Dormitron

922’ ay patented na ng government.

Ipinakikita ng clinical findings ng `Dormitron

922’ na ang insomnia, hysteria, obsessional neurosis,

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

17

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

histirya, hindi mapalagay dahil sa labis na pag-iisip,

altapresyon, pabagu-bagong tibok ng puso, at hika ay

mabisang tinatalaban ng elektronik terapi.

hypertension, cardiac instability and asthma ay

nagrerespond well sa electronic therapy.

Model 2 Model 4 Model 5

Rejects and strips language offoreign elements in favor ofthe local and indigenous.

Coinages and resurrection ofarchaic terms.

Freely uses words, phrases,idioms, and allusions fromdifferent languages as the userdeems fit.

Language as an amalgam of theindigenous and foreign as wellas of various registers andprocesses.

This English-basedmodel, popularly knownas “Enggalog,” that usesmore linguistic elementsin English than inPilipino.

Table 1.5. SWP’s Model Pilipino for Filipino Model Search Winners(With the Vocabulary, Lexicon, and Word Formation Features of the Losing Models)

After consolidating the results and the implications to language policy, SWP came up

with a third diagram that lays down what Pineda calls the “Macro Plan.”

3. SWP’s typology for the cultivation of a national language (1966; p 263)—which as in

Table 6 specifies now the elements that undergo planning and the implementing

agents in the nurturing process simultaneously work on two major levels: (a) the

Corpus or the Language itself and (b) the Domains or the Areas of Language Use, to

which Pineda added a third, higher and overarching level that, though not beyond the

dynamics of cultivation the SWP did not pencil in, links the two, which is (c)

Rhetoric or Language in Use. This last item spells out that cultivation can only

happen given a living language that while it is its society’s tool for change and

progress is necessarily incomplete or imperfect, constantly needing improvement and

trying to fill in its own as well as its users’ inadequacies. (pp 264–266)

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

18

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

Nat

iona

l Lan

guag

e

A B CI. Corpus

LexiconGrammarOrthographyLiteratureTranslation

II. Domain of UseEducationCulturePublicAdministrationSciencesTechnologyLawmakingJudiciarySocietyMedia

Table 1.6. SWP’s Typology of National Language Cultivation

The arrow points to where we are at right now—to an area of the Philippine linguistic

corpus that best captures the wild and unbridled dynamism of the language as it is currently used

and is known and to which new manifestations of reality fall, enter, and come in to become part

of all the others following it: the Lexicon.

Word formation. Virgilio Enriquez in his essay “Pagbubuo ng terminolohiya sa

sikolohiyang Pilipino” (1985, in Bautista, 1990) cleared two important grounds on which the

present study has privileged to stand on: first, on word formation as an essential function and

process in the institutionalization of a national language; and, second, on Philippine

sociolinguistics, specifically on the psychology of teacher–audience–user continuum, as motive,

influence, and effect in the choice, use, understanding, and learning of language.

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

19

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

Higit pa sa pagpaplano ng wika, higit pa sa pagbuo ng mga teoryang pangwika, higit pa sa pagtatalu-talo ngmga dalubahasa, ang aktibong paggamit ng wika ang pinakamabisang paraan sa pagbuo ng terminolohiya.Karanasan ang magtuturo, reaksiyon ng mga tagapakinig ang gabay. Ang gumagamit ng wika ang magpapasiya. (p269)

Enriquez, who refers here to Filipino, which he is moving to intellectualize via the field

of Filipino psychology, unassumingly refers us back to Pineda’s two macro areas of lexicon and

education (1985) as start off points in the effort to plan and create a national language. Working

up one side means working up the other, simultaneously: to come up with a workable language

of the people means entails building up the language’s lexicon and using these newly formed

words in learning the language and in understanding learning areas using the language.

Enriquez underscores for us the organic relationship between language use and learning a

language as they are both rooted in words that are in already in use and familiar or

understandable. After all, and here I translate Enriquez’s thesis: Use is key in forming a

vocabulary; experience teaches and the reactions of audiences guide; the user of the language

decides. (1985, p 269 in Bautista 1996)

More than solid theoretical groundwork, Enriquez identified and discussed the nine ways

(p 270) by which words are formed or should be formed—at least in the search for new

terminologies to capture and name the complexities of concepts in Filipino psychology, which

have no or have very remote foreign counterparts—with the overarching view of being

understood and, thus, effecting optimum comprehension and, consequently, learning.

Enriquez’s list is significant here because it goes with a diagram, which I took the liberty

to recast in tabular form for understandability in Table 7, sequencing the processes in their

preferred order of use in choosing or finding the best term to use—in any case, to represent an

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

20

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

idea or concept, and I would like to reiterate—that means, the term most accessible to the widest

audience. This term is one that readily can be recognized, understood, and learned—and to

which I hasten to add—used: meaning repeated, adopted, said, as well as written out.

I will detail these processes in the table because they will provide us a very useful

understanding of how words are formed in the context of coming up with a standard term using a

particular standard procedure in a standard language of learning and use. Thus, it would not be

unfair to say that these procedures are somehow reflected or subsumed in the current primer to

Filipino orthography published by the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino.

Ado

ptio

n Word-Formation

Process

Characteristic Use Example Change

Pag

sasa

ling-

Wik

a (P

aglil

ipat

-Wik

a)

1. SalingAngkat

(TahasangPanghihiram)

A word/idea from adifferent culture andlanguage is usedwithout change in itsvisual form andmeaning.

A word remainsevidently foreign yetundeniably borrowedwith the change inpsychological andcultural contextsresulting, eventually,in a change inmeaning, usuallyfrom general tospecific.

A borrowed word issignaled by anasterisk or anunderline or printedin italics.

A word does notchange in spellingfrom English.

A word hasminimal or nochange in spellingfrom Latin, Greek,German, French,and Spanish.

home for theaged,encountergroup

persepsyon,katarsis,gestalt,iskima,sikolohiya

Spelling and Pronunciation

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

21

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

2. SalingPaimbabaw

(Paimbabawna Pag-aankin ngBigkas atBaybay)

A word/idea from adifferent culture andlanguage changes invisual form—adopting the spellingof how it ispronounced by auser—but not inmeaning.

Often, the mutatedform of the word isvisually exotic yetaurally familiar.

A word is spelledaccording to how auser says it.

reimporsment

3. SalingPanggramatika

(Pagsunod saSintaktikangFilipino)

A word/idea from adifferent culture andlanguage changes invisual form—adopting thegrammar of theuser’s language—butnot in meaning.

This process oftenresults in multiplevariants in bothspelling andpronunciation.

A word is spelledand said quitearbitrarily.

sosyal inter-aksyon,sosyalnainteraksyon,inter-aksyongsosyal

4. Saling Hiram

(Pagsasalinng Hiram naSalita)

A word/idea from adifferent culture andlanguage changes inform—as atranslation in theuser’s language—butnot in meaning.

The new word,which often takestime to be acceptedin use, takes either aliteral ormetaphoricaltranslation.

Translating a wordis often the bestway to find themost appropriateterm.

pakikidigmang sikolohikal,mekanismongpananggalang, bakas nggunita,kaalamangnasa dulo ngdila

5. SalitangLikha (Sari-Gawa)

(Paglikha atPagbuo ng

A word/idea from adifferent culture andlanguage is given orprovided a new localcounterpart.

Inventing newwords orsearching for alocalcounterpart isnot often

pagtatalik osekswal napagtatalik

Written

Form

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

22

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

BagongSalita)

The new wordcounterpart oftenalso takes some timeto be accepted inuse, beingunfamiliar.

resorted to byFilipinos, atleast not in thefield ofpsychology. (pp274–285)

6. SalitangDaglat

(Pagpapaiklisa Orihinal)

A word/idea from adifferent culture andlanguage takes ashorter form—usinginitials of the term.

Popular forshortening a term inEnglish, but rarelyin Filipino—theterm KSP is unique.

STM (short-termmemory), PJP(PhilippineJournal ofPsychology)

7. SalitangTapat

(Pagtugaygaysa Orihinal oPinaghiramang Wika atKultura)

A word/idea from adifferent culture andlanguage is matchedwith the most precisecounterpartavailable.

This processprivileges theoriginal in lookingfor the besttranslation of theword.

Recommendedway of finding thebest term.

pakikisalamuha for socialinteraction

8. Salitang Taal(KatutubongKonsepto)

(Pagdukal saWikangPagsasalinan)

A word/idea fromthe user’s cultureand language isused—instead of aword/idea that isonly similar orrelated in meaning.

The existing, moreprecise word is oftenmore delicatelynuanced in terms ofrelated terms, thus,reflecting culturalvalues and identity.

Encouraged tofind, define,develop, and studyindigenousconcepts andvalues—asopposed toadherence to andreliance on foreignparadigms andtheir translation.

kapwa >pakikitungo,pakikisalamuha,pakikilahok,pakikibagay,pakikisama,pakikipagpalagayang-loob,pakikisangkot, pakikiisa

9. SalitangSanib

(Pagpapalaganap sa mgaSalitang mulasa Iba’t IbangWika sa

A word/idea from adifferent Philippineculture and languageis used withoutchange—even despitevariations inpronunciations—inspelling or in

A word/conceptthat has beenstudied orresearchedbecomes part ofthe corpus forresearch, thevocabulary of the

Cebuanomalhay andwalho,Ilokanonakem,Surigaonagsinabtanay, Maranao

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

23

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

Pilipinas) meaning. area of study, andthe lexicon of thelanguage.

maratabat,Hiligaynonhatag-gusto

Table 1.7. Virgilio Enriquez’s Word-Formation Hierarchy (1985)

In sum, we may glean three vital streams from this complex dynamism, from the bottom

up: (a) a word is an artifact of culture—reality, (b) word use is a marker of identity—relationship

or position, and (c) word formation is an assertion of reality—meaning. What seemed arbitrary

and superficial becomes conscious and motivated—always with and for a reason that is not

always, exclusively and simply to communicate.

Let us explore these streams further but this time from the opposite end of the academic

register. From the formal and standard to the informal and colloquial we push further to the

extreme and see how the lexicon of Tagalog slang (Zorc 1993), entertainment article Filipino

(Abello 2002), and gayspeak (KWF 2004) grows and acquires popular usage—or, simply put,

gets its cornucopia of words—with a wildcard of different types of borrowings from English

used in essays in Filipino (Reyes–Otero 2002).

Tagalog Slang. Taking off from Enriquez’s privileging of the common people as users

and learners of language—and therefore as a determining sector in the ultimate success of

language use and learning—R David Zorc (1993) leads us into this vital area of the discourse by

studying Tagalog slang and in so doing shows us two important leads that informed the present

study and cues to where hope could possibly lie (p 102):

1. How language is created by those who use it— “from a variety of in-group ways of

speaking like that of students, jeepney drivers, movie stars, military personnel and

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

24

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

gays”—hence, expanding our views that creators are not necessarily academics or

authors and confined in universities but in most places if not everywhere; and,

2. How the language used by people becomes or is institutionalized—and make “their

way to articles in the daily press”—hence, expanding again our views that

institutionalization does not only mean being read in textbooks and entered in

dictionaries and used in formal writing but in most popular media too which again is

found in most places if not everywhere.

Zorc’s study is also important for identifying two very important stages or processes in

the dynamic life of words, namely, “where slang words come from” (pp 102–106):

1. Loanwords—38% English, 17% Spanish, 2% Bisayan, 0.6% Chinese, 0.5% Japanese, 0.1% Ilokano, and0.1% Kapampangan;

2. Tagalog Words with New Meanings (15%);3. Coinages (0.5%); and,4. The Numbers Game (0.5%).

and “how words get re-shaped” (pp 106–109):

1. Word Play (31%),2. Metathesis (10%)—including Syllable Switching and Full Reversal,3. Reduction (9%),4. Abbreviations (5%). And5. Mix-Mix (5%).

These two actually mean more than just the statistics; in fact, we see and sense in Zorc the

wisdom that is the undercurrent of Enriquez’s nine-banded spectrum of word-formation

processes, specifically, in:

1. The choice of Borrowing—but with the twist of imbuing borrowed words with new

meaning, which is interestingly at #2 if we think of Tagalog as another language to loan

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

25

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

words from given a change in positioning—being the easiest and more readily accessible

both in terms of facility in use and comprehension;

2. The influences that go into new words—which in another sense is reveling the well of

vocabulary that is an eclectic gamut from both the regions and the world attesting to a

widening of mass cultural consciousness and from which users dip into for words to

name and express themselves with ease, facility, and with a degree of witty eloquence

and even fluency; and,

3. The light and casual attitude with which users create and use language—revealing an oft

overlooked key to linguistic proficiency that underscores the irony of being more

productive when one does not mean to or being more receptive and responsive when one

is least serious about things, which are perhaps innate cultural traits that thrive in fun,

play, and poetry.

Entertainment article Filipino. How words are shaped and take on meaning also

interested Larcy C Abello (2002) but this time surveying a different variety of Filipino—those in

showbiz magazine articles. Abello identified four of this processes by which language takes on a

different variation (in Minanga, p 130–134) and by which she categorized showbiz Filipino

language:

1. Artificial coinage, including shortening and acronym (AC);2. Importations (I);3. Attempts at verbal humor (AVH); and,4. Novel assignments of meaning (NAM).

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

26

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

Abello’s study, which did not specify the body of works used in the study is limited,

though perhaps only in the anthologized version of the research, takes on a deeper meaning when

viewed against the word-formation repertoire of gayspeak on which showbiz register is largely

based.

Gayspeak. Thus, what Abello’s descriptive categorizations lack the Komisyon sa Wikang

Filipino makes up in its Mga Salitang Homosekswal: “Isang Pagsusuri” by coming up with 10

classifications based on Zorc and San Miguel (1993) with their corresponding frequency in the

corpus.

1. Neolohismo, 679 salita o 44.91%2. Panghihiram, 241 salita o 15.94%3. Pagpapalit, 193 salita o 12.76%4. Pagdaragdag, 101 salita o 6.67%5. Pag-uugnay, 78 salita o 5.16%6. Pag-aankop, 69 salita o 4.56%7. Metatesis, 59 salita o 3.90%8. Paghahalu-halo, 54 salita o 3.57%9. Reduksyon o pagkakaltas, 21 salita o 1.38%10. Pagdadaglat, 17 salita o 1.12% (pp xi–xiv)

Essays in Filipino. Meanwhile, Marietta Reyes–Otero (2002) identified three types of

Borrowings from English by Filipino essay writers, namely:

1. Loan words,2. Loan blend, and

3. Loan shift—including Semantic loans, Loan translations or calques, and Coinage (p 149).

Let us meantime defer looking more closely into each of these processes, which shall be

the meat of the chapter on Methodology, and jump into some sort of bird’s eye view of what had

just been presented.

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

27

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

Indulge me a bit in asking you to recall Yule’s (2009) nine word-formation processes—

with the tenth process being a combination from among these nine processes—and superimpose

them on Enriquez’s (1985) nine ways to form Filipino terminologies; and, then, tweak a bit and

reclassify.

Ado

ptio

n # ENRIQUEZ’sWord-Formation

Processes

#

Cha

nge

YULE’sWord-

FormationProcesses

# ZORC, ABELLO,& KWF’s

Word-FormationProcesses

Examples

Pag

sasa

ling-

Wik

a (P

aglil

ipat

-Wik

a)

1. Saling Angkat

(TahasangPanghihiram)

1.

New

Wor

d

Coinage Eponym

1.

148%

Coinage Coinage, Word

Play,Metathesis, andNumbers Game(Zorc)

Attempt atVerbal HumorT1 & T2(Abello)

Neolohismo,Pagpapalit,Metathesis, andPag-uugnay(KWF)

azucara de papa,eklat, harurot;Alvarado, DakotaHarrison, nenok;astig, bokal, sitak;adarit, atik, toyi; 1-0-0, 1-4-3, 6-6-6

kakuyangyangan,kakulakadidang;tsugi o tsugihin,baklesh, echos lang

48 years, afam,Aling Pining;joyad, karakas,mudras;anda, etits,wetpaks; M.Y. San,orocan, wrangler

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

28

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

2. SalingPaimbabaw

(Paimbabaw naPag-aankin ngBigkas atBaybay)

2.

Impo

rted

Borrowing Loan

translation orcalque

2.

93.7%

Borrowing Loan Words and

Tagalog wordswith newmeanings (Zorc)

Importation,Attempt atverbal humorT3, and Novelassignment ofnew meaning(Abello)

Loan Words,Loan Blends,and LoanShift—includingSemantic Loans,LoanTranslations,and Coinage(Reyes–Otero)

Panghihiramand Pag-uugnay(KWF)

du, fifty, jinggel,salbij, toxic,vacuum, ticol; dekahon, nota,pumapel, tsitsa;bayot, dako,gurang, pisot,sibat; bakya,buwisit, tong;dorobo; awanti,baset; ala, utol,yabang;

erase, boldie, sey,na-award, may-arrive, mag-on,flopsina pa-epek,dedma, bastedin,idenay; hubadera,hirit, papa, hataw;bagets, walangtienes, walangkiyeme, chicahan,tabo-tabo sa takilya

bet, bionic, emote,flawless, ikura,mahogany, plastik,pagoda, two ham,yesterday oncemore, variables;anaconda, carelesswhisper, coffeeparty, damo,espadaham, kati,malaking tsek,sagu-sago, sisid,taksan-taksan,walkathon,yugyugan, zonrox

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

29

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

3. SalingPanggramatika

(Pagsunod saSintaktikangFilipino)

3.

Com

bine

d

Compounding 3.

30.4%

Reduction Reduction

(Zorc)

ArtificialCoinage,includingShortening andAcronym(Abello)

Reduksyon oPagkakaltas(KWF)

Amboy, ebak,lonta, Munti,syano, transpo,yosi

bading,eching,jelling, kuning-kuning

bog, imbs, kyems,kebs, el, elibs, lala

4. Saling Hiram

(Pagsasalin ngHiram naSalita)

4. Blending 4.

26.1%

Acronym Abbreviation

(Zorc)

Acronym(Abello)

Pagdadaglat(KWF)

b.y., g.g., b.n.g.,h.p., k.g.b., l.t.,p.w.u., u.s.t.

nakaka-elyangeksena, ese kola,nanghahala

BIR, bj, dkny,opm, pg, pk, PMA

5. Salitang Likha(Sari-Gawa)

(Paglikha atPagbuo ngBagong Salita)

5.

Shor

tene

d

Clipping Hypocor

ysms

5.

8.5%

Multiple Processes Mix-Mix (Zorc)

Halo-Halo(KWF)

akinse’tkatapusan,anongsey mo, babybubot, bakal boy,baw lang, boljak,labnat, pa-epek,salitang kanto

ang haba ng hair,bongga ang fez,care mo ba, kerilang, fly na, looksa sky, makipag-eyeball, pamhen,wa appearance,wa pay,wanakosey, waknowing

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

30

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

Table 1.8. Six Most Popular Word-Formation Processes Used or Resorted to by Filipinos, byFrequency (Villanueva, 2011)

In laying down side by side Enriquez’s hierarchy on creating new Filipino words, Yule’s

major types of word-formation processes, and the merged classifications identified in three

seminal researches on word-formation in Filipino (Zorc, 1996; Abello, 2002; Reyes–Otero,

2002; KWF, 2004), I hope to bring to fore Villanueva’s (2010) initial proposition of the six most

popular word-formation processes being used or resorted to by Filipinos.

We shall refer again to this table in the succeeding chapters on Methodology, Results,

and Conclusions as a helpful grid in identifying how the newest words that entered the standard

lexicon of Filipino are or have been formed.

6. Salitang Daglat

(Pagpapaikli saOrihinal)

6. Backformation

6.

4.6%

Blending Pag-aangkop

(KWF) burnik, dilis,

kaplog, maila,wasakiki, zing ndanz

7. Salitang Tapat

(Pagtugaygay saOrihinal oPinaghiramangWika atKultura)

7. Acronyms 7.

0%

8. Salitang Taal(KatutubongKonsepto)

(Pagdukal saWikangPagsasalinan)

8.

New

Use

Conversion—also known asCategoryChange orFunctionalShift

8.

0%

9. Salitang Sanib

(Pagpapalaganap sa mgaSalitang mulasa Iba’t IbangWika saPilipinas)

9. Derivation 9.

0%

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

31

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

Before we go on, however, allow me to make the following observations, even two

preliminary conclusions, that surfaced in the juxtapositioning of Yule, Enriquez, and Zorc–

Abello–KWF.

First, that the use and creation of words in Filipino are results of having popular models

and endorsers, so to speak, using a language most accessible to their audiences as they speak and

write from their positions of privilege, assuring maximum exposre by mass media and optimum

adoption by repeated use.

1. It is most apparent that while there are multiple variants in most of the more often

used word-formation processes, four did not merit their own categories, namely:

Compounding, Backformation, Conversion, and Derivation.

2. This does not mean that these processes do not exist or are not used in current,

popular Filipino word-formation only that they (a) Do not seem to be popular—

therefore, not fun—ways for people to create new words or (b) Do not come up with

many words that are fun enough to be created firstly and used again and again

secondly.

3. The preference for or popularity of these word-formation processes holds true, at

least, for the user–creators of Tagalog slang terms, for the writers of showbiz

magazine articles, and for the growing legion of Filipino gay men—whose

commonality is that they are all in positions privileged to be heard–read –imitated.

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

32

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

Second, that the short-list of word-formation processes favoring shortening over

lengthening of terms seem to prove Zipf’s law—which, simply put, gives shorter words more

chances of being used by more people more often—at work in Filipino word-formation, in

particular, and in Filipino mass consciousness, in general.

4. Convenience, as in most areas of modern life, is key even in choosing which words to

use. The more handy and the more multipurpose a term is the more likely it would be

used by people, who have grown accustomed to such concepts as instant and all-in-

one. As what Racquel Llagas (1987) revealed in “Isang Sulyap sa Wika ng mga

Progresibo,” the less letters there are to pronounce, the more likely it is for a word to

become part of everyday vocabulary.

5. Thus, the resulting six highly favored word-formation processes involve forms of (a)

shortening a term or phrase, as manifest in the penchant for reduction, abbreviations

and acronyms, and varieties of hypocorisms; and, (b) combining two or more terms,

as manifest in the penchant for coinages, novel word–meaning associations, and

agglutinazions, which shall be discussed at the tail-end of this chapter.

6. Borrowing, the top choice in Filipino word-formation, in fact, unabashedly manifests

a bias for both convenience—in having the word all ready with its arsenal of

meanings and associations ready for instant use—and brevity—in having the shorter

everyday word all ready with the same arsenal of meanings and associations ready for

use in most situations, for most needs, and with all kinds of people. A classic

example for this latter assertion is in having all the reasons to pick the borrowed word

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

33

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

love or its even shorter variant luv over the kilometric, archaic-sounding, and mushy

Filipino terms pagmamahal or pag-ibig.

7. These complex of preferences, choices, and options are, of course, not without their

historical impetus and cultural foundation, glimpses of which we shall glean in the

chapter on Results and, if resources permit, delve into in the chapters on Discussions

and Conclusions.

As we ready to look more closely into the particulars of our study in the next chapter on

Methodology—wherein we lay down our corpus, variables, and parameters to further deepen and

more solidly ground our preliminary findings towards a more critical discussion of Results—let

me digress a bit by sharing with you about a column written by Mike Tan (2009) on a recent

Filipino word-formation trend.

Tan benchmarks this field’s domain of study with a quick sweep from Zorc’s (1993)

seminal study on Tagalog slang expressions—resulting in the landmark lexicographic work

Tagalog Slang Dictionary (1993/2000) by Zorc et al—to Aguas’s Pinoy dyok-siyo-nar-ry which,

despite being neither strictly lexicographic nor empirical and in spite of being largely humor than

reference, had touched sociolinguistic heartstrings and elicited significant observations:

1. Filipinos know how to use words and wield it—in fact, fashion it—and brazenly

flaunt their wordwise wit via the word-formation process known as agglutination,

which may as well be the Philippines’ counterpart to Yule’s more generic

Compounding;

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

34

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

2. Language is indeed dynamic and shows much about Filipino culture—and that

Filipino is “evolving at a much faster rate than ever before” attesting to an equally

dynamic people that feed this growth with usage and innovation;

3. Filipinos enrich their language by their creative use of it—a case in point is how

people come up with new words to name erstwhile nameless things and phenomena,

which often start in jest or jokingly in casual situations and occasions resulting in the

formation of colloquialisms;

4. Slang terms either fall into disuse or persist—defying the years by surviving through

generations and defying conventions by eventually becoming part of the mainstream

Tagalog and Filipino lexicon;

5. Tagalog slang word-formation evolves—citing specifically the 1970s tendency to

invert words (e.g. erap) to the point of conducting conversation using transposed

syllables in what Tan described as a “linguistic counter-culture that literally turned

languages in their heads” to “the less daring” process called agglutination that is

characteristic word-formation for Germans (e.g. kindergarten) and one that is

embodied by many Filipino words (e.g. bahaghari) and is now gaining ground as a

process popularly used to spawn interesting new words; and,

6. Agglutination itself involves variations—combining, for instance, (a) inverted slang

word + borrowed word in yostik for the stick with cigarette butt tied at one end for

lighting firecrackers; (b) standard Filipino word + standard Filipino word in puhok for

the short hair around the whorl of the head; (c) clipping a Filipino phrasal term in

karug for the hair that crawls down the male navel down to the pubes; and (d)

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

35

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

standard English word + standard Filipino word in the punning newnal for a new

mole and dumidorant for the deodorant residues left in the armpit.

These studies boil down to the fact that language grows faster and bigger if people feed it

in every way and instance possible and how this is done is through the Filipinos’ freely using

both the Filipino and English languages that surround them—visually and aurally—steering clear

of formal institutions to the media and social arenas of constant and diverse interactions (e.g.

market places, malls, and streets) and of decidedly academic or learning-objected occasions to

more personal, casual , and uncalled for opportunities for dialogue with no expectations or preset

goals or impositions towards a simmering milieu of interactions that broadly and deeply institute

in informal learners and casual users and accidental audiences not a language per se but a playful

range of options for expression of the self and comprehension of others and the world.

At this point it will be timely to ask whether the mass and ubiquitous option being fed us

is Filipino, English, or both? To make answering this riddle easier, perhaps, is to ask—and quite

corollary to the issue—if we can still identify a word as English or Filipino at a glance

(discounting both as an option will provide us a clue here) and how identification can or was

made possible and certain.

I will try to answer that riddle—and, hopefully, you will be convinced of the process by

which I will lay down proofs and of the explanation that I will essay to tie up the pieces—but

first help me find the answers to a series of simple questions.

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

36

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

Research Questions

1. What are the most significant new words added to the lexicon of Philippine English?

a. What are the winning words in Sawikaan’s five-year Salita ng Taon search?

i. Which of these winning words are new entries or old entries with new

meanings in the latest edition of the UP Diksiyunaryo ng Filipino (2010)?

ii. Which of these winning words are new entries or old entries with new

meanings in the latest edition of the Anvil–Macquarie Dictionary of

Philippine English for High School (2000)?

iii. Which of these winning words are new entries or old entries with new

meanings in the Oxford American English Dictionary (2nd ed, 2006)

and/or the MSN Encarta World English Dictionary (2009)?

b. What are the features of these new words added to the lexicon of standard

Philippine English?

i. What are the most popular features of these new words?

ii. What are the similarities and differences among the new words?

2. What word-formation processes resulted in the creation of these new words?

a. Which of these word-formation processes produced the most number of new

entries?

i. Which word-formation processes created the most number of new words?

ii. Which word-formation processes created the most number of new

meanings?

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

37

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

b. How did the application of the most productive word-formation processes change

through time?

i. What are the most remarkable technical changes, for example, in the ways

affixes were used or words were clipped?

ii. What are the most remarkable stylistic innovations; for example, the

introduction of new steps?

3. How is the Filipino reconstituted in the canon of World English by these words and

word-formation processes?

a. What individual values do these words and word-formation processes edify?

i. What cultural character is empowered by these representations?

ii. What political stance does the Filipino take in these representations?

b. What national values do the new words and word-formation processes edify?

i. What historical identity is taken by these representations?

ii. What historical path is carved by these representations?

Given the foregoing investigative prompts, premises, and frameworks, it is my hope as

researcher that we will be able to see more and understand better the meanings in, behind, and

around this study’s identification, classification, and definition of newly added words in the

Filipino lexicon with the view of expanding and, consequently, codifying also the lexicon of

Philippine English.

And the Words Become: Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formation

towards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Methodology

Words are studied in many different ways, each method approaching words from a specific

standpoint or perspective or subject position, zooming in on particular aspects of words and how

these aspects relate both to the words to other aspects, and exploring words against or in relation

to each other up to a certain depth or breadth and linguistic level—that is, on the orthographical,

phonological, lexical, semantic, and/or morphological levels.

A study may take on one or a combination of foci, methods, and levels depending on

their goal, from the most physical and technology-based to the most analytical and theory-

oriented: that is, from retrieval and documentation—such as archiving obsolete words to

organizing the words of a living and continually evolving language to collecting words and how

they are used in speech and writing to form a corpora—to analyzing a words at various levels to

extract implications to language, discourse, learning, and culture.

cmvj
Strikeout

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

39

Methodology

Quick Look at Related Studies

For us to see the implications as well as limitations of the present study, it will be helpful

if we acquire at least a cursory view of what kinds of studies have been done in the area—which

takes us from words, word formation processes, dictionary making, to lexical databases—and

find out what opportunities and insights are offered by these different, yet related, researches

herein presented in no particular order as to their approaches to studying words and their

implications to the growing lexicons in Filipino and Philippine English.

Word Formation in the New Englishes. Vital to the present study in many ways is

Thomas Biemeier’s “Word formation in New Englishes—A corpus-based analysis” (2008) for

updating the field with “the first systematic investigation of word formation in the new varieties

of English around the globe”; hence, providing not only methods and measures but also results

that give solid foundation for comparison and verification of present findings.

The first part deals with theoretical questions and provides useful methodology. In the second part the findingsdrawn from eight sub-corpora of the International Corpus of English (ICE) are presented and analyzed. The extentof use of the words examined, the number of new coinages, and the text types are important parameters for an in-depth analysis of individual word-formation categories. This study deals with selected word-formation categories,such as compounding and affixation, and it analyses frequencies obtained by carefully devised test methods.

It shows that English in the Philippines and Singapore, for instance, often exceed British English, used as akind of measuring stick, in terms of type and token frequencies. On a qualitative level, it documents the varieties’enormous productive potential, which attests to the process of structural nativization. In many cases new formationsare created by hybridization, but we encounter variety-specific nonhybrid formations, too. Furthermore, the widerange of variants to mark gender is presented. Finally, my study argues that the current lexical trends indicateindependent developments in New Englishes.

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

40

Methodology

This study, “of key interest to lexicologists and dialectologists, this study provides a

comprehensive examination of word-formation in New Englishes from a qualitative and

quantitative perspective,” is best read along with Biermeier’s “Word formation in New

Englishes: Properties and trends” (2009) in Lucia Siebers and Thomas Hoffmann‘s World

Englishes: Problems—Properties—Prospects as well as with “Lexical trends in Philippine

English” in Ma Lourdes S Bautista’s Studies of Philippine English (2011).

Biemeier’s studies, in touching on most—if not all—of our current areas of concern

becomes both seminal and exemplar given the gamut of studies done on word-formation

processes are often only tangentially related to our present study, either dealing with

1. only one type of word-formation process as it applies, works, or manifests often in

relation to or contrast with some other feature of a language, dialect, or register—an

example would be the classic correlation between borrowing and code-switching,

both features of Philippine English as well as the various studies on the characteristics

of the existing and continually emerging variants and registers of Filipino in its

process of intellectualization and, from there, standardization;

2. word formation only as emerging part or characteristic feature of a larger design,

usually an exploration of or exposition on a sociolinguistic issue or phenomenon—for

instance, gay speak and Tagalog slang or the variances and registers of Filipino—in

relation to another linguistic feature, perhaps, such as many of Ma Lourdes S

Bautista’s studies in Philippine English as well as in Paul S Henson and Kathrine G

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

41

Methodology

Tan’s Humanities thesis “Movie magazine speak: A sociolinguistic study of slang

words, borrowing, and code-switching” (1998); or,

This is a study on three sociolinguistic concerns, namely slang words, borrowing, and code-switching. In studyingthese, the domain of movie magazines was used as source of samples and as subject of analysis.

In the analysis of slang, this study paid particular interest on the derivation processes of slang words and theirdenotations or semantic fields. Zorc and San Miguel's (1993) theories on the derivation processes of slang wordswere applied in the analysis. In addition, the slang corpus of this study was compared with the comprehensivedatabase of slang words of Zorc and San Miguel in order to gain insights on the changes, transformation, andevolution of slang. The output for slang included a compilation of the slang words in this study's corpus whichfollowed a dictionary format, as well as frequencies on the derivation processes, denotations and words particular tothis study and those already included in Zorc and San Miguel's database.

In the analysis of borrowing and code-switching, this study paid particular interest on their functions. Bautista's(1997) functions of borrowing and Gumperz's (1976, 1982) functions of code-switching were used as anchors foranalysis. Significant outputs in this section were the new functions of borrowing and code-switching which weredevised by the researchers after discovering a great number of samples whose functions could not be fitted under theprescribed framework. Due to the extensive list of micro-functions arrived at by the researchers, general functionswere devised to configure the data to an efficient level. (Excerpt from Abstract)

3. a specific linguistic enterprise at work or as applied to a language that word formation

becomes more of an accidental sidelight instead of a defining feature—examples of

these are the lexico-cultural or psycholinguistic studies on the lexicons of specific

cultural/ethnographic groups, sometimes narrowed down further to a particular

domain, and the various studies under the nascent field of Filipinology that aim to

explore and define concepts in Filipino psychology and/or culture.

Filipino Concepts and Meaning Making. In this regard, Susan Cipres–Ortega’s “Ang

larangang leksikal: Kalakaran at paraan” (2003) is important not only for scrutinizing 64 studies

that exhaustively problematize a concept, from such diverse vantage points as psycholinguistics,

humanities, social psychology, and even psychopathology, to find out trends and practices in

Philippine concept making; but also for proposing two alternative ways to better do a lexical

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

42

Methodology

study of concepts—namely, by combined Q-sort technique and K–J method or by

mutltidimensional scaling technique—from a Filipino perspective. The studies were on concepts

characterized either as (a) “malapit sa karanasan ng mga Pilipino o katutubo” or (2) “umiiral,

palasak, o `in’ noong panahong ginawa ang mga pag-aaral” (p 104).

Concept Proponent Year Proponent Conceptalembong Cabanero, del

Corro, & Ungson1972

pambobola Cayetanomalambing Arranz & Caro 1976 Tobia burgis

sikat Diaz & Ramilo Alampay & Sison brad, pare, at iba pabuang Cariaso, Polotan, &

Segura

hiya Canseco, Dizon, &Tiglao

matipid Jacinto

pangangatiyaw Angeles, Montano,& Pagtanac

basag-ulo Espiritu & Annlamangan Alas, Mojica, &

Sotelo1978 Altobar & Cacnio superstar

pakipot Jovellanos Licad marijuanaloob Zerrudo Lim & Quilang bomba

Sanchez & Vitug baduypagjujuramentado Masalunga 1981 Felipe labis na

kamunduhanpaninilip Dabid Silao sadista

torpe Sumayo

pakialamera Ligeraldehambog Menesesmataray Pastor

inutil Eleosida

hiya Salazar

basag-ulo Espiritu & Ann

Closer to Filipino Experience& Native to Culture

Popular, In, or Prevalent During thePeriod

Table 2.1. Studies on Filipino Concepts, by Category and Year, 1972–1981

cmvj
Highlight

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

43

Methodology

What is interesting about these concepts, particularly that those words which had been

popular during the time, is that they reverberate gleanings of what would be Sawikaan’s Word of

the Year selections that are, in fact, mini-studies of particular concepts but this time extended to

the level of being important not just in timeliness but in their relevance to and capacity to

embody Filipino culture and values—and, of course, to the task of lexicography, which brings us

to the next point.

4. Or, to a larger more ambitious but rarer extent, the recovery or codification of a

language, such as in the various efforts to compile, create, and standardize its

vocabulary, grammar, and usage through the making of a dictionary. While the UP

Diksiyunaryo ng Filipino is the Philippine benchmark for this effort, a study that

shows the general characteristics of studies related to words is Ruthmita H Rozul’s

“Developing a monolingual dictionary of obsolescent Tagalog words in Tagaytay

City, Amadeo, and Indang, Cavite” (2004).

The study attempts to collect in a dictionary form obsolescent Tagalog words in these three areas of study. Theresearch is pioneering in the field of lexicography on the obsolescence of Upland Cavite Tagalog.

The work is called a “monolingual” dictionary. The word “monolingual” typically uses the same speech variety forthe headword as it does for the explanatory text. However, this dictionary in fact cites Obsolescent Cavite Tagalogheadwords, and uses Modern Cavite Tagalog to explain them. As such, this work falls in the middle ground betweena truly monolingual dictionary and a fully bilingual/multilingual dictionary in which the headwords and theexplanatory text are typically distinct languages.

Specifically, the study aims to 1) apply a theory on language death in the development of a monolingual dictionaryof obsolescent Tagalog words; 2) identify the problems and apply solutions in the process of developing amonolingual dictionary; and 3) validate the dictionary and make revisions based on the results of the validation.

The researcher then analyzed the remaining entries based on Zorc and San Miguel: 1) the headword in ObsoleteTagalog; 2) the pronunciation, which the members suggested Tagalog (OCT) words. The researcher foundobsolescent Cavite Tagalog uses phonemic transcription; 3) the parts of speech; 4) the levels of words; 5) thescientific name of the entry; 6) the definition of the word expressed in Modern Cavite Tagalog, and where possible,a synonym of the MCT; 7) background information on the origin or derivation of the word; 8) a sentence examplegiving the form in an appropriate Tagalog context; 9) a picture or a drawing of the obsolescent word.

After the lexical entries were analyzed, and pictures and drawings were included, the collection, in the form of adictionary, was presented to the members of the younger generation for feedback. Words not obsolescent were

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

44

Methodology

dropped from the list. This is a novel aspect of the research. Local literature has not shown any study with membersof the younger generation validating the obsolescence of words of the older generation. (Excerpt from Abstract)

In both cases—numbers 3 and 4—the process of word formation has been subsumed in

the culture’s meaning making and in the lexicographic requirements of the genre—of particular

interest to us now in the field of lexicography is the formation of a monolingual dictionary in the

light of a bilingual educational system that calls for a unifying vocabulary to bridge the yawning

gap in comprehension and proficiency.

New Words and Making A Learner’s Dictionary. Essential to the task of codifying

and standardizing languages is the making of dictionaries that reflect not only the dynamism of

the language by featuring new words and concepts but also the expected and real needs of

learners who will benefit most from using the dictionary. For this task, Pius ten Hacken, Andrea

Abel, and Judith Knapp’s “Word formation in an Electronic Learners’ Dictionary: ELDIT”

(2006) is pioneering.

New words are formed when new concepts need to be named. Word formation is one of the major mechanisms forthe expansion of the vocabulary. In second language acquisition, word formation is important for the decoding ofwords the learner does not know, for the production of regular new words when the learner has not acquired thestandard word, and for the creation of a tighter network structure in the mental lexicon, which facilitates vocabularyacquisition.

In existing learners' dictionaries, the treatment of word formation does not support the acquisition of word formationrules in a way that would exploit these possible advantages. Optimizing the support of the acquisition of wordformation in electronic learners' dictionaries requires a reconceptualization of the task of the dictionary. ELDIT, anelectronic German and Italian learners' dictionary of a non-traditional type, takes up the challenge of representingword formation in such a way that its potential for the second language learner can be fully exploited. Theimplementation of word formation is based on collaboration with Word Manager, a system for morphologicaldictionaries. (Abstract)

Since, as Kingsley Bolton and Susan Butler (2008) laments that there is “no

comprehensive dictionary of Philippine English has been compiled” the effort I think should be

towards that of the monolingual dictionary, which defines words using the language of the

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

45

Methodology

words. Hence, Filipino words defined using Filipino is the best for the purpose of a language of

and in convergence. A learner’s dictionary, however, on top of this monolingual dictionary

would be even better in its inclusion of helpful information for the users of the language since

Filipino—along with all the languages it borrows or derives from—is in all likelihood of being

new is also evolving and wanting in some form of manual of style and usage for its users.

Other essential guides that would shed light to the creation and improvement of the craft

of dictionary making—with particular attention to the nuances inherent in definitions—are the

following resources.

Lew, Robert, & Anna Dziemianko. (2006). “A new type of folk-inspired definition in English monolinguallearners' dictionaries and its usefulness for conveying syntactic information,” InternationalJournal of Lexicography 19: 225–242. In B Lewandowska–Tomaszyk & M Telen (Eds.),Translation and Meaning, Part 2 (1992). Proceedings of the Łodz Session of the InternationalDuo Colloquium on “Translation and Meaning;” Łodz 1990. Maastricht: RijkshogeschoolMaatricht [46 papers by 46 authors, 5 on lexicographic topics].

McCalman, Iain (Ed.). (1996). National biographies and national identity. A critical approach to theoryand editorial practice [Conference, Canberra 1995]. Canberra: Australian National UniversityHumanities Research Centre [13 papers by 16 authors].

Nakamoto, Kyohei. (1994). Establishing criteria for dictionary criticism: A checklist for reviewers ofmonolingual English Learners’ Dictionaries. Unpublished MA thesis. University of Exeter,Exeter.

Picket, Joseph. (2007). “Considered and regarded: Indicators of belief and doubt in dictionary definitions,”Dictionaries— Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America. 48–67.

Svensén, Bo. (2009). A handbook of lexicography. The theory and practice of dictionary-making.Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.

Before moving on, a vital consideration not only in word-formation and dictionary

making is the concept of mental lexicon, the consciousness from which everything we have

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

46

Methodology

discussed end up in and are retrieved from; and, hence, the key to retention, learning,

comprehension, and application of a culture’s corpus of most useful and important lexicon.

Aitchison, Jean. (1987/2003). Words in the Mind. An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. 3rd ed. Oxford: B.Blackwell.

Project Design and Procedure

The study follows a three-stage process that corresponds to the three main research

questions posed in the Introduction.

Stage Main Research Question Reference

1. Data Gathering 1. What are the most significant newwords added to the lexicon of PhilippineEnglish?

2. Data Analysis 2. What word-formation processes resultedin the creation of these new words?

3. Interpretation of Results 3. How is the Filipino reconstituted in thecanon of World English by these wordsand word-formation processes?

Table 2.1. Stages in the Methodology

These stages have been designed with a minimum–maximum option for researchers such

that progress may be achieved in increments. Each stage is made up of two substages (and

subquestions) each with three subsubstages (or subsubquestions) that the researcher may address

at a minimum of one substage and subquestion at a time to a maximum of all sub- to

subsubstages and their corresponding questions before proceeding to the next stage.

Each substage has a separate set of goals, quantitative and qualitative criteria, and

analyzable results that make each phase of a phase a mini study framed again within a

minimum–maximum target.

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

47

Methodology

Data Gathering

The Data Gathering stage seeks at the minimum to identify the most significant new

words added to the Filipino lexicon—that is, entered in the expanded UP Diksiyonaryong

Filipino, 2nd ed. (2010), the landmark first monolingual dictionary in Filipino—and at the

maximum identify too the most prevalent features of these new words.

Word Search

Stage—RQ SubstageCriteria 1

SubsubstageCriteria 2

ResultCriteria 3

Values/16

PreliminaryConclusions

I—What arethe mostsignificantnew wordsadded to theFilipinolexicon?

I.1—What arethe winningwords inSawikaan’sfive-year Salitang Taonsearch?

I.1.1—Whichof thesewinning wordsare new entriesor old entrieswith newmeanings inthe latestedition of theUPDiksiyunaryong Filipino(2010)?

number ofsignificantnew standardFlipino wordsadded tolexicon

I.1.2—Whichof thesewinning wordsare new entriesor old entrieswith newmeanings in thelatest edition ofthe Anvil–MacquarieDictionary ofPhilippineEnglish forHigh School(2000)?

number ofsignificantnew standardFlipino wordsalready instandardPhilippinehigh schoolEnglishlexicon

I.1.3—Whichof thesewinning wordsare new entries

number ofsignificantnew standardFlipino words

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

48

Methodology

or old entrieswith newmeanings inthe OxfordAmericanEnglishDictionary (2nd

ed, 2006)?

already instandardAmerican/WorldEnglishlexicon

Table 2.2. Stage 1—Data Gathering

Significant New Words in Filipino. The study made us of the year’s top three words—a

total of 16 words—chosen by the Filipinas Institute of Translation’s Sawikaan annual word

search selection committee for the years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2010.

FIT is composed of Romulo P Baquiran, Jr, Mario I Miclat, P T Martin, Leuterio Nicolas,

Galileo S Zafra, Vim Nadera, Roberto Añonuevo, and Michael Coroza, with National Artist for

Literature Virgilio S Almario as adviser.

FIT describes these words—which need not be new but whose meaning has acquired a

new dimension and renewed relevance over time—as the most significant

old or new words [which have] impacted on the sociocultural, political, social, economic, and other aspects ofFilipino life during the year. These could be borrowed from a foreign or a local language, or an old one that hasacquired a new meaning. The word of the year is a significant addition to Filipino vocabulary and a welcomedictionary entry. (Nadera, 2010)

It would be worthwhile to compare this qualifier with that of the Webster’s New College

Dictionary which Mike Agnes, editor in chief, explains:

. . . [N]ew words and meanings find their way into the dictionary based primarily on their frequency and breadth ofuse, and whether they show themselves as well established over time. That last part is the key.(www.thefreelibrary.com)

The significance of a word, therefore, is marked by—among other things—how often,

how widely used, and how widely useful a word is: things which have been shown and proven in

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

49

Methodology

the proposals or competition spiels that Sawikaan word proponents presented to the FTI panel

and which is the content of the Sawikaan series published by the University of the Philippines

Press.

The next stage, however, needs to be presaged properly for further grounding with two

reassertions—first, that “Filipino has arrived”; and, second, that Philippine English is moving

towards a convergence.

Let us look at this arrival of Filipino as a language-in-progress but already very real and

in use from the following clips that underscore my observations from Jessie Grace U Rubrico’s

“Towards a Theory of Filipino” (2004), where the first reassertion was made.

1. Definition of Filipino

Atienza (1996) describes it as "isang wikang kompromiso, o lingua franca." Flores(1996) points out that Filipino isthe language of the "kulturang popular na nagmula sa Metro Manila at pinapalaganap sa buong kapuluan." Anotherview is that of Isagani R. Cruz of DLSU who states that for him Filipino is the English–Tagalog code switch.

To further clarify the last definition, which is also an assertion as well as a

characterization of the language, is a passage—the paragraph divisions are mine, to highlight

points—from Isagani R Cruz’s “Split-Level Americanization: A Case Study of McDonaldized

Philippines” (2006).

In reality, however, despite the Constitution, the presidential order, and the Department orders, there is only onelanguage of instruction in practically all classrooms in the country. It is Taglish, a non-language that is variouslylabeled as code-switching, pidgin, or a lingua franca, featuring a still-unsystematized mixture of Tagalog, English,and vernacular languages of various regions.

The government’s own language body, the Commission on Philippine Languages, defines the official languageFilipino as whatever language is spoken in the urban centers, especially Metro Manila (in the North), Metro Cebu(in the middle of the archipelago), and Metro Davao (in the South).

The few academic sources on Filipino, such as the Filipino dictionary (UP Diksiyonaryong Filipino, 2001) preparedby the University of the Philippines (the first of only four Philippine universities listed in the latest world universityrankings), strengthen the impression that Filipino is really Taglish.

(http://criticplaywright.blogspot.com/2006/12/split-level-americanization-case-study.html)

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

50

Methodology

2. Characteristics of Filipino

Is the Tagalog-based Pilipino really Filipino? Dr. Constantino cites the differences between Pilipino and Filipino, towit: Filipino (1) has more phonemes; (2) has a different system of ortography; (3) manifests a heavy borrowing fromEnglish; (4) has a different grammatical construction. Based on the trend of development of Filipino as manifestedin the data presented in this study, as well as the actual usage by the linguistic trendsetters in Philippine society—newscasters (both in radio and television), Filipino writers and some academicians, showbiz personalities—it wouldappear that his theory is closest to reality.

3. Spread and Use of Filipino

There is a consensus, however, among the academicians above that Filipino is the lingua franca in Metro Manilawhich is inexorably pervading the regional centers through the print and broadcast media, through the songs that thelocal bands sing, through intellectual discussions among academicians, etc. It is the language through which aprominent Filipino linguist communicates (Exhibit D), as well as the medium of expression among academicians(Exhibit A), and of the "caretakers" or "authority" of national language development in the University of thePhilippines System, namely, the writers and editors in the Sentro ng Wikang Filipino(Exhibit B).

4. Trends in the Evolution of Filipino

a. Gradual Convergence with Philippine Languages

Even the leading Cebuano weekly, Bisaya (which has been around for the past 68 years) has now printed in its pagesloan words from English which, more often than not, retain their original spelling despite their being subjected to theCebuano rules of grammar. One can safely say that Cebuano, like Tagalog, is undergoing linguistic change throughlexical borrowing from English. Right now the Cebuanos adopt two alternate forms—the original spelling and themodified. Soon only one form will be retained, by theory of simplification as embodied in the universals oflanguage.

Unfortunately, there isn't much borrowing from other Philippine languages. . . . One is confident that theconverging process will continue, not only for Pilipino and Cebuano but likewise for other Philippine languages likeHiligaynon,Bikol, Ilokano, Waray, Kapampangan, and so on. Language change is, however, gradual and it willprobably take several years before a substantive convergence can occur. What is apparent for now is that theconvergence is already taking place.

But considering the rapid linguistic development of both Cebuano and the Metro Manila Filipino, there seems to behope for Filipino. And this is manifested in the perceived convergence of Pilipino and Cebuano through theirrespective borrowings from English. A few examples are given below:

EnglishTerms

PilipinoForm

CebuanoForm

Filipino(convergence)

abroad abroad abroad abroad

advertisement adbertisment adbertisment adbertisment

announcer anawnser anawonser anawnsercategory kategorya kategorya kategoryaeffect epekto epekto epekto

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

51

Methodology

b. Heavy Reliance on English

At the moment, it is very clear that English borrowing has a dominant and pervading influence in the shaping of thelingua franca which is the penultimate form of Filipino, the national language. But will this trend continue?Language is dynamic. This researcher is of the opinion that as long as English remains the official language ofcommerce, science, and technology the trend will continue.

Meanwhile, Almario (1997, p.9) gives an update on Filipino: Nasa kalooban ngayon ng Filipino ang paglinang sa"sanyata" at "ranggay" ng Iloko sa "uswag" at "bihud" ng Bisaya, sa "santing" ng Kapampangan,"laum" at"magayon" ng Bikol at kahit sa "buntian" ng Butanon at "suyad" ng Manobo. Samantalay hindi ito hadlang samadaliang pagpasok ng "shawarma" "shashimi," "glasnost," "perestroika," "shabu," "megabytes." "odd-even," at ibaang idadagsa ng satelayt at FAX sa globalisasyon.

What does one make out of this assertion? Are we now to believe that the process of borrowing from otherPhilippine and foreign languages is now a linguistic reality? Judging from the data gathered and presented here,perhaps this is only partially true. That is, borrowing is almost exclusively from the English language. And why isthis so? It is difficult to give a substantive answer to this particular question, given the limited scope of this study.Perhaps one indication why there is a lot of borrowing from English compared to other Philippine languages is thefacility and appropriateness or applicability of English terms to modern day-to-day living of the average urbanFilipino. More so because the urbanized Filipino is constantly exposed to the trappings—high technology, media,etc.—of modern society which adopts English as its medium of communication, commerce, and education. As forFilipinos living in rural communities, the far-reaching radio and television broadcasts bring to them the linguistictrend emanating from the urban centers. (http://coconuter.blogspot.com/2004/01/metamorphosis-of-filipino-as-national.html)

Data Analysis

The Data Analysis is a two-part stage that looks into the features of and word-formation

processes that created the new words added to the Filipino lexicon.

The first part of seeks at the minimum to identify the most popular—or oft occuring—

features of the new words added to the Filipino lexicon and at the maximum identify too the

most prevalent features of these new words.

Word Descriptions

Stage—RQ SubstageCriteria 1

SubsubstageCriteria 2

ResultCriteria 3

Values/N

PreliminaryConclusions

I.2—What arethe features ofthese newwords added tothe lexicon of

I.2.1—What arethe mostpopularPhilippineEnglish

number andfrequency ofmost popularfeatures ofPhilippine

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

52

Methodology

[standardPhilippineEnglish]?

features(Gonzalez,1996) of thesenew words?

English in thenew words

I.2.2—What arethe similaritiesand differencesamong the newwords?

frequencyranking anddeviation ofsimilaritiesanddifferences inhow thefeatures ofPhilippineEnglish areexhibited bythe new words

Table 2.3a. Stage 2—Data Analysis (Word Descriptions)

Standard English Words. The 16 significant new words in Filipino—which are all in

UP’s monumental monolingual Filipino dictionary—will be further qualified by cross-checking

against two other lexical benchmarks: Anvil–Macquarie Dictionary of Philippine English for

High School (2000) for pioneering the lexicalization of Philippine English and The New Oxford

American Dictionary 2nd ed. (2006) for being the most complete and up-to-date lexicon of

American English—vis-à-vis the most recent The Oxford Dictionary of English (ODE, 2010)—

and, as an additional resource, the online MSN Encarta World English Dictionary (2009).

It will be interesting to know at this point how the ODE (FAQs 2010) decides on which

words to enter and which to leave out. These new entries are usually standard English words—

unless, otherwise, labeled as colloquial or slang, for instance—and the standard nowadays has

expanded to include the various incarnations of World English as they are most widely used by

the peoples of English-speaking nations.

1. Significant and Will Stand the Test of Time

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

53

Methodology

[W]hen we have evidence of a new term being used in a variety of different sources (not just by one writer) itbecomes a candidate for inclusion in one of our dictionaries. For every new dictionary or online update we assess allthe most recent terms that have emerged and select those which we judge to be the most significant or important andthose which we think are likely to stand the test of time.

2. Recorded in a Print or Online Source

In previous centuries there were dictionaries in which writers listed words which they thought might be useful, evenif they did not have any evidence that anyone had ever actually used them. This is not the case today. New termshave to be recorded in a print or online source before they can be considered: it's not enough just to hear them inconversation or on television, although we do analyse material from Internet message boards and TV scripts.

3. More than 3-Year Usage or New High-Use Terms of Enormous Currency

It used to be the case that a new term had to be used over a period of two or three years before we could consideradding it to a print dictionary. In today's digital age, the situation has changed. New terms can achieve enormouscurrency with a wide audience in a much shorter space of time, and people expect to find these new 'high-profile'words in their dictionaries. This presents an additional challenge to lexicographers trying to assess whether a term isephemeral or whether it will become a permanent feature of the language.

4. Inventions that Name Something New

[S]ome invented words do catch on and become an established part of English, either because they fill a gap orbecause they are describing something new. Examples of this type of invented word include wiki, quark, spoof, orhobbit. (2010)

Crosschecking the inclusion of these significant new Filipino words in these dictionaries

of World English will be hitting two birds with one stone: first, in qualifying the words’

“frequency and breadth of use and being well established over time” as a Filipino word accepted

in the standard English lexicon; and, second, in confirming the words’ status as a standard

Philippine English word.

The words will then be compared as to their inclusion in none or all of the lexicons

mentioned—those that pass this stage will go to the next substage and be analyzed for features of

Philippine English words.

Philippine English. There are two vital resources to which the present study point back

to and take off from as they inform the methodology with vital parameters. These are:

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

54

Methodology

1. Ma Lourdes S Bautista’s Defining Standards of Philippine English: Its Status and

Grammatical Features (2000), for macadamizing the road paved by Llamzon,

Gonzalez, and others to codify the language that has been evolving with and from the

national-language-to-be that is Filipino. Philippine English, which has been

commended by D V S Manarpaac (2008) as a “successful process of language

appropriation,” is described by Bautista as follows:

Philippine English is not English that falls short of the norms of Standard American English; it is not badly learnedEnglish as a second language; its distinctive features are not errors committed by users who have not mastered theAmerican standard.

Instead, it is a nativized variety of English that has features which differentiate it from Standard American Englishbecause of the influence of the first language (specifically in pronunciation [. . .] but occasionally in grammar),because of the different culture—in which the language is embedded (expressed in lexicon and in discourseconventions), and because of a restructuring of some grammar rules (manifested in the grammar) . . . .

Philippine English has an informal variety, especially in the spoken mode, which may include a lot of borrowing andcode-mixing, and it has a formal variety which, when used by educated speakers and found acceptable in educatedFilipino circles, can be called Standard Philippine English. (p 21) [Paragraphing mine.—Proponent]

2. Kingsley Bolton and Susan Butler’s “Lexicography and the Description of Philippine

English Vocabulary” (2008), not only for identifying the need to codify the Philippine

English lexicon and the organic role of the dictionary in this task of codification as

the legitimizing tool for world Englishes, but also for describing the lexico-historical

innovations in the language that, through time, has metamorphosed in stratification

both “temporally and socially” (p 178)—reflecting a divide that bespeaks of

particular periods in history and of particular ethno-cultural groups that have been

active participants or movers during those periods. Interestingly, this divide will tend

to be blurred as we shall see in later in the Results.

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

55

Methodology

Beginnings of Philippine English. The creation of a new vocabulary for a nation in

interaction with and under the control of a foreign power has resulted in the creation of new

words through four basic processes—thence, the groundwork from which succeeding word-

formation processes will be set against—as Bolton and Butler (2008) averred true for all

colonized nations:

1. Borrowing of words from local languages (e.g., Tag anting-anting, pili, and tuba; Sp abaca, anito, barrio,and fiesta),

2. Borrowing from other Englishes (e.g., solon),3. Formation of new words and new compounds in English (e.g., barrio folk, barrio road, barrio elder, and

barrio life), and4. Adaptation of the lexicon brought from the British and American homeland. (p 177–178, in Philippine

English: Linguistic and Literary Perspectives)

These intercultural processes via language contact necessitated what we now know as the

Glossary such as the “List of Spanish and Philippine Terms” that Thomasite William B Freer

included among the back matter of his important cultural artifact, The Philippine Experiences of

an American Teacher (1906). Bolton and Butler (2008) discovered that of the 187 “early

borrowed” words on the list—153 were from Spanish, 19 from Tagalog, 7 Bicol, 4 Moro, 2

Gaddang, and 1 Igorot—107 or 57.2% are still in everyday usage or found as “relic items” in

literary works as of 2001, when the two searched the Macquarie database of Asian Englishes

called Asiacorp.

Word Formation

The second part of the Data Analysis seeks at the minimum to identify the most

productive—hence, also popular and most oft used—word formation process that created the

most number of new words added to the Filipino lexicon and at the maximum identify too the

trend in changes that these processes exhibit in creating and/or innovating words through time.

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

56

Methodology

Word Creation

Stage—RQ SubstageCriteria 1

SubsubstageCriteria 2

ResultCriteria 3

Values PreliminaryConclusions

II—Whatword-formationprocessesresulted in thecreation ofthese newwords?

II.1—Which ofthese word-formationprocessesproduced themost numberof newentries?

II.1.1—Whichword-formationprocessescreated themost number ofnew words?

II.1.2—Whichword-formationprocessescreated themost number ofnew meanings?

II.2—How didthe applicationof the mostproductiveword-formationprocesseschangethrough time?

II.2.1—Whatare the mostremarkabletechnicalchanges, forexample, in theways affixeswere used orwords wereclipped?

II.2.2— Whatare the mostremarkablestylisticinnovations; forexample, theintroduction ofnew steps?

Table 2.3b. Stage 2—Data Analysis (Word Formation)

Characteristics and Features of Philippine English. It will be interesting to compare the

characteristics of early Philippine English with the four characteristics that Bautista came up

with after comparing Philippine data with Australian data from the Asian English Corpus of the

Macquarie Dictionary, namely:

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

57

Methodology

1. Normal expansion,2. Preservation of items which have been lost or become infrequent in other varieties,3. Coinages, and4. Borrowings. (academia.edu)

and with the characteristics identified by Gonzalez—and which Tom McArthur repeats in the

Oxford Companion to the English Language in Encyclopedia.com—to describe the vocabulary

and idioms of Philippine English, namely:

1. Loan words from Spanish (e.g., as alto, don, doña, estafa, and viand),2. Loan words from Tagalog (e.g., boondocks and carabao),3. Loan translations from local usages (e.g., open the light), and4. Local neologisms (e.g., captain ball, carnap, cope up, holdupper, jeepney, and joke only). (1992, in

Bautista pp 89–90)

In recognition of the field’s expanding horizon—and as follows the growing popularity of

corpus linguistics, the Philippine component of which is still continuously being populated—and

the language’s dynamic nature Ariane Macalinga Borlongan (2007) brings us further forward by

showing seven characteristic innovations that mark standard Philippine English based on her

analysis of 150 printed texts from the Philippine component of the International Corpus of

English (ICE–PH):

1. Borrowings,2. Normal expansions,3. Preservation of archaic or receding elements of genetically native Englishes,4. Analogical constructions,5. English compounds,6. Substitutions or paraphrases,7. Ambiguous expressions, and8. Insertion of redundant particles. (academia.edu)

The nature and characteristics of the vocabulary and lexicon of Philippine English will no

longer be surprising now after having seen that at the most informal level Filipinos create words

through—and in this order of preference and frequency—Coinage, Borrowing, Reduction,

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

58

Methodology

Acronym, Mixing, and Blending. More than this is the prevalence, say ubiquity, of inventions

and innovations introduced into the present speaking vocabulary coming from, influenced by,

and tainted with English for the most part and by other languages.

This early we already see recurrent patterns and trends in the common processes shared

by both Filipino word formation and Philippine English characteristic features—leading us to

see, too, the roots of Filipino identity dynamically changing with history (and colonial masters)

and with time (and technological developments) and the manifestation of the hegemonic power

at work.

What we see then as linguistic movements—or changes—in the convergence of two

languages in contact at first, then systematically and formally separated and delineated as

national languages in conflict yet coexisting and familiar though alien and also stratified, back to

convergence now in the interesting phenomena characterizing the twinning of Filipino–

Philippine English in what is a clear mirror, even barometer, of Philippine historico-cultural

character—and future—not simply as individual but as Nation.

Interpretation of Results

The Interpretation of Results is an optional, higher level type of analysis of results, that

seeks to unravel the Filipino—as people and Nation—in the new words added to the Filipino

lexicon. At the minimum, Interpretation of Results seeks to identify the individual identity and

values as well as their implications to a people’s culture and political stance as negotiated by

these new words; and, at the maximum identify too the national identity and values as well as

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

59

Methodology

their implications to a nation’s historical image and future as negotiated by these very same

words that just entered the Filipino lexicon.

Identity Formation

Stage—RQ SubstageCriteria 1

SubsubstageCriteria 2

ResultCriteria 3

Values PreliminaryConclusions

III—How isthe Filipinoreconstitutedin the canon ofWorld Englishby these wordsand word-formationprocesses?

III.1—Whatindividualvalues do thesewords andword-formationprocessesedify?

III.1.1—Whatculturalcharacter isempowered bytheserepresentations?

III.1.2—Whatpolitical standdoes the Filipinotake in theserepresentations?

III.2—Whatnationalvalues do thenew words andword-formationprocessesedify?

III.2.1—Whathistoricalidentity is takenby theserepresentations?

III.2.2—Whathistorical pathis carved bytheserepresentations?

Table 2.4. Stage 3—Interpretation of Results

Results and Discussions

And the Words Become: Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formation

towards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Results and Conclusions

Words are living entities as well as collective embodiments of culture and consciousness. For

something created words are not only above and beyond all of humanity’s other creations but

also something that is so wondrous and sinister that those who used them at Babel were

dispersed confused for brazenly flaunting the insidious power of words. For something that is not

even physical—and, especially when alone, so fragile and small and inconsequential and

fleeting—a word means much and can contain more than anyone can ever imagine holding in the

biggest hands.

Words are powerful: A word is power.

We have seen it become the converging point not only of two languages but of two

cultures—even more considering the long and rich history of English and the troubled and

unsure infancy of Filipino—and, therefore, of two peoples—likewise maybe more than two

considering the many peoples that may have infused a word with their identity in the word’s

evolution and transformations.

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

61

Results and Conclusions

In this chapter, let us look closer at some of the newest words to become incorporated in

the Filipino lexicon—and, in the process, enriching the vocabulary of Philippine English—and

find out:

1. Which of these new words in the lexicon of Filipino–Philippine English have entered

also the lexicon of World Englishes and, therefore, are also Standard English words?

2. Which of the words’ common lexical features identify them coming from the

Filipino–Philippine English vocabulary?

3. Which of the characteristic Philippine word-formation processes have been most

productive in enriching the Filipino–Philippine English lexicon?

4. What were the characteristic innovations or changes in the way these Philippine

word-formation processes created or changed words through time?

5. What individual and national identities of the Filipino are put forward by these new

words–word formation processes in the global context?

Results of Data Gathering

The Sawikaan Corpus of 16 Words

The five-year brainchild of the Filipinas Institute of Translation Sawikaan: Mga Salita ng

Tao—a word search, conference, and book—had consistently selected the most significant new

words in Filipino from 2004, skipping 2008 and 2009 when no word was deemed to have made

any significant impact on society, to 2010 to come up with a total of 16 winning words: 5 words

of the year, 1 first runner up, 5 second runners up, and 5 third runners up.

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

62

Results and Conclusions

These 16 words form the corpus of our present on Filipino–Philippine English word

formation.

Rank

Year2004 2005 2006 2007 2008/2009 2010

W canvass huweteng lobat miskol jejemon1st ukay-ukay2nd tsika pasaway Botox roro Ondoy3rd tsugi tibak / t-

backtoxic friendster korkor

effect Tsunami birdflu sutokil(sugba, tola,or kilaw)

Ampatuan

tapsilog networking cha-cha abrodista unlikinse anyos blog Karir extrajudicial

killingsload

jologs wiretapping mall makeover tarposalbakuta e-vat meningo oragon solbdagdag-bawas

call center Orocan party-list emo

fashionista Caregiver payreted safety namumutbolterorista /terorismo

Coño Spa telenobela Spam

text Gandara kudkod videokeotso-otso

Table 3.1. Sawikaan’s Top Three Words of the Year, 2004–2010

Notes and Observations. Before we go into a discussion of the words, a careful scrutiny

of Sawikaan’s winning words and finalists in Table 3.1 will help reveal initial trends and patterns

that may shed light on parts or aspects of the results later or support findings by extrapolation

from that data presented, after all only the 16 top words will be discussed in detail.

A cursory scan of the table resulted in the following preliminary observations on, among

others, ranking of winners, number of finalists, and inclusion of finalists from the regions:

1. The Word of the Year in 2004 is followed by three runners ups, resulting in four

winners; however, in the succeeding years, only two runners follow the Word of the

Year, making a total of three winners only. This ranking became the standard lineup.

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

63

Results and Conclusions

2. There are a total of 61 new words—5 words of the year, 1 first runner up, 5 second

runners up, 5 third runners up, and 45 finalists—in the search’s five years for an

annual average of 12.5 significant new words, or 3.5 winners and 9 finalists yearly.

3. The inclusion of a word from the regions only happened thrice, or four times: in

2004 with salbakuta from Bicol, in 2006 with kudkod from the Visayas, and twice in

2007 with sutokil (sugba, tola, or kilaw) from the Visayas and with oragon from

Bicol.

Assumption: Sawikaan Word Constant. The table may not reflect this, but it is

interesting to note, too, at this point that for a word to qualify a proponent must pass and then

later present a position paper to be defended in the Sawikaan Conference. A proponent would

discuss the etymology, merits, as well as exemplified the extent and variety of usage and

meanings of the word being nominated.

It may be interesting to see also the demographics of the 61 nominators and find

connections perhaps these statistics and the word being nominated. It may safely be assumed that

most of them are from the University of the Philippines community, where the conference is

usually held and where the core group of the FIT are based, with isolated cases of presenters

flying in from provinces to lobby their choices.

After considering nomination–nominator correspondence, it would seem worthwhile too

to extend the analysis and observations to the rest of the finalists for a more complete profile, but

limitations focus us on the 16 winners first then outline findings, predict trending values for the

rest of the words based on these findings, and verify these interpolations at some later time.

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

64

Results and Conclusions

The resulting trending values, I assume, would not result in a a big difference given the

homogenizing characteristics that we have gleaned from the nature of Filipino–Philippine

English languages and word-formation processes. Hence, I am likewise theoretically assuming

that the same holds true for the trends in the frequency of morphological/lexical as well as

grammatical features of new lexical items—falling safely within the expected range or on

predictable grounds—and could, therefore, serve as a determiner or constant in future research.

New Words Added to the Filipino Lexicon

Results gathered from email (dated 24 December 2010) with Romulo Baquiran, Jr,

Sawikaan consultant–contributor to and actual checking of the 2010 U.P. Diksiyonaryong

Filipino revealed the following:

1. Sawikaan as Source of New Words. New words that have been added to the U.P.

Filipino corpus—such as botsa from mass media and arowana from zoology and

literature—have been contributed by consultants from various fields of knowledge.

Interestingly, the Sawikaan Conference is considered one of these consultant–

contributors to enriching and expanding the Filipino lexicon.

2. New Words from Sawikaan. There are 24 new words added to the 2010 UP Filipino

Diksiyonaryo which came from the Sawikaan corpus. These 21 new words may be

categorized further into those coming from:

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

65

Results and Conclusions

a. Sawikaan’s Top 16 Words. Of the 24 new words, 4 (i.e., lobat, ukay-ukay,

tsika, and tsugi) came from the 16 winning words. The 12 words left out of

the 16 winners may be further categorized as follows:

i. Old Entries. Of the 12 words left out, 9 (i.e., canvass, friendster,

huweteng, korkor, miskol, pasaway, roro, tibak/t-back, and toxic) are

already in the UP Diksiyunaryong Filipino corpus.

ii. Nonwords. Of the 12 words left out, 3 (i.e., botox, jejemon, and

Ondoy) have not yet entered the Filipino lexicon.

These may, therefore, be considered as nonwords most due

probably to their being recent neologisms and, thus, remain non-

Standard Filipino waiting for their legitimization.

b. Sawikaan’s 45 Finalists. Of the 24 new words, 20 (i.e., blog, call center,

caregiver, chacha, dagdag-bawas, e-vat, jolog, karir, load, mall,

meningococcemia, networking, orocan, solb, spa, sutukil, tapsilog, tarpaulin,

tsunami, and wiretapping) came from the 45 finalists.

Note though the following morphological changes between the form entered and the form

nominated: two have been included in the dictionary in their full, spelled out forms despite being

nominated to the Sawikaan in their clipped forms, namely meningococcemia for meningo and

tarpaulin for tarpo; chacha was entered without the hyphen in the nominated cha-cha; and,

jolog was entered in the uninflected for despite the nominated jologs.

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

66

Results and Conclusions

The rest of the 25 words left out on the list of finalists may be further

categorized as follows:

i. Old Entries. Of the 28 words left out, 11.5 (i.e., abrodista, coño, effect,

extrajudicial killing, fashionista, makeover, oragon, safety, telenobela,

terorismo, and text) are already in the UP Diksiyunaryong Filipino

corpus.

ii. Nonwords. Of the 28 words left out, 13.5 (i.e., Ampatuan, birdflu, emo,

gandara, kinse anyos, namumutbol, otso-otso, party-list, payreted,

salbakuta, spam, terorista, unli, and videoke) have not yet entered the

Filipino lexicon and are yet to be legitimized as Standard Filipino.

Note, however, these morphological observations in the entries versus the non-entries:

party is included but not party-list, pirate is included but not payreted, terorista is not included

yet its pair terorismo is, and that several compounds with video are included but not videoke.

1. Which of these new words in the lexicon of Filipino–Philippine English have entered also

the lexicon of World Englishes and, therefore, are also Standard English words?

Filipino Words in the 2010 OED Online

Again, using the Sawikaan 16:45 word base but this time checking the 2010 online

version of the Oxford English Dictionary of World English (http://oxforddictionaries.com), we

see that only botox, canvass, ro-ro, t-back, and toxic are listed as legitimate English words—

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

67

Results and Conclusions

being entered with the Philippine meaning of the word, however, is beside the point at this

junction—turning out a ration of 5:27, or 5 words from the 16 winning words and 27 words from

the 45 Sawikaan finalists. Table 3.2 will show a summary of these two—minus the data on the

finalists though—including their functions.

Sawikaan16

UP Filipino(2010)

Function OED Online(2010)

Function

botox(b2006)

No Yes noun

canvass(w2004)

Yes verb Yes verb

friendster(c2007)

No No

huweteng(w2005)

Yes noun No

jejemon(w2010)

Yes adjective/ noun

No

korkor(c2010)

Yes noun No

lobat(w2006)

Yes adjective No

miskol(w2007)

Yes verb/ noun

Nobut, miscall

Ondoy(b2010)

No No

pasaway(b2005)

Yes adjective/ noun

No

roro(b2007)

Yes noun Yesbut, ro-ro

adjective

tibak/t-back(c2006)

Yes adjective/ noun

No/Yes noun

toxic(c2006)

Yes adjective Yes adjective

tsika(b2004)

Yes noun/ verb

No

tsugi(c2004)

Yes verb /adjective

No

ukay-ukay(a2004)

Yes noun /adjective

No

Table 3.2. Status of Sawikaan’s Top 16 as Filipino and English Words

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

68

Results and Conclusions

From the table, let us move forward to analyze only the words highligted in purple or the

words which appeared both in the Filipino and English lexicons, including two words appearing

only in the Filipino lexicon but could have appeared in the English lexicon given the English

source words that formed the Filipino compound.

Results of Data Analysis

Characteristics and Features of New Words in the Lexicon

Filipino–PHEnglish Words

Function Features of PH English(Baustista & Gonzalez,

1992)

Innovations inPH English(Borlongan,

2007)

WordFormation(Villanueva,

2011)canvass(w2004)

v. Normal expansion,borrowing; loan translation

Borrowing,normalexpansion

Borrowing

lobat(w2006)

adj. Normal expansion, coinage,borrowing; local neologism,loan words from English

Borrowing,normalexpansion,Englishcompound,ambiguousexpression

Borrowing,coinage,blending >multipleprocesses

miskol(w2007)

v./ n.

Normal expansion, coinage,borrowing; local neologism,loan words from English

Borrowing,normalexpansion,Englishcompound,ambiguousexpression

Borrowing,coinage,blending >multipleprocesses

roro(b2007)

n. Normal expansion,borrowing; loan word fromBr English

Borrowing,normalexpansion

Borrowing,acronym

tibak/t-back(c2006)

adj./ n.

Normal expansion, coinage,borrowing; loan word fromEnglish

Borrowing,normalexpansion,ambiguousexpression

Borrowing

toxic(c2006)

adj. Normal expansion,borrowing; loan word fromEnglish

Borrowing,normalexpansion

Borrowing

Table 3.3. Nature of Words in Both Filipino and English Lexicons

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

69

Results and Conclusions

2. Which of the words’ common lexical features identify them coming from the Filipino–

Philippine English vocabulary?

3. Which of the characteristic Philippine word-formation processes have been most

productive in enriching the Filipino–Philippine English lexicon?

Table 3.3 reveals the following recurrent characteristics that may define the nature of

words that are both a part of the Filipino and English lexicons based on three markers, namely:

1. The characteristics of Philippine English:

a. Normal expansion (6/6),

b. Borrowing (6/6),

c. Loan word from English (5/6),

d. Coinage (3/6),

e. Local neologism (2/6), and

f. Loan translation (1/6);.

2. The innovations in Philippine English:

a. Borrowing (6/6),

b. Normal expansion (6/6),

c. English compounds (2/6), and

d. Ambiguous expression (2/6); and,

3. The Filipino word-formation processes:

a. Borrowing (6/6),

b. Coinage (2/6),

c. Blending (2/6),

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

70

Results and Conclusions

d. Multiple process (2/6), and

e. Acronym (1/6).

Conclusion: General Features of Filipino–Philippin English Words

If we were to list these items according to the most common features, we will get the

following general characteristics of new words in the lexicon which are both Filipino—being

part of the standard Filipino vocabulary—and English—being part, too, of the standard English

lexicon.

Feature and TheirFrequency

6 5 4 3 2 1

1. Function * Adjective* Noun

* Verb

2. Source ofNew Words

* Borrowing* Loan Wordsfrom English

* Coinage * LocalNeologism

* LoanTranslation

3. MeaningMaking

* NormalExpansion

4. WordFormationProcess

* Borrowing

5. Innovations * Borrowing* NormalExpansion

* Coinage* Blending* MultipleProcesses

* Englishcompounds* AmbiguousExpressions

* Acronym

Table 3.4. Features of New English Words Both Filipino and English Lexicons, By Feature andFrequency

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

71

References

References

► Primary Sources

Filipino Language and Study

Alonzo, Rosario I. (2002). Varyasyon at varayti ng wika. In J V M Peregrino, P C Constantino, & N S Ocampo(Eds.), Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ng Filipino (pp 25–39). Quezon City: Sentro ngWikang Filipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.

Almario, Virgilio S. (2006). Nakaplanong modernisasyon ng wikang Filipino. Sawikaan. Retrieved fromhttp://www.sawikaan.net/modernisasyon_ng_wikang_fil.html

Antonio, Lilia F, & Ligaya Tiamson–Rubin (Eds.). (2003). Sikolohiya ng wikang Filipino: Mga simulain,pamamaraan at nilalaman. Quezon City: C&E Publishing.

Catacataca, Pamfilo D (Ed.). (2004). Metamorfosis ng wikang Filipino: Sulyap at titg ni Ponciano B P Pineda.Makati City: Grandwater Publications.

Constantino, Pamela C. (2002a). Pluralidad tungo sa indentidad: Ang varayti ng wikang Filipino sa pagbuo ng wikaat kamalayang pambansa. In J V M Peregrino, P C Constantino, & N S Ocampo (Eds.), Minanga: Mgababasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ng Filipino (pp 55–59). Quezon City: Sentro ng Wikang Filipino,Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.

Constantino, Pamela C. (2002b). Varayti at varyasyon ng wika: Historya, teorya at praktika. In J V M Peregrino, P CConstantino, & N S Ocampo (Eds.), Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ng Filipino (pp 19–24). Quezon City: Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.

Constantino, Pamela C. (2002c). Wikang Filipino bilang konsepto. In J V M Peregrino, P C Constantino, & N SOcampo (Eds.), Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ng Filipino (pp 48–54). Quezon City:Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.

Fermin, Edizon. (2002). Mga varayti at varyasyong antropolohiko: Pagsilip sa mga hibla’t habi ng wika, kultura atlipunan. In J V M Peregrino, P C Constantino, & N S Ocampo (Eds.), Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varaytiat varyasyon ng Filipino (pp 90–101). Quezon City: Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ngPilipinas.

Fernandez–Montenegro, Carmencita. (1982). An exploratory study of male and female language in Pilipino. In M LS Bautista (Ed.), Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics (pp 178–200). Manila: De La Salle UniversityPress.

► Filipinas Institute of Translation. (2006). Sawikaan. Retrieved fromhttp://sawikaan.net/modernisasyon_ng_wikang_fil.html

Hernandez, Jesus Federico. (2010). Descent to the sariling mundo: Untangling the complexities of the language ofmental health and illness in Filipino. 2nd International Conference on Filipino as a Global Language.Retrieved from http://larc.sdsu.edu/files/2010/03/Hernandez-Descent-to-the-sariling-mundo.pdf

Mariano, Jocelyn. (2002). Ang varayti ng Filipino sa mga balitang isports sa diyaryo. In J V M Peregrino, P CConstantino, & N S Ocampo (Eds.), Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ng Filipino (pp118–125). Quezon City: Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.

Nadera, Vim. (2010, August 1). Our salita ng taon is Jejemon. Malaya. Retrieved fromhttp://www.mb.com.ph/node/270105/our-

Ocampo, Nilo S. (2002). Mga varayti ng wika. In J V M Peregrino, P C Constantino, & N S Ocampo (Eds.),Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ng Filipino (pp 2–18). Quezon City: Sentro ng WikangFilipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

72

References

Cipres–Ortega, Susan. (2003). “Ang larangang leksikal: Kalakaran at paraan.” Sa L F Antonio & L Tiamson–Rubin(Eds.). Sikolohiya ng wikang Filipino: Mga simulain, pamamaraan at nilalaman (pp 103–127). QuezonCity: C&E Publishing.

Paz, Vina P. (2002). Ang pang-akademyang varayti ng wika sa Filipinas. In J V M Peregrino, P C Constantino, & NS Ocampo (Eds.), Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ng Filipino (pp 170–179). QuezonCity: Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.

Peregrino, Jovy M, Pamela C Constantino, & Nilo S Ocampo (Eds.). (2002). Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varayti atvaryasyon ng Filipino. Quezon City: Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.

“Primer on the Filipino language as a language of education.” (2007). The UP Forum. Retrieved fromhttp://www.up.edu.ph/upforum.php?i=105&archive=yes&yr=2

Resuma, Vilma. (2002). Pang-akademikong register ng Filipino: Kaso ng U.P. Integrated School. In J V MPeregrino, P C Constantino, & N S Ocampo (Eds.), Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ngFilipino (pp 197203–153). Quezon City: Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.

Reyes–Otero, Marietta. (2002). Varayti ng Filipino na gamit sa pagbabalita ng mga radio broadcaster. In J V MPeregrino, P C Constantino, & N S Ocampo (Eds.), Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ngFilipino (pp 154–161). Quezon City: Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.

Rubrico, Jessie Grace U. (2004, January 4). « The Metamorphosis of Filipino as National Language. » Coconuter.Retrieved from http://coconuter.blogspot.com/2004/01/metamorphosis-of-filipino-as-national.html

Sibayan, Bonifacio P. (1991). Intellectualization of Filipino. In M L S Bautista (Ed.), Readings in Philippinesociolinguistics (pp 240–253). Manila: De La Salle University Press.

Filipino Words and Word Formation

► Abello, Larcy C. (2002). Varayti ng wika sa mga balitang showbiz. In J V M Peregrino, P C Constantino, & N SOcampo (Eds.), Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ng Filipino (pp 129–136). Quezon City:Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.

► Alcantara, Teresita A. (2010). Spanish-American lexicons in Filipino. Philippine Academic Consortium for LatinAmerican Studies <www.paclas.org.ph>. 2nd International Conference on Latin American Studies. De LaSalle University, Manila. Retrieved from http://www.paclas.org.ph/PAPERS/Alcantara.pdf

Almario, Virgilio S. (2005). Sapagkat buhay ang wikang Filipino. In G S Zafra & R P Baquiran, Jr (Eds.), Sawikaan2004: Mga salita ng taon (pp 1–7). QC: University of the Philippines Press.

Añonuevo, Roberto. (2007). Introduction. In R T Añonuevo & G S Zafra (Eds.), Sawikaan 2006: Mga salita ng taon(pp vii–xii). QC: University of the Philippines Press.

► Baklanova, Ekaterina A. Typological classification of borrowings in Tagalog. Retrieved fromhttp://web.kssp.upd.edu.ph/linguistics/plc2006/papers/Baklanova.pdf

Baquiran, Romulo P, Jr (Ed.). (2008). Introduction. In R P Baquiran, Jr (Ed.), Sawikaan 2007: Mga salita ng taon(pp vii–xv). QC: University of the Philippines Press.

Biermeier, Thomas. (2008). Word formation in New Englishes—A corpus-based analysis. Berlin: LIT. Abstractretrieved from http://www-englishes.uni-regensburg.de/EarlierProjects/Word-Formation_in_New_Englishes.shtml

Biermeier, Thomas. (2009). “Word formation in New Englishes: Properties and trends” In Lucia Siebers & ThomasHoffmann (Eds.), World Englishes: Problems—Properties—Prospects. Proceedings of the IAWEConference 2007 in Regensburg. Amsterdam. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Cubar, Nelly. (1983). Trends in recent English borrowings in Pilipino: Sociolinguistic implications of the use ofPilipino as an instrument of communication. Malaysia: Pusat Bahasa Language Center.

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

73

References

► Enriquez, Virgilio Gaspar. (1985). Pagbubuo ng terminolohiya sa sikolohiyang Pilipino. In M L S Bautista (Ed.),Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics (pp 269–286). Manila: De La Salle University Press.

Gozzi, R D. (1990). New words and a changing American culture. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Henson, Paul S, & Kathrine G Tan. (1998). Movie magazine speak: A sociolinguistic study of slang words,

borrowing, and code-switching. Unpublished thesis in AB Humanities. De La Salle University, Manila.Kachru, Yamuna, & Larry E Smith (Eds.). (2008). Words and collocations. In Cultures, contexts, and world

Englishes (Chapter 7, pp 103–112). New York: Routledge.► Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino. (2004). Mga salitang homosekswal: “Isang pagsusuri.” Manila: Sangay ng

Lingguwistka, KWF.► Ling107 Morphology—The Study of Word Structures. Retrieved from pyersqr.org/classes/Ling700/morph.pdfLlagas, Racquel. (1987). Isang sulyap sa wika ng mga progresibo (Unpublished paper in Anthropology). University

of the Philippines, Diliman.Pakir, A (Ed.). (1992). Proceedings of the Lexicography Workshop: Words in a cultural context. Singapore:

Unipress.Peregrino, Jovy M. (2002). Representasyon ng wika sa text messaging. In J V M Peregrino, P C Constantino, & N S

Ocampo (Eds.), Minanga: Mga babasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ng Filipino (pp 137–141). Quezon City:Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.

► Questionnaire—Word-formation Characteristics of Languages. Retrieved from http://pdf-ebooks.org/download.php

► Reyes–Otero, Marietta. (2002). Ang sosyolingguwistikong pardon sa panghihiram ng mga salitang Ingles ng mgamanunulat ng sanaysay sa Filipino. In J V M Peregrino, P C Constantino, & N S Ocampo (Eds.), Minanga:Mga babasahin sa varayti at varyasyon ng Filipino (pp 146–153). Quezon City: Sentro ng WikangFilipino, Sistemang Unibersidad ng Pilipinas

Sugioka, Yoko. Rule vs. analogy in word formation. Keio University. Retrieved from►Wolff, John U. (1973–1974). The character of borrowings from Spanish and English in languages of the

Philippines. In M L S Bautista (Ed.), Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics (pp 63–75). Manila: De LaSalle University Press.

Zafra, Galileo S. (2005). Introduction. In G S Zafra & R P Baquiran, Jr (Eds.), Sawikaan 2004: Mga salita ng taon(pp vii–xiii). QC: University of the Philippines Press.

►Zorc, R David. (1996). Coming to grips with Tagalog slang. In M L S Bautista (Ed.). Readings in Philippinesociolinguistics (pp 102–109). Manila: De La Salle University Press.

Language Planning, Use, and Pedagogy

Abad, Gemino H. (2009). “This scene so fair”: Filipino English poetry, 1905–2005. In M L S Bautista & K Bolton(Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 279–297). Pasig City: Anvil.

Bautista, Ma Lourdes S. (1995). An outline: The national language and the language of instruction. In M L SBautista (Ed.), Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics (pp 223–227). Manila: De La Salle University Press.

Benton, Richard A.. (1980). The Philippine bilingual education program—Education for the masses or thepreparation of a new elite? In M L S Bautista (Ed.), Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics (pp 309–326).Manila: De La Salle University Press.

Dumdum, Simeon, Timothy Mo, & Resil Mojares. (2009). In conversation: Cebuano writers on Philippine literatureand English. In M L S Bautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives(pp 357–367). Pasig City: Anvil.

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

74

References

Gonzalez, Andrew B, FSC. (1990a). Evaluating bilingual education in the Philippines: Towards a multidimensionalmodel of evluation in language planning. In M L S Bautista (Ed.), Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics(pp 327–340). Manila: De La Salle University Press.

Gonzalez, Andrew B, FSC. (1990b). Language and nationalism in the Philippines: An update. In M L S Bautista(Ed.), Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics (pp 228–239). Manila: De La Salle University Press.

Hau, Caroline S. (2009). The Filipino novel in English. In M L S Bautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English:Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 317–336). Pasig City: Anvil.

►Haugen, Einar. (1966). Dialect, language, nation ‘Dialect, nation, language.’ American Anthropologist 68. In J BPride & J Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (1972, pp 97–111). UK: Penguin.

Hidalgo, Cristina Pantoja. (2009). The Philippine short story in English: An overview. In M L S Bautista & KBolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 299–316). Pasig City: Anvil.

Martin, Isabel Pefianco. (2009). Colonial Education and the shaping of Philippine literature in English. In M L SBautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 245–259). PasigCity: Anvil.

Pineda, Ponciano B P. (1985). Pagpaplano ng wika ukol sa pambasang pagsulong. In M L S Bautista (Ed.),Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics (pp 254–268). Manila: De La Salle University Press.

Sibayan, Bonifacio P. (1978). Bilingual education in the Philippines. In M L S Bautista (Ed.), Readings inPhilippine sociolinguistics (pp 287–307). Manila: De La Salle University Press.

Tinio, Rolando S. (1990). A matter of language: When English fails. Quezon City: University of the PhilippinesPress.

►Tollefson, James W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community.London: Longman.

Tope, Lily Rose. (2009). Negotiating language: Postcolonialism and nationalism in Philippine literature in English.In M L S Bautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 261–278). Pasig City: Anvil.

Yuson, Alfred A. (2009). Filipino diasporic literature. In M L S Bautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English:Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 337–355). Pasig City: Anvil.

Lexicons and Lexicography

►Accessing the mental lexicon: Words, and how we (eventually) find them. Chapter 6. Retrieved fromhttp://homepage.mac.com/gerry_altmann/babel/assets/Chapter-6.pdf

► Almario, Virgilio S (Ed.). (2010). The UP Diksiyonaryong Filipino (2nd ed.). Pasig City: Anvil & UP Sentro ngWikang Filipino.

► Añonuevo, Roberto T, & Galileo S Zafra, (Eds.). (2007). Sawikaan 2006: Mga salita ng taon. QC: University ofthe Philippines Press.

► Anvil–Macquarie dictionary of Philippine English for high school. (2000). Pasig City: Anvil.► Baquiran, Romulo P, Jr (Ed.). (2008). Sawikaan 2007: Mga salita ng taon. QC: University of the Philippines

Press.►Bautista, Ma Lourdes S. (1997). The lexicon of Philippine English. In M L S Bautista (Ed.), English is an Asian

language: The Philippine context (Chapter 46, pp 49–72). Manila: Macquarie Library.► Bolton, Kingsley, & Susan Butler. (18 February 2004). Dictionaries and the stratification of vocabularies:

Towards a new lexicography for Philippine English. World Englishes 23(1), 91–112.

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

75

References

►Bolton, Kingsley, & Susan Butler. (2008). Lexicography and the description of Philippine English vocabulary. InM L S Bautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and Literary Perspectives (pp 175–200).Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

►Cruz, Isagani R. (2005). A smorgasbord of criticism. In D T Dayag & J S Quakenbush (Eds.), Linguistics andlanguage education in the Philippines and beyond: Festschrift in honor of Ma Lourdes S Bautista (pp 61–69). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.

►Cruz, Isagani R, & Ma Lourdes S Bautista (Comps). (1995). A dictionary of Philippine English. Pasig City:Anvil.

Hacken, Pius ten, Andrea Abel, & Judith Knapp. (2006). “Word formation in an Electronic Learners’ Dictionary:ELDIT,” International Journal of Lexicography 19(3): 243–256.

Ilagan, Bonifacio P (Ed.). (2010). Corruptionary : A dictionary of corruption Filipino words. Pasig City: Anvil.Khodarami, Sue. (1997 March 1). Words of the year: Lexicographers and word lovers select the words and phrases

that best summed up 2006. Do their choices agree with yours? Communication World. Retrieved fromhttp://www.thefreelibrary.com/Words+of+the+year%3a+lexicographers+and+word+lovers+select+the+words+...-a0160166926

Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino. (2004). Mga salitang homosekswal: “Isang pagsusuri.” Manila: Sangay ngLingguwistka, KWF.

McFarland, Curtis D. (1992). Determination of words (lexical items) in Pilipino. Retrieved fromsealang.net/sala/archives/pdf4/mcfarland1992determination.pdf

►McKean, Erin (Ed.). (2006). The New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.► Microsoft. (2009). MSN Encarta World English Dictionary. Retrieved from

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/dictionaryhome.aspxRozul, Ruthmita H. (2004). Developing a monolingual dictionary of obsolescent Tagalog words in Tagaytay City,

Amadeo, and Indang, Cavite. Unpublished dissertation in Doctor of Arts in Language and Literature. De LaSalle University, Manila.

Wood, Alden. (1999 October 1). Meet [Microsoft®] Encarta®, the lexical IPO of the 1990s, plus WNW’s 4th

college ed. Communication World. Retrieved fromhttp://www.thefreelibrary.com/Meet+Encarta%5BR%5D%2c+the+Lexical+IPO+of+the+1990s%2c+plus+WNW%27s+4th+College...-a057786897

Yap, Fe Aldave. (1977). A comparative study of Philippine lexicons. Manila: Institute of NationalLanguage/Department of Education and Culture.

Yap, Fe Aldave. (1970). Pilipino loan words in English: Mga salitang Pilipino sa Ingles. Maynila: Surian ngWikang Pambansa.

► Zafra, Galileo S, & Romulo P Baquiran, Jr (Eds.). (2005). Sawikaan 2004: Mga salita ng taon. QC: University ofthe Philippines Press.

Zorc, R David Paul. (1979). Core etymological dictionary of Filipino. Np: Np.Zorc, R David, & Rachel San Miguel (Comps.). (1993/2000). Tagalog slang dictionary. Manila: De La Salle

University Press.

Philippine English

Alberca, Wilfredo L. (1978). The distinctive features of Philippine English in the mass media. Unpublishedtypescript.

Bautista, Ma Lourdes S. (2009). Bibliographical resources for researching English in the Philippines. In M L SBautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 371–394). PasigCity: Anvil.

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

76

References

Bautista, Ma Lourdes S. (2000). Defining standard Philippine English: Its status and grammatical features. Manila:De La Salle University Press.

Bautista, Ma Lourdes S. (2009). Investigating the grammatical features of Philippine English. In M L S Bautista &K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 201–218). Pasig City: Anvil.

Bautista, Ma Lourdes S. (1997a). Addendum: Notes on three sub-varieties of Philippine English. In M L S Bautista(Ed.), Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics (pp 93–101). Manila: De La Salle University Press.

Bautista, Ma Lourdes S (Ed). (1997b). English is an Asian language: The Philippine context. Sydney: MacquarieLibrary Pty.

Bautista, Ma Lourdes S, & Kingsley Bolton. (2009). Introduction. In M L S Bautista & K Bolton (Eds.), PhilippineEnglish: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 1–9). Pasig City: Anvil.

Bautista, Ma Lourdes S, & Kingsley Bolton. (2004 February). Philippine English: Tensions and transitions. WorldEnglishes 23(1), 1–5.

Bautista, Ma Lourdes S, & Kingsley Bolton (Eds.). (2009). Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives.Pasig City: Anvil.

Bernardo, Allan B I. (2009). English in Philippine education: Solution or problem? In M L S Bautista & K Bolton(Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 29–48). Pasig City: Anvil.

►Bolton, Kingsley, & Susan Butler. (2009). Lexicography and the description of Philippine English vocabulary. InM L S Bautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 175–200).Pasig City: Anvil.

►Borlongan, Ariane Macalinga. (2007). Innovations in standard Philippine English. Current research on Englishand applied linguistics: A De La Salle University special issue. Retrieved fromhttp://academia.edu.documents.s3.amazonaws.com/280888/Innovations_in_Standard_Philippine_English.pdf\

Cadias, Abel Morales. “The indigenization of English….” Retrieved fromhttp://abelcadias.blog.co.uk/2009/01/12/the-indigenization-of-english-5362739/

►Dayag, Danilo T. (2009). English-language media in the Philippines: Description and research. In M L S Bautista& K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 49–65). Pasig City: Anvil.

Gonzalez, Andrew B, FSC. (2009). A favorable climate and soil: A transplanted language and literature. In M L SBautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 13–27). PasigCity: Anvil.

►Gonzalez, Andrew B, FSC. (1996). Philippine English. In M L S Bautista (Ed.), Readings in Philippinesociolinguistics (pp 88–92). Manila: De La Salle University Press.

Manarpaac, D V S. (2009). “When I was a child I spake as a child”: Reflecting on the limits of a nationalistlanguage policy. In M L S Bautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literaryperspectives (pp 87–100). Pasig City: Anvil.

►McArthur, Tom. (2010, November 2010). Philippine English. Concise Oxford companion to the Englishlanguage. Retrieved from http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O29-PHILIPPINEENGLISH.html

►McFarland, Curtis D. (2009). Linguistic diversity and English in the Philippines. In M L S Bautista & K Bolton(Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 131–155). Pasig City: Anvil.

Pascasio, Emy M. (1978). Dynamics of code-switching in the business domain. In M L S Bautista (Ed.), Readings inPhilippine sociolinguistics (pp 76–87). Manila: De La Salle University Press.

Tayao, Ma Lourdes G. (2009). A lectal description of the phonological features of Philippine English. In M L SBautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp 157–174). PasigCity: Anvil.

►Tupas, Ruanni R F. (2004). The politics of Philippine English: Neocolonialism, global politics, and the problemof postcolonialism. World Englishes 23(1), 47–58.

Sawikaan’s Mga Salita ng Taon—Filipino Word-Formationtowards Expanding and Codifying the Lexicon of Philippine English

Foundations of Language Studies—Final Paper

77

References

►Tupas, Ruanni R F. (2009). World Englishes or worlds of English? Pitfalls of a postcolonial discourse inPhilippine English. In M L S Bautista & K Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literaryperspectives (pp 67–86). Pasig City: Anvil.

Who’s afraid of Philippine English? (11 May 2008). Manila Bulletin. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/manila-bulletin/mi_7968/is_2008_May_11/whos-afraid-philippine-english/ai_n35373928/

Philippine Sociolinguistics

►Bautista, Ma Lourdes S (Ed.). (1996). Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics. Manila: De La Salle UniversityPress.

Cruz, Isagani R. (2006 December 2). Split-Level Americanization: A Case Study of McDonaldized Philippines. ThePhilippine Star. Retrieved from http://criticplaywright.blogspot.com/2006/12/split-level-americanization-case-study.html

Gonzalez, Andrew B, FSC. (1985). Bilingual communities: National/regional profiles and verbal repertoires. In M LS Bautista (Ed.), Readings in Philippine sociolinguistics (pp 38–60). Manila: De La Salle University Press.

Halliday, .M A K. (2009). Written language, standard language, global language (2004). In B B Kachru, Y Kachru,& C L Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of world Englishes (Chapter 20, pp 349–365). West Sussex: BlackwellPublishing Ltd.

Hernandez, Jesus Federico. Descent to the sariling mundo: Untangling the complexities of the language of mentalhealth and illness in Filipino. 2nd International Conference on Filipino as a Global Language. Retrievedfrom http://larc.sdsu.edu/files/2010/03/Hernandez-Descent-to-the-sariling-mundo.pdf

Kachru, Braj B. (2005a). Asian Englishes: Beyond the canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Kachru, Braj B. (2005b). Constructs of : Anatomy of an encyclopedia. In D T Dayag & J S Quakenbush (Eds.),

Linguistics and language education in the Philippines and beyond: Festschrift in honor of Ma Lourdes SBautista (pp 1–13). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.

Kachru, Barj B, Yamuna Kachru, & Cecil L Nelson (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of world Englishes. West Sussex:Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Kachru, Yamuna, & Cecil L Nelson (Eds.). (2006). World Englishes in Asian contexts. Hong Kong: Hong KongUniversity Press.

Kachru, Yamuna, & Larry E Smith (Eds.). (2008). Cultures, contexts, and world Englishes. New York: Routledge.Quakenbush, John Stephen. (1989). Conclusion of Language use and proficiency in a multilingual setting: A

sociolinguistic survey of Agutaynen speakers in Palawan, Philippines. In M L S Bautista (Ed.). Readings inPhilippine sociolinguistics (pp 23–37). Manila: De La Salle University Press.

Thompson, Roger M. (2003). Filipino English and Taglish: Language switching from multiple perspectives.Amsterdam: J Benjamins Pub.