Tausug Valorize Their Language but Dislike Anti-Social ...

Paper Number: ICHUSO-021

Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences 2018 (IC-HUSO 2018)

22nd-23rd November 2018, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Thailand

Tausug Valorize Their Language but Dislike Anti-Social Behavior

Fhadzralyn L. Aidil-Karanain

College of Liberal Arts

Western Mindanao State University, Philippines

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

This study conducted two experiments to determine Tausug Children’s and Young

Adults’ language valorization based on accent. This probed whether age affects once judgment on

people based on accent; that as one ages, the more preference is given to native- accented speakers

compared to foreign-accented ones. In experiment one, both groups chose the Native- accented

speakers. Age affected their choices. Young adults better identified and had higher preference for

native-accented speakers than children. In experiment 2, age did not affect the participants’

judgment. They neglected the idea of group membership and accent when their co-Tausug

committed anti-social behaviors. They chose the nice foreign-accented speakers to be nicer, smarter,

in-charge, living in Zamboanga. Ironically, both groups even chose the nice foreign-accented

individuals as Tausug even if they know that the accent was not that of the natives’. This means

Children and Young adults’ language valorization and identity consider behavioral information.

They valorize their language but when their kin commit something anti-social, they evade and even

disown them.

Keywords: Valorization, Age, native-accented and foreign accented, Tausug, Zamboanga City

34




INTRODUCTION

People’s judgment of others is based on a number of factors—the way other people

organize their thoughts; the way they behave and react in public; and perhaps the way they treat

other people as well. According to Cain, Hayman, and Walker (1997) in Kinzler and De Jesus

(2013), this holds true to children. Some children evaluate others based on individuals history of

behaviors and can use this to predict individuals future acts, while some evaluate others based on

their social group belongingness (Kinzler, Shutts, De Jesus, & Spelke, 2009). Infants show

remarkable preferences for familiar speech. This is evident in newborns who prefer and react to

their mother’s language which they have heard while still in the womb (Mehler, Lambertz, Halsted,

Bertoncini, Amiel-Tison, 1988). Studies show that younger infants looked particularly longer at a

person who formerly spoke to them in their native tongue and older infants chose to reach for toys

presented by native speaker (Kinzler et al., 2007; Shutts, Kinzler, McKee, & Spelke, 2009).

Children as well show preference and trust for persons whose accents were known to them (Kinzler

Corriveau, & Harris, 2011). These experiments proposed that infants and young children tend to

have these inclinations towards native speakers and native-accented speakers even in the earliest

stage of their lives.

Just like in children, whose sociolinguistic evaluation of others national identity are

influenced by accent (Kinzler & De Jesus, 2013, p.661). In adult for instance, a slight divergence

in accent signifies group membership and identity (Giles & Billings, 2004; Labov, 2006). Thus,

Adult judge people’s membership based on familiarity of accent. It is observed that studies

conducted in this field focus solely on children and infant. A number of early sociolinguistics

studies touched on Adults (e.g. Fischer, 1958; Labov, 1966; Wolfram, 1969; Trudgill, 197l) which

relate language attitude to social class based on averaging and counting. A major disadvantage of

this kind is the difficulty in counting groups of people for statistical reasons and the extent to which

these samples represent the entire group. These studies were also mostly surveys on small scale

and that no statistical treatment was employed in the analysis of data. The findings therefore, cannot

be generalized. Another drawback is that the participants’ language backgrounds. Most of these

studies were conducted in Monolingual environment; they may not be representative of individuals

with Multilingual atmosphere (Karanain, 2016).

Asreemoro (2008) explains the Tausug or Suluks as the dominant group in Sulu

Archipelago who speak the Sug language, the lingua franca in the said area. The Sulu archipelago

is the southernmost string of land masses in the Philippines which covers up to 200 miles of

Zamboanga Peninsula all the way to Borneo and was formerly the main route of early migration,

maritime passage, and Islamization from North Borneo to the mainland of Mindanao, the Visayas

and Luzon (Jundam, 2006).

Saleeby (1906) in Asreemoro says that the Tausug and their language come from the

mixture of different ethnic groups: the Buranums, Tagahimas, Baklayas, the Dampuans, and the

Banjari people who migrated to Sulu to settle down and associate to form the now known

“Tausugs.”

The Buranums are the earliest occupants of Sulu who occupy the hilly regions; the

Tagimahas (protectors) are the Basilan people who occupy the now known Jolo; the Baklayas

(people of the shores) who are believed to be from the Celebes, Indonesia; the Banjaris from

Kalimantan, Indonesia, Borneo; the Dampuans from Champa (Vietnam). These groups combined

together to form the present Tausugs and their language. Apparently, different slang and varieties

of Tausug dialect emerged, “Bahasa Sug”, or Sug depending on the place emerged—Tausug Tapul,

Tausug Basilan, Lugus, Gimbahanun, and others. Sug also preserves its Javanese elements whose

authority expanded to cover the Sulu archipelago prior the Malacca, Malay Kingdom. The rise of

35




Islam and the founding of the Sultanate of Sulu even boosted the development and growth of the

language to include Arabic words and Islamic terminology. Stone (1971) in Gowng and Mcamis

(1974) relate that different ethnic groups like Samal and Badjaw also speak Tausug when they have

contact with the Tausug (p.78).

The Tausug dominate the other ethnic groups found in the archipelago namely: The

Samal and Badjaw. Even the Chinese merchants also speak Tausug. Stone (1967) conducted a

discussion of intergroup relations among these ethnic groups and found that the Tausug informants

claim that Tausug is the lingua franca and all men both Samal and Badjaw groups speak Tausug if

they speak to one. They also will not speak Samal. One Samal informant even said that Tausug can

readily detect a non-native through the intonation pattern as he was told that he spoke like a Samal

even if he were speaking tausug, so that was when he concentrated on learning the tausug

intonation pattern to pass as Tausug.

In this study, concept on valorization in relation to accent was incorporated. Hamers

(2004) defines the concept of valorisation as “the ascription of certain constructive values to

language as a useful tool, that is as an instrument that will aid the realization of social and cognitive

functioning at all societal and individual levels” (p. 72). A child’s social environment will embrace

a language behavior dictated by society in which he/she lives in.

Thus, the researcher was interested to conduct this study in the light of karanain (2016) Judgment

of Native-accented and Foreign-accented Filipino Speakers which showed that accent was not the

sole basis of the participants’ judgment in their preferences.

This study wanted to prove that People, as we age, tend to be more particular and judgmental with

one’s accent. That the Tausug children have more positive notions on Foreign- Accented Tausug

speakers compared to the Tausug Young adults. This would validate the claim that the Tausug

dominate the other ethnic minority groups like Samal, Badjaw, and others (Stone, 1971), hence

valorizing their language.

METHOD

The participants were the entire 50 kinder Garten pupils and 50 College Students who

were all Tausug and were purposively chosen. Fifty percent (50%) were ages 4 to 8 categorized as

children and fifty (50%) ages 16 to 20 years categorized as young adults. The instrument was

composed of Phrases that are categorized into: sixteen (16) neutral phrases, eight (8) nice phrases,

and eight (8) mean phrases. These phrases were recorded by sixteen Tausug using a Matched-guise

Technique. This means that the same person recorded the same phrases in Tausug with either native

or foreign accent. This study also used language background interview checklist.

Children and adult in Experiment 1 viewed a series of individuals paired with native-

or foreign-accented speech that was neutral in emotional content. Besides testing participants’

friendship preferences, children’s sociolinguistic judgments and expectations about individuals’

geographic origins and national group membership was also assessed. The Material was a Face

stimuli consisted of 16 edited and enhanced faces of adults (eight female, eight male). Faces were

presented in gender-matched pairs on a laptop. Voice stimuli consisted of 16 clips of native- or

foreign-accented Tausug recorded by a Tausug living in Zamboanga. Recordings were

approximately 3s in length and neutral in emotional content. Participants first saw eight

“friendship” trials to replicate the method of Karanain (2016). In each trial, the experimenter said,

“Here are pictures of two people. Let’s hear what they sound like.” She pointed to each face in turn

and played a voice clip of either native- or foreign –accented Tausug speakers. Children and adult

were asked to choose whom they preferred as friends. Next, children saw the same series of faces

and voices presented a second time. In the sociolinguistic block (four trials), participants were

36




asked, “Who do you think is nicer,” “Who do you think is smarter,” and “Who do you think is in

charge?” In the geography block (four trials), participants were asked, “Who do you think lives

around here,” and “Who do you think is Tausug?” In Experiment 2, “Nice Foreigners versus Mean

Tausug.” This followed that of Experiment 1, yet instead of speaking neutral content, each native-

accented speaker described one antisocial (“mean”) action he or she has committed (e.g., “I pushed

someone down on the playground”). Each foreign-accented speaker described one pro social

(“nice”) action he or she has performed (e.g., “I helped someone up on the playground”).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Experiment 1: Neutral Trials (native and foreign- accented Tausug speakers)

1.1 Friendship

The participants’ evaluation on friendship neutral conditions in native-accented and

foreign-accented Tausug speakers are shown in Table 1.1, Table 1.1.1 and Table 1.1.2. Apparently,

children and young adult chose faces paired with native- accented voices as friends, Mnative =

63.25%, SD= 16.83, F (1, 98)= 229.56, MSE= 494.021, p < .000. Similarly, young adults preferred

faces paired with native- accented voices as friends (Mnative = 84.00%, SD= 14.29, F (1, 98)=

229.56, MSE= 494.021, p < .000). It is interesting to note that there is age effect on the participants’

choice to be friends with native- accented and foreign-accented Tausug speakers F (1, 98)= 42.02,

494.02, MSE= 494.021, p < .000).

Table 1.1.1

Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Native-accented vs. Foreign-accented Tausug

Speakers

Age Friendship Mean Std. Deviation

Children Native 63.25 16.83

Foreign 36.00 17.61

Young Adult Native 84.00 14.29

Foreign 16.00 14.29

Table 1.1.1

Mixed-Designed ANOVA: Difference between Children and Young Adults’ Preference between

Native-accented vs. Foreign-accented Tausug Speakers (With-in Subjects Effect)

Source

Type III

Sum of

Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. Interpretation

Friendship 113407.031 1 113407.031 229.56 .000 Significant

Friendship * Age 20757.031 1 20757.031 42.02 .000 Significant

Error (Friendship) 48414.062 98 494.021

*Significant at alpha .05

37




Figure 1.1 Age Effect on the Participants’ Preference between Native-accented and Foreign-

accented Tausug Speakers based on Friendship Trials

1.2. Sociolinguistic evaluation: Who is nicer?

The nice neutral conditions in native- accented and foreign -accented Tausug speakers

are shown in Table 1.2. Table 1.2.1. Obviously, children chose faces paired with native- accented

voices as friends, Mnative = 61.5%, SD= 27.30, F (1, 98)= 55.70, MSE= 1583.55, p < .000. Similarly,

young adults preferred faces paired with native- accented voices as friends (Mnative = 57.50%, SD=

14.29, F (1, 98)= 55.70, MSE= 1583.55, p < .000. There is age effect on the participants’ choice to

be nicer between native and Foreign- accented Tausug speakers F (1, 98)= 4.18, MSE= 1583.55, p

< .044).

Table 1.2.

The Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Native- accented vs. Foreign- accented

Tausug Speakers based on Trials Who is Nicer

Age Nicer Mean Std. Deviation


Foreign 37.00 23.28


Foreign 42.50 23.28

Table 1.2.1

Mixed Design ANOVA: Difference in Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Native-

accented vs. Foreign-accented Tausug Speakers based on Trials Who is Nicer


Source

Type III Sum

of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Nicer 88200.000 1 88200.00 55.70 .000

Nicer * Age 6612.500 1 6612.50 4.18 .044

Error(Nicer) 155187.500 98 1583.55

38




1.2.2 Sociolinguistic evaluation: Who is smarter?

The smart neutral conditions in native accented and foreign- accented Tausug speakers

are presented in Table 1.1.2.2 and Table 1.1.2.2. Obviously, children chose faces paired with

native- accented voices as friends, Mnative = 61.00%, SD= 28.19, F (1, 98)= 119.18, p < .000.

Similarly, young adults preferred faces paired with native- accented voices as friends (Mnative =

71.00%, SD= 26.37, F (1, 98)= 26.37, MSE= 1,234.76, p < .000. There is age effect on the

participants’ choice to be smarter between native and foreign- accented Tausug speakers F (1,

98)= 17.44, MSE= 1234, p < .00

Table 1.2.2

Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Native-accented vs. Foreign –accented Tausug

Speakers based on Trials Who is Smarter

Age Smarter Mean Std. Deviation


Foreign 37.50 22.22


Foreign 29.00 22.22

Table 1.1.2.2.1

Mixed ANOVA Design: Difference in Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Native-

accented vs. Foreign-accented Tausug Speakers based on Trials Who is Smarter

Source

Type III Sum of

Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Smarter 147153.125 1 147153.13 119.18 .000

Smarter * Age 21528.125 1 21528.13 17.44 .000

Error(Smarter) 121006.250 98 1234.76


1.2.2.3 Sociolinguistic evaluation: Who is in charge?

The neutral conditions who is in-charge in native- accented and foreign- accented

Tausug speakers are presented in Table 1.1.2.3 and Table 1.1.2.3. Children chose faces paired with

native- accented voices as friends, Mnative = 61.50%, SD= 25.30, F (1, 98)= 88.23, p < .000.

Similarly, young adults preferred faces paired with native- accented voices as friends Mnative =

64.50%, SD= 24.87, F (1, 98)= 12.28, p < .000. There is age effect on the participants’ choice to

be in-charge between native and foreign- accented Tausug speakers F (1, 98)= 12.28, MSE=

1430.93, p < .000.

39




Table 1.2.3

The Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Native -accented vs. Foreign-accented

Tausug Speakers based on Trials Who is In-charge

Age In-charge Mean Std. Deviation


Foreign 38.00 27.71


Foreign 33.50 26.54

Table 1.1.2.3.1

The Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Native-accented vs. Foreign-accented

Tausug Speakers based on Trials Who is In-Charge

Source

Type III Sum


In-charge 126253.125 1 126253.13 88.23 .000

In-charge * Age 17578.125 1 17578.13 12.28 .001

Error (In-

charge)

140231.250 98 1430.93


1.3.1 Geography: Who lives around here?

The Geography 1 neutral conditions in native- accented and foreign- accented Tausug

speakers are presented in Table 1.3.1 and Table 1.3.2. Children chose faces paired with native-

accented voices as living around here, Mnative = 73.50%, SD= 22.82, F (1, 98)= 11.44, p < .000.

Similarly, young adults preferred faces paired with native accented voices as friends Mnative =

73.00%, SD= 22.02, F (1, 98)= 11.44, p < .000. There is no age effect on the participants’ choice

to be living around here between native and foreign-accented Tausug speakers F (1, 98)= 2.10,

MSE= 1927.55, p < .150.

Table 1.3.1

The Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Native-accented vs. Foreign-accented

Tausug Speakers based on Trials Who Lives Here

Age Geography Mean Std. Deviation


Foreign 25.00 30.24


Foreign 27.00 30.24

40




Table 1.1.2.3

Mixed ANOVA Design: Difference in the Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Native-

accented vs. Foreign-accented Tausug Speakers based on Trials Who Lives Here


1.3.2 Geography: Who is Tausug?

The geography 2 neutral conditions in native- accented and foreign- accented Tausug

speakers are presented in Table 1.3.2 and Table 1.3.2.1. Obviously, children chose faces paired

with native accented voices as friends, Mnative = 73.00%, SD= 22.13, F (1, 98)= 14.36, p < .000.

Similarly, young adults preferred faces paired with native- accented voices as friends Mnative =

73.50%, SD= 30.48, F (1, 98)= 14.36, p < .000. There is age effect on the participants’ choice to

be Tausug with native and foreign- accented Tausug speakers F (1, 98)= 10.37, MSE= 1881.70, p

< .002.

Table 1.3.2

The Children and Young Adults’ Preferred Native Accented vs. Foreign Accented Tausug

Speakers based on Trials Who is Tausug

Age Geography 2 Mean Std. Deviation


Foreign 23.50 21.07


Foreign 26.50 30.48

Table 1.1.3.2.1

Mixed ANOVA Design: Difference in The Children and Young Adults’ Preference between

Native-accented vs. Foreign-accented Tausug Speakers based on Geography Trials

Source

Type III Sum of


Geography 2 27028.125 1 27028.13 14.36 .000

Geography 2 * Age 19503.125 1 19503.13 10.37 .002

Error (Geography

2)

184406.250 98 1881.70


Source

Type III Sum


Geography 1 22050.000 1 22050.00 11.44 .001

Geography 1 * Age 4050.000 1 4050.00 2.10 .150

Error

(Geography1)

188900.000 98 1927.55

41




DISCUSSION

The results here are in congruence with that of previous research studies in friendship

trials, suggesting that children preferred individuals whose accents were familiar to them (This

supports the claim of this study that Young Adults, have a more liking towards native-accented

speakers than children, results similar with previous research studies where adults judged native-

accented speakers more favorably across different qualities (Giles and Sassoon, 1983; Seggie,

1983; Giles and Coupland, 1991; Carlson and McHenry, 2002; Dixon et al., 2002).

Generally, both children and adult in this study were positive towards their fellow

Tausug speakers across trials and blocks. They see their kind as nicer, smart, and in charge, just

like in previous researches (Kinzler & De Jesus 2013; Kinzler Corriveau, & Harris, 2011; Shutts,

Kinzler, McKee, & Spelke, 2009; Kinzler et al., 2007; Mehler et al., 1998). They Young-adults

were also able to identify who were Tausug which gains support from Labov (2006) saying that a

slight divergence in accent marks groups membership and identity. Equally, this also proves that a

Tausug can readily detect a Samal, Badjao, even Yakan and other neighboring ethnic group based

on his/her accent. Thus, Tausug speakers valorise their language. The results showed that indeed

Young Adults have higher likings for native-accented speakers. They feel that for your Tausug to

be proper, your accent must be that of the Tausug; otherwise, you will appear funny and unreliable

as seen in their reactions every time they hear the foreign-accented speakers across trials and

blocks.

Furthermore, results showed that the Tausug are people who indeed valorize their

language (Bruno, 1973 and they dominate the other ethnic minority groups like Samal, Badjaw,

and others (Stone, 1971) based on their constant choice for Native-accented speakers.

2 Experiment 2 (Mean native and nice- foreign accented Tausug speakers)

2.1 Friendship

The friendship conditions in mean native- accented and nice foreign- accented Tausug

speakers are presented in Table 2.1 and Table 2.1.1. Apparently, children chose faces paired with

nice foreign- accented voices as friends, Mforeign = 75.00%, SD= 25.00, F (1, 98)= 180.73, p < .000.

Similarly, young adults preferred faces paired with nice- foreign- accented voices as friends Mforeign

= 86.75%, SD= 20.73, F (1, 98)= 180.73, p < .000. There is age effect on the participants’ choice

to be friends between native and foreign- accented Tausug speakers F (1, 98)= 6.54, MSE=

1,054.91, p < .002.

Table 2.1

Children and Young Adults’ Preferred Native-accented vs. Foreign-accented Tausug Speakers

based on Friendship Trials

Age Friendship Mean Std. Deviation


Foreign 75.00 25.00


Foreign 86.75 20.73

42




Table 2.1.1

Mixed ANOVA Design: Difference in the Children and Young Adults’ Preference between

Native- accented vs. Foreign- ccented Tausug Speakers based on Friendship Trials

Source

Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Friendship 190653.125 1 190653.13 180.73 .000

Friendship * Age 6903.125 1 6903.13 6.54 .012

Error(

Friendship)

103381.250 98 1054.91


2.2.1 Sociolinguistic Evaluation: Who is nicer?

The nice conditions in mean native -accented and nice foreign- accented Tausug


nice foreign- accented voices as nicer, Mforeign = 76.00%, SD= 31.12, F (1, 98)= 129.77, p < .000.

Similarly, young adults preferred faces paired with nice Foreign- accented voices as nicer, Mforeign

= 87.00%, SD= 24.87, F (1, 98)= 180.73, p < .000. There is no age interaction on the participants’

choice to be nicer between native and foreign- accented Tausug speakers F (1, 98)= 6.54, MSE=

1,054.91, p < .063, n.s.. This means that both Children and Young Adult chose the nice foreign-

accented speakers as nicer.

Table 2.2.1


Speakers based on Nice Trials

Age Nicer Mean Std. Deviation


Foreign 76.00 31.12


Foreign 87.00 24.87

Table 2.2.1.

Mixed ANOVA Design: Difference in The Children and Young Adults’ Preference between

Native-accented vs. Foreign-accented Tausug Speakers based on Nice Trials

Source

Type III Sum


Nicer 201612.500 1 201612.50 129.77 .000

Nicer * Age 5512.500 1 5512.50 3.55 .063

Error(Nicer) 152250.000 98 1553.57


43




2.1.2 Sociolinguistic evaluation: Who is smarter?

The smart conditions in mean native- accented and nice foreign- accented Tausug


nice Foreign- accented voices as smarter, Mforeign = 76.50%, SD= 28.69, F (1, 98)= 108.69, p <

.000. Similarly, young adults preferred faces paired with nice Foreign- accented voices as smarter

Mforeign = 82.50%, SD= 24.87, F (1, 98)= 108.69, p < .000. There was no age interaction on the

participants’ choice to be friends between native and foreign- accented Tausug speakers F (1, 98)=

.93, MSE= 1628.57, p < .338, n.s.. This means that both groups prefer the nice foreign-accented

speakers as smarter.

Table 2.1.2


Speakers based on Smart Trials

Age Smarter Mean Std. Deviation


Foreign 76.50 30.06


Foreign 82.50 27.78

Table 2.1.2.1

Mixed ANOVA Design: Difference in Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Native -

accented vs. Foreign-accented Tausug Speakers based on Smart Trials

Source

Type III Sum of


Smarter 177012.500 1 177012.50 108.69 .000

Smarter * Age 1512.500 1 1512.50 .93 .338

Error

(Smarter)

159600.000 98 1628.57


2.2.3 Sociolinguistic evaluation: Who is in-charge?

The conditions who is in-charge in mean native- accented and nice foreign- accented

Tausug speakers are presented in Table 2.2.3 and Table 2.2.3 and Figure 1.2. Apparently, children

chose faces paired with nice foreign- accented voices as in charge, Mforeign = 80.00%, SD= 29.14,

F (1, 98)= 46.18, p < .000. Similarly, young adults preferred faces paired with nice foreign-

accented voices as in-charge Mforeign = 60.00%, SD= 38.05, F (1, 98)= 46.18, p < .000. There was

age effect on the participants’ choice to be in-charge between native and foreign Tausug speakers

F (1, 98)= 4.38, MSE= 2315.88, p < .039.

44




Figure 1.2 Children and Young Adults’ between Mean Native-accented vs. Nice Foreign-

accented Tausug Speakers based on Trials Who is In-charge

2.3.1 Geography: Who lives around here?

The conditions who is lives around here in mean native- accented and nice foreign

accented Tausug speakers are presented in Table 2.3.1 and Table 2.3.1.1. Apparently, children

chose faces paired with nice foreign- accented voices as living around here, Mforeign = 61.00%, SD=

28.64, F (1, 98) = 11.93, p < .000. Similarly, young adults preferred faces paired with nice foreign-

accented voices as living around here Mforeign = 59.00%, SD= 31.73, F (1, 98)= 11.93, p < .000.

There was no age effect on the participants’ choice to be living around here between native and

foreign accented Tausug speakers F (1, 98)= .06, MSE= 1761.48, p < .801, n.s..

Table 2.3.1

Children and Young Adults’ Preference between Mean Native-accented vs. Nice Foreign-

accented Tausug Speakers based on Geography Trials



Foreign 61.00 28.64


Foreign 59.00 31.73

Table 1.2.3.1

Mixed ANOVA Design: Difference in the Children and Young Adults’ Preference Between Mean

Native-accented vs. Nice Foreign-accented Tausug Speakers based on Geography Trials

Source

Type III Sum


Geography1 21012.500 1 21012.50 11.93 .001

Geography1 * Age 112.500 1 112.50 .06 .801

Error

(Geography1)

172625.000 98 1761.48


45




2.3.2 Geography: Who is Tausug?

The conditions who is Tausug in mean native- accented and nice foreign- accented

Tausug speakers are presented in Table 2.3.2 and Table 2.3.2.1. Apparently, children chose faces

paired with nice foreign- accented voices as Tausug, Mforeign = 55.00%, SD= 26.73, F (1, 98)= 4.90,

p < .029. Similarly, young adults preferred faces paired with nice foreign- accented voices as

Tausug, Mforeign = 56.50%, SD= 30.64, F (1, 98)= 4.90, p < .029. There was no age effect on the

participants’ choice in who is Tausug between native and foreign- accented Tausug speakers F (1,

98)= .13, MSE= 1595.54, p = .724, n.s..

Table 2.2.2

The Children and Young Adults’ Preferred Mean Native-accented vs. Nice Foreign-accented

Tausug Speakers based on Geography Trials

Table 1.2.3.2.1

Mixed ANOVA Design: Difference in the Children and Young Adults’ Preference Between Mean

Native-accented vs. Nice Foreign-accented Tausug Speakers based on Geography Trials

Source

Type III Sum


Geography 2 7812.500 1 7812.50 4.90 .029

Geography 2 *

Age

200.000 1 200.00 .13 .724

Error(Geography2

)

156362.500 98 1595.54

DISCUSSION

In Tausug experiment two, generally age does not affect the participants’ judgment.

Worthy to note however, that children preferred the nice foreign- accented speakers as in- charge

proving that children take behavioral information in their judgment (Baltazar, Shutts, & Kinzler,

2012; Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001; Kinzler & Shutts, 2008; LoBue, 2009;

Rozin & Royzman, 2001; Vaish, Grossman, &Woodward, 2008) more than adults did. Children

are keener in behavioral cues than adults. Yet, the participants here did not even acknowledge the

fact that the mean Native-accented individuals are their own kind. The findings here suggest that

the Tausug participants are intolerant of negative behavior across blocks. Even if the speaker’s

accent is Tausug, if the behavior is anti-social then the judgment would also be negative.



Foreign 55.00 26.73


Foreign 56.50 30.64

46




CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

For experiment 1, it can be concluded that age was a factor in one’s preference for

friendship. Young adults prefer native-accented speakers more than children perhaps due to the

fact that they are more accustomed to the accent of the natives than children since the young adults

would constantly laugh whenever the accent was that of Samal, Visayan and others. This means

that Tausug especially adults can easily identify another local accent. The study though made no

categorization of these foreign-accents. This experiment thus, proves that Tausug valorize their

language since they feel that they are the dominant ethnic and so other local speakers should have

native accent in speaking their language.

In experiment 2 however, the theory of valorization did not hold true. Both children

and young adult alike prefer individuals’ behavior more than accent and group membership when

a naitve-accented tausug commited a mean or anti- social action. The participants here neglected

the idea that these mean individuals are their fellow Tausug. They would prefer those nice foreign-

accented speakers over these mean native-accented Tausug speakers and would even claim that

these foreign-accented speakers are the “Tausug” and “living around here”.

This study therefore recommends that another study be conducted classifying the foreign-accented

speakers as either Samal, Visayan, Chabacano and other local ethnicities to explain deeper the

claim of one minor group’s superiority over the other based on accent. An interview as to the

disparity of responses would also be more useful to determine the depth of the data.

References

Asreemoro (2008). Tausug and the Sulu sultanate. Saba Islamic Media Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

ISBN: 978-967-5068-04-1

Cain, K. M., Heyman, G. D., & Walker, M. E. (1997). Preschoolers’ ability to make

dispositional predictions within and across domains. Social Development, 6, 53–75.

doi:10.1111/j.1467 9507.

Giles, H. and A. Billings 2004. Assessing language attitudes: Speaker evaluation studies. In A.

Davies and C. Elder (eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell,

187-209.

Gowing, P. & Mcamis, R. (1974). The Muslim Filipinos: Their history, society and

contemporary problems.

Hamers, J.F & Blanc, H.A. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism (2nd

ed.).New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Jundam, M. B. (2006). Tunggal hulah-duwa sarah: Adat and sharee’ah laws In the life of the

Tausug (New ed. 2006.). Metro Manila: Vibal Pub. House.

Karanain, F. (2016). Children’s and young aults’ judgment of native-accented and foreign-

accented Filipino Speakers.

47




Kinzler, K. D., Corriveau, K. H., & Harris, P. L. (2011). Children’s selective trust in native-

accented speakers. Developmental Science, 14, 106–111. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

7687.2010.00965.

Kinzler, K.D., De Jesus J.M. (2013). Children’s sociolinguistic evaluations of nice foreigners

and mean americans. Developmental Psychology. Vol. 49, No. 4, 655–664.

Kinzler, K. D., Dupoux, E., & Spelke, E. S. (2007). The native language of social cognition. The

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104,

12577–12580. doi:10.1073/ pnas.070534510

Kinzler, K. D., Shutts, K., DeJesus, J., & Spelke, E. S. (2009). Accent trumps race in guiding

children’s social preferences. Social Cognition, 27, 623– 634.

doi:10.1521/soco.2009.27.4.623.

Labov, R. (2006). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. (2nd ed). Cambridge

university press.

Mehler J., Juxczyk P.W., Lambertz G., Halsted N., Bertoncini J., Amiel-Tison C. (1988). A

precursor or language acquisition in young infants. Cognition, 29,144–178.

Stone, R. (1967). Some aspects of Muslim social organization, “in Brown Heritage: Essays on

Philippine Cultural Tradition and Literature”. In Manuud, A. (Ed). Ateneo de Manila

University Press.

48

Date post:	07-Dec-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

Tausug Valorize Their Language but Dislike Anti-Social ...

Documents